|
| One would think that
after eight years of failure, Americans would learn and be more educated in
political affairs. John McCain has proven that Americans are just as dumb
as they were when they elected the pinnacle of incompetence and
fear-mongering in to office not once, but twice, by picking Sarah Palin as
his running mate. The media and some Americans (on internet forums and
from video clips on YouTube and the news shows [which of course could be and
are filtered/taken out of context by the media]) are praising his
decision and defending Palin, building her up as some kind of legitimate
political force.
First of all, their
praise and defense is so weak that it is an argument against Palin. The best
things they have come up with to legitimize Palin is that she is a mother of
five (one of whom has Down's Syndrome), she is a sharpshooter, has small-town
values, she shows that anybody can be President, a mayor of
a town of somewhere between 7,000 and 10,000 (depending on the source of the
figure), and the Governor of Alaska. It should be clear why most of these
arguments are ridiculous, but I will go over them, anyway.
I. A mother of five: If being a
parent qualifies someone to be President, then all of the candidates
are equally qualified. If it is the sheer quantity of children, then
why don't we find the person with the most progeny (and, in case of a
tie, the one who has the more severely handicapped children) and stick
them right in to office without any of this non-sense voting. The
defenders say that this shows that she can balance work and life. In
today's society, being the biological parent of a child does not mean
that that parent is actually raising them. How many children of
dual-working parents are raised by their daycare or grandparents or
whomever? It is a large number, I'm sure. Also, they are completely
discounting the role of the father. Maybe he is a substantial figure
in raising the children. Perhaps not, but it could be.
II.
Sharpshooter? Seriously? How does this help? I guess, at least
when she goes hunting, this VP will actually shoot the birds and not her
companions.
III. What are
small-town values? The small-town "values" that come to mind from my
experience of growing up in a small town are: racism, homophobia, general
bigotry, drunkenness, piss-poor education, and pregnant teenagers. In her
acceptance speech, she quoted a reporter who, in reference to Harry Truman, said
that small towns grow great people. That may have been the case in 1884
(Truman's birth year) when hard work and honesty were the small-town values that
are no longer existent in our society, and especially in
politics.
IV. Anybody can be
President: Since when is this a good thing? How many "anybody"s do you
know who you would want to be President? The President of the United
States, historically dubbed (perhaps erroneously in recent times) as the
Leader of the Free World, should have the most rigorous requirements and
the strictest tests. Only the cream of the crop should run for
President. And, yes, sometimes these "anybody"s have done remarkable jobs
(like Lincoln) and sometimes they do awful jobs (like Carter and Bush [an
"anybody" in the sense that he was not known on his own merit, but on his
father's]).
V. I know the mayor
of a town larger than Wasilla and you would not know he is the mayor,
because... he does nothing. There are practically no responsibilities in
such a small town. Maybe once a year the main street has construction or
needs a traffic light changed or there is a festival (handled by a committee)...
hardly strenous work.
VI.
Alaska? Come on. For one thing, the fact that she was elected by the
same people who elected Senator Ted Stevens to seven (really six and a half, as
he was elected to replace someone) terms. The same man who stood on the
Senate floor and delivered
this abortion of a speech (if you know anything about the
internet, this video is hysterical... that is, until you realize that
this is one of the 100 men and women who decide much of the future of
our country... then it is very, very sad and pathetic) (full transcript here).
That aside, what issues does Alaska deal with? The oil and pipeline?
Hardly a state matter, as that would fall under the national umbrella,
I'm sure. One pundit (and I just found that McCain just said it, too)
actually had the nerve to say that she had foreign affairs experience
because Alaska is close to Russia. Think about that for a minute.
Even if experience like that was gained through proximity, the area of
Russia that Alaska is near is tundra, with a staggeringly low
population density. A far cry from Moscow which is practically a whole
continent away.
And then you look at
her on the issues... if you can. Has she made any of her issues
public? The only ones I know are her stance on abortion and sexual
education. She wants to completely illegalize abortion with no
exceptions. Like this administration's completely misguided war on drugs,
the illegalization of abortion is a terrible policy. Just like drugs,
people will still find ways to get abortions and they will not be safe or
regulated. And where is the separation of church and state? Who are
they to enforce their theological beliefs on the nation (even if these beliefs
do coincide with the majority of its inhabitants)? And, she wants
abstinence-only education, one of the biggest reasons that AIDS is still such an
epidemic in Africa (where missionaries taught abstinence-only to the natives) and
in the world. Again, people will still have sex. Educate them and at
least slow and hopefully prevent the spread of AIDS, other diseases that condoms help to prevent, and
teen pregnancies.
She admitted in 2007 (of course,
she can learn, but put that up against Biden's decades of foreign
policy experience and she falls way flat) that she knew nothing about
the war in Iraq (this also helps to prove my earlier point that she is
not that involved as a mother, as she is sending a son to Iraq, but...
doesn't know why) and that she has no real clue about what the VP does
on a day-to-day basis. What kind of economical policies does she
have? What is her stance on education (I will admit that she joined
the PTA in her hometown and I have heard claims that she tried to
improve education in Alaska, but what is her national plan)? Is Iran a
threat? What of Afghanistan and Pakistan? And the Georgian situation?
She is being
shielded from the media and in her few appearances, she has only been an attack
dog on Obama. My favorite attack is the
charge that Obama comes from a "do-nothing Senate" (Palin's acceptance
speech). First of all, Palin, your VP candidate... oh wait... your
Presidential candidate (it is hard to remember who is running for what position
on the Republican ticket) is from the same Senate. And you want
to know why they "do nothing?" How about Republicans breaking
the record of filibusters in the current Senate term? Broke the
record of 58 with a whopping 77.
Then there is the implicit motive of selecting Sarah Palin -- a nobody
from Alaska -- because she is a woman, in the hopes of syphoning off
the Hillary supporters who felt scorned by Obama's selection of Biden
over HRC (a beautiful move in my book, but I have been an ardent Biden
fan since the primaries, so I may be biased). Not only is this stupid,
but also demeaning to women. To basically say that, "hey, you wanted
to vote for a woman, then we will give you a woman to vote for, despite
the fact that she has completely different beliefs and stances on the
issues." Any women swayed by this move are clearly not thinking and
are an insult to the female gender.
Notice that I
have not mentioned her pregnant teen daughter or other family issues, as I think
those are out-of-place in a political discussion, or her possible
scandals. In my view, you do not need to dig to find criticisms
of Palin. It is all so evident. Look at what she has
presented. It isn't much. How can anyone in the world take her
seriously, and on top of that, consider her the perfect choice for McCain's
VP? Heck, look at the names of her children: Track, Trig, Bristol, Willow,
and Piper. Who would name their kids Track, Trig, Bristol, or Willow (I'm
okay with Piper)? That is reason enough to laugh her off the
table.
| | |
| Sitting on my desk today was the book that I have been reading on the commute to work (have no fear, I take the light rail). This book is called Darwin's Ghost and is an updated version of The Origin of Species. Every time I bring in a new book, a woman stops by, looks at it, and reads what it's about. Today, she saw the title and said, "Darwin, huh?" in a tone that I knew meant she didn't approve. I asked, "not a fan of Darwin, eh?" and she said, "he's the guy who believes there was no creator. That goes against everything I believe."
Ignoring the big issue for now, why does evolution have to disprove God? Why can't evolution be a tool that God used to create the world as it is today? If God ignored science to create a few things, we would be able to empirically verify that we came to Earth just as we are today. If we have solid proof that would provide any kind of solid evidence that God existed, what role would faith play? Charles Darwin was actually on the path to becoming a priest or monk or something, I believe. He continually tried to reconcile his findings with his belief and ended up being unable to do so. But that doesn't mean that everyone else has to.
On to the bigger issue. How can someone flat out ignore something that is scientifically verifiable (at least, to some extent; I haven't read the entire book yet) only because that goes against their beliefs, and even worse flat out admit that? I know it happens all the time, but typically I would think of some uneducated hillbilly doing that. Not someone who has had a college education and works in a fairly competitive field, where she will have to stay informed and good at what she does. Not only is it a sign of foolishness, but it also seems like she has weak faith. If the only way to maintain her faith is to ignore truth, then how strong can her faith be if it would be so easily shaken?
I went to her later to get some data set-up, and I was so amazed that she could perform even the simplest task on her computer, because she seemed so dumb to me after that. But, who am I to judge? It's just frustrating.
| | |
| I originally was just going to post this as a reply to this, but it turned out to be my own Dark Knight review, so I decided to post it here where others can add to this chain of reviews. I am not trying to change anyone's mind, I just wanted to argue a few points and give my opinion on them. The first complaint is about Batman taking a backseat to Harvey Dent, the Joker, and Rachel Dawes. I'm not sure if this means in acting skill or character development, so I will defend both. I think Christian Bale's acting was great. I will admit that a few times, his voice was too much. For intimidation and such, the super-gruff voice is great (think of the "SWEAR TO ME!" line from Batman Begins... chilling). When he is just discussing things with Gordon... it is a bit much. Playing Batman places the actor in a bit of a quandary, as well. The actor has to play a normal man disguising (or acting) as another person. Bruce Wayne often says in both movies that Batman has no limits and cannot show weakness or a flaw. This gives the portrayal of Batman little leeway with creative direction and character development. The actor must stick to the icon of Batman and portray him as unwavering guardian of Gotham. As Bruce Wayne, Bale does better than any past actor playing Wayne. In the public, he plays the spoiled playboy very well (this adds a third character to portray for the actor playing Bruce/Batman) and in private, he also plays the true Bruce Wayne - a conflicted and hurt man - very well. Given my earlier argument about Batman presenting an unchanging character, this cuts off his legs for much character development. Despite that, Batman has many struggles in the film, which I cannot discuss here because I want to spoil nothing. The private Bruce Wayne shows a lot of conflicts and pain, but we see little of this private Bruce Wayne. Aside from all of that, the movie was already longer than most movies, and they had much development to do. They had to establish Harvey Dent as the DA, then show a flaw that could get exploited to turn him in to a villain. They also had to introduce the Joker and make him a threat (which they did with much aplomb). Also, Batman Begins was Bruce/Batman's movie. That was where all of the origins and motivation of Batman was explained and retreading that would have killed the excellent pace the Dark Knight set. The next complaint was that the fight scenes were too fast and complex. Most of Batman's fighting was simple elbows to the head or back of the thug, or maybe a solid punch. It never seemed too fast. It seemed realistic which is what makes the Nolan Batman movies excellent. Also, fending off dogs is not at all the same as fighting humans, which is what Bruce Wayne has trained himself to fight. It makes perfect sense that he would not have the skills and tools to fend off dogs. Speaking of tools, I think that Nolan was not going for the typical superhero movie here and he was trying to break the mold by having it be realistic. The lack of gadgets is great. It removed any campiness from the movie, although, yes, the bat sonar thing was over-the-top. At least they had an explanation for the way it worked, although, if you think about the way phones are built... it would not work, at all. Maggie Gyllenhaal is my only complaint about this movie. The interrogation of Lau scene was a very weak moment for her, acting-wise. Other than that, she did fine... she's just ugly. So, needless to say, I am almost completely in disagreement with your opinion of the movie. I think it is easily the best superhero movie ever made, and I think it is one of the greatest movies of any genre. I have tried hard to find flaws in the movie, because nothing can be that good. But, with much effort, I have only come up with three and they are mostly minor (Maggie Gyllenhaal, Batman's voice a few times, and the dismissal of Joker in the house... what happened after?). I hope they don't make a third movie in this series, because they will NEVER top this one. Ledger's performance was perfect and should not be attempted to top. This is a masterpiece and should not be soiled by dragging it out. | | |
| "The sun melts the snow that fell yesterday. Makes you wonder why it bothered." I often am too easily frustrated or confused as to why some people do the things they do, because I fail to see what purpose their actions may have served. This lyric helps put this in perspective. Sometimes there is no real purpose. Ignoring the moisture that snow would deliver to plants and such, it seems like there was no purpose for the snow to fall. Except that there wasn't a choice for it. The moisture in the air became such that it had to come down. Not all actions are functional. Or at least not visibly functional. | | |
| In the beginning months of my job, I walked around the floor to keep my blood flowing and get away from my desk for a bit. Now, I walk around to talk to people. I enjoy this. In less than four months, I have forged many relationships in a floor of older, mostly married people. I talk to more people than some people who have worked there for several years. I met an ex-Great-West-employee at happy hour Thursday for the first time, and eight hours later, we had discussed many deep conversation topics like her own insecurities, religion, and such. That same day I met a few people I had worked with in the job before this one who I had not seen in four months.
Years ago, maybe even a year ago, if someone had told me that this would be so and that I would greatly enjoy these interactions, I would have smacked them on the face and called them a dirty liar. I view myself as socially inept (I think there is a basis for that, though, because at one point, I think I was), although, it seems like the evidence indicates that is not the case.
The evolution of a person is quite interesting. I wonder what new characteristics I will exhibit or will have lost five years from now.
| | |
|
