Evangelical preacher murders wife, puts body in freezer

Let's ask the obvious question: what would Jesus do?

An evangelical preacher killed his wife several years ago and stuffed her body in a freezer after she caught him abusing their daughter, according to police and court documents. He faces charges including murder, rape, sodomy, sexual abuse and incest.

And that's just the opening salvo here.

The case began Monday, when the daughter, now 19, went to the Mobile Police Department's Child Advocacy Center and reported that she had been sexually abused by Hopkins since she was 11 years old, according to an affidavit filed in support of a search warrant of the preacher's home in Mobile. The affidavit related the daughter's story as follows:

Her mother, Arletha Hopkins, 36, caught her father abusing her in a bathroom in November 2004. Afterward, her parents argued, and her mother locked her father out of the house. The father came to the daughter's window and asked her to let him in, and she did so.

The next morning, her father asked her to help him hide her mother's body in the freezer in the laundry room of the home.

The girl said she moved out of the home about two weeks ago and was living with a neighbor. She told police that her mother's body was still in the freezer.

When authorities went to the home, no one was there, as Hopkins and the other children were at the church. A body was found in the freezer, the affidavit says.

He stuffed a fucking body in the freezer. I guess he wanted a trophy, or thought he'd get rid of it the next day, and things just kept coming up.

At the Inspirational Tabernacle Church of God in Christ, Hopkins was preaching at a revival, pastor Beverly Jackson told CNN affiliate WKRG. His message, she said, was about forgiveness and not passing judgment -- and at one point, he turned to his seven children and asked them to forgive him his past, present and future.

Yeah, I don't see much forgiveness from a sick fuck like this. It's a pretty basic human quality: don't fuck your own kids. I mean, "Don't fuck kids" in general is a pretty basic thing, but when they're your own kids, you have to have a special kind of demented mind for that.

That's not even counting the whole "killing the one you supposedly love the most" thing, or the popsicle element to the murder.

And as a final touch, remember: send your kids to school.

"Part of the mystery here is that, apparently, none of these children were in school" but were being home-schooled, Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson said. "Home schooling, under this situation, removes almost any chances of us catching up with these kinds of things until there is a catastrophe."

Home schooling is bad enough when it gives perfect power to adults to brainwash their kids into believing any bullshit they want. It also leaves opportunities for sick fucks to constantly abuse young kids.

I was an atheist once....

It never fails. It's almost a guarantee to come across in any religious discussion.

For instance, I've still continued to receive emails from an entertaining man (though, that's judgmental -- I don't know for sure that it's a man, but I'd guess so from certain phrases and structure they've used). I've supposedly learned quite a bit about him. For instance:

It is factually stated that at no point does the Bible try to prove the existence of God, and that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in him.

He believes in god not because the bible tells him to, but because it's so obvious. So obvious, that I'm in danger of hell fire for simply doubting that claim. And yet:

I can't prove the physical existence of one God for the same reason you can't prove the non-existence of Him.

That's a mighty strange thing. I mean, just take a comparison to the sun, for instance, and you'll see a genuine phenomena that truly does underpin virtually everything here on Earth (and stars in general really do play one of the biggest roles in the universe, since they create all the elements heavier than lithium). But there's no one in the world who truly doubts its existence -- all you have to do is look at the sun during the morning. It's there. We can give fountains of other evidence showing that "Yes, the sun exists." It's like proving that water is wet, a task so boring because it's so obvious and tedious, but it's not like some "obvious fact" just somehow can't be proven.

Yet still!

We claim the earth is relatively young, and that we can account for all of it in our scriptures and since the beginning.And we believe it's the truth.

Now, he's saying (although he's transitioned to "we" for some very peculiar reason, as if I'm addressing a choir group instead of just one individual), that he does believe things to be true, simply because the bible says so.

And most relevant:

For you info I have a 2 masters degrees in geophysics and I was an Atheist for 15 years before I came to the see the truth and realized that evolution is null and void.So I really don't have to prove myself again.

He claims to have been an atheist before. For 15 years. Denying a so-called "obvious fact" of the world, just, you know, because.

I do love the fact that he claims to have two Masters degrees in geophysics -- while also saying that he believes the Earth to be young simply because of the bible. Yeah, hate for you to have to actually go through the trouble of looking at your own fucking field for you to cite some evidence. But he has! I point out a simple way to show the Earth is several billion years old (we don't see certain radioactive isotopes that have short half-lives, which is just one basic way to date the Earth), and I get:

You can try give me science lessons - I'm a Geophysicist - I've studied for a long 10 years to get where I am - I have given hours upon hours of seminars to panels of HOD's, deans,professors, archealogists,geophysicists, student bodies, students, prospective students etc. I have been working at Geophysical Institute of University of Karlsruhe in Germany for the past 7 years. There is not a single thread of ''evidence'' that you can give me to support your claims. WE'VE HEARD IT ALL

Now, is this person lying? I don't know. I have a strong reason to doubt their sincerity here, since they can't seem to keep a coherent thought, started this entire thing off with an appeal for me to repent and stop from being sent to hell, as well as claiming that they totally disregard every single bit of evidence from their own supposed field of expertise. Also of questionable veracity, because they cite that they're 27 and live in the United Kingdom. Entirely possible by age I think, but then they've been an atheist for over half their life, and have only just de-converted (for a simple reason I'll get to). But the geography question is a little odd, though still plausible.

But the point I truly want to discuss is this invocation. "I was an atheist before, and I saw the truth, and now am religious." In so many cases, it's just not true.

A vast majority of the people on Earth are raised believing their parent's religion, and particularly their parent's sect of that religion. It's still quite rare for children to be actual true second-generation atheists or even agnostics. This is mostly the case because atheists in many places still are not that large a segement of the population (though they're growing! Huzzah!), and in many places have stigmas attached to being irreligious.

As well, when you have actual atheists raising their own children, in most cases they don't care what specific things their children believe. In other words, they wouldn't raise their children saying "You're an atheist, and that's that." They'd instead raise their children to question what they know and to give them the tools for their own investigation and intellectual thinking: empiricism, reasoning, skepticism in general, etc.

So, if a person isn't raised an atheist, they must have divorced themselves from whatever religious belief they had previously. And doing simply that makes it far more likely that they'd never "relapse" so to speak.

The main "evidence" for religion, is not evidence: it's faith. The above excerpts from emails show it clearly. You ask a religious person for evidence of their beliefs, and they might flail around making various claims that they purport to be evidence. You can assess those claims and show that they're, without exception, fallacious, misinformed, flawed, deceitful, or just simply false. Or, they'll go to their true reason: because they have faith.

Faith is nearly impossible to argue against, because it just doesn't "play by the rules" of rational thinking. How could it? It's the deliberate shattering of any of that, because it's the continuing of belief without, or in contravention to, evidence. It's quite simply not what is true, but what people want to be true. "This concept of heaven sounds good and peaceful, I'd like some of that." Faith, in not so many words.

But faith, for how incredibly powerful it is for believers minds, is extremely weak. Most believers see how intellectually feeble faith is when applied to anything other than their god. The tooth-fairy is supported by faith, too. So is Zeus, the flying spaghetti monster, and all those other rival gods that have ever existed throughout human history -- all of them are proped up by faith.

Faith is a cop out. It's the conceeding that you cannot take an argument on it's merits, and must invent a new means to continue to believe whatever you want, no matter what. It belies a deep insecurity of their beliefs. We don't go around assuring outselves that atoms, germs, electricity, or any other phenomena that we don't have serious doubt about exists. We can question these things, sure; you're encouraged to. But if people actually doubt that germs exist, you can show them the compelling evidence for their existence.

And that's the central point: without faith, there is no reason to believe in god. There's no evidence to support any belief in god, the only remaining thing is faith. Without faith, there's nothing. It's an empty concept that is readily seen to be what it is: false.

That is why there is not really "relapses" among atheists. To first become an atheist, you have to assess and deal with the faith question. Realizing that faith is not answer is the first step, one that only you can take and can't be forced on you.

And it's seriously to be believed that somehow faith is supposed to go from not making sense, to suddenly clicking again? It just simply isn't going to happen to any degree. And without that, there's no real reason to change from being an atheist back to being a theist.

Happy birthday, Christopher Nolan

38 years old, and undoubtedly one of the most established directors alive today, and I'd argue has been for about 4 years. Can't wait for more of his work.

Quote of the Day

A great one, even if it's just a one off line.

I'm sorry if I impose some clarity, some understanding, on you.
-- Dan Dennett

That's just one kick ass reply.

TED: V.S. Ramachandran

V.S. Ramachandran is probably one of the most recognizable people in the field of neurology. He's a pretty standard commentator for many science shows, like on Discovery or National Geographic or shows on the BBC or just the Science channel.

Here, he gives a talk eliciting some fun areas of our thinking and brains by discussing three delusions: Capgras syndrome, phantom limb syndrome, and synesthesia.

I have a passing interest with phantom limb, but I'm completely fascinated by Capgras syndrome and synesthesia. There are many fascinating abnormal conditions in psychology, but I think those are my two favorites. I just find it amazing that people can be utterly convinced that people they've known their entire lives are impostors. And synesthesia would be a cool thing to have, at least for a little while. Might not be best all the time, but, c'mon, wouldn't it be cool to go the symphony and see essentially a fireworks show at the same time?



(Original link.)

The X-Files: I Want to Believe

In the 8 days since The Dark Knight opened, I have seen it three times, and twice on IMAX. In the past three days, I have seen it twice, matter of fact. It's still as good for the third time seeing it.

Also, today I saw the new X-Files movie. I'm a fan of the X-Files. They have some funny episodes, and some very interesting ones, as well as a few that are pretty fucking creepy. As well, I personally like David Duchovny.

But this movie just sucked. Maybe I was still too pumped because of seeing The Dark Knight about an hour before (longer waiting time between films than I'm used to, so I feel I was pretty well adjusted for the change between the two). I was entertained for about the first 20 minutes of the film. Then, it was just tedious and confusing, as well as plain fucking boring.

The X-Files has always been "out there" quite a bit. Here, it's just absurd. You have an agent disappearing, and the FBI then calling Mulder and Scully back into the job because they're resorting to using a so-called psychic. Who is also a pedophilic ex-priest. So, they go searching for this agent, and another agent is kidnapped. Then you find out they're kidnapped by two Russian guys. Really, it's one Russian guy, because he's trying to keep the other Russian guy alive -- his gay lover he married in Massachusetts, who was also one of 37 little boys the former priest molested. Oh, and he's trying to keep his Russian gay lover alive, by completely severing his head from his body, and connecting it to tubes and trying to put it on the bodies of the two captured women.

Are you following along with this shit? Congratulations, you're making it further than I did. Maybe it's because I'm removing the entire other half of the fucking movie where it's nothing by blatherings over things that have been tread over 10 million times in the series. "I don't believe in this, Mulder." "Well, I do, Scully." "I guess we'll have to see where this goes." ~Strange event happens~ Scully refuses to believe it. Then, slightly believes it. Then a "rational" far-flung scientific explanation is given, but Scully finds a little more reason to believe.

As well, here, she's treating patients in a Catholic hospital, one of whom she gets worked up enough over to be "up all night cursing god" -- and then proceeds to believe that god is telling her to use a radical stem cell treatment on her terminally ill 10 year old patient. And that treatment she looks up? Yeah, she uses Google. Not any scientific journal searches, such as Nature or even fucking Live Science. No, just fucking Google. Just "stem cell therapy" into Google. And they show this to you, along with her marking a folder -- because it's so difficult to obtain -- with a pen called "Stem Cell Research."

The whole thing is a mess and just plain bad. Again, the X-Files was always out there, pushing boundries into disgusting or ludicrious limits (incestuous redneck murderers?! Brilliant!). But here, there's no adherence to even possibility. One word can perfectly sum it all up: gobbledygook. Pure, 100%, unrestricted gobbledygook.

Picture that refutes "Christian Nation" crap

A few days ago, I was at work, as I usually am most days. Now, my job frequently consists of pretty routine things which are inherently boring. Meet customers. Greet customers. Ask customers if they had gas. Listen as customers explain "Yes, but I didn't have any fuel outside." Fake laughter and smile as you die ever so little bit by bit inside. Sell them cigarettes. Ask if they need a lighter. Wait as they ask in an offended tone "Is it free?" and proceed to hold back all the bile dumping vitriol you could lay on them because they're the 37th customer to fucking say that god damn bullshit in the last four hours. And your break from this -- ooo, emptying some garbages! That have been sitting outside. In the sun. For eight hours. That people have quite possibly shit in.

And, of course, you must make change for customers. 77 cents -- three quarters and two pennies. 41 cents -- quarter, dime, nickel, penny. And so forth.

But how often are you handed, without the faintest clue from the outset, an item that undeniably refutes the idea that the "United States is a Christian nation"? Why, it must be something amazing! Look for yourself:

Caveats to this: obviously, this is a copy of real money. It's not counterfeit, nor meant to be used in anyway as that. If you're that desperate to fake money, a few things to know:

1. It's a fucking dollar bill. Go buy something for a dollar. Most candy bars don't count, and you'll really get away with a can of soda, or a burger from McDonald's.

2. US money isn't paper, it's cloth. There's a distinct texture difference that anyone whose handled money can pretty easily find.

3. It's a fucking ONE.

Notice anything missing? I'll give you a hint:

That's right! In my possession, which can readily be placed in your hands, is a 1935 dollar bill -- one without the preening and nasuea inducing phrase "In God We Trust."

Of course, this is hardly damaging to many true social conservatives who are really demented when it comes to obvious facts regarding the foundation of America. But to the quaint, "Oh, it's so obvious, it's on our money!" type of thinking that is so depressingly common among so many people -- it falls flat right there.

You can see the bills. You can hold them in your hands. Hell, you can still even use them as legal tender (as far as I know; maybe there is some limitation on that, however). It's a clear and obvious fact: this was not how it always was. "In God We Trust" was added to our money. "Under God" was added to the pledge. They're flimsy trappings meant to give nothing more than the ubiquitous impression that it's obvious that we're a Christian nation, and their continuation argued for by people claiming "What's the harm?"

Revisionism. Confusing actual history, as it happened, with fantasy. Propagandist fantasy, at that. That's harmful. It's slow, it's incremental, and it always seems like a perfect thing to say "What's the harm?" to. But it needs to be fought against.

And I'm thinking of framing my bill for a good display.

I get email! Woo!

Yes, even I get email from people who just love to spread the crazy. I know this is a good one, since the subject is "nice."

The harder you try to prove there is no God, the more you will burn in hell. Jesus is our saviour.

I think you are laughable. Just because you don't see it it does not mean its not there.

Can you see the air that you inhale.

Can you see the thoughts you are thinking.

Can you see electricity.

The answer is no to the above. You can measure these, but not see it. How can you then say God does not exist.

I cant see you right now, but that does not mean your not in Wisconsin.

An Atheist will not find God, for the same reason a thief will no find police - Dr. K Hovind

Jesus is watching you and over you. He is the reason you life.

stop being so one track minded, narrow minded. open your eyes.

Boo ya! Cite that fraud Hovind as if he actually matters or had a coherent thought (aside from, you know, fraud). Toss in a dash of strong denial, a complete lack of actual evidence or argument supporting the existence of god, a fundamental misrepresentation of what atheists actually believe, and just a pinch of hell-fire damnation and a sliver of approaching the "fool calling" game -- you got yourself a wonderful funderful fundamentalist!

Holy IMDB shit

I go to IMDB a lot. It's one of the sites I check every day from my toolbar. So, I've perused the top 250 list they have quite a bit. I have some disagreements with it. Some movies that should be higher (2001 at number 81? Fuck -- you), some that should be lower (I was unimpressed with City of God, given its hype), a whole bunch I'm waiting and dying to see.

Anyway, I noticed a curious thing today.

The Dark Knight is ranked number 1.

And this isn't like a lot of big movies debuting really high, with like 3,000 "10" votes, and that's it. No, this is over 100,000 votes, and a 9.4 rating. That's more votes than the number 5 movie, and about a third of the votes of the 2nd (Godfather) and 3rd (Shawshank Redemption) picks. And it's rated three tens of a percent higher. That's amazing, considering that the 250 rank movie has a 7.9 ranking. In another way, taking the 9.1 that the Godfather and Shawshank are, and taking away .3 percent, would drop down to 18th place. Another .1 percent, and it'd drop down to 21st.

Obviously, it's a bit inflated due to the highly anticipated release, the enormous success of it, and, of course, being a great movie. But it still is fun to see a movie besting the Godfather.

Penn and Teller: Safety Hysteria

Be safe! Germs will get you!



(Original link.)



(Original link.)



(Original link.)

Evangelism with every transaction!

I was late for work today. Horrible, horrible me. I had overslept my alarms, and woke up about 4 minutes past when I was supposed to already be at work. Ended up being about 15 minutes late, and my boss wasn't too upset by it since we had enough people there. It turned out to be a bad start to quite a bad day.

First, it was incredibly busy. That's not horrible, just tiring. What was horrible was that we were essentially a person short. Normally it would've been perfectly fine, but since it was busy it made things more difficult.

Second, because it was so busy, my break kept getting interrupted. Shitty, sure, but hardly unusual. It was just irritating since it shouldn't have been interrupted, even with how busy we were, because when a person goes on break, the other people in the store know to look out for things being busy, so that a person can, you know, take a break. That didn't happen, with one other worker off doing various things. That should normally be fine (if not even great -- less to do later!), but again, it was fucking busy. People know this. Hence why having one person up front to handle all the customers doesn't -- make -- sense.

Third, my boss' boss showed up unexpectedly. My boss Larry basically just got a call saying that his boss would be in sometime today, no reason why he would be and no time given. So, it was time to be extra good and productive (very likely why the other person was doing various things, instead of helping up front). Then, when Larry's boss arrived, we were down another person so it was even busier for us.

So, it was, as Larry likes to call it repeatedly, a clusterfuck.

But there was one highlight of the day. A very nicely dressed man (basically a suit, with the coat being left in the car or something) came into the store (as many are wont to do), and came up to the counter asking for directions. I hate when this occurs, since I'm still very new to the area and don't know where many things are. I'm improving of course, but it's still basically me calling for other co-workers to give directions. The man was looking for some auto store, I think for some car part. I only vaguely knew of the road he was looking for and directed him the best that I could towards it. After that, we began the farewell competition (see who gets the final say in courtesy!!! -- "Thank you," "You're welcome, have a lovely day," "Thanks, you too," "Come back soon," "I'll be back whenever I need ____ again," "Drive safe").

About half-way through with this, the man stops and suddenly remembers something. So, he reaches into his pocket and gets out this little square of paper, sets it on the counter in front of me, and proudly changes the competition to "I win, bitches" as he says "That's for you, and be extremely glad you received it."

And I get to waste my brief 10 seconds staring at this beauty:

Oh, I have a great feeling about this. Especially because their answer is yes.

And so, we're thrust head first into one of the most interesting aspects of Christianity: whether a person can do whatever they want during their life, as long as they've accepted Jesus, and still get into heaven. I say "interesting" in the same sense that it's "interesting" whether or not unicorns gather together to do Derby events. Or "interesting" in the same way that various personalities of a psychopath fight it out mentally.

Again, their answer is straightforward: yes, if you believe in Jesus, you go to heaven. End of story. They even point out that if you had to keep your chance at heaven by not sinning, your salvation would be based on your works (and, really, who would want that?). They cite as many as four bible verse to prove this. Rock solid stuff. I mean that's totally impossible to argue with.

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
-- James 2:14

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
-- James 2:17 (yes, twice within a paragraph)

Was not Abraham our father justified by works? You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rabab the harlot also justified by works? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
-- James 2:21-25 (yes, three times within the same book!)

But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to each one according to his deeds. [...] For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified.
-- Romans 2:5 and 13

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
-- Matthew 16:26-27

And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
-- John 5:29

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
-- 2 Corinthians 5:10

And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear
-- 1 Peter 1:17

And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
-- Revelation 2:23

Well, sure, if you read those passages, maybe it isn't so clear.... But who reads the entire bible? I mean, you're talking about Christians here -- obviously they don't. As well, Jesus talked in parables, not in direct wording. Just look at his story about how he was hungry, and people gave him food, thirsty and they gave him water! Clearly that shows that only faith matters, right?

And with that one point refuted or made irretrievably murky (IE: refuted), the rest falls as nonsense. But such hilarious nonsense.

My favorite part:

It is true that you can't lose your salvation. However there is a new responsibility and new identity for a believer once he has trusted Christ. When you're a Christian, God Gives you His Holy Spirit, who is part of the Godhead and lives inside of you. His job is to convict you of sin and draw you closer to Christ.

I like this because for both it's split personality aspect (Me and the Ghost? Who do I trust?!) and because you're supposedly still getting sin put on you that you'll be "convicted" of, yet you can't lose your salvation. Yet they never explain what the hell "convicted" means. The best they do is another euphemism:

While you cannot lose your status as a child of God, you can lose your fellowship with God. Because He is a Good Father, God chastens and disciplines those who stray from Him.

So, you're acts do matter? Otherwise, how are you straying from him? In either case, "lose your fellowship?" Be "disciplined?" Are you going to be thrown into a lake of everlasting fire? No? Are you still going to heaven? Then you're hardly losing your fellowship or being disciplined.

I mean this is like saying "Yes, yes, I'll give you what you want -- but you watch it! But don't worry, you'll get what you want."

What crazy things born-again Christians believe in. Hell, let's open that up: what crazy things religious and superstitious people believe in.

Jamie asked me a simple question not to long ago: "What the hell is wrong with your state?" See, she doesn't get to see pamphlets, Christian-based advertising, though she might have to deal with national full page theocracy ads. Honestly, I don't go looking for these things, so there easily could be 10 others that I miss seeing every day. These are just the few I've stumbled upon personally. Still unbelievable.

A trip to... the lighting store?

A friend of the family called yesterday abruptly to say "I just bought two tables. Come down to see if you want them." My mom for whatever reason said yes. And so we ended up at Signature Lighting, where they had just finished their closing auction where they were selling desks (full, solid wood desks) for 1-10 dollars. They sold a king chair and love-seat wood piece that was valued at 7500 dollars -- for 250.

So, we were looking at the desks and seeing if we wanted them. Apparently, we did. I only know from having to lift the fucking things earlier today, since at the time I was off taking some pictures of the place as it was closing.

Need lightbulbs?

I especially like the first and last ones. They have great lighting in them. Figures, in a lighting store.

Pope: don't deaden your relationships and forget about sex abuse

The pope said something, and very few people care.

“A new generation of Christians is being called to help build a world in which God’s gift of life is welcomed, respected and cherished — not rejected, feared as a threat and destroyed,” the pope told a crowd, estimated by the organizers at 400,000, at a racecourse and nearby park. [...]

“In so many of our societies, side by side with material prosperity, a spiritual desert is spreading: an interior emptiness, an unnamed fear, a quiet sense of despair,” he warned.[...]

Benedict urged young people to create “a new age in which hope liberates us from the shallowness, apathy and self-absorption which deaden our souls and poison our relationships.”

Yes, hope for the future, when there is no Catholic priests raping children. What really is more internally empty than thinking it's a good idea to rape children?

On Saturday, he apologized for the sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests and brothers in Australia. “I am deeply sorry for the pain and suffering the victims have endured, and I assure them that, as their pastor, I too share in their suffering,” he said in a brief departure from his prepared address.

Shortly before leaving on Monday morning, the pope held a small private Mass with a representative group of victims, answering critics who had condemned him for not meeting with the victims directly.

That's a novel idea: have priests rape the Pope. Maybe they could do that while moaning gently into his ear, their thanks at his work in hiding their actions, so that they could rape more children.

Keep the photo events in the "big ideas" bin, instead of actually doing them. How about bringing crimes against the ones who rape children, that your institution protects? That might show that you actually care a bit more.

Dobson --MIGHT-- endorse McCain

What a surprise. A political bigot who hides behind religion, will do a political thing.

Conservative Christian leader James Dobson has softened his stance against Republican presidential hopeful John McCain, saying he could reverse his position and endorse the Arizona senator despite serious misgivings.

"I never thought I would hear myself saying this," Dobson said in a radio broadcast to air Monday. "... While I am not endorsing Senator John McCain, the possibility is there that I might."

Just get it over with, Dobson. You'll endorse him. Otherwise, you'll lose any possible gain you can get out of being near the ear of "the president." It's either that or think you'll get standing with Obama.

Swallow that thing called principle, and vote for the man you said you'd never vote for.

What the Democratic party does not need: Pentecostals

This is exactly what I don't want to see happen to the Democratic party. I don't want it to be filled and controlled by people like this:

LEAH DAUGHTRY SLIPPED OFF HER STILETTO-HEEL SHOES at the House of the Lord Church in Brooklyn, stepped from a pastor’s chair to the pulpit and shouted, “I am on the rise!” She wore a long black tunic with gold buttons that ran from her high collar almost to the carpet. Her graying hair was shorn tight to her dark brown scalp. She always preaches in bare feet in order to “de-self,” she had told me, and to let God’s spirit and words rush through her unimpeded. “I am on the rise!” she erupted again.

Dancing down front, in an aisle between pews, was a woman in an elaborate dress with a lace corsage whose breast cancer had been eradicated, Daughtry had said, through the prayers of her church sisters: “The eggheads will say her chemotherapy worked, but everyone who uses chemotherapy isn’t cured.” The woman cried out exultantly, her voice barely audible above the surging of an electronic organ and the thrashing of drums and cymbals played by one of Daughtry’s nephews, with another nephew, a 3-year-old, adding his own ecstatic beats with a set of sticks. “I am on the rise to a place of dependence on the Lord!” Daughtry screamed.

This woman is Howard Dean's chief of staff. But on Sundays:

[S]he is a Pentecostal preacher with her toes naked on the floor and her voice filled with a power that she says is not her own. Straight from the start of her sermon on a Sunday afternoon in June, she looked nearly helpless, beyond self-management, truly overcome by a force coursing through her; she wiped tears from her eyes with a small square of white cloth.

In her positions as Dean’s top aid and the convention’s top official, Daughtry, who is 44 years old, is leading the Democratic Party’s new mission to make religious believers — particularly ardent Christian believers — view the party and its candidates as receptive to, and often impelled by, the dictates of faith. She sparked this crusade, both to transfigure the party’s image as predominantly secular and to take enough votes from the Republicans to win this year’s presidential election, in the aftermath of George W. Bush’s 2004 defeat of John Kerry. And in her vocation as a Pentecostal pastor she stands for faith in an extreme form. There is nothing equivocal about her belief. Hers is a religion not only of divine healing but of talking in tongues. [...]

Usually she preaches to her own congregation of about 20 in Southwest Washington. Her flock meets in a communal room in the depths of her high-rise condominium, near the exercise room and the garage. They push aside folding tables and set up folding chairs, and all begin to sing and dance, to stagger and sob and “shabach, to cry out loudly to the Lord,” as one congregant described it, and often to be overwhelmed by the Holy Ghost, so that soon the voices are not producing words in any known language. They are, instead, living out a version of a miracle that is rendered in the Book of Acts and that gives Leah’s denomination its name. At the feast of the Pentecost, on the 50th day after Easter, the Holy Ghost took such complete possession of Jesus’s disciples that they spoke, the Bible says, “in other tongues.” Pentecostals in the midst of worship are frequently so possessed that their services are filled with anarchic, alien sounds, with outpourings and prayers comprehensible only to God.

Her's is a religion of fucking crazy people that I don't want to see in my party, for the major reason that they're the ones destroying the Republican party. Things are by and large pretty simple right now. For the most part, if you're a creationist, a person who is against science, and against recognizing that women have rights that you don't have control over -- you're a Republican. They're not hard dividing lines, but they're more than strong correlations for how you answer.

And bashing chemotherapy in a church setting, I hate to break it to you, is being against science. Sure, it's in a more muted form than outright creationist, but calling scientists egg-heads and taking the credit for chemotherapy by crediting something that never works -- well, it's pretty fucking clear where you stand.

This is one of the big reasons why I don't buy into any of that bullshit about courting evangelicals or other fundamentals to vote for Democrats in order to defeat Republicans. I think we can do that on our own, thank you very much. We don't need to court the people who by and large do not stand for the same principles that we do. I'm accommodating as much as I can. I have no qualms for working with people for the most part adhering to progressive stands, but having a few I disagree with. But that's just practicality, usually grouping together to work on a single issue. It's not a long-term, "Welcome to the party!" type of feeling.

But these type of people are just fucking crazy. I don't enjoy getting crazy people to vote for my party, especially by saying "Hey, if we just turn as crazy as they are, we'll get their votes!" And they'll lose mine.

That's the central fault in this thinking. Do people honestly think that evangelicals or other fundamentalists wouldn't vote for the Democrats, unless they disagreed with the Democrats? I mean just take the issue of abortion. Yeah, if you get all the pro-lifers to vote for you, the issue is a cinch. You'll have 100% of the voters!... except that you'll lose the pro-choice vote. Or whether to teach creationism or actual science. If you get the creationists to support you, hot damn, you'll never lose!... except those who support actually teaching science, not simply archaic fairytales.

You want to increase your party strength as much as possible, obviously. But you can't compromise your principles in search of that goal. Let the Republicans keep the fundamentalists. I'm fine with that. I'd rather actually support measures that will make people think about their positions so that we might have less fundamentalists overall, rather than letting more fundamentalists join and control our party.

But that concern of mine? Meaningless:

“We Democrats tend to be too cerebral,” Daughtry told me in her sleek Denver office, then added that part of the reticence is due to the big-tent ideal, to a reluctance to alienate nonbelievers and people of differing faiths.

Are you fucking kidding me? Who was it that not too long ago said an atheist had no right to be in a hearing before public officials? That atheists believe in destorying? A Democrat.

As for the claim of being "too cerebral," what does that even mean? "Oh my god, you just think all the time. It's very irritating." Yeah, sorry, I have a problem of thinking that using my thinking capabilities is a good idea. Sorry for being so above you in the revolutionary thought-race of "Having brain, using it = good idea."

The overall point is this: courting these people is either a foolish cause or capitulation of principles.

The party may be at irreconcilable odds with conservative Catholics and evangelicals about keeping abortion legal and readily available, but the Democratic hope is that these religious constituencies will credit the party with battling abortion, genuinely, in its own way; that they will join with the party to support child-care programs and perhaps even policies promoting contraception; and that the devout, especially young voters among them, will be drawn to a Democratic agenda that addresses profound religious concerns about the war in Iraq, the crisis in Darfur, economic injustice and global warming — the focus of an evangelical movement known as “creation care.”

It's foolish because they're admitting that they're not aiming to get a majority of fundamentalists. Good, but what are you doing then? Those people who support battling global warming, caring for the poor, dealing with Darfur and Africa in general, giving health care to children, etc -- they're already supporting Democrats. Honestly, which party accepts and wants to do something about global warming? It's not the Republicans. So who are those who want to do something about global warming going to support?

If you're aim is to get the 20-30% of fundamentalists who can at least think somewhat coherently on issues not directly about their faith, you're going to do that simply by adhering to your own principles anyway. So, why kowtow to the fundamentalists in this way? You already know you're not going to get much more that this minority, so what are you doing?

Again, it's just foolishness. Let's finish off with a nice tidbit:

Though she is a biblical literalist who sees no problem with teaching creation theory side by side with evolution — “For me, the Bible is history” — she, following the teaching of her father’s church, is also pro-choice. “God allows us to choose in the biggest matter,” she said, “whether to accept Him in our lives. How then can we take away choice on other profound issues? We don’t believe the government should interfere.” Hearing Alabama’s covenant, she said right away that F.I.A. has not vetted everything the state parties have done with its money. Then she leaned heavily on the poles of the big tent: “The wonderful thing about the Democratic Party is that we have room for all kinds of opinions.”

Yeah, except when you're blaming Democrats for not alienating atheists and people of other faiths, huh? Why, then being tolerant is a bad thing.

The Dark Knight breaks record for highest grossing weekend

Bye Spider-Man 3.

"The Dark Knight" took in a record $155.34 million in its first weekend, topping the previous best of $151.1 million for "Spider-Man 3" in May 2007 and pacing Hollywood to its biggest weekend ever, according to studio estimates Sunday.

"We knew it would be big, but we never expected to dominate the marketplace like we did," said Dan Fellman, head of distribution for Warner Bros., which released "The Dark Knight." The movie should shoot past the $200 million mark by the end of the week, he said.

Hollywood set an overall revenue record of $253 million for a three-day weekend, beating the $218.4 million haul over the weekend of July 7, 2006, according to box-office tracker Media By Numbers.

Factoring in higher admission prices, "Spider-Man 3" may have sold slightly more tickets than "The Dark Knight."

At 2007's average price of $6.88, "Spider-Man 3" sold 21.96 million tickets over opening weekend. Media By Numbers estimates today's average movie prices at $7.08, which means "The Dark Knight" would have sold 21.94 million tickets. [...]

On opening day Friday, "The Dark Knight" also took in more money than previously counted, Fellman said. The film pulled in a record $67.85 million, up nearly $1.5 million from the studio's estimates a day earlier.

Good times. Good times.

Penn and Teller: Death Inc.

When I was in 5th grade I believe, I remember a historical anecdote my teacher told me that put a surprising amount of things into perspective. During the California gold rush, thousands of people made a harrowing journey across the US to get to a place where they stood just a chance of making it rich off of finding gold. The thing is, almost every single one of them didn't find anything, died, made no money, or made less than really anything else they could've made working a regular job.

No story puts it simpler than Sutter's Mill. John Sutter owned the land for the sawmill that was being constructed, and he and James Marshall discovered the gold there. When word got out, other people got excited, of course. It became world wide news fast, and peole flocked to the area. The mill failed when all the workers left to go look for gold, and the people coming in to find their own gold strikes drove both men from their lands.

They both died having not prospered at all from their discoveries.

Who did prosper? Not the discoverers, and very few of the seekers. The ones that did -- were the hardware salesmen. The ones who sold shovels, pick axes, rope, etc. They made loads of money. Because people always need shovels.

I remember hearing this contrast and thinking of a better industry to work in immediately if I was wanting a solid state of income: a funeral home. Even in 5th grade, I'd already heard that the only two constants are death and taxes, and we were just finished covering the Revolutionary War not three weeks prior -- so I knew governments could be replaced. Why, death was the for sure place to make a living!

And boy is it.



(Original link.)



(Original link.)



(Original link.)

I've thought quite a bit about my funeral, and I've only come to two solid parts so far:

1. Everyone must wear pajamma pants. If they do not have any, they will be provided.

2. No religious praise or citing of holy books.

Both will be enforced with removal if broken. Regarding cremation or burial, I do not know. I don't see much point to either, but maybe people want one last look. But, if they do, I might just join up for the plastination exhibits. That way, I'll at least be put to some use after I die. And, it might piss off some religious people (definitely a plus!). And, I'll look pretty fucking cool.

As for the rest, well, I hopefully have a while to decide.

Gays in the military: perfectly fine, says the public

Once more, it really does seem that time is just what is needed.

Seventy-five percent of Americans in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll said gay people who are open about their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military, up from 62 percent in early 2001 and 44 percent in 1993.

Majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike now believe it is acceptable for openly gay people to serve in the U.S. armed forces. Shortly after he took office in 1993, Clinton faced strong resistance to his campaign pledge to lift the military's ban on allowing gay people to enlist. At that time, 67 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of conservatives opposed the idea. A majority of independents, 56 percent, and 45 percent of Democrats also opposed changing the policy.

Today, Americans have become more supportive of allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the armed forces. Support from Republicans has doubled over the past 15 years, from 32 to 64 percent. More than eight in 10 Democrats and more than three-quarters of independents now support the idea, as did nearly two-thirds of self-described conservatives.

In other words, in 15 years, support for gays in the military has gotten short of doubling, and has doubled amoung Republicans. Hell, even a majority of evangelicals support this:

Fifty-seven percent of white evangelical Protestants now support allowing openly gay service members in the military, compared with 82 percent of white Catholics and 80 percent of those with no declared religious affiliation. Three-quarters of both married and single people support the idea, both significantly higher than in 1993.

Granted, they're still the most discriminatory, but they're overall for progress.

Of course, chalking this up all to time is misleading. Yes, it's been a while and people have gotten used to the idea and know that there being people who like to have sex with men in the military isn't a way to suddenly make the military disappear or be ineffective. But, it's also taken a lot of work by people pushing for anti-discrimination legislation against gays, outreach work by countless organizations, and numerous other means to get across a simple message: gays are people too, nothing dangerous.

The Dark Knight sets new opening day record

That's one down.

Batman's joust with the Joker has set another box office record. Stoked by fan fever over the manic performance of the late Heath Ledger as the Joker, "The Dark Knight" set a one-day box office record with $66.4 million on opening day, Warner Bros. head of distribution Dan Fellman said Saturday.

The movie's Friday haul surpassed the previous record of $59.8 million set last year by "Spider-Man 3." "The Dark Knight" might break the opening-weekend record of $151.1 million, also held by "Spider-Man 3."

"I think they're in jeopardy," Fellman said of the "Spider-Man 3" records.

"The Dark Knight" began with a record $18.5 million from midnight screenings, topping the previous high of $16.9 million for "Star Wars: Episode III — The Revenge of the Sith."

In other words, yesterday was the day Hollywood has made the most money, ever.

Spider-Man 3 is going down.

Penn and Teller: Profanity

I remember when I was 7 years old knowing basically all the curse words I know now. And, more importantly, I knew I wasn't supposed to say them. But fuck that, I did, routinely. In school, out of school, at home, on the way to home, with friends or sitting right in front of teachers. I distinctly remember telling one person when I was 10 or so that hell wasn't a bad word -- it's a place, and more over that it was a place that didn't even exist.

When people tell me not to swear (a rare occurrence now a days, but happens infrequently) I reply with "Well, I can't do that, else you'll be wanting me to actually coordinate my clothing" or something very similar. I don't take pleasure in swearing just for the sake of it (unless it's in front of kids, then I have to admit, I do get a laugh). Almost every time I swear it's for a simple reason: they're the expressions that we all know to get across frustration, surprise, anger, dislike, annoyance, and just plain descriptions.

When I come in contact with people who don't like swear words, I generally have a look of "They still make you?" on my face. Have you not been around for the last week? People swear. It's ok. You'll survive the verbalization of a symbol through alphabetical and enunciated means. It's not like it's a spike going through your head. Or a fucking pencil.

Oh, and your kids know every single curse word. Or, if they're especially young, you have about 2 years, and then they'll learn every single curse word. They might not use it around you, except for especially frustrating or surprising moments, but they'll use them.

Play with the glossed over replacements (FRACK!) all you want. I find them more annoying than anything. Just one example: I hate when people say "pee" or "poo." And I'm talking people here, like, you know, older than 12. I usually dislike this because I don't need to be briefed on your excretionary habits. You go take a piss, I don't need to hear about it. You got to go to the bathroom? I'll assume you did one of the two.

But when my Iraq War veteran Marine brother-in-law Troy ask me "Do you gotta go take a poo?" when I say "I'll be right back" or something similar, I just want to say stop pretending. Yes, maybe I have to go take a shit. Or maybe I have to go take a piss. Or I'm off to deficate a nice compressed mound of processed foodstuffs, that I plowed through 18-24 hours previously, out of my large intestine, through my sphinxter, and into a tank semi-full of water for easy cleaning and odor control. Or I don't want to be around people using infant PC talk when they're old enough to run for elected office. Whatever it is, I will not be "taking a poo."

I also get incredibly pissed off, naturally, when movies are edited for TV broadcasting. Your ruining a movie that quite possibly is a work of art. Fuck off.



(Original link.)



(Original link.)



(Original link.)

The verbal soup of churches

I've noticed a curious thing. Take a look at this picture.

Doesn't that just sound like a marketing ploy? Like, there was a meeting between a bunch of stiff guys over declining attendence numbers, so they had to decide on what to re-name their church. They were brainstorming ideas, just tossing generalized themes out. And then just decided to lump all of those together and say "Done!"

"What's important to us?"

"Oh, faith is important."

"Surely, we're active in the community, too."

"Can't be forgetting the bible, here, people!"

"And what are we?"

"A church!"

"Great. Merge all of those together, boil it down to about four words, and we're done. Now on to our national man-boy-love problem."

Or take this one:

Ooo, it's accomodating, because it's not a church it's a worship center.

Waukesha is full of churches like these. Things like the "United Reformed Church." Well, what the fuck does that mean? You've reformed form some prior act or idea? Interesting. And you're united in this reformation? Ah, I see, good, good. And, if I may ask, what is that?

Can't we just get some truth in advertisement here? "Children Stultification Center for Baptists." Put a reformed in there, whatever. Or simply "Crazy Christian Center" followed by it's neighbor "Even Crazier, and More Bigoted, Christian Center." Or "Place to Go to Waste Time and Applaud Yourself for 'Doing Something Worthwhile.'"

The Dark Knight

Spoilers follow. Major spoilers. The entire movie is given away.

If you want to watch the movie as it's supposed to be, without foreknowledge, go the fuck away.




The movie is absolutely terrific. I have now seen three Christopher Nolan films in the theatre (his other work I've seen on DVD), and every one of them has met my expectations or exceeded them. The Dark Knight is no exception to this, and I expected a fucking lot from this film.

It's useless to go over the plot details here. If you don't know what the general direction of the film is, where the fuck have you been for the last three weeks? It's Batman vs. The Joker with a bit of Two-Face tossed in.

To begin properly, I'll focus on what I usually do near the end: the actors. And principally among them is Heath Ledger's performance, since it is his last completed role. This is such a hard topic for me to cover, not because of his death, but because of how much objectivity has been lost regarding this. Just think. The first news I heard about this movie was that:

1. It was going to be made.

2. It was keeping all the same principle crew (no, Katie Holmes does not count in that).

3. Heath Ledger was going to star as the Joker.

The first two I was ecstatic about. The third gave me, and virtually everyone else, some pause. Heath Ledger? Sure, he's a good actor, but he just doesn't seem right for the role.

Now, look at how things stand. It's so hard to qualify his role here because it's become so synonymous with Heath Ledger, and the entire point to how great a job that he did in the film is how much you can't tell it's Heath Ledger. You're blown away with how much he embodies the character, from the way he enunciates his words, to the twitches of his fingers, to the cracked fingernails that he has. You don't recognize him. You need to step back, sit down, and go watch something like 10 Things I Hate About You in order to say "Oh, that's what Heath Ledger looked like, and sounded like" and then go watch this film to get awe-struck by how much he's different here.

It's an amazing performance, and is rightly being compared to Alex from A Clockwork Orange (especially since Ledger said he took influence from that character). The tough trick to do in both films is that the audience has to be carried through on their repulsion of the character, their paradoxical attraction to the character, and their acceptance of what this character can do. You have to believe that Alex is capable of smashing his own gang member's faces in, because you've seen the reality of him beating up a bum and from that moment on you're on your guard regarding this character. He's vicious, he's deadly, and worst of all he's charismatic and likable.

The Joker here is a perfect copy of this very difficult "model," from the moment you see him shoot his own "henchmen" in the opening bank robbery. You know the evil he presents when he sets up the numerous situations where he allows for people to make their own horrible choices, and kill each other. From the henchmen shooting each other, to telling people that he'd otherwise kill that he has "one opening on his crew" to go amongst three people, so he breaks a pool cue to a point and tells them to "make it fast."

From that opening action with the henchmen, you have no doubt that he is indeed a villain capable of killing another man by slamming the guy's head down on a pencil stuck in a table -- and calling it a "magic trick." Your reaction is to gasp "What the fuck just happened?!" with it's suddenness and violence, but also to laugh both at it's setup and (oh here it comes) execution. Not to mention, he just killed a guy with a fucking pencil. Similarly, when he blows up a hospital, an act that just saying it sounds horrifying. Yet, when it is done, we follow along with Ledger as the building around him explodes, to his delight. Then stops, to his confusion, as he fights briefly with the detonator -- only to be surprised and back to delighted by the much larger final explosion. Throughout the film he carries on like this, as he puts it, a dog chasing a car. No plans, just doing things and letting the chaos spread.

The only fault to be found in the film is that it seems too little time is given to the Joker, when in fact he's in practically 3/4ths of all the shots. You just want to see more of him, and see what insanity will next be put forth.

The real surprise for the film I think, however, is the Harvey Dent storyline. It's intertwined with the Batman - Joker action, of course, but the most surprising parts about it is the depth it goes to. You start out with Dent and Rachel dating with him proposing to her shortly. We follow through the events where they both come in contact with the Joker. And we end with both of their deaths. Rachel is killed off basically halfway through the film, precipitating the transformation of Dent into Two-Face. Here, many people assumed that Two-Face would survive to carry on into the third film, and this was basically just the "origin story" for him. He would come into real power in the third, and be the central villain. Not so. He comes to deal with Batman as well, and really shapes up as the central drive of the movie: that Batman really can't ever have someone be that white knight that is sought.

As well, everyone went crazy for the Joker makeup when it made the rounds. It was of course very well done. But Two Face's make up? Hardly a word about it. That's a wonderful treat. It just looks so disgusting. And you haven't seen it before. Not a public photo of it.

Christian Bale did a very good job in continuing his take on Batman, giving the role much more actual acting and standing than the non-reboot movies. Honestly, I don't find much here to comment about. He's the same with Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, and Morgan Freeman: he's great a great actor, and does the role like it's nothing.

The standout feature for all of Christopher Nolan's films for me is that they are smart films. It's not that they're "intellectual films" (whatever that would mean). You can tell that Nolan and everyone that he works with puts a lot of effort into their films, and making them as polished and perfected as possible. Here, the film's atmosphere can be summed up in the three Rs: Ruthless, Relentless, and Realistic. No one is spared in the discussion of the ideas surrounding whether or not people need heroes and how that impacts everyone else. These ideas are taken to their logical extremes and ultimate conclusions. And they get there through incrimental steps that you would see in the real world. The smart element comes in, not just in the "heady" discussion of these themes, but in the way that their elements are not really seen before. You've seen bank robberies done in other films, but not like this. You've seen action films done before, but none filmed directly for IMAX screens. You've seen car chases and semis rolled over, but none do handstands.

Everything about this film exudes a distinct word: perfection. Everything in it has been worked on and re-worked and honed and polished until it was just as perfect as it could be. And this is the result. It's a film, similar to The Prestige, where it actually is long, but never feels like it is long. It's just unbelievably great. And I can't wait to see it again. Hopefully, tomorrow.

Record breaking midnight showings for The Dark Knight

Its well on its way.

The latest Batman movie, inspiring thousands of sold-out screenings and countless desperate hunts for seats, grossed a record $18.5 million at midnight screenings, studio estimates said today.

"That's just a portion of the day," marveled Media by the Numbers' box-office analyst Paul Dergarabedian.

So far, The Dark Knight has the midnight record, topping 2005's Star Wars: Episode III—Revenge of the Sith ($16.5 million) and, with its 4,366 theaters, the widest-release record, besting 2007's Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (4,362).

The next challenge: biggest opening day.

The title currently belongs to 2007's Spider-Man 3, which premiered with $59.8 million, also Hollywood's single biggest day ever.

The Dark Knight was about one-third of the way to Spider-Man 3's record based solely on its midnight gross.

I can only add anecdotal evidence to this, but I feel it's compelling. I went to every Spider-Man movie on the Saturday of it's opening, at Point Cinema UltraScreen. The longest line and most sold was the third Spider-Man, with the line extending down the entirety of the hallway. For just that screen, which can seat approximately 500 people.

At its greatest extent, Spider-Man 3 made it a very good distance away from the screen, probably 6-700 feet.

Here, is The Dark Knight, for the 7 pm showing which was directly after my 4 pm showing, and just outside of the specific screen:

You can see in the right part of the image that the line extends down the hallway quite a distance. Sorry for the pretty shitty quality -- low light levels for handheld stills, and people jostling you left and right. These are actually probably viewed best in their smaller images, since there is less blur so easily visible then.

This line continues down the entire hallway The end of that hallway is where the longest part of Spider-Man 3 crested.

This one keeps going.

Where you see that black rectangle showing yellow and red movie times is the end of the hallway, where the Spider-Man line ended. This extends further out, and turns away to keep going.

To right at the fucking entrance. Where the girl in yellow shirt is, that is roughly 5 feet from where people who have their tickets are let into the theatre proper.

All of this, for one showing, on one screen, at one theatre. And I know my showing was just as sold out as this one was, as was the showing before that. C'mon, let's break that record!

The Dark Knight opens in 4,366 theatres

Well, that's one question solved. Considering that Spider-Man 3 opened on 4,200 screens, I think it's good license to say that it will make more than Spider-Man did in it's opening week.

15 hours to go, before I am sitting in those comfy seats, with the darkening lights. And waiting 10 minutes through bullshit commercials, to be sure.

More babies born last year than ever before in US

The next generation has officially surpassed the baby boomers.

The National Center for Health Statistics — just reported a population milestone. In 2007, a record number of 4,315,000 babies were born in the United States. With more babies born last year than any other year in U.S. history, nearly doubling the number born century ago, signs point to a potential start of a new American baby boom.

"It's a record, and it's a particularly interesting record because the year it beats is 1957, which was the height of the baby boom," said Robert Engelman, vice president for programs at the Worldwatch Institute based in Washington, D.C, and author of "More: Population, Nature and What Women Want."

"This is the first year that we've actually beat the baby boom," he said.

It will particularly make bigots mad:

But the biggest factor contributing to the current baby boom, demographers say, is immigration. The birth rate is rising fastest among Hispanic immigrants in particular, far outpacing the 2.1 average births per woman.

This is a good thing. The problem with numerous countries, especially in Europe, is that there is a developing age gap. So, the current workers are not being entirely replaced by younger ones. The older people are retiring, and continuing to live, becoming "social burdens" on the younger. They can't save as much then, can't spend as much then, and the economy will slow. Japan is also going to experience this, and hard.

Another place where this is developing is China. By 2020, a full third of Shanghai's population will be 60 or older. Combined with their one-child policies, they have some worker problems in the future, compared to now. This is a major reason why China will become a world power (is a world power), but isn't a threat worthy of apoplectic shock.

The world's most populous nation, which has built its economic strength on seemingly endless supplies of cheap labor, China may soon face manpower shortages. An aging population also poses difficult political issues for the Communist government, which first encouraged a population explosion in the 1950's and then reversed course and introduced the so-called one-child policy a few years after the death of Mao in 1976.

That measure has spared the country an estimated 390 million births but may ultimately prove to be another monumental demographic mistake. With China's breathtaking rise toward affluence, most people live longer and have fewer children, mirroring trends seen around the world.

Those trends and the extraordinarily low birth rate have combined to create a stark imbalance between young and old. That threatens the nation's rickety pension system, which already runs large deficits even with the 4-to-1 ratio of workers to retirees that it was designed for. [...]

"For the last two decades China has enjoyed the advantage of having a high ratio of working-age people in the population, but that situation is about to change," said Zuo Xuejin, vice president of the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences. "With the working-age population decreasing, our labor costs will become less competitive, and industries in places like Vietnam and Bangladesh will start becoming more attractive."

Why is this important? Because the US is different.

One potential benefit of more kids born today is that they enter the labor force and become future taxpayers. In addition, they will help fulfill the currently aging baby boomers' demands on Social Security.

The US has the same demographic problems as Europe, Japan, and China. Instead of women having four kids on average, it's now two kids on average. But this is off-set by a key feature: immigration. The US is still decent on immigration, even though it clearly needs reform (and that means actually getting more people in legally, not kicking out immigrants because some white folk are vile bigots).

But, with those immigrants, we'll continue to have a supply of labor, while many other countries will have to go through tougher times.

Oh, and we'll also have the chance -- if not the likelihood -- of having a generation even more liberal, tolerant, and secular than current generations. You know, this thing called progress. Of course, we could fuck things up too. We'll have to work at it.