The Best Fragging Deal on iPhone and iPod Touch

Some time ago, someone asked me to participate in an exciting project.

Now, more than eighteen months later, I can tell all of you about it.

The project was to create a full featured multiplayer first person shooter for iPhone and iPod touch – and it is now available on the App Store.

If you are interested in my work, you can learn more about my part over here. If you just want to get straight to the iPwnage, go download the game now – low price, no gimmicks, no tricks.

July 6, 2010 | Filed Under Fun | Comments 

Tea Partiers Almost All White – So What?

Dennis Prager wrote a piece for National Review Online entitled Race and the Tea Parties (April 27, 2010) and it is about as wrong as I’ve read in a long time.

He starts out with this

Opponents of the popular expression of conservative opposition to big government — the tea-party movement — regularly note that tea partiers are overwhelmingly white. This is intended to disqualify the tea parties from serious moral consideration.

Typical straw man argument. He tells us why people have pointed this out and then shows how wrong that motivation is. He doesn’t waste one sentence, however, proving this motivation. He simply assumes it.

And it gets better …

The fact that the Left believes that the preponderance of whites among tea partiers invalidates the tea-party movement tells us much more about the Left than it does about the tea partiers.

Where is the evidence that “the Left” believes any such thing. I’ll grant him that the race of the group should be considered when evaluating some of its opinions – but certainly not all – as should gender and class. His disagreement with that indicates how much he has lost touch with reality. I’ll return to this later.

He goes on to say …

One would hope that all people would assess ideas by their moral rightness or wrongness, not by the race, gender, or class of those who hold them.

I could not agree more.

But in the world of the Left, people are taught not to assess ideas but to identify the race, class, and gender of those who espouse those ideas.

The “world of the Left?” Is this really what people are being taught? I could easily make similar assertions of the Right with nothing to back up my claims.

This helps explain the widespread use of ad hominem attacks by the Left: Rather than argue against their opponents’ ideas, the Left usually dismisses those making an argument with which it disagrees as “racist,” “intolerant,” “bigoted,” “sexist,” ”homophobic,” “xenophobic,” and/or “homophobic.”

Two things are going on here.

First, he is making the assumption that pointing out that tea partiers are mostly white is always an attempt to invalidate all of its arguments. This is simply not the case.

Second, he is ignoring any valid reason for pointing out these biases. When a particular group espouses an idea that is inherently racist or sexist, I have every right to point that out. Much of the rhetoric out of the tea party camp is clearly racist. I don’t call the tea partiers racist to invalidate their ideas. Their ideas are racist and that makes those ideas wrong. Why is this not clear?

To prove my point I am going to say something I might regret. I may agree with some of the ideas held by the tea party. I don’t, however, agree with all their ideas because they are racist – some of the ideas, not the people. Just because some of the members, or all of them, are racist does not make their valid ideas automatically invalid. The racist, and sexist, ideas are invalid – because they are racist and/or sexist. Is there something wrong with pointing that out.

He gives another example …

This is why, to cite another example, men are dismissed when they oppose abortion. The idea is far less significant than the sex of the advocate. As for women who oppose abortion on demand, they are either not authentically female or simply traitors to their sex. Just as the Left depicts blacks who oppose race-based affirmative action as not authentic blacks or as traitors to their race.

Is it just me or is that paragraph simply a list of assertions with no foundation.

And, of course, he brings up the issue of abortion. In this case, I’m glad because this is a great example of what I said I’d return to. There are two issues to consider here – abortion, and a woman’s right to choose. I know opponents of choice don’t like to look at it this way but the issues are different. A man has the same right as a woman to hold a valid opinion on both issues, BUT his opinion on the matter of choice, because he will never have to make that choice, does not carry as much weight as the opinion of a woman.

Prager finishes his first point with …

In this morally inverted world, the virtual absence of blacks and minorities from tea-party rallies cannot possibly reflect anything negative on the blacks and minorities’ absence, only on the white tea partiers’ presence.

Okay, this is a very good point. The virtual absence of minorities does not necessarily indicate that the party is inherently racist, but it might. Members of the tea party should take a serious look at their ideas. Perhaps the absence of minorities does indicate a problem with the party itself.

He finishes with a second point that sounds suspiciously like the first so I won’t get into that.

One final thing bothers me about his article. Two days before his article, another article entitled Imagine: Protest, Insurgency and the Workings of White Privilege was wildly popular online. I don’t see any reference to this article by Prager but I have to assume he had seen it. Anyone writing on the subject would have seen it. If he had not seen it, he can contact me and I’ll make a note here.

Assuming he had seen it, he makes no attempt to address it. What if the tea party were predominantly black, or muslim? Would they be allowed to storm Washington in protest? This is a matter for serious consideration. The fact that he ignores it in his piece is telling.

If you ask me.

April 29, 2010 | Filed Under Freedom | Comments 

Two Cents Each – 4/26/2010

Alex Payne — How I Use TextMate
TextMate is my second favorite editor – after vim of course :) – and I love the bundles.
The Medium – Beep! – NYTimes.com
A fun read about a great sound and a great word.
Amazon: You Need To Change Your Idiotic Customer Reviews Policy Right Now
I don't like that some authors withhold the Kindle version, but this is not the appropriate way to respond.
Shut Up & Bring It | Talking Points Memo
Yeah!
Constitutionality of Mandatory Insurance
The new health care reform signed into law is not unconstitutional. It might not be perfect, it might not even be good, but it's constitutional.
UnMarketing » Blog Archive » How to lose friends and tick off people on FaceBook
Wow! What a riot. Read this if you use Facebook and you'd like a good laugh.
Incredible Izzo Again Defies Odds
Another great post about math and sports. I love it.
‘Grrrr’ Means Many Things in Dog Speak | LiveScience
"Even though the humans and their scientific equipment couldn't tell the difference, though, it seemed the dogs could."

Fascinating.

Series: Why Did Jesus Come? « – Thinking Christian
"in view of the Old Testament context from which he was quoting, it appears he is calling on oppressors to free those they are holding down unjustly. He came to liberate us from our own failings, and to call us to pass that blessing along by liberating others where we have power to do so."

Jesus spoke for just a few moment and decided to read from Isaiah 61:1. That should make us think twice about a few things.

One sandwich to kill you all
This is one of the funniest pieces I have read in a very long time. You will not be disappointed if you take the time to read the whole thing.
A New Kind of Starting Pitcher? – Freakonomics Blog – NYTimes.com
A fresh interesting idea but I don't see it catching on – see resistance number six – but I've watched some teams that would have probably benefited from this.
April 26, 2010 | Filed Under Fun | Comments 

Faith is About Doing

I discovered Have A Little Faith quite accidentally and I enjoyed it very much. It is not the kind of book I would normally read and certainly not the kind I would buy – but I did both.

I was very interested in the 10 Million Words project (which incidentally ended just today – how weird is that?) and I wanted to see if I could follow along. I knew I would not be able to read all the books so I made the decision to start small. My goal was to read or listen to each of the books that made it to to number one or number two on the list. If I was ever caught up, I’d try “number threes” and so on.

I even set up a web page to help me keep track of which books to read.

Anyway, one day I as at the local bookstore and decided to start on a couple of books – two I would buy but I figured I could read this little book before I left the store. It was clear before I was finished the first dozen pages that I’d want to own the book so I decided to take it home with me.

Other reviewers call this a story about two men and their faith but it is really a story about three men – the author, an agnostic with a religious Jewish upbringing; his former Rabbi, who has asked the author to deliver his eulogy; and a former drug dealer, now a Christian minister working among the homeless in Detroit.

There are many lessons one might learn from this very small book. The greatest, in my opinion, is that our faith should not be what divides us – it should be what unites us. We’ve all grown up in a world where our religions alienate us from one another and that shouldn’t be. I’m not talking about conceding the major tenets of one’s faith and agreeing that all religions are equally accurate about the meaning of our existence, etc. I’m talking about working together despite those differences.

If you are suspicious of these popular, feel-good, miracle stories; don’t let that stop you from reading this book. Read it – you’ll be glad you did.

In any case, it won’t take long for you to read and prove me wrong.

April 22, 2010 | Filed Under Books, Faith, Reviews | Comments 

Danny isn’t here, Mrs. Torrance.

Like most of Kubrick’s films, The Shining is a masterpiece. The film is classic Kubrick – wide symetrical shots, vivid colors, contorted faces of our main characters – and I could watch it over and over again.

It is not very true to the original story but it is terrifying nonetheless. It is the story of Jack Torrence, a failed writer who takes a job as the winter caretaker at the Overlook Hotel in order to focus on his writing. The book portrays a likable buy who is driven mad by the demons haunt the empty halls at the hotel. The movie, on the other hand, tells a story of a different man. Movie Jack is very unlikable from the beginning and appears to be at least half way to insane from the beginning. Jack Nicholson’s portrayal of this unlikable guy – that’s a stretch, huh? – is brilliant.

Shelley Duvall is wildly believable in her role. She does her best to be a sweet supportive wife to this nutcase though he frequently hurls insults and profanity at her. Meanwhile, their son Danny rides his big wheel around the hotel, chats with his imaginary friend Tony, and sees visions of death and destruction. Now that I think about it, the whole family is nuts before they head off on this “adventure.”

Danny’s big wheel rides provide some of the best shots in the film. Kubrick’s use of sound, parallel lines, and movement in these scenes is stunning. They also are a classic example of a technique he uses all the time – long shots from the character’s point of view. Another classic example of this is the chase scene near the end of the film.

The only shots that rival the riding scenes are those of Danny’s and Jack’s visions (if that is what they are). The two creepy little girls, the room filling with blood, and the ball room scenes are tremendous. And, of course, like every other Kubrick film we have a shot in the bathroom – and this one is about as freaky as they come.

I’m sure you’ve seen it – see it again.

P.S. This last viewing was with my son who had not yet seen it. I did not realize at the time that the HD version had been extended. I wish we’d seen the original first. I didn’t see anything wrong with the new scenes (and I’ve seen them before but didn’t realize the difference in versions until this time) but I’d like Billy to have seen the original first.

April 22, 2010 | Filed Under Movies, Reviews | Comments 

Texting – It’s Too Easy

Yesterday I wrote about new research which reveals some very interesting facts about text messaging among teens in the U.S.

All of this texting certainly raises serious concerns. Texting and driving, sexting, texting during class, the invasion of texting into academic work, and the complete destruction of the English language are certainly legitimate concerns (though that last one is an exaggeration in my opinion), but I am concerned about a couple of other issues. I wrote about one of those issues yesterday and I’d like to pick up with the other today.

It Impairs ~Some~ Social Skills

I don’t subscribe to the notion that all of our electronic communication makes us less social. To the contrary, I think much of it has increased our ability to communicate with each other.

My concern is that teens, because they are growing up with this technology available to them, may not learn other valuable social skills because of all the texting. While we are at it, let’s include Tweeting and Facebook updates, and even email.

I’ve noticed three trends that signal the problem:

  1. texting love messages
  2. breaking up, quitting, or firing via text
  3. emoticons
  4. teens prefer texting parents over calling

I’ll admit now that there is a positive side to numbers one and four. One could also argue that some of the problems I point out apply to other forms of communication which pre-date texting – like the folded notes we used to pass in high school, for example. Correct, but the issue – again – with texting is that it increases our ability to do something. Technology has a way of doing that. We use a technology to make a task easier, faster, or more convenient; thereby increasing all the negative associated with that task.

Let’s look at each one. These are not the problems. These are the signals that there is a problem.

Texting Love Messages

No doubt I see the positive side here. If texting can help a shy teenager strike up a conversation with someone he likes, that is fantastic. The problem begins, for me, when it becomes too easy to use texting and we don’t ever try to grow beyond that.

One writer puts it this way:

Personally, I find nothing interesting in the sms craze, except that it has boosted the confidence of some spineless fellows, who now find it easier to send love messages to girls they wouldn’t dare open their mouths to say the three little words. Campus VIBE Misuse of text messaging now borders on obsession

Learning to express your feeling verbally – over the phone and face to face – is an important part of growing up. If one shares his feelings only via texting, he is missing out on something. He is also depriving someone else of some very important things – not the least of which is the expectation of sincerity. Without the other signals present in verbal and face to face communication, one is left to wonder sometimes if the message was intended as a joke or something else.

Breaking Up (or quitting or firing) Via Text

I don’t know if firing is becoming a trend but I’ve read that it is starting to happen. Quitting via texting is starting to become more popular and I’m sure most of us have heard of someone using texting to break up with someone. This is just another example of using technology to avoid doing something difficult – something one must learn how to do.

It’s one thing to use an power tool to make a mundane task easier to accomplish. It’s another to apply the same logic to what, presumably, was an important interpersonal relationship between two human beings. Perhaps that is the problem – there was no real relationship there in the first place.

Using texting for one of these things is inexcusable. I am no expert at any of these situations – from either perspective :) – but I would have to guess that more than 90% of the time these things should be handled in person. The remaining 10% should be handled by telephone or some form of written communication. Texting – no way.

Starting a relationship with someone via texting may be okay – ending it is not.

Emoticons

Electronic communication is prone to misunderstanding and lacks the other signals present in verbal and face to face communication. This has led to the use of emoticons to make up for those signals. Unfortunately, it’s too easy.

If I were mad at you but I needed to communicate with you about something face to face, I’d need to work at treating you with respect, making my point clear, leaving our disagreement out of the conversation if it is not the point to our conversation, etc. If I were having that same conversation via text, I could type what I needed to type and use emoticons when necessary to “pretend” as if everything is okay.

Obviously, there is a place for emoticons. Remember, they are not the problem. The problem is that we use them so often in exactly the wrong way. It’s just too easy to make a sarcastic remark to someone and follow it with a :) to indicate that we are “only kidding.”

Teens Prefer Texting Parents Over Calling

As a parent I have to tell you – I prefer it too most of the time. I have two children. We don’t struggle with most of the things a lot of families do but I still find the parent-teenager relationship fascinating. When my son goes out somewhere I’d like to know what he is up to. As a good kid, he actually wants to keep me informed. He does not, however, want to sit amongst his friends and have an out-loud conversation with his dad. Can you blame him?

That is why I like it. I can text him and he will respond. I can ask him to text me when he gets somewhere and he will do it – most of the time. I can also usually ask as many questions as I want and he can answer in private. Same for my daughter.

But there is a down side – everything I’ve described above. Sometimes a phone conversation is necessary. There are other reasons teenagers prefer texting. When you text someone they can’t see or hear what is going on around you, they can’t tell if you’re drunk, they don’t even know it is really you. Many teens resort to texting as a way of keeping parents “off my back.” It’s more of the same – it makes my life easier so that must be better, right?

Something I read yesterday sums it all up really.

For Pam Zingeser, the big issue is not cost — it’s $30 a month for the family’s unlimited texting plan — but the effects of so much messaging. Pam wonders: What will this generation learn and what will they lose in the relentless stream of sentence fragments, abbreviations and emoticons? “Life’s issues are not always settled in sound bites,” Pam says. 6,473 Texts a Month, But at What Cost?

April 21, 2010 | Filed Under Fun | Comments 

Texting Is A Distraction

New research reveals some very interesting facts about text messaging among teens in the U.S. and some of the numbers are staggering. According to the study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, the average girl sends 80 texts per day (30 for boys) and 87% of teens say they sleep with or near their cell phones.

All of this texting certainly raises serious concerns. Texting and driving, sexting, texting during class, the invasion of texting into academic work, and the complete destruction of the English language are certainly legitimate concerns (though that last one is an exaggeration in my opinion), but I am concerned about a couple of other issues. I want to write about one of those issues today.

The Myth of Multi-Tasking

If you are like me you have grown very attached to at least one personal computing device. These devices – computers, smartphones, even our televisions – have the ability to do more than one thing at a time. They are literally “wired” to work that way.

Unfortunately, our minds do not appear to be wired that way. I’m sure the subconscious mind has a way of thinking of solutions to problems while we focus on other things which is probably why people have learned to “sleep on” things, but I am referring to something else. Most of us have tried to imitate computers by attempting to focus on more than one task at a time. This, I think, is a huge mistake.

Others have written about and discussed this subject, but the point I’d like to make today is that texting is another attempt to multi-task (in some cases). There is nothing wrong with having a conversation with someone via texting but it is another thing to send and respond to text messages all day long while attempting to focus on other things.

Frankly, the sheer amount of time spent texting scares me a little. Many of us don’t realize how much of our time is wasted in the physical act of stopping to text, followed by texting itself, followed by switching back to what we were doing – just in time to receive a reply. Sending 80 texts per day is bound to consume more time than it is worth.

More importantly, we are constantly drawing our attention away from something else we should be doing. It is not so much about which task is more important. I have no doubt that sometimes the thing I should be doing is texting but sometimes I should be doing something else – and NOT texting (or doing anything else). While trying to write this very short piece I was distracted by text messages more than a dozen times.

April 20, 2010 | Filed Under Family, Fun | Comments 

Kermit Ready to Walk Across Hot Coals

via urlesque.com

Posted via web from Bill’s posterous

April 11, 2010 | Filed Under Fun | Comments 

Can We Just Stop All the Shouting So I Can Think?

Opponents of health care reform are making so much noise that I find I can’t even think straight. I am not sure I like all the provisions of the bill that was signed into law, but how am I to carefully consider these things with all the shouting?!

I am beginning to think this is an intentional strategy. If none of us can think, we can’t consider the issues. If all we do is shout back, we lose time we could be using productively.

There is no question in my mind, many on the Right are overreacting – and it is not just those on the Left who agree. David Frum and Joe Klein, both of whom could be considered a friend (certainly not an enemy) to the Right, both point out the overreaction.

Let’s take a look at just a few examples. Note the exclusion of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Overreaction is a standard part of their game and we all know it.

The Wall Street Journal called the bill a “federal takeover of the U.S. health-care system,” and Dennis Prager calls the debate a Civil War! and goes on to say:

After Sunday’s vote, for the first time in American history, one could no longer confidently believe that the American system will prevail. And if we don’t fight for it, we don’t deserve it.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R – South Carolina) has begins his rant with this:

There’s no fixing the government health care takeover Democrats forced through on Sunday. It must be repealed.

Repealed? Really? Is that the best approach? Bill Kristol is on the repeal kick too. One of my favorite bloggers had this to say about repeal:

And how about a legal challenge? It’s nice to see the GOP is now in favor of “activist judges.”

DeMint goes on to say:

After telling Americans in 2008 that they would lower spending, taxes and insurance premiums, Democrats passed a bill that breaks every promise. Using secret deals, kickbacks and carve-outs, Democratic leaders jammed through legislation to control more than one-sixth of the nation’s economy.

The plan will explode the national debt, raise $569.2 billion in new taxes, force taxpayers to fund abortions, and impose unconstitutional mandates on every American.

All of this was done in the face of overwhelming public outrage and bipartisan opposition in Congress. This process has been an insult to our democracy and threatens our nation’s prosperity and freedom.

The rhetoric gets worse, though. David Limbaugh had this to say:

The Democrats’ passage of socialized medicine Sunday night will spell either the beginning of the end of this great nation or the beginning of the rebirth of its freedom. The choice is still in the hands of Americans.

Is this guy serious? I understand rhetoric and I understand value overstating one’s point can have but this is just too much. He goes on …

To borrow a phrase from President Barack Obama, “let’s be clear” on a couple of things:

First, it’s not an exaggeration to say Obamacare is socialized medicine; in fact, it doesn’t go far enough simply to say it represents the government takeover of our entire health care system. It is also a major step (begun long ago) in the complete dismantling of the unique American constitutional experiment and of the social compact between Americans and their government. Obama’s now-realized goal of fundamental change is to make the government the people’s master instead of their servant.

Secondly, we should not suffer gladly those painfully naive people who will continue to say that Obama and his obedient congressional Democrats are not radical. It may make people feel better about themselves to promote congeniality and bipartisanship, but to fantasize about such quixotic goals under this type of radical assault on our nation is tantamount to enabling it.

Government takeover? Dismantling of the social compact? Radical assault? There is more …

Thirdly, Obama and the Democrats have been unconscionably deceptive about their aims, even though Obama couldn’t help but reveal his extremism from time to time. He certainly promised “fundamental change” but was so vague that many assumed his idea of “hope and change” meant something consistent with American values. Others knew full well what grandiose plans he had in store to overthrow America’s social compact. There was no mistaking his intent when you examined his radical background and radical relationships; his extremist position on human life, including supporting a form of infanticide; his promise to redistribute wealth; his obvious grudge against America; and his experience as a street agitator in Chicago.

Obvious grudge against America? Street Agitator?

I don’t want the government to control every facet of my life, but is that really what this will lead to? Do we not live in a democratic republic where we can influence the laws of the land? Isn’t that what this is all about?

March 30, 2010 | Filed Under Fun | Comments 

Two Cents Each – 3/29/2010

Alex Payne — How I Use TextMate
TextMate is my second favorite editor – after vim of course :) – and I love the bundles.
The Medium – Beep! – NYTimes.com
A fun read about a great sound and a great word.
Amazon: You Need To Change Your Idiotic Customer Reviews Policy Right Now
I don't like that some authors withhold the Kindle version, but this is not the appropriate way to respond.
Shut Up & Bring It | Talking Points Memo
Yeah!
Constitutionality of Mandatory Insurance
The new health care reform signed into law is not unconstitutional. It might not be perfect, it might not even be good, but it's constitutional.
March 29, 2010 | Filed Under Fun | Comments 

Great Ideas – 3/28/2010

March 28, 2010 | Filed Under Fun | Comments 

Great Sites – 3/27/2010

March 27, 2010 | Filed Under Fun | Comments 

I’ll get paid for killing, and this town is full of people who deserve to die.

March 23, 2010 marked the 100th anniversary of Akira Kurosawa – a brilliant filmmaker.

Let me say it simply, Kurosawa was my Master.
Martin Scorsese

Fortunately the ladies of the household were headed out on a shopping trip, so Billy and I treated ourselves to a double feature of Yojimbo and Sanjuro. Both of these films were new to us. Billy had not seen them only because he was waiting for a time to see them both together. Well, now we had our chance – on the birthday of a giant.

The films were brilliant, and I’m sure others can review them better than I. In addition to a brilliant film, I was intrigued by it’s place in movie history. The film is clearly inspired by American westerns yet it also had an influence on many films which would follow it. This is one of the earliest films to highlight the kind of main character we’ve grown accustomed to in American films – an amoral antihero who is driven mostly by his own concerns. Our “hero” is the kind of man we shouldn’t really care about at all. He is the kind of man who really does not deserve our respect or admiration, yet somehow we are on his side.

If you’ve not seen either of these films, do yourself a favor and check them out. As is my normal practice, I’ve linked to a Blu-ray on Amazon. I happened to notice in this case that the reviews of this version were not very good. I don’t think there is a better version available but if I learn of one, I’ll update the links.

March 26, 2010 | Filed Under Fun, Movies, Reviews | Comments 

Tea Party Patriots

Years ago I learned of groups all over our great nation who were organizing Tea Parties on April 15th to protest income taxes. I hated taxes and I thought it was a great idea. I used to talk about doing one of my own, but like many things in life it turned out to be one of those things I guess I didn’t really care enough to do.

Several years have past since then and my opinions have changed a bit. I still hate paying taxes and I still think the market is the best place for ideas to win or lose. I’ve learned a great deal, however, about the responsibility one citizen has to help his fellow citizens. I’ve spent time reading the writings of our nation’s founders and I’ve learned a couple of things. One, some of them were more liberal than your conservative friends would like you to believe. Two, sometimes their ideas were just plain wrong. I think many of us like to take an idealized view of these men but we must remind ourselves that they fought about the issues for a reason – they were not right about everything.

The evolution of my thinking on these matters has led me to the point where I am surprised by movements like The Tea Party Patriots. According to their website, they hold three core values – Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets. As I’ve written many times, I believe in all of these things. My problem with this movement is the extreme to which they carry these points and the emphasis on financial concerns. I’ll discuss each of the core values separately.

Fiscal Responsibility

Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject its citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.

I’ll admit that I agree with much of this one, but the first sentence really gets me. They start with an assumption that is incorrect – two actually. One, that any individual has the freedom to do with her money what she wants. I disagree. The other, that the government should honor and respect that freedom. If such a freedom existed, I’d agree wholeheartedly.

Why do so many of us believe that we have the right to control something simply because we earned it, created it or have some other claim to ownership? This reminds me so much of the two year old who continually screams “Mine!” Do we not have a responsibility to use our wealth in a way that benefits others? Am I really free to do with my possessions as I wish?

I guess the point is that no other person has the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with my property. I agree, but that doesn’t mean I can do what I want. The question, then, is whether a government “of the people and by the people” has the authority to tell me what I can and cannot do. Like any good libertarian, I would argue that the government does not have the right to restrain my freedom except to protect the freedom of another individual or group of individuals. Much of the poverty we see around us is most certainly caused by a callous disregard for the rights and freedoms of other individuals. If _we_ don’t watch out for others, who will?

Constitutionally Limited Government

We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states’ rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.

Once again, I have no issue with the substance of anything but the first sentence – which I’ll get to in a moment. Where I would disagree is in the application. I think the Constitution grants more power to the federal government than members of this movement would admit. My assumption is that they interpret this phrase – “those powers not expressly stated” – much more strictly than I would or than was intended. Before you get all “English teacher” on me, I know what expressly means. My argument is not with that word. In my opinion, Section 9 and Section 10 of Article I expressly grant the power to enact quite a bit of legislation – even though the specifics of that legislation is not expressly stated.

Now for a look at the first sentence. Is the Constitution the supreme law of the land? Yes and No. Yes, it is the final authority in matters of law. No, it is not the final authority on all matters. This, in fact, is why it is necessary to amend it from time to time. We must be careful not to hold the Constitution in such high regard that we neglect the importance of natural law and the rights of the individual. The U.S. Constitution is a wonderful document precisely because it helps gaurantee our rights as individuals. It is easy to assume that those rights are granted to us by the Constitution. It may grant us some rights, but other rights were ours before the Constitution was drafted.

Free Markets

A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government’s interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.

This is a matter of great sadness for me. I believe in the power of the free market. Always have, always will. The operative word, however, is FREE. Our current economic system is very far from free in many regards.

I can hear the Tea Party Patriots yelling now. “That’s right. That is precisely what we want to see changed.” Okay, I hear you and I agree. Our current system may be broken but let’s not assume the answer is the unfettered permission to do as we please. This is a common misconception of freedom and it all seems to be rooted in the first sentence of the first core value – I have a right to do with my possessions as I see fit. This is simply not the case. In many cases the actions I take have a negative impact on the freedom of others. This is why we don’t allow businesses to behave in certain ways.

So What?

I was drawn to this topic today because of the reading I’ve been doing about the health care reform that was signed into law yesterday. If you’d asked me 15 years ago I would have been very much against this proposal. Today, I may not agree with everything proposed by the new legislation but I am happy something is happening. As a society we have turned a blind eye to policies which are not fair to all citizens while they pretend to be conservative and based on free enterprise.

Like I’ve written and said many times – if the government is going to tax us and dictate policy, it is about time they begin to pass legislation that is fair. I know this proposal is far from perfect. I’m confused, for example, why it still involves employers in the equation. I’m sure I’ll have something more to write about that.

March 24, 2010 | Filed Under Freedom | Comments 

My Oscar Picks 2010

NOTE: I wanted to post this before the show so all the links point to the same place right now. I’ll edit them later.

I usually like to see all the films nominated in the popular categories but this year I missed a few key films. I’ll make note of those when I think it matters.

Best Actor

The clear winner among the performance I saw is Jeff Bridges for his portrayal of a washed up country singer who is down on his luck and struggling with his addiction to alcohol in Crazy Heart. Bridges is an exceptional actor and this performance is brilliant.

I saw the other two films – The Hurt Locker and Up In the Air – twice and I would give second place to George Clooney. The second time I saw this film I found myself surprised that I’d not remembered his performance. It was a solid performance.

Unfortunately, I haven’t seen two of the performances – Morgan Freeman and Colin Firth. I understand both are excellent actors and I’m guessing both were better than Clooney and Renner.

Best Supporting Actor

I did not see The Lovely Bones or Invictus and I saw Inglorious Basterds twice.

I was thoroughly impressed with Harrelson’s performance in The Messenger. In any other year, he might be the clear winner, but I think the Oscar should definitely go to Christoph Waltz for his performance in Inglorious Basterds. His was one of the finest performances I remember seeing in any film.

Plummer’s performance was excellent in The Last Station was also excellent but I have to make Harrelson my second pick.

Best Actress

I’ve seen all of these films and I’m a fan of all these actresses, but I’m not excited about this category this year. Last year, I thought all five nominees were brilliant and I had no idea who would take the Oscar. This year I think there is a clear winner, but I’m still not that excited about it – even though it’s an actress I really love.

Julie & Julia was not nearly as good as expected. Streep is an excellent actress (and my choice for this Oscar last year) and I love Amy Adams but the people they were portraying were not nearly as lovable as the actresses themselves. I guess that colors my opinion of the movie and the performances.

Precious was a great film and Sidibe’s performance was solid – especially for a first performance – but not worthy of the Oscar, in my opinion.

Mirren was fantastic in The Last Station and I enjoyed the film, but the other two performances were better in my opinion.

I would give second place to Carey Mulligan for her performance in An_Educatoin. This is the first time I’ve seen her and I was very impressed. I’ve read that she is the favorite to win, but I think the Oscar belongs to Sandra Bullock.

The Blind Side is the kind of film I do not normally appreciate and this is no exception. I have to say I enjoyed the film more then I expected but it was not an excellent film. Bullock’s performance, on the other hand, was fantastic. My opinion might certainly be skewed by my undying love for Sandra Bullock, but I’d like to think I’m being objective. Two days before I saw this film, I’d seen her in another film where she plays a completely different role and the difference in characters was remarkable. She really did an excellent job in this film. Really? I’m not just sayin’ that because I like her.

Best Supporting Actress

I’m disappointed I did not get to see Nine. I’ve read that it was not a great film but the last few films in which I’ve seen her, Cruz has been fantastic.

I saw Up In the Air before the nominations were announced because I had read that it was going to be a favorite for Best Picture. I was very impressed with the film and with many of the performances. As I’ve already written, I wasn’t blown away by Clooney but his performance was good – as were the other performances in the film.

The performance that stood out for me was Anna Kendrick’s. I wasn’t sure if I’d just fallen for her character or not, but I loved her in the film.

When the nominations were announced I was very pleased she was nominated and I was a little confused about Farmiga’s nomination. I had not been nearly as impressed with her. When I saw the film a second time, though, it made more sense. It also confirmed my opinion of Kendrick. Her performance was excellent (and now I’m sure I’ve fallen for the character).

Then I saw Precious and a once in a lifetime performance by Mo’Nique. She was great from start to finish but her monologue late in the film was brilliant.

Just the other day I went to see Crazy Heart since I’d heard Bridges was great. I’m glad I did because Bridges is the clear winner in his category, but I don’t think Gyllenhaal wins this category. Her performance was solid and probably worthy of the nomination, but I don’t expect her to win.

I’d like to see Kendrick beat Mo’Nique, but I’d have to call this one a toss up.

Best Animated Feature

I’ve only seen two of these films but I’m certain Up wins this category. Before I learned that the best picture category was being expanded to ten films, I still felt as though Up was worth of best picture. It was that good. I assumed it wouldn’t be nominated and was pleased to learn when the field would be expanded to ten because I thought it might get a nomination. Turns out I was right but I still don’t expect it to win – because this category exists.

Anyway, I’m getting ahead of myself here.

Up clearly wins this and I have to give second to the only other film I saw – Coraline, which I think was a fantastic film too.

Art Direction ##

Only seen one of these films – Avatar – so I am going to guess.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus wins, Nine maybe.

Cinematograpy

I did not see Harry Potter (I’m a big fan of the Potter books and films, I just missed this one) and I did not see The White Ribbon.

I only saw Avatar once. I saw the other two – The Hurt Locker and Inglorious Basterds – twice.

I think Inglorious Basterds is the clear winner but any of the others could certainly win. So, I’ll have to go on my son’s recommendation on this one. He came home from Harry Potter and told me that it was one of the best “looking” movies he had ever seen. If you know my son, you understand that means a lot.

So, I’ll go with Harry Potter as my second choice. My son agrees, btw.

Costume Design

We received Bright Star from NetFlix about two weeks ago but we haven’t watched it yet. Haven’t seen any of these films so I’ll guess again.

Nine wins, Bright Star in second.

Directing

I’ve seen Avatar and [Precious][precous] once; Up In the Air, The Hurt Locker, and Inglorious Basterds twice.

I think this is an easy call really – Kathryn Bigelow for The Hurt Locker. Second place is a tougher call for me but I’d give it to Jason Reitman for Up In the Air.

Documentary Feature

I’ve only seen two of these and I think it’s toss up who wins. I’ll go with The Cove to win and Food, Inc. in second. They are both great documentaries. If you haven’t seen them, you should.

Documentary Short

Haven’t seen any of these and I’m not going to guess on this one.

Film Editing

I’ve seen Avatar and [Precious][precous] once; District 9, The Hurt Locker, and Inglorious Basterds twice.

I’m going to pick The Hurt Locker to win and Inglorious Basterds second.

Foreign Film

Also not going to guess.

Makeup

Star Trekwins and my second pick is Il Divo.

Score ##

Avatar wins and Up is my second pick.

Song

The Weary Kind from Crazy Heart and my second pick is Almost There from The Pricess and the Frog.

Best Animated Short ##

This is a tough one for me. I saw them all and they were all worthy of an award. I’m going to guess that A Matter of Loaf and Death will win but my favorite was Logorama.

Best Live Action Short

Also a tough one for me. I wasn’t a huge fan of The Door but I liked the others. My favorite was The New Tenants but I’ll make it my second pick. I think the winner will be Instead of Abracadabra

Sound Editing

I’ve seen all these films and I think this is another tough call. Up and Avatar are possibilities since they are both animated (essentially). Inglorious Basterds would also not surprise me, but I think the winner will be The Hurt Locker and my second pick is Star Trek.

Sound Mixing

I’ve seen all these and I can’t believe Transformers was nominated. That movie was one of the loudest experiences of my entire life. It sounded to me as though everything was at the same level. Perhaps it was just a problem at that theater. I hated the movie too, btw.

I think Inglorious Basterds will, and should, win. Star Trek is my second pick.

Visual Effects

I saw District 9 twice and the others once. Avatar will win, but I’d prefer either of the others win instead.

Adapted Screenplay

Along with District 9, I saw Up In the Air twice. I saw the others once. Up In the Air will win. Tough call for second but I’ll have to go with In the Loop.

Original Screenplay

I’ve seen two of these only once and the others twice. I am not going to be disappointed no matter who wins but I would choose A Serious Man or Inglorious Basterds.

Best Picture

Like I mentioned earlier, I am glad this category was expanded to ten films because I think Up deserves a nomination. It is worthy of the win but I don’t expect it to win.

I have seen all of these films – half of these movies twice – and I’d call all of them excellent films. I don’t think Avatar or The Blind Side are in the same category as the others, but they are still excellent films.

I saw Up first and I thought it was worthy of an Oscar from day one. The next film I saw was The Hurt Locker and was sure it would win for best picture. As I saw each of the next films, most of them made me wonder a bit but I stick by my original pick. My second choice is Up In the Air.

March 7, 2010 | Filed Under Fun | Comments 

Next Page →