The Truth is Not Always Easy to Discover

I read that there will be renewed Peace Talks between Israel and Palestine. Before I could get my hopes up, the pundits started saying that it will fail. I thought they were just being negative, which is partially true, but then I read an Op-Ed in the New York Times which got me thinking:

Hamas, the I.R.A. and Us

I highly recommend reading it in its entirety, but the basic point is that when we consider what finally worked in the negotiations in Ireland, we realize that it happened when everyone was allowed to come to the table:

Mr. Mitchell’s comparison is misleading at best. Success in the Irish talks was the result not just of determination and time, but also a very different United States approach to diplomacy.

The conflict in Northern Ireland had been intractable for decades. Unionists backed by the British government saw any political compromise with Irish nationalists as a danger, one that would lead to a united Ireland in which a Catholic majority would dominate minority Protestant unionists. The British government also refused to deal with the Irish nationalist party Sinn Fein, despite its significant electoral mandate, because of its close ties to the Irish Republican Army, which had carried out violent acts in the United Kingdom.

A parallel can be seen with the American refusal to speak to the Palestinian party Hamas, which decisively won elections in the West Bank and Gaza in 2006. Asked what role Hamas would have in the renewed talks, Mr. Mitchell answered with one word: “None.” No serious analyst believes that peace can be made between Palestinians and Israelis without Hamas on board, any more than could have been the case in Northern Ireland without Sinn Fein and the I.R.A.

So there can be no peace unless Hamas is allowed to come to the table without the preconditions that hard right wing Israeli government wants to set on them. The preconditions basically ask Hamas to not be Hamas.

I recall that the difference between a "privateer" and a "pirate" in history depends on which side you were on. If you were favoring England, then French "privateers" are seen as "pirates", for example. Finding the truth in historical events is difficult, which is why history can be so fascinating.

This brings up the question: Is Hamas actually as much of a terrorist's party as our pro-Israeli press tends to paint it? Is Israel any less guilty of "terrorist acts"? Are we just viewing it through a Zionist lens?

Keep in mind that having Hamas come to the table doesn't mean everyone approves of everything Hamas has done. It also doesn't mean we should just blindly assume Israel, or the US for that matter, has always done the "right" thing. The I.R.A. weren't a bunch of boy scouts, either.

Why Conservatives Can't Be Allowed to Govern

Read this diary at Daily Kos first

That diary I have linked above gives the reason the mainstream media has failed the American public so miserably in the past few decades. It has allowed the fanatical rantings of pundits from the far right (Yes, I'm looking directly at you, Faux News) to become the main points of "debate" in the media. This is false, wrong debate based on false equivalencies, such as the idiotic debate between "creation science" and "evolution" - There are no points of contention. If you want to look at things from a scientific perspective, you go with Evolution. If you want ultimate answers to the meaning of life, you'll have to go with religion or philosophy.

Bill Maher, with whom I disagree quite a bit on some things obviously, had a great segment recently (NSFW language alert!) in which he asserted that we have too many false debates. There are no two perfectly defined sides to every issue or event in the news. We need to stop pretending that people like the birthers have a real point. We need to stop pretending that the truth is up for debate and can be discovered only through proper polling. Case in point, most people seem to be under the delusion that the Arizona immigration law is a good idea. It's not. It WILL lead to racial profiling and the detention of US citizens. There is no debate needed. The truth needs to be told, no matter what the public thinks. The media is supposed to inform the public, not reassure the public that everything they believe is really OK. In this way, the public actually has the ability to decide based on the truth, not based on distortions of interpretations or "misrememberings."

Something that is demonstrably true: Conservatives will drive the economy into the ground with run away spending if they are allowed to govern. This is not a debate:

The Deficit You're Freaking Out About is Bush's Fault

There is also another chart that demonstrates how the US under President Obama is actually on the road to recovery - this is also known as the "bikini graph," which just makes Rachel Maddow blush:

Both charts together directly contradict the narrative being pushed by the massive conservative media machine that the economy is in some kind of nose dive. No, the economy WAS in a nose dive under Bush and Obama pulled the plane out of the nose dive just like James Bond did at the beginning of Goldeneye. Furthermore, what was happening under Bush is exactly what results in the free wheeling, unregulated economy that conservatives are always screaming for.

Please, please educate yourself on what the economy has gone through in reality before voting in November.

Michael Campbell: Biggest Village Idiot North of Crawford, TX

There's a talk radio station that I often listen to here in BC, CKNW. It consists of all local hosts with a variety of backgrounds, so I do like the balance that exists.

One commentator who I cannot stand is Michael Campbell. He's actually the brother of the current Premier of BC, Gordon Campbell, which is scary. Michael Campbell talks about money and economic issues and is constantly repeating key neo-conservative talking points such as "welfare state" and "don't tax the rich or businesses" or, the biggest tell: "big government." He also likes to talk contemptously of the fools who don't agree with him. He says that economics is simple and easy to understand and other such naive crap that it astounds me that he's tolerated as a economic commentator here. He loves to dwell on the failures of the Greek economy, which he honestly believes is due to too many "entitlements."

Now, I don't know much about economics, I admit that, but I do have this blog to ramble. So ramble I shall! Also, I do know a bit about current events and the state of the US economy.

What part of the near total collapse of the US economy does Michael Campbell NOT understand? The US was the result of 30 years of government deregulation and unfunded tax cuts which were directed mainly at the rich. All the talk of give the rich and big business big tax breaks to create jobs was complete and utter nonsense. Give the rich a tax break - they invest it! Give big business a tax break - they give bonuses to the rich guys and shareholders rake in more big bucks.

Where was the middle class in all this? Bearing the burden for the rich and the big businesses. The US is the ultimate experiment in free (mind boggingly free, i.e. Gulf of Mexico) market. The Reagan experiment of "trickle down" economics has been demonstrated, over and over again since Obama entered office that this unfettered economy is a disaster.

Also, Campbell's simple-minded philosophy doesn't take into account the one important factor: human nature. Specifically, it does not take human greed into account. Give big businesses more money? They keep it. Give the rich tax breaks? They spend it on themselves. Campbell probably thinks that the business will actually hire more people or pass savings on to their customers. Nope - that's not what has happened in the US and it will not happen anywhere else. Any economic philosophy that ignores human greed will lead to economic ruin for the majority of people.

We've learned the end result of Michael Campell's economic philosophy:

Any questions?

Why We Need Separation of Church and State

This video of the beginning of the Anti-Historical Texas State Board of Education demostrates why the founding fathers wanted this separation.  This "prayer" is full of lies and historical untruths regarding the USA:



I'm actually appalled that a governmental body like this is allowed to open in prayer at all.  At one point in the past, having a little opening prayer was non-partisan, but this prayer is so obviously skewed and demonstrates the warped agenda of the Anti-Christian "Christian" Right that this kind of thing needs to be banned completely.  Just like the Day of Prayer has been hijacked by the religio-political interests of the Dobsonites, the idea of prayer during any goverment event needs to questioned and, perhaps, eliminated.

Sigh...OK...I give up - I REALLY want an iPhone!

I know, I know. Apple is a cult and people who have Macs and iPhones just jabber endlessly on and on about how wonderful life is now that they have this thing that is just perfect and never has any problems. Steve Jobs is an icon on their dashboard and they kiss it like a...well, whatever that thing that Orthodox Jews have by their doors.

I just totally, sinfully COVET this thing called an iPhone. I haven't had any cellphone in my life yet, but I just want to go all the way and get a really good smartphone. I also hate the idea of a tiny keyboard ala Blackberry. I love the idea of a touchscreen.

I'm totally behind the "App" idea, too. And to top it off, I just read this friday fun article at Daily Kos and I'm even more into the coveting idea. It even works as an emergency flashlight, for cryin' out loud. This is like the swiss army knife of cell phones.

Screw the iPad, I wanna iPhone.

Democratic Triumph in Maine!!

Well, I hope that's what this means. Otherwise it means the first step into fascist-ville courtesy of the teabaggers.

The idiot teabaggers of Maine have released a platform that would open the floodgates to a theocratic nightmare (The comments in brackets are from "Bill in Portland Maine," author at the daily kos link) :

Reassert the principle that "Freedom of Religion" does not mean "freedom from religion".
[What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" do you not understand?]

We recognize the sanctity of life, which includes the unborn.
[But later they say in their platform that "Healthcare is not a right" but a "service." I'm confyoozed. I guess if you're gonna be born you better come out rich.]

Discard political correctness, make public the declaration of war (Jihad), made against the US on 23 Feb 1998, and fight the war against the United States by radical Islam to win.
[And we will only accept their unconditional surrender on the deck of a battleship!]

Espouse and follow the principle: It is immoral to steal the property rightfully earned by one person, and give it to another who has no claim or right to its benefits.
[Translation: Gimme back my lawnmower, Herb!]

[The] government takeover of healthcare is not only unconstitutional, but detrimental to the entire healthcare system. Only market based solutions will solve the problems.
[Yes, the insurance industry has done such a STELLAR job solving the problems. Although, to be fair, they did solve the problem of how to increase profits by finding new and exciting ways to deny coverage to sick people.]

Defeat Cap and Trade, investigate collusion between government and industry in the global warming myth, and prosecute any illegal collusion.
[No comment---pretty much speaks for the whole document.]

Seal the border and protect US citizens along the border and everywhere, as is the prime directive of the Federal Government.
[Yes, but which border, Mr. Spock? Which...border...must...be sealed? Mexico? Canada? So...many...borders and we're just one...small...starship! Lost! In a nebula of...uncertainty and...confusion.]

Cut spending, balance the budget, and institute a plan for paying down debt. Proclaim that generational debt shifting is immoral and unconscionable and will not be tolerated!
[Disclaimer: Except when Republicans are in the majority, in which case such generational debt shifting will be relabeled "freedom investing."]

Restore a vigorous grounding in the history and precepts of liberty, freedom, and the constitution to the educational process. As Thomas Jefferson said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
[Ahem---that pot-smoking liberal hack Jefferson was written out of the history books, remember? You'll need to find a more suitable quote by St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin or Ayn Rand. With sloppiness like this, how can we be expected to take the Maine GOP seriously?]

And then, for their grand finale, a swan dive into a Dixie cup of cuckoo:

Repeal and prohibit any participation in efforts to create a one world government.
[Twitch Twitch]

How unrealistic can a platform be? This further demonstrates how completely out of touch this tea party movement actually is with political (and constitutional) reality.

The big question that everyone should really have is: Why are the Republicans even listening to these idiots?

Persecution? Spare me....

I can't understand why Franklin Graham has gone so off the rails. I do have a lot of respect for his father, but his son is making the move toward mixing politics with religion. His father, Billy Graham, did not specifically endorse political positions and avoided policy talk in his preaching. He understood what the primary gospel message was, but Franklin is buying into this radical right wingnuttery by going down the Faux News victimhood argument.

In the interview given to wingnut Newsmax he says that his "disinvintation" to the Pentagon is some kind of affront to his freedom of religion. It's not. He's giving the interview and talking on Faux News about how he's so picked on. He's free.

However, his comments about Muslims are a relevant issue. How are we going to make any kind of peace with Muslim nations by excluding them, marginalizing them and calling them evil? Even if you want to preach the gospel to Muslims, you don't begin the conversation by saying their beliefs are evil.

Graham has also probably raised the risk factor for those Christian missionaries who are trying to work with the Muslim people in a manner that is not based on the hate that he is employing. As Bush's war on Iraq increased the amount of terrorist attacks in the world, so will Graham's hateful rhetoric increase the actual persecution of Christians.

Obama needs to make peace with Muslim countries. Didn't Jesus say "blessed are the peacemakers"? Compare Graham's talk with Obama's and tell me - who is actually doing what Jesus would do?

Tea Party's Historical Ignorance

I found this article, written by Ron Rosembaum about the Tea Party's tendancy to rewrite and misrepresent history.

Here is the take away quote:

Few paid attention, but they got to the truth. And they were Socialists fighting the Nazis, you might recall. Listen up, T.P.ers: The Nazis were not Socialists. The Socialists were not Nazis. They were blood enemies. In fact, the Socialists fought the Nazis, while conservatives and nationalists stood by and thought Hitler would be their pawn. Hitler, need it be said, was not a Socialist. He hated the Socialists. Had thousands of them murdered as soon as he came to power.

I think this is why it bothers me so much when Tea Party ignoramuses put swastikas on their anti-Obama posters. They disgrace themselves, they insult the dead martyrs to the truth, by lumping socialism with fascism and Obama with Hitler. They not only disgrace themselves; they be-clown themselves, they distort the historical consciousness of everyone they spread the comparison to.

Read the full article for why the TP's are so dangerous because of their faulty grasp of history.

Sedition?

This is a great discussion about how Palin, Beck and the Faux News conglomerate are seditious:



Clinton's comments about this violent language falling on the "sane or insane" are very relevant. Clinton never indicated that all right wing arguments are violent, but that some of the unbalanced listeners take it more literally than the GOP would like.

Timothy McVeigh was just one man who was inspired by the right wing militia movement. The movement may now condemn him, but it continues to inspire McVeigh wannabees such as the Hutaree militia. If the feds were slow on the uptake we could be talking about the deaths of many police officers, which is what the Hutarees were planning to do.

The above clip highlights how important it is for the right to begin to distance themselves from the hate speech of Beck, Limbaugh, Palin and the Faux News idiots.

Currently, Faux News and Company are embracing the inflammatory speech and acting not only as spokespeople for the GOP, but have become a major fundraiser as well.

Why Tea Partiers are idiots...

I am shamelessly reposting this from the comment section at this link:

How many of you have seen this:

You didn’t get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.

You didn’t get mad when Cheney allowed Energy com­pany offi­cials to dic­tate energy policy.

You didn’t get mad when a covert CIA oper­a­tive got outed.

You didn’t get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.

You didn’t get mad when we ille­gally invaded a coun­try that posed no threat to us.

You didn’t get mad when we spent over 600 billion(and count­ing) on said ille­gal war.

You didn’t get mad when over 10 bil­lion dol­lars just dis­ap­peared in Iraq.

You didn’t get mad when you saw the Abu Grahib photos.

You didn’t get mad when you found out we were tor­tur­ing people.

You didn’t get mad when the gov­ern­ment was ille­gally wire­tap­ping Americans.

You didn’t get mad when we didn’t catch Bin Laden.

You didn’t get mad when you saw the hor­ri­ble con­di­tions at Wal­ter Reed.

You didn’t get mad when we let a major US city drown.

You didn’t get mad when the deficit hit the tril­lion dol­lar mark.

You finally got mad when.. when… wait for it… when the gov­ern­ment decided that peo­ple in Amer­ica deserved the right to see a doc­tor if they are sick.

(From poster named Stock)

This corporate funded astroturf movement deserves all the disdain and namecalling that the left can throw at them.

It's so easy being right wing!

All I have to do is be willing to lie and distort truth in order to get heard on TV. I am only "for" something until President Obama and/or the Democrats are "for" it. As soon as the President embraces it - I'm against it as a socialist, communist plot to take over the government.

This is the case for heath reform. Obama gave a key statement on health reform today and now is the time of the final push to give Americans what they desparately need: health care without the threat of bankruptcy. For too long the insurance companies have rationed care and denied coverage and this must end before the US bankrupts itself due to health care costs.

The complete lack of support from the Republican side of the aisle demonstrates their complete lack of moral guidance and lack of conscience. They have literally sold their vote to the Health Insurance lobbyists.

For some reason many in the so-called "mainstream media" are saying this is political suicide for the Democrats and Obama. This is nonsense. Once people get a taste of having good health insurance at a fair price without the threat of financial ruin, they will never want to go back.

Come this November, I'm sure many of these Republicans will discover that it was political suicide to say no when people's lives were on the line.

A great clip from Rachel Maddow demonstrating the utter hypocrisy of the GOP:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The best plan for voters? Come this November I believe it would be a good idea to only vote Democrat - vote straight along the party. This would, perhaps, let the GOP know that their gamble with American lives is evil and just plain heartless.

London 2012: The Worst Olympics Ever!

It seems that some, probably The Daily Fail...um...I mean, Mail, of course - are saying that the Vancouver 2010 Olympics are the "worst ever". They began saying this about 4 days after the Olympics started.

I've decided to begin a satirical campaign of one to call the London 2012 Olympics the worst Olympics ever. I don't need any facts or the fact that they haven't happened yet to get in the way. I can just SAY it. That's all the New Atheists, Faux News, the GOP, Dick Cheyney, Sarah Palin and assorted Christian Fundamentalists do and they get air time! "Religion is behind all evil events." "Obama is going to slaughter you." "We are against the stimulus." "Waterboarding acheived good results." "I resigned my governership for the good of the people of Alaska/the country." "The earth was created in 6 24 hour days." (All of those things in quotation marks are factually untrue, for those unsure of my meaning!)

Quick - INTERVIEW ME!! I can make things up, too! Did you know that the English Olympic Committee is the same committee that planned 9/11? The Founding Fathers revolted against the BRITISH, ya know, so this is why it's unAmerican to support the London Olympics? It doesn't have to be TRUE or anything to get air time. I can be completely made up history, like Dick Cheyney and that former Bush speechwriter have recently begun to do with some airhead on ABC.

It's hard to believe that anyone can think of something as the "best" or the "worst" when it's just started and not finished. You cannot evaluate any event or historical person "in the moment". Faux News began to relentlessly lie about President Obama as soon as he came on the public scene and then repeat the lies and now we have the so-called "liberal" media beginning to allow "birthers" to get away with fabricated nonsense. (They ignored the birther talk at the National Tea Party convention and pretty much ignored the racist/bigoted remarks made by Tancredo. The last I checked only 600 people showed up for this "national" convention. Why does the media give attention to these nut jobs anyway?)

So it doesn't matter if it's true - it only matters if you SAY it: The London 2012 Olympics are (not will be) the Worst Olympics Ever! Those Brits don't know what they're doing and they all have bad teeth! Let's have another Revolution against the Brits!

Manhattan Declaration: Why I Cannot Sign It

I'm really struggling with this Manhattan Declaration. I cannot condone the legislation of morality and still believe in a country that is truly free.

Basically, the MD has three principles that it elaborates upon:

1.the sanctity of human life
2.the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3.the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

I will probably take days to elaborate and work through this in my head, but I must remain true to what I believe is the specific teachings of Jesus Christ. In some ways, I think the MD is right on, but in others, it doesn't go far enough. For example, if the sanctity of human life is such an issue: Why aren't Christians as a group crying out about the death penalty? Or condeming the Bush administration's throwing away of American and Iraqi lives in Iraq?

It says that the declaration is not partisan, which I don't believe for a minute.

If we believe in religious freedom and have extended that to believe in freedom and equality for all, why the obsession with marriage? Even if a group believes that an act is sinful, does that mean that it needs to be legislated as sinful?

Religious freedom implies freedom to not be religous. The document does not really endorse a free lifestyle, but a severely restricted one. I do believe that sex outside of marriage is not right, but I don't want it legislated to be illegal to have sex outside of marriage. I can't understand how allowing gay marriages will destroy society like a bad disaster movie.

I also am puzzled by the lack of "standing up" for important Christian values like grace and truth.

Where is the condemnation from Christians over the out and out lies being perpetrated by supposed Christians like Sarah Palin or the pretend Christians on Fox Noise? When are Christians going to condemn the name of Christ being peddled in the US as an exlusively right wing Republican product?

As I read the gospels, I see very little about sex and marriage from Christ. The only real statement that Jesus makes about government may be found in the often quoted "Give to Caesar what is Caesar, and to God what is God's". He even acknowledges the corrupt Roman governor, Pilate, as being appointed by God:

8When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid, 9and he went back inside the palace. "Where do you come from?" he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer. 10"Do you refuse to speak to me?" Pilate said. "Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?"

11Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."

12From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jews kept shouting, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar."

from John 19

What am I trying to say here? Christianity should have nothing to do with politics. The church I grew up in may have been fundamentalist in some ways, but I can't recall being told that to be a Christian, I had to be a Republican.

I'm pissed off about the Catholic bishops putting conditions on their charity work, which is not Christian at all. Grace, a central tenant of Christianity is being ignored by the majority of Christians and it must be reasserted.

Love, Grace and Truth: That's what's missing in the Manhattan Declaration.

FOX vs White House: It's about the TRUTH

I have been spending more time than I should on trying to understand the "war" between the White House and Faux News. The White House simply says what is a well-documented and carefully illustrated truth: FOX creates the news through its commentary and repeats it as news on its "news" coverage. I don't need to document this here for it is already well documented by Media Matters. Now that idiot Sean Hannity says he doesn't trust mediamatters, because it is liberal. The White House's main point is that they don't trust FOX, and nor should anyone else, because they are just a propaganda machine for the conservatives. The White House's response to any criticism from FOX is simple now: "It's not a legitimate news organization. We've made that clear. We can't trust the source, so come back to us when you have facts to back up your criticism that are not FOX-based."

This video is spectacular in how it illustrates the FOX bias and agenda:



The White House is calling a bully a bully. They don't really need to do or say anything else. As for the argument about Fox's increased ratings: that's a red herring. It doesn't matter if Faux's ratings are through the roof. It's all about truth - which is not something that happens by majority vote: Truth just is.

Fox lies, distorts and manipulates the truth to serve its own conservative agenda. The White House is simply stating that. There is no "attack" on FOX: They can still broadcast. They have the freedom to say whatever they want. They insist on the freedom to say whatever they want. It's a shame they don't want anyone to have the freedom to oppose their destructive agenda.

More on this debate

Why I'm Stuck?

I stumbled across this article: The Lost Art of Reading. This exactly describes my predicament with writing papers. I'm too restless and have noticed some of the same difficulties with the act of reading.

David Ulin states that he, like me, grew up reading constantly:

In his 1967 memoir, "Stop-Time," Frank Conroy describes his initiation into literature as an adolescent on Manhattan's Upper East Side. "I'd lie in bed . . . ," he writes, "and read one paperback after another until two or three in the morning. . . . The real world dissolved and I was free to drift in fantasy, living a thousand lives, each one more powerful, more accessible, and more real than my own." I know that boy: Growing up in the same neighborhood, I was that boy. And I have always read like that, although these days, I find myself driven by the idea that in their intimacy, the one-to-one attention they require, books are not tools to retreat from but rather to understand and interact with the world.

Now, it's different - always thinking you're missing something, which has especially seemed more relevant since 9/11:

So what happened? It isn't a failure of desire so much as one of will. Or not will, exactly, but focus: the ability to still my mind long enough to inhabit someone else's world, and to let that someone else inhabit mine. Reading is an act of contemplation, perhaps the only act in which we allow ourselves to merge with the consciousness of another human being. We possess the books we read, animating the waiting stillness of their language, but they possess us also, filling us with thoughts and observations, asking us to make them part of ourselves. This is what Conroy was hinting at in his account of adolescence, the way books enlarge us by giving direct access to experiences not our own. In order for this to work, however, we need a certain type of silence, an ability to filter out the noise.

Such a state is increasingly elusive in our over-networked culture, in which every rumor and mundanity is blogged and tweeted. Today, it seems it is not contemplation we seek but an odd sort of distraction masquerading as being in the know. Why? Because of the illusion that illumination is based on speed, that it is more important to react than to think, that we live in a culture in which something is attached to every bit of time.

Here we have my reading problem in a nutshell, for books insist we take the opposite position, that we immerse, slow down. "After September 11," Mona Simpson wrote as part of a 2001 LA Weekly round-table on reading during wartime, "I didn't read books for the news. Books, by their nature, are never new enough." By this, Simpson doesn't mean she stopped reading; instead, at a moment when it felt as if time was on fast forward, she relied on books to pull back from the onslaught, to distance herself from the present as a way of reconnecting with a more elemental sense of who we are.

I have insomnia at times and can't read for long before I begin poking at the internet, seeing what I'm "missing." It is important, though, to force yourself to enter into the writer's world. Ulin mentions it may take longer and sometimes it takes him at least 20 pages before he is in the state he used to be in when younger and in his pre-internet days. His conclusion:

These are elementary questions, and for me, they cycle back to reading, to the focus it requires. When I was a kid, maybe 12 or 13, my grandmother used to get mad at me for attending family functions with a book. Back then, if I'd had the language for it, I might have argued that the world within the pages was more compelling than the world without; I was reading both to escape and to be engaged. All these years later, I find myself in a not-dissimilar position, in which reading has become an act of meditation, with all of meditation's attendant difficulty and grace. I sit down. I try to make a place for silence. It's harder than it used to be, but still, I read.

I completely agree. I need to just work harder at it and realize it's a new kind of discipline to be a reader in this internet age.

I don't get it...

I just saw Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince today, expecting to be at least midly entertained.

I was wrong.

I was bored out of my skull. Bored with the moodiness, the lack of humour the damn teen angst. Has Twighlight even scared the makers of the HP movies?

I love the books. Can't read them enough. Have read them all at least twice, as I recall. I love the humor, the adventure and the not so hidden Christian message in the whole series. A scholar of children's literature, Jack Zipes - Marxist and athiest - said after only three or four of the books were out that this series was following the pattern of the Christian knight. I didn't believe it then, but after book 7, I saw it loud and clear. This profound idea is lost to the idea that we need to just show a string of scenes from each book.

The movies? Don't own or want to own any of them. I find they're more to appeal to fans who want to see "certain scenes" on screen. Unlike Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy, I feel the makers of the Harry Potter movies have lost touch with the spirit of the stories. Jackson added, deleted and manipulated the key events in the story to fit cinema and illustrate his own interpretations, but I don't feel that we lost Tolkien's original themes and ideas. Harry Potter tends to be scenes from the books, without the ideas that propel the story. I guess, in a sense, I felt the same way about Star Trek (2009) - something was lost in the translation to the big screen.

Although, like ST, perhaps in 20 years we'll get the "reboot" of the Harry Potter movies. I wonder what Jackson is doing after producing The Hobbit?

EDIT: Yay! Here's a review of the movie that I agree with! And it's from Philly!

No more Twitter for me...

You may have noticed I attempted to add a Twitter account, but I've deleted the account already. There were two problems that I discovered rather quickly. The answer to the question "What are you doing?" seemed too difficult for me to come up with, which demonstrates that this writer's block I've been experiencing is pretty deep rooted by now.

Also, I really got the account to follow "breaking news" kind of items and started following about 14 different accounts. Well, apparently, I did something wrong because all 14 accounts "disappeared" within 24 hours and it said I was following 0 accounts. I discovered that I didn't want to play yet another online game with the non-existent support staff at yet another website (Due to negative experiences with both Ebay and amazon.ca, I will never deal with either again).

Most of the time there are no problems with sites and they can go on automatically and rake in the money without actually having to work. For the few times there are problems the person who has the problem only gets automated responses (amazon.ca does this) and it is very difficult to get a person. When you do, finally, (after 10-20 emails) get a person, they simply continue to repeat what the automated responses say, no matter what. The people do not even attempt to think on their own, which is becoming a larger and larger problem with society as a whole.

Ebay committed the worst "sin" in my opinion. When you file a "grievance" (I never received the book I ordered despite repeated emails from the seller that he sent it), ebay automatically gives your PHONE NUMBER to the person you have a problem with. The guy calls me AT HOME from far, far away and wants to "solve" the problem over the phone!! I immediately stopped going to ebay after that. Within a few months the automatic emails stopped (it's not possible to "unsubscribe" apparently)

Well, these two experiences made me delete my twitter account. I've learned that if you have problems, that is the best way to deal with websites. Don't even attempt to contact them. There's no point.

But it's not Star Trek...

Ok, I saw the movie and I was impressed with the special effects, I laughed and I thought the opening sequence of Kirk's father's death was well done. I can see why the numbers are there and I can see why this will go down in history as a successful "reboot" of the series. It will make tons of money and that's just the way it is: I get it. I'm going against the grain by writing this, but Star Trek was supposed to be about going against the grain and perhaps it never should be "new, hip and uptodate." However, I can't get past the feeling that this is not really a "reboot" as others have been done. Let me try to organize my thoughts and explain why. I will also warn anyone out there that there will be spoilers coming. See the movie first and then come back to this.

Batman, Battlestar Galactica and James Bond have also done the "reboot" thing and started anew, but none of them betrayed their roots like this movie has done. All three of these franchises had something in common: they all kind of fell into "campiness" and silliness at some point and people just lost interest in the goofiness of it all. All three reboots did the same thing, though: they looked to the roots of the stories, stripped them to essentials and began again. The basic story of all three - the foundations of all three - stayed the same. This is important because it is in the foundations that we discover what brought us to these stories in the first place.

About the "nuTrek" as some are starting to label this movie: it has done what no other "reboot" has done - attacked and destroyed foundations by destroying Vulcan and betraying Vulcan culture with a kiss. It basically has eliminated all the TV series and movies that have gone before it with its time travel plot. It is an alternative universe, which is fine with some, but not with me.

Spock's character as revealed during the movie is not Vulcan in his behavior, which is just not consistent with who Spock and Vulcans have developed into over the course of the many shows and movies. Vulcans never - repeat NEVER - display affection in public. It is completely alien (drum riff) to their way of life - it would never even occur to them it is so distasteful. I have no difficulty with Spock/Uhura having a relationship, but openly kissing in front of not only others, but a superior officer is not going to happen. This single event took me out of the movie and wrecked that "suspension of disbelief" I have. It is especially unrealistic in light of the destruction of Vulcan and the death of Amanda, Spock's mother. If I have learned anything about human nature, it is that in times of extreme crisis we tend to cling to what we know and even have a tendency to become more fundamentalistic about our beliefs. Spock would not kiss Uhura in public - that is not Spock.

Star Trek, ultimately, is about characters and challenges to our ways of living and thinking. It is not a space opera like Star Wars. It is a way of exploring what it means to be human and the alien races on the series were ways of exploring different parts of human nature. I feel that this movie gave up on the thought and character development in favor of the quick joke, the grand special effects, and something that would appeal to a wider audience. The question that I have then is: Was Star Trek ever supposed to appeal to a wider audience? Maybe not.

Bad Movies

I guess the official protocol is to say: "Spoilers ahead!". However, I will be doing you a favor. Don't ever watch this movie: Swordfish. It's been a while since I sat through a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad movie. In a funny way....I feel a bit refreshed by it. No need for seriousness in thinking about this. No Nietzschian metaphors within the bad guys like The Dark Knight. No serious commentary on society's rejected ones as in Monster. No thought provoking commentary on the war in Iraq like In the Valley of Elah.
Nope! This movie is just so bad, it should be illegal to have "making of.." featurettes on the DVD like this one does. You know the ones, where the actors and others involved in this semi-crime against humanity talk up the movie like it's the next Citizen Kane. And the actors? Well...we're talking some of the best actors out there in this movie: John Travolta, Halle Berry, Hugh Jackman and Don Cheadle. I guess when there's too many good actors, that should be a sign of some kind?

Apparently this movie is trying to make a STATEMENT about how terrorism is to be handled. You see the key is (I am not making this up): Hit them back harder!!!!! TAKE THAT! That's what settles for profound thinking in this movie. Travolta says that the first few pages of the script are what sold the film for him. Basically the movie begins with Travolta explaining what is wrong with Hollywood films. Big long attempt at Tarantino-esque dialogue. Kinda ironic - an incredibly bad movie talking about....but I guess that was unintentional. This movie is so bad that their idea of a chase scene involves actors rolling after each other down an incredibly steep hill. I'm not kidding - rolling down a hill. It was an excruciatingly long chase sequence, too. Really.

Travolta is posing as a bank robber in order to be a terrorist of terrorists (like Dexter, but poorly edited and with lots more explosions). He's supposed to be our American hero, although we just think he's really a crazy bad guy, but is Halle Berry a DEA agent or is she just his main squeeze after all and we get to see her topless for no other reason than guys can go around and say they saw her topless. That's the movie...a big long run-on sentence. Oh, and Travolta randomly kills people in the middle of LA and gets away with it. I guess that's not as much a stretch as I thought it was initially.

Anyhow - Berry's topless. However, the filmmakers don't seem to understand that in well made movies, there is a reason for things like toplessness or shooting up senators or blowing up LA. In this movie, there's really no reason for any of it. It's so choppily edited that it seems more like a highlight reel and a poorly made highlight reel at that. Now there was toplessness in In the Valley of Elah, too, but it made sense and revealed something about Tommy Lee Jones's character(No, he wasn't the one that was topless. Sorry, ladies.) I won't tell you about it because that would entail spoiling a good movie.

Another test of a bad movie suddenly came to mind: I bet everyone who saw Swordfish remembers that HB was topless for all of ten seconds or so. I also bet that everyone who saw In the Valley of Elah and has been reading this is thinking: "I don't remember any toplessness in that movie...." That's a sign of a good movie - even boobs don't distract from a well made film.

I didn't watch the Oscars...

What's happening? I've stopped watching TV and now I've actually NOT watched the Oscars for the first time in at least a decade. I was talking to the principal of the school I work at when I'm not taking a year off for grad school and he was talking about Rick Mercer. I haven't watched one Rick Mercer this season!!! I don't even watch the last season of Corner Gas (Although I will by the DVD in Oct/Nov when it comes out.) The time for the Oscars came up, I looked at the clock and decided I wasn't interested. I haven't watched any of the Best Picture nominees this year, although I'm sure "Slumdog Millionaire" deserved the honor. I know just from reading about the movie that it was the one to root for - anything about an underdog is fantastic to me. I was miffed at the exclusion of "The Dark Knight" for nomination. I knew Heath Ledger would win for the Joker, but it should have been at least nominated for original screenplay and director.

That wasn't the reason I didn`t watch and it wasn't because I was too busy with school work. The stuff I've been reading in grad school is actually changing the way I think. The way I view things and I'm not sure what to think about that...