10 Questions for an Atheist

Though Jewish Atheist didn't tag me, I thought the meme he posted recently was well done and worth a shot:

Q1. How would you define “atheism”?

By its literal meaning - a lack of belief. I don't know there is no God, but everything I know and feel tells me there is not one. It's truly one of those pointless definitions. We don't need to define a belief system for those people that don't believe in Santa Claus.

Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?

Apathetic to nonexistent. Nominally baptised Methodist and occasionally dragged to church in grade school to appease grandfather.

Q3. How would you describe “Intelligent Design”, using only one word?

Futile.

Q4. What scientific endeavour really excites you?

Alternative energy, space exploration, evolutionary biology

Q5. If you could change one thing about the “atheist community”, what would it be and why?

Image. It would be nice to be taken more seriously. More like a group of people with an interesting and relevant philosophical take instead of the crazy bag lady in the corner.

Q6. If your child came up to you and said “I’m joining the clergy”, what would be your first response?

First of all, I wouldn't be greatly surprised. My child is already being raised as Lutheran/cafeteria Catholic and at the age of 7 is fairly enthusiastic about it. But he's also very intelligent, interested in science and a voracious reader. And he also knows Pop's take on the whole God thing. So, who know where his thinking will be when he's of age. Regardless, I will support him.

Q7. What’s your favorite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?

Cosmological arguments - that God is the originating cause of the universe. Even atheists have to admit that it is logically possible.

There are complicated ways of refuting this but the simplest would be that if God created the universe, then who created God? Christians would say that God has no beginning and therefore doesn't need a cause. But you can't have it both ways.

Q8. What’s your most “controversial” (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?

I don't think I really have any controversial atheistic views. I don't believe religious people (most, anyway) are evil.

Q9. Of the “Four Horsemen” (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite, and why?

Haven't read Dennett yet but have read the other 3. I do like Dawkins but I'm partial to Harris because I think he's a bit more accessible. Hitchens, while obviously intelligent, is completely off his rocker.

Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?

The Pope, perhaps? How one person can have so much influence over so many people, I can never understand. I'm not sure that it would do much good, however. They'd just find somebody to replace him.

I guess that I'm not really striving to "convince" any one. I'd be thrilled if everybody came to the conclusion on their own when presented with the evidence. Conversions done with arm-twisting aren't really conversions. And that is basically one of my main complaints about religion ... the concept of proselytizing and the need to convert.

Atheists to tag:

I'd tag CK, but I see that he's already been tagged. Anybody that considers themselves atheists can take up the mantle if they wish.

Trent Franks

Our local Bush-loving, "war on terror" waste of a congressman, Trent Franks, had a scare this week:

Police and firefighters were called Wednesday to the Glendale office of U.S. Rep. Trent Franks after a man showed up with a box inside a bag that officials deemed suspicious.

Workers did the right thing in making the call, but no dangerous materials were found inside the box, said Sgt. Jim Toomey, a spokesman for the Glendale Police Department.

The package was delivered to Franks' office, 7121 W. Bell Road, by a Glendale man who said he had asked to be taken off the mailing list of the GOP congressman, Toomey said.

Inside were a number of political mailers that the man, who did not make any threats, was trying to return, he said.

The office was evacuated as the package was checked and the Second Distict congressman was not on hand as the situation unfolded, Toomey said.

Franks is afraid of the impending "terror" threat but seems more frightened of people actually voicing their opinion. It was ironic because just a couple of days earlier, I had pondered calling his office and griping about the taxpayer funded pieces of crap that I get in my mail under the ruse of asking constituents "where do you stand on the issues?" What he really means is that he's going to use your money to print out and mail you ego-driven advertisements. These are some of the highlights from his latest flyer:

"Memorial Day was a reminder of all that as made America the noblest and freest nation on the face of the earth, and an opportunity for each of us to honor the lives and courage of those valiant men and women in uniform who made and continue to make unspeakable sacrifices so that you and I might live in the sunlight of freedom."

I think I vomited in my mouth on that one a little bit. Or how about this one:

"Our noble men and women fighting in harm's way deserve the unequivocal support of Congress by passing a clean, earmark-free troop funding bill that does not micromanage our commanders on the ground or telegraph a withdrawal plan to the enemy."

Gee, I wonder how he really feels. Sounds like his little "survey" isn't really about finding out what the voters think.

He goes on to advocate drilling in ANWR and promotes oil shale, tar sands, and coal-to-liquid technologies. Not once does he mention alternative fuels or conservation. No big surprise but Mr. Franks also used to be President of Liberty (of course) Petroleum Corporation. As if that wasn't enough, "Franks served four and a half years as the Executive Director of the Arizona Family Research Institute, a nonprofit organization associated with James Dobson's Focus on the Family ...". This man is basically a puppet.

Right Wing Vibe

If you look at me, if you read what I write, or hear what I say, you would definitely not get the impression that I am a conservative or libertarian. So it's by mere coincidence that I seem to attract as clients those who are somewhere near Genghis Khan on the sliding political scale. I've spoken before of having provided service to the progeny of a Watergate-era Attorney General. This week, it's a former Majority Leader of the State Senate and chairman of the Goldwater Institute think tank. While he was in the Senate, he was author of the legislation that created Arizona's charter school system. Charter schools are well down that slippery slope that leads to school vouchers, which I disagree with. But in the interest of full disclosure, my son goes to a charter school. And we like his school quite a bit. I guess the dividing line for me is what public money is going to fund. Alternative schools - fine. Innovative teaching methods outside of the mainstream - fine. Religious education - no way, Jose. And that is ultimately where school voucher proponents are leading.

Not satisfied to just espouse the standard conservative touchpoints through the institute, my client is also an editorial columnist for the East Valley Tribune. On a weekly basis you can read him promoting ANWR drilling, denying global warming, promoting deregulation, and basically disagreeing with everything that Democratic governor Janet Napolitano tries to do. I've read every single one of his editorials and there is not a single, original thought that is not echoed on a daily basis by the right-wing standard bearers. Somehow, I don't think this is what Barry Goldwater envisioned for the head of the institute that had his blessing.

What is it with me? Am I putting out some kind of "right wing vibe" to get these types? I'm sorry that I'm such an insufferable name dropper, but "technically" I'm not dropping anyone's name. I know, that's picking nits. Kinda like "sorta pregnant".

"I will offer a choice, not an echo." -- Barry Goldwater

Kmart Promotes Abstinence Pants

This is almost too funny for words (from ThinkProgress):

Jessica Valenti points out that retail chain Kmart has begun selling abstinence-gear for juniors ...

The description for the products reads, “Whether she is lounging around the house, going to practice, or doing her chores. These soft athletic style crop pants will keep her comfy.” One Feministing commenter adds, “Because nothing says ‘I plan not to have sex until marriage’ like plastering text across your ass.”

True love waits ... for what? True love waits inside these pants? Even discounting the obvious fact that preaching abstinence does not work and has more to do with pushing religion than preventing pregnancy, these pants are probably not the best tool for pushing that agenda. Kinda like putting a Sierra Club sticker on a Hummer.

Movie Reviews

You guys may think I review movies because I'm a movie buff and love watching movies. You'd be partially correct. I actually get more of a kick in finding topical, social and political relevance out of movies, mainstream or not. I just use the excuse of writing a review as a reason for me to highlight something specific. For that reason, I'll give short shrift to the review of the first movie I saw Saturday, at the theater, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but will give a more in-depth review of the movie watched last night on DVD, Charlie Wilson's War.

I'm not purposely disparaging Indiana Jones ... it's just that it's not meant to be saying anything momentous. It's a modern retelling of serial B-movies of the 30's and is meant as pure entertainment. It works a lot of the time. Where it fails is when you can tell George Lucas has had too much influence. By his choice, the entire movie would have been shot in front of a green screen. Director Spielberg would eschew any special effects if it was his choice. In the first 3 movies, he mostly won those arguments. Here, it looks like Lucas may have won his share.

At first, starting to watch the movie, I thought the premise was utterly ridiculous. I won't say what the premise is, as that will give it away. But then I thought about it: Lost Ark was about there being an Ark of the Covenant and it having supernatural powers; Temple of Doom was about drinking blood and becoming a zombie: Last Crusade was about there being a Holy Grail and it giving you eternal life. So ... never mind about this movie having a ridiculous premise. It's no further out there than any of them.

I thought Harrison Ford was good and it was good to see Karen Allen back from the first movie. Cate Blanchett as a dominatrix ... errr, I mean Russian scientist, was humorous, perhaps unintentionally so. Shia Lebouf was adequate.

All in all, it was entertaining. Nothing terrible, nothing great but a fun enough Saturday afternoon flick. Grade: C

For some not so delicate reviews (but a lot funnier than mine), see:

Dear George Lucas and Stephen Spielberg from Laura at Sarchasm

Why I Hate George Lucas More than Ever from Donna

Where Did You Dig Up that Old Fossil? from Wunelle



Charlie Wilson's War is in the spirit of movies (and series) like M*A*S*H that were ostensibly about one thing but really about another. In M*A*S*H's case, it was set during the Korean War but really was an allegory about the Vietnam War and war in general. In the case of Charlie Wilson's War, it is set during the Afghanistan-Soviet war of the 80's, but it is really making statements on our current excursions into Iraq and Afghanistan. As the title says, it's mostly about Charlie Wilson (from IMDb):

Charles Nesbitt Wilson, a.k.a. Charlie Wilson,(born June 1, 1933) is a former United States naval officer and former Democratic United States Representative from the 2nd congressional district in Texas.

He is best known for leading Congress into supporting the largest-ever CIA covert operation, which supplied the Afghan mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan ... after the Communist Democratic Republic of Afghanistan took over during the Afghan Civil War and asked the Soviet Union to help suppress resistance from the Islamist Mujahideen.

It can be argued that this support and the resulting victory by the Mujahideen over the Soviets were major contributors to the end of the Cold War. It can also be argued (and Charlie Wilson himself has said this) that the resulting power vacuum in Afghanistan after the war and our unwillingness to help with the rebuilding ultimately led to the rise of people like Osama Bin Laden and the Sept. 11 attacks.

When the following points are brought up during the movie, there's no doubting that they are aimed at our current Iraq war:

- The error of putting people in country who don't speak the language and who don't understand the different factions involved
- No follow-up or post-war plan

People like Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, the Heritage Foundation and Project for the New American Century think war is like a game of Risk. These are not play countries. These are not pieces on a board. There is a real human cost in deaths and refugess that most people have no clue about. They talking about "creating a democracy" in the Middle East, but at what cost?

With all these heady topics, you would think this movie would be depressing or boring. Thanks to all involved, it is neither. It's illuminating without being preachy.

The casting in the movie is great. Tom Hanks captures the good-natured and fun-loving intelligence of the real Charlie Wilson perfectly. Philip Seymour Hoffman in the role of CIA operative Gust Avrakotos is, as usual, fantastic. I finally saw Capote a month or so ago. The man is a chameleon and is absolutely one of this generation's best actors.

I liked Julia Roberts in the role of conservative Texas socialite Joanne Herring. The direction by legendary director Mike Nichols and writing by Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men, West Wing) make this movie entertaining and, surprisingly, funny. Who knew covert wars could be funny? Grade: A

He's so money and he doesn't even know it

You know you are a loser when ... your 7 year old son gets more play than you ever did. Alex just made his first two phone calls to young ladies in his class. They gave him their numbers after school a couple of days ago.

He scored digits from more girls in one day than I did throughout college. I don't know whether to feel proud, worried, or depressed.

Swingers
Mike: So how long do I wait to call?
Trent: A day.
Mike: Tomorrow.
Sue: Tomorrow, then a day.
Trent: Yeah.
Mike: So two days?
Trent: Yeah, I guess you could call it that, two days.
Sue: Definitely, two days is like industry standard.
Trent: You know I used to wait two days to call anybody, but now it's like everyone in town waits two days. So I think three days is kind of money. What do you think?
Sue: Yeah, but two's enough not to look anxious.
Trent: Yeah, two's enough not to look anxious. But I think three days is kind of money. You know because you...
Mike: Yeah, but you know what, mabey I'll wait 3 weeks. How's that? And tell her I was cleaning out my wallet and I just happened to run into her number.
Charles: Then ask her where you met her.
Mike: Yeah, I'll ask her where I met her. I don't remember. What does she look like? ... would that be the money?
Trent: You know what. Ha ha ha Mike, laugh all you want but if you call too soon you might scare off a nice baby who's ready to party.
Mike: Well how long are you guys gonna wait to call your babies?
Trent, Sue: Six days.

Going Green Update

After 5 tankfuls with the new scooter, Michelle told me her average MPG -- 114. Not too shabby. She averages about 70 miles a week driving to work. A comparison between the Hyundai which she used to drive and the scooter:

70 miles / 30mpg (best case scenario with the Hyundai) = 2.333 gallons per week

70 miles / 114mpg = 0.614 gallons per week

At our current cost per gallon for unleaded, $3.799, that's saving $6.50 a week and producing a whole lot less pollution.

==================================================================

For the house, we just bought Gila window films (kinda like tinting for your windows). They are supposed to block 70% of the heat coming in. We're putting them on our West facing windows and and on South facing windows in our bedroom. Hope to have them up in the next few days. I'll let you know how tough they are to put up and if we notice a difference in our cooling costs.

Bush/McCain

You know it's bad when you can't even muster a successful fundraiser in your own backyard (from Phoenix Biz Journal):

A Tuesday fundraiser headlined by President Bush for U.S. Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign is being moved out of the Phoenix Convention Center.

Sources familiar with the situation said the Bush-McCain event was not selling enough tickets to fill the Convention Center space, and that there were concerns about more anti-war protesters showing up outside the venue than attending the fundraiser inside.

Another source said there were concerns about the media covering the event.

Bush's Arizona fundraising effort for McCain is being moved to private residences in the Phoenix area. A White House official said the event was being moved because the McCain campaign prefers private fundraisers and it is Bush administration policy to have events in public venues open to the media. The White House official said to reconcile that the Tuesday event will be held at a private venue and not the Convention Center.

Convention Center personnel confirmed the event has been canceled at their venue.

Tickets to the event were to range from $1,000 to $25,000 for VIP treatment. Money was to go toward McCain's presidential bid and a number of Republican Party organs.

Anti-war protesters were planning to be out in force. President Bush's job approval rating stands at 31 percent, according to RealClearPolitics.com.

The McCain campaign referred questions on the fundraiser change to the White House press office.

I had planned on going to the protest, but they've taken all the fun out of it by cancelling. They thought that it might not look good on the evening news to have their patrons outnumbered by protesters.

There are no guarantees that McCain will even win his home state in November. In a historically conservative state, his wishy-washy bonafides on the right will keep many Republicans home on election day. And Dems will turn out in record numbers to assure that we don't have 4 more years of Bush policies.

"The bedfellows politics made are never strange. It only seems that way to those who have not watched the courtship." -- Marcel Achard (French Playwright, 1899-1974)

Speed Racer

As usual, I'm going to refrain from giving you a straight plot synopsis. I don't want to tell you what happens in the movie. I'd rather just give you my impressions.

There's not a movie to do a direct comparison of Speed Racer with, though there are a few that had elements that I was reminded of by it. For some reason, it's look reminded me of Tron a bit with the neon-light visual trails. It even reminded me of the visual style of Robert Rodriguez in Spy Kids, with the alternating animation and live action (a comparison to Spy Kids 3D would probably be even more apropos, but I didn't see that movie). Using the term "live action" very loosely, mind you. I think the entire movie was filmed in front of a green screen.


Visually it's dazzling and incorporated several new technologies (from IMDb):

Technically, Speed Racer was a first in many areas but two stand-out. It was the first film to use the Sony F23 Digital Film Camera and also to record in parallel to Sony HDCAM SR, for archive masters, and to Codex Digital Data Recorders for on-set uncompressed HD playback, digital dailies and file generation for editing and VFX.

I think a large part of the audience didn't get the intentional campiness of it and today's younger generation may not have seen the original series (which the movie is reasonably faithful to). I believe this is a movie that will do well in the secondary market (DVD), much like the Matrix did.


Like the previously reviewed Iron Man, it sneaks a message in with the popcorn entertainment. In Iron Man, it was war-profiteering, here it is big bad corporations and the ubiquitous sponsorship deals of everyday life. It's nauseating to watch a post-race interview with NASCAR, where drivers feel it's necessary to spew out thanks to their laundry-list of sponsors before they even thank their family. Are we far from having company logos on the back of main-stream sports figures (baseball, football, basketball)? Though the movie is not meant to be a message movie, and it's told through the prism of sports, one can't help feeling that it's a reflection of even more. Admit it, whenever we see a politician talking, we wonder who they've been bought by. Wouldn't it be funny for politicians to have to wear suits that had patches for all their "sponsors"? "We now present Vice President Dick Cheney, brought to you by Halliburton and Diebold".

Made by the Wachowski brothers (of Matrix and V for Vendetta fame), Speed Racer continues their trend of not being predictable. The cast is good, with Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) in the title role, Matthew Fox as Racer X, John Goodman and Susan Sarandon as the parents, and in one of her most attractive roles to date, Christina Ricci as Trixie. Everyone seems to be appropriate for their role.

Typically difficult critic - my son Alex - gives it two thumbs up. Worthy praise indeed. It's funny and has some toned-down anime/kung fu type violence that wouldn't bother younger kids. Grade: B

"The twentieth century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." -- Australian author Alex Carey

"If those in charge of our society - politicians, corporate executives, and owners of press and television - can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves." -- Howard Zinn

Déjà Vu for Uncle Sam

"Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?" -- John Lydon aka Johnny Rotten

Onward, Christian Soldiers

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason: The Morning Daylight appears plainer when you put out your Candle." -- Benjamin Franklin

From Atheist soldier claims harassment on CNN:

JUNCTION CITY, Kansas (AP) -- Like hundreds of young men joining the Army in recent years, Jeremy Hall professes a desire to serve his country while it fights terrorism.

Spc. Jeremy Hall says the pressure to believe in God is so strong, "I was ashamed to say that I was an atheist."

But the short and soft-spoken specialist is at the center of a legal controversy. He has filed a lawsuit alleging that he's been harassed and his constitutional rights have been violated because he doesn't believe in God ...

"I'm not in it for cash," Hall said. "I want no one else to go what I went through."

Known as "the atheist guy," Hall has been called immoral, a devil worshipper and -- just as severe to some soldiers -- gay, none of which, he says, is true. Hall even drove fellow soldiers to church in Iraq and paused while they prayed before meals.

"I see a name and rank and United States flag on their shoulder. That's what I believe everyone else should see," he said.

Hall, 23, was raised in a Protestant family in North Carolina and dropped out of school. It wasn't until he joined the Army that he began questioning religion, eventually deciding that he couldn't follow any faith.

But he feared how that would look to other soldiers.

"I was ashamed to say that I was an atheist," Hall said.

It eventually came out in Iraq in 2007, when he was in a firefight. Hall was a gunner on a Humvee, which took several bullets in its protective shield. Afterward, his commander asked whether he believed in God, Hall said.

"I said, 'No, but I believe in Plexiglas,' " Hall said. "I've never believed I was going to a happy place. You get one life. When I die, I'm worm food."

The issue came to a head when, according to Hall, a superior officer, Maj. Freddy J. Welborn, threatened to bring charges against him for trying to hold a meeting of atheists in Iraq. Welborn has denied Hall's allegations.

Hall said he had had enough but feared that he wouldn't get support from Welborn's superiors. He turned to Mikey Weinstein and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation ...

"The average American doesn't have enough intestinal fortitude to tell someone to shut up if they are talking in a movie theater," Weinstein said. "You know how hard it is to take on your chain of command? This isn't the shift manager at KFC."

Hall was in Qatar when the lawsuit was filed September 18 in federal court in Kansas City, Kansas. Other soldiers learned of it, and he feared for his own safety. Once, Hall said, a group of soldiers followed him, harassing him, but no one did anything to make it stop.

The Army told him it couldn't protect him and sent him back to Fort Riley. He resumed duties with a military police battalion. He believes that his promotion to sergeant has been blocked because of his lawsuit, but he is a team leader responsible for two junior enlisted soldiers.

No one with Fort Riley, the Army or that Defense Department would comment about Hall or the lawsuit. Each issued statements saying that discrimination will not be tolerated regardless of race, religion or gender.

"The department respects [and supports by its policy] the rights of others to their own religious beliefs, including the right to hold no beliefs," said Eileen Lainez, a spokeswoman for the Department of Defense...

Lt. Col. David Shurtleff, a Fort Riley chaplain, declined to discuss Hall's case but said chaplains accommodate all faiths as best they can. In most cases, religious issues can be worked out without jeopardizing military operations.

"When you're in Afghanistan and an IED blows up a Humvee, they aren't asking about a wounded soldier's faith," Shurtleff said.

Hall said he enjoys being a team leader but has been told that having faith would make him a better leader.

"I will take care of my soldiers. Nowhere does it say I have to pray with my soldiers, but I do have to make sure my soldiers' religious needs are met," he said.

"Religion brings comfort to a lot of people," he said. "Personally, I don't want it or need it. But I'm not going to get down on anybody else for it." ...

Take a moment to think about the statement that Hall was told - "faith would make him a better leader". Does giving up control of your life to a higher power make it easier to be a leader of others? Let's look at the dictionary definition of leader: "a person or thing that leads." It doesn't say, "a person or thing that follows". I'm not saying that religious people cannot be leaders of men. I'm just trying to point out that there is nothing that necessarily makes them more suitable to lead than an atheist.

It's not faith specifically that binds us, but rather common interests or concerns. Faith may be one of those concerns, but it doesn't have to be the only one. Especially in a wartime environment, the overriding concern should be surviving and taking care of each other.

The misconception that those without faith are less suitable lead may arise out of the belief that those without faith are without morals. Hall obviously cares about his fellow soldiers and is respectful of their beliefs - two things that seem considerably more important for leadership than faith. Because he doesn't believe in God doesn't mean he doesn't have morals.

It's ironic that a lot of soldiers find solace in religion while performing acts that fly in the face of a lot of the teachings of the bible. Do they feel guilty and are looking for redemption? Do they believe that God absolves them of their sins? The fact that our own President casts our wars as "crusades" and uses every opportunity to stress that God is on our side certainly seems to give them moral certainty that truly isn't there.

One last thing that I'd like to highlight in this article is this passage:

Hall has been called immoral, a devil worshipper and -- just as severe to some soldiers -- gay ...

Demonization of people who have different beliefs seems to be endemic of this administration and many in the military. If we cast even Americans with different views in this light, imagine what we do with those of a different culture and darker skin. Is it any wonder that we don't understand Muslim culture and continue to exacerbate conflicts in the Middle East?

-------------------------------------------------

I'm consistently amazed that people are more distrustful of atheists than any other group. The article I link to talks about the study that most of us have heard of before. This particular article is amusing (unintentionally so) because of it's additional quotes and comments by local people. Here's my favorite:

Cole Ries, the president of the Maranatha Christian Fellowship said, "I don't believe that anybody is really an atheist. I believe that deep down everyone knows there is a god."

I know this is just one person, but it that really the perception of a lot of Christians? That's really scary if it is ... and delusional. I'm sure that most atheists don't hold to the same type of logic in their view of Christians. For ex. Nobody is really a Christian ... deep down they all know there is no God. While I don't believe in God, I would not deign to suggest that most Christians don't truly believe there is a God. I know there are some practicing Christians (and Jews) that do not believe in God but follow along out of societal or social pressures, but they are certainly not the rule.

-------------------------------------------------

For more in the the atheism/religion vein, Cyberkitten at Seeking a Little Truth and Jewish Atheist have typically good posts on their blogs this week:

Even More Good Quotes

Common Causes of Deconversion

"Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions. -- Blaise Pascal

Four-eyes squared

Alright, this is all you're getting. I don't want to bring down the quality of the blog by sullying it with my mug too often.

Glasses

Denial ... check. Anger ... check. Bargaining ... check. Depression ... check. Acceptance ... reluctantly, check. OK, I get it. After about 6 months of degrading vision, I figure out that maybe I should go have my eyes checked. That was a couple of weeks ago. 20/30 in one eye, 20/40 in the other with some astigmatism. No biggie. So I ordered some glasses and they came in Friday. None of my clients or friends have seen me in them yet. I'll try and get some pictures of me in them up sometime soon. Nothing to be nervous about.

Johnny Depp wears them:


Bono wears them:


Rivers Cuomo of Weezer wears them:


But those guys are cool. I'm a nerd having a little trouble with what wearing glasses represents. I'm not vain. It's not wearing glasses that bothers me - it's what it portends -- I'm getting old.

In my younger days, I thought it would be cool to have glasses. Men that wore glasses looked scholarly and intelligent to me. Well, now's my chance to test the theory. I figure if I'm going to wear them, I don't want them to be something boring. I never even considered getting contacts. Those might be the right answer for some people, but the the thought of me sticking my finger in my eyeball every day was unappealing.

I'm probably being a baby about it. I'm sure a lot of you wear glasses. My own son wears glasses and has since he was 4. But this is different. I've had perfect vision all my life but now that I've hit my upper 30's, my body is rebelling. Let's face it, it's all downhill from here. I'm joking ... mostly.

"I had some eyeglasses. I was walking down the street when suddenly the prescription ran out." -- Stephen Wright

Numb3rs

Here are some pics from the Numb3rs shoot that we went to on Sunday:

Iron Man

I don't water to oversell this movie, but I thought it was great. It was perfectly cast, combining the sarcastic humor of Robert Downey Jr and the luminous quality of Gwyneth Paltrow. Paltrow reminds of us of why we'd like her to do movies more often. Downey's role in the movie is one of those inspired bits of casting that you first think is completely wrong when you hear who is playing the role (like Michael Keaton in the first Batman). But then you see the movie and you can't imagine anyone else playing the role. Former Oscar-nominated actors Jeff Bridges and Terrence Howard capably fill the two other main roles.

Downey plays Tony Stark, a brilliant inventor and owner of a company that produces high-tech weapons for the military, but not just American military. It covers ground that was explored in Nicholas Cage's movie of a few years back, Lord of War. It's disingenuous for companies or inventors to claim no responsibility for the illicit use of things they create. Stark is very much a carefree playboy who seems to believe exactly that. Iron Man movie explores his transformation both physically and psychologically. I won't ruin the movie by telling you exactly what causes that transformation.

This is the world in which we live where terms like "surgical strikes" and "smart bombs" are tossed around like we are talking about a video game and not people dying. You wonder why people are desensitized and ambivalent about the Iraq war ... it's because they truly don't experience the grittiness of real war. The people in the Middle East do - acutely.

Don't get me wrong, it's not as serious a movie as it may seem by my above description. I'm merely saying that below the surface, it's addressing some real issues. The strength of Jon Favreau's (Swingers, Elf) direction is that it doesn't beat you over the head with a message. Favreau is good at witty banter and coaxing very funny performances out of his actors. I've read that he took a Robert Altman tact towards directing (naturalistic and ad-libbed) and let Downey have a lot of input into his role.

The chemistry between Downey and Paltrow is natural and very enjoyable. Downey is very good at showing the flawed nature of his character, Tony Stark, because he is obviously a good actor but also because he's lived the role. Whether it's real or not, Downey's real life seems to inform this performance immensely.

Though action really hasn't been part of Favreau's repertoire before now, I think he does a good job. The special effects, by ILM, look good and not hokey.

Director Favreau cameos in the movie. Another interesting and oddly apropos cameo was Tom Morello (of Rage Against the Machine) as one of the militant Arabs.

I'd have to agree with Laura that the movie's primary purpose seemed to be to set up more movies. Well, if Downey continues to play the role, you've got me hooked. Grade: A

********************UPDATE************************

Please check out Wunelle's outstanding review of Iron Man:

Bionicle-Transformer-Thingie-Dude

and Reel Fanatic's:

Finally, the word on Iron Man ...

Zzzzzzzz ...

Just got back into town from Cali and I'm dog tired. So, no Iron Man review yet. But our last day in LA was kick ass. We got to go on set for the filming of some scenes for the TV series Numbers in downtown LA. My wife's uncle, Martin Price, is the set decorator for the show. We met the director and the F/X guy gave us a close-up tour of the stunts they were running that day. I got some very cool pictures, including Alex sitting in star Rob Morrow's chair and on the camera stand. I'll get the pictures posted and more details of the day tomorrow. But now, to sleep, perchance to dream ...

Long Beach -- Day 2

Alex fell sick last night with the flu or something, so our plans of the zoo or aquarium were dashed (he's fine now). I decided to adventure out on my own today and catch a little California local flavor in Long Beach. I picked up the Metro Light Rail just a mile or so from where we are staying and it took me all the way to downtown Long Beach. It was cheap, fast and convenient. I don't know why people complain about mass transit. It's the wave of the future and you better get used to it. And besides, you don't get to have a crazy lady with Tourette's dropping f-bombs when you drive yourself to work.

I did get to spend some time at the used book store that Laura mentioned, Acres of Books. Varied selection and, as the name would indicate, a lot of books.


Great book store that unfortunately might not be around for much longer ... at least not at that location. I bought about a half dozen books and a t-shirt. The books included Quicksilver by Neal Stephenson (of Cryptonomicon and Snow Crash fame) and Unfinished Tales of Numenor and Middle-Earth by J.R.R. Tolkein.

For a few more pics of Long Beach ...

Also, saw Iron Man last night. Loved it and will have a more extensive review on Sunday.

Manhattan Beach Day 1

On the Road

We're off to California for a long weekend at my wife's aunt's place in Manhattan Beach. We're either going to go to Griffith Park and the L.A. Zoo or we might head to the LBC and visit the Aquarium of the Pacific and the Queen Mary.

Hopefully, I can mix in some used book shopping.

I'm taking the laptop, so I'll try and blog about our travels.

Patriotism Education

"It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen." -- Aristotle

Arizona, ever the center of enlightened conservative thought, has done it again:

Arizona public schools would be barred from any teachings considered counter to democracy or Western civilization under a proposal endorsed Wednesday by a legislative panel.

Additionally, the measure would prohibit students of the state's universities and community colleges from forming groups based in whole or part on the race of their members, such as the Black Business Students Association at Arizona State University or Native Americans United at Northern Arizona University. Those groups would be forbidden from operating on campus.

The brainchild of Rep. Russell Pearce ...

Pearce, a Mesa Republican, said his target isn't diversity instruction, but schools that use taxpayer dollars to indoctrinate students in what he characterized as anti-American or seditious thinking ...

SB 1108 states, "A primary purpose of public education is to inculcate values of American citizenship. Public tax dollars used in public schools should not be used to denigrate American values and the teachings of Western civilization."

For schools that violate the anti-Western-teachings provision, the bill provides the state superintendent of public instruction with the authority to withhold a portion of state funding.

Rep. John Kavanagh, a member of the Appropriations Committee, said he hopes the measure helps return cultural studies in the state's schools to a "melting pot" model.

"This bill basically says, 'You're here. Adopt American values,' " said Kavanagh, a Fountain Hills Republican. "If you want a different culture, then fine, go back to that culture ..."

It's almost too easy to make fun of Pearce and Kavanagh. The closing quote by Kavanagh is jaw-droppingly offensive and stupid. "American values" -- exactly what does that mean? White, religious, conservative ... I'm sure that's their idea of what it means.


The drive to define and force patriotism is similar to a drive by the Chinese to keep Tibet in line:

China scholars vow patriotism drive for Tibet

Is it more noble to be patriotic than good? Are loyalty oaths going to be a requirement of citizenship? The day that happens is the day that you can kindly have my U.S. citizenship back. Fascism, here we come.

"If I knew something that would serve my country but would harm mankind, I would never reveal it; for I am a citizen of humanity first and by necessity, and a citizen of France second, and only by accident" -- Charles de Montesquieu (French Politician and Philosopher, 1689-1755)

Letter to a Christian Nation

This was my first Sam Harris book. I'd read essays by him in Free Inquiry magazine, but this was my first extended exposure to his writings. And I'm impressed. If you don't know where to start in the genre of atheist books by the vaunted triumvirate of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation is a great start. It's a quick read, conversational in tone and armed with great arguments to start discussions with your Christian friends. It's not riddled with the overly scientific tone of Richard Dawkins' work, The God Delusion, nor with the sometimes elitist tone of most of Christopher Hitchens' works.

As the title would indicate, the book is written in the form of an imaginary letter to a Christian. Sam Harris is specifically addressing the subset of Christians who "believes ... that the Bible is the inspired word of God and that only those who accept the divinity of Jesus Christ will experience salvation after death ...". Most polls indicate that's over half of America. So, it's not a trivial group.

This is one of my favorite passages from the book:

I am confident that I can give you a very clear sense of what it feels like to be an atheist. Consider: every devout Muslim has the same reasons for being a Muslim that you now have for being a Christian. And yet, you know exactly what it is like not to find these reasons compelling. On virtually every page, the Qur'an declares that it is the perfect word of the Creator of the universe. Muslims believe this as fully as you believe the Bible's account of itself. There is a vast literature describing the life of Muhammad that, from the Muslim point of view, proves his unique status as the Prophet of God. While Muhammad did not claim to be divine, he claimed to offer the most perfect revelation of God's will. He also assured his followers that Jesus was not divine (Qur'an 5:71-75; 19:30-38) and that anyone who believed otherwise would spend eternity in hell. Muslims are convinced that Muhammad's pronouncements on these subjects, as on all others, are infallible.

Why don't you find these claims convincing? Why don't you lose any sleep over whether or not you should convert to Islam? Please take a moment to reflect on this. You know exactly what it is like to be an atheist with respect to Islam. Isn't it obvious that Muslims are not being honest in their evaluation of the evidence? Isn't it obvious that anyone who thinks that the Qur'an is the perfect word of the Creator of the universe has not read the book very critically? Isn't it obvious that Muslims have developed a mode of discourse that seeks to preserve dogma, generation after generation, rather than question it? Yes, these things are obvious. Understand that the way you view Islam is precisely the way every Muslim views Christianity. And it is the way I view all religions.

It reminds me of the famous quote:

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -- Stephen F. Roberts

Obviously, I have some problems with Christianity (or any religion) and the point of Harris' passage and Roberts' quote is one of the main reasons why. It's the belief by religious people that their God is the "one true God". It's belief borne not of reason, philosophical insight, or even extensive study of world religions. It's belief borne largely of locale and of family. People are Catholics because their parents were. Same with Jews or Muslims. You will be saved only because you were born in Iowa instead of Syria. I have a problem with that. But I don't have a problem with Sam Harris's book. Check it out.

Aryan Outfitters

I saw this photo essay on Mother Jones' Magazine's website (click image or link to view):

Aryan Outfitters


I know it's not right to draw a larger meaning out of something that is anecdotal and not necessarily representative of our whole society. But at the very least, the photos and the people represented in them are illustrative of a few things:

- There is no apparent understanding of irony by these people. How do you perform the selfless act of caring for a disabled grown child while also actively supporting an organization that preaches hate and has in it's past preached violence and even killing?

- Religion gives a cloak of righteousnous to those who preach hate. They feel the bible both instructs them and supports them in doing this. The pictures of "Mrs. Ruth" blessing each robe is beyond the pale.

- Raising your children to hate is borderline child abuse.

Scooter

We did it. We bought a scooter - a brand new Honda Elite 80.


It's pretty sweet. I rode it home from the dealership (about 10 miles) and the wife took it up to the grocery store to pick up a few things. Great gas mileage (about 100 mpg). Easy and fun to drive. She's going to use it to drive to her work each day (about 5 miles). We'd had concerns about safety, but we tested out a route today that is almost all residential and 35 mph zones.

We're pretty excited and proud that we didn't take on a second car payment and the environmental hit that would result from the 2nd car. We don't really need 2 cars. The last 4 months with just 1 car has proven that. Adding the scooter to the mix will give me some scheduling flexibility with my clients as I don't have to take the wife to work or her to the bank for her daily deposits. On days where my clients are close by, I'll probably take the scooter. I feel so European.

The Demon Haunted World

I'm finally wrapping up the reading of about a half dozen books that I've been in the middle of for months now. Over the next week or so, I'm going to provide my thoughts on each as I finish them. I have a really bad habit of getting myself in the middle of a bunch of books and then I get interested in something else. This has to end and I can't start anything new till I finish all of them. They include Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, His Dark Materials by Phillip Pullman, I am America by Stephen Colbert, The Assault on Reason by Al Gore, Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris and From Lucy to Language by Donald Johanson. The first that I'm going to quote a few highlight passages from is Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. This is a very good book and analyzes the psychological and societal elements that force or allow people to believe in superstition, whether it be UFO's, new age religion, hallucinations, dreams or Christianity. Having been written a few years ago and not in the current relatively welcoming era of atheist tomes by Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins, Carl Sagan doesn't take on Christianity directly but it's obvious that he would have liked to. If there is a weakness to the book, it is that it spends entirely too much time on the psychology of UFO enthusiasts and not enough on that of Christians.

The following is from an essay on the "fine art of baloney detection". He listed some things to look for in politicians, religious people, media, or anybody that is trying to sell you something. Plus the list is useful for analyzing our own arguments:

In addition to teaching us what to do when evaluating a claim to knowledge, any good baloney detection kit must also teach us what not to do. It helps us recognize the most common and perilous fallacies of logic and rhetoric. Many good examples can be found in religion and politics, because their practitioners are so often obliged to justify two contradictory propositions. Among these fallacies are:

ad hominem -- Latin for "to the man," attacking the arguer and not the argument ...

argument from authority (e.g., President Richard Nixon should be re-elected because he has a secret plan to end the war in Southeast Asia -- but because it was secret, there was no way for the electorate to evaluate it on its merits; the argument amounted to trusting him because he was President: a mistake, as it turned out);

argument from adverse consequences (e.g., A God meting out punishment and reward must exist, because if He didn't, society would be much more lawless and dangerous -- perhaps even ungovernable.* Or: The defendant in a widely publicized murder trial must be found guilty; otherwise, it will be an encouragement for other men to murder their wives) ...

appeal to ignorance -- the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa ... This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

special pleading, often to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble (e.g., How can a merciful God condemn future generations to torment because, against orders, one woman induced one man to eat an apple? Special plead: you don't understand the subtle Doctrine of Free Will.... God moves in mysterious ways.

begging the question, also called assuming the answer (e.g., We must institute the death penalty to discourage violent crime. But does the violent crime rate in fact fall when the death penalty is imposed? Or: The stock market fell yesterday because of a technical adjustment and profit-taking by investors -- but is there any independent evidence for the causal role of "adjustment" and profit-taking; have we learned anything at all from this purported explanation?);

observational selection, ... as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it, counting the hits and forgetting the misses ...

statistics of small numbers -- a close relative of observational selection (e.g., "They say 1 out of every 5 people is Chinese. How is this possible? I know hundreds of people, and none of them is Chinese ...

misunderstanding of the nature of statistics (e.g., President Dwight Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence);

inconsistency (e.g.,Attribute the declining life expectancy in the former Soviet Union to the failures of communism many years ago, but never attribute the high infant mortality rate in the United States (now highest of the major industrial nations) to the failures of capitalism ...

non sequitur -- Latin for "It doesn't follow" (e.g., Our nation will prevail because God is great. But nearly every nation pretends this to be true; the German formulation was "Gott mit uns"). Often those falling into the non sequitur fallacy have simply failed to recognize alternative possibilities;

post hoc, ergo propter hoc -- Latin for "It happened after, so it was caused by"

meaningless question (e.g., What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? But if there is such a thing as an irresistible force there can be no immovable objects, and vice versa);

excluded middle, or false dichotomy -- considering only the two extremes in a continuum of intermediate possibilities (e.g., "Either you love your country or you hate it." Or: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem");

short-term vs. long-term -- a subset of the excluded middle, but so important I've pulled it out for special attention (e.g., We can't afford programs to feed malnourished children and educate pre-school kids. We need to urgently deal with crime on the streets. Or: Why explore space or pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?);

slippery slope, related to excluded middle (e.g., If we allow abortion in the first weeks of pregnancy, it will be impossible to prevent the killing of a full-term infant. Or, conversely: If the state prohibits abortion even in the ninth month, it will soon be telling us what to do with our bodies around the time of conception);

confusion of correlation and causation (e.g., A survey shows that more college graduates are homosexual than those with lesser education; therefore education makes people gay ...

straw man -- caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack (e.g., Scientists suppose that living things simply fell together by chance -- a formulation that willfully ignores the central Darwinian insight, that Nature ratchets up by saving what works and discarding what doesn't. Or -- this is also a short-term/long-term fallacy -- environmentalists care more for snail darters and spotted owls than they do for people);

suppressed evidence, or half-truths

weasel words (e.g., The separation of powers of the U.S. Constitution specifies that the United States may not conduct a war without a declaration by Congress. On the other hand, Presidents are given control of foreign policy and the conduct of wars, which are potentially powerful tools for getting themselves re-elected. Presidents of either political party may therefore be tempted to arrange wars while waving the flag and calling the wars something else -- "police actions," "armed incursions," "protective reaction strikes," "pacification," "safeguarding American interests," and a wide variety of "operations," such as "Operation Just Cause." Euphemisms for war are one of a broad class of reinventions of language for political purposes. Talleyrand said, "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public").

Knowing the existence of such logical and rhetorical fallacies rounds out our toolkit. Like all tools, the baloney detection kit can be misused, applied out of context, or even employed as a rote alternative to thinking. But applied judiciously, it can make all the difference in the world -- not least in evaluating our own arguments before we present them to others.

It's kinda scary that you can witness pretty much all of these on a daily basis by watching a news conference by Dana Perino or the President.

Theater of the Mind

"Radio is the theater of the mind; television is the theater of the mindless" -- Steve Allen

Today was a good day to be a progressive.

My drive-by radio debut went off without a hitch. Attesting to the fact that I was basically terrified about being on the radio and that it was just an hour show, I didn't interject too often. But I did get in a blurb about my business and a jab at Sheriff Joe.


The show hit several topics including Katrina, uranium mining in the Grand Canyon and alternative energy, had a great guest, Eric Magnusson of Environment Arizona and knowledgeable callers. The podcast of the show will be up tomorrow morning at:

Unreported News in KPHX 1480. Look for the 4/13/08 show under free audio downloads.

For a little more about the host, Herb "Sarge" Phelps, see an interview with him on Channel 12:

Sarge on Channel 12 or check out his show blog or personal blog at Sarge of Unreported News Network

While I was on-the-air, the missus and kid were doing their part at The Glendale Family Bike Ride. It was a ride that focused on recycling and alternative energy and had booths set up from many local groups and organizations. I would have loved to join them, but it was impossible to be at two places at once.

Birthday Books

I had a great birthday, spending it with friends and family and adding some titles to my book collection that I had been meaning to get for awhile:

The wife got me The Green Book, a good guide with practical ways of not putting a huge wide-ass footprint on the planet.

With some birthday money, I bought books by two prominent atheists that I did not have books by previously:

Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris

The Portable Atheist by Christopher Hitchens

E & J got me I Am America (and so can you!) by Stephen Colbert. It's hilarious. I love the section on atheists:

Atheists
These No-goodnik no Godniks are growing in numbers and power in America. It makes me wonder how a God could exsist Who'd allow people to piss me off so much.

Luckily, a recent survey published in American Sociological Review revealed that atheists are the least trusted group in America - less trusted, even, than homosexuals. It makes sense - at least we trust the homosexuals with our hair.

But here's the biggest head-scratcher of all: Not only are atheists destroying our country, they're completely deluding themselves. There's simply no way to prove that there is no God. If I didn't hate them so much, I'd feel bad for these folks. Imagine going through life completely duped into thinking that there's no invisible, omniscient higher power guiding every action on Earth. It's just so arbitrary! Can't they see?

What's worse is that atheists blindly follow whatever scientists tell them to, no matter how unbelievably fantastical it sounds to rational ears. Yeah, earthquakes are caused by the shifting of giant unseen plates buried deep beneath the ground. There's no way it could be God jiggling the globe because people in California commit sodomy. No, that would be too simple!

Atheists enrage me precisely because they impute everything that happens to the semi-random workings of the natural world. They refuse to take responisbility for their actions! If their dog dies, it's because the decay of its cells caused by the aging process was "meant to be." They'll never stand up and say, "I deserved this as punishment for mixing my meats and cheeses." Makes me angry just thinking about it!

Agnostics

Atheists without balls.

Atheists and the Big Secular Agenda
People of faith like you and me are under attack. Especially people like me.

Atheists are the driving force behind what I call Big Secularism.

Card-carrying members of BS have snaked their way into every branch of our federal government, except for the judicial and executive. Did you know that in the House of Representatives and the Senate, there are as many as one self-described atheist currently serving? Democrat Representative Pete Stark of California's 13th district, to name just one. Just think of it - how are any pro-faith initiatives going to make it into law when Congress is held hostage by the anti-God caucus of Stark, his self, and him?

BS is gathering storm - a growing movement of lefty Lord-loathers intent on driving religion out of the public square, no matter how much time I spend hanging tinsel.

Ramblings

Damn, I need to blog more often. Got my taxes done, so I should have a bit more time to do so.

We went to the Diamondbacks home opener Monday (we won) and had a good time. For some pics, click the image.


This Sunday, I'll be making my on-air debut with the local progressive talk radio station, KPHX 1480. As seems to be the case with me, I was just a bit lucky and just happened to get the opportunity to do some work for the right set of people. A year or two ago, I'd made an local acquaintance on democraticunderground.com and had done some computer work for this person. She was happy with my work and mentioned me to some of her friends. Well, some of her friends just happened to be a couple of the Sunday morning hosts on KPHX. This week, I did some gratis work for them, they mentioned me on their show and invited me to come on air this Sunday. Hopefully I won't sound like a complete moron. They post the podcasts of the show by the next day here. I'll give you a heads-up this weekend to let you know if it will be worth a listen.

Also this Sunday, my son has his first classes at church for communion. As I don't exactly know what that entails and with you all knowing my opinion on religion, this subject should make for some blogger fodder for me over the next few weeks.

Movie Reviews

I've got a couple decent movies to review this week. Nothing earth-shattering and life-changing, but entertaining and not completely without a message.

The first of these is 21. Let's begin by not overanalyzing this film or making it into some high-brow idealistic one - which it is not trying to be. Once you do that, you can take it for what it is - a well-made and entertaining caper movie with attractive and likable young actors and a couple of great elder statesmen actors, Kevin Spacey and Laurence Fishburne.

21 is the story of Ben Campbell, played well by British actor Jim Sturgess (of Across the Universe and The Other Boleyn Girl). Campbell, along with several other MIT students, comprises a group of card-counting 21 players who travel to Las Vegas and win millions of dollars. The group is ran by one of their professors, who is played by Spacey, in typical Kevin Spacey-mode - cocky, sarcastic and over-the-top. Their nemesis is Vegas security officer Cole Williams, played capably by Fishburne. Campbell reluctantly joins the group, so as to make enough money to put him through graduate school.

The movie is fairly predictable but the MTV-style cinematography serves the subject matter well. The game of blackjack is not as visually compelling or dramatic as poker, so the music and flashy camera work helps to add tension.

The other student film roles are filled by stereotypical ethnic roles and the love interest is played by Kate Bosworth. I've yet to see her do any compelling acting in any of her roles, but her lack of ability doesn't detract enough to hurt the film.

The plot is not completely vacuous and everyone ultimately gets what they deserve, so don't fear that it's just an empty gambling movie where there are no consequences for questionable and immoral decisions.

I'm a sucker for Vegas and gambling films both light (Ocean's 11) and heavy (Leaving Las Vegas), so this one was right up my alley. Grade: B-


The second film, Horton Hears a Who, probably wouldn't have been my first choice for a film to see, but we had just went out to eat for my birthday today and we were looking for a family friendly film to see. Our son obviously voted for this one. And we were pleasantly surprised.

Horton Hears a Who, for those who don't already know, is from a Dr. Seuss story. This is easily the best screen adaptation of his books (Cat in the Hat and How The Grinch Stole Christmas were the others). There is a lot of great voice talent - Jim Carrey as Horton and Steve Carell, Carol Burnett, Seth Rogan, Isla Fischer, etc. in various other roles.

The main thing that raises this film above the other adaptations is it's visual look (animated as opposed to live action) and the quality of that animation. Also, it does a lot less wink-wink, nudge-nudge type self-referential humor that movies like Shrek are guilty of.

I won't get too into the story, as I imagine a lot of people have already read most Dr. Seuss stories. Basically, Horton the elephant hears a cry from a small person on a speck of dust. The story follows him trying to save the creatures that live on this speck of dust and to make others believe him. The moral of the story is summed up by Horton's motto, "After all, a person is a person, no matter how small." I've heard reviews that have tried to link the morality of the story to the immigration issue and I can definitely see that. But I also took out of the story parallels to fear mongering by politicians. But the movie doesn't beat you over the head with any of those themes. But they are there if you look for them. Grade: C+

Pre-crime

From the latest issue of Mother Jones magazine:

When Attorney General Alberto Gonzales held a press conference in the summer of 2006 announcing the arrests of seven young men for plotting to bomb Chicago's Sears Tower, he sounded defensive, his voice lingering a beat on each thing the men allegedly did. "Individuals here in America made plans to hurt Americans," he claimed. "They did request materials; they did request equipment; they did request funding." Gonzales admitted that the American and Haitian-born men posed "no immediate threat." But, he warned, "homegrown terrorists may prove to be as dangerous as groups like Al Qaeda. Our philosophy here is that we try to identify plots in the earliest stages possible, because we don't know what we don't know about a terrorism plot."

... juror Delorise Thompkins told the Miami Herald. "You're going to find someone always afraid of terrorist groups, but then when you see the evidence, there's not a lot there—no plans, no papers, no pictures, no nothing connecting them to Osama bin Laden." The jury's ambivalence is understandable. The plots were little more than talk encouraged by informants; the central evidence in the case—the taped oath—was a staged fbi production. But then, whether the men were a threat or the plot real doesn't matter when it comes to the charge of material support.

... There's a reason material support has become such a popular charge, a reason it's central to many of the government's most questionable cases: The laws are a prosecutor's dream. They don't require evidence of a plot or even of a desire to help terrorists. They give the government a shot at convictions traditional criminal laws could never provide. "The administration adopted the preventive paradigm, i.e. 'We've got to stop people before they've done something wrong,'" says David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who's the author of several books about the effect of anti-terror laws on the justice system. "There's tremendous pressure to expand grounds of criminal activity, to prosecute people who might represent a threat. The material-support provisions have been the principal vehicle for pushing that envelope."

The question is whether that approach has made us any safer. "The government does not understand how terrorist groups operate," says Michael German, a former counterterrorism agent at the fbi and now counsel for the aclu. "When I was undercover, there were plenty of people who may have been sympathetic to a group but were very clear they didn't want to break the law or get involved in violence. And we didn't go after them." Blurring that distinction by opening the door for prosecutions of people who do little more than express sympathies for a group, argues German, "that's where the material-support provisions go off the rails. The terrorist's goal is to convince everybody he identifies as his community that they are being oppressed. And when the government's response tends to create injustice, the government's fulfilling that prophecy."

... Think of the laws as "aiding and abetting"—only on steroids. It has always been illegal to support criminal activity. If a man drives a getaway car for bank robbers, then he can be charged for the robbery, too. Prosecutors have simply had to show that there was an intent to further the crime and some meaningful connection between the help and the crime itself.

What the material-support laws did was roll back those requirements. A taxi driver hired for a short drive by a Hezbollah politician—a driver who had no intention of engaging in terrorist activity—would, so long as he knew the politician was with Hezbollah, be guilty of providing material support. That's because the laws that define "material support" contain a long list of often nebulous activities, such as providing "property, tangible or intangible" or "service," and are applied whether or not those activities truly helped advance the cause of a terrorist group, and regardless of the suspect's intentions. The laws make little distinction between the taxi driver and, say, an arms merchant who sells detonators to Hezbollah. The Patriot Act extended the concept further, making it illegal to attempt or conspire to provide material support. Before, prosecutors had to prove you gave support. Now they just have to show you wanted to ...

"The Constitution is, among other things, a counterterrorism strategy," says Michael German, the former fbi agent. "What the framers recognized is that you don't create the perception of repression if you allow people legitimate means for fostering change. The material-support laws criminalize conduct that in and of itself isn't typically criminal, isn't illegal." When you have cases based on such sweeping laws, argues German, "you're ostensibly hurting terrorist organizations, when in fact you're helping them. You're giving people more of a reason to become militant."

Fittingly, but coincidentally, I had re-watched Minority Report this week, a movie that takes the concept of predicting and preventing crime to another level. The whole concept of punishing people for what they think is just a bit too 1984ish, with the government in the role of the Thought Police.


Where is the line drawn? It's not difficult to see this being taken to a level where any seditious thoughts are punishable. And what is sedition? The founding fathers of our country were certainly seditious. As the above article states, "What the framers recognized is that you don't create the perception of repression if you allow people legitimate means for fostering change." These loosely drawn laws and the way we enforce them are criminalizing thoughts and gutting our own Constitution.

The system of government that used to be a beacon for the rest of the world is now using the tools of totalitarian regimes. It's not hard to see why we are not respected any more. It's hard to respect a country that tortures, that spies on its own people, and ignores it's own laws.

"We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us; so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him. We burn all evil and all illusion out of him; we bring him over to our side, not in appearance, but genuinely, heart and soul. We make him one of ourselves before we kill him. It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it may be. Even in the instance of death we cannot permit any deviation . . . we make the brain perfect before we blow it out." -- 1984 by George Orwell