tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-52760554951322606252024-03-14T01:51:23.942-07:00One Without Faith<b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infidel">Infidel</a></b> (literally "one without faith") is an English word meaning "one who doubts or rejects central tenets of a religion or has no religious beliefs".<br>
<b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism">Skepticism</a></b> is a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing.Philiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06021346110340833907noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276055495132260625.post-1748195670771333582011-05-24T23:27:00.001-07:002011-05-24T23:39:09.357-07:00The Daily Show Promotes Conspiracy Theorist<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-top: 10px; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><p>I lost a lot of respect for the Daily Show after <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-may-17-2011-annie-jacobsen">this episode</a> in which he interviews Annie Jacobsen. </p><p>Jon Stewart generally displays a healthy skepticism (eg, the recent interview of <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/exclusive---david-barton-extended-interview-pt--1">David Barton</a>), but he gave a woman with a history of sloppy journalism and <a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/skyterror.asp">exploiting paranoia</a> the opportunity to promote her Area 51 book on his show.</p><p>He didn't call her on BS that can be refuted by the freakin' <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_51">wikipedia article</a>; eg, the map they showed was the Nevada Test and Training Range, of which Area 51 is only a small part. And the only real controversial new findings are confirmed only by an anonymous source that nobody else has spoken to. </p><p>The controversial finding? Joseph Mengele mutated children to look like aliens, and Stalin sent them to the U.S. in a hovercraft to create an alien scare in the U.S. <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386999/Stalin-Joseph-Mengele-Nazi-jet-fighter-New-book-Annie-Jacobsen-reveals-real-story-alien-landing-Roswell.html">Seriously</a>.</p><p>And <a href="http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=136356848&m=136356931">NPR, too</a>? WTF, liberal media?</p><p><br /></p></div>Philiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06021346110340833907noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276055495132260625.post-25468921714697244252009-07-11T09:25:00.001-07:002009-07-11T09:34:03.464-07:00More on Hitchens<span class="Apple-style-span" style=" white-space: pre-wrap; font-family:monospace;font-size:13px;"><div>A few more thoughts on Christopher <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Hitchens ...</span></div><div><br /></div><div>In my previous post I failed to mention how rough he looked. He limped out to the podium, the result of a spider or insect bite on his leg. He appeared to be sweating profusely, and didn't seem quite as quick on his feet as the one time I'd seen him speak before. But he managed to stay articulate and sharp through it all.</div><div><br /></div><div>The questions asked to him were moderated, and they were pretty much all softballs. No questions regarding the legitimacy of the Iraq war were posed.</div><div><br /></div><div>I find him a far stronger journalist than forecaster. Not many risk their well being to sneak into North Korea to offer first-hand reporting. Fewer than that have themselves voluntarily <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">water boarded</span>. </div><div><br /></div><div>The times when he simply describes the atrocities of these regimes and leaves it to the reader/listener to decide how to act are, in my opinion, his strongest moments. And in this talk he pretty much did just that - he didn't offer much in the way of <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">recommendations</span> on what the U.S. or the any other nation should do in response to North Korea or Iran.</div><div><br /></div><div>But when he starts trying to extrapolate how likely a country is to develop nuclear arms, or what they will do when they get them, I just don't think he's got a better idea than anyone else. </div></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:monospace, fantasy;font-size:100%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" white-space: pre-wrap;font-size:13px;"><br /></span></span></div>Philiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06021346110340833907noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276055495132260625.post-61425753561753818382009-07-10T18:50:00.000-07:002009-07-10T20:32:28.726-07:00Hitchens in Palo AltoI organized an event with a <a href="http://atheists.meetup.com/561/calendar/10806224/">local atheist group</a> to go see Christopher <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Hitchens</span> in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Palo</span> Alto last night. The talk was hosted by the <a href="http://tickets.commonwealthclub.org/"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Commonwealth</span> Club</a> but not advertised very much - I stumbled across the event on <a href="http://www.goldstar.com/events/palo-alto-ca/author-christopher-hitchens.html"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">GoldStar</span> </a>about 5 days earlier.<div><br /></div>He only spoke for about an hour. The topic was "Iran, Iraq, North Korea". When I mentioned the talk to <a href="http://thinkingasaprofession.blogspot.com/">Derek </a>he predicted <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Hitchens</span> would mention that he's the only writer to have visited all 3 countries, and he did so in about the first 30 seconds. He told several interesting stories of <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">totalitarianism</span> in all 3. These that stand out in my mind:<div><ul><li><b>Iraq </b>- The tale of Hussein's cold-blooded rise to power (related <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200205/bowden/3">here</a> in an Atlantic article), noting the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">similarities</span> to mafia tactics.</li><li><b>North Korea</b> - The almost comical <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">similarities</span> to Orwell's <i>1984</i>.</li><li><b>Iran </b>- He was mostly hopeful in <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">discussing</span> Iran, noting that it is a moderate country ruled by an extreme minority, and the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">demographics</span> are shifting the right way (something like half the country is under 25). He made a similar point of Palestine.</li></ul><div>His overarching them was that any government that considers its people iis property are dispicable, and we should not shy from labeling them as evil.</div><div><br /></div><div>Overall it was good, but short. He didn't mentioned any major ideas I hadn't read or heard before. He made the requisite joke about whiskey. But he's smart and articulate and funny and skeptical, so I dig him.</div><div><br /></div><div>After the talk we had a lively discussion at a local pub.</div></div>Philiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06021346110340833907noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276055495132260625.post-77716694692227396852009-04-06T15:19:00.000-07:002009-04-06T15:26:43.277-07:00Are we a Christian nation?From a <a href="http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19031&loc=interstitialskip">2007 poll</a>, <div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:'Times New Roman';"><blockquote>Sixty-five percent of Americans believe that the nation's founders intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation and 55% believe that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation.<br /></blockquote></span>From <a href="http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_to_Turkey_We_are_not_0406.html">President Obama's address to the Turkish press</a> today:</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:'times new roman';"><blockquote>I've said before that one of the great strengths of the United States is, although as I mentioned we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.</blockquote></span>I applaud the sentiment, Mr. President, but I'm not sure who this "we" is you're talking about.</div>Philiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06021346110340833907noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276055495132260625.post-58729364194682744832009-02-20T11:00:00.000-08:002009-02-20T11:08:08.157-08:00Why is science important?<div>Via <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/02/20/why-is-science-important/">Bad Astronomy</a>, <a href="http://whyscience.co.uk/">these guys</a> have some good answers. I've only read a few, but <a href="http://whyscience.co.uk/2009/02/steffi-suhr.php">this</a> is my favorite so far.</div>Philiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06021346110340833907noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276055495132260625.post-6959661033254659682009-02-18T13:02:00.000-08:002009-02-18T13:05:19.481-08:00No atheists working for the state of ArkansasA friend shared this <a href="http://www.usnews.com/blogs/erbe/2009/2/17/arkansas-5-other-states-ban-atheists-from-public-service-seriously.html">US News article</a> on Facebook today. I'm sure these are akin to other archaic state laws banning such things as adultery and sodomy - officially ilegal, but unenforcable and just waiting for someone to challenge their constitutionality. <div><br /></div><div>On the bright side, I doubt any of us were interested in moving to Arkansas anyway.</div>Philiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06021346110340833907noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276055495132260625.post-60393367349825522012009-01-25T18:00:00.000-08:002009-04-15T10:56:30.731-07:00Is Christianity Good for the World?<span style="font-style: italic;">Is Christianity Good for the World?</span> is a written debate between <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens">Christopher <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Hitchens</span></a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Wilson_%28theologian%29">Douglas Wilson</a>. My friend <a href="http://thinkingasaprofession.blogspot.com/">Derek </a>bought it for me for Christmas. Needless to say, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Hitchens</span> was con and Wilson pro.<br /><br />I looked forward to reading it because it's a different question from the traditional theist vs atheist debate of whether or not we have sufficient evidence for the existence of a god. It's quite possible for the Christian god not to exist, yet for Christian belief to be healthy for individuals or society. I don't happen to believe that's the case, but it is an interesting (and in some ways measurable) question.<br /><br />Alas, I found the debate sorely lacking. To my surprise, I was most disappointed in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Hitchens</span>.<br /><br />First off, the debate was not framed impartially. I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised as it was originally published in <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/">Christianity Today</a>. The introduction was written by a Jewish theologian who obviously favored the pro perspective. Take this section:<br /><blockquote>The yearning for a religious order is innate to mankind-even if some individual spiritual albinos find themselves missing the gene. Should Christopher succeed in burning Christianity to the ground, he will not be able to stop humanity from building a new temple in its place.<br /></blockquote>Accepting these assertions renders the argument moot, which surely qualifies it as a poor preface to the debate. If religion is innate to mankind and its institutions inevitable either (a) the pro argument wins or (b) the con argument wins but, who cares, since we can't end theism as long as there are humans?<br /><br />And <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Hitchens</span> is a "spiritual albino" who wants to burn Christianity to the ground? So, the only reason to argue the con side is to be flawed or militant? Nice.<br /><br />On to the debate itself ...<br /><br />Wilson begins with the classic creationist <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">misperception</span> that confuses cause with effect.<br /><blockquote>God knew that we were going to need to pick up dimes, and so He gave us fingernails. He knew that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">twilights</span> displayed in blue, apricot, and battle gray would be entirely astonishing and beyond us, and so He gave us eyes that can see in <span style="font-style: italic;">color</span>.</blockquote>He continues with another half dozen or so examples where human evolution has adapted to our environment, and credits god for adapting the environment to us.<br /><br />Wilson goes on to explain that atheists believe as they do because they "can not handle the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Godness</span> of God" and "do not want to thank Him". Um ... if there isn't a God, there's no <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Godness</span> to handle, and nobody to thank.<br /><br />Most of the debate centered on 2 topics: Christianity is responsible for bad stuff, and where do we get morality without religion? They do an awful job of sticking to the topic. They're mostly arguing pro and con on theism, not Christianity.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Christianity</span> has been responsible for many moral atrocities.</span><br /><br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Hitchens</span> asserts that Christianity can not take credit for its followers' moral behavior without also accepting blame for their atrocities (e.g., the crusades, slavery, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">anti</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">semitism</span>).<br /><br />Wilson's first response is that this is like saying a professor can't accept credit for <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">succesful</span> students <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">without</span> also accepting blame for "the dope-smoking slacker that he kicked out of class in the second week". This argument is so flawed I almost don't know where to begin, and I'm disappointed that Hitchens didn't take it on.<br /><br />Is the professor also in charge of the university's entrance requirements? If 90% of the class is smoking pot can we still not blame the professor? What if the professor himself is smoking pot? Do professorless classes behave worse?<br /><br />This thread goes almost nowhere, as Hitchens says "look at the bad stuff Christians did" and Wilson says "those were just the bad Christians".<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">What is the basis of morality?</span><br /><br />This is <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">initially</span> posed by Wilson as "what is truth", but the remainder of the debate focuses almost entirely on moral truth.<br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17"><br />Hitchens</span> asserts that the moral precepts on which Christianity prides itself, such as "love thy neighbor" and the Golden Rule, did not originate with Christianity. And further that many Christian teachings are immoral, such as vicarious redemption (i.e., our sins are absolved by Jesus' actions, not ours).<br /><br />Wilson does not deny either of these assertions, but simply questions what is the basis for morality without a god. This is a bit disingenuous since the debate is specifically about Christianity - he's just arguing for theism at this point - but we'll let that go. He concedes that non-religious people behave morally (a classic circular argument of theism, giving god credit for the moral behavior of non-believers). If there is no god, he asks, why should we consider theft, murder, genocides, etc. reprehensible things, instead of simply "stuff happens".<br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18"><br />Hitchens</span> barely responds to this at all, which I think <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">is</span> the fatal flaw in his debate, for this surely is the crucial concept: <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">do we need to believe in the supernatural to be moral</span>? I think the answer is clearly "no", but it is the point that most needs arguing to the Christian world, and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">Hitchens</span> barely makes it.<br /><br />About all he does provide is "innate human solidarity"; i.e., basic morality is self-evident, and we should rely on our instincts. Lame. "It's self evident" is as weak and baseless as "it's in the bible".<br /><br />He does demonstrate that Christian morality is every bit as relative as that of an atheist. He again lists many things that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">were</span> considered moral by all or many Christians in various societies or points in history (e.g., genocide, slavery) that almost nobody, Christian or otherwise, would find moral today.<br /><br />In the end, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">Hitchens</span> pretty well demonstrates that Christianity might not be altogether bad for the world, but we get by just fine without it. Non-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">christians, he argues,</span> aren't necessarily more moral than Christians, but they're just as good with less baggage. But he never provides a secular basis for morality, which is sad since many good arguments exist.<br /><br />They mostly agree on what right and wrong is, but Wilson gives all credit and blame to god and those that choose not to follow him, while Hitchens gives credit to human mind and societies. Despite my admittedly biased view on the topic, I have to consider the debate a draw.Philiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06021346110340833907noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276055495132260625.post-81145570557972767542009-01-24T14:48:00.000-08:002009-01-24T15:28:51.466-08:00Lost [1.9-1.12]Things are picking up steam now.<br /><br />SPOILER WARNING<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Solitary</span>: We gets <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Sayid's</span> back story as an Iraqi interrogator who falls for a female Shiite captive. The writers also bludgeon the viewer with themes of karma. Again, <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">they're</span> not much for <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">subtlety</span> in this show.<br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Sayid</span> sets out nominally to map out the island, but mainly out of guilt for torturing Sawyer. He finds the French woman (from the transmission in the Pilot episode). Her name is Danielle Rousseau, and she was part of a seafaring science expedition that crashed (I think that's now 3 separate ship/plane crashes: this, the wreckage in the cave, and the Lost flight). She killed everyone in her party, either because the island drove them or her mad (the latter seems most likely). She captures and tortures <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Sayid</span>, and informs him that there are other humans on the island whom she hasn't heard (whispers in the jungle) but not heard. When <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Sayid</span> escapes, he hears the voices. Or was it just the wind?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Raised by Another</span> - Claire, the pregnant lady, was flying to LA to offer her child for adoption. She did so at the encouragement of a psychic who warned of great (and vague) danger to the child were she to do otherwise. It seems he knew the flight would crash. A member of the party (Ethan) turns out not to have been on the flight. He encounters Claire and Charlie in the jingle and ...<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues</span> - ... <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">kidaps</span> them. (side note: what a lame title) More back story on Jack, who refused to lie to save his father's job after the latter botched a surgery while drunk. It appears this drove the elder doctor into depression and alcoholism, and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">eventualy</span> to his death. Jack gets his ass kicked by Ethan who ominously warns him not to keep following. They don't find Claire, but they barely save Charlie, who remembers nothing. Boone and Locke stumble upon a metal enclosure while searching for Claire.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Whatever the Case May Be</span>: They seem remarkably unconcerned about Claire this <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">spisode</span>. They also don't expand on the metal enclosure, although there' s a brief scene with Boone, Locke, and an axe, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">immplying</span> they're still working on busting in but haven't told anyone.<br />What do we have lurking in the jungle now? A huge mysterious beast, along with more pedestrian ones. A crazy French woman with guns and electricity, and the skill to set tripwires and bear traps. And a group of kidnappers. This episode begins with Kate picking fruit in the jungle by herself.<br />Sawyer and Kate find a couple corpses from the plane wreck in a lagoon along with the U.S. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">marshall's</span> lock box. We learn that Kate was a con artist and bank robber, and this case contains a small model airplane that belonged to Kate's former lover whom she killed. She staged a bank robbery just to recover this trinket from a safe deposit box. Was this robbery the crime for which she was being taken to prison, or the murder, or both?<br /><br />The big news is new people on the island. It bugs me when <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">there's</span> a major event one episode, and the next episode everyone seems blase about it. Why the heck is Charlie not scouring the jungle for Kate? And with all the freaky shit going on, people are still not too bothered about staying in large groups or carrying weapons.<br /><br />Open issues:<br /><ol><li>What's the big beast?</li><li> Why is there a polar bear on a tropical island?</li><li> What else does Danielle Rousseau know about the island?<br /></li><li> Did anyone in the tail section survive?</li><li> What led Kate to kill her lover?<br /></li><li> How did Locke regain use of his legs?</li><li>How did they all survive the crash?</li><li>Did Claire's psychic know about the crash, and if so how?<br /></li><li>Who are Ethan and the kidnappers, and what do they want with Claire? How were they able to make Charlie lose his memory?</li><li>What's in the metal enclosure?<br /></li></ol>Philiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06021346110340833907noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276055495132260625.post-89661313080069337002009-01-24T14:08:00.000-08:002009-01-24T14:47:38.779-08:00Lost [1.5-1.8]No major revelations in this section, mostly character back story.<br /><br />SPOILER ALERT<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Each episode focused on the back story of one character.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">White Rabbit</span>: <span>Dr. Jack</span> has father issues, and the guy he saw on the beach was a hallucination of his dead father (whom he was trying to find in Australia). Whether he's going crazy or the island is messing with his mind remains to be seen, but my money's on the latter. Is the island basically a big dream machine that exposes people to their fears, helps them face their inner demons? Chasing his <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">faux</span> father helps Jack find a new cave home for everyone.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">House of the Rising Sun</span>: The Japanese couple (Jin and Sun) once were in puppy love, but working for his father-in-law changed the husband into a brute. Sun was planning to leave him at the airport before the ill-fated flight, but at the last minute a sappy flower reminds her of the pure love they once enjoyed, and she forgot the years of abuse and neglect to remain true to her asshole hubby. We also learn, unbeknownst to Jin and everyone else, Sun speaks English. She'll be eavesdropping on conversations soon.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Moth</span>: Charlie used to be in a band loosely based on Oasis as far as I can tell (led by two brothers, one's name Liam). At first it's "about the music", but the fame changes them, man. Locke ("the colonel")l helps Charlie kick his habit with a combination of Zen witticisms and tough love.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Confidence Man</span>: Sawyer's a self-absorbed con artist, but he has a soft side - he only acts that way because he hates himself. Why? Because a con man seduced his mother and stole all their money, resulting in the murder-suicide of Sawyer's parents. But, in his revenge quest, he became a con man himself - he became exactly what he hated. This would have been an example of subtle irony if it had been subtle. Some combination of self-loathing and enjoying messing with people's heads leads us on a "slippery slope to torture" storyline that rang false for me.<br /><br />All 4 episodes were quite sappy, but I actually enjoyed them for the most part. We didn't learn anything about the island, and we only answered one mystery (Jack's halluci-dad). The only new mystery introduced was speculation by Locke that they couldn't possibly have survived the crash out of mere chance.<br /><br />So, we're left with:<br /><ol><li>What's the big beast?</li><li> Why is there a polar bear on a tropical island?</li><li> What is the origin of the french distress signal, and is the speaker still alive?</li><li> Did anyone in the tail section survive?</li><li> What did Kate do that led her to a life on the lam?</li><li> How did Locke regain use of his legs?</li><li>How did they all survive the crash?<br /></li></ol>Philiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06021346110340833907noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276055495132260625.post-46508842300289691982009-01-21T13:13:00.000-08:002009-01-21T13:18:37.982-08:00A Welcome Change<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/44_01_21/4442_17682555.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 495px; height: 314px;" src="http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/44_01_21/4442_17682555.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(85, 26, 139); text-decoration: underline;"><br /></span>Philiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06021346110340833907noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276055495132260625.post-45862626880105726512009-01-21T10:58:00.001-08:002009-01-21T12:10:51.383-08:00Lost [1.1-1.4]I know I'm way behind the times, but I just started watching the first season of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_(TV_series)">Lost </a>on DVD. The only other thing I've seen by J. J. Abrams is <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloverfield">Cloverfield</a></span>, which I liked. <div><br /></div><div>I'm through the first 4 episodes. I have to admit I'm hooked, at least enough to watch the rest of season 1. But given the hype I'm not all that impressed yet. <div><br /></div><div>THERE BE SPOILERS HERE</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Quick intro if you haven't seen the show - a plane crashes on a deserted island and ... well, that's about it for now.</div><div><br /></div><div>Here's what I don't like:<br /><div><ol><li><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Wayyyyy</span> too much cheesy melodramatic dialog. A little here and there is okay, but does every single conversation have to contain some weighty life lesson about fear, <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">perseverance</span>, and hope?</li><li>There's this mysterious giant thing that periodically growls and shakes the trees a few hundred feet from the beach. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Everyone is</span> terrified of it, but they still go wandering into the woods every 5 minutes. And they never go check out the trees it knocks over or the area around it - wouldn't that be the first thing you'd do? I'd want to get some idea of what it is. At first they don't even know if it's mechanical or organic, although it later appears to be an animal. It also makes exactly the same noise as boars and polar bears.</li><li>Speaking of the polar bear, they manage to kill one with the only gun on the plane. Then they just leave it to rot in the jungle. They've just spent almost all the bullets they have, and they have no sustainable food supply, yet there's not even a discussion of eating it.</li></ol><div>The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">show has</span> a good <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">fomula</span> though. Each episode you generally get the back story of one character (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">which</span> usually includes some mystery), and the revelation of another island mystery. The acting and dialog are, as I mentioned, dripping with melodrama, but it's watchable. The directing of the scenes where new island mysteries are revealed are well done. I see just enough to pique my curiosity, but not enough to really have any idea what I saw. The characters' reactions to the mysteries seem contrived, though.</div><div><br /></div><div>Open questions so far:</div><div><ol><li>What's the big beast (it sounds an awful lot like the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7"><a href="http://www.jacklovesyou.com/misc/Cloverfield.jpg">Cloverfield</a></span><a href="http://www.jacklovesyou.com/misc/Cloverfield.jpg"> monster</a>)?</li><li>Why is there a polar bear on a tropical island?</li><li>What is the origin of the french distress signal, and is the speaker still alive?</li><li>Who's the guy in the suit Dr. Jack briefly saw on the beach?</li><li>Did anyone in the tail section survive (I'm betting yes, and that this will be an end-of-season revelation for either season 1 or 2)?</li><li>What did Kate do that led her to a life on the lam (maybe euthanasia)?</li><li>How did "the colonel" regain use of his legs?</li></ol><div>I'm sure by the end of season 1 there will be about three times this many new questions and maybe 2 of them will have been resolved. I don't really have any theories yet. It has the feel that they're part of some big experiment, or maybe a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Most_Dangerous_Game">Most Dangerous Game</a> scenario. </div><div><br /></div><div>It's still on the air and has a loyal following, so I'm guessing it does better than Twin Peaks in keeping a good story going over several seasons. I'll keep you posted on my progress.</div></div></div></div></div>Philiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06021346110340833907noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276055495132260625.post-69235644978250623962008-12-23T16:33:00.000-08:002008-12-23T16:58:30.124-08:00It all makes sense now ...<a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/less-qualified.html">This post</a> from Andrew Sullivan's blog finally makes sense of <a href="http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F0_0_s_9_0_t&usg=AFQjCNF-lBsKD1M6HWFb4rSGexAWZ8bdlw&sig2=RbHKqhHk7brwy5wS1aFLCg&cid=1282532178&ei=3YNRSbCZHIb2gAOw4KCLAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.baltimoresun.com%2Fnews%2Fopinion%2Fletters%2Fbal-ed.le.letters23d21dec23%2C0%2C4585463.story">Caroline Kennedy replacing Hillary Clinton as NY Senator</a>.<br /><br />The whole thing was confusing me - why would anyone want this person as their Senator?<br /><br />Ah, but it's so simple. The Democrats were jealous of how close Sarah <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Palin</span> came to the Vice Presidency. So, they're one-upping the Republicans. They've found someone even <span style="font-style: italic;">less</span> qualified for public service to gift with a Senate seat.<br /><br />Well played, cynical Democrats, well played.Philiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06021346110340833907noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276055495132260625.post-24827305800368327872008-12-20T14:16:00.000-08:002010-04-15T19:57:09.087-07:00InfidelI read the book <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infidel_%28book%29">Infidel by <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Ayaan</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Hirsi</span> Ali</a> a few months ago, and just noticed I had this half-written review in my drafts folder. Unfortunately the book is not still fresh in my head so I won't do a full review, but I will offer this one point.<div> <div>From the forward by Christopher <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Hitchens</span>:<br /><blockquote>Here is the very encapsulation of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">sado</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">masochosm</span> of religion; it makes impossible demands on people and then convicts them of original sin when they fail to live up to them.</blockquote>Via <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infidel_%28book%29"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">wikipedia</span></a>, an <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">excerpt</span> from an <a href="http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8663231">Economist review</a>:<br /><blockquote>much as she tries, the kind of problems that Ms <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Hirsi</span> Ali describes in <i>Infidel</i> are all too human to be blamed entirely on Islam. Her book shows that her life, like those of other Muslims, is more complex than many people in the West may have realised. But the West's tendency to seek simplistic explanations is a weakness that Ms <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Hirsi</span> Ali also shows she has been happy to exploit.<br /></blockquote>I'm with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Hitchens</span>, and I couldn't disagree more with the Economist review. </div><div><br /></div><div>Ali clearly describes an array of liberal vs conservative interpretations of Islamic law. Her mother forbade the women and men of the family from praying together, but her father insisted they do pray as a family. Kenya was more liberal than Somalia, and the Islamic sub-culture in Holland was more liberal still. Some women were allowed to attend school, others not.<br /><br />But in all cases, women were to be subservient to men, and were considered less valuable. And they were punished when they behaved otherwise. This culture was supported by both men and women, particularly in the older generations. The description of Ali's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting">female circumcision</a> is particularly harrowing. She was 5 years old, and her grandmother held her down during the procedure.</div><div><br /></div><div>And don't even get me started on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing">honor killings</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div>The only reason the issue is complex is because the Middle East is blinded by faith and the West is blinded by cultural sensitivity and moral relativism (plus, you know, all the oil they have). Muslim men treat women this way because it is tradition and because it is written in the scripture they hold sacred. And they know their neighbors will back them up.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>So, I'm a closed-minded Westerner with a "tendency to seek simplistic explanations" if I violently oppose this behavior, and recognize the obvious connection with religious faith? </div><div><br /></div><div>Fuck that shit.</div></div>Philiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06021346110340833907noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276055495132260625.post-44955606561627497342008-12-12T17:22:00.000-08:002008-12-12T17:30:49.511-08:00Today I blog about cute baby animalsI know I'm a guy but, come on, is <a href="http://www.zooborns.com/zooborns/2008/10/knoxville-zoo-a.html#more">this not the cutest thing ever</a>? And <a href="http://www.zooborns.com/zooborns/2008/12/its-a-gorilla-san-fransisco-zoo-receives-early-holiday-gift-with-the-birth-of-baby-boy.html">this one</a> is just up the road from me.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.zooborns.com/">http://www.zooborns.com/</a> is a cool site. For those times when you want to see something adorable, but you're just sick of house cats.Philiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06021346110340833907noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276055495132260625.post-20530290592446428712008-12-12T08:51:00.000-08:002008-12-12T09:58:09.286-08:00The Christmas Tree RantFollowing is an email message I received yesterday. It was sent to a group of about 10 of the sender's friends and family, plus me by mistake.<br /><br />--------------------------------<br /><dl><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times;">THIS IS A</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);font-family:Times New Roman,Times;" > CHRISTMAS TREE</span>, NOTHING ELSE.<br /><div align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span></div><dd><span style=";font-family:Tahoma;font-size:180%;" >This is NOT a Holiday Tree<br /><br /></span> </dd><dd><img alt="[]" src="http://mail.google.com/mail/h/11ekultjzyexs/?view=att&th=11e2814de25dea8e&attid=0.1.1&disp=emb&zw" height="383" width="510" /> <span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span> </dd><dd><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);font-size:6;" >This is a </span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);font-family:Tahoma;font-size:6;" >Christ</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);font-family:Tahoma;font-size:6;" >mas tree.<br /></span> </dd><dd><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);font-family:Tahoma;font-size:6;" >It is not a Hanukkah bush,<br /></span> </dd><dd><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);font-family:Tahoma;font-size:6;" >It is not an Allah plant,<br /></span> </dd><dd><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);font-family:Tahoma;font-size:6;" >It is not a Kawanza shrub<br /></span> </dd><dd><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);font-family:Tahoma;font-size:6;" >It is not a</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 128, 128);font-family:Tahoma;font-size:6;" > </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);font-family:Tahoma;font-size:6;" >Holiday hedge.<br /></span> </dd><dd><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);font-family:Tahoma;font-size:7;" >It is a </span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);font-family:Tahoma;font-size:7;" >Christmas</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);font-family:Tahoma;font-size:7;" >tree.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);font-family:Tahoma;font-size:6;" ><br /></span> </dd><dd><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);font-family:Tahoma;font-size:7;" >Say it...</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);font-family:Tahoma;font-size:6;" > </span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);font-family:Tahoma;font-size:6;" >CHRIST</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);font-family:Tahoma;font-size:6;" >mas</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);font-family:Tahoma;font-size:7;" >, </span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);font-family:Tahoma;font-size:6;" >CHRIST</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);font-family:Tahoma;font-size:6;" >mas</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);font-family:Tahoma;font-size:7;" >, </span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);font-family:Tahoma;font-size:6;" >CHRIST</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);font-family:Tahoma;font-size:6;" >mas</span> <span style=";font-family:Tahoma;font-size:85%;" ><br /></span> </dd><dd><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);font-family:Tahoma;font-size:6;" >Yes. </span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);font-family:Tahoma;font-size:6;" >CHRIST</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);font-family:Tahoma;font-size:6;" >mas - celebrating<br /></span><span style=";font-family:Tahoma;font-size:85%;" ><br /></span> </dd><dd><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);font-family:Tahoma;font-size:6;" >The </span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);font-family:Tahoma;font-size:6;" >Birth of Jesus Christ</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);font-family:Tahoma;font-size:6;" >!!!<br /></span><span style=";font-family:Tahoma;font-size:85%;" ><br /><br /></span> </dd><dd><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);font-family:Tahoma;font-size:6;" >Take a stand and pass this on !!<br /></span><span style=";font-family:Tahoma;font-size:85%;" ><br /></span> </dd><dd><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);font-family:Tahoma;font-size:6;" >Jesus is the reason for the season... Amen!!!!!<br /></span> </dd><dd><img alt="[]" src="http://mail.google.com/mail/h/11ekultjzyexs/?view=att&th=11e2814de25dea8e&attid=0.1.2&disp=emb&zw" height="87" width="118" /> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times;"><br /></span> </dd><dd><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times;"> </span><span style=";font-family:Tahoma;font-size:7;" >Merry CHRISTmas to You!<br /></span> </dd><dd><img alt="[]" src="http://mail.google.com/mail/h/11ekultjzyexs/?view=att&th=11e2814de25dea8e&attid=0.1.3&disp=emb&zw" height="208" width="167" /> </dd></dl><br />--------------------------------<br /><br />'tis the season for the War on Christmas. It always amazes me how a group comprising 85% of the United States can manage to consider itself maligned by the minority.<br /><br />I could understand if someone were referring to a nativity scene as a "Hotel Overflow Moment". But, pine trees covered with lights, anthropomorphic snowmen, "squishy winter huggies"" - it's silly to take offense that these don't prompt a "praise Jesus" from the congregation.<br /><br />Anyway, here's the response I sent. And yes, I selected "Reply All".<br /><br />--------------------------------<br /><br />First, I know this wasn't intended for me but I've received it and I'm going to respond. I'm not a Christian - shame on you for trying to make me and others feel like our beliefs are less compatible with this holiday than yours. I don't believe Jesus rose from the dead, but he seemed a decent fellow who never would have engaged in this type of rhetoric.<br /><br />Second, [my email address] is NOT [RECIPIENT'S NAME]. Please, remove the errant entry from your address books. I'm sure she's a lovely lady who does the Tucker name proud, but I get an unwanted message intended for her about once a month. And think how sad it is that she's missing out on her share of divisive propaganda this holiday season.<br /><br />Merry Christmas,<br />PhilipPhiliphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06021346110340833907noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276055495132260625.post-10853370440543404902008-12-09T15:44:00.000-08:002008-12-09T15:51:40.723-08:00Auto-detecting gamma ray burstsCheck out <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/12/09/gort-bags-a-burst/">this bit of coolness</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">That energy swept over the Earth just before sunrise on December 3. The gamma rays from the beams were detected by the Swift satellite, which promptly determined the burst’s position and sent the coordinates to Earth. Sent out via the Internet (srsly), telescopes across the planet responded to the call, and in northern California GORT swung its eye to the position of the gamma-ray burst. Within minutes of Swift’s detection of the burst, GORT began taking its images. The picture above was from just 7 minutes after Swift triggered.</span></blockquote><br />To recap, a satellite detected gamma rays and sent a "hey, check this out" email to a bunch of photo-telescopes around the world, and 7 minutes later they captured the image. With no human intervention.Philiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06021346110340833907noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276055495132260625.post-62610154968124244862008-12-07T21:09:00.000-08:002008-12-07T22:38:29.255-08:00W. Kumau Bell CurveI attended a comedy show in San Francisco last night called the <a href="http://events.sfgate.com/san-francisco-ca/events/show/85184121-the-w-kamau-bell-curve">W. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Kumau</span> Bell Curve</a>. He was named 2008 comedian of the year by <a href="http://www.sfweekly.com/bestof/2008/award/best-comedian-1032442/">SF weekly</a>. Most of his material deals with racism in America. A sample:<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EX2R-ucQIHY&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EX2R-ucQIHY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /><a href="http://www.climatetheater.com/">The Climate Theater</a> is a tiny venue - I doubt it sits more than 50 people. He had a laptop hooked up to a projector and worked some multi-media into the presentation - online news stories, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">youtube</span> videos (he opened with the latest from O. J. Simpson). I liked the intimacy and relatively low-tech nature of the production. He even played us a voicemail he received right off his phone. He interacted with the audience, and even responded to specific comments.<br /><br />I thought his strongest material was his personal stories. One moment I liked was comparing his own heritage to his white <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">fiancee's</span>. She's a mix of various European <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">ethnicities</span>, but she learned to speak Italian <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">growing</span> up, had visited Italy, and was particularly close to her Italian grandfather. So she described herself as Italian - to which he responded, "oh, you just get to choose ... must be nice". He juxtaposed this with his own experience as the only black kid in school, and his earliest realization that his classmates all saw him as belonging to a certain group whether he liked it or not.<br /><br />The saga of getting along with his <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">finacee's</span> racist grandfather was well done. There's a whole segment involving his attempt to introduce their family to his culture through sweet potato pie. My mom made this every year for Thanksgiving - I always thought it was just a southern thing, not an <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">African</span>-American thing.<br /><br />Much of the show addressed racism in current events, the bulk of which related to Barrack <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Obama's</span> election. It was all funny, and most of it was insightful, but I disagreed with a couple things.<br /><br />He related an experience while waiting to vote (at Starbucks - apparently they do that in some neighborhoods). A guy in front of them in line - a white guy Bell described as a <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">stereotypical</span> San Francisco hipster - began to accuse Bell of wearing a pro-Obama t-shirt, in violation of <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">campaigning</span> too near a polling station. When Bell pointed out it was actually a Richard Pryor t-shirt, the guy backed off.<br /><br />Now, it's certainly funny that the guy mistook Pryor for Obama. And he was being an ass since he wasn't working for the polling station, just acting as "the hall monitor", as Bell pointed out. But I didn't hear anything in the story suggesting the hipster wouldn't have done the same thing to another white guy - I didn't get why Bell thought this was racism instead of simple asshole-ism.<br /><br />He made some pretty sweeping statements, like all white people are responsible for racism (his argument is that we've all benefited from it <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">even</span> if we don't practice it), and white people should show appropriate pride and shame for actions of others of their race (at one point he put up a pic of Bush and asked if the white folks in the audience were ashamed of him).<br /><br />First, is there an easier way to get applause than criticizing George Bush in San Francisco?<br /><br />Second, I just didn't get this. I'm ashamed of much the current administration has done - I'm ashamed as an American, not as a white dude. I'm not any less ashamed of our state department's actions because it's headed by <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Condoleeza</span> Rice.<br /><br />I liked the show overall. Even the points with which I disagreed, I enjoyed being challenged in my thinking. As is often the case, humor is an excellent vehicle for engaging in controversial issues, and W. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Kumau</span> Bell does it better than most. Check him out if you get a chance.Philiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06021346110340833907noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276055495132260625.post-84020277060278031072008-12-05T18:27:00.001-08:002008-12-05T18:27:36.802-08:00They find our lack of faith ... disturbing<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fUrMcQ3ro0E&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fUrMcQ3ro0E&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Philiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06021346110340833907noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276055495132260625.post-80510046038501797802008-12-04T12:02:00.001-08:002008-12-06T14:37:38.362-08:00State mottosI just read <a href="http://richarddawkins.net/article,3391,n,n">this story</a> about an atheist group trying to change a Kentucky law that "requires Kentucky's Office of Homeland Security to acknowledge it can't keep the state safe without God's help". Some of the comments from the atheist group are laughable, the worst being:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote>It is one of the most egregiously and breathtakingly unconstitutional actions by a state legislature that I've ever seen".<br /></blockquote><br />Guys, I'm on your side, but you lost me with that one. I find the language distasteful, too, but don't equate it with state laws that tangibly impinge on civil liberties.<br /><br />Part of Kentucky's defense is that the <a href="http://kdla.ky.gov/resources/KYSymbols.htm">state motto</a> refers to God (this is an example of what we like to call "begging the question"). The state actually has 2 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">mottos</span>. The "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Offical</span> Motto" has been <em>United we stand, divided we fall</em> since 1942. In 2002 they added an "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Offical</span> Latin Motto", <em><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Deo</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">gratiam</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">habeamus</span></em> (Let us be grateful to God). The bill was the <a href="http://www.e-referencedesk.com/resources/state-motto/kentucky-latin.html">project of a group of home schooled <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">latin</span> students</a>:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote><br />The bill, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">HB</span> 857, was the project of a group of Lexington <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">homeschool</span> Latin students. They wrote the bill with help from State Rep. Tom <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Riner</span>, (D-Louisville) the bill's sponsor. Several of the students came to Frankfort once a week to meet with legislators, and guided it through the process themselves, learning about state government as they went along. The bill passed with votes of 88-0 in the House and 29-0 in the Senate with several members from each chamber not voting. Signed April 11 into Law by Governor Patton.<br /></blockquote><p>Not a single dissenting vote. Not surprising, I suppose, but disappointing this happened as recently as 2002. The whole thing seems pretty laughable to me (got a big Latin-speaking population there, Kentucky?). Clearly a sideways attempt to get religious language into state laws.</p>I don't really have much else to say about this. But it did make me curious about state <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">mottos</span>, so I looked them up on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_mottos"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">wikipedia</span></a>. Only 6 states explicitly mention "God", Kentucky plus:<br /><ul><li>Arizona - <em><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Ditat</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Deus</span></em> (God enriches)</li><li>Colorado - <em>Nil sine <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">numine</span> </em>(Nothing without God's will)</li><li>Florida - <em>In God We Trust</em></li><li>Ohio - <em>With God, all things are possible</em></li><li>South Dakota - <em>Under God the people rule</em></li></ul>Two others make what are apparently references to a supreme being:<br /><ul><li>Connecticut - <em><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Qui</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">transtulit</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">sustinet</span></em> (He who transplanted sustains)</li><li>Maine - <em><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Dirigo</span> </em>(I direct)</li></ul><p>I'm surprised there are so few. Of course, I found many of the ones that did not reference God more inspirational. But, it seems to me the secular ones would be just as inspirational to anybody, regardless of religious beliefs. Even when I was a Christian, I would have preferred strong sentiments like "We Dare Defend Our Rights" (Alabama) or "The people rule" (Arkansas) to the passive (and not terribly related to the role of state) "God enriches" or "In God we trust".</p><p>A few interesting ones:</p><ul><li>Kansas - <em>Ad <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">astra</span> per <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">aspera</span></em> (To the stars through adversity)<br />It would make a better motto for <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">Starfleet</span> Academy. It would be cooler if Kansas had anything to do with NASA or space exploration.</li><li>Michigan - <em>Si <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">quaeris</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">peninsulam</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">amoenam</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">circumspice</span></em> (If you seek a pleasant peninsula, look about you)<br />This one just cracked me up.</li><li>New Mexico - <em><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">Crescit</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">eundo</span></em> (It grows as it goes)<br />Was Dr. Seuss from New Mexico? It grows as it goes, as everyone knows, from Carlsbad Caverns to Los <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28">Alamos</span>. Probably doesn't rhyme in Latin.</li><li>Washington - <em>Al-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29">ki</span></em> (By and by)<br />If brevity is wit ...</li><li>Maryland - <em><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30">Fatti</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">maschi</span>, parole <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32">femmine</span></em> (Manly deeds, womanly words)<br />This is the worst one of all. It's clearly offensive to women, but I'm almost as offended as a man. What the heck is wrong with manly words?</li></ul><p>My favorites:</p><ul><li>Massachusetts - <em><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_33">Ense</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_34">petit</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_35">placidam</span> sub <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_36">libertate</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_37">quietem</span> </em>(By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty)<br />Are you listening, G. W.?</li><li>Minnesota - <em><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_38">Quae</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_39">sursum</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_40">volo</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_41">videre</span> </em>(I long to see what is beyond)<br /><em>The star of the North</em> is the actual state motto. This is the territorial motto, but I like it better.</li><li>New York - Excelsior (Ever upward!)<br />To infinity, and beyond!</li><li>North Carolina - <em><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_42">Esse</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_43">quam</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_44">videri</span></em> (To be rather than to seem)<br />Both poetic and intellectually satisfying.</li></ul><p>In the spirit of manly words that, apparently, aren't welcome in Maryland, my winner goes to ....</p><ul><li>New Hampshire - <em>Live Free or Die</em> </li></ul><p>Hell, yeah.</p>Philiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06021346110340833907noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276055495132260625.post-16500617716628958872008-12-01T20:10:00.000-08:002008-12-02T01:25:51.632-08:00Let The Right One InI went to see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_the_Right_One_In_%28film%29">Let The Right One In</a> last Tuesday. I probably should have written this review when the film was fresher in my mind, but it was an interesting movie so I'll do my best with week-old impressions.<br /><br />SPOILER ALERT<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Some disclaimers:<br /><ol><li>It got 98% on <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/lat_den_ratte_komma_in/"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">rottentomatos</span></span>.com</a>, 192<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">nd</span></span> best movie of all time <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1139797/">according to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">imdb</span></span>.com</a>, and two friends of mine highly recommended it. So, my expectations might have been unreasonably high.</li><li>The film is in Swedish with English subtitles. I found some of the dialog and acting to be weak, but some of that might be in the translation.</li><li>I must confess to an anti-vampire bias. Yeah, they're kind of cool - they get to stay up all night and live forever, they kill people but really they're just misunderstood. But how many <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">friggin</span></span>' movies do we need about them? I know this one's edgy and foreign and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">arthouse</span></span>, but still ... again with the vampires?<br /></li></ol>Synopsis: <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Oskar</span></span>, a 12-year-old social outcast and subject of school yard bullying, befriends his new neighbor Eli whom he sees only in their apartment's courtyard at night. She also is 12 years old, "more or less" - it turns out that's her age only insofar as she was 12 when she became a vampire. The movie focuses on the friendship between these 2 misfits.<br /><br />When Eli first moves in she is in the care of an adult named <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Håkan</span></span>. He's basically her <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renfield"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Renfield</span></span></a>, a loyal servant who protects her during the day and gathers fresh blood for her at night. Unfortunately he's incompetent. At first I thought this was lazy storytelling, since he couldn't have been providing for her very long acting this way. He <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">etherizes</span></span> people then hangs them upside-down to drain their blood, but fails to do so in secluded locales. Later it becomes clear he no longer has the stomach for his role in her life, so I chalked up his behavior more to weariness than incompetence.<br /><br />Problem is, the other adults in the film behave as stupidly as he does. We see news reports of the killings, and on at least 2 occasions witnesses identify a young black-haired girl. But law enforcement is almost non-existent, and not until very late in the film does anyone connect her with the creepy new guy and his <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">waifish</span></span> daughter who just moved in next door. And at that point a guy marches into her apartment (which is inexplicably unlocked) toting only a pocket knife.<br /><br />Eli also behaves carelessly when she takes to feeding herself. If she's really a 20-30 year old (the film is purposefully vague on this point - she could be centuries old for all we know), she'd have to be dense not to have learned better. I got the impression, though, that no matter how old she is, she's still stuck at 12. Emotionally, physically, and psychologically.<br /><br />In a needless subplot, Eli bites but does not finish the kill on a woman. This, of course, turns the poor woman (subtly named "Virginia") into a vampire. We see her get attacked by a throng of cats then commit suicide by exposing herself to sunlight and bursting into flames. Both scenes had some interesting special effects, but were laughably over the top and out of sync with the rest of the film. They added nothing to the story. Perhaps the filmmakers wanted to expand on the trying life of a vampire, but isn't one of the advantages of making a vampire flick that you don't have to explain all the rules?<br /><br />One strength of the film was the creepy-cool special effects used on Eli. When we first meet her she jumps of the top of a jungle gym onto the ground, and I'm not sure but I think some film trickery makes her almost imperceptibly land softer than would be natural, as if she floats to the ground. Her eyes grow slightly larger when she's in vampire mode, her skin tone changes based on how well-fed she is - she is sometimes a sweet little girl and sometimes a grotesque predator. All very well done visually.<br /><br />The heart of the film is the friendship arc between Eli and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Oskar</span></span>. They bond in part because neither has any other friends. She agrees to be his girlfriend in a scene that is sweet because neither of them really know what it means, and ironic because she's not a girl (down to the anatomical level, the film later makes graphically clear). When <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Oskar</span></span> learns her true nature, he is at first cruel and petty, but softens when confronted with some of the suffering she must endure.<br /><br />She convinces him not to judge her for her murderous ways. She kills to feed herself, while he constantly fantasizes about killing for revenge. This argument works on <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Oskar</span>, but not on me. She could feed without killing (she has plenty of money she could pay folks for blood transfusions). At the very least she could drain more blood out of each victim so she doesn't have to kill so often. And she makes absolutely no <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">attempt</span> to <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">choose her victims discriminant</span><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">ly</span> - she could act as a vigilante if she wanted to make her kills win-win. Either she's lying to him and her behavior is cruel and selfish, or she's just too immature to see an alternative. I'd lean toward the latter.<br /><br />In the film's climax, Eli saves <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Oskar's</span></span> life from the bullies, killing 4 more victims in the process. It's clear she can stay safely in this town no longer. The film closes with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Oskar</span></span> taking Eli (safely encased in her daytime crate) on a train to start over somewhere else.<br /><br />I basically saw the film as the completion of Eli's parasitic cycle. Not necessarily in a malicious way (although one could view it that way), but more likely as a consequence of her nature to which she willingly submits. There's a seen between Eli and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Håkan</span></span> early in the film where she gently caresses his cheek. This, combined with his portrayal as a man who's had the life sucked out of him, and Eli's inability to say how long she's been a vampire, had me interpreting their relationship as having started many years ago when <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Håkan</span></span> was young, perhaps <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Oskar's</span></span> age. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">Oskar</span></span> and Eli's relationship is sweet when they're 12 (at least, as sweet as a pair of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">pre</span></span>-adolescent serial killers can be), but he'll age and she won't. Someday soon he's going to have a sex drive that she can not satisfy. She's saved his life, so his guilt will never let him leave her. Eventually he'll be old enough to be her father and the whole relationship will just be awkward.<br /><br />Another way of looking at it is that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">Oskar</span></span>, as an outcast kid filled with impotent rage, has found the only lifestyle with which he can safely fulfill his homicidal fantasies. Maybe bloodlust and vampire companionship is all he'll ever need to make him happy, and that makes them a perfect match. Ah, kismet!<br /><br />Either way, it's a dark tale even for a vampire flick. It was good, excellent in parts. It could have been much better with smarter writing for the adult characters. And they should have snipped the Virginia subplot. But I had fun interpreting the ending in different ways.<br /><br />I recommend it, but it's <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">over hyped</span>. No way this is one of the best 200 films ever made.Philiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06021346110340833907noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276055495132260625.post-55841455892956606492008-11-18T10:37:00.000-08:002008-11-18T10:40:21.499-08:00I'm 37. Im not old.I just realized I am now the exact age referenced in one of my favorite comedy bits:<div><br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">King Arthur</span>: Old woman.<br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Dennis</span>: Man.<br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">King Arthur</span>: Man, sorry. What knight lives in that castle over there?<br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Dennis</span>: I'm 37.<br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">King Arthur</span>: What?<br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Dennis</span>: I'm 37. I'm not old.<br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">King Arthur</span>: Well I can't just call you "man".<br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Dennis</span>: Well you could say "Dennis".<br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">King Arthur</span>: I didn't know you were called Dennis.<br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Dennis</span>: Well you didn't bother to find out did you? </div>Philiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06021346110340833907noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276055495132260625.post-19059379093586616652008-11-16T20:43:00.000-08:002008-11-16T21:05:54.345-08:00Prop 8 ProtestI went to San Francisco yesterday for the <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/16/MNIA145AQ9.DTL&hw=proposition&sn=001&sc=1000">Prop 8 protest at City Hall</a>. Crowd size was estimated at 7500. It was a good-natured bunch, and the nature of the speeches was overall a positive one. Protest peacefully, we'll win because we're right, history is on our side - these themes seemed to be the main focus.<br /><br />There was lots of focus on "love". It's about love, our love is just as valuable as yours, etc.. Even though it's catchy and heartwarming, I'm not sure it's the best messaging. It seems to me it's not about love, it's about rights. The state's stamp of approval will never do anything to augment any relationship I will ever have, but it does inhibit same sex couples' rights in terms of inheritence, custody, and enforcement of living wills.<br /><br />One speaker championed the rights of "intersex" Americans, which I had explained to me is basically the politically correct term for hermaphrodites and others born with ambiguous sexuality. A lot of folks, both gay and straight, seemed to be shaking their heads during this, not quite sure what to make of it. But I think he made some interesting points about the blurry edges of our identities and, hence, our laws.<br /><br />Some of the more entertaining signs people brought:<br /><ul><li>A life-size cardboard cut-out of Beyonce (if anyone has a clue on this one, I'd love to hear it)</li><li>Queer not gonna take it</li><li>We can't all marry Liza Minelli</li><li>Please curb your god</li><li>If you let us marry each other we'll stop marrying you</li><li>Joseph Smith had 34, Brigham Young had 56, I just want one</li></ul>Philiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06021346110340833907noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276055495132260625.post-683212571948471932008-11-14T09:01:00.000-08:002008-11-14T09:25:02.849-08:00Civil marriages (or, why I hate America, children, and puppies)See my <a href="http://onewithoutfaith.blogspot.com/2008/11/civil-marriages-do-we-need-them-at-all.html">previous post</a> on a proposal to do away with civil marriages. This post touches on more personal matters.<br /><br />I have found that, when mentioning this idea to friends, it has oft met with visceral opposition. In general (and this is anecdotal based on my own experience with 10-12 people - please don't read this as prejudicial of either group), Christians and women have violently opposed the idea.<br /><br />Christians have tended to see it as a dissolution of American values. So the argument goes - marriage is the core of a nuclear family, and that is the foundation of our society, and so the state must support and define it. I just don't get this. Marriage was originally an issue of property - the man owning the woman. That's why fathers still "give away" brides. I think clinging to tradition for tradition's sake is overrated.<br /><br />If providing children with a stable home is really are the reason for civil marriages, then it should only be allowed to couples who are capable of and plan to have children,. And divorces should be a LOT harder when kids are involved.<br /><br />But few would argue that a person stuck in an unhappy or abusive relationship should be further punished by the legal divorce process. And few would argue that a loving marriage between a man and a woman for 50 years should have any less weight because the union never produced offspring. That would be insulting. And the current system is just as insulting to anyone else not allowed to marry.<br /><br />As far as the response I've seen from women to this idea - to be fair, a few of them I was dating at the time. This is one of those examples where I favor honesty over sensitivity, and it bites me in the ass.<br /><br />One of them I even wound up marrying, and the suggestion that we postpone the civil union until we have children (you see, this would have saved us money on the license, decreased our income tax, and in retrospect a load of divorce bills) - no practical argument mattered - it just meant to her that I didn't love her enough. My commitment to her wasn't sufficient, I had to commit to the Commonwealth of Jamaica, too.<br /><br />But I just don't get it. I don't get how one can value love, value marriage, be willing to proclaim love and devotion and commitment to a partner and in front of families and friends - how is any of that augmented by the seal of the state? Why is that necessary? And why can I not even <span style="font-style: italic;">speak</span> of it without being viewed as anti-family, anti-commitment, selfish, or unloving?<br /><br />Shit, the whole thing wears me out.Philiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06021346110340833907noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276055495132260625.post-7964791201118564272008-11-14T07:50:00.000-08:002008-11-14T09:09:14.518-08:00Civil marriages, do we need them at all?I've long been of the opinion the the state should not be in the business of issuing marriage licenses. And with Prop 8 passing, and now being protested in CA, the topic has been on my mind.<br /><br />I believe marriage is a personal, communal, moral, and for most a religious endeavor. I think any steps by our legislature to define it encroaches on our liberties. I don't believe any man or woman loves their spouse any more because the state endorses it. Neither do I believe parents love their children any more.<br /><br />Marriage laws permeate our legal system, so we'd have to make other adjustments to account for this.<br /><ul><li>If civil marriages go away, so do common law marriages. </li><li>Inheritance: We already have to deal with sticky inheritance issues when couples are not married, so our legal system can handle it. Wills would be more important for married couples. But, they're a good idea anyway. If they prove too expensive for some Americans, we could easily take some of the money we save by eliminating the civil marriage bureaucracy to make sure every American over 18 can have one. </li><li>Child custody: Again, we already have to deal with thorny custody battles when parents aren't married. Children should go to the parent who can best care for them - nothing <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">else</span> should matter.</li><li>Social Security: I believe it is unfair that married couples are allowed to leave their social security benefits to a spouse, but single (legally single, which includes those in marriages not recognized by the state) folks do not. I think the benefits should either end when you die (which would have the added benefit of decreasing the burden on an entitlement doomed to collapse), or each individual should be able to choose a beneficiary.</li></ul>I'm no lawyer, and I'm sure there are more issues than these, but I think the change would simplify our legal system and make it more fair.<br /><br />I'd love to hear discussion from others on this. And, please don't think I'm delusional enough to think this has any chance in reality. I just think its a good idea.<br /><br />My <a href="http://onewithoutfaith.blogspot.com/2008/11/civil-marriages-or-why-i-hate-america.html">next post</a> will touch on the response I've seen to this idea before.Philiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06021346110340833907noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5276055495132260625.post-18259032336697607602008-11-09T07:07:00.000-08:002008-11-09T07:41:15.233-08:00Targeted Facebook ads<div>I've been in a relationship for a little over a year and a half, and it recently ended. I subsequently updated my <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Facebook</span> status from "in a relationship" to "single". I also just had a birthday, and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Facebook</span> knows this too.</div><div><br /></div><div>This morning, I'm going through my <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Facebook</span> photos, and I notice this ad on the side:</div><blockquote>37 and still single?<div></div></blockquote><div>To which my inner voice replied, "Why, yes I am. And fuck you for asking."</div><div><br /></div><div>I also got this one on a subsequent page:</div><div></div><blockquote><div>10 Mistakes Guys Make: The 10 most dangerous mistakes you probably make with women and what to do about it.</div><div></div></blockquote><div>I can tell you one mistake I made - using <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Facebook</span> when I am in absolutely no mood to be told what's wrong with me.</div><div><br /></div><div>I'm a capitalist at heart. I don't blame <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Facebook</span> for allowing targeted ads. Google pays my bills with the same thing in search and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">GMail</span>. And I certainly can't argue with the effectiveness of their targeting mechanism. Blasting the recently singled with dating advice is, I'm sure, marketing gold.</div><div><br /></div><div>But it still pissed me off.</div>Philiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06021346110340833907noreply@blogger.com2