Ramblings

Well it has certainly been a while since I last updated my blog (not as long as it has been since my sister updated hers, but close.) So I'll talk about a few things.

First there is the election. I am going to vote for Obama. Long time readers will notice that I have criticized Obama before. He certainly is not a perfect candidate. Even so, I like him better McCain and especially since he chose Palin as his running mate. I don't really want to get into all the reasons behind my vote other than to say I think Obama is positive and honest and may do the country a lot of good. He may not and if so I'll vote against him next time. Either way I live in Utah and the state is going Republican so it doesn't matter that much.

In the election I'm more concerned about the local votes, especially propositions and ammendments. I think we too easily want to ammend the state constitutions. I will be voting against ammendments I feel unnecessary. There are some ammendments I will be voting for. I wasn't always so cautious about ammending the state constitution but since have decided that we should have more respect for the wisdom of the original authors. As for propositions, I will be voting against Cache County's Proposition 1 as I feel (after doing research) that it is misleading and not really helpful. One argument for the proposition told students to vote for it and said they shouldn't care about the property tax increase it calls for because students rent and don't have property tax. I hate this argument. We should care about tax increases that effect others just as much as those that effect us.

Next I want to say that I was dissapointed with a newspaper article I read today about LDS mothers of gay children who were protesting in Salt Lake City against California's Proposition 8 (which the LDS church is opposing and asking members to oppose). The mothers said that they wanted to not abandon their children and be loving to them and support them and so they didn't want to oppose gay marriage. This shows horribly flawed logic. Condoning gay marriage (and in opposition to the church) doesn't show any love. It will only encourage a lifestyle that cannot lead to happiness. Being loving and supporting means not disowning someone, not degrading them, etc. It does not mean conding what they do. Are we eager to remove all drug laws so kids with drug additions feel loved? We love unconditionally but that should not mean we have to condone. We can understand that it may be difficult for people with same sex attraction while not condoning it. We don't need to yell at homosexuals "You're a horrible person" but we can teach them that the gospel and that homosexuality (acting on it) is wrong. Mothers of gays can support California's Proposition 8 without being cruel, mean, or unloving to their children.

Energy Pimping

Read this article by CBS news. It is great.

You Can Spell Politics Without Facts

So I just read a Newsweek article that says that Barack Obama just released an ad that said that McCain recieved $2 million from big oil companies. Well it turns out that he only received $1.3 million. Also the ad says that McCain wants to give $4 billion in tax breaks to big oil companies. It is true that his plan would give oil companies about $3.8 billion in tax breaks but this is really misleading because McCain isn't giving tax breaks specifically to oil companies but rather reducing the corporate tax rate which helps all businesses, oil companies included.

Sadly this is what politics is these days. Its too bad that commercials have to distort truth and mislead. Why can't Obama just use actual facts and find out his opponent's real weaknesses.

It is also interesting that Obama has accepted $400,000 from big oil companies. This is less than McCain but still a lot of money and makes Obama a bit hypocritical.

Lastly Obama in the ad says he wants to do a windfall profits tax on oil companies. Without getting into too much detail this would raise the price of oil so it would basically make things worse for everyone. Also defining "windfall" is really difficult so I don't think this would work. It is just politics. It sounds good when you are mad at the high gas prices but just doesn't work in reality. I suspect that Obama knows this and is only doing this to win votes. This makes me think less of him. I liked it when he refused to play the gas tax holiday game that everyone else was doing because it wouldn't work. It is unfortunate that on the same issue he is now willing to play games that won't work.

The Dark Knight

So I saw The Dark Knight in IMAX on Saturday. The movie was amazing! The acting, script, effects and everything else was great. I have since been really wanting to see it again. I'll probably see it tomorrow. I had a question about if the movie was worth seeing in the dollar theater. It is worth seeing in the expensive theater. IMAX was incredible. If you just want to go to an ordinary theater that would be fine also. I wouldn't wait for the dollar theater on this one.

*Spoiler Alert - I will discuss themes from the movie and am going to spoil things if you haven't seen it yet*

A lot of people have been talking about what to do with future films. One of the strengths of these films is that they are around themes so the films work as a whole. So I was thinking about the themes in the movie. It had a lot to do with opposites and specifically good vs. evil. Here are some pairs:
Gotham's White Knight (Harvey) : The Dark Knight (Batman)
The Joker : Batman
The two sides of Two-Face
The two sides of Two-Face's coin
Boat of convicts : Boat of ordinary citizens
The hostages at the end were reversed (clowns and doctors)
Batman being liked by police and citizens (even to the point of copying) : Batman being hunted at the end

There are of course other pairs. Using Two-Face strengthened the theme of opposites and opposition.

Escalation was another theme with the Joker doing more and more violent and destructive things.

I could go on - but I'm not going to. The movie was great and I definitely need to see it again.

Batman

I am really excited for The Dark Knight, which is coming out on Friday. I'll be seeing it on an IMAX screen on Saturday. I was thinking about the great Batman villains that could show up in future movies (Nolan serious type). Here is my list:

Already appeared:
R'as Al Ghul
Scarecrow
Joker
Two Face
R'as is now dead (although he was immortal in the comics, still he probably shouldn't come back) His daughter Talia could come into the story, except that her character is best with R'as involved. Scarecrow could make another appearance in a film. Joker probably won't because Heath Ledger is dead. I'm betting the third movie will be all about Two Face.

So for future movies we have:

The Riddler
Catwoman
Mr. Freeze
Harley Quinn (Joker's accomplice)
Poison Ivy
Penguin
Mad Hatter

Yes there are a lot of others but these looked most promising. The riddler would be good if he was done as a serial killer taunting the police with riddles. Catwoman would be excellent because she's in a gray area - sometimes good and sometimes bad. Mr. Freeze is one of my favorites, but he would be really hard to do in the current series because his transformation and weapons are a stretch scientifically. I think Mr. Freeze would be great for a Batman Beyond movie set in the future. Harley Quinn could be cool but you probably need the Joker to be around for her to work. Poison Ivy would be cool if she wasn't done too much as fantasy. She just needs to be sort of a green peace-ish ultra tree hugger gone killer. She should have a plethora of poisons made from plants. I would not have her able to manipulate plants. Penguin is supposed to be an elegant criminal who robs places in a tuxedo. If he was done this way it might work, but I'd probably not make a movie with him. The Mad Hatter could be good. I remember that he did a lot with computers and tried to control people's minds. This might work in the new movies but the director would have to be careful.


There are several other possible villains that I didn't know about until recently. They might work. Here are two of them:

Black Mask - a criminal who hated Bruce Wayne, not Batman and led the group False Face Society. He has a black skull mask

Firefly - He's basically a pyro.

Ducks

I like ducks. A bunch of them swim in the canal behind my apartment. They are a lot of fun to watch. A few weeks ago a few of them flew over to us and obviously wanted to be fed so we got some bread and fed them. It was great.

Another great thing about ducks is that you can EAT THEM! Go to a Chinese restaurant and order some. I actually had duck curry at a Thai restaurant. It was delicious!

So in conclusion, ducks are cute, fun, and delicious.

The Supreme Court

I am one of those people who enjoys the time of the year when the U.S. Supreme Court rules on various cases. For a while I wanted to become a lawyer before later deciding to be an engineer. I like how the court reasons about the constitutionality of laws. Many people get mad that the court doesn't support this or that, but the court isn't supposed to support anything. It is not for the judges to decide that they don't like how a law has been written and thus strike it down or to decide that they like a law and decide to keep it. They are only to decide if a law is valid constitutionally whether or not they agree with it. This is usually followed.

Recently the court ruled on judicial rights (writ of habeas corpus) for detainees at Gitmo. They also did a ruling regarding campaign finance laws which I think was good in that I think most campaign finance laws are on shaky constitutional ground, although I must admit that I haven't looked at the law in question in great detail. They also struck down a ban on handguns anywhere in Washington D. C. (including homes) while stating that some weapons can be limited and there can be limits in churches, schools, etc. Their other major controversial ruling was to strike down laws giving the death penalty to child rapists.

This last ruling made a lot of people mad, yet I agree with it. I certainly don't agree with what child rapists have done, but I don't think the death penalty should be given to someone who hasn't killed someone with the lone exception of for treason (which is specifically spelled out in the constitution). I don't have a problem with the death penalty for murderers, although I wouldn't mind if we gave them life sentences instead. I think the justification for the death penalty is that someone killed someone else so the state has the right to kill them. It is basically an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and by extension a life for a life. I think that giving the death penalty for any other crime puts the penalty on really shaky ground. Put these horrible people in prison for life instead.

Now, while I generally liked the rulings I was disappointed with the split in the court. I believe all of these rulings were 5-4. The conservatives and liberals were in the majority and dissent depending on the case. This means that in my view neither the conservative or liberal justices were doing their jobs right. At the same time it shows that there is a pretty good balance on the court.

Writ of Habeas Corpus

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."

-United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

The Supreme Court ruled on June 12 that terrorism suspects including those held in the Guantanamo Bay military detention center had this constitutional right. I applaud their decision. A writ of habeas corpus is an important legal protection. What it means is that you have a right to be charged with a crime and know why you are being held. It is a very important legal protection. Without it the government could arrest whoever they wanted and then just never bring them to trial. In this way they could imprison innocent people and nothing could be done. Obviously this is not good.
The Bush administration thought that it would be a good idea to deny this legal protection to terrorism suspects. The reasoning was that they weren't U.S. citizens so constitutional protections shouldn't apply to them. The problem with this was that it meant the government could, theoretically, take anyone and put them in the prison indefinitely. If no one can challenge their imprisonment then there would be no way to find out if the prisons were wrongfully holding people. The government seemed to think that if they had to show why they were holding people then that would reveal national security information. This is a stupid argument! The courts could easily be closed to press. Regardless, why in the name of freedom and democracy would we deny anyone rights?
Some people may have noticed the condition on the clause quoted above. The right to a writ can be suspended "when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." Some may say "well the terrorists have invaded us and rebelled and so public safety requires this." This argument is highly flawed. While it is true that the right has been suspended before (for example in the civil war) this has only been when the rebellion and invasion has been so extreme that it became impossible to deal with the legal burden. In our case yes we have been attacked, but the legal system could still easily deal with the writs. granting the writs would not destroy public safety. It would take a significant war to cause us to have to ignore this right.
I'm glad the supreme court ruled in favor of us extending this right. The guilty will still be held accountable for if we have a just reason to hold the person our courts must merely show that and they will still be imprisoned. I am disappointed that the supreme court was split on this decision. The ruling was 5-4 with the conservative 4 dissenting. I normally like the conservatives on the court and especially chief justice Roberts but am saddened by their dissent in this case.
How can our country show the world the importance of our rights if we abandon them whenever we like?

Frozen Donkey Wheel

LOST is awesome. I thoroughly enjoyed the 2 hour finale for season 4. A lot of questions were answered and other questions surfaced, most particularly concerning Jeremy Bentham. Rather than spoil the mystery for those of you who sadly haven't had the pleasure of watching the episode, I'm going to talk about LOST in general.

I like how LOST has mysteries and twists that make you go "what!" Despite this, If you go through the show you will discover that the weird stuff on the island clearly has rules. Sometimes these rules are unknown to the audience, but it is clear that all the weird things are governed by some laws. It seems that each time something way bizarre happens it shows you that your assumptions about what the rules are is wrong. For example when we found out that the Others and the Dharma Initiative were not the same thing it brought up the question "Well then who the #$%^ are the Others?" We thought we knew their origin but clearly we did not. LOST is all about making people get to know a little about events only to realize later that their assumptions were wrong as they learn more details. When we learn about characters' back stories through flashbacks we often draw the wrong conclusion about them. Take Sawyer for instance, at first you think he was a con artist who got a kid's parents killed. Later you realize that he was the kid and became a con artist later. This helps you understand why Sawyer does things the way he does. All characters on the show progress and our understanding of them changes. This is at the heart of what LOST is about. I was going to go on in this train of thought, but I want to change to what I was originally going to write about instead.

I want to list some mysteries that I am really looking forward to finding answers to. Most of these permeate all the seasons and are obviously really important to the show. Here's the list:

1. What are the whispers? What do they say and why? We know they often show up before the Others appear. I was thinking today that Miles is kind of psychic. It seems like he can hear the dead. I wonder if this has a connection to the voices?

2. What is the smoke monster? The last two seasons we learned a lot about what rules the smoke monster follows and Ben clearly knows a whole lot more than he is telling. Also we need to know if a smoke alarm would really be set off if the smoke monster was near :)

3. What's up with Jacob? Who is he (I hope the actor has creepy eyes, that would be cool). Why is Christian Shepard (several people have named him the Grim Reaper) speaking in his behalf? Is he the creepy black Oceanic guy with the creepy eyes?

4.How does Richard keep his eyes always looking that dark? Does he have mascara tattoos? The actor had the same cool eyes when he played Batmanuel on The Tick.

5. Of course there is the question of how the island moved and where to. This will be shortly answered (at least the where to part). I think that the island also moved in the season 2 finale when the button wasn't pushed (or possibly just when the key was turned). The sky effect was similar and everything shook. Remember that Ben was manipulating Locke into not pushing the button in season 2. Well surely Ben knew that this would cause the hatch to implode and everything else to go crazy. So why did he tempt Locke? I'm guessing he needed the island moved and knew this would move it. Then again he did say that moving the island was a last resort, so this may be all wrong.

6. Are the undead characters immune to garlic?

7. What is the sickness? None of the plane crash survivors have caught it but Rousseau 's crew all died from it. Vaccines were given out by the Dharma Initiative for it, although it is unclear if these were just placebos. Desmond had some sort of temporal sickness in The Constant; is this the same sickness? Pregnant women keep dying on the island so this may have something to do with the sickness.

Well that's a list of important questions. There are a few thousand less important questions as well. I love LOST.

Baptisms for the Dead

So today I read another letter in The Salt Lake Tribune about baptisms for the dead. For those of you who don't know, the Catholic church recently told its parishes to stop letting the church copy parish records (marriages, christenings, deaths, etc.) because the church uses these records to record genealogy and then uses the genealogy to do baptisms for the dead. The Catholic church doesn't believe in baptism for the dead so they don't want it done. This is not new. Jews complained about holocaust victims being baptized posthumously. I think this debate has more to do with a misunderstanding of the practice in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints more than anything. The church itself will respect the wishes of those who don't want ancestors baptized posthumously and has asked that holocaust victims not receive this ordinance. Some still do because church members are not always aware of the policy and sometimes make mistakes.

I'm getting a bit sidetracked here. The Tribune article I read complained that by doing baptisms for the dead that meant that the dead didn't have the right to practice their religion. This argument is flawed for several reasons. First, it assumes that the baptisms for the dead (done by proxy) will be recognized by God and be in force and valid on the dead person. The problem is that this would require God to agree with the practice (otherwise he could just nullify or never recognize it). If this is the case then why do we care if God is approving of it. Someone who doesn't believe in the LDS church and its teachings should therefore not care about the practice. Next, the argument assumes that the person posthumously baptized would have no choice in accepting the baptism. The problem with this is that by LDS church doctrine the person must accept the baptism and is free to refuse it. This means that what is really being done are possible baptisms for the dead. If the person doesn't want it they can refuse it by LDS doctrine. So there really isn't an argument for the dead being forced into baptism.

People can still be annoyed at the practice. Perhaps they think by using an ancestor's name the person is being dishonored. I can say that the practice is done respectfully. Also, the names submitted are usually from descendants meaning the person's family is usually requesting the baptisms for the dead. It may help to think of the practice in the same way you'd think about someone praying for you. If someone prays for their neighbor's wellbeing and that neighbor isn't of the same faith they could become offended. If someone dies and you pray for their soul one of their relatives could get offended. Yet in each of these circumstances people would generally see the offense as being a little silly. It is the same way with baptisms for the dead. The people's names are used (just as you might use someone's name in a prayer) but it is respectful and is not binding on them at all if they don't want it to be (and if you aren't LDS you shouldn't believe it will be binding on them even if they wanted to be LDS because you wouldn't believe in baptisms for the dead).

One last thing. I looked at the comments on the article. If a comment gets too many negative votes it becomes hidden. Well almost all of the pro-LDS and pro-baptism for the dead comments (no matter how respectful) were hidden whereas very few of the opposite side of the argument were hidden because of negative votes. This disappoints me. It looks like some people don't want to hear anything but their point of view.

Finally a republican wants to do something about climate change. I hope McCain isn't joking.

So I read an article about a speech John McCain gave on climate change. The speech was actually pretty good. You can read the actual speech here or you can read an article about it here.

Basically McCain proposes doing a cap and trade program where emission limits will be set and anyone who doesn't use theirs can trade them. This gives an incentive for companies to cut emissions so they can sell credits. Also the cap will be reduced each year effectively reducing U.S. emissions. He also talked about working with China and other countries to get them to reduce emissions, but this part was less well designed. Still the intentions are good and I hope McCain is serious about this and that it is not just a campaign promise he hopes everyone will forget.

Recently I've seen a lot of appeal with the Democratic party. They support some issues I am against (abortion, socialized medicine) but they also support other causes like education and the environment. It is nice to see a Republican finally recognize the problems we are facing with global warming. I do have other problems with McCain so we'll see what happens in November, but I like this development.

RSL addition

Here is another article that goes along with the last one. This one is a little different. It is about the fact that the county is going to continue contributing $300,000 a year to the Sandy Amphitheater even though those payments were supposed to end this year. The argument is that by paying that it helps the city pay for the RSL stadium, so in a round about way it is a trick by Sandy to get stadium funding. Anyways, here is the article.

ReAL Salt Lake is at it again.

I read an interesting story in The Deseret News today about the whole ReAL Salt Lake stadium mess. Long time readers of my blog will remember that I think the conditions for the stadium's approval using taxpayer dollars was wrong. Well, it seems that despite having been given $35 million by the county for the stadium (which the county was forced to give) Sandy City wants another $10 million dollars of tax dollars to help with the stadium. County mayor Coroon said no! I'm glad he did.

I don't like how RSL and Sandy and think they can just take endless taxpayer money for this private enterprise. One comment on the article called it corporate socialism and not capitalism. That's about right.

I particularly liked a few of Coroon's comments. He said:
"Given that the state has already used $35 million of Salt Lake County's transient room tax revenue for contribution to the soccer stadium project, I don't feel that it is in the best interest of the citizens for the county to contribute more revenue to the project,"
and
"We have nothing against Sandy but we felt that we've studied the project and weren't supportive of it in the beginning and didn't feel we should provide any additional funding other than what the state had taken from us,"

I really like the last part about "other than what the state had taken from us". Anyways, read the whole article.

Zelda Movie

Anyone that knows me well knows that I really like the Zelda video game series. I actually have a program that allows me to edit my own original Zelda maps. I was playing with this yesterday and decided to look up Zelda in the news. I am of course anxiously awaiting the announcement of a Zelda game designed for the Wii (Twilight Princess was a Game Cube port). Anyways, in my search I found that IGN had placed a preview for a Zelda movie on their site. It was placed on April 1 and was obviously an April fools joke. Even so it was a lot of fun. You can read about this here. The people at IGN said "We're hoping somebody looks at this trailer and says 'Zelda' really would be a good movie if it's done right," and I have to agree. Note that it could easily be ruined. Anyways, here's the link to the fake trailer. Enjoy.

Obama's Baby Punishment

So Sen. Barak Obama said a few days ago that if one of his daughters got pregnant (while unwed) that he wouldn't want her "punished" with a child and used this to defend his support of sex-education teaching about contraception and his support for abortion. I hope I'm not the only one offended by this statement. Children are not punishments.

Obama is correct that children should not be punishments. The idea that someone should have to keep a child they are unable or unwilling to keep isn't helpful to society. But that doesn't mean the child needs to be aborted. Adoption is a very viable option so the idea that abortion is needed so people won't be punished with children is silly.

Obama actually said that if his daughters made a mistake he wouldn't want them punished with an STD or punished with children. The grouping of children next to STDs is also offensive. I really hope Obama meant something else by what he said.

No more stupid paper clip

I thought I'd add a positive comment to my last blog entry. Thankfully Microsoft decided not to include the annoying paper clip that gives you "help" when you really don't need it. At least if they have included it then it is not a default. On a related note, I'm not sure where Microsoft hid the help feature.

Office 2007

So I recently bought Microsoft Office 2007. I got the Ultimate Edition for cheap through a student discount. I had previously been running Office 2000 so I decided the upgrade was a good idea. The program has a lot of good features. It also introduces some new menu navigation features that are interesting and will take me some time to get used to. I want to complain about some of the other changes.

Microsoft has for some reason decided to remove items from the menus that come up when you right click on something. For example, in Excel when I wanted to change the title and labeling of a graph I would right click on the center and then I had the option to change these things. Now Each of these rather basic editing options are hidden in menus at the top of the screen. This means that what used to take me 15 seconds to do now takes me 5-10 minutes as I have to find where the options have moved to. Even when I get used to where everything has moved it will still take longer as the different options are scattered.

Today I went to scan something and realized that the option to insert a picture from a scanner has been moved or removed. I ended up having to use some of my scanner's software directly instead of using the word import option that previously existed.

Also today, I was playing with the header and footer. I like a lot of the templates. Previously you had to know how the header and footer worked (which was not complicated at all). Now you can simply click on a template and have page numbering etc. set up on your page. This is good. Also a lot of the templates look really nice. Unfortunately, using more advanced features in the header and footer requires some searching now. For instance, it is a lot more difficult to have the numbering go i ii iii iv then 1 2 3 4 5 .... in other words having different numbering depending on the section of the document you are in. I eventually found out how to do this, but it is organized in the oddest way.

I've noticed that things are not grouped the way you would expect them to be. For example, I would have expected graph options to be lumped in a spot in a menu. Instead they are scattered throughout menus.

The equation editor is pretty good, although for some reason they changed the way that you do superscripts and subscripts . I won't bore you with the details but it is an odd change. Interestingly enough, Power Point uses the old Microsoft Equation 3.0, which I like.

The symbols have odd changes. When you want to insert a Greek symbol you can click on the symbol button. The weird thing is that not all of the Greek letters initially come up. You get a sigma variant along with the regular sigma, but there is no zeta (the letter I was trying to use). I quickly realized that clicking an expand button brought up the rest of the letters, but the default choices were bizarre.

The first time I used the new office it took me a while to find how to print and how to do print preview. Luckily I had a friend show me where it was.

Microsoft has made several mistakes in my opinion. First they radically changed the interface and didn't leave enough of the old functionality to help people transition. Next, they seem to have made their programs with easy templates for beginners while at the same time making the programs more difficult for long time users. Anytime I wanted to do something advanced I found it really hard to do. Also, the new office seems harder to explore. What I mean by this is that a lot of what I know in Microsoft Office came from me exploring menus etc. until I found out how to do the particular thing. This is a lot harder to do with the new layout.

Now I don't want to be all negative. I do like a lot about Office 2007. The templates are nice, the graphics pretty, everything is up to date, etc. I've also talked with friends who said that when they first started using it they were lost, but that after a while you learn it and end up really liking it. I've heard that Vista is the same way. I look forward to really knowing Office 2007. I just wish it was designed more logically and was more good to longtime users and users who want more control and more power to do advanced things.

Canine Mime

I just watched Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the WereRabbit. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I especially like Gromit (The dog to the right). He is so funny. I haven't watched Wallace and Gromit for a long time so I'd forgotten just how good the show is. Gromit is hilarious. I love how he communicates entirely through gestures - like a canine mine. Especially when he's trying to explain something to Wallace and Wallace just won't accept what Gromit is acting out.

I also liked how the car had windshield wiper settings for "Light Rain", "Heavy Rain", and "Heavy Loam".
All the rabbit stuff in the film was great for Easter. I particularly liked the line "We can brainwash the rabbits!"

Anyways, it was a great movie and you should watch it if you haven't already.

Oh Where Oh Where Has all the Great Science Fiction Gone?

I just watched the movie Titan A.E. which came out years ago. I'd never seen it but quite enjoyed it. It is a science fiction cartoon. It got me thinking, why do we not have more sci-fi cartoons? (Please note: I always mean science fiction when I use the term sci-fi- and never fantasy). I think cartoons are great for sci-fi. Anyways I liked the movie.

I also got thinking that we have far too little sci-fi movies in general. Last summer we only had The Invasion which I didn't see because it got poor reviews for multiple reasons. By the way, Transformers and comic movies are not sci-fi.

I love sci-fi. It is so much fun to watch. Recently we had a few great sci-fi movies. Serenity was probably the best. I, Robot was great despite not following the book at all. A few years ago we had The Matrix trilogy which was fantastic, although best in edited form.


There are a few sci-fi movies that need to be made soon. Ender's Game has been in the works for years and really needs to be made. Well, right now I can't think of any other sci-fi movies that need to be made.

I need some sci-fi to satiate my sci-fi cravings! Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles on Fox is a really good TV show and helps. LOST also has a lot of sci-fi elements. Still, I need more! Stargate: Atlantis started out good, but in recent season the writing has really gone downhill. The show is getting to be more and more like Stargate: SG-1 which really sucks. Of course there are no Star Trek shows being made right now, which is sad. Still, that at least means I don't have to get mad that they use the deflector array to solve all their problems. I'm so glad they put that deus ex machina in every episode.

We need some good sci-fi movies right now and some TV shows would also be nice.

I suppose I should also mention that Arthur C. Clark, author of 2001, 2010, etc., Childhood's End, the Rama series, and many other books, died recently (I think today or yesterday). He did a lot for science fiction and I really enjoyed his work.

I really don't know how to end this blog so...bye.

Sophistry

If you look up the word Sophistry in the dictionary you will find this defination:

subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation

Another definition of the term would be:

A method frequently used in The Salt Lake Tribune

I'm referring to an article recently published by the Salt Lake Tribune (Feb 23) that was recently responded to by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS church).

Several weeks ago the LDS church announced a new president would lead the church. I watched the press conference where Thomas Monson was announced to be the new president. Questions from the media were taken. One question from the tribune seemed a bit odd and antagonistic. At least it seemed apparent that the question had deeper motives. This question asked if a member could disagree with the church and still be in good standing. It was framed with the example of a member who disagreed with the church's stance on the gay marriage amendment. President Monson responded that it depended on the disagreement. Matters of apostasy were not negotiable but private disagreements might be OK. I think I've preserved the gist of his comment. The tribune reporter was heard demanding an answer to the specific situation of the gay marriage amendment but never got an answer (as the one question rule had already been established). This incident made it seem like the Tribune was up to something so this most recent article is no surprize.

Now the Tribune article is full of sophistry. The LDS church's comment points some of this out but I'd like to point out some more. The Tribune goes through a list of people who were disfellowshipped or excommunicated for various public disagreements with the church. There is a heavy implication in the article that these are innocent people being hushed. It is also heavily implied that the man the article is about knew all these people and was deeply involved with their situations. I doubt this. The list sounds too much like a list of cases the Tribune has been keeping on file for an anti-mormon sweeps week or something. I'm pretty sure when it says things like: he kept his mouth shut when A did B and got ex communicated it is about the same as someone writing about my life and saying: he didn't even bring chicken noodle soup to Nigerian boy A who got the measles in 1927 even though I've never been to Nigeria and wasn't alive in 1927. I'm exaggerating here but I think my point is valid. Rather than talk about a specific issue the Tribune has decided to throw a bunch of other issues in there to make it seem ... well worse. It would have been one thing if the Tribune had at the end of the article put something like, there are these other cases .... but they didn't.

More sophistry. I just love the quote: "Now I can't sit in church next to Peter and Mary and their kids..." The problem is that Peter and Mary LEFT THE CHURCH. THEY WERE NOT EXCOMMUNICATED. So the implication that the church has forced these good people out is totally false.

What else? Oh! I noticed that the man played the "I'm a member of the Orchestra on Temple Square card" Now I've never seen that card played before, but the implication is that this somehow implies a high up member of the church is in disagreement. In reality I don't think anyone cares what the orchestra thinks, only how they play. But trying to use the orchestra to enhance his credibility was bad. Still I must note that the church didn't excommunicate him. They talked with him about not publicly writing letters damaging the church etc. but they didn't excommunicate him.

This brings up another point - Peter's original letter said the "church requested I violate my own conscience to write in support of an amendment I feel is contrary to the constitution and to the gospel of Christ." I like how the church pointed out that "Church leaders had asked members to write to their senators with their personal views regarding the federal amendment opposing same gender marriage, and did not request support or opposition to the amendment." Do you see the difference. They church wanted us to be involved so we couldn't say something was forced on us. If we like Peter didn't like the amendment we could write our senator and explain why. So Peter jumped to a conclusion and wrote a letter opposing the church for a position it didn't have! So the whole sob story is ridiculous. The church's original statement that started the controversy already contained the freedom Peter claims it took away!

Finally I'll say a few words about the charge that the church discipline Peter. The church's response says: "In December 2007, Mr. Danzig voluntarily withdrew his membership in the Church by his own formal written request. He was not officially disciplined by the Church as the Tribune article indicated." This whole issue is framed as if he had been disciplined when the church says that he was not. Sure he was talked to, but he wasn't yet at an excommunication point. Someone wrote in the Tribune that the church needs to revisit this case because they are plucking away the wrong members. That person is too ignorant to realize that PETER LEFT THE CHURCH so the church can't re-visit the case IT NEVER HELD.

Why?

So I was walking through a tunnel on campus today to get to my class and I realized that someone had been smoking in the tunnel. They had long since left, but the air in the tunnel had yet to clear out. As I struggled to breathe I thought "Why?" Why would you smoke in a tunnel. If you smoke outside it may annoy others temporarily but they can usually move, or else a breeze will provide some fresh air. Tunnels on the other hand don't cycle air very fast so everyone else has to breathe in your smoke. On top of this you can't change your route in a tunnel - you're stuck walking right along with the smoke.
I would find a nice way to end this blog but I'm sick so it it over in 5 4 3 2 1 .

Wallpaper Warehouse

Super Mario Galaxy is one of the best games ever! It is certainly the best game on the Nintendo Wii right now. I can comfortably say that despite being a rabid Zelda fanatic. Twilight Princess was a wonderful game with superb art and story, but Super Mario Galaxy is actually better.
I discovered this over the Christmas break when I started playing the game on my brother's Wii. I basically played the game non-stop for a week. I'm not kidding. Was this a waste of time? Heck no! The game is incredible. The art is nice. There are diverse colors and textures. The levels are fun and varied. Galaxies have multiple levels that give you the opportunity to explore environments. Secrets are everywhere. The game never gets old. Even after you beat it with all 120 stars you can then replay as Luigi. The best part is that Luigi controls differently, but not annoyingly so. The levels are still fun because Luigi plays differently and because there are so many levels by the time you play them again you've forgotten how fun they were.
I knew I was going to love Super Mario Galaxy when I realized it was just Super Mario Brothers 3, which as everyone knows is one of the best games ever made in the history of the world. The characters are familiar and you get suits!!!!!!!!!!!!! You get the boo suit, bee suit, fire flower, ice flower, spring suit, red star (you can fly!!), star, super mushroom, and probably some others I'm forgetting. Also you can ride on stingrays, turtles and inside bubbles. You also get to balance on balls. Anyways there is a lot you can do.
The gravity effects in Super Mario Galaxy are a lot of fun. You get to walk upside down and all around on a variety of planets. Just play the game and you'll see why I rave about it.
Finally, the music in Super Mario Galaxy rocks. A lot of it comes from the earlier Mario games which adds familiarity, but the new compositions are great as well. The Battlerock galaxy has some cool futuristic music. And of course there is the Good Egg Galaxy that has a catchy tune that sounds really similar to the jingle for a store in Utah and elsewhere called Wallpaper Warehouse.

Persecution

I wanted to make everyone aware of a situation that is happening in Russia as reported in the Globe and Mail, a Canadian Newspaper. You can read the article here. The Russian Orthodox church and the Kremlin are persecuting non-Russian faiths. I was interested most in the persecution of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (mormons or LDS church) as I am a member of that church; however, the persecution goes to many other denominations as listed in the article. The government is storming meetings and harassing churchgoers in an attempt to promote nationalism. This seems like the worst possible thing to do to gain the support of your populace. It may get people to get in line, but will ultimately lead to resentment and all the negative effects of that.
When I read the article I didn't see any problems involved with the sects listed. Each one functions pretty much worldwide without issues. The only conflict seemed to be with the Jehovah's Witnesses, and of the three objections listed only refusing military service seemed to have governmental implications - and that only if Russia was vigorously waging wars and running out of troops (which doesn't appear to be the case anytime remotely soon).
As for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I know from firsthand experience that it wants stable countries and is fine with Russian culture being maintained. The church teaches its members to be law abiding and its own scriptures teach that "governments were instituted by God for the benefit of man" Doctrine and Covenants 134:1. Russia shouldn't fear the church. Worldwide the church helps governments in many ways, for example, when natural disasters occur the church gives service and humanitarian aid in a way that makes the government's task much much easier. The church tells its members to support the government and be involved.
As for the Russian Orthodox Church's opposition to these sects, if it is about bad values, disrespect and disintegration of the family, etc. then their should be no argument with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Go to the church's website and in just a few minutes you'll realize the church is good in all these areas. If the argument is about losing Russian identity, then the church also should not be feared. Whenever the church dedicated a temple they have a cultural celebration designed to show the great things the particular area has. We have no desire to destroy culture. If the Russian Orthodox Church is worried about losing converts, well then let's be honest and admit that. This is the only argument with any value. I would argue that persecution is not the way to gain converts. Of course the LDS church will continue to preach and gain converts. We are concerned with the welfare of every soul. We don't expect other churches to stop teaching, preaching and baptizing - so why should the Russian Orthodox Church expect every other church to stop?
The world is not blind to what is happening in Russia. Russia can build itself into a great nation, the envy of the world. Persecuting its citizens will not achieve this goal and the publicity of such persecution will only harm Russia, not help it.

What's Happening to the Political Parties?

Wow. Super Tuesday has turned into a nightmare. Neither the republicans nor the democrats have a clear winner (although McCain is looking likely for republicans). Even worse than this, I don't know if I'll be able to vote for either candidate in the end.
On the democrat side we have basically Clinton and Obama. Clinton is not acceptable to me or most Americans. She's false. In addition I hate socialized medicine (having seen it firsthand in England). It doesn't work. Then there is Obama. His rhetoric is interesting. We need to unite! Unfortunately he is the most liberal senator right now and holds many positions that would make even his liberal supporters cringe. I don't see how someone on the extreme far left is supposed to unite the country. A moderate might. A democrat with a few crossover issues might. But Obama? I don't believe he will.
What about the republicans? Surely there is hope in the friendly right :). Not really. McCain is almost certain to get the nomination now. That would be great (tongue in cheek). McCain has been fighting dirty. At the same time he doesn't have the conservative vote. He's mainly been winning by picking up independents. The conservatives have been split between Romney and Huckabee which means conservatives won't get a conservative candidate.
McCain worries a lot of people. On the conservative side there is distrust about a lot of his crossover bills. These were on campaign finance reform, immigration and other issues. I think some of these were really bad ideas and some even unconstitutional, but I don't want to discuss them in detail. Moderates will be annoyed with McCain's war stance. He makes George Bush look like the president of Switzerland. McCain joked a while back that we need to "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran". Who jokes about that when they are running for president? If elected he's going to have to deal with Iran. I can see him having friendly talks with that statement on the record. Its fine to say, we can't let Iran kill everyone, but to say what he said is stupid. McCain's war positions are more troublesome than this one quote, but this is a blog, not a novel so I'm going to move on.
A search of McCain's other issues will find a lot to worry conservatives, independents and democrats. I'm not sure if I'll be able to vote for him. Maybe if Romney were his running mate, but maybe not.
What if McCain picked Huckabee as his running mate? That would appease conservatives, right? I don't think so. Having Huckabee as a running mate would significantly decrease my chances for voting for McCain. Huckabee is on the conservative side of the spectrum, but on almost every issue he is skewed enough that I don't like him. If Huckabee gets the nomination I don't plan to vote for him.
Now, talking about both parties, I've noticed that they are both fighting amongst themselves. They are both going to implode. The Hilary-Obama brawl is pitiful to watch and the republican mudslinging fest has got to go. There aren't going to be any good candidates if we keep this up.
My final thoughts: Why can't republicans care about the environment, admit that global warming exists, care about education, and not rush into war? Why can't democrats be pro-life, pro-values, anti-socialism, and anti-heavy taxes?
Final final thought: The senate thankfully has the most power in the country. We need good senators (and to a lesser extent representatives) to moderate a bad president.

4 8 15 16 23 42

LOST is back on air!
I can't overstate my excitement for this. LOST has got to be the best show on TV. I love it and I must say that I'm an addict. Last year after each episode I would go through withdrawal. Waiting just one week for another episode seemed unbearable. You can imagine what it has been like waiting for the new season. The premier aired today but I haven't seen it yet. I'll watch it online tomorrow on ABC's website. I'm hoping for good things.
Namaste!

In Memory

Today I have a few thoughts about President Gordon B. Hinckley who died this Sunday. President Hinckley was the leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a prophet of God.
President Hinckley will be missed by me. He was a very great man. I particularly remember his outreach to the youth. When I was a young man he held a meeting just for the youth and pronounced his prophetic blessing on us. This is just one of the many things he did to help the youth be connected to the church.
I'll also always remember his optimism and humor. Life was obviously fun for him and his example let you know that the righteous can be truly happy. He was very comfortable with the media and helped people overcome prejudices and misconceptions about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
President Hinckley was a great man and I'll miss him. To read more about him go here.

The Golden Rule

I was reading the Deseret News a day or two ago and glanced at the reader's forum. This is the part of the newspaper where readers can write in and give opinions. Well someone wrote in about the golden rule. They said that because Mexico is so aggressive with immigration (deporting and giving jail time to those illegally in Mexico) that we (the U.S.) should follow the golden rule and act equally aggressive towards illegal immigrants here. I wondered if the writer realized that what they were describing was close to the Law of Moses and not the golden rule.
The golden rule is that you should treat others the way you want to be treated. It is a rule designed to let your example influence others and thus cannot be applied in the reverse way - to treat others the way they treat you. That is the Law of Moses provision of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It works by making people fear the retaliation they will receive if they wrong you. I must state, though, that this particular comment wasn't even strictly Law of Moses, although I'm not going to elaborate why unless someone really can't figure that out.
I really don't mind if the U.S. enforces its immigration laws and gets more tough in this area, but if we do this let's at least not call it the golden rule and lets not do it as some odd punishment to Mexico.

The Real Salt Lake Fiasco

I have serious issues with the decision to build a stadium for the soccer team Real Salt Lake (RSL). Today I read that the new stadium will seat 21,000 fewer fans than Rice Eccles Stadium where they currently play. This means they built a stadium that is half the capacity of their current stadium. Why? When the team was trying to get taxpayers to pay for the stadium it seamed like they needed the stadium (presumably for overcrowding). As the stadium was obviously not filled then it seemed silly to build a new one. What possibly could the need be that required taxpayer dollars?

I really don't care if you like soccer or not. It isn't all that popular in America, even now, yet for some reason Salt Lake needs a soccer team? We don't even have a football team and football is way more popular! Now by all this I'm not stating that we shouldn't have a team, just not a tax dollar supported team.

I guess that's all beside the point. My real objections to the stadium run much deeper. The team originally asked Salt Lake County for money for the stadium. The county did an economic study to look at the risks for the plan. This is wise to do as it prevents tax dollars from being wasted. Well the county came back and said the stadium was a bad economic investment and it couldn't justify spending tax dollars on such a risky investment. What did the team (owner) do? They (He) complained and said the investment was fine! I bet that wasn't biased at all.

The story gets even worse. RSL then went to the governor to get the decision overturned. Governor Huntsman (go here to send angry e-mails) called the legislature together and had them change Utah law so that the money the county wouldn't give to RSL became under the State's control! The governor and the legislature forced the county to spend county tax dollars in a way the county didn't want to! This is crazy. It is a violation of county rights in my opinion. Republicans talk about state rights and avoiding federal government intrusion; apparently counties don't have the same rights in their relation to states. Remember, what makes this all worse is that the county had turned the project down for being a risky and irresponsible use of tax dollars.

Real Salt Lake of coarse would prefer to sweep these little facts under the rug. Their PR team began talking about how the tax dollars are hotel tax dollars so its just people from out of the state (or county) that pay that tax anyways. This is a clever lie. True the money comes from hotels largely used by non-residents. The problem is, now that this tax money is being used on the stadium, the county must divert tax money from residents (property, sales, etc.) to cover whatever services the county wanted to spend that money on. SO IT IS THE SAME AS SPENDING RESIDENT'S TAX CONTRIBUTIONS!

I forgot to mention that several times Dave Checketts, the RSL owner, threw fits when cities in Salt Lake County turned down the stadium plan because it was too risky. The county wasn't the first to come to this conclusion. Checketts would threaten to move the team from the county among other things. Yet the legislature and governor had to bow to his wishes and force the county to spend tax dollars. Have none of these people ever dealt with a whining child before? Oh you didn't get your third box of cookies and are now crying incessantly? Poor thing, here are some cookies and heck, here is a case of candy bars too.

I am disgusted by the recklessness of the governor and legislature of Utah and of RSL. We really should vote these people out of office.

Random Images

Yeah, so I will often put seemingly random images next to my blog posts. They will almost always have some connection to the post, although it may be an inside joke, word play or something very subtle. So don't get dismayed if you can't figure out why it is there. The last entry had a picture from the game portal and is related to the comment "massive sarcasm quotes" which is in the last level of the game.

As for this entry - the picture really is random.

Did Steve Tell You That Perchance? Steve!

So my brother Stephen was talking to me today and said that my twin sister won't comment on my blog because she doesn't like political commentary. I was of course deeply offended by this. I mean my blog is more than just political commentary, it is an exploration of the human experience. Some may even call it cultural poetry. It is a great pilgrimage to the holy city within each of us. How could someone not like it?

Steve gives great comments and even gave me some editing tips. So bones to Steve.

For those who couldn't tell, when I said I was deeply offended the "deeply offended" was in massive sarcasm quotes. I mean, I could care less what Brittany thinks. She doesn't even vote.

But I am going to make this blog entry a little more down to earth and understandable for commoners such as my dear twin.

Here I go. So how 'bout that McDonalds? I heard that you can get a hamburger there and they will cut up the onions and smear them all over the bun even when you specifically ask not to have onions on your hamburger. They do have good ice cream though and they keep our teenage population off the streets where they might otherwise harass humanity with their acne and whatnot. Still, I much prefer Burger King.

Speaking of food, I always thought it would be cool to make misfortune cookies. That would be hilarious! I think something like, "Your dog will turn on you" or "Get ready to get shivved - you're going to prison" would be good.

Anyways, as much fun as this little venture into comedy has been, I think I'll blog about whatever I want from now on.

One Issue

I read an article today by Sean McKenzie criticizing Mitt Romney as having un-Christian political practices. The article is careful not to relate this to mormonism and even states, "One of the most godly men I know is Mormon, and I owe him a debt of gratitude for seeing me through one of the most difficult times of my life in a Christian manner. 'Be the man God wants you to be,' he admonished." I state this so that no one will think I am accusing McKenzie of Mormon bashing. He goes out of his way to make it clear that he has no issue with Mormons, just Romney. The issue I have with this article is that the author uses one issue, illegal immigration (although the author curiously leaves the word illegal out of the description), to prove his point. No other evidence is used to show Romney's policies as un-Christian and against his religion. I find this to really be lacking. One issue which is controversial and finds no consensus even among religious leaders of Christians is used to call his policies un-Christian? I would have hoped for more. Frankly there are probably not any candidates out there who's views line up perfectly with anyone else's or with every concept of Christian action.

The issue of illegal immigration deserves a little more attention since McKenzie brought it up. He uses the scripture that says to welcome the stranger as his main proof as well as a scripture to love the alien among you as yourself. I argue that one can be opposed to illegal immigration while still loving his neighbor (or alien) as himself and welcoming strangers. Jesus taught us to "love [our] enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" (Matt 5:44 KJV). He taught forgiveness. Yet I don't know many people who would argue that all prisoners should be set free regardless of crime. It is still possibly to love and forgive while upholding laws.

I suspect McKenzie knows that his argument is weak. My reason is because he used the term immigration to describe illegal immigration. If your argument is good then there is no need to cut out the word illegal to make it. The fact is McKenzie probably left the word out because it is much easier to make his point with the word left out. Then there isn't the awkwardness of using the term "illegal alien" next to "alien" in the scriptural proofs.

Many Christians have issues with illegal immigration. Does that mean we hate illegal immigrants? I certainly don't. Desiring an orderly immigration process is not bad and wanting laws enforced is not bad. Just because Christ tells the people not to stone the woman taken in adultery doesn't mean that we should legalize prostitution (despite what Ron Paul thinks).

McKenzie argues that enforcing immigration laws will tear immigrant families apart. This deserves scrutiny. It will not tear legal immigrant families apart. It will reunite many illegal immigrants with families they are supporting in other countries. It will also encourage legal immigration which will help families. The only families it will tear apart are those composed of an illegal immigrant and a legal immigrant. In these cases it will only tear them apart if the legal immigrant is unwilling to return to their country. I'll admit that there may be some other minor cases of families being affected. I must point out that sending a drug dealer, murderer or rapist to prison often tears families apart. Of course I'm not suggesting that illegal immigrants have committed crimes of the same level as these, but being deported allows the family to follow if they choose, something prison doesn't allow in the same way.

I find the persecution arguments lacking. I also don't find the arguments about civil rights leaders breaking the law to be compelling.

There's more I could say, but I'll save it for another time.

Prepare for Unforeseen Consequences

The picture is sort of a joke. It comes from Half Life 2 episode 2. The picture is important only because of the phrase "Prepare for unforeseen consequences," in the scene it came from.

I read an article in the Salt Lake Tribune about unexpected consequences of NAFTA. It turns out that because North American free trade is being extended through the abolition of agricultural tariffs, Mexican farmers will probably be harmed as U.S. crops will be able to freely flood the Mexican market. The author argues that unless the Mexican government does something to help the situation, the Mexican agricultural industry will be ruined leading to even more illegal immigrants coming to the U.S. and "A stronger agricultural industry could be taking over Mexican farming: marijuana and cocaine production."

This isn't the only U.S. agricultural policy currently affecting Mexico. A few months ago I read another article, this one in the Deseret News, about consequences of our current push for ethanol fuel made from corn. It reads in part:

"There is another problem with relying on a food-based biofuel, such as corn ethanol, as the poor of Mexico can attest. In recent months, soaring corn prices, sparked by demand from ethanol plants, have doubled the price of tortillas, a staple food. Tens of thousands of Mexico City's poor recently protested this 'ethanol tax' in the streets."

Too often politicians and bureaucrats fail to think of the unforeseen consequences of their actions. We definitely need to reconsider some of the policies I've discussed here.

Now by all this I don't mean for us to abandon free trade, just see that it is conducted wisely. I also don't think we should abandon biofuels. In fact I read a recent article that said grass can be used to make ethanol and is a lot more efficient than corn so there are options out there without the same negative consequences. The fact is that if we paid a lot more attention to what our actions might unintentionally cause then this world would be a better place.

Well I now have a blog. I've been thinking of making one for a while now. Now I just need to come up with things to write. I have a few ideas. While reading the newspaper I frequently have comments that I want to make (especially about editorials) and I'll probably put a lot of those comments here.