Have you seen Watchmen yet? I liked it, but I loved the book, and I felt like the movie was just a companion piece. Similarly, I liked the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie, but didn't think it held water as a stand alone work. The parts of Watchmen that I thought stood on their own merit were the pieces that were added in as supplements, most especially the alternative history montages that established the story's background, like Alan Moore's narratives did in the comic books. Sorry, was I supposed to say "graphic novels"? Accept it; if you've read the comic books, you're a geek. Accept it and we can get on with our conversation.
If you haven't read the books, then you didn't get the full affect of the movie, and your opinion doesn't really matter. Sorry. Doesn't this apply to all movies made about books? I know that there are some instances where movie adaptations are valid works of stand alone art (read The Lord of the Rings movies or Fight Club), but even in those cases a lot is lost by only watching the movies. When someone tells me that they don't want to read the book because they're waiting for the movie, my estimation of them falls a tick. Does that make me some sort of geek elitist? Maybe so.
Wow, I just went off on a bookworm rant when I wanted to talk about Flower Power. The phrase "Flower Power" has a negative connotation in society today that I don't understand. Patchouli stinks, I agree, but when I hear people use the term "Flower Power" I get a sense of cowardice, of uselessness, of the degradation of society. I don't understand why non-violence is held is such disregard in our society.
In the artistic montages at the beginning of Watchmen, there is a scene where a hippie girl puts a daisy in the barrel of a National Guardsman's rifle, just before there's a fusillade into the crowd of protesters. For some reason this scene has been haunting me, so I looked up it's historic inspiration. I hope that when it's my opportunity to stand up for my beliefs, I can find that sort of equanimity. Okay, I'd prefer it if I'm never required to stand up for my beliefs. I think humanity would get along a lot better if nobody had to resort to absolutes.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Monday, December 15, 2008
He's a folk hero to me, too.
I'm going to break with the theme of my blog, and instead talk about what I didn't read on Wikipedia. Some Iraqi journalist threw his shoes at Bush in a press conference, and became a folk hero in Iraqi culture. Apparently he's become a folk hero here, as well; the incident was widely disseminated on the internets, mainly with a positive slant. I would just like to be one more guy who calls him a hero. Props to you, named-but-largely-unknown-Iraqi-journalist, for having the balls to throw your footwear at the worst president in the history of the US.
Okay, okay, that's my own personal opinion talking. According to some other blogger who may or may not be worth reading, there are at least 5 other US presidents with whom Bush will need to contend for that title. One of them, James Buchanan, was so bad he lost a war with Utah!
"Wait, what?" you say. "We went to war with Utah?" Apparently we did, and while it wasn't a loss like Vietnam, it ended with negotiation that included compromise on both sides (how un-American is THAT?) and was labeled "Buchanan's Blunder" by the press. I wonder what the Second Gulf War will be labeled by historians. "Dubya's Duplicity"? "Georgie's Gross Misunderestimation"?
There are two quotes from the Wikipedia article on the Utah War I'd like to call to your attention. First, that the Utah War pitted "nearly one-third of the US Army against what was arguably the nation's largest, most experienced militia." For some reason, I can see the Mormon militia being pretty well organized and formidable. If nothing else, they had the "if you can't beat them, outbreed them" thing down pat. Second, I love this quote:
Okay, okay, that's my own personal opinion talking. According to some other blogger who may or may not be worth reading, there are at least 5 other US presidents with whom Bush will need to contend for that title. One of them, James Buchanan, was so bad he lost a war with Utah!
"Wait, what?" you say. "We went to war with Utah?" Apparently we did, and while it wasn't a loss like Vietnam, it ended with negotiation that included compromise on both sides (how un-American is THAT?) and was labeled "Buchanan's Blunder" by the press. I wonder what the Second Gulf War will be labeled by historians. "Dubya's Duplicity"? "Georgie's Gross Misunderestimation"?
There are two quotes from the Wikipedia article on the Utah War I'd like to call to your attention. First, that the Utah War pitted "nearly one-third of the US Army against what was arguably the nation's largest, most experienced militia." For some reason, I can see the Mormon militia being pretty well organized and formidable. If nothing else, they had the "if you can't beat them, outbreed them" thing down pat. Second, I love this quote:
Other incidents of violence can also be linked to the Expedition, such as an Indian attack on the Latter-day Saint mission of Fort Limhi in eastern Oregon Territory which killed two Mormons and wounded several others. Historian Brigham Madsen relates that "the responsibility for the [Fort Limhi raid] lay mainly with the Bannock. Above and beyond any influence exerted by trader, soldier, or missionary, a situation existed in February 1858 which gave the Bannock an almost unrivaled opportunity to indulge in their age-old customs of horse stealing and war."Wow. While I'm a fan of competing viewpoints, I like for them to be at least a little bit credible. I'm sure that someone named "Brigham" is going to be an unimpeachable source for historic accuracy regarding a clash between Mormons and Native Americans. It's really hard for me to fathom why a quote like this would even be in such an article, except to show that white man wasn't the only one to blame for white man's problems. Blasted Injuns. I'm surpised it took twenty more years for the Bannock War to break out after that...I mean, everyone knows they're only dark because of their wickedness and corruption.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
The TSA wants you to get through security quickly!
I was halfheartedly listening to the morning news this morning while getting ready, when I heard a piece about how the Transportation SecurityAdministration wants to help us get through security quickly when we fly this season. I know I shouldn't be surprised anymore, but I was flabbergasted; how can they claim that? If they really wanted us to be able to get through security quickly, they wouldn't have their retarded security theater rules that slow down the process. Does anyone really still think that shampoo might be the component for a bomb? Does anyone really still think that x-raying our shoes is going to catch a terrorist?
I was really surprised when I went to Cuba by how little security there was, considering that they've been the target of the longest running state sponsored terrorism campaign ever. There was literally ZERO security to get on a plane there. The efficacy of using a plane as a weapon wouldn't be any less there. Why no security? Seriously, I don't know. Maybe it's because their totalitarian state is expected to catch terrorists before they actually get to the airport. Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not espousing a police state, but I somehow doubt that the TSA and their "Behavior Detection Officers" are going to keep us safe.
I was really surprised when I went to Cuba by how little security there was, considering that they've been the target of the longest running state sponsored terrorism campaign ever. There was literally ZERO security to get on a plane there. The efficacy of using a plane as a weapon wouldn't be any less there. Why no security? Seriously, I don't know. Maybe it's because their totalitarian state is expected to catch terrorists before they actually get to the airport. Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not espousing a police state, but I somehow doubt that the TSA and their "Behavior Detection Officers" are going to keep us safe.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
A few unrelated things
It's so good to see you, imaginary reader! So many things have happened in the world, and I'm not going to comment on any of them. At this point you know how I feel about Obama, the US incursion into Syria, the financial meltdown, and the subsequent corrupt corporate smorgasbord. Let's talk about inconsequentials.
I credit my mom with making me into the good (and humble!) cook that I am today. She inbued me with a sense of experimentation, a love of flavor, and a general joy of being in the kitchen. She was a really good cook; there are recipes of hers that I still find myself fantasizing about. Her cheesecake was a cheesecake like you'd never had before. She made bulgogi and everyone wanted for their birthday dinner. I'm reminded every once and a while, however, how far past her I've gone with cooking.
She used to make pork chops with hominy, and I loved it! Hominy is not something I find often up here in the Northwest. I think it's mostly a southern food. According to Wikipedia, it's been around for 3200 years, having been invented by Native Americans in Guatamala. I wonder if they made the same recipe as my mom. Her recipe was simple; season some pork chops with salt and pepper, sear them on both sides, and then braise them in a couple cans of hominy. They were REALLY good. RN65 and I blew them out of the water last night, however. Throw in some homemade pancetta, sweat it with some shallot and garlic, deglaze it with some white wine, and then throw in some fresh herbs, and we made a plate of food that I think I could eat every day for a week. Okay, that's enough tooting my own horn. My point? Buy some hominy and try it. It's really good stuff, and better for you then eating plain corn.
I climbed Mt. St. Helens this summer with some friends from work. Gunhaver arranged the trip, and got us the permits, and took some amazing photos from the top. It was the first mountain I'd ever summitted, and I have to tell you, gentle imaginary reader...summitting mountains is hard fucking work. I don't know if it was worse because that particular mountain is covered in a fine ash (a remnant of its pyroclastic flow) that is like walking in sand, but when we got to the top I collapsed. Gunhaver, who looks like pasty white computer nerd that he is, had no trouble. I really need to get back out hiking.
Well, my imaginary friends, it's been nice rapping with you. Hope you have a good three months until I post again!
I credit my mom with making me into the good (and humble!) cook that I am today. She inbued me with a sense of experimentation, a love of flavor, and a general joy of being in the kitchen. She was a really good cook; there are recipes of hers that I still find myself fantasizing about. Her cheesecake was a cheesecake like you'd never had before. She made bulgogi and everyone wanted for their birthday dinner. I'm reminded every once and a while, however, how far past her I've gone with cooking.
She used to make pork chops with hominy, and I loved it! Hominy is not something I find often up here in the Northwest. I think it's mostly a southern food. According to Wikipedia, it's been around for 3200 years, having been invented by Native Americans in Guatamala. I wonder if they made the same recipe as my mom. Her recipe was simple; season some pork chops with salt and pepper, sear them on both sides, and then braise them in a couple cans of hominy. They were REALLY good. RN65 and I blew them out of the water last night, however. Throw in some homemade pancetta, sweat it with some shallot and garlic, deglaze it with some white wine, and then throw in some fresh herbs, and we made a plate of food that I think I could eat every day for a week. Okay, that's enough tooting my own horn. My point? Buy some hominy and try it. It's really good stuff, and better for you then eating plain corn.
I climbed Mt. St. Helens this summer with some friends from work. Gunhaver arranged the trip, and got us the permits, and took some amazing photos from the top. It was the first mountain I'd ever summitted, and I have to tell you, gentle imaginary reader...summitting mountains is hard fucking work. I don't know if it was worse because that particular mountain is covered in a fine ash (a remnant of its pyroclastic flow) that is like walking in sand, but when we got to the top I collapsed. Gunhaver, who looks like pasty white computer nerd that he is, had no trouble. I really need to get back out hiking.
Well, my imaginary friends, it's been nice rapping with you. Hope you have a good three months until I post again!
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Who cares about FISA?
The US Senate passed H.R. 6304 today, the FISA Amendment Act of 2008. President Bush is expected to sign it right away, because it's exactly what he always wanted in a FISA Amendment Act. It allows the government to spy on Americans in "emergencies" as long as they file the required paperwork within a week, and we know how good the US Government has been about correctly judging emergencies and keeping track of their paperwork in the past.
Oh, and the Act also gives immunity to telecom companies that helped the Bush administration spy on Americans, even though they knew it was illegal. Nicely, this doesn't just protect the telecom companies, but it also protects the Bush administration. The civil suits of private citizens against the telecom companies was the best way in which to expose the crimes of the administration.
Looking into the way that my elected officials voted, I was happy to see that two of my three congress critters voted against the bill, but one of them still had to break my heart. Here's my message to Ms. Patty Murray, one of my senators to the US Congress from the state of Washington:
Just kidding.
But not really.
Oh, and the Act also gives immunity to telecom companies that helped the Bush administration spy on Americans, even though they knew it was illegal. Nicely, this doesn't just protect the telecom companies, but it also protects the Bush administration. The civil suits of private citizens against the telecom companies was the best way in which to expose the crimes of the administration.
Looking into the way that my elected officials voted, I was happy to see that two of my three congress critters voted against the bill, but one of them still had to break my heart. Here's my message to Ms. Patty Murray, one of my senators to the US Congress from the state of Washington:
Ms. Murray,I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. Political courage is something that's in short supply these days. I guess if the rest of the country's representatives were as cool as Washington's, we still would have handily beaten the bill. Maybe Washington should secede.
While I was pleased to see that you voted for the amendment removing telecom immunity from the FISA Amendment Act of 2008, I was extremely disappointed to see that you voted to pass the bill anyway. Not only does your vote let giant corporations that callously disregarded US law get away unscathed, it also prevents the main legal recourse that the people of the United States have of unmasking the perfidy of the current administration. Not only are you helping a corrupt administration cover their tracks, but you are making it easier for them to commit the same outrages again, legally! You are helping to strip from me and the rest of your constituents our Fourth Amendment rights.
I know that you're not the only Democrat to vote this way, but you are alone in the elected officials that represent me to do so, and I am thoroughly disappointed. I'm not sure if you voted that way because of a lack of political courage, because you have a misguided vision of what the security of our nation means, or if there something worse behind it, but I can assure you I will not be voting for you again in the future, and I will encourage my friends and associates not to do so.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You don't even have "Civil Liberties" as a possible topic in your email form.
Just kidding.
But not really.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Born into debt
I didn't get started on this line of thought because of Wikipedia; it actually started because of a link that Corky sent me about an Indian woman who gave birth to twins at the age of 70. "When do women go into menopause in India?!" I thought. Apparently, whenever they run out of oocytes, which aside from being my new favorite word, and aside from not being present in my spell checker's dictionary, is the term for an egg cell that hasn't dropped from the ovary yet. Guess she had a lot of egg cells! Maybe she just started late or something.
Reading into the article, however, it turns out that she didn't get pregnant naturally. Because she had in vitro fertilization (IVF), she didn't necessarily have to have her own egg, and the article didn't specify that was the case. It's possible that she was impregnated with an egg from someone else, which would permit her to be pregnant even after going through menopause.
The real reason that I'm interested enough in this article to blog about it, however, is not anything I read about it on Wikipedia. The couple, a 77 year old man and a 70 year old woman, decided that they needed her to get pregnant in order to have a male heir for their family farm. Never mind that they already have two adult daughters and 5 grandchildren, they need a male child of their own to pass on their belongings to. From the article:
Even that isn't why I'm blogging about. That's just one extremely poor choice for one unlucky kid. What really struck me about that article is that we're doing that to an entire generation with our deficit spending.
Reading into the article, however, it turns out that she didn't get pregnant naturally. Because she had in vitro fertilization (IVF), she didn't necessarily have to have her own egg, and the article didn't specify that was the case. It's possible that she was impregnated with an egg from someone else, which would permit her to be pregnant even after going through menopause.
The real reason that I'm interested enough in this article to blog about it, however, is not anything I read about it on Wikipedia. The couple, a 77 year old man and a 70 year old woman, decided that they needed her to get pregnant in order to have a male heir for their family farm. Never mind that they already have two adult daughters and 5 grandchildren, they need a male child of their own to pass on their belongings to. From the article:
“We kept no stone unturned and God has rewarded us. The treatment cost me a fortune but the birth of a son makes it all worthwhile. I can die a happy man and a proud father.”Nice. Because those daughters that you've had are just females. How much of a fortune did he spend in order to become blessed? He
"mortgaged his land, sold his buffaloes, spent his life savings and took out a credit card loan to finance the treatment."So now you have a male son and heir. You'll leave him your mortgaged land. He won't be able to farm that land because he doesn't have a buffalo, he won't be able to buy one because he doesn't have any savings, and he won't be able to get a loan because his credit's already maxxed out paying off your IVF treatment. Lucky him!
Even that isn't why I'm blogging about. That's just one extremely poor choice for one unlucky kid. What really struck me about that article is that we're doing that to an entire generation with our deficit spending.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Hubris
First off, let me apologize to any of my regular readers. Do you really exist? Are you just a figment of my pride? Regardless, I'm sorry it's taken me so long to post. I'd like to say it's because I've been so dedicated to work, but really I just have a hard time making myself write. Once I get started, however, it's not too bad. Maybe if I got more comments...
Gadzooks called me "Faust" today. I really wasn't sure that was applicable to me, even though I was tempting him. I was just giving him an invitation to come see Tron at Cinerama next Tuesday instead of going to rugby practice. I realize that he was just calling me a tempting devil, but I still wasn't sure that Faust was appropriate. Faust, you see, is a classical story where an alchemist, possessed of his hubris, makes a deal with the devil. He believes that he has outwitted the devil (never a good bet!), but he ends up coming to a bad end. I wasn't tempting him with my services, I don't think that he would come to a bad end just from seeing Tron, and the only hubris that could possibly be involved is his own estimation of his rugby skills.
Hubris, you see, is fatal pride. Unless the rugby game coming up is against the All Blacks, I don't think that there should be any fatalities; if the game were against the All Blacks, I don't think that one practice is going to save anyone unless we spend the whole time doing Duck and Cover. A much better example of hubris, I think, would be if someone were to assume that they wouldn't get in trouble for going to Cuba. If a US citizen, who is restricted from spending money in Cuba, were to then post pictures of their travels to Cuba, that would just be silly.
Why is there an embargo against Cuba, anyway? Mostly, it's in place because of the nationalization of foreign assets that occurred after the Cuban Revolution in 1960. The biggest losers in this nationalization of foreign assets were the United Fruit Company and ITT, two of the biggest and most corrupt of the American corporations involved in Central and South America. The United Fruit Company had extensive ties to both the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, and was involved in propping up corrupt dictatorships not just in Cuba, but also in Guatemala, Costa Rica, and Honduras. They also helped overthrow the democratically elected government of Guatemala, when it looked like they weren't going to continue to support the oppressive policies that allowed United Fruit to stifle competition. ITT was also an aggressively and oppressively monopolistic company with extensive Latin American holdings; they were involved not only in supporting Batista in Cuba, but also in the Pinochet coup in Chile.
Wow. No wonder Castro thinks it's best to continue to give the US the finger! He certainly has a track record of doing that. For example, when Carter said he would accept Cubans who wanted to leave the oppresive political climate of Cuba, Castro promptly sent the US 150,000 criminals. Nice move, Fidel. In fact, Castro has done things like that pretty much every time it looked like the relations between the US and Cuba might be thawing. I personally believe that he must be doing it on purpose, to keep Cuba isolated from the US, so that his personal agenda of revolution and social engineering can proceed without interference from the US. I wonder how long he is going to keep it up; it's been almost 50 years. Is that enough to reshape Cuban society into the image he wants? Will things change significantly under his brother Raul?
In truth things have already changed a lot in Cuba. Foreign investment is rapidly increasing as European companies invest in the tourist industry there. I wonder what it would take for the US to ease it's blockade. According to the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act, it would require free and fair elections, movement to a free market economy, and the possibility for opposition political parties. Even if the market controls the government has in place are eased under Fidel's successors, I don't see that happening anytime soon. It seems really strange to me that we're so restricted in our outlook to Cuba, but we don't have a similar outlook towards the oppressive policies of, say, Saudi Arabia.
Oh yeah, they have oil. Wait, guess what! Apparently Cuba recently found a bunch of oil in their territory. I expect a thawing of relations very shortly. I just hope the dollar is still worth something by the time I'm allowed to travel there.
Gadzooks called me "Faust" today. I really wasn't sure that was applicable to me, even though I was tempting him. I was just giving him an invitation to come see Tron at Cinerama next Tuesday instead of going to rugby practice. I realize that he was just calling me a tempting devil, but I still wasn't sure that Faust was appropriate. Faust, you see, is a classical story where an alchemist, possessed of his hubris, makes a deal with the devil. He believes that he has outwitted the devil (never a good bet!), but he ends up coming to a bad end. I wasn't tempting him with my services, I don't think that he would come to a bad end just from seeing Tron, and the only hubris that could possibly be involved is his own estimation of his rugby skills.
Hubris, you see, is fatal pride. Unless the rugby game coming up is against the All Blacks, I don't think that there should be any fatalities; if the game were against the All Blacks, I don't think that one practice is going to save anyone unless we spend the whole time doing Duck and Cover. A much better example of hubris, I think, would be if someone were to assume that they wouldn't get in trouble for going to Cuba. If a US citizen, who is restricted from spending money in Cuba, were to then post pictures of their travels to Cuba, that would just be silly.
Why is there an embargo against Cuba, anyway? Mostly, it's in place because of the nationalization of foreign assets that occurred after the Cuban Revolution in 1960. The biggest losers in this nationalization of foreign assets were the United Fruit Company and ITT, two of the biggest and most corrupt of the American corporations involved in Central and South America. The United Fruit Company had extensive ties to both the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, and was involved in propping up corrupt dictatorships not just in Cuba, but also in Guatemala, Costa Rica, and Honduras. They also helped overthrow the democratically elected government of Guatemala, when it looked like they weren't going to continue to support the oppressive policies that allowed United Fruit to stifle competition. ITT was also an aggressively and oppressively monopolistic company with extensive Latin American holdings; they were involved not only in supporting Batista in Cuba, but also in the Pinochet coup in Chile.
Wow. No wonder Castro thinks it's best to continue to give the US the finger! He certainly has a track record of doing that. For example, when Carter said he would accept Cubans who wanted to leave the oppresive political climate of Cuba, Castro promptly sent the US 150,000 criminals. Nice move, Fidel. In fact, Castro has done things like that pretty much every time it looked like the relations between the US and Cuba might be thawing. I personally believe that he must be doing it on purpose, to keep Cuba isolated from the US, so that his personal agenda of revolution and social engineering can proceed without interference from the US. I wonder how long he is going to keep it up; it's been almost 50 years. Is that enough to reshape Cuban society into the image he wants? Will things change significantly under his brother Raul?
In truth things have already changed a lot in Cuba. Foreign investment is rapidly increasing as European companies invest in the tourist industry there. I wonder what it would take for the US to ease it's blockade. According to the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act, it would require free and fair elections, movement to a free market economy, and the possibility for opposition political parties. Even if the market controls the government has in place are eased under Fidel's successors, I don't see that happening anytime soon. It seems really strange to me that we're so restricted in our outlook to Cuba, but we don't have a similar outlook towards the oppressive policies of, say, Saudi Arabia.
Oh yeah, they have oil. Wait, guess what! Apparently Cuba recently found a bunch of oil in their territory. I expect a thawing of relations very shortly. I just hope the dollar is still worth something by the time I'm allowed to travel there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
