Monday, January 3, 2011
What is a dream job?
I don't know about any of you, but to me, this seems like the best type of job.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
2011
As an attempt to make an auspicious start to the new year, I have to decide to give myself a test: one post every day for the month of January (or the equivalent within the whole month).
And not only that, since the beginning of a new year is a good time to increase one's discipline, each post will have some piece of meat--something worth thinking about, discussing, or just discovering. This is for my own good more than anyone else's...
Since this is the first post of the month and serves partly as an announcement, I'll just end with a question.
What happened at Salem, Massachusetts in the year of 1692? What a few years ago I had thought was an obvious example of demonic influence in the Puritan communities I have observed to be redrawn by the majority of modern interpretations as the product of spoiled rye, jealousies, or misguided and dogmatic notions.
And not only that, since the beginning of a new year is a good time to increase one's discipline, each post will have some piece of meat--something worth thinking about, discussing, or just discovering. This is for my own good more than anyone else's...
Since this is the first post of the month and serves partly as an announcement, I'll just end with a question.
What happened at Salem, Massachusetts in the year of 1692? What a few years ago I had thought was an obvious example of demonic influence in the Puritan communities I have observed to be redrawn by the majority of modern interpretations as the product of spoiled rye, jealousies, or misguided and dogmatic notions.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Sing Off
So, I watched this show that my mother suggested from Facebook. I went in with fairly low expectations, which is always a good thing.
I was somewhat impressed by the first episode, a few groups were entertaining and performed quite nicely. In fact, I enjoyed it enough that I wanted to see the next one, even though each episode is an hour and a half long.
Really, though, the "expert" panel of judges was a letdown... They could have been scathing (one of them at least), like Simon on Britain's Got Talent, or something like that. But no, they had praise for every group. And Nicole... don't even get me started, but that woman needs to learn how to gut a performance when it deserves that.
The announcer? All he seemed good for was repeating a bunch of cliches and tag phrases and stating the obvious. Not sure why they need him at all.
While watching the first two episodes, I was rating most of the groups on a scale from 1 to 10, 10 being basically impossible to attain, and 1 being... well... we won't go there.
The Whiffenpoofs were the best group, of course. Also the most traditional in style, but whatever. That had nothing to do with my opinion. Almost nothing. The worst were probably Men of Note, and they got eliminated in the first round. So, no problem there.
But tragedy of tragedies, the Whiffenpoofs, for no logical reason whatever, were eliminated in episode two. Seriously, that was a misguided decision.
And, for those of you who haven't seen the show, and if this does not make any sense, I wouldn't strongly recommend it. It is interesting though. It does seem as if it would mostly appeal to the ignorant masses who are led by pop music, however. Nevertheless, it is always interesting to see some truly skillful coordination of singing and sound.
I was somewhat impressed by the first episode, a few groups were entertaining and performed quite nicely. In fact, I enjoyed it enough that I wanted to see the next one, even though each episode is an hour and a half long.
Really, though, the "expert" panel of judges was a letdown... They could have been scathing (one of them at least), like Simon on Britain's Got Talent, or something like that. But no, they had praise for every group. And Nicole... don't even get me started, but that woman needs to learn how to gut a performance when it deserves that.
The announcer? All he seemed good for was repeating a bunch of cliches and tag phrases and stating the obvious. Not sure why they need him at all.
While watching the first two episodes, I was rating most of the groups on a scale from 1 to 10, 10 being basically impossible to attain, and 1 being... well... we won't go there.
The Whiffenpoofs were the best group, of course. Also the most traditional in style, but whatever. That had nothing to do with my opinion. Almost nothing. The worst were probably Men of Note, and they got eliminated in the first round. So, no problem there.
But tragedy of tragedies, the Whiffenpoofs, for no logical reason whatever, were eliminated in episode two. Seriously, that was a misguided decision.
And, for those of you who haven't seen the show, and if this does not make any sense, I wouldn't strongly recommend it. It is interesting though. It does seem as if it would mostly appeal to the ignorant masses who are led by pop music, however. Nevertheless, it is always interesting to see some truly skillful coordination of singing and sound.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
A most humiliating revelation
It was a sad day for that son of Hoyt blood when he discovered a comment from one sister on his Facebook page:
"wEIrd"
That is all. Of words, no more; of meaning, no greater explanation. But, it did not take him long to discover its import.
Was she correcting his spelling of the word in his wall post: "wierd"? But, how could it be, since he was so certain of that spelling? With doubt increasing in his mind, he explored a new browser tab and entered his own spelling of the disputed adjective into that ever popular and useful dictionary, the Google search engine.
Imagine his emotions when he discovered this caption in the first result to be produced: "Used by people that cannot correctly spell the word 'weird.'" The incredulity, and then the shame! He groaned and threw himself to the ground, dragging his countenance in the dust. From childhood he had been misled! And, to be classed with "people who cannot correctly spell..."!
I perceive now that it was an ill-timed piece of advise for me to note that had he given a greater application to the language arts for his own improvement, he probably would have been spared this incident which occasioned so much remorseful agony. Indeed, he would have been spared the mortifying realization that he, who readily criticized the illiteracy so often found in the utterances of the American tongue, was also guilty of such a simple misuse of language. Needless to say, he did not receive these accurate assertions with an impartiality that I would have hoped of him.
Generally, sage advice is not wasted upon him, but this time I thought it had been. Entirely irregardless of that matter, I thought I would make it known to others so that they might take note and improve their minds by it.
With sincere regards,
Trallferd (JALGT)
"wEIrd"
That is all. Of words, no more; of meaning, no greater explanation. But, it did not take him long to discover its import.
Was she correcting his spelling of the word in his wall post: "wierd"? But, how could it be, since he was so certain of that spelling? With doubt increasing in his mind, he explored a new browser tab and entered his own spelling of the disputed adjective into that ever popular and useful dictionary, the Google search engine.
Imagine his emotions when he discovered this caption in the first result to be produced: "Used by people that cannot correctly spell the word 'weird.'" The incredulity, and then the shame! He groaned and threw himself to the ground, dragging his countenance in the dust. From childhood he had been misled! And, to be classed with "people who cannot correctly spell..."!
I perceive now that it was an ill-timed piece of advise for me to note that had he given a greater application to the language arts for his own improvement, he probably would have been spared this incident which occasioned so much remorseful agony. Indeed, he would have been spared the mortifying realization that he, who readily criticized the illiteracy so often found in the utterances of the American tongue, was also guilty of such a simple misuse of language. Needless to say, he did not receive these accurate assertions with an impartiality that I would have hoped of him.
Generally, sage advice is not wasted upon him, but this time I thought it had been. Entirely irregardless of that matter, I thought I would make it known to others so that they might take note and improve their minds by it.
With sincere regards,
Trallferd (JALGT)
Thursday, October 14, 2010
This guy is kind of awesome.
Talk about discussing the controversial and hot topics--he takes on Linux.
I could not help erupting in laughter when he mentioned wireless drivers.
I could not help erupting in laughter when he mentioned wireless drivers.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Movie Review
So, after recently procuring the two latest Batman movies, I proceeded to watch them both this weekend and give myself a second taste of what they had to offer.
Definitely, they rank high on my list of favorites. (An interesting thing can be observed about Batman Begins and The Dark Knight: They aren't so very much like another superhero series: Spiderman. They strike me as a lot more serious and grown-up than the Spiderman series, sort of like they recognize more of what life is actually like. Perhaps, that's they are more appealing. The action is nearly as good, if not better, and... Bruce Wayne does not have any super powers--further increasing the realism.)
Now, one thing I was particularly keen on observing this round of seeing the two films is that degree to which they form a single entity or are continuous. That subject has plagued the fullness of my approval for the movies, and especially The Dark Knight. I was somewhat disappointed that Dark Knight is so very different than the first one. It seems to take the series down a very different direction. I can think of a couple examples of this observed deviation.
1. They discontinued or changed several characters. Rachel Dawes is the most obvious example of this. Now, far be it from me that I should make such a big deal of their choice of actress for a particular role. But, she is nothing like the first Rachel. But, since this isn't a very easily defended point, I don't think I am going to press the issue a whole lot. I'll just say that she looked and sounded like a regular Carrie Fisher. Perhaps, a stronger point can be made for the fact that there are no flashbacks with Bruce's father. He was such a key figure in Bruce's decisions and thoughts of the first film. Now, it's like he is forgotten.
2. The Dark Knight is so much more... dark. Now, that may seem like a stupid quibble, but one must admit that the characteristic greatly alters the bent started in the first film. Don't get me wrong. The dark atmosphere is a very valuable asset for what the movie does accomplish--delivering a masterpiece of plot and the study of human character.
Upon further reflection after finishing The Dark Knight this evening, I decided that the difference between the aura of the two films is actually very realistic. When you consider the lives of real people, you do not see a consistency in how events play out in their lives or the nature of their environment. You see changes, not just between the triumphs and the failures, but also with the circumstances over which we have no control.
The second Batman movie takes this into account. Perhaps, they did not intend it. But, whatever the case, we see in the second movie, that even while Batman gains a respected although necessarily vicious role (having come from somewhat scummy roots) in the first chapter of the series, he becomes a somewhat ominous character that is causing more pain than happiness in the lives of those around him, whether he intends it or not. Life does not play out like a straight road, or a consistent set of circumstances. It plays out in such a way that we cannot predict to where it will lead us next.
So, in a way, I think I appreciate the Batman movies so much because they teach us a little bit of truth. But, one can push that point only so far. Ultimately, they still form a godless (I mean that in the literal manner, not in the more denouncing way it is usually used.) story. What that means, taking the second movie as an example, is that the cure for chaotic evil is the steady purpose and good that come out of us as humans. In reality, we can only do that because God helps us do it. Because He first did it Himself.
Definitely, they rank high on my list of favorites. (An interesting thing can be observed about Batman Begins and The Dark Knight: They aren't so very much like another superhero series: Spiderman. They strike me as a lot more serious and grown-up than the Spiderman series, sort of like they recognize more of what life is actually like. Perhaps, that's they are more appealing. The action is nearly as good, if not better, and... Bruce Wayne does not have any super powers--further increasing the realism.)
Now, one thing I was particularly keen on observing this round of seeing the two films is that degree to which they form a single entity or are continuous. That subject has plagued the fullness of my approval for the movies, and especially The Dark Knight. I was somewhat disappointed that Dark Knight is so very different than the first one. It seems to take the series down a very different direction. I can think of a couple examples of this observed deviation.
1. They discontinued or changed several characters. Rachel Dawes is the most obvious example of this. Now, far be it from me that I should make such a big deal of their choice of actress for a particular role. But, she is nothing like the first Rachel. But, since this isn't a very easily defended point, I don't think I am going to press the issue a whole lot. I'll just say that she looked and sounded like a regular Carrie Fisher. Perhaps, a stronger point can be made for the fact that there are no flashbacks with Bruce's father. He was such a key figure in Bruce's decisions and thoughts of the first film. Now, it's like he is forgotten.
2. The Dark Knight is so much more... dark. Now, that may seem like a stupid quibble, but one must admit that the characteristic greatly alters the bent started in the first film. Don't get me wrong. The dark atmosphere is a very valuable asset for what the movie does accomplish--delivering a masterpiece of plot and the study of human character.
Upon further reflection after finishing The Dark Knight this evening, I decided that the difference between the aura of the two films is actually very realistic. When you consider the lives of real people, you do not see a consistency in how events play out in their lives or the nature of their environment. You see changes, not just between the triumphs and the failures, but also with the circumstances over which we have no control.
The second Batman movie takes this into account. Perhaps, they did not intend it. But, whatever the case, we see in the second movie, that even while Batman gains a respected although necessarily vicious role (having come from somewhat scummy roots) in the first chapter of the series, he becomes a somewhat ominous character that is causing more pain than happiness in the lives of those around him, whether he intends it or not. Life does not play out like a straight road, or a consistent set of circumstances. It plays out in such a way that we cannot predict to where it will lead us next.
So, in a way, I think I appreciate the Batman movies so much because they teach us a little bit of truth. But, one can push that point only so far. Ultimately, they still form a godless (I mean that in the literal manner, not in the more denouncing way it is usually used.) story. What that means, taking the second movie as an example, is that the cure for chaotic evil is the steady purpose and good that come out of us as humans. In reality, we can only do that because God helps us do it. Because He first did it Himself.
Monday, September 6, 2010
November this year.
This year's elections may prove to be very interesting. There are interesting projections for the results of the elections. And, a fair number of people seem to be already sick of not only liberal policies, but the whole slew of politicians in general. This sounds positive, but I am not overly excited.
Why? We still have political parties! Okay, well maybe that is rather too high of a hope for the outcome of a turnaround in people's minds. But, really... that is what it is going to take. Or, something akin to it. I don't know... maybe candidates being people with public trust and virtue who are asked to rise to the occasion by the people, instead of self-focused political tryouts and status quo-oriented politicians.
Remember the days when it was inappropriate to run a campaign? No, of course not. That was before any of us were born. Do you remember reading about it?
And yes, two hundred years back it wasn't all light and glory. Not only was there corruption and dangerous economic schemes, we also had a lot of blight: some of the worst of which was a loathsome trade and traffic in human beings.
But, getting back to the point... when I scrutinize the arena of our government and the practice of this trade called politics, I come upon with at least two big problems, which, if not fixed, will hinder satisfaction with our role as the voters.(It will hinder my satisfaction, at least.)
1. Long-term service. Oh yes, it's nice that they are willing to serve their country so long--do you wander why?--but really, after a little bit of time in there (maybe even before they get in), they just seem to pickle and sour or start to rot outright. And part of it, I am sure, is the bureaucracy, special interest leverage, and this new devious practice called 'getting bills through.' But, yes, that comes with practice and that beautiful asset--experience.
What if you stuck a fisherman or an engineer or such in a Senator or Representative's seat, gave them minimal staff (maybe none--certainly not any with any experience on Capitol Hill or as lawyers), and swore them in to perform their duties as outlined in the Constitution (you know, that document that nobody reads anymore). Imagine also that this person was elected knowing he would only be able to serve one term--the people of his district/state were that fickle. What would happen? Think about it for a few minutes.
I quiver to think what would happen.
I guess that is one of the best ways I can illustrate the problem of long-term service. Needless to say, I will be giving the incumbent candidates this election cycle automatic doubt--unless there is really good reason to hedge that doubt.
2. Political parties are perhaps one of the greatest dangers to our governance of any malady that can beset it. I think President Washington warned about the rise of political parties in his farewell address (but I really need to double check that, and read the rest of it anyway).
The point is that political parties are one of the best ways to throw a wrench into the spokes our self-governing process--but such a malleable and slowing working wrench that we don't notice its insidious results. Do we wonder why elected officials listen more to their fund-raising buddies and political clubs than the people who voted them up there on their word to represent them?
Do we get tired of how choosing our leaders means tallying up the number we need to have to own the majority? And, why making laws for our nation means lining up the two sides for a political duel where, if you're not on one side, your not even in?
Do we notice that Republican conventions (I am just using them as an example because I have had some familiarity with this party's conventions. Feel free to fill me in on the way Democratic, or another party's, conventions go if they don't follow this paradigm.) are rallies for glorifying our wonderful party values, agenda, and mediocre candidates, when maybe, for once, we would just like more real discussion over the issues or not have to wonder why we can't just vote for the person who actually lines up the most with our convictions?
I could probably go on. I just wanted to emphasize how annoying, frustrating, and downright dangerous political parties are for leadership selection. Who ever thought they were necessary? Rather, I think they are the natural byproducts of a vicious competition for gaining power.
So, yes, this year's elections will be a good opportunity to use the political voice--something I have hardly yet been able to do. But, no... barring something akin to a breakdown of our entire political process, I don't see dramatic improvement coming out of it.
Why? We still have political parties! Okay, well maybe that is rather too high of a hope for the outcome of a turnaround in people's minds. But, really... that is what it is going to take. Or, something akin to it. I don't know... maybe candidates being people with public trust and virtue who are asked to rise to the occasion by the people, instead of self-focused political tryouts and status quo-oriented politicians.
Remember the days when it was inappropriate to run a campaign? No, of course not. That was before any of us were born. Do you remember reading about it?
And yes, two hundred years back it wasn't all light and glory. Not only was there corruption and dangerous economic schemes, we also had a lot of blight: some of the worst of which was a loathsome trade and traffic in human beings.
But, getting back to the point... when I scrutinize the arena of our government and the practice of this trade called politics, I come upon with at least two big problems, which, if not fixed, will hinder satisfaction with our role as the voters.(It will hinder my satisfaction, at least.)
1. Long-term service. Oh yes, it's nice that they are willing to serve their country so long--do you wander why?--but really, after a little bit of time in there (maybe even before they get in), they just seem to pickle and sour or start to rot outright. And part of it, I am sure, is the bureaucracy, special interest leverage, and this new devious practice called 'getting bills through.' But, yes, that comes with practice and that beautiful asset--experience.
What if you stuck a fisherman or an engineer or such in a Senator or Representative's seat, gave them minimal staff (maybe none--certainly not any with any experience on Capitol Hill or as lawyers), and swore them in to perform their duties as outlined in the Constitution (you know, that document that nobody reads anymore). Imagine also that this person was elected knowing he would only be able to serve one term--the people of his district/state were that fickle. What would happen? Think about it for a few minutes.
I quiver to think what would happen.
I guess that is one of the best ways I can illustrate the problem of long-term service. Needless to say, I will be giving the incumbent candidates this election cycle automatic doubt--unless there is really good reason to hedge that doubt.
2. Political parties are perhaps one of the greatest dangers to our governance of any malady that can beset it. I think President Washington warned about the rise of political parties in his farewell address (but I really need to double check that, and read the rest of it anyway).
The point is that political parties are one of the best ways to throw a wrench into the spokes our self-governing process--but such a malleable and slowing working wrench that we don't notice its insidious results. Do we wonder why elected officials listen more to their fund-raising buddies and political clubs than the people who voted them up there on their word to represent them?
Do we get tired of how choosing our leaders means tallying up the number we need to have to own the majority? And, why making laws for our nation means lining up the two sides for a political duel where, if you're not on one side, your not even in?
Do we notice that Republican conventions (I am just using them as an example because I have had some familiarity with this party's conventions. Feel free to fill me in on the way Democratic, or another party's, conventions go if they don't follow this paradigm.) are rallies for glorifying our wonderful party values, agenda, and mediocre candidates, when maybe, for once, we would just like more real discussion over the issues or not have to wonder why we can't just vote for the person who actually lines up the most with our convictions?
I could probably go on. I just wanted to emphasize how annoying, frustrating, and downright dangerous political parties are for leadership selection. Who ever thought they were necessary? Rather, I think they are the natural byproducts of a vicious competition for gaining power.
So, yes, this year's elections will be a good opportunity to use the political voice--something I have hardly yet been able to do. But, no... barring something akin to a breakdown of our entire political process, I don't see dramatic improvement coming out of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)