So I was thinking about the recent presidential election and I recalled one particular interview that was held just outside one of the polling stations on CNN. The woman who was about to vote announced, proudly, that she was going to vote for Bush.
When asked why, she immediately responded: "because I believe that the lord wants him to be President."
For the sake of argument, let's assume that the Lord, in fact, wants a smirking alcoholic, C-student, chimpanzee cheerleader to be president. Has anybody considered the possibility that maybe this wasn't a blessing?
Reading your bible, you'll find that the Old Testament God was pretty keen on the whole concept of smiting. He comes off a little nicer in the New Testament and the Koran, but my point stands. The Flood; the plagues of Egypt; the Tsunami; Bush.
If we postulate for the sake of argument that the Lord, in fact, wants Bush to be president; doesn't it make far more sense that this is much more a punishment than it is a blessing?
Maybe that's just me.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Make it STOP!
So, Terri Schiavo.
I know, this all happened months ago, but for some reason there are people out there who just don't want to let it end.
Why is it that this one case got so many people in an uproar? Why, even to this day, do we have people invoking her name to rise against (gasp)... Actually, what, exactly, are these people against? Seriously, let's think about this long and hard. What, exactly, went on in the case of Terri Schiavo? This wasn't an abortion (in most states, including Florida, abortion is illegal in the 174th trimester), this wasn't a case of euthanasia. This was merely a case where the doctors, and the next of kin decided that the best course of action was to terminate all life-continuing measures.
Something which has gone interestingly unmentioned in this particular case is that every doctor who attended to Ms. Shiavo agreed that removal of the feeding tube was the best course of action. The doctors, clearly, were willing to end treatment if the patient if the next-of-kin decided to do so (he did not, incidentally, decide to do so until about eight years after she went into a persistent vegitative state); and it's the assessment of every court-appointed physician who saw her that she was in an irrecoverable state. Granted, the Schiavo's parents hired their own physician who announced that with proper therapy, she could recover; a finding which is directly contradicted by the post-mortem; so I frankly question the doctor in question's qualifications.
Moreover, something which was curiously unmentioned either in the media circus which surrounded this unfortunate woman, or in the aftermath, was the fact that every single judge agreed that Michael Shiavo, her husband, had established conclusively that his wife would not wish to be kept alive under these circumstances. Instead, what did they focus on as Mr. Schiavo fought to let his wife die? The fact that he had a new girlfriend (a huge deal was made of the fact that it was out of wedlock) and a couple of kids.
Give the man a fricking break! His wife had been in a coma for fifteen years!
The question nobody seemed to bother asking was why Michael Schiavo didn't just divorce his wife and walk away from the whole situation, in spite of not one, but two multi-million dollar offers to do so. When they found that he couldn't be bought off, they suddenly started playing the PR game; going to enormous lengths to make it seem as if he was a horrible, abusive, borderline murderous human being who would have taken immense pleasure from the idea of torturing his wife to death. And no, I'm not exaggerating in the least.
So why, in spite of offers totaling over eleven million dollars, media pressure, and outright slander from the far-right wing did Mr. Schiavo not just walk away and let it end? Why didn't he just let her family decide what was best for their daughter? Hell, in his position, I gotta admit that's probably what I would have done; and I would have been wrong.
Well, I think we can probably pretty much reject the idea that he's an evil, abusive, murderous human being who wants to torture his wife to death; as the far right wing contends. And, after fifteen years, I don't think anybody would likely hold it against him if he decided to divorce his wife and walk away. So what stopped him? Why did he fight so hard and for so long to let his wife die?
The only answer that makes any sense at all is that he truly felt that he was doing the right thing. In spite of the, shall we say, uncharitable image that was painted of him on the news, he held steadfastly to his belief that he was doing the right thing. It would have been easy for him to respond to slander with slander; to descend to their level; but he didn't. Instead he fought the only way he knew how; he worked his way through the courts. In fact, of all the people involved in this; from the family, to the doctors, to the special interest groups to the president; he's the one person involved who actually acted with any human decency whatsoever. I truly believe that for the level of slander he experienced in the final months of his wife's life, Mr. Schiavo deserves a formal apology. I don't, however, expect that he'll get one. The far (extreme) right is kinda funky that way. They don't like to admit that they're wrong... ever.
The real tragedy of this is that an event which should have been private; the death of a loved one, became so brutally public. One man's reputation was dragged through the mud, congress got involved; for naught, really, since when they decided that federal courts could rule in this one particular case, the federal court promptly decided that they wouldn't. Kudos. And realistically, this was all over a woman whose life was, by any reasonable measure, over. I'm sorry, this is truly a tragedy for her family, but it's true. So while the media announced that congress was "acting to save Terri Shiavo's life" (and as an aside, I ask you: what liberal media?), congress was really acting against what no fewer than three court judges in various courts had decided were Terri Schiavo's wishes.
This has been a tragedy, not only for the Schiavo and her family, but for America as a whole. I wish for both sides of this dispute comfort and peace now that this is all over. As for those now trying to invoke her name to paint a new face on "compassionate conservativism;" well, I'm not sure whether I believe in heaven and hell or not, but if I did, I do believe that this level of false compassion exhibited by the far right in the United States would be enough to determine which direction they're headed.
I know, this all happened months ago, but for some reason there are people out there who just don't want to let it end.
Why is it that this one case got so many people in an uproar? Why, even to this day, do we have people invoking her name to rise against (gasp)... Actually, what, exactly, are these people against? Seriously, let's think about this long and hard. What, exactly, went on in the case of Terri Schiavo? This wasn't an abortion (in most states, including Florida, abortion is illegal in the 174th trimester), this wasn't a case of euthanasia. This was merely a case where the doctors, and the next of kin decided that the best course of action was to terminate all life-continuing measures.
Something which has gone interestingly unmentioned in this particular case is that every doctor who attended to Ms. Shiavo agreed that removal of the feeding tube was the best course of action. The doctors, clearly, were willing to end treatment if the patient if the next-of-kin decided to do so (he did not, incidentally, decide to do so until about eight years after she went into a persistent vegitative state); and it's the assessment of every court-appointed physician who saw her that she was in an irrecoverable state. Granted, the Schiavo's parents hired their own physician who announced that with proper therapy, she could recover; a finding which is directly contradicted by the post-mortem; so I frankly question the doctor in question's qualifications.
Moreover, something which was curiously unmentioned either in the media circus which surrounded this unfortunate woman, or in the aftermath, was the fact that every single judge agreed that Michael Shiavo, her husband, had established conclusively that his wife would not wish to be kept alive under these circumstances. Instead, what did they focus on as Mr. Schiavo fought to let his wife die? The fact that he had a new girlfriend (a huge deal was made of the fact that it was out of wedlock) and a couple of kids.
Give the man a fricking break! His wife had been in a coma for fifteen years!
The question nobody seemed to bother asking was why Michael Schiavo didn't just divorce his wife and walk away from the whole situation, in spite of not one, but two multi-million dollar offers to do so. When they found that he couldn't be bought off, they suddenly started playing the PR game; going to enormous lengths to make it seem as if he was a horrible, abusive, borderline murderous human being who would have taken immense pleasure from the idea of torturing his wife to death. And no, I'm not exaggerating in the least.
So why, in spite of offers totaling over eleven million dollars, media pressure, and outright slander from the far-right wing did Mr. Schiavo not just walk away and let it end? Why didn't he just let her family decide what was best for their daughter? Hell, in his position, I gotta admit that's probably what I would have done; and I would have been wrong.
Well, I think we can probably pretty much reject the idea that he's an evil, abusive, murderous human being who wants to torture his wife to death; as the far right wing contends. And, after fifteen years, I don't think anybody would likely hold it against him if he decided to divorce his wife and walk away. So what stopped him? Why did he fight so hard and for so long to let his wife die?
The only answer that makes any sense at all is that he truly felt that he was doing the right thing. In spite of the, shall we say, uncharitable image that was painted of him on the news, he held steadfastly to his belief that he was doing the right thing. It would have been easy for him to respond to slander with slander; to descend to their level; but he didn't. Instead he fought the only way he knew how; he worked his way through the courts. In fact, of all the people involved in this; from the family, to the doctors, to the special interest groups to the president; he's the one person involved who actually acted with any human decency whatsoever. I truly believe that for the level of slander he experienced in the final months of his wife's life, Mr. Schiavo deserves a formal apology. I don't, however, expect that he'll get one. The far (extreme) right is kinda funky that way. They don't like to admit that they're wrong... ever.
The real tragedy of this is that an event which should have been private; the death of a loved one, became so brutally public. One man's reputation was dragged through the mud, congress got involved; for naught, really, since when they decided that federal courts could rule in this one particular case, the federal court promptly decided that they wouldn't. Kudos. And realistically, this was all over a woman whose life was, by any reasonable measure, over. I'm sorry, this is truly a tragedy for her family, but it's true. So while the media announced that congress was "acting to save Terri Shiavo's life" (and as an aside, I ask you: what liberal media?), congress was really acting against what no fewer than three court judges in various courts had decided were Terri Schiavo's wishes.
This has been a tragedy, not only for the Schiavo and her family, but for America as a whole. I wish for both sides of this dispute comfort and peace now that this is all over. As for those now trying to invoke her name to paint a new face on "compassionate conservativism;" well, I'm not sure whether I believe in heaven and hell or not, but if I did, I do believe that this level of false compassion exhibited by the far right in the United States would be enough to determine which direction they're headed.
Friday, October 21, 2005
New Baby.
So I spent the last couple of days building myself a new computer; a skill I acquired whilst working for my former mentor at UBish. I was long overdue for a new machine, and finally decided to get one when my ex-computer started literally screaming for mercy when I tried to run this program I've written on it. My now-ex machine harkens from the days when 128 Mb was a gargantuan quantity of RAM, and a 4 Gb hard drive was huge.
So, since I was lucky enough to get a rather large tax refund this year, I decided to spend a chunk of it on this new beast of a computer.
This computer is basically a symbolic representation of the sum of all of my bad expriences with computers in the past and my attempts to remedy them. I've been plagued by hard drives that suffer complete failure for no discernible reason, and end up being unrecoverable (oddly enough, this always seems to occur within days of my next planned backup; so I usually end up losing at least a week's worth of data; something which, believe me, can be rather annoying). To prevent this, I've taken two steps: 1) the two hard drives I have installed in this computer are within two inches of four (count 'em, four) 80 mm fans, since I'm fairly certain that it's overheating that caused my previous hard drives to fail (in hindsight, putting the hard drives right next to a very hot power source may not have been the wisest decision on my part); and 2) the hard drives are RAIDed. RAID, for the non-computer savvy among you stands for Redundant Array of Inexpensive (or Independent, depending on who you ask) Disks. I have the two drives I've installed are set for RAID1; mirroring. In other words, everything that goes onto one hard drive get's "mirrored" onto the other. So you end up with two disk drives which are completely identical. So in order to actually lose the data on my hard drive, both of these hard drives would have to fail simultaneously. Something which, I hope, is not likely to occur. Among my other bad experiences, I lost my first processor in my old computer because it overheated. It wasn't that the fan died or that the heat sink wasn't flush with the processor, or any of the common causes. It just wasn't effective. To remedy this particular fault, I now have a heat sink the approximate size and shape of a dinner plate dominating the motherboard of my computer; and by fortuitous circumstances, the only case I could find that has the power source I need has a huge honking window on the side, so I can actually just look inside to make sure that it's working. I've also gone to a lot of trouble to make sure I have as much airflow through the case as possible. I have a total of seven fans at various locations around this computer case. According to my rough back-of-the-envelope calculations, the air in the case is replaced approximately once every three seconds.
Let's take a minute to talk about the case. Why is it that just about every computer case on the market requires lights and windows and all these funky doohickies hanging off of it? I'd frankly much rather have just the old fashioned beige computer case which holds everything I need. This one comes with all sorts of funky-ass lights all over it; which is rather annoying, frankly, but what can you do? Although, I confess, this does have the previously-mentioned benefit that I can take a look through the big-ass window on the side to make sure that the CPU cooler is working properly; so it's not all bad, I guess.
There were some parts I was able to salvage from my old computer; my CD burner, a floppy drive (which I needed to get the RAID drivers onto the computer, then decided, "what the hell, I might as well keep it"), my network card... My brother wants to get his hands on my old machine (what's left of it) to turn it into a file server. I told him that would be just fine. I'll even give him a heavily-used 13 Gb hard drive, absolutely free.
So, since I was lucky enough to get a rather large tax refund this year, I decided to spend a chunk of it on this new beast of a computer.
This computer is basically a symbolic representation of the sum of all of my bad expriences with computers in the past and my attempts to remedy them. I've been plagued by hard drives that suffer complete failure for no discernible reason, and end up being unrecoverable (oddly enough, this always seems to occur within days of my next planned backup; so I usually end up losing at least a week's worth of data; something which, believe me, can be rather annoying). To prevent this, I've taken two steps: 1) the two hard drives I have installed in this computer are within two inches of four (count 'em, four) 80 mm fans, since I'm fairly certain that it's overheating that caused my previous hard drives to fail (in hindsight, putting the hard drives right next to a very hot power source may not have been the wisest decision on my part); and 2) the hard drives are RAIDed. RAID, for the non-computer savvy among you stands for Redundant Array of Inexpensive (or Independent, depending on who you ask) Disks. I have the two drives I've installed are set for RAID1; mirroring. In other words, everything that goes onto one hard drive get's "mirrored" onto the other. So you end up with two disk drives which are completely identical. So in order to actually lose the data on my hard drive, both of these hard drives would have to fail simultaneously. Something which, I hope, is not likely to occur. Among my other bad experiences, I lost my first processor in my old computer because it overheated. It wasn't that the fan died or that the heat sink wasn't flush with the processor, or any of the common causes. It just wasn't effective. To remedy this particular fault, I now have a heat sink the approximate size and shape of a dinner plate dominating the motherboard of my computer; and by fortuitous circumstances, the only case I could find that has the power source I need has a huge honking window on the side, so I can actually just look inside to make sure that it's working. I've also gone to a lot of trouble to make sure I have as much airflow through the case as possible. I have a total of seven fans at various locations around this computer case. According to my rough back-of-the-envelope calculations, the air in the case is replaced approximately once every three seconds.
Let's take a minute to talk about the case. Why is it that just about every computer case on the market requires lights and windows and all these funky doohickies hanging off of it? I'd frankly much rather have just the old fashioned beige computer case which holds everything I need. This one comes with all sorts of funky-ass lights all over it; which is rather annoying, frankly, but what can you do? Although, I confess, this does have the previously-mentioned benefit that I can take a look through the big-ass window on the side to make sure that the CPU cooler is working properly; so it's not all bad, I guess.
There were some parts I was able to salvage from my old computer; my CD burner, a floppy drive (which I needed to get the RAID drivers onto the computer, then decided, "what the hell, I might as well keep it"), my network card... My brother wants to get his hands on my old machine (what's left of it) to turn it into a file server. I told him that would be just fine. I'll even give him a heavily-used 13 Gb hard drive, absolutely free.
Monday, October 17, 2005
When did "liberal" become a dirty word?
Before I begin, want to make very clear that I don't consider myself to be a liberal. I don't consider myself to be conservative. I do, however, consider myself to be a free thinker. The simplest way I can think of to put my beliefs is that I don't believe that "because it's always been done this way" is a good enough reason to keep doing it. Which, I suppose, makes me nonconservative, by definition. On the other hand, I also believe in smaller, responsible government; I believe in spending what we have, not what we want to have; all of which are traditionally conservative views. I believe that we need to be careful with our funds, but progressive in the social arena. I believe in a woman's right to choose; but that the husband should be allowed some say in the matter. I believe that government should be small, but not so small that it can fit into its citizen's bedrooms. As I understand it, that puts me pretty much smack-dab in the middle of the political spectrum.
Next, I want to point out that I personally reject the whole concept of labels. I'm Drew MacCannell; I'm not "Straight, White, Male, Biophysicist." Although all those things apply to me, they aren't who I am.
But a lot of people in the political arena, particularly in the US, have been demonizing their opponents by slapping the label "Liberal" on them; but for some reason that I cannot fully ascertain, slapping the exact opposite label carries no such stigma.
One of the worst things that can happen in any political campaign is to be painted as an extremist at either end of the political spectrum; and with good reason: extremists of all political slants are kinda scary. What worries me, is what, exactly, is labeled as "extremist."
The US is currently in the midst of a political quagmire as they try to decide who will step into Sandra Day-O'conner's seat on the Supreme court. Bush has nominated Harriet Miers; which is actually a far more reasonable choice than I'd dared to expect from our illustrious president; her lack of judicial experience notwithstanding. Her political views seem to be largely middle-groundish. She's in favor of gay rights (although she hasn't voiced any opinion on same-sex marriage yet); she's danced around the issue of abortion; she seems to favor separation of church and state. Although, I hasten to add, she's got no judicial experience; ergo it is nearly impossible to determine her views on many issues simply because we have no rulings to base such an assessment upon.
Far more interesting that Miers' actual views on the issues is the reaction of Bush's conservative base. Somewhat surprisingly, a number of Conservative groups; not the least of which being Focus on the Family, have been absolutely adamant that Miers is not what they're looking for. They went on to invoke current sitting justice Antonin Scalia by name, announcing that they wanted another justice with his views installed.
Now, I'm scared.
Antonin Scalia is quite possibly the single most terrifying Supreme Court Justice currently sitting on America's highest court. To describe him as conservative is a massive understatement of his actual views. He has repeatedly voted against Roe v. Wade, and has risen several times against the separation of church and state, the rights of minorities (including gay and lesbian couples). He was one of only two who voted against the supreme court decision that a gay man could not be arrested for sexual activity within his own home.
And what really scares me is that asking for another Scalia on the supreme court seems to strike much of the political clout in the US as perfectly reasonable.
How did it happen that being even marginally liberal somehow meant that you hated everything that America stands for; but being radically conservative didn't? How did it happen that being slapped with the label "liberal" was the ultimate kiss of death for your political future, but being slapped with the label "conservative" wasn't?
As previously mentioned; my political views sit, as I understand them, pretty much in the middle; but in the US, I may as well be a radical left-winger. There's a view which is becoming scarily prevalent, that you're either conservative or you're not. It seems as if it's suddenly becoming acceptable to shift to the extreme right wing, to the level of extreme protectionism, homophobia, and barely-veiled racism, but if you shift to the left of Alan Keyes, you're a radical leftist.
Suffice it to say, my trip down to the states this christmas will be interesting.
Next, I want to point out that I personally reject the whole concept of labels. I'm Drew MacCannell; I'm not "Straight, White, Male, Biophysicist." Although all those things apply to me, they aren't who I am.
But a lot of people in the political arena, particularly in the US, have been demonizing their opponents by slapping the label "Liberal" on them; but for some reason that I cannot fully ascertain, slapping the exact opposite label carries no such stigma.
One of the worst things that can happen in any political campaign is to be painted as an extremist at either end of the political spectrum; and with good reason: extremists of all political slants are kinda scary. What worries me, is what, exactly, is labeled as "extremist."
The US is currently in the midst of a political quagmire as they try to decide who will step into Sandra Day-O'conner's seat on the Supreme court. Bush has nominated Harriet Miers; which is actually a far more reasonable choice than I'd dared to expect from our illustrious president; her lack of judicial experience notwithstanding. Her political views seem to be largely middle-groundish. She's in favor of gay rights (although she hasn't voiced any opinion on same-sex marriage yet); she's danced around the issue of abortion; she seems to favor separation of church and state. Although, I hasten to add, she's got no judicial experience; ergo it is nearly impossible to determine her views on many issues simply because we have no rulings to base such an assessment upon.
Far more interesting that Miers' actual views on the issues is the reaction of Bush's conservative base. Somewhat surprisingly, a number of Conservative groups; not the least of which being Focus on the Family, have been absolutely adamant that Miers is not what they're looking for. They went on to invoke current sitting justice Antonin Scalia by name, announcing that they wanted another justice with his views installed.
Now, I'm scared.
Antonin Scalia is quite possibly the single most terrifying Supreme Court Justice currently sitting on America's highest court. To describe him as conservative is a massive understatement of his actual views. He has repeatedly voted against Roe v. Wade, and has risen several times against the separation of church and state, the rights of minorities (including gay and lesbian couples). He was one of only two who voted against the supreme court decision that a gay man could not be arrested for sexual activity within his own home.
And what really scares me is that asking for another Scalia on the supreme court seems to strike much of the political clout in the US as perfectly reasonable.
How did it happen that being even marginally liberal somehow meant that you hated everything that America stands for; but being radically conservative didn't? How did it happen that being slapped with the label "liberal" was the ultimate kiss of death for your political future, but being slapped with the label "conservative" wasn't?
As previously mentioned; my political views sit, as I understand them, pretty much in the middle; but in the US, I may as well be a radical left-winger. There's a view which is becoming scarily prevalent, that you're either conservative or you're not. It seems as if it's suddenly becoming acceptable to shift to the extreme right wing, to the level of extreme protectionism, homophobia, and barely-veiled racism, but if you shift to the left of Alan Keyes, you're a radical leftist.
Suffice it to say, my trip down to the states this christmas will be interesting.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
On Serenity
I can't, by any definition of the term, be described as a science fiction or fantasy nut. I'm one of a very select few people (apparently) who didn't care much for the Lord of the Rings (the books or the movie). I didn't care much for any of the three Star Wars prequels (although I did watch them; who didn't?). I never cared much for any one of the Star Trek franchises. What can I say? None of them really captivated my imagination. I figure that there are enough stories to tell about human nature without bringing aliens, elves, dwarves, and what-have-yous into the equation.
It was Christmas of last year when my little brother, being the slightly neurotic kid that he is, bought me the box set of Firefly for chritmas. My automatic first reaction, it pains me to admit, was "Don, I'm not a Trekkie."
This is more or less true. Although around about twelve, I did watch the Next Generation incarnation of Star Trek relatively faithfully. Not from any particular love of the series, mind you, but because it was what was on. Even at the naive age of 12, I found something rather annoying about Star Trek: everyone was just too damn happy. Don't get me wrong, I admire Gene Roddenberry's utopian vision of the future; but frankly, it was just a little bit too utopian. You had a crew of people of different races, different ethnicities, hell, from different planets, all working side by side. Hell, I can't live with my brother for any extended period of time without wanting to kill him. Basically, it was a LSD-laced vision of what human beings could do if given the absolute best of all possibilities.
Frankly, it just seemed unlikely to me. Just once, I wanted to see one of the captains of one of the series of this franchise go on a completely inappropriate, totally undeserved, and vulgarly profanity-laden rant about the incompetence of his or her crew.
Just once, I wanted to hear this dialogue on the bridge:
Captain: Set course heading 214 mark six and engage at warp eight.
Crewman: But, sir...
Captain: Move your ass, you fucking, douchelapping dickslatherer! Goddammit, how many fucking times do I have to get you tired assholes to do what I ask? You shitbrained apebuggering asspluggers! I'm the fucking Captain! Jesus Christ, you are fucking pathetic! My whole goddamn crew is made up of goddamned motherfucking rimjobbing anusmonkeys!
Believe it or not, it's actually funnier if you imagine it being said by William Shatner; as if.... EVERY. WORD. Is ITS. Own. SenTENCE.
Now, admittedly, this kind of thing wasn't likely to happen on Firefly either; but at least with Firefly, you got the impression that the only reason it wasn't going to happen was because that kind of dialogue wouldn't get past the network censors; not because it was completely out of character for any one of the characters. In short, what Firefly brought to the science fiction genre, that had been lacking pretty much since the original Star Wars trilogy was characters who actually aren't perfect. You have characters in this series who don't have a fricking clue what they're going to do, or even if what they're going to do is right or moral. You have a captain who won't hesitate to deck one of his crewmembers if he wants to. You have genuine personality conflicts.
Which brings me to Serenity. I want to take a moment to comment on something you don't see many people commenting on with this movie: the script. This was, in my humble opinion, one of the most intelligently-written films I have seen in a long time. The dialogue was clever, the plot was intricately thought out. Unlike so much of Science Fiction and Fantasy making it to the big screen these days, I didn't actually feel dumber walking out of the movie theatre.
In short, this was one of the better movies I've seen this year.
If you haven't seen it, see it now.
If you have seen it, see it again.
And that's my input for today.
It was Christmas of last year when my little brother, being the slightly neurotic kid that he is, bought me the box set of Firefly for chritmas. My automatic first reaction, it pains me to admit, was "Don, I'm not a Trekkie."
This is more or less true. Although around about twelve, I did watch the Next Generation incarnation of Star Trek relatively faithfully. Not from any particular love of the series, mind you, but because it was what was on. Even at the naive age of 12, I found something rather annoying about Star Trek: everyone was just too damn happy. Don't get me wrong, I admire Gene Roddenberry's utopian vision of the future; but frankly, it was just a little bit too utopian. You had a crew of people of different races, different ethnicities, hell, from different planets, all working side by side. Hell, I can't live with my brother for any extended period of time without wanting to kill him. Basically, it was a LSD-laced vision of what human beings could do if given the absolute best of all possibilities.
Frankly, it just seemed unlikely to me. Just once, I wanted to see one of the captains of one of the series of this franchise go on a completely inappropriate, totally undeserved, and vulgarly profanity-laden rant about the incompetence of his or her crew.
Just once, I wanted to hear this dialogue on the bridge:
Captain: Set course heading 214 mark six and engage at warp eight.
Crewman: But, sir...
Captain: Move your ass, you fucking, douchelapping dickslatherer! Goddammit, how many fucking times do I have to get you tired assholes to do what I ask? You shitbrained apebuggering asspluggers! I'm the fucking Captain! Jesus Christ, you are fucking pathetic! My whole goddamn crew is made up of goddamned motherfucking rimjobbing anusmonkeys!
Believe it or not, it's actually funnier if you imagine it being said by William Shatner; as if.... EVERY. WORD. Is ITS. Own. SenTENCE.
Now, admittedly, this kind of thing wasn't likely to happen on Firefly either; but at least with Firefly, you got the impression that the only reason it wasn't going to happen was because that kind of dialogue wouldn't get past the network censors; not because it was completely out of character for any one of the characters. In short, what Firefly brought to the science fiction genre, that had been lacking pretty much since the original Star Wars trilogy was characters who actually aren't perfect. You have characters in this series who don't have a fricking clue what they're going to do, or even if what they're going to do is right or moral. You have a captain who won't hesitate to deck one of his crewmembers if he wants to. You have genuine personality conflicts.
Which brings me to Serenity. I want to take a moment to comment on something you don't see many people commenting on with this movie: the script. This was, in my humble opinion, one of the most intelligently-written films I have seen in a long time. The dialogue was clever, the plot was intricately thought out. Unlike so much of Science Fiction and Fantasy making it to the big screen these days, I didn't actually feel dumber walking out of the movie theatre.
In short, this was one of the better movies I've seen this year.
If you haven't seen it, see it now.
If you have seen it, see it again.
And that's my input for today.
Monday, September 12, 2005
Arguing with God.
Alberta's an interesting province. Our population is somewhere to the right of Alan Keyes; we routinely vote Conservative in every riding whenever we have a federal election; and the scariest conservative MPs tend to run, and win in Alberta.
Yet, at the same time, we have a substantial younger population that has either moved in or has grown up here and is starting to actually vote.
The reason I bring this up is that Stephen Harper has vowed to revisit the Gay Marriage issue if he's elected prime minister. His logic, he claims, is that the majority of Canadians do not want Gay marriage, ergo, it should not be law.
Mr. Harper, apparently, has failed to understand the concept of Tyrrany of the Majority.
But that's really not what I wanted to address. The point I want to get across is that if he's elected, it means that he's going to be elected, at least in part, based on the promise of being the first Prime Minister in the History of Canada to use the Notwithstanding clause. For the non-Canucks of you out there; this means that he could get elected, at least in part, based on a promise to suspend the civil liberties assured by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This is a very scary precedent.
What I don't get, completely, is why this is an issue. The law is very specific that no religious institution will be forced to perform any marriage which is outside their belief system; ergo the Churches have exactly the same leeway as far as marriage is concerned that they did a year ago. All this law means is that the rest of us aren't necessarily required to fall in line with their doctrine.
I recall I was wandering around downtown around about the time that Bill C-38, the Gay Marriage law, was being voted upon in the House of Commons. I don't think anyone seriously believed that the bill would be defeated; but nevertheless you had people out there waving signs, and screaming that allowing people that they did not know and had never met (and, I imagine that it's reasonably safe to assume, had no desire to associate with) to marry would somehow cause society as we understand it to crumble.
This is, clearly, ridiculous; but this is apparently what they believed. Among these people was one woman who was waving a sign which read, simply Leviticus 18:22. First off; if you don't have at least a passing understanding of the bible, you hadn't the faintest clue what the sign meant (incidentally, that passage of the King James' version of the bible reads: "Thou shalt not lie with Mankind as with Womankind; it is an abomination"). Second, as far as this woman was concerned, that one passage of the bible; one line among thousands; ended the debate.
One line of one volume of one book written by people who have been dead for hundreds of years in a different country was the final word on the subject, as far as she was concerned.
Call me crazy, but maybe, just maybe, that might not be the best way of running a country.
That, and, let's face it, it's kinda hard to argue with God.
Faith is one thing; blind faith is something completely different. Belief in something that may not be scientifically observable is fine. I have absolutely no problem with that. I personally believe that there are a number of phenomena which cannot now, and may never be empirically observable. But to blindly take one set of rules and assume that that is the final word on any given subject basically creates a system where you're not allowed to think for yourself. We see that happening far too often in the states, and to a lesser degree in Canada.
The problem with politics is that it's seen too much as a factor of us against them; without much of a well-defined position on who we or they are. The US is divided into "Red States" and "Blue States." In Canada we have our "Liberal Provinces" and our "Conservative Provinces."
Just once, at least in the US, I'd like to see a running team for president throw that whole concept out the window. I'd like to see a third party team stand a solid chance in a run for president. I'd like to see a pair of independent candidates; people with no strong ties to either party... or even better: a bipartisan running team; one former Democrat, one former Republican running for a third party... I'd like to see them run, and I'd like to see them win.
I'd like to see us lose this concept of "Swing States." I'd like to see so-called "Red States" get a little Bluer, and "Blue States" get a little redder.
In short, just once, I'd like to see partisanship become secondary to what's best for the country.
Yet, at the same time, we have a substantial younger population that has either moved in or has grown up here and is starting to actually vote.
The reason I bring this up is that Stephen Harper has vowed to revisit the Gay Marriage issue if he's elected prime minister. His logic, he claims, is that the majority of Canadians do not want Gay marriage, ergo, it should not be law.
Mr. Harper, apparently, has failed to understand the concept of Tyrrany of the Majority.
But that's really not what I wanted to address. The point I want to get across is that if he's elected, it means that he's going to be elected, at least in part, based on the promise of being the first Prime Minister in the History of Canada to use the Notwithstanding clause. For the non-Canucks of you out there; this means that he could get elected, at least in part, based on a promise to suspend the civil liberties assured by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This is a very scary precedent.
What I don't get, completely, is why this is an issue. The law is very specific that no religious institution will be forced to perform any marriage which is outside their belief system; ergo the Churches have exactly the same leeway as far as marriage is concerned that they did a year ago. All this law means is that the rest of us aren't necessarily required to fall in line with their doctrine.
I recall I was wandering around downtown around about the time that Bill C-38, the Gay Marriage law, was being voted upon in the House of Commons. I don't think anyone seriously believed that the bill would be defeated; but nevertheless you had people out there waving signs, and screaming that allowing people that they did not know and had never met (and, I imagine that it's reasonably safe to assume, had no desire to associate with) to marry would somehow cause society as we understand it to crumble.
This is, clearly, ridiculous; but this is apparently what they believed. Among these people was one woman who was waving a sign which read, simply Leviticus 18:22. First off; if you don't have at least a passing understanding of the bible, you hadn't the faintest clue what the sign meant (incidentally, that passage of the King James' version of the bible reads: "Thou shalt not lie with Mankind as with Womankind; it is an abomination"). Second, as far as this woman was concerned, that one passage of the bible; one line among thousands; ended the debate.
One line of one volume of one book written by people who have been dead for hundreds of years in a different country was the final word on the subject, as far as she was concerned.
Call me crazy, but maybe, just maybe, that might not be the best way of running a country.
That, and, let's face it, it's kinda hard to argue with God.
Faith is one thing; blind faith is something completely different. Belief in something that may not be scientifically observable is fine. I have absolutely no problem with that. I personally believe that there are a number of phenomena which cannot now, and may never be empirically observable. But to blindly take one set of rules and assume that that is the final word on any given subject basically creates a system where you're not allowed to think for yourself. We see that happening far too often in the states, and to a lesser degree in Canada.
The problem with politics is that it's seen too much as a factor of us against them; without much of a well-defined position on who we or they are. The US is divided into "Red States" and "Blue States." In Canada we have our "Liberal Provinces" and our "Conservative Provinces."
Just once, at least in the US, I'd like to see a running team for president throw that whole concept out the window. I'd like to see a third party team stand a solid chance in a run for president. I'd like to see a pair of independent candidates; people with no strong ties to either party... or even better: a bipartisan running team; one former Democrat, one former Republican running for a third party... I'd like to see them run, and I'd like to see them win.
I'd like to see us lose this concept of "Swing States." I'd like to see so-called "Red States" get a little Bluer, and "Blue States" get a little redder.
In short, just once, I'd like to see partisanship become secondary to what's best for the country.
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
On Intelligent Design, and the Scientific Method
This occurred to me last night: assuming that the state of Kentucky makes Intelligent Design a part of its science curriculum in the coming year (which is seeming increasingly inevitable), can Intelligent Design be taught concurrently with Scientific Method?
The Scientific Method is the basis for all scientific theory. A falsifiable hypothesis is generated, that hypothesis is subjected to a series of experiments which either validate or disprove it; and from that a theory is created which explains the experimental results. Then the process begins all over again.
Intelligent design has never been subjected to scientific scrutiny. No falsifiable hypothesis has been created; no experimentation performed; ergo no theory has been advanced.
So that raises the obvious question of how can we, out of one side of our virtual mouths, tell high school students that the scientific method is the manner in which postulate becomes theory; while out of the other side we promote Intelligent Design as a valid scientific theory? If you can tell me how that is not fundamentally hypocritical, you're smarter than I am.
Now, if someone wants to study Intelligent Design in, for example, a comparative religion course; or a social studies course (the sociology of Intelligent Design proponents is actually quite fascinating), I have absolutely no issue with that. But to present it as a scientific theory is a slap in the face to those of us who do genuine science. Frankly, it's insulting.
I've decided to devote my professional life to the pursuit of scientific knowledge; to understand, through scientific methodology the world around me. To have a small group of people present barely-veiled religion, calling it theory, and teaching it to students as valid science is an affront to everything I have tried to learn in the last ten years.
Not only that, but as far as I can tell, if they want any student to actually believe Intelligent Design; they're going to have to stop teaching the scientific method. In other words, they will be teaching science class, without actually teaching them how to do science.
Now, someone has to have thought about this before me; since I'm not smart enough to have been the first. So why isn't this issue getting far more mention than it is?
The Scientific Method is the basis for all scientific theory. A falsifiable hypothesis is generated, that hypothesis is subjected to a series of experiments which either validate or disprove it; and from that a theory is created which explains the experimental results. Then the process begins all over again.
Intelligent design has never been subjected to scientific scrutiny. No falsifiable hypothesis has been created; no experimentation performed; ergo no theory has been advanced.
So that raises the obvious question of how can we, out of one side of our virtual mouths, tell high school students that the scientific method is the manner in which postulate becomes theory; while out of the other side we promote Intelligent Design as a valid scientific theory? If you can tell me how that is not fundamentally hypocritical, you're smarter than I am.
Now, if someone wants to study Intelligent Design in, for example, a comparative religion course; or a social studies course (the sociology of Intelligent Design proponents is actually quite fascinating), I have absolutely no issue with that. But to present it as a scientific theory is a slap in the face to those of us who do genuine science. Frankly, it's insulting.
I've decided to devote my professional life to the pursuit of scientific knowledge; to understand, through scientific methodology the world around me. To have a small group of people present barely-veiled religion, calling it theory, and teaching it to students as valid science is an affront to everything I have tried to learn in the last ten years.
Not only that, but as far as I can tell, if they want any student to actually believe Intelligent Design; they're going to have to stop teaching the scientific method. In other words, they will be teaching science class, without actually teaching them how to do science.
Now, someone has to have thought about this before me; since I'm not smart enough to have been the first. So why isn't this issue getting far more mention than it is?
Monday, August 29, 2005
Payin' a visit to Hazzard County
April and I went out to catch a movie last night. For some reason, I've had a bizarre urge to see The Dukes of Hazzard. Don't ask me to explain it; it might have something to do with my having been heartily exposed to the television series in my youth. Maybe I just needed some dumb entertainment. Maybe I was fascinated by the fact that they got Wonder Woman and Willie Nelson to play a role in it; or that Jay Chandrasekhar (who happens to share a last name with one of the more brilliant physicists in recent history), who directed Super Troopers directed it. Whatever the reason, I had the strange urge to see it.
If you're going to this movie expecting a masterpiece, you're likely to be disappointed.
Scratch that; you're going to be disappointed.
If, on the other hand, you're going to the movie in the mood for blatant escapism; if you want nothing but mindless entertainment for two hours, this is actually a pretty good movie. I was even, believe it or not, able to overlook the fact that it co-stars Jessica Simpson. Apparently wearing low-cut bodices and acting slutty is something she can do pretty well.
Willie Nelson playing a drunken hillbilly... definitely one of his more tailor-made roles....
In short, this is not a good movie, but I enjoyed it anyway.
If you're going to this movie expecting a masterpiece, you're likely to be disappointed.
Scratch that; you're going to be disappointed.
If, on the other hand, you're going to the movie in the mood for blatant escapism; if you want nothing but mindless entertainment for two hours, this is actually a pretty good movie. I was even, believe it or not, able to overlook the fact that it co-stars Jessica Simpson. Apparently wearing low-cut bodices and acting slutty is something she can do pretty well.
Willie Nelson playing a drunken hillbilly... definitely one of his more tailor-made roles....
In short, this is not a good movie, but I enjoyed it anyway.
Sunday, August 28, 2005
Still breathing....
Well, April and I made it back from our little jaunt along the West Coast Trail. 75 kilometers of rough terrain designed, I'm confident, to utterly drain those hikers brave (or foolhardy) enough to attempt it.
Suffice it to say, we had a blast.
We hiked all 75 km in about six days (the last day was a real push; we had to go 12 km before 1:00 pm), hiking an average of 12 and a half kilometers a day. That becomes a little more impressive when you realize that there were some days in there that we only managed to hike about 6 km.
Once you get past the first 22 kilometers, though, the trail gets a lot easier... except for the fact that there are still 53 kilometers to hike. We averaged about 1 km/hour for the first 22 km. We averaged well over 3 for the last 53; just to give some perspective.
Suffice it to say that we had a wonderful week, and I firmly believe that the West Coast Trail is something everyone should do at least once before they die.
April and I are already starting to toy with the idea of doing it again in the not-too-terribly-distant future. Probably next year. We figured we'd pack lighter (there were a lot of things in our packs this time that we simply didn't need), and take more time (there were a few days that were more than a little rushed; we figured we'd take nine days instead of six next time).
Still, it was an adventure, and one I'd really like to repeat someday.
Suffice it to say, we had a blast.
We hiked all 75 km in about six days (the last day was a real push; we had to go 12 km before 1:00 pm), hiking an average of 12 and a half kilometers a day. That becomes a little more impressive when you realize that there were some days in there that we only managed to hike about 6 km.
Once you get past the first 22 kilometers, though, the trail gets a lot easier... except for the fact that there are still 53 kilometers to hike. We averaged about 1 km/hour for the first 22 km. We averaged well over 3 for the last 53; just to give some perspective.
Suffice it to say that we had a wonderful week, and I firmly believe that the West Coast Trail is something everyone should do at least once before they die.
April and I are already starting to toy with the idea of doing it again in the not-too-terribly-distant future. Probably next year. We figured we'd pack lighter (there were a lot of things in our packs this time that we simply didn't need), and take more time (there were a few days that were more than a little rushed; we figured we'd take nine days instead of six next time).
Still, it was an adventure, and one I'd really like to repeat someday.
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Activist Judges
There's been a lot of talk lately, both in Canada and the US about what people call Activist Judges. People of all political and social slants seem pretty much in agreement that Activist Judges are a bad thing. Where they're somewhat less certain is exactly what an Activist Judge is.
To the best of my ability to determine, an Activist Judge is defined as "any Judge who makes a judgment that you, personally, disagree with." More precisely, an Activist Judge is any judge who makes a decision contrary to the personal opinion of those with the loudest voices.
Nowadays, you barely hear of any court case where someone wasn't accusing the judge who made the ruling of "judicial activism," or "legislating from the bench."
Let's consider this for a moment. Webster's defines "legislate" as: "To make or enact laws."
Okay. That officially makes "legislating from the bench" impossible. No court in the United States (or Canada, for that matter), including the supreme court, has the power to create laws. They can overturn laws, based upon the facts presented before them, but they cannot create them.
To me, a good legal decision is defined as one where, upon reading it, you cannot tell what the judge's political leanings are. If you can read a judgment, and you have no idea upon reading it whether the judge is a conservative or a liberal, democrat or rebublican; that's a sign of a well-crafted judgment.
Take the Canadian Supreme Court decision which led to Bill C-38 for example. That, in my view, was a good judgment. They made very clear that Bill C-38 could be passed by the federal government, provided that freedom of religion was protected.
Take the recent idiocy of the Terri Schiavo affair in the United States. A Florida Judge announced that it was the right of the husband to make decsions regarding the health of his spouse. Congress didn't much care for that decision (particularly since it would piss off the Republicans' Pro-Life base), and immediately passed a bill of attainder such that the federal courts could act, if they so chose, in this one specific instance, for this one specific person. Ignoring, for the moment, that bills of attainder aimed at one specific person are specifically prohibited by the American constitution; the federal courts basically said: "it's not our affair," and sent it back to the state level. Nice to know my tax dollars are being well spent by congress.
In both cases, the judgments were, in my view, sound. And in both cases, someone rose up to scream that Activist Judges were "legislating from the bench."
Well, in the interest of historical perspective, I offer here a few other cases where judges have been accused of Judicial Activism:
Roe v. Wade
Loving v. State of Virginia
Brown v. Board of Education
I'll let you look those up yourself; but when you do, consider the fact that these, cases, too, brought forth accusations of judicial activism. The unelected judges are legislating from the bench, people insisted. The Supreme Court is filled, they insisted, with Activist Judges.
If we define "progress" to be equivalent to "activism," maybe they're right. If and if we can agree that progress really isn't a bad thing, maybe we can agree that judicial activism maybe isn't such a bad thing after all.
To the best of my ability to determine, an Activist Judge is defined as "any Judge who makes a judgment that you, personally, disagree with." More precisely, an Activist Judge is any judge who makes a decision contrary to the personal opinion of those with the loudest voices.
Nowadays, you barely hear of any court case where someone wasn't accusing the judge who made the ruling of "judicial activism," or "legislating from the bench."
Let's consider this for a moment. Webster's defines "legislate" as: "To make or enact laws."
Okay. That officially makes "legislating from the bench" impossible. No court in the United States (or Canada, for that matter), including the supreme court, has the power to create laws. They can overturn laws, based upon the facts presented before them, but they cannot create them.
To me, a good legal decision is defined as one where, upon reading it, you cannot tell what the judge's political leanings are. If you can read a judgment, and you have no idea upon reading it whether the judge is a conservative or a liberal, democrat or rebublican; that's a sign of a well-crafted judgment.
Take the Canadian Supreme Court decision which led to Bill C-38 for example. That, in my view, was a good judgment. They made very clear that Bill C-38 could be passed by the federal government, provided that freedom of religion was protected.
Take the recent idiocy of the Terri Schiavo affair in the United States. A Florida Judge announced that it was the right of the husband to make decsions regarding the health of his spouse. Congress didn't much care for that decision (particularly since it would piss off the Republicans' Pro-Life base), and immediately passed a bill of attainder such that the federal courts could act, if they so chose, in this one specific instance, for this one specific person. Ignoring, for the moment, that bills of attainder aimed at one specific person are specifically prohibited by the American constitution; the federal courts basically said: "it's not our affair," and sent it back to the state level. Nice to know my tax dollars are being well spent by congress.
In both cases, the judgments were, in my view, sound. And in both cases, someone rose up to scream that Activist Judges were "legislating from the bench."
Well, in the interest of historical perspective, I offer here a few other cases where judges have been accused of Judicial Activism:
Roe v. Wade
Loving v. State of Virginia
Brown v. Board of Education
I'll let you look those up yourself; but when you do, consider the fact that these, cases, too, brought forth accusations of judicial activism. The unelected judges are legislating from the bench, people insisted. The Supreme Court is filled, they insisted, with Activist Judges.
If we define "progress" to be equivalent to "activism," maybe they're right. If and if we can agree that progress really isn't a bad thing, maybe we can agree that judicial activism maybe isn't such a bad thing after all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
