Cheers and Jeers

Cheers to Boston Legal for only doing a 1 hour Season Finale. I don't know why, but it bugs me that every show feels that they have to do a 2 hour Season Finale Spectacular where something really special happens. Part of me feels like a 2 hour episode should be reserved for only special events. Maybe this is a holdover of my comic book days, where every 5 issues they felt they had to do a super-duper special issue (that also happened to cost twice as much).

Cheers to Lost for the twist they threw right in the end, and the manner in which they did it, and they did so without even throwing in yet another special character to advance the storyline. The last 2 minutes really left me waiting for the next season, as all good season finales do.

Jeers to American Idol. I like the show, and I'm okay with it taking 2 hours to announce the winner. After all, they have special guests and musical performances that entertain. I'm okay with 2 hours. But c'mon, 2 hours and 7 minutes! I don't know why, but the extra minutes really bug me. Can't you fit the show within 2 hours?

Jeers to On the Lot for trying to be like every other single reality show. On the whole, I think it is a great, original reality show. However, why does every reality show feel like they have to follow suit and take 5 minutes and a commercial break to announce who is going off the show? And, it's not really that suspenseful when you have 18 people on the show and are booting off 3. You don't need a whole hour, especially since we are not that far in the show anyway.

A short summary of my beliefs

As I said in the last post, I'm evaluating where I want to take my blog. I want to post more on areas other than politics, but as a last hurrah, I wanted to do one short statement of my beliefs, which is definitely not all-encompassing, but summarize what I have talked about the past year and a half.

In a spiritual sense, I am a Christian. I try to align my Christianity as close as I can to the Bible, but I don't think many people get it perfect.

In a political sense, I am pro-life. I won't go into this too much, except that I don't think there is a morally significant difference between a fetus and a born person. Therefore, I believe a fetus deserves equal protection under the law.

I am also free market. Now, I haven't worked out the finer points of where government should get involved, but for the most part, I believe this. If I have a product, I should choose the price for which I sell. If I am a laborer, I should be able to negotiate my terms without interference of a third party. I, as a consumer, should not be able to dictate the terms of a business. I can influence it by my consumer choices, however. For instance, if I don't like the fact that Apple produces their music in a certain format, I don't buy it. If I don't like the fact that a restaurant allows smoking, I don't go there. If I don't like the fact that a cable company sells channels in bundles, well, I'm really not entitled to cable. I know there are other issues involved, such as worker safety, and pollution. These should all be factored in, but I strongly believe that the government shouldn't dictate prices/wages and shouldn't dictate things that the consumers can.

I believe in school choice and decentralization of school curricula. I think parents should have flexibility in choosing schools for their children. Whether this is through tax credits or more privatization or whatever, I think we need school choice. We don't like monopolies in other areas, and we shouldn't want them when it comes to educating our children. I disagree with Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, because I don't think the federal government should dictate what every single school should teach/test. Colleges already have their own recommended high school courses for students that may or may not match what is necessary for a degree. Necessary coursework would be established by the workplace after school or the desired college.

When it comes to religion, I tend to follow the wording of the First Amendment, rather than the clause "Separation of Church and State." If one takes the latter without regard to the First Amendment, I believe the government can "prohibit the free exercise" of religion in the interest of keeping things separate. Schools should take extra care not to discriminate on clubs and/or extracurricular activities solely because of religious content.

Those are just a few things, but I just wanted to provide a short summary of the political issues I have focused on over the past year and a half.

At a crossroads...

I'm at a bit of a crossroads with my blog. I'm not sure how much more political posting I want to do. I feel that I've said just about everything I can say in the year and a half I've done my blogging. In a way, blogging about politics all the time is like talking about politics all the time with a close friend or wife with whom you disagree. If you do so, conversations tend to get heated, and you start to be annoyed with that person and not have pleasant conversations about things you have in common. I enjoy discussing movies and music and not arguing about politics all the time. This is not intended to offend those who do focus on politics, it's just an issue of my personality.

In a way though, this makes the blogging more challenging. By nature, I am a very analytical thinker. Instead of writing stories, I right about issues. Politics involves reasoning, and I'm better at logic than creativity. If I had chosen a path of ministry or such, I would probably specialize in the fine points of theology or apologetics.

So, I will probably post on politics from time to time, but I'm going to try to focus more on theological/philosophical issues somewhat removed from the realm of politics. Also, I will try to comment more on media, such as movies and music. The frustrating thing is, I state what I'm going to do, but may find myself doing the opposite. In the past I have announced a break from politics, but then an issue piques my interest.

Here's a pic of the little guy

Big Surprise

Okay, so my "little girl" came with a couple extra parts. His name is Levi. More later...

Changes about to come

As some of you know, I am going to be a father to a baby girl soon. It could happen anytime, and once it does, I probably will not be posting for a while. I will try to fit in a few posts before then when I can.

I also want to congratulate Josh on graduating from college. Way to go Josh!

With the responsibility of raising a child comes the realization that I am nowhere near the person I need to be. In some ways, I feel like I myself am still a child. Self-absorbed, focusing on what I need and want, easily frustrated at small inconveniences, to name a few. And I suppose that's the way it is for everyone to some degree. No one is perfect; nevertheless, we are given the duty to raise someone the best way we know how.

I think there is also some implied expectation that we, as adults, have all the answers, or that we will at some point. We will have it all figured out, and all our kids need to do is ask. But I guess that is part of growing up; at some point, we thought we knew everything; now we realize how little we know. Okay, this sounds too much like a high school graduation speech.

Anyway, I am really excited and honored by the awesome responsibility God has given my wife and I. I guess, at the risk of turning this into a cheesy spiritual/inspirational message, is to realize I don't have all the answers, and that is why I have to, at some degree, take myself out of the process. I am not perfect, but I think I will be successful as a parent if I point them to someone who is.

Today's Random 10

My Wife - The Who - Who's Next

Control - MuteMath - WOW Hits 2005: Silver Disc

Umbrella - The Innocence Mission - Umbrella

Don't Panic - Coldplay - Parachutes

Learn to Fly - Foo Fighters - There is Nothing Left to Lose

Until the End of the World - U2 - Achtung Baby

White Shadows - Coldplay - X&Y

Sail Away - David Gray - White Ladder

Love Ridden - Fiona Apple - When the Pawn...

For No One - The Beatles - Revolver [UK]

Songs About You - Peter Stuart - Propeller

This list has a lot of great, lesser-known songs from well known artists. I'm a strong fan of the album because there are many jewels missed when only the hits are downloaded. I think it is great 2nd-tier songs that make an artist.

"Until the End of the World" is definitely 1 of my top 10 U2 songs. Very interesting concept, as it is a song from Judas's point of view as he is talking to Jesus.

The essential U2 album collection, or a guide for new U2 fans

This guide is written for someone who may want to get some U2 albums and may not know where to start. With iTunes and other music stores, I suppose people can just buy the songs they like, but I am personally still a fan of the album. I have all the studio albums of U2, minus October and Pop. U2 does have 11 studio albums, so it can be quite expensive to buy them all. Here, I will list the essential albums, or at least the albums to buy at first.

The albums you should buy depends on the U2 era you like. 80s, 90s, and 2000s U2 are completely different.

The 80s U2

I think someone can buy The Joshua Tree and The Best of 1980-1990 and have the essential U2 stuff of the 80s. The Joshua Tree is almost a "Best of" within itself, but with The Best of 1980-1990, the listener gets the essential songs from other albums as well, such as "Sunday, Bloody Sunday", "Pride", and "Desire".

1990s - Present

While no lesser in quality, the last 2 decades have produced 5 studio albums, compared to 6 in the 80s. I would recommend:
Achtung Baby - includes "One" and "Mysterious Ways"
All That You Can't Leave Behind - "Beautiful Day" and "Elevation"
How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb - "Vertigo" and "City of Blinding Lights".

These are, in my opinion, the 5 essential albums. All are good, but you will get the essential U2 with these 5. One notable exception is the Pop album, which people either love or hate.

If you have a little more time/money, I would recommend:
War - Political, and at the same time, not that political. But a fierce album.
The Unforgettable Fire - This album isn't full of your typical songs, but more like soundscapes. "Pride" is the only song that has the typical verse-chorus-verse-chorus structure.
Zooropa - Just an all around weird and great album.

Update: Josh pointed out a major oversight. I forgot about the U218 singles album. If you want just one album that spans U2's career, then get this album. It looks like it has all the essential songs, especially from the 5 albums I mentioned.

So, if you want 1 album, get the U218 singles. If you want to explore them a little more, I recommend the 5 previously mentioned.

The essential U2 album collection, or a guide for new U2 fans

This guide is written for someone who may want to get some U2 albums and may not know where to start. With iTunes and other music stores, I suppose people can just buy the songs they like, but I am personally still a fan of the album. I have all the studio albums of U2, minus October and Pop. U2 does have 11 studio albums, so it can be quite expensive to buy them all. Here, I will list the essential albums, or at least the albums to buy at first.

The albums you should buy depends on the U2 era you like. 80s, 90s, and 2000s U2 are completely different.

The 80s U2

I think someone can buy The Joshua Tree and The Best of 1980-1990 and have the essential U2 stuff of the 80s. The Joshua Tree is almost a "Best of" within itself, but with The Best of 1980-1990, the listener gets the essential songs from other albums as well, such as "Sunday, Bloody Sunday", "Pride", and "Desire".

1990s - Present
While no lesser in quality, the last 2 decades have produced 5 studio albums, compared to 6 in the 80s. I would recommend:
Achtung Baby - includes "One" and "Mysterious Ways"
All That You Can't Leave Behind - "Beautiful Day" and "Elevation"
How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb - "Vertigo" and "City of Blinding Lights"

Blogs that make me think

I was honored by Josh from Gabbatha as a blog that makes him think. To continue the tradition, I will choose 5 blogs on my roll that make me think. All of them make me think to some extent, but here are 5 that come to mind.

Glen Dean - I once did a Google search for "Christian Libertarian" and his blog popped up. Glen and I agree on many things concerning Christianity and politics. He has a unique perspective on issues in that he is a conservative Christian yet is weary to use government power to accomplish Christian goals and ideals.

Katherine Coble from Just Another Pretty Face - Kat is one of the figures from the Nashville blogosphere, and I ran into her blog from her comments at Glen Dean's site. She also happens to be a Christian and a libertarian, so I enjoy her take on philosophical and political issues. That, and her analysis of Lost.

Dan Trabue at Payne Hollow - Dan is a man that is passionate about environmental issues, such as global warming and our consumption of natural resources. He has many well-thought out posts concerning nature and environment and all that hippy stuff (just kidding Dan). Even though we don't see eye-to-eye on many issues, I do admire his concern for the earth. If I did some research on environmental issues, I'd probably agree with him quite a bit in that area.

Michael from the Levellers - Michael is a pacifist and a democratic socialist (correct me if that description is incorrect). He is very opposed to the war and believes in a progressive economic system. I am sure, at one time, we agreed on something. I think it was that Sam Adams is a great beer. Actually, I think we hold a lot of spiritual views in common, and we share the idea of not completely trusting those in authority. Despite our disagreements, his articles are always a great read.

Neil Simpson - Neil Simpson has many great articles on Christianity, including Christian apologetics. I also like his articles on Pro-life reasoning. Neil also posts on a variety of other issues, ranging from morality to barbecuing.

Here are the rules as explained at Gabbatha -
Should you choose to participate, please make sure to pass this list of rules to the blogs you are tagging. The participation rules are simple:

*
If you get tagged, write a post with links to five blogs that make you think
*
Link to the original post so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme
*
Optional: Proudly display the 'Thinking Blogger Award' with a link to the post that you wrote.

Why you can't pick and choose cable channels

I've always wondered why cable companies don't offer individual channels to customers. I've never endorsed knee-jerk legislation attempts to make cable companies do so, but I always thought it was a market that could easily be exploited.

The Cato blog explains

The problem with this line of reasoning [that buying individual channels would be cheaper] is that almost none of the cost of providing cable service to you is dependent on the number of channels you take. In economics jargon, cable channels have close to zero marginal cost. Once the content has been produced and the coax has been laid, it costs little or nothing to give every customer access to every channel in the bundle rather than only certain channels. So if they stop sending you Nickelodeon, it doesn’t reduce the total cost of providing you with your service. So why would you expect a price break?

Indeed, there are lots and lots of examples of bundled products and services that no one in his or her right mind would demand be unbundled. For example, why am I forced to buy the sports section with the business section in my morning paper? Why am I forced to buy evening and weekend minutes with my cellular phone plan?

I didn't know much about how the cable infrastructure worked, but you would think that FCC chairman Kevin Martin would at least try to have a deeper understanding of this before he supports "a la carte" legislation.

A couple of things.

This shows that even if you trust a bureaucrat's intentions, you can't trust his/her competency.

But, maybe more importantly, even if it was cheaper to offer individual channels, the cable companies should be able to sell whatever products they want. As a free-marketer, I don't think I should forcefully set the terms of the agreement. If a Mexican food place opens, what sense does it make for me to demand what they have on their menu? Also, as I said before, if it was actually cheaper to offer individual channels, this would be much less of an issue, as this is a market people would exploit. Finally, I don't have the right to cable. It's as simple as that. If this was about utilities such as electricity or water, I would be more sympathetic to the customers' plight. But cable is not a necessity, so if people don't like how it is being sold, don't buy it.

A bumper sticker that always bothers me (one of many)

Neil Simpson has a post about barbecuing and vegetarianism. He also has some helpful information on "Bovine-Offset Credits".

Speaking of vegetarianism, I saw a bumper sticker that says "I don't eat anything with a face." Now, I respect those who choose the vegetarian/vegan path, whether it is for health or moral reasons. But this bumper sticker reeks of self-righteousness. If you want to promote vegetarianism, fine, but don't point out how moral you are because you don't eat meat.

But that goes for people with my viewpoints as well. There are offensive and non-offensive pro-life stickers. I may agree with what you have to say, but there are more effective ways to spread the message.

Your ideal presidential candidate

Click here to find out who your ideal presidential candidate is.

My top match was Republican candidate and libertarian Ron Paul, which was no surprise.

I had a match of 76% with Tom Tancredo, who I had never heard of. However, my wife told me there was a guy from Colorado running for the Presidency, and it turns out this is him. Neat.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find html for the page, so I will do a crude copy and paste.

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Ron Paul (78%) (Member of libertarian party and Repub. candidate for President)
3. Tom Tancredo (76%)
4. Kent McManigal (75%)
5. Chuck Hagel (75%)
6. John McCain (72%)
7. Mitt Romney (70%)
8. Newt Gingrich (66%)
9. Duncan Hunter (66%)
10. Sam Brownback (65%)
11. Fred Thompson (59%)
12. Rudolph Giuliani (52%)
13. Mike Huckabee (48%)
14. Jim Gilmore (46%)
15. Tommy Thompson (44%)
16. Bill Richardson (44%)
17. Christopher Dodd (38%)
18. Al Gore (35%)
19. John Edwards (34%)
20. Barack Obama (33%)
21. Hillary Clinton (32%)
22. Dennis Kucinich (28%)
23. Joseph Biden (27%)
24. Wesley Clark (25%)
25. Mike Gravel (15%)
26. Elaine Brown (9%)

Note: The hardest question for me was #3, on balancing civil liberties vs. security. I feel that I am somewhere between the libertarians and conservatives on this. I realize the importance of protecting civil liberties, but I may favor some sacrifices. The first time I favored security and Tancredo was my top person. When I switched to civil liberties Paul was on the top.

Hat tip to Neil Simpson.

Update: Supposedly, Tancredo is really tough on immigration, and that is what he is known for here in Colorado, whereas I'm for a more open immigration policy (but still believe people should do it legally.)

Update 2: After you finish filling out the quiz, it takes you to some advertisement page. There should be a link near the top of the page that you can click to skip all that stuff.

This week's random ten

As inspired by Kat Coble.

1. Train from Kansas City - Neko Case
2. The Spark - Flaming Lips
3. One Tree Hill - U2
4. Valentine - Shades Apart
5. Let's Get Lost - Peter Stuart
6. Fell Out - Bleach
7. Where Does the Time Go? - Innocence Mission
8. Taxman - Beatles
9. Ammunition - Switchfoot
10. Gone - TobyMac

These were the first 10 that popped up in iTunes Party Shuffle.

Movies I like, and supposedly good movies that I hate

Thanks for all the input to my post about classic movies I'd like to see.

One thing I have noticed concerning modern movies, the Academy and I don't always see eye to eye.

Here is a list of movies that have received at least some notoriety from the Academy, that I thought, well, sucked.

Keep in mind, I am far from an authority in movies. The production of this list may betray any impressions of refinement I previously held in your minds.

The Thin Red Line - One of two movies during which I fell asleep during the theater. I had the feeling it was trying too hard to be artsy and philosophical.

Wonder Boys - Movie seemed pointless.

Monster's Ball - I know Halle Berry received an award for Best Actress, and this is no comment on her acting ability (which I'm not good at gaging anyway), but the movie itself. Billy Bob Thornton creeps me out (even more so) thanks to this movie. Again, seemed to have no coherent plot.

As Good As It Gets - Again, where is this movie going? Movies that focus on someone with a social/mental disorder like OCD does provide room for entertainment in any genre, but nevertheless, not that funny, not that entertaining.

As you can probably guess from the list, I strongly dislike movies that do not seem to have a coherent plot. But such movies typically get rave reviews. Maybe if I appreciated movies on a deeper level and/or I was more right-brained and/or not an engineer I would truly appreciate these movies.

Movies I did love, or at least like, that got Oscar attention:
Shawshank Redemption - One of my favorites
Traffic - Not quite sure what to say about this movie, but it was definitely interesting
Lord of the Rings (obviously)
Zoolander - That movie won an award for something, didn't it?

Oscar movies that had really lame ending quotes.

Seabiscuit:(paraphrased) "We didn't teach Seabiscuit...he taught us"

Not so bad, but there is a long pause between the first and last phrase for dramatic effect, which makes it super-corny and pseudo-thoughtful, and I saw the last half of the line from a mile away.

A Beautiful Mind.

Mathematician John Nash says "I've made the most important discovery of my life. It's only in the mysterious equation of love that any logical reasons can be found. I'm only here tonight because of you. You are the only reason I am... you are all my reasons. "

"Mysterious equation of love"? What the crap is that? Very contrived.

The institutionalization of our children

From the Tulsa World

Gov. Brad Henry [of Oklahoma] recently announced his commitment to piloting a voluntary preschool program for 3-year-olds. He understands that the key to the state's success is creating strong students from the beginning so children have the ability to graduate from high school, college and technology schools ready to be responsible members of society.

[...]

Some argue that the best place for young children is at home with their mothers. That could be the case. The reality, however, is that more than half of Oklahoma's children under 6 live in low-income families. Mothers work for the families' survival. About one child in four under age 6 is being raised by a single parent and one child in four children is born to a mother without a high school diploma. For those families, staying at home with their children is a luxury they cannot imagine!

The author does make a good point in that it is nice to have a program available for working mothers.

I do have a couple concerns, however.

For one, the author, and I'm sure Governor Henry, insist that the program is voluntary. But will this always be the case? I could see the government deciding that it is in the "best interest" of the children to start school at 3 years old. But maybe I am just being paranoid. After all, our 13 year primary/secondary curriculum has been constant for some time.

Secondly, I personally feel that kids need more time to just be kids. Even though the program is voluntary, and it is there for moms who can't stay at home, I can envision stay-at-home moms enrolling their children to keep up with the Jones's children. Parents, not wanting their kids to be left behind in the 13-year long competition that is our classrooms, will start feverishly searching for the best 3-year old education as soon as they are born. What was once "extra education" now becomes the status quo. Parents (most typically Moms), who would otherwise stay at home, may enroll their children so they can go to work.

Lastly, related to the previous paragraph, is just the transfer of raising our children from the parents to the state. We want our children to go to school at a younger age. Many of us (not me) think that higher education should be covered by the state. Where does it end?

As the author said, this school for younger children could be good for dual-income families. However, I do fear the other consequences of this measure, such as the increased institutionalization of our children and erosion of the family.

Movies I would like to see

I saw Casablanca for the first time over the weekend. Not bad. It is a fairly engaging movie.

I don't know about any other old classics I would like to see, but here is a list of somewhat modern classics (within the last 30 years) I would like to see, but haven't.

The Karate Kid
Silence of the Lambs
Wayne's World
Rocky (all the way through)

I would also like to see "Delta Force" with Chuck Norris, but I have a feeling that is not deemed a classic.

Speaking of classics, whatever happened to AMC, "American Movie Classics." There idea of what constitutes a classic has been somewhat compromised these past few years. Since when is "The Good Son" and "The Flinstones in Viva Rock Vegas" considered classics?

An Easter post, one day late.

When we think of Easter, we typically think of how Jesus's sacrifice on the cross saved us from hell. This is no doubt something very significant, but this is something that I am primarily thankful for in a mental, logical sense. In a sense, I'm thankful for this more than anything else; I mean, what can be better than being saved from hell? However, in another sense, this is the sacrifice that is the least real for me. Partly because my mind cannot be wrapped around the extent of this sacrifice, and I don't think it is supposed to be. Also, however, I have never actually been to hell, I don't know what it's like. My mind tells me about this salvation, but it is hard to grasp on an emotional level.

That's why it is important to realize that Christ not only saved us from eternal damnation, but also from ourselves and our sinful nature. It's not just about eternal life, but abundant life. John 10:10 says "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." A life of sin is pretty miserable. When I think of my life in the past, Ephesians 1 comes to mind:

1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

I know that in my own life, even though I have been a Christian for some time, I am just beginning to realize the extent of Christ's sacrifice. When I think about salvation from hell, I'm thankful on an intellectual sense. But when I think of what Jesus has actually done in my life and the stuff He has saved me from, I am thankful on a completely different level. That is what I am thankful for this Easter.

What changed with Peter?

I had gotten in a discussion with Josh some time ago concerning Peter's denial of Christ. What had perplexed me about Peter is that at Jesus' arrest, it appeared that he tried to do what he said he would, that he was willing to die for Jesus. He cut off the ear of Malchus, who was the servant of the high priest. It looked like he was ready to fight the whole group that seized them. Following this, Jesus healed Malchus and stated "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?" He also says

52"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"

Later in that same chapter, Peter denies Jesus three times.

So what changed in that time span? My thoughts are that Peter seemed eager to fight and die for a Jesus who was willing to stand against the religious establishment, and probably even become king of Israel. No doubt Peter didn't fully understand what was going on and didn't realize what Jesus truly had to do.

Does this apply to us? Are we willing to fight and die for our own idea of Jesus, rather than who Jesus actually is?

Just some thoughts.

My prediction for tonight

Not sure who will win the NCAA championship, but if Ohio State wins, no doubt we will hear the usual championship speech from the players, "No one believed in us, no one thought we could make it, but we proved them wrong..." yada yada. No matter what the seed or odds, the winning team always pulls out the "we are the underdog" speech. Even if Florida wins, I wouldn't be surprised to hear the same.