Sunday, November 21, 2010
Cam's Take on TSA Searches at US Airports
Is here, and one that I think I could endorse. Although I still think issuing all men a copy of Playboy before they go into the scanner would be good as well.
Labels: cartoons, politics, travel
Saturday, April 10, 2010
What a Butthead
In the middle of all this mess about Helena Guergis and Rahim Jaffer, which frustrates me and at the same time reminds me that politicians can be stupid and about as quick to react as a teen asked to clean his room (he said from experience), Liberal and official opposition leader Michael Ignatieff had this to say (in the same article, at the bottom):
"This isn't fun because it casts aspersions on the political class and I'm a member of the political class."
He said more, of course, but I single this out because it offends me and reminds me of why so many people have trouble thinking of themselves as Liberal voters right now, even if that's the way they normally lean. No, Michael, you're not a member of the "political class." Just the fact that you think there is such a class tells me that you are, as your opponents suggest, sitting somewhere with your head in the clouds and paying no attention to the goings-on in the world around you. But please pay attention now: although we don't pride ourselves on it quite as much as the US, we live in what is ostensibly a classless society. Although money and power can get you things you may otherwise never be able to reach, being a politician is not, or should not be, the be-all and end-all. Being a politician should not be a final goal for anyone, which unfortunately is what is suggested by this statement. Instead, it should be about serving the greater good. Sadly, the moment a politician starts to think about him or herself as being part of a certain class, that's the moment he or she decides they're owed their living, and should be allowed to stay there as long as they want.
If I had to define his statement, the word I'd use today would be "classless."
"This isn't fun because it casts aspersions on the political class and I'm a member of the political class."
He said more, of course, but I single this out because it offends me and reminds me of why so many people have trouble thinking of themselves as Liberal voters right now, even if that's the way they normally lean. No, Michael, you're not a member of the "political class." Just the fact that you think there is such a class tells me that you are, as your opponents suggest, sitting somewhere with your head in the clouds and paying no attention to the goings-on in the world around you. But please pay attention now: although we don't pride ourselves on it quite as much as the US, we live in what is ostensibly a classless society. Although money and power can get you things you may otherwise never be able to reach, being a politician is not, or should not be, the be-all and end-all. Being a politician should not be a final goal for anyone, which unfortunately is what is suggested by this statement. Instead, it should be about serving the greater good. Sadly, the moment a politician starts to think about him or herself as being part of a certain class, that's the moment he or she decides they're owed their living, and should be allowed to stay there as long as they want.
If I had to define his statement, the word I'd use today would be "classless."
Monday, January 18, 2010
Over 1/3 of New Jersey Conservatives Think Obama Might be (or, Actually, IS) the Anti-Christ
Uh huh. "Resentful because they've been left behind" does sound like a decent description to me. Watch the interview here.
Labels: crazy talk, politics, religion
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Obama!
Damn, I wish we had a politician who could capture our hearts and minds like that.
Labels: politics
Thursday, October 09, 2008
The (Canadian) Election
We vote this coming Tuesday, and while I understand many people are talking more and more about Harper's Conservatives perhaps not getting their majority government, I hesitate to believe it until I see it. It's nice to see people trying to do something about this, but the fear for me is that progressive voters sit on their butts because they feel like it's all going to pan out, or worse, because they feel there's no use.
For those of you who'd like to vote but are unsure how to make it work for you, check out Vote Strategic, which gives some geographic-specific advice on how to vote. You can also have a boo at Vote For Environment, which is pretty self-explanatory.
Those of you in the vast majority of Alberta, just go back to sleep. I suspect that a few two-by-fours and fire hydrants are running as Tories, and they will of course be voted in.
For those of you who'd like to vote but are unsure how to make it work for you, check out Vote Strategic, which gives some geographic-specific advice on how to vote. You can also have a boo at Vote For Environment, which is pretty self-explanatory.
Those of you in the vast majority of Alberta, just go back to sleep. I suspect that a few two-by-fours and fire hydrants are running as Tories, and they will of course be voted in.
Labels: politics
Monday, March 03, 2008
Same As It Ever Was
I remember growing up, my dad complaining that Albertans would elect a fire hydrant if it ran for the Tory party. That complaint still stands, I think.
I remember growing up, my dad complaining that Albertans would elect a fire hydrant if it ran for the Tory party. That complaint still stands, I think.
Labels: politics
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Tremendously Self-Aware (Read: Stupid) Statement of the Day
"I'm not going to belong to a party that doesn't want me." Way to stand up for your idiotic principles, man.
"I'm not going to belong to a party that doesn't want me." Way to stand up for your idiotic principles, man.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land... the common clay of the New West. You know: morons.*
Still on vacation, although we're attempting to relax in Edmonton for a few days rather than drive madly from one location to the other through Oregon and Washington (although it was fun, and I will post more about that part of the trip anon). But I just thought I'd mention that there is almost nothing more infuriating than sitting down for a nice meal in a pleasant little town in Washington and finding yourself trapped beside a table hosting a Republican Hen Party. Somehow, though, Jo managed to convince me to keep my trap shut.
* Blazing Saddles, of course
Still on vacation, although we're attempting to relax in Edmonton for a few days rather than drive madly from one location to the other through Oregon and Washington (although it was fun, and I will post more about that part of the trip anon). But I just thought I'd mention that there is almost nothing more infuriating than sitting down for a nice meal in a pleasant little town in Washington and finding yourself trapped beside a table hosting a Republican Hen Party. Somehow, though, Jo managed to convince me to keep my trap shut.
* Blazing Saddles, of course
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
What Catches a Science Fiction Author's Eye?
In this case, that would be methane seas on Titan and a remarkably depressing outlook (yes, even more depressing than many might think) Iraq.
In this case, that would be methane seas on Titan and a remarkably depressing outlook (yes, even more depressing than many might think) Iraq.
Labels: politics, science, writing
Monday, February 05, 2007
More Ramblings From Steyn
Children of Men finally made it to the theatres in our little piece of wilderness this past weekend, and so we wangled a babysitter and headed out for a night at the movies on Saturday. I've heard many good things about the film, and one especially bad thing, and so I was looking forward to comparing the remarkably disparate points of view.
First of all, let me join the pile-on and point out that this is a great movie. Jo had some problems with the lack of any sign of an attempt to fix things, via cloning or some other technology, but my arguement with her was that this wasn't the point of the film, and that it can't be something for everyone. Indeed, somewhere else in this world that sort of thing could be happening, but it wasn't of concern to the director.
However, this is a marvelously realized future world, replete with all the little attendant details that impress on the viewer that attention was paid, that we were taken seriously enough to know that we were intended to believe this was happening. Additionally, the filmmaking itself is a wonder, with beathtaking single-take scenes (one involving a car chase, of sorts, and the other, more wondrous, of Theo dodging bullets to find his way back to Kee and her baby), a moving moment when they leave the shattered apartment building with the crying baby, and so much of the humanity that's willing to help, that wants things to work out for this woman and her miracle child.
The difficulty for some, I imagine, is that many of those who want to help and who are willing to do the right thing are the people who are being shat upon by those in power.
In a recent column in Maclean's, Mark Steyn claims that the film is "bad in an almost awe-inspiring way" and that it should be taught "in film school as the acme of adaptation." He didn't like it, obviously. Hell, even the subtitle of the column refers to it as a "shriekingly bad film." Now, ostensibly, Steyn's problem with the movie is that it is not a whole lot like the book. He's showing us that he's a purist, that his tastes are refined and literate and that only he (and, of course, his equally-refined readers, who apparently wrote to him complaining that they saw the film on his recommendation, when he had only recommended the novel) is therefore capable of judging how that story is translated to the big screen. Forget the 93% score on the Tomatometer and the fact that the film ranked 3rd overall for limited release films of 2006 on that same site. Yeah, that's an awful lot of critics who very much liked this movie (granted, some of them are pretty negligible in the scheme of things), but what the hell do they know?
"As one might expect from godless Hollywood," says Steyn, "he de-Christianizes the movie." This refers to the scene in the film where Theo is startled by a deer in an abandoned and decrepit schoolhouse, which apparently in the PD James novel was actually a deer in the chapel of Oxford's Magdalen College. This turns out to be a real issue for Steyn, who claims the movie's image is "sentimental," as opposed to the book's being "one of utter civilizational ruin -- of faith, knowledge, art and beauty, all lost to the beasts and the jungle."
This claim is surprising, to say the least. To think that only the church is capable of holding back the ruin of civilization is remarkably hubristic. No, it seems to me that if we are not producing children, then we are not producing our artists and scientists of the future. Even the amateurish mural on the outside of the school and the crayoned drawings inside the school are sufficient reminders of what is missed. And the beauty? It seems to me that's easily seen in the birth and life of such a miraculous baby, a beauty that could once be seen every day on that swingset in the abandoned schoolyard.
That said, the fact that the school also had sculptures of dinosaurs out front struck me as a nice dig at where "Christianizing" things may take us. Abandon reason and it all goes to hell.
Certainly Steyn says nothing of the sort, but I wonder just how much it set his teeth on edge to see that the people with the most to lose, those outsiders with the different skin colours and the funny accents, were the ones most willing to bend over backwards to help Theo and Kee and the baby. Willing to die, even.
The future of the movie is decidedly not the future of the book. But the book was written 15 years ago or more, and the movie has come out in a different world, one that is very much influenced by the events of September 11, 2001, and by the politicians who have made their decisions based on those events. Like it or not, we view this world through lenses coloured by such things as "homeland security," and the world some of us see coming is not one to like.
I think of one of the final scenes in the film, when Theo has rescued Kee and the baby and they are trying to escaped the apartment building while it is under siege from soldiers on the ground. Making their way down the hall, baby crying, everyone feels the need to reach out and touch the child, to see and to hear, even if it means they are felled by a bullet from below. And then even the soldiers stop what they are doing, some of them falling to their knees and crossing themselves because of the miracle they see (even though they're probably rabid atheists, all of them). Yes, as soo as they're clear, the battle starts anew, but we're shown a way to peace. A white man, a black, refugee woman, and a baby.
And even with the sadness of the last scene, when the movie goes to black, all around us we hear children laughing, and we feel good about the future of the race.
Children of Men finally made it to the theatres in our little piece of wilderness this past weekend, and so we wangled a babysitter and headed out for a night at the movies on Saturday. I've heard many good things about the film, and one especially bad thing, and so I was looking forward to comparing the remarkably disparate points of view.
First of all, let me join the pile-on and point out that this is a great movie. Jo had some problems with the lack of any sign of an attempt to fix things, via cloning or some other technology, but my arguement with her was that this wasn't the point of the film, and that it can't be something for everyone. Indeed, somewhere else in this world that sort of thing could be happening, but it wasn't of concern to the director.
However, this is a marvelously realized future world, replete with all the little attendant details that impress on the viewer that attention was paid, that we were taken seriously enough to know that we were intended to believe this was happening. Additionally, the filmmaking itself is a wonder, with beathtaking single-take scenes (one involving a car chase, of sorts, and the other, more wondrous, of Theo dodging bullets to find his way back to Kee and her baby), a moving moment when they leave the shattered apartment building with the crying baby, and so much of the humanity that's willing to help, that wants things to work out for this woman and her miracle child.
The difficulty for some, I imagine, is that many of those who want to help and who are willing to do the right thing are the people who are being shat upon by those in power.
In a recent column in Maclean's, Mark Steyn claims that the film is "bad in an almost awe-inspiring way" and that it should be taught "in film school as the acme of adaptation." He didn't like it, obviously. Hell, even the subtitle of the column refers to it as a "shriekingly bad film." Now, ostensibly, Steyn's problem with the movie is that it is not a whole lot like the book. He's showing us that he's a purist, that his tastes are refined and literate and that only he (and, of course, his equally-refined readers, who apparently wrote to him complaining that they saw the film on his recommendation, when he had only recommended the novel) is therefore capable of judging how that story is translated to the big screen. Forget the 93% score on the Tomatometer and the fact that the film ranked 3rd overall for limited release films of 2006 on that same site. Yeah, that's an awful lot of critics who very much liked this movie (granted, some of them are pretty negligible in the scheme of things), but what the hell do they know?
"As one might expect from godless Hollywood," says Steyn, "he de-Christianizes the movie." This refers to the scene in the film where Theo is startled by a deer in an abandoned and decrepit schoolhouse, which apparently in the PD James novel was actually a deer in the chapel of Oxford's Magdalen College. This turns out to be a real issue for Steyn, who claims the movie's image is "sentimental," as opposed to the book's being "one of utter civilizational ruin -- of faith, knowledge, art and beauty, all lost to the beasts and the jungle."
This claim is surprising, to say the least. To think that only the church is capable of holding back the ruin of civilization is remarkably hubristic. No, it seems to me that if we are not producing children, then we are not producing our artists and scientists of the future. Even the amateurish mural on the outside of the school and the crayoned drawings inside the school are sufficient reminders of what is missed. And the beauty? It seems to me that's easily seen in the birth and life of such a miraculous baby, a beauty that could once be seen every day on that swingset in the abandoned schoolyard.
That said, the fact that the school also had sculptures of dinosaurs out front struck me as a nice dig at where "Christianizing" things may take us. Abandon reason and it all goes to hell.
Certainly Steyn says nothing of the sort, but I wonder just how much it set his teeth on edge to see that the people with the most to lose, those outsiders with the different skin colours and the funny accents, were the ones most willing to bend over backwards to help Theo and Kee and the baby. Willing to die, even.
The future of the movie is decidedly not the future of the book. But the book was written 15 years ago or more, and the movie has come out in a different world, one that is very much influenced by the events of September 11, 2001, and by the politicians who have made their decisions based on those events. Like it or not, we view this world through lenses coloured by such things as "homeland security," and the world some of us see coming is not one to like.
I think of one of the final scenes in the film, when Theo has rescued Kee and the baby and they are trying to escaped the apartment building while it is under siege from soldiers on the ground. Making their way down the hall, baby crying, everyone feels the need to reach out and touch the child, to see and to hear, even if it means they are felled by a bullet from below. And then even the soldiers stop what they are doing, some of them falling to their knees and crossing themselves because of the miracle they see (even though they're probably rabid atheists, all of them). Yes, as soo as they're clear, the battle starts anew, but we're shown a way to peace. A white man, a black, refugee woman, and a baby.
And even with the sadness of the last scene, when the movie goes to black, all around us we hear children laughing, and we feel good about the future of the race.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]