Tuesday, May 31, 2005
10 Reasons Not To Kill Bush
I saw this article on Drudge and had to post a link to it. I'd mentioned previously that, for all of the things I disagreed with the Bush administration on, Bush had to be commended on his political prowess. Obviously some of the credit can be attributed to luck, timing, and circumstance; but you have to tip your hat to the way he wields his political momentum. What worries me are the people who have the ear of the president. The dark whispers of influence that shape the administrations policy will have serious ramifications on the liberty and freedom that exists in this country several years down the road. At the same time, foes of this administration must remain rational if they wish to reclaim power of the decision making power matrix that is the Washington Beltway.
Friday, May 27, 2005
Terrorism v. Freedom
This article has given me enough frame of focus to try to post on a topic which will probably be a reoccuring topic of discussion around here: freedom. Freedom is kinda like Time, everyone knows the concept but no one really "knows" what either is. Today's war on terror is a paradigm example.
The idea behind the constitution is exactly that, an idea. The difference b/w a piece of paper and a constitution is the principle which underly the words transfixed on that piece of paper. As any good law student will tell you, words mean jack shit; but, at the same time mean everything. Good lawyers can take a word that everyone would think they fully comprehend and mutate it to his or her advantage. My old roommate would recognize this as the Bill Clinton "It depends on what the definition of Is, is" principle. Thus, the document that is the consitution is only a constitution to the extent that the insitution it mothered embodies its underlying ideals.
So what are the principles proscribed within Consitution? Well most of us think we have a good idea what those are. Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Speech, Right to Bear Arms...well those are rights, but don't they say something about the principles proscribed in the constitution? What about seperation of powers? Checks and Balances, are those principles too? What about raising money to fund the government or to protect the citizens? Well all of these rights or systems center around one idea: Freedom. Some are directly related to freedom, others are structural systems designed to ensure freedom.
If we can equate freedoms to rights for a moment we can better understand how our rights are designed to ensure our freedom. First, our right to express ourselves (as in speech or press) is designed to prohibit "hypothetical tyrant" from dicating who gets to hear what. Using England circa 1700 as an apt illustation, King don't like guy who disagree, King cuts off his tounge. So our right to free expresion is designed to allow us to let everyone know about injustices all over this great land (there are obvious limitations to this, but we'll save that for later). Second, the right to bear arms: designed to make sure that when the shit its the fan, Joe Average can blow the shit out of those commie bastards. Illustration not needed.
Now, the consitution was ratified partly, if not mostly, becuase Colonial America needed a way to make sure that we were all safe from those European bastards. Thus our very bright forefathers knew that in times of war, we would need to be able to curtail rights in order to protect everyones freedom. This makes perfect sense. When there is a war, everything is different. There are "outsiders" trying to take over or infringe on our freedom. As such, it is important to protect the institution and its goals to the utmost extent so as to ensure freedoms for future generations. Still with me? Unbelievable. Of course the ideal government body would try to limit the least amount of rights possible while still effectively protecting The Republic. In economics we'd call that the equilibrium point. In med school it'd easily be illustrated as taking out the appendix so the patient doesn't die (the patient being our collective freedoms, or our constitution; the appendix would be someone like Hitler, or [insert your favorite freedom killer here]).
Everytime, in the history of this country, that we have been unfortunate enough to have to go to war we have had a clear and distinct enemy. This makes the search for that perfect equilbrium b/w fighting and freedom much easier than in the present context. Today we fight a war that has no clear enemy, no clear boundary, and as defined, no clear context; making the search for that equilibrium point very difficult to find, especially where case law and legislative sentiment provides more complexity than efficiency when it comes to defining the scope of our rights.
The National Security Letter that was issued JoeDoe ISP is a perfect example of the conflict b/w the war on terrorism and our freedom. In an attempt to capture terrorists and secure our cyber-borders, the CIA/FBI/NSA felt the need to force an ISP to produce information. This production of information does not require a search warrant or even the review or consent of a neutral party (like a 'liberal' judge?). Lets assume that the government is bestowed with the power to force the turnover of private material at their will and leisure. How long do they get this power? 'Til the war is over? Or forever?
This issue is important becuase of lag. Any good Halo2-live player has heard of lag, but in practical application its consequences are much more significant (unless you are a 12 year old boy who, for all intensive purposes, lives on his xbox). Essentialy, changes made to our freedoms now will have significant consequences on our freedoms later. You can kinda think of this as the exponential effect of change over time. Like ripples on a pond where each ring equals 5 years, the farther from center (i.e. rock thrown into pond), the bigger the ring. So 15 years out from the point where the rock hit the pond (or the 3rd rings for those counting) the ring is 3 times as large as it originally was. If the size of each susbsequent ring represents the change that the rock has created, then we need to be very astute in ascertaining whether throwing the rock is the right thing to do in the first place. This is where context comes into play, but we'll save that for another day.
Sorry for the ranting (and typos), baseball was on, so the thoughts flow only as well as the Astros permitted.
[note: the original linked article was reported dead, the currently linked article is a stand in]
The idea behind the constitution is exactly that, an idea. The difference b/w a piece of paper and a constitution is the principle which underly the words transfixed on that piece of paper. As any good law student will tell you, words mean jack shit; but, at the same time mean everything. Good lawyers can take a word that everyone would think they fully comprehend and mutate it to his or her advantage. My old roommate would recognize this as the Bill Clinton "It depends on what the definition of Is, is" principle. Thus, the document that is the consitution is only a constitution to the extent that the insitution it mothered embodies its underlying ideals.
So what are the principles proscribed within Consitution? Well most of us think we have a good idea what those are. Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Speech, Right to Bear Arms...well those are rights, but don't they say something about the principles proscribed in the constitution? What about seperation of powers? Checks and Balances, are those principles too? What about raising money to fund the government or to protect the citizens? Well all of these rights or systems center around one idea: Freedom. Some are directly related to freedom, others are structural systems designed to ensure freedom.
If we can equate freedoms to rights for a moment we can better understand how our rights are designed to ensure our freedom. First, our right to express ourselves (as in speech or press) is designed to prohibit "hypothetical tyrant" from dicating who gets to hear what. Using England circa 1700 as an apt illustation, King don't like guy who disagree, King cuts off his tounge. So our right to free expresion is designed to allow us to let everyone know about injustices all over this great land (there are obvious limitations to this, but we'll save that for later). Second, the right to bear arms: designed to make sure that when the shit its the fan, Joe Average can blow the shit out of those commie bastards. Illustration not needed.
Now, the consitution was ratified partly, if not mostly, becuase Colonial America needed a way to make sure that we were all safe from those European bastards. Thus our very bright forefathers knew that in times of war, we would need to be able to curtail rights in order to protect everyones freedom. This makes perfect sense. When there is a war, everything is different. There are "outsiders" trying to take over or infringe on our freedom. As such, it is important to protect the institution and its goals to the utmost extent so as to ensure freedoms for future generations. Still with me? Unbelievable. Of course the ideal government body would try to limit the least amount of rights possible while still effectively protecting The Republic. In economics we'd call that the equilibrium point. In med school it'd easily be illustrated as taking out the appendix so the patient doesn't die (the patient being our collective freedoms, or our constitution; the appendix would be someone like Hitler, or [insert your favorite freedom killer here]).
Everytime, in the history of this country, that we have been unfortunate enough to have to go to war we have had a clear and distinct enemy. This makes the search for that perfect equilbrium b/w fighting and freedom much easier than in the present context. Today we fight a war that has no clear enemy, no clear boundary, and as defined, no clear context; making the search for that equilibrium point very difficult to find, especially where case law and legislative sentiment provides more complexity than efficiency when it comes to defining the scope of our rights.
The National Security Letter that was issued JoeDoe ISP is a perfect example of the conflict b/w the war on terrorism and our freedom. In an attempt to capture terrorists and secure our cyber-borders, the CIA/FBI/NSA felt the need to force an ISP to produce information. This production of information does not require a search warrant or even the review or consent of a neutral party (like a 'liberal' judge?). Lets assume that the government is bestowed with the power to force the turnover of private material at their will and leisure. How long do they get this power? 'Til the war is over? Or forever?
This issue is important becuase of lag. Any good Halo2-live player has heard of lag, but in practical application its consequences are much more significant (unless you are a 12 year old boy who, for all intensive purposes, lives on his xbox). Essentialy, changes made to our freedoms now will have significant consequences on our freedoms later. You can kinda think of this as the exponential effect of change over time. Like ripples on a pond where each ring equals 5 years, the farther from center (i.e. rock thrown into pond), the bigger the ring. So 15 years out from the point where the rock hit the pond (or the 3rd rings for those counting) the ring is 3 times as large as it originally was. If the size of each susbsequent ring represents the change that the rock has created, then we need to be very astute in ascertaining whether throwing the rock is the right thing to do in the first place. This is where context comes into play, but we'll save that for another day.
Sorry for the ranting (and typos), baseball was on, so the thoughts flow only as well as the Astros permitted.
[note: the original linked article was reported dead, the currently linked article is a stand in]
Ann Coulter is a Delta Gamma...
...amongst other things. I guess that explains why she's against gay man hording all the anal sex to themselves. And Murfans syndrome? Abe Lincoln has to be rolling over in his grave.
Newsweek got fucked
So first Newsweek publishes a story. Bush administration and Pentagon officals get pissed. Said story sets off (or becomes one piece of a bigger more troubling pot) a rash of riots which leave million worth of property damaged (and you know how property is important to us Americans) as well as several thousand dead. Pentagon officials press Newsweeks source who subsequently "flip-flops" and refuses to confirm the article. Newsweek gets bitch slapped by Bush administration and plummets in the court of public (Fox) opinion. Dan Rathergate: the second generation.
So now, like true "liberal" vultures, the New York Times has swept in an written a full piece on abuses of the Koran. The issue here isn't what has been published (becuase we all knew that shit anyways). Rather, whats important is the hoops of humiliation that a major media outlet was forced to shamefully jump through. Why were Arabs pissed? Becuase the Koran was desecrated (that wold be considered blaspheme to you there Christians). Why did Newsweek get shafted? Becuase no Koran ever made it all the way through the toliet hole where the water disappears. But was the Koran desecrated? Yes. So why is Newsweek taking this on the cheek? B/c the status quo fears a revolutionary power. Be warned fair people, we are most definately not safe. But the people who are of the greatest threat are not brown, they are white.
So now, like true "liberal" vultures, the New York Times has swept in an written a full piece on abuses of the Koran. The issue here isn't what has been published (becuase we all knew that shit anyways). Rather, whats important is the hoops of humiliation that a major media outlet was forced to shamefully jump through. Why were Arabs pissed? Becuase the Koran was desecrated (that wold be considered blaspheme to you there Christians). Why did Newsweek get shafted? Becuase no Koran ever made it all the way through the toliet hole where the water disappears. But was the Koran desecrated? Yes. So why is Newsweek taking this on the cheek? B/c the status quo fears a revolutionary power. Be warned fair people, we are most definately not safe. But the people who are of the greatest threat are not brown, they are white.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Legislative-Executive Branch
Jim VandeHei of the Washington Post has a written a great article outlining the changing power dynamic inside the beltway. Depending on what side of the spectrum you stand on, this article either put a smile on your face, made you wish for the colonial days (see: Daniel Day Lewis), or had you hiding in a closet clutching your blankie.
Whats most troubling to me is the evaporation of distinction b/w the executive and legislative branches of government. Especially within the context of the electoral college that selects our president. Let me preface this by saying that if I was a religious zelot, an insecure and homophobic redneck, or a very rich business man: I be exhaulting George W. Bush as the best president since Eleanor Roosevelt. At the very least, I must tip may hat to his political skills for the deft sligh of hand used to divert political currency from the 9/11 tragedy to more invidual power goals like Iraq and gays. Thus, at the very least, democrats must recognize the tremendous political skill it takes to be delt a hand as good as W got and not fuck it up. He's carried it so far as to threaten removing the filibuster (which any good southerner will tell you about) from Senate rules of procedure.
That being said, government in the United States is no longer about Freedom or Prosperity or even Happiness; governing in contemporary society is about the allocation of power. Who gets what to compensate for that tiny little Viagra machine (only becuase african americans without Islamic sounding names are not allowed grace the Senate floor). Essentially what Bush (or his administration, where the credit goes for the bungles and huge fleecing of american tax dollars will be the topic of poli.sci debate for years to come ["Karl Rove wore the pants in the oval," "No Danforth, Cheney ran the show," "Fuck all of you, Tom the Hammer, he sucked the best dick so he ran the show."]) has done is consolidate any power that his party will give him from the legislative branch. This power, in turn, is used to prop up people who don't disagree and whom will fall right in line and not ask questions. enThe dialogue required to mine truth from the clutches of (Satan, or Socrates, or Ra; pick your posion) is completely absent. What our system of government amounts to is one man deciding what is best for us. What happed to freedom? What happened to choice? These things are dead in American democracy. They glimmer everynow and then. But for all intensive purposes they are dead.
What would Kinky do?
Whats most troubling to me is the evaporation of distinction b/w the executive and legislative branches of government. Especially within the context of the electoral college that selects our president. Let me preface this by saying that if I was a religious zelot, an insecure and homophobic redneck, or a very rich business man: I be exhaulting George W. Bush as the best president since Eleanor Roosevelt. At the very least, I must tip may hat to his political skills for the deft sligh of hand used to divert political currency from the 9/11 tragedy to more invidual power goals like Iraq and gays. Thus, at the very least, democrats must recognize the tremendous political skill it takes to be delt a hand as good as W got and not fuck it up. He's carried it so far as to threaten removing the filibuster (which any good southerner will tell you about) from Senate rules of procedure.
That being said, government in the United States is no longer about Freedom or Prosperity or even Happiness; governing in contemporary society is about the allocation of power. Who gets what to compensate for that tiny little Viagra machine (only becuase african americans without Islamic sounding names are not allowed grace the Senate floor). Essentially what Bush (or his administration, where the credit goes for the bungles and huge fleecing of american tax dollars will be the topic of poli.sci debate for years to come ["Karl Rove wore the pants in the oval," "No Danforth, Cheney ran the show," "Fuck all of you, Tom the Hammer, he sucked the best dick so he ran the show."]) has done is consolidate any power that his party will give him from the legislative branch. This power, in turn, is used to prop up people who don't disagree and whom will fall right in line and not ask questions. enThe dialogue required to mine truth from the clutches of (Satan, or Socrates, or Ra; pick your posion) is completely absent. What our system of government amounts to is one man deciding what is best for us. What happed to freedom? What happened to choice? These things are dead in American democracy. They glimmer everynow and then. But for all intensive purposes they are dead.
What would Kinky do?
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Stupid Math Majors
I love this quote from the Bucks GM Larry Harris. Highly intelligent and though provoking for sure:
Finally, I've predicted the Pistons and Spurs to meet up in the finals. I've even made two bets (both for extreme amounts of booze) to back up my position. Spurs are a lock. That means the Pistons/Heat series will actually be exciting to watch for me. To think, and Eastern Confrence finals that is actually watchable? Whoda thunk it.
"I don't know if I'll sleep tonight," Harris said. "Being a math major, with a 6.3 percent chance to win, I didn't think we had much of a chance at it."But at least the Bucks will have a chance of becoming a really solid team (assuming they keep Michael Redd). The Rockets are picking 24th, prolly too far down to get the stud PF they want, but with the incredible depth at PG, at this point at least (many will prolly withdraw after the "combine"), the Rockets could potentially find a future superstar that late in the draft.
Finally, I've predicted the Pistons and Spurs to meet up in the finals. I've even made two bets (both for extreme amounts of booze) to back up my position. Spurs are a lock. That means the Pistons/Heat series will actually be exciting to watch for me. To think, and Eastern Confrence finals that is actually watchable? Whoda thunk it.
Big Brother is Watching You
Read This. If I know the US media, this won't become too big of a deal. The 51% of the population that actually voted (fuck you who didn't vote at all) for our current leader are going to say, "Well we need to do this to protect ourselves from terrorists." Fuck terrorists, and fuck your cowardice. We are safe. We are safer than almost any other country or civilization in history. The only thing that makes us unsafe are backward, power hugging war mongers who use fear to fulfill their sexual drug addiction to power; and the cowards who fail to realize that their fears are predicated on the people they vote for and the television they follow. We are blind people. We are blind.
As we vault into the next paradigm of our existence there will be a handful of issues (cultural, legal, geopolitical) that will shatter the realities that we live in today. Whether that be for the better or for the worse remains to be seen. One of these issues is privacy. This is by far one of the most complex, confusing, conflicted, and necessary rights protected by the constitution and bill of rights (don't even get me started on the penumbra arguments, gosh Kip!). As technology evolves and an individuals rights are slowly choked away under the guise of freedom (i.e. fighting non-freedom supporters, aka terrorists), the right to privacy becomes more and more important to the fabric of American society. The abrogation of privacy is the like the 8th level of Dante's Inferno, next is the suffocation of free expression, resulting in complete tyranny (or Hell to Dante, and China to you stupid rational people).
"Oh thats never gonna happen." Thats what they said in Pompeii. "You're being paranoid, we're too powerful." Exactly, too powerful, like the Athenians, they said that too. "There's no way that we'll ever subject ourselves to one ruler when we all know that it's a bad idea." That's what Germans said before their country went to shit and decided to follow an art student flunky. In the book the The Tipping Point, by Malcom Gladwell, he discusses how ideas and things change rapidly, like epidemics. Ideas, viruses, and the status quo have a quasi-demensional, temporal point that pushes things over the edge. Gladwell describes how tiny little changes to the smallest details can propogate an epidemic (whether it be a virus or an idea). The law is a static insitution which evolves slowly, resistes change, and can only be changed by people who have the power/money/desperate story to effect that change. Thus, any change in law in the realm of privacy, or free-speech, or even copyright protection can create a ripple or tidal wave of change (not in the laws themselves, but) in how things bureaucratically operate.
Talk about protecting the constitution.
As we vault into the next paradigm of our existence there will be a handful of issues (cultural, legal, geopolitical) that will shatter the realities that we live in today. Whether that be for the better or for the worse remains to be seen. One of these issues is privacy. This is by far one of the most complex, confusing, conflicted, and necessary rights protected by the constitution and bill of rights (don't even get me started on the penumbra arguments, gosh Kip!). As technology evolves and an individuals rights are slowly choked away under the guise of freedom (i.e. fighting non-freedom supporters, aka terrorists), the right to privacy becomes more and more important to the fabric of American society. The abrogation of privacy is the like the 8th level of Dante's Inferno, next is the suffocation of free expression, resulting in complete tyranny (or Hell to Dante, and China to you stupid rational people).
"Oh thats never gonna happen." Thats what they said in Pompeii. "You're being paranoid, we're too powerful." Exactly, too powerful, like the Athenians, they said that too. "There's no way that we'll ever subject ourselves to one ruler when we all know that it's a bad idea." That's what Germans said before their country went to shit and decided to follow an art student flunky. In the book the The Tipping Point, by Malcom Gladwell, he discusses how ideas and things change rapidly, like epidemics. Ideas, viruses, and the status quo have a quasi-demensional, temporal point that pushes things over the edge. Gladwell describes how tiny little changes to the smallest details can propogate an epidemic (whether it be a virus or an idea). The law is a static insitution which evolves slowly, resistes change, and can only be changed by people who have the power/money/desperate story to effect that change. Thus, any change in law in the realm of privacy, or free-speech, or even copyright protection can create a ripple or tidal wave of change (not in the laws themselves, but) in how things bureaucratically operate.
Talk about protecting the constitution.
Monday, May 23, 2005
Apple State Fraud
GOP members in Washington state are now claiming that democrats rigged the election that put Christine Gregorie in office by 129 votes. Granted, the margin of victory is much closer than that of the presidential election; but, I still find it remarkable that the GOP will wrap themselves in the flag to defend Dem. charges of voter intimidation (and we all know that has no basis since Republicans have always treated minorities so well) but will flat out accuse democrats of fraud. I guess this is another example of the the Republican party assuming the Revolutionary Power that the Bush administration has established since 9/11. It's this very power which forces the media to accept the double moral standard and semantic labelings that NeoCons and the weaker (Jedi-mind trick suckers) members of the far and not so far right are so adept at infusing into the national dialogue. Fucking A, telling truth to power is only effective where everyone is rational.
Sunday, May 22, 2005
King of the Damned in the Land of the Lost
So this weekend marked the culmination of many things, including the final and triumphant march for many (now former) college students. This means road trip. The unlucky destination: Houston, Tx.
I have several friends in medical school who, like me, disrespected their bodies and regular sleep schedules to rake their brilliant (theirs, not mine) minds across important test that will (someday, hopefully) help them save our lives. With the completion of finals, alcohol was clearly in order.
So I arrive in Houston with a gang of future surgeons and proctologists waiting on me. We eat, and then proceed to completely sucker punch any brain cells that refused to work the week prior with shots of our good friend Jager. This led to conversations about boobs, blowjobs, med students, and lung cancer (damn med students). [On a side note: I met a girl who owned what have to be the largest natural pair of boobies on a girl not the size of a hefer and from Lubbock, Tx. From the brief hours I got to spend with her she actually did have a wonderfully sweet and honest soul behind her love mountains. She was truly fascinating and incredibly down to earth. So for any Red(neck) raiders who may be fortunate enough to bump into her: there is more than meets the eye...though there's plenty of that too.]
So after nearly a dozen shots, a viewing of "Napoleon Dynamite," and a failed attempt to make out with my first ever Indian girl Friday night came to an end.
Saturday was essentially "Star Wars" day. We caught an early evening show of the new film after heroically battling what was the most passive yet annoying hangover. We of course showed up late enough (i.e. 20 min before the previews started) to not be able to get a seat and were forced to pay extra for tickets to the next showing. By the time we are the show actually starts we'd been sitting patiently for about an hour, assuring us that none of the entertainment enhancers we'd experimented with would be working effectively by the time the movie started.
Regardless, the movie was fantastic. Let me preface: I am not a Star Wars fan/freak/nerd. In fact, while I had seen all the previous movies, I couldn't tell much about them, especially the older ones. That being said, this movie was much easier to watch than the last two (episodes I & II) primarily becuase Hayden "overacts" Christensen is a much better villian than hero. Also, there is more action and less dialouge in this movie which translates into less directing flaws at the hands of George Lucas. I think Playboy put it best when describing Mr. Lucas: he's a movie making God, but unlike Spielberg and Coppola, he can't direct. In other words, Lucas is a helluva a "world creator" but he can't coax honest acting out of a virgin porn star. Episodes V & VI are clearly the best two in the Star Wars saga, and thats becuase the movie is directed by someone other than Lucas, but the world that the movie is directed in is created by him. Lucas's contributions to soundFX, visualFX, digitalFX, and entertainmentFX are why he is famous, not becuase he can make the dialouge b/w Anakin and Padme feel real.
The drama and action in the movie are top notch, and if anything else, it will make you want to watch what happens next, which, in the real world, technically happened first. In fact, thats what I spent the rest of saturday and much of sunday doing: watching episodes IV, V, and VI; which, in sum total, have made me really appreciate the philosophical, mythological, and epic aspects of Lucas's story line. The battle b/w the dark and the light will always ring true, we've seen it in the Bible, the great works of Homer, Beowulf, Ulysses, and now, in fully glory, Star Wars. Hey, did I tell you about those boobs I saw this weekend?
Oh, and the Astros got swept. Fucking A!
p.s. to those who's graduations I miss, I was honestly thinking about you all night, I swear!
I have several friends in medical school who, like me, disrespected their bodies and regular sleep schedules to rake their brilliant (theirs, not mine) minds across important test that will (someday, hopefully) help them save our lives. With the completion of finals, alcohol was clearly in order.
So I arrive in Houston with a gang of future surgeons and proctologists waiting on me. We eat, and then proceed to completely sucker punch any brain cells that refused to work the week prior with shots of our good friend Jager. This led to conversations about boobs, blowjobs, med students, and lung cancer (damn med students). [On a side note: I met a girl who owned what have to be the largest natural pair of boobies on a girl not the size of a hefer and from Lubbock, Tx. From the brief hours I got to spend with her she actually did have a wonderfully sweet and honest soul behind her love mountains. She was truly fascinating and incredibly down to earth. So for any Red(neck) raiders who may be fortunate enough to bump into her: there is more than meets the eye...though there's plenty of that too.]
So after nearly a dozen shots, a viewing of "Napoleon Dynamite," and a failed attempt to make out with my first ever Indian girl Friday night came to an end.
Saturday was essentially "Star Wars" day. We caught an early evening show of the new film after heroically battling what was the most passive yet annoying hangover. We of course showed up late enough (i.e. 20 min before the previews started) to not be able to get a seat and were forced to pay extra for tickets to the next showing. By the time we are the show actually starts we'd been sitting patiently for about an hour, assuring us that none of the entertainment enhancers we'd experimented with would be working effectively by the time the movie started.
Regardless, the movie was fantastic. Let me preface: I am not a Star Wars fan/freak/nerd. In fact, while I had seen all the previous movies, I couldn't tell much about them, especially the older ones. That being said, this movie was much easier to watch than the last two (episodes I & II) primarily becuase Hayden "overacts" Christensen is a much better villian than hero. Also, there is more action and less dialouge in this movie which translates into less directing flaws at the hands of George Lucas. I think Playboy put it best when describing Mr. Lucas: he's a movie making God, but unlike Spielberg and Coppola, he can't direct. In other words, Lucas is a helluva a "world creator" but he can't coax honest acting out of a virgin porn star. Episodes V & VI are clearly the best two in the Star Wars saga, and thats becuase the movie is directed by someone other than Lucas, but the world that the movie is directed in is created by him. Lucas's contributions to soundFX, visualFX, digitalFX, and entertainmentFX are why he is famous, not becuase he can make the dialouge b/w Anakin and Padme feel real.
The drama and action in the movie are top notch, and if anything else, it will make you want to watch what happens next, which, in the real world, technically happened first. In fact, thats what I spent the rest of saturday and much of sunday doing: watching episodes IV, V, and VI; which, in sum total, have made me really appreciate the philosophical, mythological, and epic aspects of Lucas's story line. The battle b/w the dark and the light will always ring true, we've seen it in the Bible, the great works of Homer, Beowulf, Ulysses, and now, in fully glory, Star Wars. Hey, did I tell you about those boobs I saw this weekend?
Oh, and the Astros got swept. Fucking A!
p.s. to those who's graduations I miss, I was honestly thinking about you all night, I swear!
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
This Newsweek Shit
Ok, so this whole Quran in the shitter retraction business is almost as much about smoke and mirrors as it is about journalism and responsibility. Newsweek didn't pull the actual story, but only limited parts of its reports on reports. In essence, becuase of pressure from the Bush administration, Newsweeks original source now refuses to confirm the story, forcing Newsweek to retract the story. However, in a quote in the Washington Post, the Newsweek editors stated that they can't claim that the incident actually took place (b/c they have no source now) but also that they couldn't say that the incident didn't happen either. The wonderful people at CRJ for providing an in-depth analysis of the whole situation.
Two more things that seem suspect to me: (1) The riots, and (2) the timing. Where did the mainstream media first get the impression that the Newsweek article was in fact responsible for the dealy, and unfortunate riots abroad? I've admittingly been out of the loop thanks to post-finals moving which has left me sans the Net, so if anyone has a better lead feel free to comment. And also you gotta wonder about the timing of this whole situation. Kinda reminds me of the "mysterious" phone call that 10 reporters got and that Mr. Novak decided to report on. More to the point, should it appear odd that this, of all stories, mishandled (obviously) by the media, breaks right before the debate on the future of the Supreme Court and the Nuclear Option (which, as Atrios points out, was coined by Frist righties and not 'liberal' freedom haters).
Two more things that seem suspect to me: (1) The riots, and (2) the timing. Where did the mainstream media first get the impression that the Newsweek article was in fact responsible for the dealy, and unfortunate riots abroad? I've admittingly been out of the loop thanks to post-finals moving which has left me sans the Net, so if anyone has a better lead feel free to comment. And also you gotta wonder about the timing of this whole situation. Kinda reminds me of the "mysterious" phone call that 10 reporters got and that Mr. Novak decided to report on. More to the point, should it appear odd that this, of all stories, mishandled (obviously) by the media, breaks right before the debate on the future of the Supreme Court and the Nuclear Option (which, as Atrios points out, was coined by Frist righties and not 'liberal' freedom haters).
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Changing of the guard and goodbye's
Saying goodbye is often one of the most difficult, yet most constructive things one will do in their life. Saying goodbye, as the cliches and proverbs would have it, closes one door and opens many others. I bring this up for several personal reasons, but will elaborate using a bit less revealing but equally powerful example. For the last decade and thensome baseball faithful in the city of Houston have been treated to some of the best art called baseball, painted by that hands of two model ball players: Craig "the plunk" Biggo, and Jeff Bagwell. As I type, Bidg, as he is commonly referred to, lead the struggling ballclub in HRs (7) at the tender age of 39. Bagwell however is as close to the end of the road as is "major league" possible: see here.
So after many great years leading the team on the field and in the club house, the Horns signaling the recessional of Bags career are sounding and fans and players alike begin to say goodbye to the corner stone of a franchise. Of course his legacy will live on, first ballot hall of fame, second if nothing else. 10 year old boys, who've grown to love the 'ole ballclub over three winters have only seen the faded glory of these seminal stars, but they too will shed a tear in goodbye. A selfless tear, one without foresight of the doors which have opened, the stars that lay ahead: The homegrown slugger, the diamond in the rough - with lighting for legs, or the pitcher whos name is courage and fear.
Saying goodbye is hard, especially when its right.
"...Game Called. Upon the field of life
the darkness gathers far and wide,
the dream is done, the score is spun
that stands forever in the guide.
Nor victory, nor yet defeat
is chalked against the players name.
But down the roll, the final scroll,
shows only how he played the game."
- Grantland Rice (1956)
So after many great years leading the team on the field and in the club house, the Horns signaling the recessional of Bags career are sounding and fans and players alike begin to say goodbye to the corner stone of a franchise. Of course his legacy will live on, first ballot hall of fame, second if nothing else. 10 year old boys, who've grown to love the 'ole ballclub over three winters have only seen the faded glory of these seminal stars, but they too will shed a tear in goodbye. A selfless tear, one without foresight of the doors which have opened, the stars that lay ahead: The homegrown slugger, the diamond in the rough - with lighting for legs, or the pitcher whos name is courage and fear.
Saying goodbye is hard, especially when its right.
"...Game Called. Upon the field of life
the darkness gathers far and wide,
the dream is done, the score is spun
that stands forever in the guide.
Nor victory, nor yet defeat
is chalked against the players name.
But down the roll, the final scroll,
shows only how he played the game."
- Grantland Rice (1956)
Cyberlaw paper thus far...
Ok, so what I've learned thus far: there are 49 states that have a "rebuttable" presumption of "at-will" employment, and 1 that has a "just-cause" presumption. So 49 states say that an employer can just axe you on whim. One, the great state of Montana, says they have to have a "just" reason. Which leads me to two thoughts. 1.) is there really a practical difference b/w these two systems of employment? Where one says the boss can drop you for any reason so long as it doesn't violate "public policy", and the other says bossman must have a valid reason for dropping you? and 2.) with the only justification for the alternate systems being a deference to the market to sort things out, does that mean Montana just hates business or that they value people, their lives, their families, and the stability that acts as a key component to raising a family? Laws are a mirror of how a society, broadly speaking, ranks its values.
Addressing the first questions: could it be, that in Montana, having a shitty day is just as "just" a reasons to fire Joe Shitforluck as it would be in the other 49 money loving states? (on a side note: answering questions with questions can be hazarous to your mental health). So this is where legal research and fancy tools like Lexis-Nexus and Westlaw come in handy. If I was a diligent student of law I would present a study of the practical differences and cases and numbers regarding various excuses for firing someone. But I'm not. Why I'm not is probably the cathartic, self motivated reason why I'm writing this "thing"' (more on the thing thing later). But more broadly I want to refine myself, and my thinking. The only way to do that is by subjecting yourself to criticism, especailly in an open "ideas" market.
Addressing the first questions: could it be, that in Montana, having a shitty day is just as "just" a reasons to fire Joe Shitforluck as it would be in the other 49 money loving states? (on a side note: answering questions with questions can be hazarous to your mental health). So this is where legal research and fancy tools like Lexis-Nexus and Westlaw come in handy. If I was a diligent student of law I would present a study of the practical differences and cases and numbers regarding various excuses for firing someone. But I'm not. Why I'm not is probably the cathartic, self motivated reason why I'm writing this "thing"' (more on the thing thing later). But more broadly I want to refine myself, and my thinking. The only way to do that is by subjecting yourself to criticism, especailly in an open "ideas" market.
Saturday, May 14, 2005
So This Is How It Starts
Ok, so instead of writing my cyberlaw paper about blogs, I've just gone ahead and started one up. So let see how this works.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)