I finally played my first game of the StarCraft 2 beta. It's one of the few modern video games I care anything about, having so loved the original and not having yet seen a Blizzard game that was not fantastic.
StarCraft 2 is fantastic all over again. It's much like the original, except optimized. They've managed to create a greater diversity of tactical possibilities with fewer, more interesting units, fewer upgrades, and some new terrain tricks and control options. Very nice game design.
I managed to win my first game, 1 Protoss vs. 1 Protoss, but not by some great skill on my behalf. The opponent (a random internet stranger) had me beat completely early on, but failed to follow through. By creating a trap or two, and creating a few new towns he didn't know about, I was able to get back into competition without his knowledge and surprise him with a formidable force just as he ran out of resources.
It's a dang fun game.
Showing posts with label apolitical. Show all posts
Showing posts with label apolitical. Show all posts
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Food Silliness
I decided on an unusual dinner last night: a mashed potato buffet. Four kinds of mashed potatoes, three kinds of gravy. The turkey gravy on cream of mushroom potatoes was the best.
Variety is the spice of life.
Variety is the spice of life.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Thursday, December 3, 2009
And now for something completely different...
I offer you the story of Weird Harold:
Once upon a time there was a little girl who loved her Grandpa and Grandma very much. Late one night, Grandpa came to visit, and she was so excited to see him she couldn't sleep. Grandpa asked, "If I tell you a story will you go to sleep like a good girl?"
"Well... okay," the girl said, "But it better be a good story."
Grandpa chuckled. "I'll tell the best story I have, the story of Weird Harold." It went like this:
"Do you know what was in the old coffee can?" Grandpa asked the little girl.
The little girl didn't answer. Grandpa reached into his pocket and pulled out a pebble. It was a different kind of pebble. It was shiny and clear and very pale blue, like the sky. It was beautiful. The little girl said very quietly, "It's the Princess!"
"Yes, it is," said Grandpa. "I want you to keep it. You can be the good dragon and protect it from evil knights. You can remember the story of Weird Harold. Maybe it'll make you happy." It was quiet for a long time.
"It already makes me happy," said the little girl. "It's a good story."
Grandpa chuckled. "Then it's time to go to sleep like a good little girl." He tucked her in. He kissed her on the forehead. He started to leave.
The little girl said, "Goodnight, Grandpa Harold. I love you."
Grandpa turned and smiled. "I love you, too, little Jill. You know, you look just like your Grandma Jill when she was your age." It was quiet for a long time. Then he left.
A few days later, little Jill went back to school. When the children went to play on the blacktop at recess, Jill didn't play with the other children. She didn't play on the swings or on the kickball diamond. She walked in lazy circles on the blacktop. Sometimes she'd pick up a pebble. Sometimes she'd put one down just so. If someone invited her to play regular games, she'd growl at them and chase them away. Someone called her Weird Jill. Jill was happy with that.
THE END
Once upon a time there was a little girl who loved her Grandpa and Grandma very much. Late one night, Grandpa came to visit, and she was so excited to see him she couldn't sleep. Grandpa asked, "If I tell you a story will you go to sleep like a good girl?"
"Well... okay," the girl said, "But it better be a good story."
Grandpa chuckled. "I'll tell the best story I have, the story of Weird Harold." It went like this:
When the children went to play on the blacktop at recess, they never played with Harold. He didn't play on the swings or at the kickball diamond. He would always walk in lazy circles by himself. Sometimes he would pick up a pebble. Sometimes he would put one down just so. Sometimes he would just stand and look at them. It didn't look like any fun. If someone invited him to play regular games, Harold would growl at them and chase them away. It was weird. So they called him Weird Harold.
Harold was happy with that. He liked to play alone with his many small pebbles.
One day, a quiet little girl from Weird Harold's class sat and watched Weird Harold. She watched as he walked in lazy circles. She watched as he stopped to pick up a pebble. She watched later as he stopped to put it down with a lot of other pebbles. When he walked away to find more, she took a step closer so she could see the pebbles. Then another step. The pebbles weren't just put anywhere. They were put just so, in a little square with circles at the corners.
"Are you going to ask me to come play with you?" It was Weird Harold. The quiet little girl didn't notice that he'd come up behind her. She didn't say anything. It was quiet for a long time.
Harold asked, "What's your name?" The quiet little girl didn't answer. It was quiet for a long time.
"Okay. You can watch," said Weird Harold. He put another pebble on the blacktop with the others. He stood up and looked around. None of the other children were paying him any attention except the quiet little girl. Weird Harold was glad about that. It was quiet for a long time.
He took another pebble out of his pocket. It was a different kind of pebble. It was shiny and clear and very pale blue, like the sky. It was beautiful. He put the beautiful pebble with the others. He put it alone inside the square. Then he stood still and looked at it for a long time. He looked around for other children again, but they weren't paying him any attention. Except for the quiet little girl.
Harold turned to the quiet little girl. "This one is the Princess," he told her. "She lives in her castle. Evil knights come to steal away her beauty and make her boring like all the other pebbles. I'm the good dragon. I protect her. When evil knights come, I growl and breath fire and they go away." He looked at the little girl. It was quiet for a long time. Then he said very quietly, "She's my favorite."
The bell rang. It was time to go back inside. Weird Harold quickly snatched up the Princess and put her in his pocket. He snatched up lots of other pebbles and put them in his pockets, too. He didn't want to be late getting back to class.
The quiet little girl watched him pick up pebbles. She looked very determined. She opened her mouth and said, "My name is Jill." Then she ran across the blacktop back to class. Harold was surprised. Then he grabbed a few more pebbles and went inside, too.
After that, Jill and Harold spent a every recess together. Harold would tell her adventures with the pebbles and the Princess. There was always the Princess. Jill would mostly watch. Sometimes she would say something, but usually she was quiet.
One day, Jill spoke up. She said, "I never talk to anyone else. Only you. You wait for me to talk. Everyone else just wants to talk, not listen." It was quiet for a long time. Then she said, "I'm glad you're Weird, Harold."
Harold said, "I'm glad you talk to me."
As the days went past, it got warmer. The school year was going to end. Jill and Harold wouldn't see each other for months, and there wasn't anything they could do about it.
"Are you going to be here next year, too?" asked Harold.
"Yes," said Jill. It was quiet for a long time. Then Harold reached into his pocket and took out a pebble. He held it out to Jill. It was shiny and clear and very pale blue, like the sky. It was the Princess.
Harold said, "Take it. Promise you'll give it back next year. It's my favorite." Jill took the Princess. She put it in her pocket. It was quiet for a long time.
Then it was summer. Harold didn't enjoy summer without Jill, and Jill didn't enjoy summer without Harold. Then summer was over, and school started again. At the first recess, Jill ran straight out to Harold smiling. She handed him a pebble. It was the Princess. Harold took the Princess out of Jill's hand. Harold also held on to Jill's hand. They both smiled, and it was quiet for a long time.
Years passed, and they grew up together. Every summer, Harold gave Jill the Princess. Every fall, Jill gave it back. They graduated, married, and aged. They had children and grandchildren. They were happy together for 64 years. Jill was always quiet, and Harold was always weird. Everyone called them "Jill and Weird Harold," like they were one person with one name. No one was ever happier. Every day Weird Harold told Jill, "You're my favorite."
When they were very old, Jill got sick. She was going away, and it was going to be quiet for a very long time. She told Weird Harold, "If you miss me, look in the old coffee can. I left you something." Then she went away.
"Do you know what was in the old coffee can?" Grandpa asked the little girl.
The little girl didn't answer. Grandpa reached into his pocket and pulled out a pebble. It was a different kind of pebble. It was shiny and clear and very pale blue, like the sky. It was beautiful. The little girl said very quietly, "It's the Princess!"
"Yes, it is," said Grandpa. "I want you to keep it. You can be the good dragon and protect it from evil knights. You can remember the story of Weird Harold. Maybe it'll make you happy." It was quiet for a long time.
"It already makes me happy," said the little girl. "It's a good story."
Grandpa chuckled. "Then it's time to go to sleep like a good little girl." He tucked her in. He kissed her on the forehead. He started to leave.
The little girl said, "Goodnight, Grandpa Harold. I love you."
Grandpa turned and smiled. "I love you, too, little Jill. You know, you look just like your Grandma Jill when she was your age." It was quiet for a long time. Then he left.
A few days later, little Jill went back to school. When the children went to play on the blacktop at recess, Jill didn't play with the other children. She didn't play on the swings or on the kickball diamond. She walked in lazy circles on the blacktop. Sometimes she'd pick up a pebble. Sometimes she'd put one down just so. If someone invited her to play regular games, she'd growl at them and chase them away. Someone called her Weird Jill. Jill was happy with that.
THE END
Monday, October 26, 2009
Apology and Fringe Politics
Sorry I haven't been posting regularly lately. Work complications (and an increase in mindless recreation to recoup afterward) have been distracting me.
Today isn't a full blog post either. Just a link to an interesting and unusual political view: a defense of insider trading in the stock market.
Today isn't a full blog post either. Just a link to an interesting and unusual political view: a defense of insider trading in the stock market.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Storm (Ororo Munroe)
According to Marvel Comics, Storm (Ororo Munroe) was born to an African princess and an African-American journalist. She also has blue eyes and white hair. Why is that?
The obvious answer is "because she looks cool that way." Which she really does.
The comic strip "The Boondocks" criticized the X-Men movie for taking the only black main character and twisting her to match a white concept of beauty with white hair and blue eyes. That might be true, but having Halle Berry ask "Do you know what happens to a toad when it's struck by lightning?" had to be more damaging to the character's credibility.
But is it totally impossible? According to a Sanford geneticist, "African Americans with blue eyes are not unheard of but they are pretty rare." He gives four possible causes of blue eyes in people of African descent: Caucasian ancestors, ocular albinism, Waardenburg syndrome, or (most appropriately) a genetic mutation. Caucasian ancestors would only validate Boondocks' Euro-centrism claim. Ocular albinos tend to have vision problems and Waardenburg sufferers tend to be deaf, not disabilities possessed by Storm. A genetic mutation blocking melatonin in the iris is the best explanation for her blue eyes.
What about her hair? The comics say her Kenyan princess mother also had white hair and blue eyes, as had her ancestors for generations. However, there is absolutely no real-world way for white hair to be a continuously inherited trait. Albinism is not very likely to occur to the children of albinos, not dependably for generation after generation. Also, there's not a common albinism of the hair the way there is of the eyes. The idea of white hair from severe psychological trauma is more Rogue's thing. It's not age; she joins the X-Men in her mid-20s, and she still had white hair all the way back to her early childhood. So, short of dying it for fashion reasons, I've got no good explanation there.
In a world where Lorna Dane can have green hair and Beast and Nightcrawler can have full-body blue fur, I'm not going to begrudge Ororo her snowy locks. Plus it fits great with the weather powers, visually symbolic of clouds and flashing lightning. I say give her mom a regular hair color and make Storm's hair color another effect of the same impossible magic as her mutant power. That's a great explanation for why they match so well stylistically.
The length and straightness of Storm's hair is not impossible for African descent, nor even dramatically uncommon. Many West African tribes consider long, full hair a sign of strength, health, and capability [source]. Storm's homeland, Kenya, is in West Africa. Her massive 80's hair-band style actually fits the genetic and cultural reality.
Storm is supposed to be a noble matriarch, the wild power and quiet dignity of Mother Nature personified. As early as her late 20s, she was already a mother-figure to young X-Men (Kitty Pryde, specifically). If anyone goes to make some new movie or TV show with her in it, please reflect that better. The movies didn't show that. In my view, she was never the shallow, token black character until the X-Men movies. Her character deserves better writing.
The obvious answer is "because she looks cool that way." Which she really does.
The comic strip "The Boondocks" criticized the X-Men movie for taking the only black main character and twisting her to match a white concept of beauty with white hair and blue eyes. That might be true, but having Halle Berry ask "Do you know what happens to a toad when it's struck by lightning?" had to be more damaging to the character's credibility.
But is it totally impossible? According to a Sanford geneticist, "African Americans with blue eyes are not unheard of but they are pretty rare." He gives four possible causes of blue eyes in people of African descent: Caucasian ancestors, ocular albinism, Waardenburg syndrome, or (most appropriately) a genetic mutation. Caucasian ancestors would only validate Boondocks' Euro-centrism claim. Ocular albinos tend to have vision problems and Waardenburg sufferers tend to be deaf, not disabilities possessed by Storm. A genetic mutation blocking melatonin in the iris is the best explanation for her blue eyes.
What about her hair? The comics say her Kenyan princess mother also had white hair and blue eyes, as had her ancestors for generations. However, there is absolutely no real-world way for white hair to be a continuously inherited trait. Albinism is not very likely to occur to the children of albinos, not dependably for generation after generation. Also, there's not a common albinism of the hair the way there is of the eyes. The idea of white hair from severe psychological trauma is more Rogue's thing. It's not age; she joins the X-Men in her mid-20s, and she still had white hair all the way back to her early childhood. So, short of dying it for fashion reasons, I've got no good explanation there.
In a world where Lorna Dane can have green hair and Beast and Nightcrawler can have full-body blue fur, I'm not going to begrudge Ororo her snowy locks. Plus it fits great with the weather powers, visually symbolic of clouds and flashing lightning. I say give her mom a regular hair color and make Storm's hair color another effect of the same impossible magic as her mutant power. That's a great explanation for why they match so well stylistically.
The length and straightness of Storm's hair is not impossible for African descent, nor even dramatically uncommon. Many West African tribes consider long, full hair a sign of strength, health, and capability [source]. Storm's homeland, Kenya, is in West Africa. Her massive 80's hair-band style actually fits the genetic and cultural reality.
Storm is supposed to be a noble matriarch, the wild power and quiet dignity of Mother Nature personified. As early as her late 20s, she was already a mother-figure to young X-Men (Kitty Pryde, specifically). If anyone goes to make some new movie or TV show with her in it, please reflect that better. The movies didn't show that. In my view, she was never the shallow, token black character until the X-Men movies. Her character deserves better writing.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
To Fast
A great many religions believe that going without food for a time encourages spirituality. The reasoning is common enough to be referenced by the pop philosophy movie The Matrix; food alters one's perceptions. The Oracle uses food to manipulate Neo, Cypher eats steak before betraying Morpheus, and in food "in the real world" is hardly food at all - suggesting a clearer understanding of truth. The Bible depicts stories of people fasting to rid themselves of pride, to aid repentance, and to protect from divine judgment.
My own religion has a charitable tradition of fasting -- once a month, we are invited to skip two consecutive meals (all food and drink, even water, with concessions made for personal health) and donate the money saved to the hungry and needy. This is considered both a charitable donation and an exercise in empathy - it is easier to give to the hungry when you personally and sharply know what they are suffering.
Perhaps it is also more difficult to waste what you receive when you know it is food formerly destined for another's stomach.
But today I have another reason for fasting, a personal reason. My extended family is facing tough economic times. Their problems require more and greater solutions than I can provide. I fast to remind myself of my limits, and to ask God for the things I cannot provide them. I have too much pride, and too much need of repentance. A perfect judgment would not be kind to me. But it is for my family that I worry. It is for them I petition for grace.
Maybe if I better myself morally I will find more grace granted to them. Maybe if I do more good they will face less fear. But even if not, at least I'll have done more good and become better.
I am not good with rite and ritual, or with obedience for it's own sake. But I believe fasting will help, so I'll try. My thoughts are with my family.
My own religion has a charitable tradition of fasting -- once a month, we are invited to skip two consecutive meals (all food and drink, even water, with concessions made for personal health) and donate the money saved to the hungry and needy. This is considered both a charitable donation and an exercise in empathy - it is easier to give to the hungry when you personally and sharply know what they are suffering.
Perhaps it is also more difficult to waste what you receive when you know it is food formerly destined for another's stomach.
But today I have another reason for fasting, a personal reason. My extended family is facing tough economic times. Their problems require more and greater solutions than I can provide. I fast to remind myself of my limits, and to ask God for the things I cannot provide them. I have too much pride, and too much need of repentance. A perfect judgment would not be kind to me. But it is for my family that I worry. It is for them I petition for grace.
Maybe if I better myself morally I will find more grace granted to them. Maybe if I do more good they will face less fear. But even if not, at least I'll have done more good and become better.
I am not good with rite and ritual, or with obedience for it's own sake. But I believe fasting will help, so I'll try. My thoughts are with my family.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Super Powers
I've been reading X-Men comics and thinking about super powers. Mostly about what ridiculously shallow treatment comics give to powers. Of course, if you think about these things too critically you come to the obvious conclusion that most powers are impossible: people don't fly, shoot rays from their eyes, or grow an extra set of limbs. There's no way to actually make those things happen.
But some powers are only exaggerations of things people really can do: super strength, toughness, speed, intelligence, healing, or agility. The nature of the power in these cases is totally reasonable. Only it's extent is impossible. Similarly, some super powers are actually only extreme talents: engineering, science, psychology, empathy, athletics, acrobatics, combat, or espionage. For some, being extraordinarily wealthy seems to be their primary power.
Some "powers" are explained as the common traits of extraordinary beings, especially aliens, angels, ghosts, and demons. Others are unique, inbred "gifts" inherent to unique individuals. Still others are attained only through extensive research or practice; this category seems to consist mostly of wizardry and science, probably owing to authors who don't know the difference.
(Side point: I really hate aliens in comic books. They're never handled well. They're rarely handled well in TV or movies either, though there are some fantastic exceptions like Contact or The Forgotten. Books tend to give them more thought.)
Powers can also be categorized by their use: passive powers that always work (Wolverine's healing power, Rogue's touch), active powers that are activated at will (Storm's weather control, Nightcrawler's teleportation), and environmental powers that consist of mundane reality interacting with other powers (Wolverine's skeleton, Cyclops' visor).
Some powers show up time and again until their wielders start to blur together. How many brute fighter mutants are there in the X-Men universe? Wolverine, Bishop, Cable, Colossus, Beast, Sabertooth, Deadpool, The Blob, Sunder, Stonewall, Strong Guy, Puck, Sasquatch... how many do you need before they become redundant? Flight, the ability to control fire, and powers of suggestion are also ridiculously popular.
The ability to tell the future is an interesting power, but can come in three different forms: one can extrapolate the future as extrapolated from the intents and goals of individuals (like watchers from the movie Push), from foreseeing the physical results of physical events (like the precogs from Minority Report), or from actually viewing future events (like in the movie Paycheck or the book Pastwatch). I especially like the contrast between the first two: a watcher of human intent cannot see the future of a deserted isle nor predict natural disasters, but a watcher of physical inevitabilities has their view clouded by the free will choices (espeically those an economist would call "choices on the margin"). Future viewing seems more like time travel than psychic powers; it is rather distinct from the other two.
I have always liked powers of knowing more than powers of doing, probably because my own habits are geared more towards study than action. (This blog is a partially successful attempt to increase my dedication to action.)
In the end, though, what makes a mutant an interesting character is not their powers but their personality. Wolverine is cool more because he is fierce, independent, and passionate than because he slices things up and seemingly cannot die. Beast is interesting not for his big, furry brutality but for how that contrasts and combines with his cultured, intellectual personality. Rogue is beautiful for the ways she finds to enjoy life, not the power that makes it difficult for her.
I'd love to have mentioned Storm, but those who have only seen the movies would disagree that she is interesting at all.
Characters are written to be impossibly and uniquely unlike humanity, but the ones we love are the ones who strikingly resemble mundane humanity. Perhaps the most loved superhero would do better things than all others without any powers at all.
But some powers are only exaggerations of things people really can do: super strength, toughness, speed, intelligence, healing, or agility. The nature of the power in these cases is totally reasonable. Only it's extent is impossible. Similarly, some super powers are actually only extreme talents: engineering, science, psychology, empathy, athletics, acrobatics, combat, or espionage. For some, being extraordinarily wealthy seems to be their primary power.
Some "powers" are explained as the common traits of extraordinary beings, especially aliens, angels, ghosts, and demons. Others are unique, inbred "gifts" inherent to unique individuals. Still others are attained only through extensive research or practice; this category seems to consist mostly of wizardry and science, probably owing to authors who don't know the difference.
(Side point: I really hate aliens in comic books. They're never handled well. They're rarely handled well in TV or movies either, though there are some fantastic exceptions like Contact or The Forgotten. Books tend to give them more thought.)
Powers can also be categorized by their use: passive powers that always work (Wolverine's healing power, Rogue's touch), active powers that are activated at will (Storm's weather control, Nightcrawler's teleportation), and environmental powers that consist of mundane reality interacting with other powers (Wolverine's skeleton, Cyclops' visor).
Some powers show up time and again until their wielders start to blur together. How many brute fighter mutants are there in the X-Men universe? Wolverine, Bishop, Cable, Colossus, Beast, Sabertooth, Deadpool, The Blob, Sunder, Stonewall, Strong Guy, Puck, Sasquatch... how many do you need before they become redundant? Flight, the ability to control fire, and powers of suggestion are also ridiculously popular.
The ability to tell the future is an interesting power, but can come in three different forms: one can extrapolate the future as extrapolated from the intents and goals of individuals (like watchers from the movie Push), from foreseeing the physical results of physical events (like the precogs from Minority Report), or from actually viewing future events (like in the movie Paycheck or the book Pastwatch). I especially like the contrast between the first two: a watcher of human intent cannot see the future of a deserted isle nor predict natural disasters, but a watcher of physical inevitabilities has their view clouded by the free will choices (espeically those an economist would call "choices on the margin"). Future viewing seems more like time travel than psychic powers; it is rather distinct from the other two.
I have always liked powers of knowing more than powers of doing, probably because my own habits are geared more towards study than action. (This blog is a partially successful attempt to increase my dedication to action.)
In the end, though, what makes a mutant an interesting character is not their powers but their personality. Wolverine is cool more because he is fierce, independent, and passionate than because he slices things up and seemingly cannot die. Beast is interesting not for his big, furry brutality but for how that contrasts and combines with his cultured, intellectual personality. Rogue is beautiful for the ways she finds to enjoy life, not the power that makes it difficult for her.
I'd love to have mentioned Storm, but those who have only seen the movies would disagree that she is interesting at all.
Characters are written to be impossibly and uniquely unlike humanity, but the ones we love are the ones who strikingly resemble mundane humanity. Perhaps the most loved superhero would do better things than all others without any powers at all.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Fontopia
I've got a friend that's fairly obsessed with fonts, colors, photography, and design these days. He sent me a link to this game. Can you tell the difference between the real logo and the fake one? Yeah, I couldn't either. Statistically, I should've done slightly better if I were guessing at random.
He also showed me this Color IQ thing. Try to organize the colors into a perfect gradient by dragging them around with the mouse.
Yeah, he's nuts. He randomly provides me amusements from the intertubes, though. Can't complain about that.
He also showed me this Color IQ thing. Try to organize the colors into a perfect gradient by dragging them around with the mouse.
Yeah, he's nuts. He randomly provides me amusements from the intertubes, though. Can't complain about that.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
I Like Movies
It occurred to me yesterday, after watching three DVDs in a row, that I really like movies. (They were The Last StarFighter, Knowing, and Iron Will. I recommend them all., three stars each.) I have around 200 movies and seasons of TV shows in my house. I have seen them all with three exceptions:
Pretty much the only genre of movies I don't like are ones set up as filmed stage plays. Grease, Hair, Rent, modern takes on Shakespeare, etc. That whole genre irks me. Second most hated is the genre of stupid comedies, like Shallow Hal or Scary Movie, especially if they're stupidly oversexed.
My favorite genres are historical dramas (John Adams, Pride & Prejudice, Fat Man & Little Boy, etc) followed by hard science fiction (The Man From Earth), followed by popcorn sci fi (Star Wars, Star Trek, Serenity).
I'm generally opposed to rampant sex, violence, or language, so I generally steer clear of movies rated R or worse. I will make occasional exceptions, most obviously for The Matrix. Which ruled. There are no sequels. None. Ever.
I love animation in both it's Disney-ish and Anime forms. Animation is capable of greater emotional power and persuasive influence than live action, especially in showing beauty and mystery. Pixar is the best production company ever, largely because they understand and wield that power.
In general, I love movies.
- I haven't seen all of 8 Seconds because I hate it.
- I haven't seen all of Grease (at least not in one sitting) because I hate it.
- I haven't seen Footloose because I fear it's going to remind me of Grease.
Pretty much the only genre of movies I don't like are ones set up as filmed stage plays. Grease, Hair, Rent, modern takes on Shakespeare, etc. That whole genre irks me. Second most hated is the genre of stupid comedies, like Shallow Hal or Scary Movie, especially if they're stupidly oversexed.
My favorite genres are historical dramas (John Adams, Pride & Prejudice, Fat Man & Little Boy, etc) followed by hard science fiction (The Man From Earth), followed by popcorn sci fi (Star Wars, Star Trek, Serenity).
I'm generally opposed to rampant sex, violence, or language, so I generally steer clear of movies rated R or worse. I will make occasional exceptions, most obviously for The Matrix. Which ruled. There are no sequels. None. Ever.
I love animation in both it's Disney-ish and Anime forms. Animation is capable of greater emotional power and persuasive influence than live action, especially in showing beauty and mystery. Pixar is the best production company ever, largely because they understand and wield that power.
In general, I love movies.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Amazing Grace (2006)
William Wilberforce, member of the British Parliament, has been unsuccessfully opposing the slave trade for 15 years. The interest to the economy is too great for Parliament to relent, but morality and Wilberforce's health demand he continue to expose the horrors and inhumanity of the trade to criticism and scrutiny. But his health and faith are failing, and in the tide of the American and French Revolutions any criticism of British policy is sedition. Will stubborn minds or his own health break first?
Obviously he gets the bill passed. Otherwise, what a lousy movie it would be! But it is a beautiful story of a pivotal moment in history. It is much like the movies Luther and Hero in that respect, a fantastic story from the past brilliantly portrayed on screen. It is, frankly, my favorite genre of film.
Obviously he gets the bill passed. Otherwise, what a lousy movie it would be! But it is a beautiful story of a pivotal moment in history. It is much like the movies Luther and Hero in that respect, a fantastic story from the past brilliantly portrayed on screen. It is, frankly, my favorite genre of film.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Sin
Wired Magazine reported an analysis of sin in the USA mapped geographically. It's not really scientific, but it's entertaining. Apparently the midwest, great plains, and parts of the Mountain West are pretty saintly places to live, while the South, southern California, and the East Coast are the sin capitals. Who knew?
Realistically, it's pretty much impossible to measure sin scientifically. I don't think "expenditures on art, entertainment, and recreation compared to employment" is a good description of sloth, for example. Sloth is intended to reflect one's resistance to act to peoples' benefit - both your own or other peoples'. It's more likely that the ability to afford art is a sign of industrious productivity. How else did you get all that spending money?
Gluttony is measured by fast food restaurants per capita. No consideration of obesity rates? I guess obesity has truly been redefined as an illness rather than a moral failing.
Envy need not result in material theft. One could just as easily envy someone's expansive free time, cool job, unique talents, or close family ties.
These are all very shallow definitions. More accurate, thoughtful definitions would inherently be more difficult to measure. How do you measure how much someone chooses not to work? One who gives into lust frequently may also be sufficiently familiar with health issues and prevention to avoid STDs.
In the end, sin is a deeply personal matter, one which is best seen in ourselves by ourselves by introspective consideration without preconceptions. To recognize one's own strengths and failings is to reverse denial and reject self-deception. Another person cannot possibly know you well enough to judge sin, but neither do you easily know yourself so well either. It takes continual effort.
In this introspective way, what are you looking for? You are looking for obvious malice, of course, but also for insufficient effort. To kill someone is a sin, but to neglect someone is, too. It is not enough to draw a line and say "I will never be more sinful than this." Rather, one should continually walk away from sin, away from the line, and towards righteousness.
It's a tall order, though, isn't it? There are constant temptations to walk the wrong way, to stop entirely, and to walk the right way slowly. No one is ever quite done, ever fully free of mistakes of some magnitude or other. It's a very tall order.
Realistically, it's pretty much impossible to measure sin scientifically. I don't think "expenditures on art, entertainment, and recreation compared to employment" is a good description of sloth, for example. Sloth is intended to reflect one's resistance to act to peoples' benefit - both your own or other peoples'. It's more likely that the ability to afford art is a sign of industrious productivity. How else did you get all that spending money?
Gluttony is measured by fast food restaurants per capita. No consideration of obesity rates? I guess obesity has truly been redefined as an illness rather than a moral failing.
Envy need not result in material theft. One could just as easily envy someone's expansive free time, cool job, unique talents, or close family ties.
These are all very shallow definitions. More accurate, thoughtful definitions would inherently be more difficult to measure. How do you measure how much someone chooses not to work? One who gives into lust frequently may also be sufficiently familiar with health issues and prevention to avoid STDs.
In the end, sin is a deeply personal matter, one which is best seen in ourselves by ourselves by introspective consideration without preconceptions. To recognize one's own strengths and failings is to reverse denial and reject self-deception. Another person cannot possibly know you well enough to judge sin, but neither do you easily know yourself so well either. It takes continual effort.
In this introspective way, what are you looking for? You are looking for obvious malice, of course, but also for insufficient effort. To kill someone is a sin, but to neglect someone is, too. It is not enough to draw a line and say "I will never be more sinful than this." Rather, one should continually walk away from sin, away from the line, and towards righteousness.
It's a tall order, though, isn't it? There are constant temptations to walk the wrong way, to stop entirely, and to walk the right way slowly. No one is ever quite done, ever fully free of mistakes of some magnitude or other. It's a very tall order.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Okay, Here's The Story
No, my life did not flip or get turned upside down. But I would like to take a minute (just sit right there) to brag that as of yesterday I am officially out of debt. Yay.
Anyway, the hiatus has been because I've been writing my own website to use for my blog. I'm hoping to eventually make it more of a political discussion site than just a blog, but I'm making the blog part first. Here's the evolutionary plan:
I don't have much to show yet (in fact it's giving me at 503: Service Temporarily Unavailable error at the time of this writing, which I'm out of time to correct), but this will all be at Psudo.us.
I donno... maybe it'll be worth it, maybe not. But I have all these crazy plans demanding to be implemented, and I wanna try it.
There'd be more to show you, but I also somehow managed to get a few fake virus scanners installed on my network. Removing them has proven unexpectedly difficult, so that's been distracting me pretty well, too.
Anyway... I'm not sure this exactly qualifies as "regular posting", but at least you know what's going on now. Chaos has fallen, but I think I can get it sorted out pretty quickly. See ya'll later.
Anyway, the hiatus has been because I've been writing my own website to use for my blog. I'm hoping to eventually make it more of a political discussion site than just a blog, but I'm making the blog part first. Here's the evolutionary plan:
- Host my blog there.
- Add a feedback forum to the blog.
- Let others create blogs there, too.
- Put the best articles from all blogs on the main page -- kind of a blog-driven political news site.
- Put in a "Special Interest Groups" system for socio-political networking.
I don't have much to show yet (in fact it's giving me at 503: Service Temporarily Unavailable error at the time of this writing, which I'm out of time to correct), but this will all be at Psudo.us.
I donno... maybe it'll be worth it, maybe not. But I have all these crazy plans demanding to be implemented, and I wanna try it.
There'd be more to show you, but I also somehow managed to get a few fake virus scanners installed on my network. Removing them has proven unexpectedly difficult, so that's been distracting me pretty well, too.
Anyway... I'm not sure this exactly qualifies as "regular posting", but at least you know what's going on now. Chaos has fallen, but I think I can get it sorted out pretty quickly. See ya'll later.
Friday, September 18, 2009
One more day...
I said I'd resume regular posting on Friday (today), but it looks like it's gonna be Saturday (tomorrow). I'll have something to show, though, that will explain my behavior.
Sorry to try your patience (assuming there are readers out there).
Sorry to try your patience (assuming there are readers out there).
Monday, September 14, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Beautifully Dark Music
My tastes in music gravitate toward simple melody, dark moods, and emotional power. I'll give you some examples with commentary in no particular order. If you're unfamiliar with a given song, click the + after it for it's music video (courtesy of YouTube) and lyrics (courtesy of Google). Clicking the × will hide it again.
- "Send Me An Angel" by the Scorpions +×
This is actually a profoundly Christian song, perhaps a prayer. This is most obviously demonstrated by the title; who can send angels besides God? There's also the "promised land" reference, a Biblical term referring literally to Israel and symbolically to heaven. But there are subtler clues, too. The lyrics are recitations of the words of a "wise man" who advises many of the same things Jesus did, such as "Hear the voice" that leads you "out of the dark" -- the Holy Spirit (the conscience) leads you away from misery and regret. The intentional mention of "thorns", I think, is intended to have a double meaning -- the obvious one of roses (the good parts of life) having thorns (dangers), but also a subtle reference to Jesus' crown of thorns -- another hint that the song's Wise Man is Jesus Christ. Why does the singer need angelic help? Because he's in "the land of the morning star". "Morning star" is a Biblical name of Satan; thus, he needs aid because he's in the land of the devil.
The song tells, then, of a man drowning in the influence of Satan, calling out to the Christian God to send him the aid necessary to save him from misery. It's a very dark moment, the height of peril before the rescue. It's also a masterfully beautiful power ballad. - "Suicide is Painless" by Johnny Mandel and Mike Altman +×
Best known as "The Theme From M*A*S*H", the lyrics tell the thoughts of a suicidal man rationalizing that life is pain and death is relief. It is almost advocacy for suicide, a revolting concept -- and yet, it's a beautiful song. It's worth noting that the character "Painless Pole" from the original movie of M*A*S*H attempts suicide, a reference to the song's title. Marilyn Manson covered the song, reportedly calling the original "more depressing and offensive than anything I've ever done." - "Troy" by Sinead O'Connor +×
This song begins from quiet, almost romantic words about her being together with someone, fire, and restoration. But gradually the story sounds like a hated, regretted, betrayal of a romance. It becomes apparent that the singer has been abandoned by the partner she loved and still loves. She rejects this ex-lover even while she cannot live without them.
No one but Sinead O'Connor can mix violent rage and melodic beauty in the same voice at the same moment, and no song has a better example than the energetic fury at the end of this song. It is utterly unique.
I get a lot of crap from fellow conservatives for liking Sinead O'Connor. She is very political in ways that are clearly incompatible with US conservatism. She has done a lot of seemingly crazy, outrageous things that are offensive to various people. But more than a conservative I'm a non-conformist and a moralist, and no one holds more tightly to a non-conformist morality than Sinead O'Connor. She does what she believes is right at all costs. That is an awfully rare and beautiful thing, and I am going to give her proper respect for that and for her powerful talent regardless of anything. - "Last Kiss" as covered by J. Frank Wilson (and others) +×
A teen watches his love die in his arms after a car accident (presumably his fault), garnering one last kiss and a few last words before she goes. It's remarkably sincere, dark, and painful for such an old song. I've always associated the wordless syllables at the end as cries of guilt and agony at the end. I believe it was an Everclear version I first heard, but I can't find that version around anymore.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
True Stories
A man tells the world a story. People who hear the story live kinder, better lives. Thus, the story is good. Does it matter whether the story is true?
I've heard far more arguments from agnostics and atheists disputing the historical truth of religion than the moral implications of religion. That seems to be the reverse of their relevance. Even if there never was a Good Samaritan, if there never was a Job or a Goliath, if there was no serpent in a garden called Eden, aren't they morally valuable stories anyway?
There are good morals in Aesop's Fables, too. Does anyone believe those stories really happened?
So why are Aesop's Fables acceptable public school curriculum and Bible stories not? Surely a story of disputed truth is not inherently morally inferior to a story of indisputable fiction.
This is a little more controversial than my usual Sunday post, but frankly it's the only idea that got past my writer's block. Even so, it was still a day late. Sorry.
I've heard far more arguments from agnostics and atheists disputing the historical truth of religion than the moral implications of religion. That seems to be the reverse of their relevance. Even if there never was a Good Samaritan, if there never was a Job or a Goliath, if there was no serpent in a garden called Eden, aren't they morally valuable stories anyway?
There are good morals in Aesop's Fables, too. Does anyone believe those stories really happened?
So why are Aesop's Fables acceptable public school curriculum and Bible stories not? Surely a story of disputed truth is not inherently morally inferior to a story of indisputable fiction.
This is a little more controversial than my usual Sunday post, but frankly it's the only idea that got past my writer's block. Even so, it was still a day late. Sorry.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
"The Terminal" (2004)
Victor Navorski, a tourist from the imaginary eastern European nation of Krakozia, has a problem. While he was in flight from Krakozia to New York City, there was a military coup in his homeland. All Krakozian travel rights have been suspended, so he cannot go back. And the USA has not yet recognized this new government, so he cannot come into US soil. Thus, he has fallen into a small crack in the system. Legally, he can only remain in the international terminal until something changes. He can only wait.
He remains in this state of limbo for approximately 10 months. 10 months in an airport. Yet he manages to learn some English, make friends with the employees, find love, and discover what is great about America, all without leaving the terminal. Life, as the tagline says, is waiting.
This story lands somewhere between a romantic comedy and a biographical drama. It is (very) loosely based on the plight of a man who was actually stuck in a Parisian airport for two months. A similar story in Canada ended tragically a few years after this movie was made. (That's right, this didn't happen in the USA. Please ignore the subtle, politically biased hints at the start of the movie that all immigration woes are the fault of the Department of Homeland Security, as reality does not reflect any such thing.) It is sweet and heartwarming for the most part, with occasional sharp corners of hard reality pointing through. Tom Hanks plays Victor majestically, even learning to speak Bulgarian (not Russian) for the part. The faults of Cathrine Zeta-Jones' character are faults of morality only; she plays the flawed character brilliantly.
All taken together, this is a beautiful, heart-warming movie of the American dream as experienced by a visitor. The characters are human but heroic, the set is immense, the plot flows nicely and avoids formula or cliche. I wholeheartedly recommend this movie to everyone. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
He remains in this state of limbo for approximately 10 months. 10 months in an airport. Yet he manages to learn some English, make friends with the employees, find love, and discover what is great about America, all without leaving the terminal. Life, as the tagline says, is waiting.
This story lands somewhere between a romantic comedy and a biographical drama. It is (very) loosely based on the plight of a man who was actually stuck in a Parisian airport for two months. A similar story in Canada ended tragically a few years after this movie was made. (That's right, this didn't happen in the USA. Please ignore the subtle, politically biased hints at the start of the movie that all immigration woes are the fault of the Department of Homeland Security, as reality does not reflect any such thing.) It is sweet and heartwarming for the most part, with occasional sharp corners of hard reality pointing through. Tom Hanks plays Victor majestically, even learning to speak Bulgarian (not Russian) for the part. The faults of Cathrine Zeta-Jones' character are faults of morality only; she plays the flawed character brilliantly.
All taken together, this is a beautiful, heart-warming movie of the American dream as experienced by a visitor. The characters are human but heroic, the set is immense, the plot flows nicely and avoids formula or cliche. I wholeheartedly recommend this movie to everyone. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
The 10 Commandments for the Atheist
A quick note before I start: I tend to write these posts about a week before I publish them, giving me a buffer in case I get in a lazy mood (which happens often). With the exception of this paragraph, I wrote this post after barcode9588 mentioned she was making a video on the topic, but before I saw her video. It's only a happy coincidence that our views are almost identical. I can't prove it, though. Hopefully you'll see enough difference in styles to believe me. Anyway, here goes.
Christian and Jewish adherents find the 10 Commandments to be the beginnings of written, objective law and a divine tool for bringing about peace, law, and morality (though, I understand the 10 Commandments do not have any special authority over any other commandments in Jewish circles). Non-religious people find the 10 Commandments to be a means of control by an authority with little or no objective benefit to the running or quality of a society. Obviously there's a severe disconnect between these interpretations, an almost utter lack of common ground. Since they are written down in black and white in languages we can all read, it seems bizarre that such different interpretations arise. Clearly, something in the context changes dramatically between believers and non-believers.
After considering these things, I think the difference in context arises from what the word "God" represents. Yes, the Judeo-Christian tradition sees some thinking being behind the name, similar to a human (at least in the sense that humans were created in His image). Atheists point to this human interpretation of the Lord and see the resulting commandments as a kind of authoritarian government, comparable to a demands of a dictator to obeyed no matter how intrusive his edicts. But this ignores the subtler and more important aspect of the traditional definition: God is good. Literally.
To the adherent, "God" is symbolic of righteousness and morality first and foremost and symbolic of governing authority only in the sense that government tries to imitate divinity. Obeying the commandments is precisely doing the right thing, not because obedience and submission are especially moral but because the behaviors commanded are right in themselves. If commandments seem to be immoral, the mistake is not in the Lord but in the phrase "seem to be". By definition, either it is not divine or it is not immoral. Considered in this light, the first commandment (no other gods or idols or whatever before the great I Am) is not of authoritarian dictatorship ("Obey me above all others.") but of personal morality ("Do the right thing above all else.").
But, a skeptic might ask, if it's not about obedience why should it be stated as a commandment, an order from a Lord? Consider the timing. The Hebrews had just escaped generations of chattel slavery in which obedience was the only law. So soon after their escape from the Pharaoh and his nearly-godly authority was to throw a huge, violent, naked, drunken party that seemingly included human sacrifices. They had freedom, but no concept of how to use it to preserve themselves or establish a society. So the Lord gave them a guide to morality in a form they could understand: orders. The underlying meaning is universal, but the delivery is customized for the audience. It offered them a transition from being told what is right to understanding for themselves what is right.
I've covered the first commandment. How do the others translate through this lens?
Do not take the name of the Lord in vain. This is often taken as a commandment against swearing in the modern sense, not just referring to God casually or disrespectfully but also not referring to His powers or to private parts of the body or bodily functions in crude ways for their shock value. An older interpretation is not to use God as the basis of an oath or promise, especially one that you do not fulfill. Taking the Lord to be symbolic of morality, this commandment becomes "Take morality seriously." Do not indulge in any habits or philosophies that claim the expectation to do the right thing is silly, irrelevant, or unreasonable. Continue to believe that right and wrong matter.
Later on, several of the commandments use the word "covet". I understand "covet" to mean more than "want" but less than "steal". It is the urge to have, the temptation to take. It is the motivation to improve your situation by making someone else's situation worse. Maybe you don't actually have to steal to be covetous, but you're willing to manipulate events to encourage them to give it up. Maybe you'll screw them over for it, convince them it's broken so they give it away, or guilt them into thinking they owe it to you. Even planning stuff like that is covetous.
Thus, my 10 commandments translated for the atheist are:
Hopefully this explanation will bridge the culture gap between adherents and atheists a little and help us all to get along a little better.
Christian and Jewish adherents find the 10 Commandments to be the beginnings of written, objective law and a divine tool for bringing about peace, law, and morality (though, I understand the 10 Commandments do not have any special authority over any other commandments in Jewish circles). Non-religious people find the 10 Commandments to be a means of control by an authority with little or no objective benefit to the running or quality of a society. Obviously there's a severe disconnect between these interpretations, an almost utter lack of common ground. Since they are written down in black and white in languages we can all read, it seems bizarre that such different interpretations arise. Clearly, something in the context changes dramatically between believers and non-believers.
After considering these things, I think the difference in context arises from what the word "God" represents. Yes, the Judeo-Christian tradition sees some thinking being behind the name, similar to a human (at least in the sense that humans were created in His image). Atheists point to this human interpretation of the Lord and see the resulting commandments as a kind of authoritarian government, comparable to a demands of a dictator to obeyed no matter how intrusive his edicts. But this ignores the subtler and more important aspect of the traditional definition: God is good. Literally.
To the adherent, "God" is symbolic of righteousness and morality first and foremost and symbolic of governing authority only in the sense that government tries to imitate divinity. Obeying the commandments is precisely doing the right thing, not because obedience and submission are especially moral but because the behaviors commanded are right in themselves. If commandments seem to be immoral, the mistake is not in the Lord but in the phrase "seem to be". By definition, either it is not divine or it is not immoral. Considered in this light, the first commandment (no other gods or idols or whatever before the great I Am) is not of authoritarian dictatorship ("Obey me above all others.") but of personal morality ("Do the right thing above all else.").
But, a skeptic might ask, if it's not about obedience why should it be stated as a commandment, an order from a Lord? Consider the timing. The Hebrews had just escaped generations of chattel slavery in which obedience was the only law. So soon after their escape from the Pharaoh and his nearly-godly authority was to throw a huge, violent, naked, drunken party that seemingly included human sacrifices. They had freedom, but no concept of how to use it to preserve themselves or establish a society. So the Lord gave them a guide to morality in a form they could understand: orders. The underlying meaning is universal, but the delivery is customized for the audience. It offered them a transition from being told what is right to understanding for themselves what is right.
I've covered the first commandment. How do the others translate through this lens?
Do not take the name of the Lord in vain. This is often taken as a commandment against swearing in the modern sense, not just referring to God casually or disrespectfully but also not referring to His powers or to private parts of the body or bodily functions in crude ways for their shock value. An older interpretation is not to use God as the basis of an oath or promise, especially one that you do not fulfill. Taking the Lord to be symbolic of morality, this commandment becomes "Take morality seriously." Do not indulge in any habits or philosophies that claim the expectation to do the right thing is silly, irrelevant, or unreasonable. Continue to believe that right and wrong matter.
Later on, several of the commandments use the word "covet". I understand "covet" to mean more than "want" but less than "steal". It is the urge to have, the temptation to take. It is the motivation to improve your situation by making someone else's situation worse. Maybe you don't actually have to steal to be covetous, but you're willing to manipulate events to encourage them to give it up. Maybe you'll screw them over for it, convince them it's broken so they give it away, or guilt them into thinking they owe it to you. Even planning stuff like that is covetous.
Thus, my 10 commandments translated for the atheist are:
- Do what's right above all else.
- Take morality seriously.
- Take time to rest and think things through one day a week.
- Do your parents' proud. Obey them unless they ask you to do immoral things, and always live so that people respect your parents because they know you.
- Promote life, not death.
- Take others' romantic feelings seriously. Don't abuse their trust.
- Respect others' stuff and their right to control it's use and condition.
- Don't try to convince people of things you do not believe.
- Don't lust after people who will never be with you, or who can only be with you through violence or heartache.
- Don't cheat, manipulate, or con things away from people. Don't even indulge the urge to.
Hopefully this explanation will bridge the culture gap between adherents and atheists a little and help us all to get along a little better.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
"Luther" (2003)
In the 1500s lived a German monk named Martin Luther. He, one man alone, took a stable and united Europe and shattered it. By his own admission, tens of thousands died as a result of the revolution he began, the face of western Religion, economics, politics, and culture were forever shifted. For these reasons, every American, every German, every Canadian, Mexican, Latino, European, Christian, everyone should be eternally thankful.
A dramatized biography of a monumentally revolutionary man, this movie is awe-inspiring. Justice and mercy, tradition and revolution, religion and reason, politics and plain truth all shattered and melted together. Everything that's happened in the Western world in 500 years was influenced by this one man.
Given this glowing review of Luther, both the man and the movie, I should make it clear that I am not Lutheran. I don't consider him infallible (far from it, actually), I just recognize a revolutionary, a pivotal identity in history, and respect him accordingly. If you are so supremely anti-Christian as to be unwilling to watch this movie, you can find movies about Ghandi, Emperor Qin, or Buddha. But, without an outline of knowledge of the influence of Martin Luther you remain intellectually crippled, unable to understand why and what Western Culture is.
A dramatized biography of a monumentally revolutionary man, this movie is awe-inspiring. Justice and mercy, tradition and revolution, religion and reason, politics and plain truth all shattered and melted together. Everything that's happened in the Western world in 500 years was influenced by this one man.
Given this glowing review of Luther, both the man and the movie, I should make it clear that I am not Lutheran. I don't consider him infallible (far from it, actually), I just recognize a revolutionary, a pivotal identity in history, and respect him accordingly. If you are so supremely anti-Christian as to be unwilling to watch this movie, you can find movies about Ghandi, Emperor Qin, or Buddha. But, without an outline of knowledge of the influence of Martin Luther you remain intellectually crippled, unable to understand why and what Western Culture is.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)