Shoot 'Em Up

Ok, my gentle snowflakes, let me tell you a story. It's a story about a film that is so hilariously over the time, so perfectly unabashed in it's exploitation and humorous homages, so great in it's execution of satire and surrealistic extension of cliches, and so damn entertaining and simple that the entire purpose of the film is expressed in it's two and a contracted-word title: Shoot 'Em Up.

Let me just ask some questions to get across it's greatness.

Would you want to see a movie with a body count of 100?

Would you want to see a movie where a man is impaled through the back of the throat with a carrot?

Would you want to see a movie where a man is stabbed in the eye with a carrot?

Would you want to see a movie where a carrot is used to fire a gun?

Would you want to see a movie that has a woman giving birth in the middle of a shoot out?

Would you want to see a movie that has a merry-go-round with a baby on it being turned by shooting at the rails?

Would you want to see a movie with Clive Owen?

Would you want to see a movie with Monica Bellucci?

Would you want to see a movie where Monica Bellucci and Clive Owen have sex during a shoot out?

Would you want to see a movie where bullets are fired by shoving your hand into a fire with them in between your fingers?

Would you want to see a movie with a mid-air parachute using gun battle, and ensuing helicopter chopping-ness of body parts?

Would you want to see a movie with no real plot other than to cram as much damn enjoyable and sarcastically based, gently mocking humor and action into it as possible?

Answers yes to any and all of the previous questions results in the immediate desire to go see Shoot 'Em Up. Just know it's meant to be seen as gloriously over the top on purpose, and go with it. Pure entertainment, but very enjoyable. As a topping, Clive Owen, even in a roll like this, is just great all around.

The Kingdom

Been awhile since I've done an actual review. Since seeing The Invasion, I've seen many films, such as 3:10 to Yuma (good but with some quibbles; Bale and Crowe are great), Resident Evil: Extinction (about what you'd expect, except for Rich since he despises this series now), The Bourne Ultimatum (excellent all around except for the fact that the movie ends), Halloween (pass; stick with the original -- but the breasts and Malcolm McDowell are nice), Death Sentence (surprisingly invigorating, even if the emotional story isn't that great overall; but even that has some good parts, and the action scenes are very nice, some are extremely nice too).

Five movies that I haven't gotten around to reviewing, and probably won't sadly, aside from what I said above. There's also two others that I plan on reviewing shortly. Things just don't work out well when I go out to see movies on Saturday afternoon, then work till 11, then have to be up in the morning to work again on Sunday. Not much time for reviewing, sadly. After a day or two, I usually lose track of the film or lose track of much of my commentary on it. I'm hoping to correct that today.

This Saturday I saw The Kingdom. This is a harder movie for me to review, since it has enjoyable elements to it, but leaves me with a dissatisfied taste for a few reasons that I know of but are a bit difficult to express.

Lets start with a simple divide: entertainment vs. message.

The entertainment of the film, the story and action elements, are very good. As everyone has been proclaiming, the last 30 minutes or so are extremely gripping, and done very well. The action doesn't push new ground anywhere, it's simply done in a very effective way. The bangs bang, and the guns shoot like no other, and if that's all you want, you'll be rewarded handsomely.

The acting is overall well, though nothing really extraordinary. Everyone seems to be doing their usual stuff, more or less. The most stand out element to this was that Jennifer Garner got so little time, and how much that made me like her performance: it was barely there, so I didn't have to put up with that crap. Jamie Foxx and Chris Cooper are of course good but, again, nothing great or Oscar worthy. I'm always surprised by the TV spots and trailers that really don't advertise the fact that Jason Bateman is in the film at all. They show him briefly but never name him or refer to him. He as well is good in the film, but nothing stand out worthy.

Nothing stand out worthy, aside from the smoothness of the action scenes is really the compliment of the film and the best I can describe it. Which makes the message of the film that much more confusing as well as overbearing.

The plot is that a series of attacks by Saudi terrorists against US citizens in Saudi Arabia have occurred, as well as against FBI agents. Jamie Foxx, after hassles, gets extremely rare permission to investigate in Saudi Arabia with his team to catch the leader. The limitations of the Saudi government, as well as Arab culture, are ubiquitous and quite believable. Able to walk through a crime scene but not touch anything; not able to work at night; only being transported at 150+ miles an hour for their safety; etc. Surprise, in the end they catch the guy, kill him, and return home. All the Americans live, and the Saudi they befriended is killed.

The thing that gets confusing is that they go to some lengths to show that they're humanizing the Saudis. That's laudable. They're human -- humanize the people! In particular is a scene where Jamie Foxx meets a former bomb-maker who blankly tells him that he only stopped because he couldn't sleep anymore for seeing his victims faces. Conscience in a terrorist? Impossible! That's so liberal, I'm surprised they didn't make him a hippie as well!!

There is as well the man who is killed as I said, whom is greatly humanized with his family, his patriotism to Saudi Arabia, his dedication, etc. It's a rousing success for reality based, non-stereotypical storytelling: humans are humans, even if they're of Middle Eastern descent!

And then there's the ending. Oh boy the ending. You have the equivalence of the FBI in their dedication to taking down those who kill their agents, to the suicide bombers and terrorists, as well as the instilling of a new generation of bombers in children. You have the justification that they'll "kill them all," and that really does nothing but make you wonder when Bush will show up at the end of the film saying he approves this message. Err, I'm a bit confused here.

Middle Eastern people are human and non-stereotypical, yet they're suicide bombing, terrorist crazy fuckers, which is entirely stereotypical and really not considered very human. I'm sensing an incongruence.

It just seems to work toward building a nice house out of "Yes, there are problems, but human beings stop such crazy behavior, even if they take part in it for a long time" and then shits all over it with a big pile of "But they're out to fucking kill you, bitches!"

It's so hard to see that in a film that is otherwise quite good overall. It's fucked over by completely incoherent, and just distasteful, overtones. What a shame.

McCain: America is a Christian Nation

John McCain is one hell of a panderer, or one hell of a fucked up delusional person. Either way, he's lying his ass off and completely separated from reality.

Has the candidates’ personal faith become too big an issue in the presidential race?

Questions about that are very legitimate.... And it's also appropriate for me at certain points in the conversation to say, look, that's sort of a private matter between me and my Creator.... But I think the number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the President of the United States is, 'Will this person carry on in the Judeo Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?'"

It doesn't seem like a Muslim candidate would do very well, according to that standard.

I admire the Islam. There's a lot of good principles in it. I think one of the great tragedies of the 21st century is that these forces of evil have perverted what's basically an honorable religion. But, no, I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles.... personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith. But that doesn't mean that I'm sure that someone who is Muslim would not make a good president. I don't say that we would rule out under any circumstances someone of a different faith. I just would--I just feel that that's an important part of our qualifications to lead. [...]

A recent poll found that 55 percent of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation. What do you think?

I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn't say, “I only welcome Christians.” We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.

Ah, I love it when people try to play moderate while going to the extreme of extremity. Like Bill Sali territory.

Ok, let's begin to summarize here. To McCain, the Constitution specifically establishes a Christian nation. In the "broadest sense," but later that broadest sense is shown to be specifically a Christian and preferably of "McCain's faith" (whatever that is).

Simple question John-boy: where the hell is any of this stipulated in the Constitution? There's a specific section of it explicitly saying there is not religious test for office in any part of the government. It's not "there's no test for Christians, test for everyone else" -- there's no fucking religious test. Period.

Relatedly, that this nation was founded under "Christian principles." Really? Strange. I don't recall the part of the bible that says religion stays out of politics. I don't recall the part of our Constitution that says you should kill non-Christians. I expressly don't recall our Constitution being an everlasting inerrant document.

Oh, but he's referring to those "Christian" principles that are so omnipresent in apologists but so sparse and missing in the book that they supposedly get their principles from.

But faith! Faith is what we need! Of course. That thing which is the basis for the discriminatory, delusional, and deadly world view that is so anathema to rational people, or really anyone with a conscious capable of looking beyond what they're holy books and incontravertable religious leaders say for more than 30 seconds.

John McCain. Just like all Republicans today it seems. Theocratic pusher or pandering for theocracy -- both despicable.

It's been a while but how about some QI?

I know new episodes are airing, but I sadly do not have access to them. I deathly desire to, however. Alas, we'll have to make due with last seasons Christmas special.



(Original link.)



(Original link.)



(Original link.)

Ah, if only religious people could work at even the meager standings Dana states: "Well, they saw it." Sadly enough, they don't even get to that level of evidence.

See, I just never think to say such a thing as Fry does. I would never pull out a "This is turning into a massive embarrassment." Just never. Even though I really should more often.

Verizon: sponsors of censorship

Verizon just doesn't seem to get that their job is to be a carrier of messages and conversations, not a filter for them.

Saying it had the right to block “controversial or unsavory” text messages, Verizon Wireless has rejected a request from Naral Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group, to make Verizon’s mobile network available for a text-message program.

The other leading wireless carriers have accepted the program, which allows people to sign up for text messages from Naral by sending a message to a five-digit number known as a short code. [...]

But legal experts said private companies like Verizon probably have the legal right to decide which messages to carry. The laws that forbid common carriers from interfering with voice transmissions on ordinary phone lines do not apply to text messages.

The dispute over the Naral messages is a skirmish in the larger battle over the question of “net neutrality” — whether carriers or Internet service providers should have a voice in the content they provide to customers.

“This is right at the heart of the problem,” said Susan Crawford, a visiting professor at the University of Michigan law school, referring to the treatment of text messages. “The fact that wireless companies can choose to discriminate is very troubling.”

In turning down the program, Verizon, one of the nation’s two largest wireless carriers, told Naral that it does not accept programs from any group “that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users.” Naral provided copies of its communications with Verizon to The New York Times. [...]

“No company should be allowed to censor the message we want to send to people who have asked us to send it to them,” Ms. Keenan said. “Regardless of people’s political views, Verizon customers should decide what action to take on their phones. Why does Verizon get to make that choice for them?”

A spokesman for Verizon said the decision turned on the subject matter of the messages and not on Naral’s position on abortion. “Our internal policy is in fact neutral on the position,” said the spokesman, Jeffrey Nelson. “It is the topic itself” — abortion — “that has been on our list.”

Rejoice! A technicality, a legal loophole, is what allows you to not have any security for your text messages. You say something inappropriate according to other "users," and bam you can't say it. How they determine that other users are "offended" before the messages are sent is a bit of a mystery to me. Hell that seems almost like the company is using user offense as some pathetic cover for saying it wants to get rid of things it doesn't approve....

But let me put this claim into simple language.

Verizon won't let you send certain things because people might whine. They might be offended and they might complain at being offended, so, well fuck that Constitutional right of freedom of speech.

In case you don't understand this, freedom of speech enshrines the right to offend people. If others don't like it, too fucking bad.

Update 2:05 am 9/28/07: Hmm, seems Verizon changed their mind, and fast. Though of course they won't give true evidence to back up their rationalization....

No, it's not on the level of slavery nor racism

But discrimination is still discrimination.

The home of a local outspoken atheist was vandalized overnight Friday, police said -- with eggs tossed at the house and cars, and crosses and religious words scrawled in chalk on the driveway.

A church bulletin also was stuck on the front door.

The incident comes days after Rob Sherman's daughter, Dawn, led a successful effort to have the song "God Bless America" yanked from Buffalo Grove High School's homecoming celebration. Dawn Sherman is a freshman on the student council.

This is a common straw man lobbed against atheists. Either that they're not discriminated against at all or that they're trying to make it on par with slavery or with racial discrimination. The first is just outrightly false; the second is flawed for being outrageously stupid.

Both slavery/racism and atheist discrimination can and have resulted in deaths in history. That's self-evident to anyone. The bible explicitly says what happens to atheists and other non-Christians:

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? ... Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord."
-- 2 Cor.6:14-17

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you ... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die."
-- Dt.13:6-10

Anyone who isn't a Christian, you should shun them (IE: discriminate against them) and, more expressly, kill them. Yes, how you're supposed to shun and kill them is a bit confusing, but the bible doesn't ever get props for coherence.

But it isn't about comparisons. Racial discrimination being more pervasive, more longer lasting, more obvious and overt, as well as more systematic and institutionalized isn't the crux of the issue.

The point is that discrimination itself is bad. Unless we're talking about discriminating against ideas such as that discrimination in all forms is good, discrimination is almost universally bad. Religions advocating discrimination against people who believe in other religions is bad, as well as those who discriminate against atheists.

But this at least comes with a comedic punch:

The vandalism likely was the retaliatory work of youngsters, police Sgt. Mike Millett said -- since it came on the heels of the school incident and because one of the chalked words, "Jesus," was misspelled.

It takes skill for Christians to misspell Jesus. Or for anyone for that matter, but really special skill to do it when he's your eternal creator and savior.

Context is everything

Fill in the blank:

Waking up from a good dream to face the harsh morning daylight may not seem like a reason to celebrate. But trust me, it is. Because once you let go of all the hokey stories of eternal bliss, you find that the reality of [_____] is far richer and more rewarding than you ever could have guessed. Hard, yes. Frustrating, yes. But full of its own powerful, quiet enchantments just the same, and that's better than any fairy tale.

Have you figured it out? It's a surprising answer from the source of this quote, but it serves an applicable point from what I posted just a bit ago.

How can people be more comforted by an idealized notion for which they have no true basis, and many times they admit this outright (or they at least acknowledge it to themselves but deny it otherwise)? It's nothing but wishful thinking that borders way too closely to delusion for any degree of comfort to a person of even limited thinking power.

My answer to this would be the reality of life or existence or simply saying that you find reality is far richer than anything you can take a guess at.

Just one example that I took in this weekend while watching television. I taped a show that was just fascinating on the History Channel (as most of them are), called How the Earth was Made. I'm hoping to retain it for some time, much like the episode of The Universe, detailing the origin of our universe. So many fascinating things come up with that topic, one of the most being simply the history of it.

Anyway, just think of the ocean. Here's a typical thing you might think of:
The ocean is, of course, blue. It's always thought of as blue. When you see images of it as other colors, they're localized effects or done to show surrealism or some other point. It's simply weird to think of an ocean as not blue.

But Earth's oceans weren't always blue. They were originally green. Why? Simple reason: there was a hell of a lot of iron in the ocean. The reason this was, to the best of my remembrance, because iron is the eventual stable state of uranium (uranium, by the way, is the reason why the Earth was hotter for a significantly longer time than readily assumed by early scientists -- the decay and radiation kept the temperatures high; that radioactive decay is also the mechanism for how we date the precise age of the Earth).

The reason the oceans turned blue is similarly simple: the arrival of oxygen producing bacteria and photosynthesis. More oxygen about the oceans eventually turned the free floating iron into iron rust, which precipitated and fell to the ocean floor. Without the iron, and the relative abundance of oxygen, the oceans became blue over the course of millions of years.

Isn't that simply amazing? The great vast oceans we see on Earth were once all green due to a simple element, and those huge oceans were turned blue by the change in ratios of another simple element, that change in ratios brought about by the chemical reactions of some of the simplest most basic creatures in existence. And that's leaving out the effect of that same process eventually creating a more oxygen filled atmosphere, and eventually the creation of the ozone layer, the cosmic radiation shielding properties which granted creatures the ease of living on the land full time.

And yet people still crave to believe it was done in six days by a man in the sky because a fucking book that they were told to believe say so? How can they be satisfied with such unsatisfactory things? How can they take the small and pitiful "explanation" of the origin of our planet that religion offers, over the rich and full one that science shows us?

Oh, and the answer in the blank was "marriage." I told you the source was surprising.

Quote of the Day

My eternal struggle to comprehend why people adhere to the bible and religious belief that is so inadequate to reality, summed up in a paragraph.

Remember when you were five years old, and your best friend was hysterically concerned for you because you didn't believe in Santa Claus? "You won't get any presents," he cried, "and Christmas won't happen!" But of course Christmas did happen, and you got presents, and that you had replaced an imaginary obese elf with real, live, physical parents who loved you was an improvement on the damned stupid fairy tale.
-- PZ Myers

I'm afraid that I'll never be able to understand why adult people think fairy tales are more comforting that reality.

Family ties

I've come to the conclusion that I am riding out the clock. In the next few months, my mom and I will move to Waukesha and my brother will not. I really can't wait for that to occur, no matter how much I do not want to leave my house.

I've grown past exasperation with Neil. He was doing better, but just can't process that drinking turns him into an asshole, or simply doesn't care.

He went out and drank on Friday night, didn't come back to go to sleep till 3 am, needing to be up at 5:30 to go to work. Needless to say, he wasn't in a good mood in the morning when my mom woke him, so he decided he'd rather yell at her and say he's not going into work.

My mom is exasperated with him, too, but she's writing it off more as temporary frustration. But even she knew that not going into work is likely means for getting fired. As well, he's just more likely to do it next week if he can get away with it. Like a petulant child, he demands to get whatever he can every time no matter the consequences.

I woke up with a start from this, hearing vague mutterings of the argument and not processing them before. She was shrieking from pure frustration at his idiocy. Never heard her do that before, and it really just scared me. So I jumped out of bed, and ran into the next room (one of the few times in the past 6 months or so he's slept in his damn room and not binding his stench to the family room couch) and started beating the shit out of him.

I am so fucking sick of dealing with his ass. Acting like a big tough man because he's a fucking weak pathetic drunk who can't achieve shit without destroying it of his own accord.

The scuffle lasted a few minutes, with Neil hitting me in the head once or twice. Nothing major, but a slight bruise that is hidden by my hair, and really I didn't even discover it until the next day and it didn't even hurt. And that's the serious injury he gave me.

After an amount of time, I let him go mostly due to my mom's yelling at me and him, and telling him to stop fucking harassing mom. Once free, of course, the tough act resumes. "Don't fucking touch me ever again." "I'll fucking kill you, bitch." "What, can't you fight fair, pussy?" Yes, kicking and biting to beat the hell of you. Mostly because I don't fight fair; I fight. Thinking there are rules is a mechanism to make you feel better once you get your ass kicked. "Pussy, pussy, pussy."

That's funny. I recall someone not me squealing "I can't fucking breathe" while under a headlock by me.

Yeah, I'm a pussy. One that beat the fuck out of my brother. And just what does that make him, I wonder?

This leads to the conflict of interests. I don't want to move, but I want to get away from Neil simply from having absolute contempt of him. Moving satisfies that. I also don't want to spend anymore time around him than absolutely necessary since all I can do is think of ways to piss him off every time I see him since, again, I have nothing but contempt for him now. But, I also hate being away from my cats. With working all weekend and dealing with that sorry excuse for a human being, they're a great highlight that I don't get to see enough of. Finally, I'm sick of driving him around. Thankfully, I doubt I'll have to deal with that anytime soon.

Once we move, if I don't see Neil for 10 years, I'll be happy.

Bah, who cares? They're only rape victims

Local news just isn't good here.

Following committee chairman Mark Gundrum's lead, Republicans in the Assembly Judiciary and Ethics Committee approved a bill designed to make emergency contraception accessible to rape victims but only after it was, according to critics, "gutted."

Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, said after this morning's 6-4 vote that an amendment tacked on to the bill by Gundrum "guts and nullifies the legislation, allowing rape victims to be further traumatized at the emergency room by not receiving appropriate health care and resulting in more unintended pregnancies which could result in abortions."

The amendment would allow hospitals and health care professionals to refuse to dispense emergency contraception to sexual assault victims if it offends their religious beliefs. It also says such hospitals would be exempt from civil liability if they withhold care from rape victims. Further, the amendment states that this care could be withheld from rape victims even by hospitals that receive federal or state aid. [...]

Musser said his bill is necessary because recent surveys have found that two-thirds of the state's hospitals do not provide emergency contraception to rape victims. Most often packaged as Plan B, the medication is a high dose of birth control pills that is highly effective at preventing pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of intercourse.

Gundrum, R-New Berlin, and other critics of the bill argue that birth control pills can cause abortion because they can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, thus killing an already living being. This is a departure from mainstream medical literature, which does not consider a pregnancy viable until a fertilized egg implants in the uterus.

Musser, who considers himself pro-life, has said his own qualms about the legislation were assuaged in large part once the Wisconsin Catholic Conference, the public arm of Wisconsin's bishops, said it did not object to the bill. The conference arrived at this position after the bill was amended to allow hospitals to perform a pregnancy test on a rape victim before dispensing emergency contraception.

Wisconsin Right to Life also does not oppose the bill although Pro-Life Wisconsin, which rejects the use of birth control, is opposed.

Got this?

The Catholic arm of Wisconsin does not have a problem with this bill. Wisconsin Right to Life, a fucked up social conservative organization, has no problem with the bill.

Yet it's being objected to but even crazier people.

To get an idea of how sickening this is, just think of what they're saying here. "You've been raped. But I can't make sure you don't get pregnant with the child of that fiend -- that's against my religion." Ignoring the fact that they're taking a blatantly incoherent idea of what Plan B does, this is still fucking abhorrent.

This is people doing nothing but pushing whatever they want to be true onto other people. Understand this. They're doubling the trauma of being fucking raped by saying "Well, you're life is going to be ruined by having a child now." That's their intent at least, since they don't want abortions, and hardly want you to go and give up the baby due to those great "family values" ties. "Oh, your father pinned me to the ground, against my screams and flailings, and force fucked me. He's such a keeper."

These poor women have been abused enough. They want to abuse them more by forcing them to live with the constant reminder of that event. Why? Because they believe some unbelievable nonsense. Their faith is what is so damaging these women.

This is a crystal clear example of nothing but faith causing real physical harm to other people.

Quote of the Day

It really is startling how little it takes to shake religious people.

I don't find it at all surprising that a declaration of nonbelief is often met with such hostility. After all, religion is based on faith, not facts, and nothing is more threatening to a faith-based consensus than reasonable dissent. Even though evidence is lacking, believers can persuade themselves that they are in the right simply by banding together to reassure one another, only listening to each other's supportive voices. But the mere existence of dissent threatens to undermine this herd mentality and bring unwelcome rays of reason spearing into the darkness of conformity. It forces them to think about the possibility of error, which they would otherwise not have had to confront, and realize just how fragile their groupthink consensus may be. It's no surprise, then, that the less persuasive the evidence is, the shriller and more insistent the voices demanding conformity will always be.
-- Daylight Atheism

Fragile groupthink consensus. That's an extremely apt description.

Quote of the Day

Very applicable today, given the previous post and Huckabee's source for his quote.

Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and … know nothing but the word of God.
-- Martin Luther

Martin Luther was a bigoted intolerant willfully ignorant brainwashing faithhead. Good riddance that he's well dead. For shame that the shit he preached is still alive and kicking.

Mike Huckabee has made it clear: creationism all the way

I've discussed this before and made it pretty clear, but I feel it should be made absolutely, positively crystal clear.

Mike Huckabee is a creationist. He believes things for certain that are fundamentally at odds with basic scientific knowledge. Here's video of the third Republican debate.



(Original link.)

This is Huckabee trying to "explain" why he does not accept evolution.

The question is important, contrary to what Huckabee says:

"I'm not planning on writing the curriculum for an eighth-grade science book. I'm asking for the opportunity to be president of the United States."

This is just an outright lie. Yes, he won't be writing curriculum for school books -- instead he'll appoint the people that will do that job nationwide. Hmm, I'm seeing a bit of a disconnect there. Huckabee also saying that his faith "defines" him makes it impossible to take this seriously. If it goes against his faith, he's against it by default, and his faith compels him to work against it.

He then tries to spin this to mean that the question was really asking "Do you believe in god?" That's just absurd. First off, evolution is not either religious nor atheistic. It's a secular fact. Doesn't matter what your religion is or none at all, you can accept it and be you. You have to alter your dogma is the point. If it conflicts with evolution, well, you have a problem. One has to give, and it's not evolution.

Second, that's a completely separate question, and one that already has an answer: of course you believe in god. That's why his continuation that if you want someone doesn't believe in god you can vote for them is just false and misleading. There isn't an atheist or even simply non-religious candidate running for president. None. Even if there was, they wouldn't get elected. It's the simple falsehood of saying "You have the freedom to chose otherwise!" but there being no true choice.

Of course, Huckabee tries to qualify this. He's a creationist, but he's not for sure a young Earth creationist. In other words, he's saying "God did it! But it might be longer than 6,000 years." This hypocrisy is really obvious. If you don't believe the words of the bible, why say you do? If you continue to believe them, why try to weasel out of them? They say six days, so six days it is. It's not much of a confusion, and you can't have it both ways.

Also, he of course must swipe at the straw-man of creationist's view of "evolution" -- but says it pretty close to true. Yes, we are descendants of primates. We are primates. Of course he was saying this with such derision he was obviously intending it to be like those evil monkeys that we're supposedly descended from.

But a simple question is unanswerable to Huckabee, if indeed we are "uniquely made by god": how come all living things have the same code of life, DNA? Why is this unifying thread running through all of us, including humans, if we're so "unique?"

Don't describe him any other way. Convey exactly what he is:

Mike Huckabee is a creationist. He may say he wants your kids to learn on their own, but he will indoctrinate them in a second with such dogmatic stupidity.

Why you should not watch The View

Or at least not pay any attention to whatever the fat black non-Whoopi Goldberg woman says.



(Original link.)

Ok, in bringing up the topic of morality (obviously the reason why I watch The View), they discuss a recent article in the New York Times about the evolution of morality. To anyone that knows the basics of sociology and evolution, this is not hard claim to accept. Individual creatures can have nothing but selfish morals -- I'm out to survive, you dying is in my interests, etc. in rough form. However, group societies are different. The entire point of a group is that selfish morals are detrimental to the workings of the group. One person being out for just themselves, well, the group tends to fall apart or leave that person behind.

The group social structure encourages fairness and altruism -- the basics of morality.

Well, then things are handed over to the fat black non-Whoopi woman (who I now know is Sherri Shepard). Wow. Things go down hill fast.

First up, she doesn't believe in evolution. Why? Because she believes in faith. Ok, why is that? Because the bible says so!

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
-- Hebrews 11:1

In other words, faith is what you wish to be true. This apparently qualifies as "evidence."

And... that's it. Seriously. That's her reason. Because of faith. Nothing else. God did it is her answer, because of faith. Right.

And then we get some ninny blond white woman trying to play compromiser by saying they're both right! Oh, joy!....

Then Whoopi gets into gear. She's better, still not great. But in the end, she tries to again play the compromise card by saying you can't have one without the other. No, you can easily have morality without religion, and you can have our origin and development without god.

But then she asks the pivotal question: "Is the world flat?"

Sherri responds: "I -- don't -- know."

What? Excuse me!? No, you fucking doss cunt, it's not flat. If you've lived in a time beyond the 1960s (hint, we are right now) we know the Earth is not fucking flat. You can see pictures of the curvature of the damn Earth taken by satellites from space.

Oh, but you've "never thought about it." And why is that? Oh, she's a parent. She's concerned about feeding her kid. Right. When the question rightly comes back to what she'd do if her child asked about the Earth, then she'd have to think about it.

Then Whoopi tries to ask another question delineating where science and faith overturn one another, and I frankly can't follow the question beyond that. Sherri seems to say there is a distinction, but then comes out with the creationist stance (god created me!).

Barbra Walters was doing fine until she pointed out that the bible is to be respected and beloved -- no and no. Fuck that notion, and toss it right out the window.

The last lady comes out the best I think, since she dispenses with the pretense. Her point is basically "We know it already." We know the Earth is round, we know the creation story is not literally true, we know dinosaurs existed because we have their bones. Don't need to continually re-examine the evidence for this, we've settled that question to sufficient certainty.

Until she says "but the fifth day could mean billions of years." Look, I get the metaphoric analysis, but that just shows that it's not a basis for using it for anything other than a story you'd like.

Don't watch The View if you're expecting intelligent discussion. I feel sorry for saying that because there are some sparks there, but there is simply too much apologetic bullshit being batted around to make up for it, as well as outright fucking stupidity.

Of course, it is The View. It's not like the bastion of my existence has been corrupted.

A quick thought

A thought made me smile today while in the shower.

Jordan dedicated half the series to Harriet explicitly in books. Now Harriet gets to dedicate a book to Jordan.

I always love parallelism and resonance.

Quote of the Day

Tell me what's wrong with this picture?

God gave the savior to the German people. We have faith, deep and unshakeable faith, that he was sent to us by God to save Germany.
-- Hermann Goering, regarding Adolf Hitler

Oh, that's right, all of it.

Pragmatism: heaven

I suppose this is pretty apt, considering recent events.

One thing that that I've never really understood is how the idea of heaven is supposed to be reassuring or comforting. Aside from the muddled and confusing supposed ways of getting there, what do you get when you are there? A place with no purpose, a place that makes all your achievements and actions meaningless in the face of the stretch of eternity, a place where you exist to be subservient and praise a creator for ever and ever, a place that is ultimately used to justify doing nothing here and now.

Heaven is the result of a fear: the fear of death. The fear of the inevitable. It's a basic reaction, and a primitive one: denial. "No, it won't happen. I'm going to live forever, in heaven." The rationalization for this denial is one of those concepts that will likely never go away, no matter what: the soul. Nevermind that any evidence for such a thing is non-existent, nevermind that everything we know is in contradiction to such a notion -- it exists, and that's that. And because of that, heaven exists. Because we want it to be so.

But when you talk to people about this, they conveniently forget such comforting notions. You get a simple reaction: "I don't want to die, so do what you can to prevent that." The belief only is never overridden unless it's in the minds of the most adamant fundamentalists, and even they certainly have doubts time to time.

It never makes sense in view of everything else. If Christians (and many others of course) were consistent with what they "believe," you'd expect them to be overjoyed with death. You can hear half-hearted attempts at this. "They've gone to a better place." Be happy, the person has died! Turn that frown upside down! Yet when it comes to them, and their survival, well... you get something different.

Of course, Christians wouldn't be running to commit suicide (though that hardly stops many other religions), but they'd certainly be a little more cavalier in their lives. A risky life lived without sin? Sure, if they sign up for those "genuine" good missions. Run into dens of people that kill others who believe differently with the express purpose of converting them. Go into whatever places the sick maybe -- what's the harm of diseases to stand in the way of converting and saving the sick, when you're doing such good things? Many other examples can be thought of.

But this isn't widespread. It returns to doing something hardly impossible to conceive: enjoying life. Not wanting to die, yet again, even though heaven is right there! It's impossible to not see the hypocrisy in such views.

A great concise example of this comes from a unusual source: Clue.



(Original link.)

Living trumps rationalizations for fear. Living trumps comforts, in the common sense (though hard to define, of course) meaning of "living" that everyone knows.

That's pragmatism. Even dogma fails before that most basic desire: to survive. Yet people still will profess, defend, and explain away calls for rejecting such delusional notions. How can people not taste that lovely hypocrisy aroma?

10,000th visitor

From Jackson, Mississippi. And we achieve another arbitrary "awesome" number.

Aftermath

I'm still upset over Robert Jordan's sudden passing, and feel I will be quite severely for at least a few days, before settling into that dull semi-sedated feeling of loss that will last for much longer.

I was told by a friend of his death, and my immediate reaction was quite simple: "What?" followed by heading over to his blog site to see for myself. Shock only lasted for a few moments before the sad acceptance of it. Robert Jordan had died. One month and a day before his 59th birthday.

I don't see it as a hard extension to make for me to be recalled to Theoryland, however briefly. It might almost be due to the pull of a ta'veren that Theorylanders held what was essentially a wake for Jordan. I've never been to a funeral, so this was the closest comparable thing for me.

Still trying to put things in context. People of course didn't want to focus on his passing. Sports, jokes, hellos, contacting people -- all such things were talked about and done. I was making several jokes myself, not to deny the event but simply to get some happiness. Some was found there, but hardly much. Casual conversation is not my forte, let alone awkward conversation. Heard buying things is supposed to help, but that seems ridiculous. Plus, I couldn't decide which shirt to buy.

Books are great imagination generators. You read them and worlds just unfold in front of you, to degrees where you can almost really seem to go and live in them. The makers of these generators, the writers, have to know the precise balance between giving you enough information and knowledge to create the world as close as the writer sees it, while also leaving you room for the world to be your's as well.

My favorite writer died yesterday. But his books are still here, and still carry with them my imaginings of his creations, with all my personal experiences, memories, and enjoyments. Even if they're incomplete.

So, I'm off to my bed,
to make some fanciful dreams,
with these borrowed images in my head,
without Mr. Jordan to tell me what it all means.

I only hope it was as light as that feather....

Robert Jordan died

And the world gets a little smaller.

Republican religious nut running for president

What, not specific enough? Oh, of course not. The word "Republican" is unnecessary there. Well, I mean Alan Keyes.

Keyes, 56, announced on his Web site, RenewAmerica, he filed his candidacy Friday with the Federal Election Commission.

He told radio talk show host Janet Parshall he was "unmoved" by what he called the lack of moral courage the other candidates had demonstrated.

"The one thing I have always been called to do is to raise the standard ... of our allegiance to God and his authority that has been the foundation stone of our nation's life," said Keyes.

This from the man who once said of Obama:

"He's an evil man and he needs to be stopped."

This guy is a nut to fight with the other nuts. Of course, just because he's a fucking nut doesn't mean he'll do good among the voters who demand just the right sort of nut for them.

(Peanuts to be exact.)

(Yes, I know peanuts are legumes. Logic is not their strong point.)

Collection of links

Once again, sorry for the delay.

Planetary formation is well known both in it's beginning and end phases. The problem has always been the middle. The comparison to stellar boulders overcoming star's pull and solar winds is that they act like semis on the highway. One "fights" against the wind, allowing the ones near by to go in the same direction using less energy. Eventually, the semi's merge into one planet when enough mass is accumulated.

Astronomers have found the faintest, tiniest, and most compact galaxies ever. Nine of them. Just 1 billion years younger than the Big Bang. They're young galaxies with young, first-generation stars (IE: huge ones that burn out pretty fast, unlike our sun).

Not only is the Hubble telescope a hell of a technological achievement and taken some of the most beautiful pictures we know of, it's also been a tool for what it was designed for: gathering evidence to solve cosmic questions.

Adenine molecules, the A in the A, C, G, T of DNA alphabet soup, are thought to be able to survive the harsh conditions of space. One can find large molecules, such as adenine, on meteorites. Half of the chemical steps in making adenine requires no activation energy (IE: it works on it's own without "heat"). The "building blocks" of adenine in space is hydrogen cyanide, a molecule that is found abundantly in interstellar clouds. So, it's quite open to possibility that one of the key features of DNA formed in outer space, and came to Earth.

A pulsar has been found that has turned parasitic in the fact that it is feeding off it's very close stellar neighbor. Just a bit closer together than the distance from the Earth to the Moon, the pulsar has eaten away the entire outer shell of the star, and left the helium rich core on it's own. Who doesn't like space when things like that occur?

Some bacteria can slip their entire genome into other creatures. One parasite had implanted itself into 70 percent of the world's invertebrates, and is co-evolving with them. If you don't recall your science classes very well, this is actually how cells got mitochondria.

A study done with stroke patients is giving possible evidence that adult brains are as "plastic" as the brains of children.

One study is saying that the capacity for our memory could be far lower than previously thought. Interesting, but it seems kind of flimsy to me. The point they make is that the storing of memories on neurons produced "noise" and this largely equals out. But you reach a certain limit, and the noise drowns out everything else. The limit is supposedly 500 or so memories. Given people can speak, and that our vocabularies are generally 50,000+ words, it leads to a problem with the result.

290 million year old footprints have been identified as belonging to Diadectes absitus and Orobates pabsti. They're the oldest footprints that have been identified yet. Those species were some of the first four-legged plant eaters, and date back to before the rise of the dinosaurs. What's interesting is that they're leg features are more like a mammal's leg in arrangement than a reptile's....

The best stem cells might be the ones that have been gently jiggled.

Early human beings weren't the best sprinters because they didn't have Achilles' tendons. In case you were wondering, that lack of the tendon is exactly like that of the gorillas. Even without the tendon, walking upright would be more efficient than "chimp running" or walking.

Sedimentary samples from African lakes show something surprising: climate change possibly spurred on human evolution. Changes in Africa's climate moved it from variable climate where it had huge droughts, to a climate that was stable and wet -- eventually one conducive to human evolution.

Finally, a topic we can all take interest in: bouncing breasts. Something women know intimately: regular bras just don't do good with bouncing breasts. While running, women's breasts moved in a pattern that resembled a figure eight. Regular bras are designed to reduce up-down motion, but not motion of side-to-side, nor in-out motion.

Other things I learned: bra sizes go up to JJ. D-cup breasts weigh about 15 to 23 pounds. Doctors can be paid to watch breasts move and jiggle. Caterpillar spit is an integral ingredient to bras.

Inconceivable!

I've been lethargic recently

I really do apologize for that.

34 posts in 13 days, roughly 2.6 a day. That's not that good. August I was at 3.8 a day; July, 3.9.

I've still been collecting links when I see something interesting and worthwhile. It's just that recently I have never got around to posting about them. Very strange.

Anyway, I hope to correct that and will work on it. I'd better get on that, actually....

A late night thought

By a complicated chain of largely random events, I ended up reading over one of my Theoryland theories again, specifically, Sheriam's Beatings.

While reading through it, I couldn't help but think of a funny, complicated, entirely simple, and effective analogy for one of the major reasons why I eliminated Aran'gar from consideration.

It's really just three words to get this: Logain cock-blocked Aran'gar.

That's all you need to understand the point. Logain was the major reason Aran'gar at the time couldn't move in on Egwene, and therefore had to go through another route -- Delana. This was because Logain is a male channeler and could detect Aran'gar's workings. There's the block.

I at least find it funny and complicated since it's a nice double entendre. Logain is a man, Aran'gar is a woman. But Aran'gar was originally a man. Eh, like most jokes it sucks when it's written out, but I got a nice laugh over it when it popped into my head.

Now if only I had put that in the theory....

Quote of the Day

To Stephen Colbert:

Philadelphia Daily News columnist Stu Bykofsky wrote an editorial last month wrote a column entitled, "To save America, we need another 9/11." He even suggested some targets for Al Qaeda, like the Golden Gate Bridge, Mt. Rushmore, and Chicago's Wrigley Field.

Do not be so humble Mr. Bykofsky. You are clearly enough of a patriot that your house belongs on that list.

That is one hell of an insultment. Just terrific.

Quote of the Day

And what a beauty it is.

But what, after all, is faith? It is a state of mind that leads people to believe something — it doesn't matter what — in the total absence of supporting evidence. If there were good supporting evidence then faith would be superfluous, for the evidence would compel us to believe it anyway. It is this that makes the often-parroted claim that 'evolution itself is a matter of faith' so silly. People believe in evolution not because they arbitrarily want to believe it but because of overwhelming, publicly available evidence.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene

It is, yet again, that most basic distinction that generates such loathing of faith from me. Everything else derives from that point. It really does come down to a yes or no question.

Do you believe in things beyond reality on faith?

Things in reality are of course not examples of faith. Again, everything here really does have evidence for it, and believing in them does not require "faith." People that make that argument are the worst kind of idiots.

Answering in the affirmative to that question unfurls the rest of religion. Faith is a virtue then. Faith leads to solid, unimpeachable beliefs, dogmas. Dogmas lead to fundamentalists. Fundamentalists lead to dangers and the worst atrocities being carried out in the name of the pious. The revocation of freedoms for those who do not believe the same as others; the suppression of others simply by being labeled as "others;" genocide; slavery; subjugating women; censorship; discrimination; corruption of the rulers; decrees for death sentences by nothing but fiat; and assertions about the reality of the world that demonstrably false, incoherent, and just plain fucking stupid.

Faith leads to all these things. Sure, you can be "faithful" and not be a murderous raving genocidal madman, but you really are in a privilaged place then. It's the same reason why Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. do not lead directly to theocratic tyrannies. However, such setups are so convenient, such natural outcomes from the basic properties to make any exception to this something nearly as miraculous as the religious tenants themselves.

Syndicated newspaper columns majorily right-wing dominated

Media Matters has put out an impressive study of virtually every English speaking newspaper in the United States. They went and individually called all these papers to get their results, since such a thing hadn't been done before, mostly because syndicates refuse to disclose publicly where their columnists are published. Their results:

• Sixty percent of the nation's daily newspapers print more conservative syndicated columnists every week than progressive syndicated columnists. Only 20 percent run more progressives than conservatives, while the remaining 20 percent are evenly balanced.
• In a given week, nationally syndicated progressive columnists are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of 125 million. Conservative columnists, on the other hand, are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of more than 152 million.
• The top 10 columnists as ranked by the number of papers in which they are carried include five conservatives, two centrists, and only three progressives.
• The top 10 columnists as ranked by the total circulation of the papers in which they are published also include five conservatives, two centrists, and only three progressives.
• In 38 states, the conservative voice is greater than the progressive voice -- in other words, conservative columns reach more readers in total than progressive columns. In only 12 states is the progressive voice greater than the conservative voice.
• In three out of the four broad regions of the country -- the West, the South, and the Midwest -- conservative syndicated columnists reach more readers than progressive syndicated columnists. Only in the Northeast do progressives reach more readers, and only by a margin of 2 percent.
• In eight of the nine divisions into which the U.S. Census Bureau divides the country, conservative syndicated columnists reach more readers than progressive syndicated columnists in any given week. Only in the Middle Atlantic division do progressive columnists reach more readers each week.

As well, you can also search for your own state and papers to get your own view of things. You can also search by columnist.

Pope: creationism vs. evolution = "absurd"

The Pope continues to chip away at Christianity's dogma, as if nothing is going on.

Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.

The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

He said evolution did not answer all the questions: “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’”

It's nice that the Pope is doing this. Even centuries old institutions react to basic business models. If the church continues to adhere to such dogmatic stupidity, no one will believe in it in a short amount of time. So, we must go to some diluted form in order for people to go along with it.

And the great canard. There is something entirely satisfying that the Pope is using creationist denial tactics. Here's a tip your douchbaginess: evolution doesn't concern itself with "where everything came from." Ya got that? (Of course you don't.) Evolution only kicks in with what's already there.

As well, of course evolution can't exclude a role by god. It's just that god is not needed. At all. That's the point of why it's evolution not "god's playtime for creating animals and beings." No supernatural explanations needed, even if they can't be ruled out.

Sure, you can believe in god and accept evolution, too. Then it just falls to you for how you can justify the compartmentalization of your brain into "rational reality things" and "super-duper-fairy things" and simply declare that there is no overlap. The need for god is non-existent in these processes, let alone the fact that there is no evidence at all for believing in a god. So why assume an unnecessary unsupported thing?

Because the Pope still needs the political and social structures that are Christian sheep. What dogma being overturned will it take for people to realize "this isn't the same religion anymore?" The Pope, the one who is "god's authority on earth" and obviously is supposed to speak as god, is refuting "god's" own creation story! What's left except for the Pope to come out as an atheist? Or to declare that Jesus never existed? What does it take?

Movie Trailers

First up, The Nines. Interesting details, but the description of it just makes me think of The Fountain, and the trailer seems to give away too much, making me think of a mix of The Island (ruining the "twist" of it in the trailer) and more generally with The Thirteenth Floor (the "twist," apparently). Of course, there seems to be a bit more to it (hopefully), why else give away the twist of the film in the damn trailer? Interesting as I said, but possibly passable.

Next, Trade. This seems like it could be quite a gripping drama, since it deals with an uncomfortable subject: sex trafficking. Of course, the trailer seems to give away the entire plot of the film, too. I'm wondering what there is left to see.

A very mixed reaction to Right At Your Door. Apocalyptic elements in downtown LA splitting a husband from wife. Some interesting possibilities no doubt, and the major reason why I bring it up is that it's from the same producers of Requiem for A Dream, but I'm still lacking enough enthusiasm.

There's also The Dark Knight teaser trailer out. Not much there, but I'm glad for that. Since it's coming out summer of next year, I don't want to see much of it now. Though the Joker in it doesn't sound like Heath Ledger to me, so that's very intriguing.

Next, a movie that just doesn't seem to want to agree with me. The Mist. Sounds great. Stephen King based, Frank Darabont directed, has Thomas Jane in it (not terrific, but fun enough). Sounds pretty damn good like that. Except for the trailer and the story.



(Original link.)

What's that I hear? Oh, that's right, Death is the Road to Awe from The Fountain chopped to shit. When me and Vinnie saw this in the theatre we just looked at each other and then Vinnie said it exactly right: "I hope Clint Mansell is getting some serious money for the music rights for these." First Sunshine, now this. And don't get me started on Beowulf using the music of John Murphy in it's trailer. Ugh.

I hear this story is pretty good, but I don't see it in the trailer. I get enough of religious fanatics in the news, so seeing them in movies is strictly to see them slapped down. Going for that reason always is a double edged sword. It can be predictable but also insulting. Oh the hard-nosed reality based person needs to accept some questionable things are going on. Supernatural forces are going to become a part of the world! See The Reaping for such stupidity.

Again, double edged sword. I'm always a little intrigued to go just because of this reason, but always hesitant to, too, since I don't want to deal with it there in a place of enjoyment.

So I don't know. I might give it the benefit of the doubt, but I'm a bit insulted by the use of the music in the trailer to be honest. Sick of that shit.

So far it seems the only movie to tweak my interest for good some time and coming out relatively soon is Across the Universe. Next week....

Kathy Griffin does something commendable!

I fucking hate Kathy Griffin. She's an annoying unfunny dunce. But she actually did something good for once:

In her speech, Griffin said that "a lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus."

She went on to hold up her Emmy, make an off-color remark about Christ and proclaim, "This award is my god now!"

I hate people thanking god or Jesus for nothing even more than Kathy Griffin. Thank Jesus for my ability to run and catch a ball! Thank Jesus for my ability to put out shitty music! Thank Jesus!

Of course, the other thing about this is the result:

The TV academy said her raucous acceptance speech will be edited when the event, which was taped, is shown Saturday on the E! channel. The main prime-time Emmy Awards air the next night on Fox.

"Kathy Griffin's offensive remarks will not be part of the E! telecast on Saturday night," the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences said in a statement Monday. [...]

The comedian's remarks were condemned Monday by Catholic League President Bill Donohue, who called them a "vulgar, in-your-face brand of hate speech."

According to the TV academy and E!, when the four hour-plus ceremony is edited into a two-hour program, Griffin's remarks will be shown in "an abbreviated version" in which some language may be bleeped. [...]

The Catholic League, an anti-defamation group, called on the TV academy to "denounce Griffin's obscene and blasphemous comment" at Sunday's ceremony.

I hate Bill Donahue more than Kathy Griffin. By a margin almost as big as his fucking fat face.

It's not hate speech to say that people thank Jesus for everything and it's annoying. It's called freedom of speech. Of course the "anti-defamation league" can't do anything but defame and use hate speech against everyone else. Tough shit to Bill Donahue for having to deal with freedom, and for us not living under a theocracy of his control. Bill Donahue is one of the people where you just have to keep repeating the refrain, "Bill, that's not very Christian."

10 - 100 times increase in electronic holding soon

Technological things could very well get a whole lot cooler in the next few years.

Now, if an idea that Stuart Parkin is kicking around in an IBM lab here is on the money, electronic devices could hold 10 to 100 times as much data in the same amount of space. That means the iPod that can hold 200 hours of video could store every single television program broadcast during a week on 120 channels. [...]

Parkin believes he is poised to bring about another breakthrough that could increase the amount of data stored on a chip or a hard drive by a factor of a hundred. If he proves successful in his quest, he will create a "universal" computer memory, one that can potentially replace computer dynamic random access memory, or DRAM, and flash memory chips, and even make a "disk-drive-on-a-chip" possible.

Not only would it allow every consumer to carry data equivalent to a college library on small portable devices, but a tenfold or hundredfold increase in memory would be disruptive enough to existing storage technologies that it would undoubtedly unleash the creativity of engineers who would develop totally new entertainment, communication and information products.

The flash storage chip business is exploding. Used as storage in digital cameras, cellphones and PCs, the commercially available flash drives with multiple memory chips store up to 64 gigabytes of data. Capacity is expected to reach about 50 gigabytes on a single chip in the next half-decade.

However, flash has an Achilles' heel. It can read data quickly, but is very slow at storing it. That has led the industry on a frantic hunt for alternative storage technologies that might unseat flash.

Parkin's new approach, referred to as "racetrack memory," could outpace both solid-state flash memory chips as well as computer hard disks, making it a technology that could transform not only the storage business but the entire computing industry. "Finally, after all these years, we're reaching fundamental physics limits," he said. "Racetrack says we're going to break those scaling rules by going into the third dimension."

His new idea is to stand a billions of ultrafine wire loops around the edge of a silicon chip - hence the name "racetrack" - and use electric current to slide infinitesimally small magnets up and down each of the wires to be read and written as digital ones and zeros.

His research group is now able to slide the tiny magnets along notched nanowires at speeds greater than 100 yards or meters a second. Since the tiny magnetic domains have to travel only submolecular distances, it is possible to read and write magnetic regions with different polarization as quickly as a single nanosecond - far faster than existing storage technologies.

If the racetrack idea can be commercialized, he will have done what has so far proven impossible - to take microelectronics completely into the third dimension and thus explode the two-dimensional limits of Moore's Law, the 1965 observation by Gordon Moore, a co-founder of Intel, which decrees that the number of transistors on a silicon chip doubles roughly every 18 months.

If you don't get this, let me explain.

You're computer can do nifty things now.

If this is true and becomes available, you're computer then could do far niftier things.

Me Pope, me get respect, RAWR!!!!!!

So, the Pope, doing the only thing left for him to do now that limbo is gone, is whining about Sundays not having enough respect. He really went out on a limb, defending a day. His concern?

In his sermon, the Pope said leisure was a good thing amid the mad rush of the modern world, but warned of the dangers of it becoming wasted time. [...]

"Give the soul its Sunday, give Sunday its soul," the Pope said, quoting a phrase coined by a German bishop in the 20th Century.

"Leisure time is certainly something good and necessary, especially amid the mad rush of the modern world," he said in his sermon.

The Pope added though that if leisure lacked an inner focus, it could easily become wasted time.

Of course! Not only is modern life essentially hell on earth, but it makes people fucking lazy. Never mind people working, going to school, or, you know, spending time with their families in the way that they want. They're all just fucking lazy instead.

What does this have to do with Sunday again? That people don't have to go to a building to peddle around in a boring place for a half hour to an hour and a half, mostly while their asleep, to waste time talking to a being that isn't there?

Oh, I get it. Religion is just "leisure time." It has a "focus." Right.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

That's the official title of the new Indiana Jones film.

I'm kind of "eh" about the title, but not in a negative way. Agnostic so to speak. I await seeing the film, though I still know what the title is. It's a very strange thing, really.

But oh well. I have about 8 months to get even more excited over the film before it comes out.

Quote of the Day

More apologetics. I've never gotten how Christians can ignore or not address this issue:

But I am mistaken in speaking of a Christian republic; the terms are mutually exclusive. Christianity preaches only servitude and dependence. Its spirit is so favorable to tyranny that it always profits such a regime. True Christians are made to be slaves, and they know it and do not mind; this short life counts for too little in their eyes.
-- Jean Jacques Rousseau

Christians are worthless in their own eyes and teachings, yet prance around as if they're the most important people in the world. Hello? Hypocrisy? This isn't some paradox that is unsolvable. It's simply a belief as well as it's direct opposite being held by the same people at the same time.

Can't get more basic than that for a case of apologetics.

Quote of the Day

God has personal issues, you know?

God: The Immutable One, though somewhat different for each person, denomination, religion, society, and historical period. The omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, all-wise, infinite mind who — for strictly personal reasons — makes a point of seeming to be an impotent, know-nothing, nowhere, bumbling oaf.
-- Rev. Donald Morgan

Just leave god be, he's in one of his acting classes....

The "evils" of modernity destorying families

Thanks to a helping hand from religion.

Woodrow Johnson was 15, and by the rules of the polygamous sect in which his family lived, he had a vice that could condemn them to hell: He liked to watch movies. When his parents discovered his secret stash of DVDs, including the “Die Hard” series and comedies, they burned them and gave him an ultimatum. Stop watching movies, they said, or leave the family and church for good.

With television and the Internet also banned as wicked, along with short-sleeve shirts — a sign of immodesty — and staring at girls, let alone dating them, Woodrow made the wrenching decision to go. And so 10 months ago, with only a seventh-grade education and a suitcase of clothes, he was thrown into an unfamiliar world he had been taught to fear.

Over the last six years, hundreds of teenage boys have been expelled or felt compelled to leave the polygamous settlement that straddles Colorado City, Ariz., and Hildale, Utah.

Disobedience is usually the reason given for expulsion, but former sect members and state legal officials say the exodus of males — the expulsion of girls is rarer — also remedies a huge imbalance in the marriage market. Members of the sect believe that to reach eternal salvation, men are supposed to have at least three wives. [...]

The polygamous settlement is largely controlled by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and allies of its jailed prophet, Warren S. Jeffs, who is about to stand trial on charges of sexual exploitation. [...]

The church settlement is essentially one town crossing the border, a jumble of walled compounds, trailers and farm fields at the base of spectacular red bluffs. Nearly all of the 6,000 residents follow the dictates of Mr. Jeffs, who they believe speaks for God; women wear ankle-length dresses, and children are taught to run away from outsiders.

Mr. Jeffs, 51, is in the Purgatory jail in southern Utah, his trial scheduled to start on Sept. 10 on charges of being an accomplice to rape, for his role in forcing a 14-year-old girl to marry an older cousin. He faces several other sex-related charges in Arizona. [...]

Andrew Chatwin, 39, the uncle who took Woodrow in, left the sect 10 years ago. He explained how the expulsions usually happen: “The leaders tell the parents they must stop this kid who is disobeying the faith and Warren Jeffs. So the parents kick him out because otherwise the father could have his wives and whole family taken away.” [...]

Mr. Gilbert estimates that 100 boys from his school class, or 70 percent of them, have been expelled or left on their own accord; there is no way to verify the numbers. “There are a lot of broken-hearted parents, but you question this decision at the risk of your own salvation,” Mr. Gilbert said.

The problem of surplus males worsened in the 1990s when the late prophet Rulon Jeffs, Warren Jeffs’s father, took on dozens of young wives — picking the prettiest, most talented girls, said DeLoy Bateman, a high school teacher who watched it happen.

Warren Jeffs, taking the mantle after his father’s death in 2002, adopted most of his father’s wives and married others, and also began assigning more wives to his trusted church leaders, former members say. Forced departures increased. [...]

“I was a good boy, working 13-hour days,” he said. But he had been raising questions, especially after his father’s four wives were assigned to other husbands. Then Marc got caught driving to a nearby town to watch a movie.

One evening as he was making a chicken sandwich, he recalled, “My two older brothers came and said that because I’d gone to the movies, Warren said I’m out.”

The internet. Movies. Staring at girls. Fucking short sleeved shirts! These are the reasons to cast out one of your kids?

Oh, but you're "forced" to. I see. Obviously, a place that condemns the evils of modernity must laud integrity. It's a shame parents don't seem to have that in store. Can't do the, gee, family thing and say "This is fucking bullshit, no matter what our religion says"? That, again gee, family comes first? I thought that was the cornerstone of family values, after all?

As for the women, oh, they obviously have the good cause at heart, right? Nothing simply selfish, sexual, and, well, fucking slave-esque about it.

This is one of the major reasons that Mormon special was so transparently false. You could just see the lies that these people were so naively parroting, and the bullshit they were enamored in simply because they hadn't been destroyed by it so they couldn't possibly see any bad effects to it.

Casting out people for movies. Movies! What the fuck? At least make it porn or something. Die Hard? Fuck off.

Bill Maher on doubt

Bill Maher's New Rules this week was quite good I think. Chiding Bush, people who thank god, weak-willed possibly gay Senators, people who spread stupid jokes, and missionaries. A pretty good weeks worth of highlights, though some of the events are more than a week old, of course. The closing bit I thought was the most important:

Doubt, for lack of a better word, is good. It suits human nature. Doubt is what makes you careful. Doubt is what makes you open to change.

It is of course that lack, that fundamental difference between the acceptance of the concept of "faith" and the rejection of such stupidity that is where things eventually always turn.

I really do wish One Good Move had another section from the show. Maher was hammering Mos Def on Islam being a religion of violence, and Def was saying that it wasn't at all. A really low moment for him, since that's so categorically wrong. Cornell West wasn't much better, jumping in about "secular fundamentalists" (that wasn't the term, but that is equivalent to what he meant -- he specifically cited Stalin) and saying that therefore these are excusable or that the situation somehow changes. It was a round of apologetics, and Maher did terrific there in that bit I thought.

Quote of the Day

From one the greatest sources.

We're all going to die. Sorry to remind you of it, but it is on your to-do list.
-- George Carlin

I was conflicted between this one and three others:

Well, somebody's got to think of this shit.

Nobody wants to pass on. Nobody wants to be an euphemism. Die big.

Just before you die, you get an audible warning. "Two minutes, get your shit together!"

Of course, finding just one Carlin quote is virtually impossible. Always way too many to choose from.