Dan Brown's latest novel is, it has to be said, a little bit of a disappointment. Many of the literary conventions and set-pieces used in either Angels & Demons or The Da Vinci Code make an appearance, leading to a rather unfair impression that one has "read it all before".
Brown once again takes the notion of the "flawed hero" a little too far, but whereas Robert Landgon suffered from claustrophobia, Rachel Sexton suffers from hydrophobia, and as sure as you knew Langdon was going to end up stuffed into confined spaces, you just know Sexton's going into the water.
Brown weaves a good tale, with suspense and shock along the way. It's an engrossing story about politics, backstabbing and a cloak-and-dagger military unit, but it falls down in some aspects.
Brown repeats a few urban myths as if they are fact, including the utterly debunked theory that the head of the eagle on the US Presidential Seal faces the other way during wartime, and gives the US special forces group known as "Delta Force" a rather rough write-up. Brown sometimes goes to ridiculous lengths to preserve the suspense, leading to some cases of characters acting in ways that are just a touch unbelievable because they're trying not to give the twist away a few chapters early.
Other than those, though, the book is fun, fast, and fascinating. Just, as always, bear in mind that it's fiction.
26.5.06
Hoax email!
Yay! Fishing email! I've highlighted some bits that struck me as funny, especially that last bit about obeying instructions "religiously".
Yeah, right.
Bank of China (Hong Kong) is a real bank, but as far as I can tell, they don't have a Wan Chai branch, and, even if they did, I doubt they'd be involved in anything like this. Still, 30% of $17 million? I would have been tempted if I had the IQ of a glass of water.
Yeah, right.
Bank of China (Hong Kong) is a real bank, but as far as I can tell, they don't have a Wan Chai branch, and, even if they did, I doubt they'd be involved in anything like this. Still, 30% of $17 million? I would have been tempted if I had the IQ of a glass of water.
FROM: MR.CHEN GUANGYUAN
Bank of China (Hong Kong)
Eastern Commercial Centre,
393-407 Hennessy Road,
Wan Chai,
Hong Kong.
(ch_07guang@yahoo.com.hk)
Good Day,
It is understandable that you might be a little bit apprehensive because you do not know me but I have a lucrative business proposal of mutual interest to share with you.
Let me start by introducing myself. I am Mr. Chen Guangyuan operations manager of the Bank of China (Hong Kong), Eastern Commercial Centre, Wan Chai Branch. I have an obscured business suggestion for you. Before the U.S and Iraqi war our client
Mr. Hamadi Hashem who was with the Iraqi forces and also business man made a numbered fixed deposit for 24 calendar months, with a value of Seventeen million three Hundred Thousand United State Dollars (US$17,300,000.00) only in my branch. Upon maturity several notices was sent to him, even during the war early last year. Again after the war another notification was sent and still no response came from him. We later find out that Mr. Hamadi Hashem and his family had been killed during the war in a bomb blast that hit their home at Mukaradeeb where his personal oil well was.
http://www.iraqmemorialwall.org/iraqicasualties.html
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/names.htm
After further investigation it was also discovered that Mr. Hamadi Hashem did not declare any next of kin in his official papers including the paper work of his bank deposit. And he also confided in me the last time he was at my office that no one except me knew of his deposit in my bank. So, Seventeen million three Hundred Thousand United State Dollars is still lying in my bank and no one will ever come forward to claim it. What bothers me most is that according to the laws of my country at the expiration six {6} years the funds will revert to the ownership of the Hong Kong Government if nobody applies to claim the funds. Against this backdrop, my suggestion to you is that I will like you as a foreigner to stand as the next of kin to Mr. Hamadi Hashem so that you will be able to receive his funds.
MODALITIES:
I want you to know that I have had everything planned out so that we shall come out successful. I have an attorney that will prepare the necessary document that will back you up as the next of kin to Mr. Hamadi Hashem, all that is required from you is to provide me with your Full Names and Address so that the attorney can commence his job. After you have been made the next of kin, the attorney will also fill in for claims on your behalf and secure the necessary approval and letter of probate in your favor for the movement of the funds to an account that will be provided by you. We are going adopt a legalized method and the attorney will prepare all the necessary documents in your favour.
There is a reward for this project and it is a task well worth undertaking. There is no risk involved at all in this matter, I have evaluated the risks and the only risk I have here is for you refusing to work with me and alerting my bank. I am the only one who knows of this situation, good fortune has blessed you with a name that has planted you into the center of relevance in my life. Please endeavor to observe utmost discretion in all matters concerning this issue. Once the funds have been transferred to your nominated bank account we shall share in the ratio of 70% for me, 30% for you but this can be subjected to further negotiations. I send you this mail not without a measure of fear as to what the consequences, but I know within me that nothing ventured is nothing gained and that success and riches never come easy or on a platter of gold. Please observe this instruction religiously.
Should you be interested please send me your,
1, Full names,
2, private phone number,
3, current residential address,
And I will prefer you reach me on my private email address below:
(ch_07guang@yahoo.com.hk) and finally after that I shall furnish you with more information’s about this operation.
Your earliest response to this letter will be appreciated.
Kind Regards ,
Mr.Chen Guangyuan.
- Guangyuan Chen
25.5.06
Over The Hedge
In a William Shatner voice:
This.. movie.. is excellent. You.. must go.. and.. see it immediately.
Seriously, it's a slow starter, but it concludes with the funniest 30 minutes in cinematic history. I laughed so hard I almost puked.
Doombreed rating: *****
This.. movie.. is excellent. You.. must go.. and.. see it immediately.
Seriously, it's a slow starter, but it concludes with the funniest 30 minutes in cinematic history. I laughed so hard I almost puked.
Doombreed rating: *****
Pat Robertson's magical protein shake
Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network website contains an ad for his "Age Defying Shake" and claims that he, a 76-year-old man, can leg press 2,000lbs.
2,000 lbs? Shit, I can't even think about 2,000lbs without breaking into a sweat.
Here's a wake-up call from those who know:
CBS SportsLine.com:
Now, where's that bible? I'm sure there was something in there about not lying..
Edited to add:
I just looked it up: 2,000lbs is 7.8 x Jerome Bettis (the now ex-Pittsburgh Steelers player nicknamed "the bus" because of his size) or 5.4 x the legendarily huge ex-Chicago Bear William "The Refrigerator" Perry.
2,000 lbs? Shit, I can't even think about 2,000lbs without breaking into a sweat.
Here's a wake-up call from those who know:
CBS SportsLine.com:
"There is no way on earth Robertson leg presses 2,000 pounds. That would mean a 76-year-old man broke the all-time Florida State University leg press record by 665 pounds over Dan Kendra. 665 pounds. Further, when he set the record, they had to modify the leg press machine to fit 1,335 pounds of weight. Plus, Kendra's capillaries in his eyes burst. Burst. Where in the world did Robertson even find a machine that could hold 2,000 pounds at one time? And how does he still have vision?
It's rare the ClayNation Guarantee makes an appearance, but here, it is justified. There is no way Robertson leg presses 2,000 pounds. Period. If he can, I will box a round against Andrew Golota without wearing a jockstrap."
Now, where's that bible? I'm sure there was something in there about not lying..
Edited to add:
I just looked it up: 2,000lbs is 7.8 x Jerome Bettis (the now ex-Pittsburgh Steelers player nicknamed "the bus" because of his size) or 5.4 x the legendarily huge ex-Chicago Bear William "The Refrigerator" Perry.
23.5.06
Am I?
This blog seems to have attracted a new commenter who goes by the name of "The Logical Truth" who has repeatedly accused me of prejudice against Christianity.
Now, I'm used to this kind of accusation. I've even, in the past, referred to it as "the martyr complex", where anyone who disagrees with something a Christian says - however mildly - is painted as hating Christianity. So I was tempted to blow it off as just another nutbar surfing the web and being obnoxious.
But, then, I paused. Am I? And what if I am?
To a certain extent the accusation has some basis in truth. If you check back through my posts there does seem to be a certain justification. Notice that whenever I've mentioned the excesses of religion it's been - with only one exception that I can remember off of the top of my head for Islam and a few for Scientology - about Christians.
But does this indicate an irrational prejudice?
I live in - and am from - a country dominated by Christians. My daily life is surrounded by them. You can count the number of Muslims I meet every day on the fingers of one head. Not only that but in both the country I live in and the country I am from, it's Christians who run the show. There are no Buddhist national holidays. Hindus have never knocked on my door to proselytise to me. I've never had a Wiccan be nasty to me because I'm an atheist. My tax contributions don't support Shintoist projects. I've never had to listen to some politician's plan to allow Zoroastrian teachings into a science class. No Sikh has ever informed me that they will pray that I see the truth of their faith. So, if my target always seems to be Christianity, it's because Christianity is the religion that targets me.
Between the two countries there is a population of 350-odd million people, most of which claim some form of Christianity (42 million people in the UK and 159 million in the US is 201 million Christians), and, like any human demographic, these 201 million people run the gamut from the reasonable to the extremist, from the nice to the nasty, from the sane to the insane. Even if only the most whacked out one half of one percent of those people espouse views that agree with - for example - former (then future) US President George H.W. Bush's comments about how atheists should neither be considered US citizens nor patriots, or pretty much anything Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell or Fred Phelps might say, we're still dealing with over a million nutbars.
Consider, also, that quite a lot of those who tend even towards the reasonable end of the spectrum look to those people, and their ilk, for guidance and enlightenment, and there's a shit load of Christians out there that believe I worship the devil and/or eat babies.
Am I defensive? You bet. Sometime a little too defensive? I'll admit to that. Prejudiced? I try not to be, but I am human, after all. Irrational? Try walking a mile in my shoes.
Now, I'm used to this kind of accusation. I've even, in the past, referred to it as "the martyr complex", where anyone who disagrees with something a Christian says - however mildly - is painted as hating Christianity. So I was tempted to blow it off as just another nutbar surfing the web and being obnoxious.
But, then, I paused. Am I? And what if I am?
To a certain extent the accusation has some basis in truth. If you check back through my posts there does seem to be a certain justification. Notice that whenever I've mentioned the excesses of religion it's been - with only one exception that I can remember off of the top of my head for Islam and a few for Scientology - about Christians.
But does this indicate an irrational prejudice?
I live in - and am from - a country dominated by Christians. My daily life is surrounded by them. You can count the number of Muslims I meet every day on the fingers of one head. Not only that but in both the country I live in and the country I am from, it's Christians who run the show. There are no Buddhist national holidays. Hindus have never knocked on my door to proselytise to me. I've never had a Wiccan be nasty to me because I'm an atheist. My tax contributions don't support Shintoist projects. I've never had to listen to some politician's plan to allow Zoroastrian teachings into a science class. No Sikh has ever informed me that they will pray that I see the truth of their faith. So, if my target always seems to be Christianity, it's because Christianity is the religion that targets me.
Between the two countries there is a population of 350-odd million people, most of which claim some form of Christianity (42 million people in the UK and 159 million in the US is 201 million Christians), and, like any human demographic, these 201 million people run the gamut from the reasonable to the extremist, from the nice to the nasty, from the sane to the insane. Even if only the most whacked out one half of one percent of those people espouse views that agree with - for example - former (then future) US President George H.W. Bush's comments about how atheists should neither be considered US citizens nor patriots, or pretty much anything Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell or Fred Phelps might say, we're still dealing with over a million nutbars.
Consider, also, that quite a lot of those who tend even towards the reasonable end of the spectrum look to those people, and their ilk, for guidance and enlightenment, and there's a shit load of Christians out there that believe I worship the devil and/or eat babies.
Am I defensive? You bet. Sometime a little too defensive? I'll admit to that. Prejudiced? I try not to be, but I am human, after all. Irrational? Try walking a mile in my shoes.
22.5.06
WTF?
BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Deserter life sentences 'inhuman': "Proposals for British soldiers to get life sentences for desertion have been criticised as 'inhuman and barbaric'.
John McDonnell led Labour backbench calls to scrap the life imprisonment provision of the Armed Forces Bill.
He argued the plan was part of a crackdown on soldiers opposed to the war in Iraq, but his proposal was later rejected by MPs by 442 votes to 19."
It should have been 0 votes to 461.
Life imprisonment for a soldier who refuses to go fight in a war they have a moral objection to?
We used to call countries that did that kind of thing nasty names like "fascist" and "dictatorial".
Now we're supposed to call them "home"?
Millions flock to Da Vinci Code
Y'know, Dan Brown owes a lot to the Catholic church. If they hadn't made such a stink about The Da Vinci Code, he would still be a relatively unknown author and his book would have never made it to film. Then, had they not made such a fuss about the movie, it wouldn't have grossed $224 million at the box office on its opening weekend.
It seems like, in this, the church is its own worst enemy. Seriously, just ignore it and it wouldn't have been a problem.
And, of course, they're still at it.
More TV documentaries, more books, more magazine articles, more crap and wind, keep appearing, all seeking to "refute" the book and movie.
(BTW, most make the mistake of trying to refute the book because it, and Holy Blood, Holy Grail, do not agree with established views of history. Which, of course, completely misses the point of both the movie and the two books, which is that established history is a fiction created in part by the Catholic church to consolidate their grip on power, and in part by the group The Priory Of Sion in order to conceal their true agenda.
It's like using The Da Vinci Code to refute all the refuting because the refuters don't agree with the book. Stupid.)
There's even some blowhard here urging Christians to take "legal action" against the movie.
Sort of a "who would Jesus sue?" kind of thing.
Again, I'm forced to wonder why Catholics are taking such pains to refute a book and movie that they are so anxious to remind us is fictional.
I don't recall this much fuss over the historical licence taken with U-571 or Braveheart, not to mention The Passion Of The Christ (there always seems to be one too many "the" in that title) or, when you get down to it, Raiders Of The Lost Ark.
Maybe this one hits a little too close to home?
I would urge anyone who wants to know more about the background to the story to actually sit down and read Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
At least then you'll know why many of the charges brought against Dan Brown are simply so much guff.
BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Millions flock to Da Vinci Code: "The Da Vinci Code movie took $224m (£119m) at box offices around the world at the weekend despite controversy and bad reviews, its distributor has said.
That is the second most successful film opening in history, Columbia said."
It seems like, in this, the church is its own worst enemy. Seriously, just ignore it and it wouldn't have been a problem.
And, of course, they're still at it.
More TV documentaries, more books, more magazine articles, more crap and wind, keep appearing, all seeking to "refute" the book and movie.
(BTW, most make the mistake of trying to refute the book because it, and Holy Blood, Holy Grail, do not agree with established views of history. Which, of course, completely misses the point of both the movie and the two books, which is that established history is a fiction created in part by the Catholic church to consolidate their grip on power, and in part by the group The Priory Of Sion in order to conceal their true agenda.
It's like using The Da Vinci Code to refute all the refuting because the refuters don't agree with the book. Stupid.)
There's even some blowhard here urging Christians to take "legal action" against the movie.
Sort of a "who would Jesus sue?" kind of thing.
Again, I'm forced to wonder why Catholics are taking such pains to refute a book and movie that they are so anxious to remind us is fictional.
I don't recall this much fuss over the historical licence taken with U-571 or Braveheart, not to mention The Passion Of The Christ (there always seems to be one too many "the" in that title) or, when you get down to it, Raiders Of The Lost Ark.
Maybe this one hits a little too close to home?
I would urge anyone who wants to know more about the background to the story to actually sit down and read Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
At least then you'll know why many of the charges brought against Dan Brown are simply so much guff.
20.5.06
Poseidon
Mrs Doombreed and I went to see Poseidon today.
Those of you who have see The Poseidon Adventure will already know the plot. But here it is in a nutshell:
The world's biggest, fanciest, most expensive ocean liner has stupidly been named after Poseidon, the god of the sea. Presumably pissed at the blasphemy, the sea sends a big wave which capsizes it, trapping our heroes in an upside-down and sinking ship. Cue a romp through the bowels of the liner as they try to escape.
This movie is not earth-shaking.
There, I said it. It's not going to feature on the Oscar lists. It doesn't eclipse the original. But it's fun. It's okay. It's gripping, in its own way.
Best of all, it makes no excuses. This is 99 mins of over-the-top action, CGI explosions, death (and logic) defying escapes and sheer entertainment, take it or leave it.
Doombreed rating: ****
Those of you who have see The Poseidon Adventure will already know the plot. But here it is in a nutshell:
The world's biggest, fanciest, most expensive ocean liner has stupidly been named after Poseidon, the god of the sea. Presumably pissed at the blasphemy, the sea sends a big wave which capsizes it, trapping our heroes in an upside-down and sinking ship. Cue a romp through the bowels of the liner as they try to escape.
This movie is not earth-shaking.
There, I said it. It's not going to feature on the Oscar lists. It doesn't eclipse the original. But it's fun. It's okay. It's gripping, in its own way.
Best of all, it makes no excuses. This is 99 mins of over-the-top action, CGI explosions, death (and logic) defying escapes and sheer entertainment, take it or leave it.
Doombreed rating: ****
19.5.06
The Da Vinci Code, the movie
Mrs Doombreed and I went to see The Da Vinci Code today. It's pretty good. Not as good as the book, but then, it never was going to be. Hanks as Langdon is almost convincing, but Ian McKellen as Teabing was not how I'd imagined him (I saw Teabing as more like Freddie Jones' "Kenneth Aubrey" from Firefox, for those with long memories).
Jean Reno was smooth and incredible, but then, when is he not?
The movie does take a slightly different direction than the book did - Langdon and Teabing being more confrontational over their interpretations of the Priory "myth", and Langdon being slightly less "militant atheist with an axe to grind" - but the same message is there.
Mrs Doombreed - she who is the Christian yin to my atheist yang - thoroughly enjoyed it, and came out of the theatre with her faith completely unshaken, scoffing at all the Catholics who have their panties in a bunch.
Worth a watch. Especially if, like us, the projector breaks halfway through, providing a much-needed restroom break and apologetic management handing out free movie passes as we left at the end.
Doombreed rating: ****1/2
Jean Reno was smooth and incredible, but then, when is he not?
The movie does take a slightly different direction than the book did - Langdon and Teabing being more confrontational over their interpretations of the Priory "myth", and Langdon being slightly less "militant atheist with an axe to grind" - but the same message is there.
Mrs Doombreed - she who is the Christian yin to my atheist yang - thoroughly enjoyed it, and came out of the theatre with her faith completely unshaken, scoffing at all the Catholics who have their panties in a bunch.
Worth a watch. Especially if, like us, the projector breaks halfway through, providing a much-needed restroom break and apologetic management handing out free movie passes as we left at the end.
Doombreed rating: ****1/2
Friday Rodent Blogging
Today, being that time, being that day, and being that day when I was not at work, became the day when the contents of Selene's home was freshened for the purposes of not stinking.Translation: I changed Selene's cage today.
Oh boy. Was she pissed..
This is Selene who is Not Talking To Us. Just like Imo used to...
Darth Vader Soundboard
I know I posted a link from DevilDucky last night, but here's another, which is even more awesome:
The Darth Vader Soundboard.
And, because I believe in recognising genius:
Madness Combat 4: Apotheosis.
The Darth Vader Soundboard.
And, because I believe in recognising genius:
Madness Combat 4: Apotheosis.
Ever wondered..
..what it might look like if characters from The Matrix played table-tennis*?
No, I hadn't, either. But now I know.
Bear in mind that there are no computerised special effects, here. It's all filmed live. And it's hilarious. So low-tech, yet such genius.
*Yes, American readers, that is "ping-pong".
No, I hadn't, either. But now I know.
Bear in mind that there are no computerised special effects, here. It's all filmed live. And it's hilarious. So low-tech, yet such genius.
*Yes, American readers, that is "ping-pong".
18.5.06
It's what?
Mrs Doombreed and I just purchased a new bed. Bigger, more comfortable, more cool headboardy, and, apparently, the frame came with everything needed to put it together including - vital for attatching that headboard - all the required "nust and bolts."
Can't forget those nust. Nust are a must.
16.5.06
Atheism Online
I just wanted to introduce Atheism Online to you, gentle reader. I'm already listed there (hence the linky graphic down there towards the bottom of the page with my other campaign ribbons*), but it's a great resource for people looking to read atheist blogs, opinions, forums or websites.
It's through Atheism Online that I discovered Bligbi's blog (a fascinating read, well worth the effort) and this fascinating, if long, discussion about why various atheists are - well - atheists (a question I have already answered here).
*See below the Firefox and Thunderbird graphics are two columns of little retangular graphics? They're not there for decoration, y'know. But they do remind me of those little medal ribbons that military uniforms usually have.
It's through Atheism Online that I discovered Bligbi's blog (a fascinating read, well worth the effort) and this fascinating, if long, discussion about why various atheists are - well - atheists (a question I have already answered here).
*See below the Firefox and Thunderbird graphics are two columns of little retangular graphics? They're not there for decoration, y'know. But they do remind me of those little medal ribbons that military uniforms usually have.
15.5.06
Creationism dismissed as 'a kind of paganism' by Vatican's astronomer
Here's an intriguing article. Apparently, the Vatican's astronomer has dismissed creationism and declares it "a form of paganism":
And kudos to him for this wise quote:
I didn't even know the Vatican had an astronomer.
This, however, makes me a little suspicious of the whole thing:
Actually, I thought that was precisely what we were supposed to believe.
Anyway, if true, it's a nice hint that maybe the Roman Catholic church might make it into the 20th century before the rest of us leave the 21st.
"BELIEVING that God created the universe in six days is a form of superstitious paganism, the Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno claimed yesterday.
Brother Consolmagno, who works in a Vatican observatory in Arizona and as curator of the Vatican meteorite collection in Italy, said a 'destructive myth' had developed in modern society that religion and science were competing ideologies.
He described creationism, whose supporters want it taught in schools alongside evolution, as a 'kind of paganism' because it harked back to the days of 'nature gods' who were responsible for natural events."
And kudos to him for this wise quote:
"Knowledge is dangerous, but so is ignorance"
I didn't even know the Vatican had an astronomer.
This, however, makes me a little suspicious of the whole thing:
Brother Consolmagno, who was due to give a speech at the Glasgow Science Centre last night, entitled "Why the Pope has an Astronomer", said the idea of papal infallibility had been a "PR disaster". What it actually meant was that, on matters of faith, followers should accept "somebody has got to be the boss, the final authority"."It's not like he has a magic power, that God whispers the truth in his ear," he said.
Actually, I thought that was precisely what we were supposed to believe.
Anyway, if true, it's a nice hint that maybe the Roman Catholic church might make it into the 20th century before the rest of us leave the 21st.
14.5.06
The Atheist's Nightmare
This is absolutely stunning. Incredible. Amazing. I hereby renounce my atheism and swear eternal loyalty to Jesus Christ, our Lord.
As soon as Whacko McStupid here can answer this question:
If the banana is so perfectly made for us, because of its shape, texture, peel, taste and colour, why aren't all fruits the same?
Seriously. Why are oranges round and - er - orange? Why are melons too big to hold in one hand and covered in that thick skin? Why don't mangoes have three ridges on the top and two on the bottom? Why don't apples have the easily removed peel?
And why can I eat the peel on some fruit, but not on others, hmmmm?
Isn't it just that the idiot picked the one fruit that his arguments would work on?
Hat tip to Bligbi.
As soon as Whacko McStupid here can answer this question:
If the banana is so perfectly made for us, because of its shape, texture, peel, taste and colour, why aren't all fruits the same?
Seriously. Why are oranges round and - er - orange? Why are melons too big to hold in one hand and covered in that thick skin? Why don't mangoes have three ridges on the top and two on the bottom? Why don't apples have the easily removed peel?
And why can I eat the peel on some fruit, but not on others, hmmmm?
Isn't it just that the idiot picked the one fruit that his arguments would work on?
Hat tip to Bligbi.
How Sinful Are You?
S. Setterbo over at AtheistExposed2 pointed out this fun little game. I'm a little offended, I think. Though, that Star Trek thing was a little close to home...
| Your Deadly Sins |
| Sloth: 60% |
| Gluttony: 20% |
| Wrath: 20% |
| Envy: 0% |
| Greed: 0% |
| Lust: 0% |
| Pride: 0% |
| Chance You'll Go to Hell: 14% |
| You will die with your hand down your underwear, watching Star Trek. |
Can't buy me love...?
Further proof, as if it were needed, that America is not so different from England. Here, too, money may not be able to buy love, but it can buy a different set of legal standards. Here, too, rank hath its privileges.
Dr Ernie Fletcher, Kentucky State Governor, was indicted for his part in the state's recent discriminatory hiring practices scandal on three counts, one of criminal conspiracy, one of official misconduct in the first degree, and one of political discrimination. Fletcher's office, it's alleged, hired, fired and promoted people based upon whether they supported Fletcher or his Democrat rival in the election. State laws make this a crime, as positions within the state government are supposed to decided on merit only. Fletcher maintains that the investigation has been politically motivated (which seems a given, seeing as the crime was politically motivated, but there ya go) and has filed to have the State Attorney General removed from the case, but admits "mistakes were made" by his administration.
In America, after the indictment comes "the arraignment", where the charges are read before a judge, the defendant is formally asked to enter a plea, and either pleads guilty or not guilty and, if necessary, the question of bail is addressed.
Fletcher, however, as of yesterday, still hadn't made up his mind whether he's going to bother turning up to the arraignment hearing because doing so would provide his political opponents with "a dramatic perp walk."
Most normal people are led to their arraignments in handcuffs by burly, armed court officials, and those aren't face contempt of court charges if they don't voluntarily appear.
Dr Ernie Fletcher, Kentucky State Governor, was indicted for his part in the state's recent discriminatory hiring practices scandal on three counts, one of criminal conspiracy, one of official misconduct in the first degree, and one of political discrimination. Fletcher's office, it's alleged, hired, fired and promoted people based upon whether they supported Fletcher or his Democrat rival in the election. State laws make this a crime, as positions within the state government are supposed to decided on merit only. Fletcher maintains that the investigation has been politically motivated (which seems a given, seeing as the crime was politically motivated, but there ya go) and has filed to have the State Attorney General removed from the case, but admits "mistakes were made" by his administration.
In America, after the indictment comes "the arraignment", where the charges are read before a judge, the defendant is formally asked to enter a plea, and either pleads guilty or not guilty and, if necessary, the question of bail is addressed.
Fletcher, however, as of yesterday, still hadn't made up his mind whether he's going to bother turning up to the arraignment hearing because doing so would provide his political opponents with "a dramatic perp walk."
Most normal people are led to their arraignments in handcuffs by burly, armed court officials, and those aren't face contempt of court charges if they don't voluntarily appear.
The Evolution Of Dance
This is hilarious. Watch as comedian Judson Laipply takes us on a journey through six decades of dance.
Oh, yeah, and don't forget to cringe when you see those dances that you did in your youth.
Hat tip to Wreckage-Elite at AP for the link.
Oh, yeah, and don't forget to cringe when you see those dances that you did in your youth.
Hat tip to Wreckage-Elite at AP for the link.
13.5.06
Friday Rodent Blogging
This is the cuteness that is Selene trying to enjoy a pumpkin seed in peace. Foiled again by the mad human with the flashing silver box.
12.5.06
The Da Vinci Deception Deception
Before I commence, here's a little info:
In order that I should not spoil, for anyone that has not read it, the "twist" in The Da Vinci Code, I shall, henceforth, refer to it simply as "The Theory."
Anyone who has read The Da Vinci Code knows what The Theory is, and exactly why it's caused the Vatican to get its knickers in a twist, not to mention getting Christian apologists everywhere foaming at the mouth.
In response to The Da Vinci Code, several of these apologists have published books claiming to refute it. Titles like The Da Vinci Deception, The Truth Behind The Da Vinci Code, The Da Vinci Hoax: Exposing The Errors In The Da Vinci Code and Cracking Da Vinci's Code stand in bookstores, often sharing displays with the book which was their inspiration.
Firstly, let's examine the dichotomy here. Christian apologists are falling over themselves to remind us over and over that The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. Now, why are these people spending so much time and effort in refuting a work of fiction, and a self-admitted work of fiction at that? Why are they searching its pages for even the tiniest of errors so that they may trumpet its fictional status from the rooftops?
Okay, I always remind myself to look for the lowest common denominator. Some of these authors, at least, are likely to be simply jumping on the bandwagon, using the hype surrounding the upcoming movie release in order to make money or increase their literary standing amongst the Christian bookbuying public.
But at least some must be doing it because they genuinely believe that The Da Vinci Code represents a genuine threat to the Roman Catholic church - and to Christianity in general - and desperately want to refute it.
But that's not what prompted this entry, per se.
I was in Waldenbooks today, where I picked up a copy of Deception Point by Dan Brown and The Massianic Legacy by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
Both of these books were on a display with various books related to The Da Vinci Code including the Christian apologist books named above.
What startled me is that most of the books that seek to refute The Theory contain, on their back-cover blurb, the same error. Most describe The Theory as being "Dan Brown's wild theory", or some variation thereof.
But it's not Dan Brown's theory, wild or otherwise.
The Theory was first advanced in the pages of Holy Blood, Holy Grail which, remember, was first published in 1982.
Dan Brown even mentions Holy Blood, Holy Grail in The Da Vinci Code as being the first place that The Theory was brought to the attention of the public.
But it's easier to undermine The Theory if it's the work of one novelist than if it's the product of three highly respected historians' years of painstaking research.
And if these apologist authors cannot even get the basic facts straight for the back-cover blurb, what makes them believe we'll trust them with what's inside the book?
In order that I should not spoil, for anyone that has not read it, the "twist" in The Da Vinci Code, I shall, henceforth, refer to it simply as "The Theory."
Anyone who has read The Da Vinci Code knows what The Theory is, and exactly why it's caused the Vatican to get its knickers in a twist, not to mention getting Christian apologists everywhere foaming at the mouth.
In response to The Da Vinci Code, several of these apologists have published books claiming to refute it. Titles like The Da Vinci Deception, The Truth Behind The Da Vinci Code, The Da Vinci Hoax: Exposing The Errors In The Da Vinci Code and Cracking Da Vinci's Code stand in bookstores, often sharing displays with the book which was their inspiration.
Firstly, let's examine the dichotomy here. Christian apologists are falling over themselves to remind us over and over that The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. Now, why are these people spending so much time and effort in refuting a work of fiction, and a self-admitted work of fiction at that? Why are they searching its pages for even the tiniest of errors so that they may trumpet its fictional status from the rooftops?
Okay, I always remind myself to look for the lowest common denominator. Some of these authors, at least, are likely to be simply jumping on the bandwagon, using the hype surrounding the upcoming movie release in order to make money or increase their literary standing amongst the Christian bookbuying public.
But at least some must be doing it because they genuinely believe that The Da Vinci Code represents a genuine threat to the Roman Catholic church - and to Christianity in general - and desperately want to refute it.
But that's not what prompted this entry, per se.
I was in Waldenbooks today, where I picked up a copy of Deception Point by Dan Brown and The Massianic Legacy by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
Both of these books were on a display with various books related to The Da Vinci Code including the Christian apologist books named above.
What startled me is that most of the books that seek to refute The Theory contain, on their back-cover blurb, the same error. Most describe The Theory as being "Dan Brown's wild theory", or some variation thereof.
But it's not Dan Brown's theory, wild or otherwise.
The Theory was first advanced in the pages of Holy Blood, Holy Grail which, remember, was first published in 1982.
Dan Brown even mentions Holy Blood, Holy Grail in The Da Vinci Code as being the first place that The Theory was brought to the attention of the public.
But it's easier to undermine The Theory if it's the work of one novelist than if it's the product of three highly respected historians' years of painstaking research.
And if these apologist authors cannot even get the basic facts straight for the back-cover blurb, what makes them believe we'll trust them with what's inside the book?
11.5.06
Post-op care, Doombreed style
No blog yesterday because I was looking after Mrs Doombreed, who had surgery on her arm.
It was less fun for her than it was for me, and it was pretty much no fun for me. We did have some darkly funny moments because Mrs Doombreed was dosed up with a drug called "versed" (pronounced ver-said) which works by temporarily blocking the mind's ability to create new memories. The upshot of this is that when you talk to someone, you can't remember the conversation. So Mrs Doombreed asked me the same series of questions at least five times in a row, because she couldn't remember the answers.
Anyway, I'm keeping track of Mrs Doombreed's meds, making sure she sticks with doctor's orders, making dinner, fetching and carrying, and basically looking after She Who Is The Centre Of My Universe.
Pretty much everything I signed on for when we got married. Doing the husbandly duty. Being a man. Stepping up to the plate. Doing what any good spouse would.
Okay, yeah, so I'm enjoying looking after The Most Wonderful Woman In The World. So what?
I also want to thank Mrs Doombreed's mother. Mrs Doombreed's mother is the remedy to all the comedic mother-in-law jokes. She's a great person. She drove us over to the surgery centre, stayed with me whilst Mrs Doombreed is in surgery, even bought me dinner (Arby's chicken salad wraps are incredible).
Finally, of course, thanks to the doctor who performed the surgery, and all the staff who gave her such good care, before, during, and after.
The operation was minor and routine, but any time general anesthetic is used, it carries with it a risk that the patient might not come out.
Still, she came through with flying colors, and now a combination of the pain meds and lingering after effects of the anesthetic have sent her off for an afternoon nap, allowing me to indulge in a rare and forbidden pleasure.
I'm watchingZulu.
It was less fun for her than it was for me, and it was pretty much no fun for me. We did have some darkly funny moments because Mrs Doombreed was dosed up with a drug called "versed" (pronounced ver-said) which works by temporarily blocking the mind's ability to create new memories. The upshot of this is that when you talk to someone, you can't remember the conversation. So Mrs Doombreed asked me the same series of questions at least five times in a row, because she couldn't remember the answers.
Anyway, I'm keeping track of Mrs Doombreed's meds, making sure she sticks with doctor's orders, making dinner, fetching and carrying, and basically looking after She Who Is The Centre Of My Universe.
Pretty much everything I signed on for when we got married. Doing the husbandly duty. Being a man. Stepping up to the plate. Doing what any good spouse would.
Okay, yeah, so I'm enjoying looking after The Most Wonderful Woman In The World. So what?
I also want to thank Mrs Doombreed's mother. Mrs Doombreed's mother is the remedy to all the comedic mother-in-law jokes. She's a great person. She drove us over to the surgery centre, stayed with me whilst Mrs Doombreed is in surgery, even bought me dinner (Arby's chicken salad wraps are incredible).
Finally, of course, thanks to the doctor who performed the surgery, and all the staff who gave her such good care, before, during, and after.
The operation was minor and routine, but any time general anesthetic is used, it carries with it a risk that the patient might not come out.
Still, she came through with flying colors, and now a combination of the pain meds and lingering after effects of the anesthetic have sent her off for an afternoon nap, allowing me to indulge in a rare and forbidden pleasure.
I'm watching
10.5.06
From The Da Vinci Code to..
I've gotten into the habit of reading two books at once recently. One book stays at home, and the second is kept, usually, in my backpack or in the back pocket of my jeans (if it fits). This is because I like to read on my breaks at work, and I know that if I take my "work" book out of my backpack tonight, tomorrow I'll leave without it.
Anyway, this moment's "work" book is Angels & Demons by Dan Brown, he of The Da Vinci Code fame (or should that be infamy?). Angels & Demons is the book that came before The Da Vinci Code, also featuring Robert Langdon as the lead (yeah, Tom Hanks' character), but this time he's defending the Vatican against a dastardly plot by The Illuminati.
Brown again delves deep into the we'd-rather-you-kept-that-secret history of the Roman Catholic church, and reveals some surprising architectural and historical insights. So far it's keeping me enthralled and has almost made me late returning from break on two occasions.
Yes, it is fiction. I get it.
My "home" book is currently Holy Blood, Holy Grail, the book that, apparently, inspired The Da Vinci Code. This book is not fiction. It is the account of a number of scholars who, through researching various mysteries and trying to put together documentaries for the BBC, stumbled across clues to what might be the most startling secret in history.
If you've read The Da Vinci Code, you know what it is. If you haven't, I won't spoil it. And if you have, and liked it, you'll enjoy Angels & Demons. Holy Blood, Holy Grail is less entertaining, but then, it's not a novel.
Anyway, this moment's "work" book is Angels & Demons by Dan Brown, he of The Da Vinci Code fame (or should that be infamy?). Angels & Demons is the book that came before The Da Vinci Code, also featuring Robert Langdon as the lead (yeah, Tom Hanks' character), but this time he's defending the Vatican against a dastardly plot by The Illuminati.
Brown again delves deep into the we'd-rather-you-kept-that-secret history of the Roman Catholic church, and reveals some surprising architectural and historical insights. So far it's keeping me enthralled and has almost made me late returning from break on two occasions.
Yes, it is fiction. I get it.
My "home" book is currently Holy Blood, Holy Grail, the book that, apparently, inspired The Da Vinci Code. This book is not fiction. It is the account of a number of scholars who, through researching various mysteries and trying to put together documentaries for the BBC, stumbled across clues to what might be the most startling secret in history.
If you've read The Da Vinci Code, you know what it is. If you haven't, I won't spoil it. And if you have, and liked it, you'll enjoy Angels & Demons. Holy Blood, Holy Grail is less entertaining, but then, it's not a novel.
8.5.06
England Germany '06 squad finalised
Sven-Goran Eriksson has named the England squad for Germany 2006, leading to a slight storm-in-a-teacup over bringing Theo Walcott up to the world's premier sporting event, even though Sven's never seen him play.
I say good luck to the kid. England's most dazzling players have always been the ones that nobody thought should be there, so maybe Sven's got the right idea.
I was especially chuffed to hear that four 'Spurs players made it to the squad.
I say good luck to the kid. England's most dazzling players have always been the ones that nobody thought should be there, so maybe Sven's got the right idea.
I was especially chuffed to hear that four 'Spurs players made it to the squad.
7.5.06
There's no such thing as flying saucers
Well, now we can lay all that speculation to rest. The Ministry of Defence says so, according to Auntie Beeb.
Just one question, y'know, call it my need to know, but just how much did this frigging ridiculous project cost us?
Just one question, y'know, call it my need to know, but just how much did this frigging ridiculous project cost us?
The real creationist agenda
I stumbled across a very telling quote today. The Grauniad ran a piece about John Mackay, an Australian creationist who is visiting England in order to show his support for forcing religion on people and forcing the taxpayer to pay for it (hat tip to Red State Rabble for the link). In the article is a quote from Kurt Wise, author of In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation.
The quote goes:
If you don't get why it's so ominous, read it again carefully, and think on this:
Can a person who feels this way accept anything less than total victory? Could this person be happy with "teaching the controversy"? Would he be content with a brief aside in science class about how some won't accept evolution as fact? How about "opposing viewpoints"? A section of the syllabus dealing with creationism as an idea?
What about, when you get right down to it, "equal time"? Is this person, who openly admits that he rejects all evidence that doesn't fit with his religion, going to be happy with his religion being presented as equal to evolution?
In a word, no.
Such a person is not likely to be happy until every trace of evolutionary theory is wiped from the schools, the libraries, from the world.
Sure, they tell you they just want kids to get a well-rounded education, that things should be fair. But fair isn't even on the agenda.
And we can see how good Mr Wise's word is by his quote. All the evidence in the universe already does point to evolution and yet, he wasn't the first to admit it.
Now will he, apparently, ever admit it.
It reminds me of a show that I was unfortunate enough to catch the arse-end of on one of the US religious television networks. On the show was a self-described "paleontologist" who said that, although he's willing to admit that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that humans and dinosaurs lived together (and, failed to admit the absolute mountains of evidence that they didn't live together) he still believed it was true because of what he called "scriptural evidence."
It's the same thing. Evidence is irrelevant. What's real doesn't matter. Whether or not evolution is true is immaterial because the creationists don't care - they already have their Truth and nothing can change their perception of that.
And, in the face of that, is meaningful dialogue between scientists and creationists even possible?
The quote goes:
"[i]f all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand."
If you don't get why it's so ominous, read it again carefully, and think on this:
Can a person who feels this way accept anything less than total victory? Could this person be happy with "teaching the controversy"? Would he be content with a brief aside in science class about how some won't accept evolution as fact? How about "opposing viewpoints"? A section of the syllabus dealing with creationism as an idea?
What about, when you get right down to it, "equal time"? Is this person, who openly admits that he rejects all evidence that doesn't fit with his religion, going to be happy with his religion being presented as equal to evolution?
In a word, no.
Such a person is not likely to be happy until every trace of evolutionary theory is wiped from the schools, the libraries, from the world.
Sure, they tell you they just want kids to get a well-rounded education, that things should be fair. But fair isn't even on the agenda.
And we can see how good Mr Wise's word is by his quote. All the evidence in the universe already does point to evolution and yet, he wasn't the first to admit it.
Now will he, apparently, ever admit it.
It reminds me of a show that I was unfortunate enough to catch the arse-end of on one of the US religious television networks. On the show was a self-described "paleontologist" who said that, although he's willing to admit that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that humans and dinosaurs lived together (and, failed to admit the absolute mountains of evidence that they didn't live together) he still believed it was true because of what he called "scriptural evidence."
It's the same thing. Evidence is irrelevant. What's real doesn't matter. Whether or not evolution is true is immaterial because the creationists don't care - they already have their Truth and nothing can change their perception of that.
And, in the face of that, is meaningful dialogue between scientists and creationists even possible?
5.5.06
Friday Rodent Blogging
We don't know where Selene got these from. A new, bigger wheel and this weird crawl tube just suddenly appeared in her cage one day. Presumably she's building some sort of obstacle course in order to maintain fitness.
Mighty Optical Illusions
Seeing as I missed yesterday's blogging, because the damn computer wouldn't connect to the internet, I'll post last night's tonight.
This is just a quick link to Mighty Optical Illusions. An excellent site with some amazing optical illusions.
This is just a quick link to Mighty Optical Illusions. An excellent site with some amazing optical illusions.
3.5.06
The Da Vinci Code
Nope, I haven't seen the movie (it's not out yet), but I did finally get around to reading the book. And boy, I can understand why various Christian organisations are pretty pissed about it.
The book - and, presumably, the film - brings into the popular consciousness many facts about the Roman Catholic church that they'd rather remain hidden.
Author Dan Brown brings together a staggering array of church history and weaves a tight little story around them, often leaving one wondering exactly where the facts end and the fiction begins.
The book begins with two facts and a kind of "inverse-disclaimer":
Firstly, that the Priory of Sion is an actual organisation, a so-called "secret society", formed in 1099, which has had, apparently, amongst its members Sir Isaac Newton, Boticelli and, of course, Leonardo da Vinci.
Second, that Opus Dei is, also, an actual organisation which claims over 80,000 members worldwide. A very powerful sect within the Roman Catholic church, Opus Dei (lit. "work of God") is ultra-conservative and is rumoured to have had a strong hand in the election of conservative Benedictine XVI as successor to the relatively liberal John Paul II.
The author then goes on to state that all descriptions of "artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals" are also factual and accurate.
What the author studiously avoids stating is whether the little tidbits of background on the church are also accurate.
Now, I'm not going to go into detail here, because that would spoil the book and/or the movie - but there a few facts - that may, or may not make it into the movie - which might cause more than a few people to draw in a startled breath.
Opus Dei is already preparing a response to The Da Vinci Code, and has repeatedly taken great pains to remind people that the story is fictional.
(Yeah, we know that. But if I write a story about a guy who drives a Ford Mustang, lives in Tampa, Florida, and shoots people with his H-K PPK, does the fact that it's fictional mean that Mustangs, PPKs and Tampa, Florida do not, in reality, exist?)
The book is outstanding, and it's amazing to be able to go send Google off to find actual pictures of the buildings, carvings, pictures, and places that the characters are dealing with.
And, yes, you have a choice. Either let the book spoil the movie, or let the movie spoil the book.
I've already done the former.
The book - and, presumably, the film - brings into the popular consciousness many facts about the Roman Catholic church that they'd rather remain hidden.
Author Dan Brown brings together a staggering array of church history and weaves a tight little story around them, often leaving one wondering exactly where the facts end and the fiction begins.
The book begins with two facts and a kind of "inverse-disclaimer":
Firstly, that the Priory of Sion is an actual organisation, a so-called "secret society", formed in 1099, which has had, apparently, amongst its members Sir Isaac Newton, Boticelli and, of course, Leonardo da Vinci.
Second, that Opus Dei is, also, an actual organisation which claims over 80,000 members worldwide. A very powerful sect within the Roman Catholic church, Opus Dei (lit. "work of God") is ultra-conservative and is rumoured to have had a strong hand in the election of conservative Benedictine XVI as successor to the relatively liberal John Paul II.
The author then goes on to state that all descriptions of "artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals" are also factual and accurate.
What the author studiously avoids stating is whether the little tidbits of background on the church are also accurate.
Now, I'm not going to go into detail here, because that would spoil the book and/or the movie - but there a few facts - that may, or may not make it into the movie - which might cause more than a few people to draw in a startled breath.
Opus Dei is already preparing a response to The Da Vinci Code, and has repeatedly taken great pains to remind people that the story is fictional.
(Yeah, we know that. But if I write a story about a guy who drives a Ford Mustang, lives in Tampa, Florida, and shoots people with his H-K PPK, does the fact that it's fictional mean that Mustangs, PPKs and Tampa, Florida do not, in reality, exist?)
The book is outstanding, and it's amazing to be able to go send Google off to find actual pictures of the buildings, carvings, pictures, and places that the characters are dealing with.
And, yes, you have a choice. Either let the book spoil the movie, or let the movie spoil the book.
I've already done the former.
2.5.06
12 year old dead, airgun blamed
BBC News carries the story of a child shot and killed by a friend who had an ND with his father's air rifle:
Now, I have nothing but sympathy for the boy's family, and, yes, this was a terrible tradgedy and an avoidable death.
So why do I get the uneasy feeling that this may be the rallying point for those who want to add airguns to the list of things we Brits can't own because we're too dumb to be trusted?
Why do I hear the sound of a bandwagon going past and the hush caused by thousands just waiting to jump right on?
Maybe I've been corrupted, living in the US, but when I see this kind of story, I don't see a dangerous weapon that needs to be banned.
What I see is a full-grown adult who needs a serious, hard, and repeated cock-punching because he's dumb enough to leave a dangerous weapon around loaded.
What I see is the usual bleeding-heart suspects gleefully leaping on this poor boy's coffin in order to get their latest piece of "I know best what's good for you" legislation passed.
I hope I'm wrong, but I know I'm not.
A 14-year-old boy killed his 12-year-old friend when he accidentally shot him in the head with an air rifle, a court has heard.
The boy was showing off his father's new gun in his bedroom when it went off, firing a pellet through Alex Cole's eye and into his brain."
Now, I have nothing but sympathy for the boy's family, and, yes, this was a terrible tradgedy and an avoidable death.
So why do I get the uneasy feeling that this may be the rallying point for those who want to add airguns to the list of things we Brits can't own because we're too dumb to be trusted?
Why do I hear the sound of a bandwagon going past and the hush caused by thousands just waiting to jump right on?
Maybe I've been corrupted, living in the US, but when I see this kind of story, I don't see a dangerous weapon that needs to be banned.
What I see is a full-grown adult who needs a serious, hard, and repeated cock-punching because he's dumb enough to leave a dangerous weapon around loaded.
What I see is the usual bleeding-heart suspects gleefully leaping on this poor boy's coffin in order to get their latest piece of "I know best what's good for you" legislation passed.
I hope I'm wrong, but I know I'm not.
1.5.06
National Day Of Slayer
March 4th is the National Day Of Prayer here in the USA. So, in response to this, but mostly because the date only comes up once a century, 6th june this year (06/06/06 or 666 for the symbolically blind) has been designated The National Day Of Slayer.
The level of awesome in the world has gone up by at least an order of magnitude.
The level of awesome in the world has gone up by at least an order of magnitude.
30.4.06
Hard Candy
Okay, it's this simple:
When a movie is so bad that it makes me sympathise with the paedophile, It really does suck.
Seriously, these storms recently? Caused by Hard Candy sucking so hard that it caused a depression, leading to high winds.
Really. Suck. Sucked. Hard.
Okay, the story goes that Jeff hangs around chat rooms looking for underage girls to foist himself upon. Hayley is 14. They meet. They go to his place. She spends way too long "getting revenge" for all the other girls.
Seriously. Paedophile. 14 year-old victim. The target of sympathies should be really easy here. But still, I wanted her dead. I wanted Jeff to break free and bash her stupid face in, even if just to shut her up.
I guess they were trying to do some sort of "tables-turned", "don't you feel dirty rooting for the child-fucker?" kind of game. But even that failed. The final "twist" was, I guess, supposed to make the viewers feel guilty for supporting the bad guy, but it failed miserably.
We were left not even knowing if Jeff really was a paedophile.
Hayley is boring, dull, and unemotional. Even when supposedly extracting revenge, it just comes out ... flat.
I don't know whether it was bad directing, bad script, or simply a very bad actress.
But whatever. It sucked.
And bad script? Hayley does all the running in the movie's opening scenes. It's she who suggests they meet. It's she who badgers Jeff into taking her back to his place. It's she who, when offered water goes and makes screwdrivers. Even Hayley's speech about "you're the adult" doesn't soften that crap. It gave voice to the standard paedophile's defence and then attempted to destroy it, but failed.
I guess there will be those who'll claim I missed the point. That it really was a searing indictment of whatever the hell. But I don't care.
This. Movie. Sucked.
Doombreed rating: 1/2. Barely.
When a movie is so bad that it makes me sympathise with the paedophile, It really does suck.
Seriously, these storms recently? Caused by Hard Candy sucking so hard that it caused a depression, leading to high winds.
Really. Suck. Sucked. Hard.
Okay, the story goes that Jeff hangs around chat rooms looking for underage girls to foist himself upon. Hayley is 14. They meet. They go to his place. She spends way too long "getting revenge" for all the other girls.
Seriously. Paedophile. 14 year-old victim. The target of sympathies should be really easy here. But still, I wanted her dead. I wanted Jeff to break free and bash her stupid face in, even if just to shut her up.
I guess they were trying to do some sort of "tables-turned", "don't you feel dirty rooting for the child-fucker?" kind of game. But even that failed. The final "twist" was, I guess, supposed to make the viewers feel guilty for supporting the bad guy, but it failed miserably.
We were left not even knowing if Jeff really was a paedophile.
Hayley is boring, dull, and unemotional. Even when supposedly extracting revenge, it just comes out ... flat.
I don't know whether it was bad directing, bad script, or simply a very bad actress.
But whatever. It sucked.
And bad script? Hayley does all the running in the movie's opening scenes. It's she who suggests they meet. It's she who badgers Jeff into taking her back to his place. It's she who, when offered water goes and makes screwdrivers. Even Hayley's speech about "you're the adult" doesn't soften that crap. It gave voice to the standard paedophile's defence and then attempted to destroy it, but failed.
I guess there will be those who'll claim I missed the point. That it really was a searing indictment of whatever the hell. But I don't care.
This. Movie. Sucked.
Doombreed rating: 1/2. Barely.
Dr Who
The Sci Fi channel has just started showing the new Doctor Who series, and it is good.
Christopher Eccleston makes an excellent Doctor, kind of like a latter-day Tom Baker, similar irreverent sense of humour, just with a strong Lancastrian accent.
It shows great promise as a fitting continuation of one of the greatest sci-fi shows of all time*.
The fact that the first episode I saw – “The Long Game” – also starred Simon Pegg (He of Shaun Of The Dead and Spaced fame) was a great bonus.
*You may groan at the pun. I'm feeling generous.
Christopher Eccleston makes an excellent Doctor, kind of like a latter-day Tom Baker, similar irreverent sense of humour, just with a strong Lancastrian accent.
It shows great promise as a fitting continuation of one of the greatest sci-fi shows of all time*.
The fact that the first episode I saw – “The Long Game” – also starred Simon Pegg (He of Shaun Of The Dead and Spaced fame) was a great bonus.
*You may groan at the pun. I'm feeling generous.
29.4.06
28.4.06
I may apply for citizenship after all..
Impact Guns are taking pre-orders for civilian-legal versions of the FN P-90, the gun featured in Stargate Sg:1.The legal versions will come with a longer barrel, apparently so that the weapon, both in terms of overall length and in terms of barrel length, will be designated a rifle rather than a machine gun*.
Also restricted will be the armour-piercing rounds that were specifically designed for the P-90, but civilians will be able to buy standard 5.7mm ball rounds, easily enough for home defence or target shredding.
They just won't penetrate a Jaffa's armour.
Oh, well, I guess I'll have to settle for an airsoft version until I can buy one...
*It should be noted that, with appropriate documentation and processing by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the short-barrel version can also be yours.
26.4.06
Dildos don't thrill people, people thrill people
Hot on the trail of news that Grand Rapids (Michigan) is going to ban strip clubs (in similar legislation as that about to pass in Kentucky) comes the news that South Carolina is looking at banning sex toys:
Anderson Independent Mail:
"COLUMBIA - Lucy's Love Shop employee Wanda Gillespie said she was flabbergasted that South Carolina'’s Legislature is considering outlawing sex toys.
But banning the sale of sex toys is actually quite common in some Southern states.
The South Carolina bill, proposed by Republican Rep. Ralph Davenport, would make it a felony to sell devices used primarily for sexual stimulation and allow law enforcement to seize sex toys from raided businesses."
Seven other states already ban sex toys: Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Indiana, Texas, Louisiana and Virginia.
I sometimes find myself wondering if this is really the "land of the free" that I read about as a child.
Don't worry, I'm not about to start on some anti-southern states rant. I believe that the American people must govern themselves as they see fit, but it seems strange wasting legistalure's time on such an obviously religiously-motivated law when there are real problems out there.
I can see the rallying cry now:
You can have our dildos when you pry them from our cold, dead...
25.4.06
Lightsaber battle
This is fantastic.
From the site that has all the cool SW videos (including the hilarious Troops), TheForce.net.
From the site that has all the cool SW videos (including the hilarious Troops), TheForce.net.
24.4.06
News from the Land of the Bizarre
Okay, so this 45 year old guy puts up a sign in his yard saying that he wants to buy a 12-24 year old virgin, then wonders why his neighbours take offence.
What an idiot.
WFTV.com - News - Sign Offering To Buy Young Virgin Bride Angers Neighbors
What an idiot.
"'I'm just somebody who is getting up there in years, and I'm looking for a born-again, God-fearing virgin between the ages of 12 and 24 who can bear me children,' said Thelemann, who was divorced in 1989. 'What's the problem? I just think I have some wicked neighbors.'"
WFTV.com - News - Sign Offering To Buy Young Virgin Bride Angers Neighbors
23.4.06
Silent Hill
Silent Hill is, it should be bloody obvious, based on the games of the same title. Now, I played Silent Hill on the PlayStation, and the movie departs from the gameplay quite dramatically in places, but, strangely, this doesn't detract from the movie.
A lot of the locations, sound effects, characters and scenes will be chillingly familiar to those who played the game, but for all that, the Silent Hill in the movie is a different place to the town in the game.
The story revolves around Rose (Radha Mitchell) and her daughter, Sharon (Jodell Ferland). Sharon, an adopted child, has taken to sleepwalking and often, while doing so, mentions the name "Silent Hill." Rose decides - in a barely explained weak plot device - that a visit to the town might help Sharon with her nocturnal ramblings, even after she reads up on the town and finds out about its horrific past. 30 years ago, the town was evacuated when an underground fire broke out, killing many of the residents. Now, the town is still empty and the fire still rages.
Add in some typical "dark" crayon drawings by the distressed child and anyone with a brain knows going to Silent Hill is a really bad idea.
Rose's husband, Chris (Sean Bean), has a brain. That's why he tries to do everything to stop her, including indirectly involving Cybil (Laurie Holden), a motorcycle cop whose demeanour seems to not-so-subtly hint that she was absent the day heterosexuality was issued to the class, and whose outfit seems to not-so-subtly hint that she might enjoy an afternoon with those handcuffs and a willing submissive.
Rose has an accident, Sharon disappears, the sirens go off and Silent Hill goes to hell without even bothering to load up the handbasket.
As I said, devotees of the game will recognise much of what's on the screen and coming out of the speakers, and many will remember exactly why the game gave them the creeps in the first place. But don't expect a plot that mirrors anything you did with your controller.
There's a twist, albeit a none-too-subtle one, or two. There's a side story which starts when Chris arrives at Silent Hill looking for his wife, only to find the road blocked by Gucci (Kim Coates), a cop whose demeanour, dialogue, outfit and every facial expression seem to not-so-subtly hint that he knows way more than he's letting on.
Oh, and this, like V for Vendetta, will probably rank high on the fundy's list of "movies that hate Christianity", but telling you why would be a spoiler.
Oh yeah, and the critics hate it. So did Mrs Doombreed.
I smell cult classic.
The movie has more than its fair share of jump moments, gore moments, and downright unsettling use of special effects, including the rather horrific climax.
And, annoyingly, it seems to have been written with the sequel in mind and doesn't tie up enough of the loose ends.
But don't set your sights too high and you'll like it. In one major respect, Silent Hill the movie is just like Silent Hill the game, which was a more intelligent version of Resident Evil.
Doombreed rating: ****
A lot of the locations, sound effects, characters and scenes will be chillingly familiar to those who played the game, but for all that, the Silent Hill in the movie is a different place to the town in the game.
The story revolves around Rose (Radha Mitchell) and her daughter, Sharon (Jodell Ferland). Sharon, an adopted child, has taken to sleepwalking and often, while doing so, mentions the name "Silent Hill." Rose decides - in a barely explained weak plot device - that a visit to the town might help Sharon with her nocturnal ramblings, even after she reads up on the town and finds out about its horrific past. 30 years ago, the town was evacuated when an underground fire broke out, killing many of the residents. Now, the town is still empty and the fire still rages.
Add in some typical "dark" crayon drawings by the distressed child and anyone with a brain knows going to Silent Hill is a really bad idea.
Rose's husband, Chris (Sean Bean), has a brain. That's why he tries to do everything to stop her, including indirectly involving Cybil (Laurie Holden), a motorcycle cop whose demeanour seems to not-so-subtly hint that she was absent the day heterosexuality was issued to the class, and whose outfit seems to not-so-subtly hint that she might enjoy an afternoon with those handcuffs and a willing submissive.
Rose has an accident, Sharon disappears, the sirens go off and Silent Hill goes to hell without even bothering to load up the handbasket.
As I said, devotees of the game will recognise much of what's on the screen and coming out of the speakers, and many will remember exactly why the game gave them the creeps in the first place. But don't expect a plot that mirrors anything you did with your controller.
There's a twist, albeit a none-too-subtle one, or two. There's a side story which starts when Chris arrives at Silent Hill looking for his wife, only to find the road blocked by Gucci (Kim Coates), a cop whose demeanour, dialogue, outfit and every facial expression seem to not-so-subtly hint that he knows way more than he's letting on.
Oh, and this, like V for Vendetta, will probably rank high on the fundy's list of "movies that hate Christianity", but telling you why would be a spoiler.
Oh yeah, and the critics hate it. So did Mrs Doombreed.
I smell cult classic.
The movie has more than its fair share of jump moments, gore moments, and downright unsettling use of special effects, including the rather horrific climax.
And, annoyingly, it seems to have been written with the sequel in mind and doesn't tie up enough of the loose ends.
But don't set your sights too high and you'll like it. In one major respect, Silent Hill the movie is just like Silent Hill the game, which was a more intelligent version of Resident Evil.
Doombreed rating: ****
An encounter with the God Squad
Man, I did something stereotypical today.First, some background:
I was working a late shift today - 1530 to 0000 - and so I wanted to get a nice lay in. We got to bed around 0400 and anticipated a sleeping until around 1300.
This, it turned out, was not to be.
First, I had to rouse myself to answer the bellow of nature around 0930. Having done so, I climbed back into bed, intent on nothing more than snuggling up to the eminently snuggleable Mrs Doombreed and drifting back to sleep.
Then, just as I was crossing the bliss zone between awake and asleep, the 'phone rang. Awake again. Screw it, let the machine get it.
But then, the proverbial straw. Just as I was entering the bliss zone again, some git knocked on the door.
And we have no answering machine for the door.
Oh, but wait for the cherry (sorry about the mixed metaphor) on the cake. At the door, I discovered after struggling into clothes, was a pair of god-botherers from a local Baptist Church.
Now, I don't remember everything said. I do remember cutting off their spiel by telling them that I'm an atheist. I do remember that naive shocked look on the one guy's face as he said, incredulity in his voice, "you are?"
I also remember mentally daring them to start on me. Shit, I've got wide experience in handling fundies who think they can talk me out of my atheism, as if I've just been sitting around waiting for their specific input before casting reason to the wind and running to a church just as fast as my legs will carry me.
But I didn't want to get into all that garbage at that time, not because I was too tired to give a good account - even half asleep I'd bury them on that topic - but because I wanted to get back to Mrs Doombreed before sleep fled entirely. I also didn't want to have to get violent. Disposing of the bodies is such a chore, especially with the dumpster (see, I'm picking up Yank words) out back full up. I could buy a shovel and dig a hole, but who's got the time for that*?
Anyway, I informed them I'd been roused from the bosom of a wonderful sleep (not to mention, the bosom of a wonderful woman) and this really wasn't a good time for me, followed by me closing the door.
Later, after popping out to get the 'paper (Newspapers, in America, really are left on the doorstep, just like in the movies and on TV), I found they'd left one of their little pamphlets stuck in the doorframe, presumably as some form of silent rebuke, or even, perhaps, in the forlorn hope that I'd read it and immediately realise the error of my ways.
So there you have it. There's two more Christians who've had the stereotype of the grumpy atheist reinforced for them.
Ho-hum. I almost wish I cared.
*For those with no sense of humour: This is sarcasm! I wouldn't really kill Christians just for knocking on my door. Too often**.
**This is also sarcasm, in case you were wondering.
22.4.06
Friday Rodent Blogging
"Yeah, I appreciate the photo op, and all that, but aren't you supposed to be giving me a pumpkin seed right about now?"Selene gets impatient. Or she's daydreaming about driving a car. I can't tell which.
20.4.06
Happy Birthday, ma'am
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II celebrates her 80th birthday tomorrow. Unlike the rest of us, who can usually connive a day off, Her Majesty is going to be hurtling around, shaking hands, receiving visitors, and, most likely, chatting with people puffed up with their own importance. Still, at least she gets another crack at it on her official birthday in June.
Two birthdays? Sweet.
Happy Birthday, Your Majesty.
Two birthdays? Sweet.
Happy Birthday, Your Majesty.
one red paperclip
one red paperclip is the title of Kyle MacDonald's blog, but it's also the start of an incredible journey - and I use the term in it's proper sense, meaning "not credible", simply because the story is so unbelievable.
MacDonald decided to see if he could trade a paperclip for a house. Seriously.
And he's nearly there.
First, he posted a picture of a single red paperclip, asking for trades. He was offered a fish-shaped pen for it. Then, he traded the pen for a novelty doorknob. Then he traded that for a camping stove, which was traded for a generator, which was traded for a beer keg, a neon bud sign and a promise to fill the keg with beer.
Many trades later, Macdonald finally traded a record contract for a year in an apartment in Phoenix, AZ.
Okay, not quite the house he was looking for, but he's still looking to keep on trading up.
Seriously, this is incredible.
Mr Kyle MacDonald, you hereby recieve the Legal Alien salute and the designation "top bloke."
MacDonald decided to see if he could trade a paperclip for a house. Seriously.
And he's nearly there.
First, he posted a picture of a single red paperclip, asking for trades. He was offered a fish-shaped pen for it. Then, he traded the pen for a novelty doorknob. Then he traded that for a camping stove, which was traded for a generator, which was traded for a beer keg, a neon bud sign and a promise to fill the keg with beer.
Many trades later, Macdonald finally traded a record contract for a year in an apartment in Phoenix, AZ.
Okay, not quite the house he was looking for, but he's still looking to keep on trading up.
Seriously, this is incredible.
Mr Kyle MacDonald, you hereby recieve the Legal Alien salute and the designation "top bloke."
18.4.06
06RS SB250
06RS SB250 is the unglamourous name for a bill that's just been passed by the Kentucky Senate, which defines a person as being guilty of "sexual misconduct" when:
And defines "a state of nudity" as:
And also, a person is guilty of "sexual misconduct" when:
And defines "a state of semi-nudity" as:
Nicely done.
Y'know what pisses me off?
Well, aside from the whole "government legislating morality" bit - that's a given.
There's a massive campaign to relax Kentucky's archaic gambling laws (and, with wearying inevitability, the concerned citizens forming a counter-group) on the grounds that Kentucky loses somewhere in the region of $6 million every year because residents are going to other states to gamble.
So we're now going to lose even more money because people will have to go to other states to see strip clubs and titty bars?
He or she knowingly or intentionally appears in a state of nudity in a sexually oriented business
And defines "a state of nudity" as:
the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area, vulva, anus, anal cleft or cleavage with less than a fully opaque covering, or the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any part of the nipple
And also, a person is guilty of "sexual misconduct" when:
He or she knowingly or intentionally appears in a state of semi-nudity in a sexually oriented business unless, while acting as an employee of a sexually oriented business
And defines "a state of semi-nudity" as:
the showing of the female breast below a horizontal line across the top of the areola and extending across the width of the breast at that point, or the showing of the male or female buttocks. This definition shall include the lower portion of the cleavage of the female breast but shall not include any portion of the cleavage of the female breast exhibited by a dress, blouse, shirt, leotard, bikini, or similar wearing apparel provided the areola is not exposed in whole or part.
Nicely done.
Y'know what pisses me off?
Well, aside from the whole "government legislating morality" bit - that's a given.
There's a massive campaign to relax Kentucky's archaic gambling laws (and, with wearying inevitability, the concerned citizens forming a counter-group) on the grounds that Kentucky loses somewhere in the region of $6 million every year because residents are going to other states to gamble.
So we're now going to lose even more money because people will have to go to other states to see strip clubs and titty bars?
The times, they are a'becomingquitedifferent
Well, not really. It's just that with the new computer, and something odd about the new Windows stuff (even when running Firefox) makes it hard to read the font I was using. So I've switched.
Easter turducken
Easter turducken may be the single greatest easter tradition, ever.
(for those unfamilar with the Peep phenomenon, see Peep Research for humourous details)
(for those unfamilar with the Peep phenomenon, see Peep Research for humourous details)
Gays in Iraq fear for their lives
Here's a worrying development from Iraq. The fundamentalist nutbars who are currently grabbing power over there have turned on that most traditional of religious targets - homosexuals:
Gays and lesbians are being executed all over the place, often being turned in by friends and family:
The article ends with the now familiar cry:
One of the things that made Iraq unusual was that Saddam Hussein kept the fundamentalist nutbars on a short leash, which, of course, is why they are grabbing power as fast as they can right now.
This is not the first time we've heard people decrying the removal of a man who - let's face it - is never going to grace the pages of "1,000 men I'd like to have controlling my country" as written by any rational human.
Makes you wonder just how bad the new powers-that-be in Iraq are, if ordinary citizens are pining for the "good old days" of Saddam Hussein.
Islam considers homosexuality sinful. A website published in the name of Ayatollah Sistani, Iraq's most revered Shia cleric, says gays should be put to death.
"Those who commit sodomy must be killed in the harshest way," says a section of the website dealing with questions of morality.
Gays and lesbians are being executed all over the place, often being turned in by friends and family:
"Hussein is 32 and lives in Baghdad with his brother, sister-in-law and nieces.
He says his effeminate appearance and demeanour make him stand out and attract hostility.
'My brother's friends told him: 'In the current chaos you could get away with killing your brother without retribution and get rid of this shame,'' Hussein said, after agreeing to speak to the BBC only if his real name was not used.
The article ends with the now familiar cry:
"Saddam was a tyrant, but at least we had more freedom then," said Hussein. "Nowadays, gay men are just killed for no reason."
One of the things that made Iraq unusual was that Saddam Hussein kept the fundamentalist nutbars on a short leash, which, of course, is why they are grabbing power as fast as they can right now.
This is not the first time we've heard people decrying the removal of a man who - let's face it - is never going to grace the pages of "1,000 men I'd like to have controlling my country" as written by any rational human.
Makes you wonder just how bad the new powers-that-be in Iraq are, if ordinary citizens are pining for the "good old days" of Saddam Hussein.
16.4.06
Birthday Meme
I was randomly trawling aroung the blogosphere when I chanced upon a blog which mentioned "The Birthday Meme". Sadly, I don't remember which blog it was on.
The aim of the meme is to post your birthday, and then post three events, two births and one death from that day in history.
So, here goes:
20th June:
Events:
1214 - University of Oxford receives its charter.
1756 - British garrison imprisoned in the Black Hole of Calcutta.
1963 - The so-called "red telephone" was established between Soviet Union and United States following the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Births:
1389 - John, Duke of Bedford, regent of England (d. 1435)
1909 - Errol Flynn, Australian actor (d. 1959)
Deaths:
451 - Theodorid, King of the Visigoths
Interestingly, 20th June is also the Day of the Royal Victorian Order, and, in ancient Rome, was the day of the festival of Summanus, the god of nocturnal thunder.
Specialist kind of god, apparently.
The aim of the meme is to post your birthday, and then post three events, two births and one death from that day in history.
So, here goes:
20th June:
Events:
1214 - University of Oxford receives its charter.
1756 - British garrison imprisoned in the Black Hole of Calcutta.
1963 - The so-called "red telephone" was established between Soviet Union and United States following the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Births:
1389 - John, Duke of Bedford, regent of England (d. 1435)
1909 - Errol Flynn, Australian actor (d. 1959)
Deaths:
451 - Theodorid, King of the Visigoths
Interestingly, 20th June is also the Day of the Royal Victorian Order, and, in ancient Rome, was the day of the festival of Summanus, the god of nocturnal thunder.
Specialist kind of god, apparently.
An Atheist Manifesto
Sam Harris is the author of The End Of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason, an excerpt from which is posted on Truthdig as "An Atheist Manifesto."
I don't agree with absolutely everything Harris says, but it does make for a fascinating read (as does the entire book) and parts strike a chord, such as:
I don't agree with absolutely everything Harris says, but it does make for a fascinating read (as does the entire book) and parts strike a chord, such as:
"It is worth noting that no one ever needs to identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, atheism is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma."
15.4.06
Poem for the day - Transport for London
The London Underground has been posting "Poems On The Underground" for quite a while now, and they do provide a few moments of distraction, even on the most crowded and jostling of trips.
They also highlight some of our lesser know, but clearly talented, poets.
Poem for the day - Transport for London:
The poets never lied when they praised
Spring in England.
Even in this neat suburb
You can feel there's something to
their pastorals.
Something gentle, broadly nostalgic, is stirring
On the well-aired pavements.
Indrawn brick
Sighs, and you notice the sudden sharpness
Of things growing.
The sun lightens
The significance of what the houses
Are steeped in,
brightens out
Their winter brooding.
Early May
Touches also the cold diasporas
That England hardly mentions.
A.C.Jacobs (1927-1994)
They also highlight some of our lesser know, but clearly talented, poets.
Poem for the day - Transport for London:
The poets never lied when they praised
Spring in England.
Even in this neat suburb
You can feel there's something to
their pastorals.
Something gentle, broadly nostalgic, is stirring
On the well-aired pavements.
Indrawn brick
Sighs, and you notice the sudden sharpness
Of things growing.
The sun lightens
The significance of what the houses
Are steeped in,
brightens out
Their winter brooding.
Early May
Touches also the cold diasporas
That England hardly mentions.
A.C.Jacobs (1927-1994)
Friday Rodent Blogging
Selene likes pumpkin seeds. I mean, really likes pumpkin seeds. They are the means by which I am hand-training her.She has also learned to recognise the sound of our front door opening, and to remember that my usual routine upon coming home involves popping in to give a treat to my favourite rodent. She's usually waiting on top of her wooden house when I switch the light on.
Delay is not tolerated.
Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies
Students at the Georgia Institute of Technology are going to court to fight for their right to be intolerant.
Well, that's how most news sources are putting it. But it's rubbish. People have the right to be as intolerant as they want, nobody denies that right. What Georgia Institute of Technology prohibits is people actively campaigning against minorities on campus.
The plaintiff here wants exceptions made for Christians who want to spread their hatred against homosexuals.
However, as distasteful as this may seem, it hides a different agenda.
This isn't about the right to be intolerant. It's about getting the Christian version of homosexuality - that it's a choice and not something one is born with - established in US law by getting courts to rule in favour of cases which have this misconception as their basis.
The agenda is revealed in the way that the people concerned phrase it:
This isn't about the right to be intolerant. It's about establishing in US law that homosexuality is a choice.
And once you've established that it's a choice, laws protecting it are easier to destroy, and laws preventing it are easier to introduce.
And, of course, with the newly redesigned US Supreme Court the time is ripe for this kind of change.
Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies - Los Angeles Times:
Well, that's how most news sources are putting it. But it's rubbish. People have the right to be as intolerant as they want, nobody denies that right. What Georgia Institute of Technology prohibits is people actively campaigning against minorities on campus.
The plaintiff here wants exceptions made for Christians who want to spread their hatred against homosexuals.
However, as distasteful as this may seem, it hides a different agenda.
This isn't about the right to be intolerant. It's about getting the Christian version of homosexuality - that it's a choice and not something one is born with - established in US law by getting courts to rule in favour of cases which have this misconception as their basis.
The agenda is revealed in the way that the people concerned phrase it:
Even the correction that they later issued has the same principle in it:
Christian activist Gregory S. Baylor responds to such criticism angrily. He says he supports policies that protect people from discrimination based on race and gender. But he draws a distinction that infuriates gay rights activists when he argues that sexual orientation is different — a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait.
"Religious expression: An article in Monday's Section A said Gregory S. Baylor of the Christian Legal Society viewed homosexuality as a lifestyle choice. In fact, he does not have a stance on that issue. As the article noted, he supports policies that protect people from discrimination based on race, gender and other inborn traits. He asserts that antidiscrimination policies regarding homosexuality are different because they protect people based on conduct. Baylor's organization seeks to exempt religious groups from those policies."
This isn't about the right to be intolerant. It's about establishing in US law that homosexuality is a choice.
And once you've established that it's a choice, laws protecting it are easier to destroy, and laws preventing it are easier to introduce.
And, of course, with the newly redesigned US Supreme Court the time is ripe for this kind of change.
Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies - Los Angeles Times:
14.4.06
Top 10 Reasons To Be A Christian
And, written in response to Top 10 Reasons To Be An Atheist (see previous post) comes:
Peeing in the Meme Pool: Top 10 Reasons To Be A Christian
Peeing in the Meme Pool: Top 10 Reasons To Be A Christian
Top 10 Reasons To Be An Atheist
Whilst wandering o'er blog and site, thru' one link or another, I came upon Meet An Atheist (and, apparently, all the good "specialised dating service" jokes have been taken).
Meet An Atheist is an atheist's blog, written by a self-proclaimed "southern bohemian".
By way of an introduction, here's:
Meet An Atheist: Top 10 Reasons To Be An Atheist
Meet An Atheist is an atheist's blog, written by a self-proclaimed "southern bohemian".
By way of an introduction, here's:
Meet An Atheist: Top 10 Reasons To Be An Atheist
12.4.06
Huh?
One of the things I will never miss about living here (see yesterday's post) is the way that a lot of people choose to express the fact that they haven't heard something by saying "huh?"
Oh, but it's not just "huh?"
Normally it's "HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH?"
Now, when I was growing up, my parents used to get on my case if I said "what?" instead of "pardon?" or "I'm sorry?"
I dread to think what they would have done to me if I'd started braying at them like a mortally wounded donkey.
And unlike England - where this shit is slowly catching on - it's not just an affectation of the young.
My job involves talking to a lot of people over the phone and, with my accent, sometimes customers have a harder time understanding me. Old and young people are out there, just braying away. In fact, it's usually the old people that are the loudest and most donkeyesque.
I guess I speak to a wounded donkey, on average, four or five times an hour.
With so many donkeys, you'd think the Democrats would be more successful.
(obscure political joke. Don't worry if you don't get it.)
Oh, but it's not just "huh?"
Normally it's "HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH?"
Now, when I was growing up, my parents used to get on my case if I said "what?" instead of "pardon?" or "I'm sorry?"
I dread to think what they would have done to me if I'd started braying at them like a mortally wounded donkey.
And unlike England - where this shit is slowly catching on - it's not just an affectation of the young.
My job involves talking to a lot of people over the phone and, with my accent, sometimes customers have a harder time understanding me. Old and young people are out there, just braying away. In fact, it's usually the old people that are the loudest and most donkeyesque.
I guess I speak to a wounded donkey, on average, four or five times an hour.
With so many donkeys, you'd think the Democrats would be more successful.
(obscure political joke. Don't worry if you don't get it.)
11.4.06
Homesick
I'm homesick.
It happens from time to time, and I can never know what's going to set it off. Once it was a box of rice crispies, believe it or not. The box looked so familiar out of the corner of my eye that turning around and seeing different characters on the front sent a wave of sadness through me.
Don't get me wrong, I know home is where you make it. I thoroughly enjoy living here in Kentucky. I love the place, I love the people.
But every so often, sometimes for no apparent reason, a tiny, plaintive voice inside me will wail out, "I want to go home."
Today, it was hearing a British accent over the phone at work. But not just a British accent. This guy had an accent - and manner of speaking - so eerily like one of the friends I left in England that I almost asked whether it was some sort of reality-TV setup job.
Anything, it seems, can trigger the sadness. Two years ago it was the Euro 2004 tournament and a desire to chat with someone - anyone - who understood the anguish of seeing England go out again. Not long ago it was an old episode of Blackadder Goes Forth. Stupid things like catching a quick glimpse of a dime and thinking it's a five penny piece.
I miss England. I miss her fish and chips. Her decent beer. Her kebabs. Her telly. Her tea. Her magnificent, late-night, greasy kebabs. I miss her bobbies. Her right-hand drive cars. I really miss those kebabs. I miss her golden syrup, her jam, her jelly, and - by the way - is it too much to ask that a guy get a real shredded wheat around here? I miss wotsits and crunchies and yorkies and weetabix. I miss sausage rolls and cornish pasties. I miss biscuits. I miss seeing the Queen on stamps and money. I miss being able to criticise the government. I miss being an atheist in a country that doesn't reckon atheism as being the next best thing to paedophilia.
I miss my friends most of all.
And, yes, I could easily come up with as long a list of things I don't miss about England. I could come up with a list of things I'd miss about the US, were I to move back.
And, yes, being here as brought me the most wonderful thing ever to have entered my life - Selene.
Okay, I'm kidding.
Really, I'm kidding.
Yes, Mrs Doombreed makes all the homesickness, all the missing, all the plaintive wailing, all I've lost seem insignificant when compared to what I've gained.
Well, maybe everything except the kebabs.
It happens from time to time, and I can never know what's going to set it off. Once it was a box of rice crispies, believe it or not. The box looked so familiar out of the corner of my eye that turning around and seeing different characters on the front sent a wave of sadness through me.
Don't get me wrong, I know home is where you make it. I thoroughly enjoy living here in Kentucky. I love the place, I love the people.
But every so often, sometimes for no apparent reason, a tiny, plaintive voice inside me will wail out, "I want to go home."
Today, it was hearing a British accent over the phone at work. But not just a British accent. This guy had an accent - and manner of speaking - so eerily like one of the friends I left in England that I almost asked whether it was some sort of reality-TV setup job.
Anything, it seems, can trigger the sadness. Two years ago it was the Euro 2004 tournament and a desire to chat with someone - anyone - who understood the anguish of seeing England go out again. Not long ago it was an old episode of Blackadder Goes Forth. Stupid things like catching a quick glimpse of a dime and thinking it's a five penny piece.
I miss England. I miss her fish and chips. Her decent beer. Her kebabs. Her telly. Her tea. Her magnificent, late-night, greasy kebabs. I miss her bobbies. Her right-hand drive cars. I really miss those kebabs. I miss her golden syrup, her jam, her jelly, and - by the way - is it too much to ask that a guy get a real shredded wheat around here? I miss wotsits and crunchies and yorkies and weetabix. I miss sausage rolls and cornish pasties. I miss biscuits. I miss seeing the Queen on stamps and money. I miss being able to criticise the government. I miss being an atheist in a country that doesn't reckon atheism as being the next best thing to paedophilia.
I miss my friends most of all.
And, yes, I could easily come up with as long a list of things I don't miss about England. I could come up with a list of things I'd miss about the US, were I to move back.
And, yes, being here as brought me the most wonderful thing ever to have entered my life - Selene.
Okay, I'm kidding.
Really, I'm kidding.
Yes, Mrs Doombreed makes all the homesickness, all the missing, all the plaintive wailing, all I've lost seem insignificant when compared to what I've gained.
Well, maybe everything except the kebabs.
10.4.06
The Gospel according to ... who?
Well, here's another update to that whole "complete and unalterable word of god" stuff.
It's called The Gospel Of Judas and, basically, puts the character of Judas into a very different light. Apparently, the gospel was banned by the early Christian church because the view that Jesus knew Judas was going to betray him and gave his blessing was heretical.
Not that this is any surprise to anyone with the ability to think rationally. I mean.. he was.. like.. god, right? How could he not have known? And that whole "dirty Jews killed our lord" hatred that's been festering for a few millennia, what's that about? Wasn't the whole point that he was supposed to die? So didn't the Jews do him a favour?
Okay, back to reality here. Rationailty not high on the agenda.
So there's another bit to The Bible that we've never seen before?
Big deal.
I'm still waiting for the page that reads "To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitous and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental."
It's called The Gospel Of Judas and, basically, puts the character of Judas into a very different light. Apparently, the gospel was banned by the early Christian church because the view that Jesus knew Judas was going to betray him and gave his blessing was heretical.
Not that this is any surprise to anyone with the ability to think rationally. I mean.. he was.. like.. god, right? How could he not have known? And that whole "dirty Jews killed our lord" hatred that's been festering for a few millennia, what's that about? Wasn't the whole point that he was supposed to die? So didn't the Jews do him a favour?
Okay, back to reality here. Rationailty not high on the agenda.
So there's another bit to The Bible that we've never seen before?
Big deal.
I'm still waiting for the page that reads "To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitous and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental."
9.4.06
Lucky Number Slevin
No, that's not a typo. The film is called Lucky Number Slevin and, although the title and advertising pieces have the "L" in "Slevin" as an upside-down "7", any similarities with Se7en end with that and Morgan Freeman.
This movie is outstanding. It's hard to talk about it without giving away the many plot twists, but here's it sanitised:
Slevin (Josh Hartnett) is visiting Nick in New York after losing his job, his apartment and his girlfriend where, immediately upon arrival, he's mugged and his wallet stolen. Upon arrival at his Nick's apartment he finds his friend missing and mobsters there, all set to embark on a massive case of mistaken identity. Nick owes both The Boss and The Rabbi (Morgan Freeman and Sir Ben Kingsley, respectively) - rival mob bosses terrified to leave their fortified penthouses - large amounts of money, and Bruce Willis plays pretty much the same role as he did in The Jackal. Lucy Liu plays Nick's neighbour who sets out to unravel the mystery of Nick's whereabouts and...
...the Spoiler Police would lock me up if I told you any more details.
This is a great movie. Dramatic and entertaining. Intelligent and darkly humourous. And, yes, a little Tarantinoesque in the blood content at times.
Well worth watching.
Doombreed Rating: *****
This movie is outstanding. It's hard to talk about it without giving away the many plot twists, but here's it sanitised:
Slevin (Josh Hartnett) is visiting Nick in New York after losing his job, his apartment and his girlfriend where, immediately upon arrival, he's mugged and his wallet stolen. Upon arrival at his Nick's apartment he finds his friend missing and mobsters there, all set to embark on a massive case of mistaken identity. Nick owes both The Boss and The Rabbi (Morgan Freeman and Sir Ben Kingsley, respectively) - rival mob bosses terrified to leave their fortified penthouses - large amounts of money, and Bruce Willis plays pretty much the same role as he did in The Jackal. Lucy Liu plays Nick's neighbour who sets out to unravel the mystery of Nick's whereabouts and...
...the Spoiler Police would lock me up if I told you any more details.
This is a great movie. Dramatic and entertaining. Intelligent and darkly humourous. And, yes, a little Tarantinoesque in the blood content at times.
Well worth watching.
Doombreed Rating: *****
Ice Age 2: The Meltdown
Once again, I'm Doombreed and I'm a child.
We went to see Ice Age 2: The Meltdown.
And it was good. If you loved the first movie, you'll love this one. If you hated the first movie, you're a boring fart with no hope for recovery. Go work for the tax people.
It's more of the same, yes, but it's even funnier.
Doombreed rating: ****1/2
We went to see Ice Age 2: The Meltdown.
And it was good. If you loved the first movie, you'll love this one. If you hated the first movie, you're a boring fart with no hope for recovery. Go work for the tax people.
It's more of the same, yes, but it's even funnier.
Doombreed rating: ****1/2
8.4.06
Friday Rodent Blogging
We've been having some pretty severe thunderstorms around here today, and Selene was getting freaked out with every crash. However, by the time this pic was taken, she was back to her old self and, as we can see, waving to her many fans.
7.4.06
Oh, fer cryin' out loud...
Okay. I was bored and yesterday I posted the South Park character generator. What?!
Stargate: SG1 meets South Park. Super-sweet!
5.4.06
4.4.06
V for Vendetta (reprise)
I've been reading many reviews of V for Vendetta by various Christians* who are annoyed at the fact that the movie's hero is - their usual choice of word - a terrorist who targets Christians.
But, wait. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems very clear to me that the government in the movie is not a Christian government. They are simply using Christianity as the means to impose totalitarianism.
Look at history. The Nazi party in Germany used socialism as a mask for their totalitarianism. The Communist party in the USSR used communism as a mask for their totalitarianism. Quite a few of the worst dictatorships in the Middle East use Islam as a mask for their totalitarianism. Not too long ago, bits of Europe were ruled over by governments who used Christianity as a mask for even more totalitarianism.
Seeing the common denominator, yet?
The government in V for Vendetta is no more Christian than the Nazi party were socialists or the Communist party were communists. At least, not Christianity as depicted in The Bible. Christianity as some might want it, maybe.
In fact, the only way that a person could be offended by this movie - using their Christian faith as a jumping point - is if they believe that the government depicted in the movie is exactly how a Christian government should behave.
And that's a truly scary thought.
*See here, here, here, and here for some, few, examples of what I'm talking about.
But, wait. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems very clear to me that the government in the movie is not a Christian government. They are simply using Christianity as the means to impose totalitarianism.
Look at history. The Nazi party in Germany used socialism as a mask for their totalitarianism. The Communist party in the USSR used communism as a mask for their totalitarianism. Quite a few of the worst dictatorships in the Middle East use Islam as a mask for their totalitarianism. Not too long ago, bits of Europe were ruled over by governments who used Christianity as a mask for even more totalitarianism.
Seeing the common denominator, yet?
The government in V for Vendetta is no more Christian than the Nazi party were socialists or the Communist party were communists. At least, not Christianity as depicted in The Bible. Christianity as some might want it, maybe.
In fact, the only way that a person could be offended by this movie - using their Christian faith as a jumping point - is if they believe that the government depicted in the movie is exactly how a Christian government should behave.
And that's a truly scary thought.
*See here, here, here, and here for some, few, examples of what I'm talking about.
3.4.06
Banquets of the Black Widowers
I must confess to being something of an Isaac Asimov fan. As far as I'm concerned, no writer has contributed more quality work to the literary world than he, and I had thought myself fairly well-read in his works.
Until, that is, my wife brought home a copy of Banquets of the Black Widowers for me the other day. I had never heard of this book - unsurprising considering Asimov's over four hundred books in print - but had also never heard of the series.
The Black Widowers series, which number six volumes - Tales, More Tales, The Casebook, Banquets, Puzzles, and The Return - spin short stories of a group of six friends who hold monthly dinners at New York's Milano restaurant.
Each month, one member, excluding the esteemed and peerless waiter, Henry, serves a turn as host, wherein they are required to bring a guest. The guest is, in return for the sumptuous free meal, required to submit to questioning by the members. Each question session starts with a demand that the guest justify his - and Asimov shows great insight by making this group just chauvinistic enough to exclude women from the meetings - existence. Not an easy question to answer. Try it for yourself.
Each guest then, under questioning, reveals a puzzle that has been taxing him - even if he did not know it - and the Widowers solve it for him.
Actually, it's almost always Henry that solves it, but he diplomatically allows the other members a shot first.
Banquets is a fascinating read, even more so because Asimov had to come up with the puzzles as well as the solutions, and represents, in this blogger's opinion, the man's unrivalled genius at its peak.
And, with a birthday coming up, I think I know what to ask for...
Until, that is, my wife brought home a copy of Banquets of the Black Widowers for me the other day. I had never heard of this book - unsurprising considering Asimov's over four hundred books in print - but had also never heard of the series.
The Black Widowers series, which number six volumes - Tales, More Tales, The Casebook, Banquets, Puzzles, and The Return - spin short stories of a group of six friends who hold monthly dinners at New York's Milano restaurant.
Each month, one member, excluding the esteemed and peerless waiter, Henry, serves a turn as host, wherein they are required to bring a guest. The guest is, in return for the sumptuous free meal, required to submit to questioning by the members. Each question session starts with a demand that the guest justify his - and Asimov shows great insight by making this group just chauvinistic enough to exclude women from the meetings - existence. Not an easy question to answer. Try it for yourself.
Each guest then, under questioning, reveals a puzzle that has been taxing him - even if he did not know it - and the Widowers solve it for him.
Actually, it's almost always Henry that solves it, but he diplomatically allows the other members a shot first.
Banquets is a fascinating read, even more so because Asimov had to come up with the puzzles as well as the solutions, and represents, in this blogger's opinion, the man's unrivalled genius at its peak.
And, with a birthday coming up, I think I know what to ask for...
The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism
The Imminient Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism is a great collection of Creationist quotes predicting the end of the theory of Evolution, including comments reported in today's Lexington Herald Leader.
What's amusing is that these comments - all setting the death of Evolution as being within the next few decades - date back as far as the nineteenth century.
This is my favourite, which dates from 1904 - over a hundred years ago.
And in a hundred years, we'll still be hearing this kind of prediction.
What's amusing is that these comments - all setting the death of Evolution as being within the next few decades - date back as far as the nineteenth century.
This is my favourite, which dates from 1904 - over a hundred years ago.
"Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain than that Darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science. It has seen its day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past. A few decades hence when people will look back upon the history of the doctrine of Descent, they will confess that the years between 1860 and 1880 were in many respects a time of carnival; and the enthusiasm which at that time took possession of the devotees of natural science will appear to them as the excitement attending some mad revel." Eberhard Dennert, At the Deathbed of Darwinism,
And in a hundred years, we'll still be hearing this kind of prediction.
22nd Praetorian Update (2)
I decided to get creative with some of the bitz left over from my Rough Riders (see previous post). So, with the unholy melding of a Cadian's legs and belt order items with a Warhammer Fantasy knight's torso, arms, head, sword and cloak comes a new standard bearer for the 22nd.
2.4.06
22nd Praetorian Update
My Rough Riders are assembled. Now, all that remains is to paint them. Which is, traditionally, where I come unglued (pun intended).
RAMEN!
And another hat-tip ro RSR for the news that The Gospel Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster is now available.
Nice...
Hat-tip to Pat Hayes over at Red State Rabble for reminding us all to celebrate April 1st as Intelligent Design Day.
1.4.06
Friday Rodent Blogging
Selene's colour change is almost complete. Even the last remaining light patch on the back of her head has gone dark.
Obviously some sort of night camouflage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)