I saw Rocky for the first time

The original Rocky has been one of those movies that I've been embarrassed to say that I never watched. So, I moved Rocky and Rocky Balboa(the 6th movie in the series) to the top of the Netflix Queue.

I was surprised at how good both movies were. I dare say that the endless stream of sequels may have tarnished the legacy in some people's minds, especially those that haven't seen them. I didn't realize Rocky actually won an Academy Award until recently.

In both movies Rocky seemed like a real, believable character. Not every word he speaks is significant or even necessarily funny. He says nonsense things about "flying candy" and just goofball stuff that you'd expect from an everyday person.

I did notice some strong themes that were present in both movies, which included the ideals of America being a land of opportunity and being a place where people should be free to pursue happiness. In the original Rocky, Apollo Creed decides to stage a fight with an everyday guy (who ends up being Rocky), in order to show that anyone can make it in America. In Rocky Balboa, there is a particularly moving scene where Rocky applies for a license to fight. The board, in order to "look out for him", initially reject his application. Rocky points out the Bill of Rights down the road (in Philadelphia) and states that he has the right to pursue happiness, and that it is his choice to make to risk his life; it is not their place to stop him just because they are doing what they think is best for him. There's also a scene where he tells his son to stop blaming other people for his problems and to take responsibility toward his own life.

Most people say Rocky and Rocky Balboa are the best, unless you want to reminisce about the Cold War, then rent Rocky IV.

A difference between conservatives and liberals

I was having a conversation with my wife yesterday about political issues and such I had this thought. Now, I am not a liberal so I cannot say for sure what liberals are thinking, but I will venture my best guess, in an effort to understand those with different opinions. Any liberal who reads this should feel free to chime in and correct me where I'm wrong.

I think the goal of many liberal policies is to change the circumstances surrounding a person. They want to make sure that someone is given the resources to ensure that they will succeed. I think resources is the key word here. They want to make sure that the public schools are given enough funding, that they have the financial resources towards college, that housing projects are in place, etc... Liberals put emphasis on community in making sure that people are not disadvantaged with respect to other people.

Conservatives see things somewhat differently. Their focus is on opportunity, and they focus less on the resources aspect. Conservatives don't focus on making sure everyone starts out equally, but they want a society in which someone has all the opportunity for upward mobility. Conservatives have a high belief in the power of the individual, even in tough circumstances.

Keep in mind, this is not an either/or. I'm not saying liberals have no faith in the individual and conservatives believe there is no role for the community. It is really a question of extent. The

These two philosophies seem to butt heads in the area of government programs and in the economy/business. The individual and community are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but they can be competing entities.

Liberals believe that government programs are needed to help the individual be successful, whereas conservatives believe that too many government programs can actually hinder someone's success.

In the area of business, security and opportunity struggle against each other. Liberals believe that business must be more regulated in order to provide security for the average worker. Conservatives believe that less regulated business leads to more upward mobility for the average worker.

Liberals believe in providing resources to the average individual in order to help them succeed. They want to shape the person's environment. The conservative is less concerned with resources. They aren't concerned so much with providing things; rather they want to remove things standing in the person's way. Their goal is to provide an environment of freedom where more things are possible.

Still missing an important point: Possible breakthrough in stem-cell research

An article from Wired states that

In an unprecedented feat of biological alchemy, researchers have turned human skin cells into stem cells that hold the same medical promise as the controversial embryonic stem cells.

Scientists believe stem cell research will be able to cure numerous diseases and regenerate failing bodies. The new technique, however, doesn't require the destruction of embryos, or use human eggs or cloning. Thus, it sweeps aside the ethical objections to stem-cell research.

I think this is great, because there are ethical questions involved when using embryonic stem cells.

However, some people are still missing an important point when it comes to stem-cell research. Ethical dilemmas are not the only reason to question government funding of medical research. To support stem-cell research does not automatically mean one must support government funding, though most people think the two are synonymous. I don't want to get into a detailed list of pros and cons for government funding right now, but I think it is a question that we should at least consider.

The problem with our culture is that we assume all things good and true must be funded by government. We think the arts are important, well, let's use tax money to fund the arts! We want to support our farmers; well, make sure they get subsidies! Ethanol can increase fuel efficiency, well, by all means, give lots of money to car or oil companies to research the issue! Like baseball, well, let's give billionaires some money so they will build a stadium in this city! Think faith-based initiatives are great, well, we better throw tax dollars at them!

The idea that government is a type of benefactor is so pervasive in our minds that we think anything that needs to be done in society should be done so through laws and tax dollars. And that's unfortunate, because I believe government corrupts so many things. People complain that we should fund stem-cell research because we shouldn't let politics corrupt science, but that is exactly what happens when you fund the research.

Some people prefer a "broader view" of government. But I prefer a "separate spheres" approach. Now, I don't mean that are values shouldn't inform how we interact in politics as one can take that statement to mean. What I mean is that we shouldn't be so quick to ensure that government infests every area of our lives. So many good and pure things happen outside the reach of government. Sure, we must ensure that we have a just society and that everyone is treated equally under the law. At the same time, however, many revolutionary things, Jesus' mission for one, happened outside, and in spite of, and even contrary to, the realm of government. Other institutions, such as the family, the church, and charities, are the ones that truly change lives.

The media's view of the American Dad, real and ideal

Who says you can't learn anything from Hollywood?

Watching TV and movies we see a portrayal of the average dad. This may provide insight into how many dads are viewed and/or what makes the ideal father.

In most TV shows the husband/dad is portrayed as a bumbling idiot. Look at King of Queens, Everybody Loves Raymond, and The Simpsons. The dad is usually incompetent and inconsiderate of his wife's feelings. He is always the one that screws everything up. That is just how it is.

It seems to be different in the movies, however, and perhaps that is because of the style of storytelling that tends to work towards a resolution, both in events and character; whereas a TV show things tend to stay the same. At the beginning, the dad is someone to tied up into his work, ignores his family, and tends to pursue money as opposed to higher ideals. Let's look at the movies RV and the modern version of The Shaggy Dog.

In RV, the dad is having problems with his job, and he isn't exactly commanding respect from his kids. He finally faces a dilemma near the end of the movie, in which he has a choice of commercial success or staying true to his values.

In The Shaggy Dog, the dad is similar, but more extreme. He is pursuing success in his job, but all the while somewhat neglecting his wife, and he is not involved in his son and daughter's lives whatsoever. The son is pretending to play football to make his dad happy, while secretly practicing for a play. The dad, Tim Allen's character, is at odds with his daughter concerning a clash of values. When the dad transforms into a dog, however, he gets a sneak peek into his children's lives. He transforms from a workaholic dad to a great family man who shares the values of his daughter.

I think in movies and TV we may get a glimpse of the American Dad archetype (I suppose this could be any dad, but I really just watch American TV and movies). (I hope archetype is the right word, correct me if not) In the movies, he is a workaholic father and may only be involved in the children's lives to the extent that he urges them to get good grades or, in the case of a son, be a man's man and play football or the like. His primary concern is his career, and the family is really secondary.

Interestingly enough, the TV representation in some sense, is the opposite. Instead of being ambitious and successful, he has little motivation at all. We don't see this so much in the Raymond character, but in King of Queens, The Simpsons. But the attitude towards the family is still not overwhelmingly positive. It is primarily one of indifference, although not the degree of neglect seen in the movies.

These are just observations I've made. In TV, there's not really much redemption concerning the father character; the father character is not motivated to be an active father, and he realizes that, and he accepts that, and the family accepts that. Movies are more positive, however, we see how some fathers are, but we also get a glimpse of how fathers should be. Men need to take note of these characters. Society wants fathers that are not tied up in their job, who love their wives, who are involved in their children's lives beyond the disciplinarian role, and who shares values that aren't compromised by the outside world. I think God wants the same thing. I would add this though. At the same time, I believe the wife/mother has a responsibility to ensure that the dad is still respected, even if he is not perfect. But the overall message is clear; be there for your family, don't just be the breadwinner.

Love isn't all you need

In my Sunday School class we are going over the Love and Respect series by Emerson Eggerichs. The idea of the series is that it focuses on a key verse on marriage in the Bible from Ephesians 5:33:

Nevertheless, each one of you must also love his own wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

As most marriage books/videos do, the series talks about the need for a husband to love his wife, but it also focuses on another key aspect of a successful marriage - that a wife respect her husband.

Women should love their husbands, and husbands respect their wives, but the idea is that women are naturally loving, and men are naturally respectful, so they may not tend to give their spouse exactly what they need.

The idea of what respect looks like is less certain than love, at least to me and many others. Some people, such as myself, believe the husband is the head of the household under Christ, and part of this respect is a recognition of that position. But even if you tend to be more liberal in thought regarding family structure, you could still appreciate the idea of respect, in that a husband wants to be admired and not looked down upon. I think men want to be treated in a way that say, other people at work treat him. I was with a group of guys once at a former church, and one of their complaints about their wives was that at times they talked to the men, they talked to them in a disrespectful way that other men wouldn't dare talk to them.

I just wanted to touch on this idea a little bit. This doesn't mean that women don't deserve respect and men don't deserve love, I just believe this verse just focuses on needs of our spouse we tend to overlook. And respect doesn't mean the man can never be challenged or called out if he does something wrong; people have taken this idea to the extreme and made respect equate with control. At the same time, we are also a love-saturated society. The idea of respect is often not talked about. Love isn't all you need.

Dear writers

Dear writers of Scrubs,

For some reason, every show feels like they have to have an on-again, off-again relationship between two main characters. I think Who's the Boss started this, and was popularized by Friends Ross and Rachel. Consequently, so many sitcoms feel that they have to pursue this formula. Some shows still do this well, like The Office's Jim and Pam. But those two have a chemistry; there is absolutely none with J.D. and Elliot. They are more like best friends. Having two co-stars get involved is okay, but they have to click in order to have a real relationship. I feel like Scrubs is simply putting the two together because they happen to work at the same place. It's predictable. Why not do something totally out of the norm, like people not getting together solely because they are two young costars on the show?

And what is up with people only dating those they work with? Why does a doctor have to date another doctor? What about the pizza girl/guy? I'm just not sure if the majority of America dates and marries the person they work with. And why does every member of the family have to work the same occupation? Alias did this to the extreme. Sydney, of the CIA, has a dad who is in the CIA, and has a mom who used to work the CIA (but ended up being a double agent), she had an unknown half-sister who works for some foreign intelligence group, whose dad happened to work for the CIA, and Sydney marries a guy who works for the CIA, whose dad used to work for the CIA...this is getting ridiculous.... I work on software. If everytime I had a conversation with my wife, sister, sister's husband, long-lost brother, secret father of mine, and it involved whether or not C++ or Java is a better programming language, I would move to the forest.

Dear writers of The Office,
You are about to suffer from Steve Urkel syndrome. Family Matters used to be a somewhat heartwarming show spotlighted on a variety of characters (not that it was really a great show to begin with). They had the nerdy guy who everyone liked, and, in typically fashion of writers who milk things for all they are worth, basically turned it into the Steve Urkel show. You are doing the same with Steve Carr\ell's character, Michael Scott. Instead of the show staying true to its origins, a comedy with somewhat real people in a documentary type scenario, the show has become a "what crazy things will Michael do in this episode?" You have a great cast, use them.

Dear producers of The Next Great American Band,
Kudos to having a long overdue show on actual bands who write their own stuff and cover something other than Destiny's Child. But, c'mon, having a critic who is an outspoken British guy, how original.

Is football just a big chess match?

Colin Cowherd from ESPN radio listed the following 4 things to look for when determining if you have a good coach in football.

1) Team plays better after halftime.
2) Team plays better as the season progresses.
3) Team scores few offensive penalties. Defensive penalties are less importance since they are more reactionary.
4) Team plays fairly consistently. Team does not do awesome one week then totally blow it the next.

The quality of coaching, Colin insists, does not depend on play calling. Or, at the very least, cannot be surmised from the play calling.

I believe those 4 points he mentioned are probably pretty good ones, although 2 and 4 could probably be combined. However, the lack of these qualities could also indicate an inexperienced team, especially on the college level, so that should always be factored in.

So, how important is play-calling? I think people like strong leaders. They like their quarterbacks to shoulder the team, and they like their head coaches to be the mastermind pulling the team's strings. We like to envision football as a big chess match between two head coaches. When a fourth and one is not converted, we may tend to blame the coach for calling the play, not on the players who should have executed properly. So I think we harp on play-calling too much at times.

However, I don't know if we can dismiss the importance of play calling. I'm not talking so much about when a run or pass is called, but an overall play calling philosophy. It is important that a coach utilizes the talent he has. Many people in the area claim that the Denver Broncos performed better when the current coach, Mike Shanahan, took over, simply because he utilized John Elway much more than the previous coach (although there are not a lot of Shanahan fans at the moment). When you have a star quarterback, you want to make the riskier calls and go long more often, and when you have a stud running back, then you want to go for the sure running game.

But I can still see Colin's point in that we often assume that we know what the best calls are, but we aren't in the coaches shoes. We also don't know what is the result of bad play-calling and simply poor execution. But we tend to look at the end result of the game, when the end result is a combination of coaching and players.

Our view of authority - what it means for politics and where it came from

Although I would call myself a limited-government conservative, to me, mainstream conservative somewhat makes sense. Although the term "mainstream conservatism" is somewhat up for grabs, in short, I would define it as this: a view that government should have a say in moral affairs and be more hands-off in economic matters. This is why it makes sense. In general, authority figures have a role in saying what is right and wrong; examples include the church, our parents, schools, etc...

But...I am overlooking something. Let's go back to the parents example. Parents tell us what is right and wrong, but they also provide for us. They nurture us and they try to provide a somewhat safe environment.

So, for some reason, when I think of authority, I immediately think of a type of moral authority, some guide telling me what to do and what not to do. Others, however, may think of a more nurturing, provisional figure. It's not that we neglect on facet of authority, we may just tend to emphasize one side in our minds.

So this makes me think, do our political views come from our view of authority in general? In fact, do our political views have something to do with our family structure, or at least, our view of it?

Think of a conservative's view of government. The government lays down the (moral) law, protects us from bad guys, and tells us to go out and get a job. Sounds like your stereotypical Dad.

Think of a liberal's view of government. Here, the government makes sure we have what we need and is a little more permissive concerning what we do and don't do. Does this sound like a Mom?

Stay with me here. This has nothing to do with if conservatives are manly men and liberals are girly girls or anything like that. I'm just saying that, for some reason, conservatives tend to view their ideal government as some type of father figure, whereas liberals see the government as a more nurturing mother figure.

So do our political views have anything to do with our family structure? Does the dominant parental figure affect our views?

This is just a theory, but I really don't have anything to back it up. I consider myself a cultural conservative, but I didn't have a strong father figure until later in my life. If I asked conservatives and liberals I knew about their family life, I don't know if their stories would indicate any correlation between political views and dominant parental figure.

So how would libertarians figure into the equation. It's hard to say because, unlike conservatives and liberals, their whole philosophy requires more of a compartmentalization between the institution of government and other institutions, so their experience with authority in the family structure may be less likely to affect their view of government. Or, has their experience with familial authority initiated their limited government views in the first place?

But maybe I am limiting my scope and need to expand it to other areas of authority in our life. What about the church? There is a high correlation between religious people and conservative thought, but there is also a growing number of Christian liberals, so who knows?

So am I onto something here, or am I way off?

A few thoughts on the Michael Vick case

1) It's not a racial issue, no matter how much some want it to be. It's about animal cruelty. I don't naively believe that race is never an issue in America, but I don't see sufficient reason to believe people would react any differently if this was a white athlete. To say that this has something to do with race takes away from the significance of the issue at hand. The ones bringing up race are the racially divisive people.

2) Money will not make someone a better person.

3) I'll try to say this without moralizing. I'm glad to see that people have regard for somewhat defenseless creatures (as defenseless as these breed of dogs can be anyway). However, I think our priorities are somewhat misplaced. Is dog torture really more inhumane than say partial birth abortion (I would say any abortion, but I'll take what I can get)? I understand that pro-choicers view fetuses on a lower plane than those outside the womb, but why lower than dogs?

The cheap and easy way to argue

Over in another blog, the issue of homosexuality is being argued, as in, whether or not the Bible actually condemns it. Dan, being the good man that he is, uses a reasoned argument in the negative, although I disagree with him. However, I worry about poor Dan. He probably puts a bit of time and energy into his arguments. Doesn't he know it would be so much easier if he chalked the conservative Biblical view to homophobia, like another commenter on the blog?

Similarly, in the immigration debate, a few of those who think illegal immigrants should have amnesty or have access to free government services simply cry "racist" to their opponents. They could argue about the costs/benefits associated with deportation, but the former method is so much easier and takes less brainpower.

Of course, the effectiveness of emotional arguments and name calling should be seriously questioned, but sometimes people don't want to change minds, they just want to get an emotional charge out of their self-righteous ramblings.

The separation of the sacred and secular

I have noticed that in art, particularly in music, there is a strong separation between CCM (Christian Contemporary Music) and secular music. This line is being blurred somewhat, with some crossover artists, but it seems that someone is a "Christian" artist, or they are not.

My question is this, is this a good thing?

The reason I ask is that I am not sure this separation always existed. Da Vinci painted religious themed portraits like The Last Supper, but he wasn't known as a "Christian" artist, and he painted non-religious things as well. People didn't ask "Oh, he painted The Last Supper, is he a Christian artist now?" Classic composers (of whom I know little about) would compose works inspired by their faith, but sometimes they would not be. It seems that there were many classic poets and authors (correct me if I am wrong, as I left all my poetry books at home) would speak on spiritual themes, sometimes they would not. There was not a question of whether they belonged to the Christian genre or not.

This may be a good thing, because much of secular culture is quite distant from Christian values, based on the things they glorify. Maybe as the secular becomes more profane, this distancing is inevitable.

Why would it be a bad thing?

Perhaps it has to do with the overall quality of art. I will be honest, there is much CCM I don't care for right now; much of it seems second-rate. Maybe it's just an issue with me though. But I notice that many great artists are those that are Christian, but not in the "Christian" genre. U2 is the most glaring example. Three of the four members are Christian, and many songs are very spiritual. Another lesser known band is the Innocence Mission that has many spiritual songs as well, and even has an album of hymns. Some of the highest quality CCM bands are now crossing over, or at least have a foot in the mainstream, such as Switchfoot or Skillet.

So, I don't know if my concerns have any foundation. Basically, I have noticed that much great art of the past was influenced by Christianity but was not in a genre separate from everything else. Today, I notice a distinct separation in many cases, and it seems that many times the "Christian" side is inferior, whereas those artists that may have some mainstream involvement are the superior bands. (To be fair though, it is understandable that the creme of the Christian crop would get mainstream attention). At the same time, I know we, as Christians, are called to stand out and not blend in.

As a final note, there seems to be a distinct exception in the genre of country music. Carrie Underwood has a hit called "Jesus, Take the Wheel" but there is not a debate on whether she is a Christian artist. Garth Brooks will have overtly religious songs on his album, but at the same time sing about a woman killing her unfaithful husband (I don't say that to be critical, as I don't think he is glorifying or justifying murder, I am just illustrating the main point of my post). There does not seem to be a big "Christian country" genre. What is so different about country?

Conservatism, liberalism, and the Gray-Haired Old White Man

The concept of a modern day Noah's Ark story found in Evan Almighty had fascinated me. After all, the original account deals with God wiping out the earth because of our sin. The idea of a story about God punishing sinful man, well, it just seems out of place in Hollywood.

Of course, it depends what the sin is. Now, I have not seen the movie, but I've read a brief synopsis in the Washington Post review. This is not an in depth analysis, otherwise I would wait till I saw the movie. But the sin that the movie focuses on is not surprising. The post says...

the movie has a modern theme about saving the environment from corrupt politicians and businessman looking to profit by diminishing green meadows and animal habitats.

Now, of course many people can get on board with this idea. I don't like corrupt politicians and businessmen either.

But corrupt politicians are not the only thing wrong with the world either. For instance, there is the dissolution of families, promiscuous sex, and the marketing of sex on TV. However, I don't think a movie about the bad guys being people who sleep around a lot would catch on as one in which the bad guys are evil businessmen destroying the environment.

This is not to downplay the latter, but the concept of the movie does point out a divide between what bothers liberals and conservatives. Now, this post is not an attempt to invalidate or discredit the beliefs of either side, it is only an attempt at an analysis of what each side values. I would welcome any input from anyone regarding these views.

Liberalism, it seems, has the spark of youthful rebellion. Liberalism is all about challenging the establishment. It is rebelling against the Gray-Haired Old White Man. (I don't say "White" to give this any racial overtones, I am just mentioning it because if you look at most people in power, well, that's what they look like.) Liberals like to leave people alone in their personal lives (again, in theory, I think the DP has done the opposite many times) but focus more on regulating economic activity. Regulating economic activity is essentially telling the Gray-Haired Old White Man what to do.

Also, part of liberalism is the avoidance of being the Gray-Haired Old White Man. Let's take abortion for instance. Saying "No" to some poor woman, maybe a minority, just doesn't have the same zing as saying "No" to the rich and powerful. Telling someone who isn't in power "you can't do that" is so Gray-Haired Old White Man, it's so...conservative.

Conservatives, on the other hand, well, most often they are the Gray-Haired Old White Man, or at least the favored son of the Gray-Haired Old White Man. Perhaps the conservative is the good son who went to college and has a nice job in a skyscraper, and the liberal is the 2nd-born son who dropped out of college and builds houses in Ecuador.


Jesus Himself could be seen as a liberal, in the sense that He also challenged the rich and powerful. He purposely upset the religious establishment, the Pharisees, and he had no qualms about upsetting the governmental authorities, although he had no political ambitions. But Jesus was also set on challenging us as the individual. He not only challenged the Pharisees taking God's name in vain, but he also challenged the woman at the well who had five previous husbands and was living with a guy. He did so out of love, and not a condemning tone, but he still made her feel uncomfortable.

In the political sense, both appeal to government power more than I would like. But I think in a cultural sense, in the sense of what is right and wrong, I think both groups have their strengths. Many conservatives can learn from liberals in regarding those who are oppressed and corruption among the rich and powerful. At the same time, I think liberals need to look more at "conservative" type issues and realize that maybe the fracture of the family structure may be leading to things like poverty and inner-city crime.

Also, sometimes Christianity and our current modern American philosophy may agree. Both scorn the abuse of power by the Gray-Haired Old White Man. But Christianity goes further. It is not just telling Gray-Haired Old White Man, "Hey, quit destroying our earth" or "Hey, quit oppressing the poor!" but it is telling the suave 20-something year old man "Hey, keep it in your pants!" or telling the 30-something housewife "Hey, stick with your husband and work it out, even if you think the guy in the next office truly 'gets you'!" Christianity is not only about exterminating the evil found in the ranks of the rich and powerful, it is looking at ourselves and finding the evil within us.

For you computer nerds: Windows vs. Linux

I don't know how many of you out there use operating systems other than Microsoft Windows. For personal use, I use a Windows machine like most everyone else, but for work, I use Linux, since that is the platform on which our application runs.

It's interesting to compare the 2 systems because they seem to come from different cultures. The Windows environment is created by a large corporation in a proprietary format, whereas Linux is "one of the most prominent examples of free software and open source development; its underlying source code can be modified, used, and redistributed by anyone, freely."

I'm not a computer expert, but my smart computer friends tell me that Linux is more stable than Windows. That seems to be the case, as we can leave Linux running for days and weeks on end. Personally, I really like the Unix-ish command line interface, that makes it easier to move around in a file system, if I know what I'm doing. I also like the window management system better, as I can type on a window, even if it is partially covered by other windows, a major downfall of Windows.

The disadvantages is that, in many cases, you get what you pay for. With a Linux release, it's not uncommon to have parts of the OS that simply don't work. With SuSE 10.1, the update system was broken, along with several other bugs. Granted, they do have an Enterprise version that is supposed to be more tight. Windows is not free from bugs, but surface-level flaws are much more rare. Bugs found using some Linux versions would not make the first version of Windows software.

Also, Windows has been much easier for the common person to use. Programs internal and external to windows are installed with a few clicks of a mouse. Linux, however, is mostly designed by computer geeks for the computer geek. For many distributions, a Linux user needs to use the command line interface and deal with "tarballs" and "makefiles."

Some may look at the battle between Windows and Open Source as a microcosm of capitalism vs. say, socialism, but I don't know if the analogy is apt. Microsoft is, no doubt, an example of capitalism, but open source is not exactly a parallel to socialism, primarily because of its voluntary nature, although many advocate for open source to be the universal standard.

But perhaps, open source software may show why, in life, voluntary acts are better than coerced ones. I think open source software is great, but I would not want it to be the only thing out there. I would not want an environment void of any intellectual property or where the only software available was developed by unpaid programmers. But perhaps I am just attacking a strawman, as I am not completely familiar with all the objectives of the open source community. And maybe the lesson cannot be extrapolated so easily.

I can get on board with open source as long as the community respects the rights of other people to sell their software if they wish. If someone wants to offer their software for free, great, but don't feel like having a free operating system on your computer is a right. I suppose this matches with my life philosophy. I believe in generosity and not always being guided by a profit motive, but at the same time, we should not feel entitled to the work of others.

To me, open source software just shows that people can do creative work without being paid for it. Some people enjoy programming just like some enjoy building a table from scratch (and usually these two groups do not overlap). Like one must consider if they want a table a friend built or one from a store, they should consider operating systems.

By the way, here is an article comparing Ubuntu Linux to Windows Vista.

And yes, I also know that Macs exist, I just haven't used one enough to know anything about them.

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.

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?

What happened during the blizzard of '06.

Well, because of a huge blizzard going through Colorado this past Thursday, the wife and I were stuck home. Besides shoveling lots of snow and saving our trees, here is a breakdown of what happened that day.

Over at Port Charles, some lady named Laura was apparently in a coma for the past 3 years. Luke tried to save her with an experimental drug, and it seemed to finally work. Sonny's brother Rick is trying to bring his crime empire down, and Rick slept with his stepdaughter Sammy (sp?) which made things a little awkward around the wife, Sammy's mom, who I think is sick with cancer or flesh-eating bacteria or something like that. That also strained relationships with Sammy and Jason, but Jason is busy helping out Sonny with the empire. I think Sonny once said that he wanted to be legit, but I don't believe him. Sonny's ex-wife Carly used to be a short brunette with brown eyes, but now she is tall and blonde with blue eyes. I think next week she will be some black lady.

Over in Salem, Sami once again tried to crash Austin and Carrie's wedding. I didn't think Carrie and Austin would recover the first time when Sami showed up at their first wedding and announced she was pregnant with Austin's baby. But it wasn't Austin's fault, Sami had drugged him, but it still bothered Carrie since Sami is her sister. Anyway, Sami tried to crash the wedding, but Austin and Carrie's love marched through. Also, I tried to catch what Marlena was up to. It didn't seem like she was demon-possessed or killing people for no reason this time, so that is always a good thing.

How to make smoking cool again...

It seems that the act of smoking cigarettes has taken quite a hit concerning social standing in society. In older movies, and maybe even television shows, it was not a surprise to see anyone light up. However, smoking seems to be losing popularity. Most people perceive it as a nasty habit, or may even enjoy smoking but give it up based on health reasons. Smoking is something that was associated with a somewhat rebellious image, something cool, but that seems to have changed over time.

Smoking is something that has never interested me. I've just never had a desire to do it. I still don't, although, I must admit, a small part of me wishes I did. Why? Because there is a tiny side of me that wants to rebel against the anti-smoking zealots. Now, I am not even talking about the smoking ban, that is a much more complex issue involving property rights, and I don't want to unravel that right now. I am talking about censorship. I read an article sometime back about censorship concerning smoking. For some reason, I thought I saw it at Lee's blog, but it turns out it was at the Cato Institute Blog. The post says

Cartoon editors are painstakingly working through more than 1,500 episodes of classic Tom and Jerry, Flintstones, and Scooby Doo cartoons to erase scenes of characters - gasp - smoking. Turner Broadcasting says it’s a voluntary decision, but the move comes after a report from Ofcom, which has regulatory authority over British broadcasters. So in this case “censorship” seems a reasonable term.

It’s not the first time. France’s national library airbrushed a cigarette out of a poster of Jean-Paul Sartre to avoid falling foul of an anti-tobacco law. The US postal service has removed the cigarettes from photographs on stamps featuring Jackson Pollock, Edward R. Murrow, and Robert Johnson. And in the 20th-anniversary rerelease of ET, Steven Spielberg replaced the policemen’s guns with walkie-talkies.

On one level, this is just a joke: they are redrawing cartoons to make them more kid-friendly. And just to make the rules completely PC, Turner is allowed to leave cigarettes in the hands of cartoon villains.

But there’s something deeper here: an attempt to sanitize history, to rewrite it the way we wish it had happened. Smoking is a part of reality, and especially a part of history. Just look at any old movie. Everyone smokes: doctors, pregnant women, lovers. Real people smoked, too - people like Murrow and Pollock and Sartre. And some of them died of lung and throat cancer, which parents and teachers can point out. It’s Orwellian to airbrush historical photos in order to remove evidence of that of which you disapprove.

Franklin D. Roosevelt spent decades trying to conceal the fact that he was confined to a wheelchair. Historians say that out of more than 10,000 photographs of FDR, only four show him using a wheelchair. Those are the ones that are now used in textbooks and at the FDR Memorial in Washington. One victory for historical accuracy. However, the FDR Memorial removed the ever-present cigarette from FDR’s hands. Orwell’s ministry of truth would be proud.

The article has many good points, but I wanted to focus on the one about smoking. As I said previously, it seems like smoking is losing it's "cool" image. And that is mainly people deciding for themselves that smoking is a bad idea, and certain voluntary groups, I believe, are helping in the effort. Smoking is viewed as more "dangerous", but not in a cool way anymore, but in a "give you lung cancer" sort of way. However, when government steps in, I think it can have the reverse effect. Look at me. I am the least rebellious person I know. Even though I have many libertarian viewpoints, I consider myself a person with a conservative lifestyle and someone with few vices, other than the additional Hershey's bar from time to time. But also, when I see such nanny-state behavior, it makes me wish I smoked just to throw it in the anti-smoking zealot's face. If such actions affect me in such a way, how about the rebellious teenager?

At least we have more than 5 Bibles

A recent report says.

(New York-AP) September 21, 2006 - Televisions have taken over the average American home. Nielsen Media Research says the average home in the US now has more television sets than people to sit down and watch them.

The researchers say there are now 2.73 TV sets in the typical home, compared to just 2.55 people.

Nielsen says half of American homes now have three or more TVs, while only 19 percent have just one. In 1975, 57 percent of homes had only a single set.

Nielsen also says more people are watching more television, as sets are turned on for more than eight hours a day in the average home.

The average person watches four hours and 35 minutes of television each day.

I must say, somewhat red-faced, that I have 5 TV's in my home, for just my wife and I. Well, and a little one on the way (found out last week!). However, not that I feel I have to justify anything to anyone, I feel I have a good explanation. My wife and I each brought a TV into the marriage, with the bigger one being 19 inches. However, in a short amount of time, 3 TV's were given to us. My in-laws had a small TV they weren't using that they offered to give us. We decided to take it just to have another TV for when we move into a house, maybe something for the guest room. Well, the house we bought had a TV that the prior residents left in the living room; it is about 31 inches. Then, I have a friend who works for Ultimate Electronics who delivers television sets. Sometimes the person simply gives the old TV to him (usually it requires repairs of some sort). Well, someone gave him a 48 inch HDTV, which meant he had to do something with the 50-inch older TV he got from a customer previously. Well, I ended up with the 50-inch.

And that is the story of how our family obtained 5 TV's, only paying for 2 of them.