I'd never been to a funeral before. My other grandfather might've even died in the States, but I was too young. Being that my father was his father's only son, and me my father's only son, it was important that I go this time, but I would've gone regardless.
They say that funerals are for the living, and this case was no different. It was good to see my father's family together (minus one sister as she couldn't make it). And it was good to see our families paying our last respects. I'd written my grandfather off a long time ago as his mind had already gone: Alzheimer's. Technically, I think he died of heart failure, but really, all his major organs were fighting for the title.
The Saturday following the Friday I arrived in Taiwan, the family went to pray for him in a ceremony that I think was to feed him in his next life. There was a lot of bowing, a lot of food offerings, and a lot of chanting by the temple priestesses (I don't know their actual title). I don't know the exact religion, but I think it's a mixture of Buddhism and Taoism.
The actual funeral was on Tuesday. We arrived in the morning and we met some family that arrived later. There was no rehearsal, but it was a fairly complex proceeding, with a man directing each of us as to what to do.
I'd never seen a dead body before, either. Of course I've seen them on TV. And real ones on the internet. Still, seeing my grandfather that day was startling. His body was emaciated from malnutrition and twisted from rigor mortis. It wasn't a pretty corpse like in Western funerals. I didn't recognize him. I'm not sure my Aunt did either as she confirmed the body with the tag. He was covered up to his neck, and the head that stuck out had its eyes closed, but its mouth opened like the mouth in "The Scream" by Munch, and the skin was waxen. After identifying the corpse, they brought it back and dressed it in some traditional clothes and laid it in an open casket. The casket was placed behind the ceremonial altar, behind a wall of cloth.
My father asked me to prepare something to say. I didn't know my grandfather too well. Particularly since the Alzheimer's took hold and he lived in Taiwan, there really wasn't much of a chance. I scraped together what I had and realized it didn't amount to much, so I wrote a poem instead. Afterwards, we each placed the papers we wrote our last words on into the casket.
After all the words and all the chanting, the body was taken to be cremated, casket, papers, and all. The furnace door went up as the family stood outside the threshold of the crematorium, the coffin slid in, and the door went back down. Apparently the process of cremation, as performed there, takes an hour and a half, so in that time, we sat around and chit-chatted.
When the cremation was done, they called us to a table and brought us the remains, among which were quite a few large pieces of bone, including skull fragments. A large pair of chopsticks was used by each of us to place a piece of bone in the urn. The bone was very light; much lighter than I thought it'd be; and very fragile as I'd soon see. After we each took our turns, the person who brought us the remains scraped up a mound of bone and dumped it on top, smashing it down with very audible crunching. The skull fragments were saved for last and placed specifically on top. Then the lid was glued down and we made our way to the temple along with the urn for my grandmother's ashes.
I think the temple was built specifically for the military deceased. A custodian showed us to the specific cabinet that we were to place the urns. A ladder was used to open a double-sized cabinet, and the custodian asked if we wanted him to put the urns in, but we said we would. With my grandfather's urn, I climbed up the ladder, slowly, but the ladder was very sturdy. My father followed with his mother's urn. The cabinet was closed and we were told that if we had anything left to say, we should do it now. Of course, the temple would always be available, but just very far away.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Some inappropriate photoshops
Filenames have credits, and they were most likely swiped from fark.com and somethingawful.com.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Something Random
My sister was complaining about her mp3 player the other day. She didn't like the randomness of her random function, as it seems to play a few songs too many times and a few songs not at all. I have the same mp3 player, and I think I notice it, too. I think the problem is a couple of things: the size of its playlist buffer and the Gaussian normalization of the distribution. It seems like if you have a list of 100 things and one is picked randomly, each thing has a 1 in 100 chance of being picked. So why does such a simple concept result in an mp3 player that can't pick songs correctly?
Of course it'd be a simple thing for a player to keep track of the last few songs played and not to play them, but it may also depend on the operating system's method of keeping track of files as to how big the list can be. Assuming it can't keep track indefinitely, at some point the buffer is going to overflow and there's a chance a song you've already heard's going to be played. It may be song you've heard before a lot, too. In fact, perhaps the size of the buffer is fixed, so you don't want it to be too big anyway because maybe some person doesn't put that many songs on their mp3 player and it'd just screw up the random function anyway? Or maybe with that in mind, the size of the buffer is set as a certain fraction of the number of songs in the overall list?
Now, if you put it on the "play randomly, but only once" mode, this may be entirely different. If I were to implement it, it'd probably work by flagging each file as it's played and picking one that's not flagged, randomly, for each new song. In short, it wouldn't really depend on a playlist buffer at all, and so, isn't limited by that as far as randomness is concerned. There's a term for this in probability class, and even an equation. But I forget.
It's been a long time since I've taken any statistics classes, but one thing I vaguely remember is convolution. Actually, 'vaguely' isn't the right word. 'Poorly' is a better one. One interesting/pertinent thing about convolution, though, is that given any type of distribution (such as our evenly distributed 1 in 100 one above), if you convolve (the verb form of convolution) it with itself enough, it becomes a Guassian distribution: normalized. What this means is that there are going to be some on one end that are played few or no times, a lot toward the middle that are played an average number of times, and some toward the other end that are played a whole lot. A playlist buffer might counteract it initially, but eventually, it becomes useless as far as desired randomness is concerned. I believe this concept is "randomness with reseeding", which forms the basis for the normalization of any distribution convolved with itself enough.
Sometime before my "hard core" statistics class, I took a physics class on optics. The professor showed us this one demonstration where photons were separated using grates, each grate having an equal chance of being the one the photon went through. The professor said that in the original experiment, one photon, passing through the grate, would strike some photon-sensitive backing opposite the grate, making a mark to show where it landed. So with that in mind, what did we, as the classs, think the resulting backing would look like over time as more and more photons hit it?
As it turns out, there was a big clump in the center, and corresponding but smaller clumps to either side of the big one, and so on, further out, in a line. The professor said it was interesting, but didn't really elaborate on why it looked that way. It wasn't until I took my statistics class that I put two and two together. Well, that is to say, I'm pretty sure that's why it looked like that. Just like I'm pretty sure that that's why mp3 player "random repeat" functions can sometimes suck.
Of course it'd be a simple thing for a player to keep track of the last few songs played and not to play them, but it may also depend on the operating system's method of keeping track of files as to how big the list can be. Assuming it can't keep track indefinitely, at some point the buffer is going to overflow and there's a chance a song you've already heard's going to be played. It may be song you've heard before a lot, too. In fact, perhaps the size of the buffer is fixed, so you don't want it to be too big anyway because maybe some person doesn't put that many songs on their mp3 player and it'd just screw up the random function anyway? Or maybe with that in mind, the size of the buffer is set as a certain fraction of the number of songs in the overall list?
Now, if you put it on the "play randomly, but only once" mode, this may be entirely different. If I were to implement it, it'd probably work by flagging each file as it's played and picking one that's not flagged, randomly, for each new song. In short, it wouldn't really depend on a playlist buffer at all, and so, isn't limited by that as far as randomness is concerned. There's a term for this in probability class, and even an equation. But I forget.
It's been a long time since I've taken any statistics classes, but one thing I vaguely remember is convolution. Actually, 'vaguely' isn't the right word. 'Poorly' is a better one. One interesting/pertinent thing about convolution, though, is that given any type of distribution (such as our evenly distributed 1 in 100 one above), if you convolve (the verb form of convolution) it with itself enough, it becomes a Guassian distribution: normalized. What this means is that there are going to be some on one end that are played few or no times, a lot toward the middle that are played an average number of times, and some toward the other end that are played a whole lot. A playlist buffer might counteract it initially, but eventually, it becomes useless as far as desired randomness is concerned. I believe this concept is "randomness with reseeding", which forms the basis for the normalization of any distribution convolved with itself enough.
Sometime before my "hard core" statistics class, I took a physics class on optics. The professor showed us this one demonstration where photons were separated using grates, each grate having an equal chance of being the one the photon went through. The professor said that in the original experiment, one photon, passing through the grate, would strike some photon-sensitive backing opposite the grate, making a mark to show where it landed. So with that in mind, what did we, as the classs, think the resulting backing would look like over time as more and more photons hit it?
As it turns out, there was a big clump in the center, and corresponding but smaller clumps to either side of the big one, and so on, further out, in a line. The professor said it was interesting, but didn't really elaborate on why it looked that way. It wasn't until I took my statistics class that I put two and two together. Well, that is to say, I'm pretty sure that's why it looked like that. Just like I'm pretty sure that that's why mp3 player "random repeat" functions can sometimes suck.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Roman Holiday, The Little Mermaid
It's kind of amazing that someone like Audrey Hepburn existed. I've only seen two of her films to-date: Roman Holiday and Breakfast at Tiffany's. Nevertheless, from what little I know about her, she is endlessly captivating. Regardless...
Roman Holiday reminds me quite a bit of The Little Mermaid. Not the Disney one, but the original Hans Christian Andersen one. Actually, maybe not even exactly that one, but one definitely a lot more faithful to it. When I'd originally watched it somewhere around the age of eight, I think the idea of the mermaid disappearing into sea foam broke my heart. I'd go so far as to say that it's colored my worldview from that point on.
I'm sure The Little Mermaid was about a lot of things, but what sticks out in my mind is cultural immobility. She gives up her voice (her ability to communicate words and precise ideas) to gain legs (the appearance of a human). It seems pretty blunt in implying the prince and mermaid's love, though earnest, is only superficial. In the end (of the movie that I recall), even though her sisters provide her a means to return as a mermaid by killing the prince, she chooses to dissolve into sea foam instead.
In Roman Holiday, Joe and Ann fall quickly and earnestly in love, despite being from different worlds. In the end, though in love, they realize that what they had was beautiful, but ephemeral; true but out of reach.
If the movie were made today, Ann and Joe would probably end up getting married, living happily ever after. It's not that it couldn't happen. I recall a Japanese princess (Princess Akiko I believe) married a commoner not too long ago. And it's good in that it shows that love can overcome any obstacle; that hard work and perseverance can let you accomplish anything... You can create a multi-billion dollar business, too, I just don't think it's a realistic expectation.
Roman Holiday reminds me quite a bit of The Little Mermaid. Not the Disney one, but the original Hans Christian Andersen one. Actually, maybe not even exactly that one, but one definitely a lot more faithful to it. When I'd originally watched it somewhere around the age of eight, I think the idea of the mermaid disappearing into sea foam broke my heart. I'd go so far as to say that it's colored my worldview from that point on.
I'm sure The Little Mermaid was about a lot of things, but what sticks out in my mind is cultural immobility. She gives up her voice (her ability to communicate words and precise ideas) to gain legs (the appearance of a human). It seems pretty blunt in implying the prince and mermaid's love, though earnest, is only superficial. In the end (of the movie that I recall), even though her sisters provide her a means to return as a mermaid by killing the prince, she chooses to dissolve into sea foam instead.
In Roman Holiday, Joe and Ann fall quickly and earnestly in love, despite being from different worlds. In the end, though in love, they realize that what they had was beautiful, but ephemeral; true but out of reach.
If the movie were made today, Ann and Joe would probably end up getting married, living happily ever after. It's not that it couldn't happen. I recall a Japanese princess (Princess Akiko I believe) married a commoner not too long ago. And it's good in that it shows that love can overcome any obstacle; that hard work and perseverance can let you accomplish anything... You can create a multi-billion dollar business, too, I just don't think it's a realistic expectation.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Time
I suppose the traditional view of time is that it is a dimension, akin to the three that make up what we view as space (hyperdimensional physics aside). I think it's actually electrochemical/mechanical processes that dictate our perceptions of time. Well, I'm not the first person to think of this, but I did come to that conclusion on my own. I think it was someone along the lines of Aristotle that said time is a product of motion.
I think that about sums it up, but there are some interesting corollaries I draw from this. For one, I think that children learn faster because they are operating on a higher intake of data for any given moment. This may explain why a child may feel that time passes so slowly and why an adult may feel it is so fleeting.
Another corollary is that time travel is impossible. Well, it's impossible in the sense that someone could simply travel along some "time continuum" to turn back (or forward) the clock. Hypothetically, if someone knew the precise position of every infinitesimal speck of matter in the entire universe and its exact velocity (Heisenberg be damned) at the time that someone wanted to turn back the clock, AND also had the means to place those specks in those positions with those velocities (entropy be damned), then effectively, that someone will have performed time travel. Further hypothetically, it may simply be enough to know and be able to manipulate matter in that way on a more local scale, like only the entire planet. Although I suppose if you had that much power, maybe you could just screw around with people's heads...
I think that about sums it up, but there are some interesting corollaries I draw from this. For one, I think that children learn faster because they are operating on a higher intake of data for any given moment. This may explain why a child may feel that time passes so slowly and why an adult may feel it is so fleeting.
Another corollary is that time travel is impossible. Well, it's impossible in the sense that someone could simply travel along some "time continuum" to turn back (or forward) the clock. Hypothetically, if someone knew the precise position of every infinitesimal speck of matter in the entire universe and its exact velocity (Heisenberg be damned) at the time that someone wanted to turn back the clock, AND also had the means to place those specks in those positions with those velocities (entropy be damned), then effectively, that someone will have performed time travel. Further hypothetically, it may simply be enough to know and be able to manipulate matter in that way on a more local scale, like only the entire planet. Although I suppose if you had that much power, maybe you could just screw around with people's heads...
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Heroic Legend of Arslan
I'd been meaning to watch this title for some time, as a favorite song of mine (Ryoute Ippai) comes from it. Overall I liked it, but it ran from some complex political themes to some hard to believe contrivances. There were also a few stereotypical anime characterizations and relationships.
Regardless, what really stands out about this title, I read from a review by "Zereshk" on Netflix, "For those of you who dont know, Arslan's story is based directly (yet dicreetly) on Persian mythology... Too bad Hollywood has been ignoring this rich area of legend and literature due to politics, unlike the open minded Japanese, despite the fact that the Persian empire arguably was the largest superpower of antiquity, feared by the Greeks and Romans... The series tries to condense the entire mass of 3000 years of written Persian history (mostly from 500 BC to 600 AD), legends, and mythology into one (albeit loosely) comprehensive story. ... And besides, monarchy has been in continued existence in Persia (Iran) since the dawn of time. The struggle for the throne has never ended. "
I agree in that I find it astounding that so little of the region's mythology and stories have been popularized by Hollywood. I also find it strikingly appropriate that one of the story's central themes, demonization of the "Rusitanians" because of the war they wage in the name of their god, finds parallel in the context of modern day events in the same region.
The animation itself was rather poor, although the character designs were well done (albeit varying from episode to episode). I recall one beautiful scene in which a character named Farangese played her flute while the wind fluttered her hair. Unfortunately, there were numerous scenes that were comprised of a series of stills. Nevertheless, for all its faults in execution, I think they're reasonably outweighed by the weight of its subject matter.
A couple of things really stuck with me (from memory, so they're paraphrased). "Kings and empires may crumble away, but art is forever." And the second was a character's response (I forget which) regarding why a great strategist and a great general would follow Arslan, a 14 year old boy who, other than having noble blood, really has nothing to offer. The answer was an analogy in which a big boat with a good crew needs a large body of water to reach full speed. Of Arslan, the character said, "He is a lake now that one day may become an ocean."
Regardless, what really stands out about this title, I read from a review by "Zereshk" on Netflix, "For those of you who dont know, Arslan's story is based directly (yet dicreetly) on Persian mythology... Too bad Hollywood has been ignoring this rich area of legend and literature due to politics, unlike the open minded Japanese, despite the fact that the Persian empire arguably was the largest superpower of antiquity, feared by the Greeks and Romans... The series tries to condense the entire mass of 3000 years of written Persian history (mostly from 500 BC to 600 AD), legends, and mythology into one (albeit loosely) comprehensive story. ... And besides, monarchy has been in continued existence in Persia (Iran) since the dawn of time. The struggle for the throne has never ended. "
I agree in that I find it astounding that so little of the region's mythology and stories have been popularized by Hollywood. I also find it strikingly appropriate that one of the story's central themes, demonization of the "Rusitanians" because of the war they wage in the name of their god, finds parallel in the context of modern day events in the same region.
The animation itself was rather poor, although the character designs were well done (albeit varying from episode to episode). I recall one beautiful scene in which a character named Farangese played her flute while the wind fluttered her hair. Unfortunately, there were numerous scenes that were comprised of a series of stills. Nevertheless, for all its faults in execution, I think they're reasonably outweighed by the weight of its subject matter.
A couple of things really stuck with me (from memory, so they're paraphrased). "Kings and empires may crumble away, but art is forever." And the second was a character's response (I forget which) regarding why a great strategist and a great general would follow Arslan, a 14 year old boy who, other than having noble blood, really has nothing to offer. The answer was an analogy in which a big boat with a good crew needs a large body of water to reach full speed. Of Arslan, the character said, "He is a lake now that one day may become an ocean."
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Dragon Ball Z and Naruto really, really suck
Eh, who am I to get all uppity about anime? For years I watched anything and everything, and that included a few episodes of Dragon Ball Z. Looking back, there was a lot of crap. And by a lot, I mean metric buttloads. And by metric buttloads, I mean somewhere in the neighborhood of hundreds. I'd pick up a title and watch the first few minutes, or maybe even the entire episode, and decide to toss it or give it a shot. Naruto was one of the ones that lasted about 2 minutes. In that time, it was quite clear that it was typical of a well-defined genre, replete with stereotypes and cliches. Dragon Ball Z is the same genre. Actually, Dragonball Z might've defined the genre. Another example would be Yuyu Hakusho.
In Japan, these shows and comics target a demographic of a boy somewhere around the age of 14. In my view, it's probably younger. While it may be argued that Japan's school system is heads and shoulders above the American public school system, there's no denying that these shows are for children.
As an aside, I think animation, anime, comics (sequential art), and manga have great examples that show what the mediums are capable of. There are plenty of adults, myself included, who watch/read regularly and, the field is populated with adults of great and varied talent that regularly tell great and varied stories. They are works of consequence and significance. From other things I've written, at least that much should be evident.
Back to Dragon Ball Z and Naruto, anyone can see the animation quality is very poor. Even if it weren't, the writing is poor. It's ultra-simplistic and has no bearing on reality, literally or metaphorically. With Dragon Ball Z, I know all the characters are flat and uninteresting. From what I read about Naruto, the characters are just a bunch of stereotypes.
A friend of mine argued that it promotes training and struggle. True. But does that require thousands of pages and hundreds of episodes? Not hardly. A single one-on-one battle might take 3-5 episodes, and that's just for a minor villain. Dragon Ball Z has no plot. Well, no complicated plot. It all revolves around some villain of the episode/week/arc. Some new flashy attack is learned, and then Earth is saved.
I haven't watched enough Naruto to know what their "training" entails, but I'm sure "flashy attack" training is replaced by "ninja attack" training. I recall reading about a ninja training school in Japan. A real ninja came out to demonstrate some of his skills for a school promotion. That seems like it'd be an important time not to mess up. He ended up embarassing himself and giving up. In short, I'm guessing whatever "ninja attacks" they're learning, there is no real world equivalent, and it may as well be a "flashy attack".
Another show I gave up on was Slam Dunk. It's a show about high school basketball. A single game might take about 4 episodes. One thing that separates Slam Dunk from Dragon Ball Z, though, is that I actually think I learned a good bit about basketball from watching it.
I find it absolutely appalling that a grown person could watch this dreck. It's even more amazing that they try to defend it as having any worth. Knowing it's fluff and admitting as much at least has some acceptance of reality. These shows just tend to spawn apologists. My friend is 23. Another friend is 27 (I think) who also loves the show.
A friend I had when interning loved Dragon Ball Z. He'd tape it every day and wouldn't miss an episode. I pointed out how crappy the animation was, how poorly the fights were choreographed, and how thoughtless the storylines were. The next day he came in and said he couldn't watch anymore. That seems like a rational response.
I guess what this is really about is that it's okay to like Dragon Ball Z and Naruto (and its ilk) when you're a child because you're expected to like childish things. I guess I won't go so far as to say that when you grow up you should cast it aside, but what really bugs me is people who defend it when it's quite obviously crap and they should know better. They are, with a straight face, saying that shows like Dragon Ball Z are great works of art that carry tremendous meaning. It blows my mind.
In Japan, these shows and comics target a demographic of a boy somewhere around the age of 14. In my view, it's probably younger. While it may be argued that Japan's school system is heads and shoulders above the American public school system, there's no denying that these shows are for children.
As an aside, I think animation, anime, comics (sequential art), and manga have great examples that show what the mediums are capable of. There are plenty of adults, myself included, who watch/read regularly and, the field is populated with adults of great and varied talent that regularly tell great and varied stories. They are works of consequence and significance. From other things I've written, at least that much should be evident.
Back to Dragon Ball Z and Naruto, anyone can see the animation quality is very poor. Even if it weren't, the writing is poor. It's ultra-simplistic and has no bearing on reality, literally or metaphorically. With Dragon Ball Z, I know all the characters are flat and uninteresting. From what I read about Naruto, the characters are just a bunch of stereotypes.
A friend of mine argued that it promotes training and struggle. True. But does that require thousands of pages and hundreds of episodes? Not hardly. A single one-on-one battle might take 3-5 episodes, and that's just for a minor villain. Dragon Ball Z has no plot. Well, no complicated plot. It all revolves around some villain of the episode/week/arc. Some new flashy attack is learned, and then Earth is saved.
I haven't watched enough Naruto to know what their "training" entails, but I'm sure "flashy attack" training is replaced by "ninja attack" training. I recall reading about a ninja training school in Japan. A real ninja came out to demonstrate some of his skills for a school promotion. That seems like it'd be an important time not to mess up. He ended up embarassing himself and giving up. In short, I'm guessing whatever "ninja attacks" they're learning, there is no real world equivalent, and it may as well be a "flashy attack".
Another show I gave up on was Slam Dunk. It's a show about high school basketball. A single game might take about 4 episodes. One thing that separates Slam Dunk from Dragon Ball Z, though, is that I actually think I learned a good bit about basketball from watching it.
I find it absolutely appalling that a grown person could watch this dreck. It's even more amazing that they try to defend it as having any worth. Knowing it's fluff and admitting as much at least has some acceptance of reality. These shows just tend to spawn apologists. My friend is 23. Another friend is 27 (I think) who also loves the show.
A friend I had when interning loved Dragon Ball Z. He'd tape it every day and wouldn't miss an episode. I pointed out how crappy the animation was, how poorly the fights were choreographed, and how thoughtless the storylines were. The next day he came in and said he couldn't watch anymore. That seems like a rational response.
I guess what this is really about is that it's okay to like Dragon Ball Z and Naruto (and its ilk) when you're a child because you're expected to like childish things. I guess I won't go so far as to say that when you grow up you should cast it aside, but what really bugs me is people who defend it when it's quite obviously crap and they should know better. They are, with a straight face, saying that shows like Dragon Ball Z are great works of art that carry tremendous meaning. It blows my mind.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Elation
I can't remember if I said previously, but all the fundamentalists getting up in arms about evolution and "intelligent design" made me more than a little wary of all Christians... I had a rather lengthy discussion about it with a friend of mine (who happened to be very religious and pro-evolution). Clearly it wasn't all Christians... Up until shortly after that discussion, I'm not sure I really had a good grasp of Christian fundamentalism. Nevertheless, it warms my heart to see the non-fundamentalists distancing themselves from such unswerving zealotry.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Sky High
Well, I watched Sky High. It was fun, but I don't think it really added anything to the genre. Any of them, actually: teen comedy-drama, family movie, superhero. So in the end, I guess I'm still looking forward to the Invincible movie, if it ever comes out.
I just finished the fifth volume of the trade paperbacks (of Invincible). It feels like it's settled somewhat, into something a little more typical. Or maybe it's just that I've gotten over the initial euphoria of the concept and writing.
I just finished the fifth volume of the trade paperbacks (of Invincible). It feels like it's settled somewhat, into something a little more typical. Or maybe it's just that I've gotten over the initial euphoria of the concept and writing.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Alito
I was driving home and was able to catch some of the confirmation hearings for Alito. It was fortunate, too, because it had to do with religious freedom. One of the questions Alito was asked was, "Is freedom of religion also freedom to not believe?" and he responded with something like "Absolutely", which is very reassuring to me. He also said that he believes it's wrong to impose his own moral and religious views on others, although of course, he can't not, absolutely.
There was a case he gave a dissenting opinion for where a public school's students voted for a prayer prior to some event like graduation or a football game (i think it was graduation). His dissent was that the government may not give religious speech, but it also cannot impede religious speech. He treated the voting majority of the school (which of course voted for prayer) as individuals whose speech would be impeded if prohibited by the government. His reasoning was sound, although I disagree with it.
He also said, of the establishment clause, something along the lines of "It would be nice if decisions based on the clause did not turn on so fine a point."
All in all, I think he sounds like a good candidate and well-learned person, even if I don't agree with him.
There was a case he gave a dissenting opinion for where a public school's students voted for a prayer prior to some event like graduation or a football game (i think it was graduation). His dissent was that the government may not give religious speech, but it also cannot impede religious speech. He treated the voting majority of the school (which of course voted for prayer) as individuals whose speech would be impeded if prohibited by the government. His reasoning was sound, although I disagree with it.
He also said, of the establishment clause, something along the lines of "It would be nice if decisions based on the clause did not turn on so fine a point."
All in all, I think he sounds like a good candidate and well-learned person, even if I don't agree with him.
Friday, January 06, 2006
The Mastermind of Mars
I started reading Edgar Rice Burroughs's John Carter of Mars series a while back, and now I've gotten to the sixth book in the series, "The Mastermind of Mars". Up until now, I can't say I've been terribly impressed with the substance of the books. Wonderfully creative, sure, but I regarded them as pure escapism.
This one in particular started out rather poorly, not only not starring John Carter (it'd be a Tarzan book without Tarzan, although not the first time Burroughs has done it thus far), but not even a person related to him or introduced in a previous story. But from there it goes on to what I'm writing about, which is science, religion, and extremism.
Our protagonist who comes to be named Vad Varo arrives on Mars and comes into the care of one Ras Thavas, master of the science of life and physiology. But Ras Thavas practices and studies his science in a very self-serving manner, purely for the intellect and the advancement of his science. Coldly, Ras Thavas says, "Sentiment is indeed a bar to all progress." Truly, in the pursuit of knowledge, he would sacrifice all save himself.
On the other hand, we have the Phundalians who blindly worship Tur, the scripture of the Turgan, and the high priestess Xaxa. From the book:
As the book draws to a close, Ras Thavas is ordered under Vad Varo's suggestion to be restored to his laboratory "Only on condition that he devote his great skill to the amelioration of human suffering". Xaxa is deposed and dead, replaced by one of Vad Varo's friends, and the puppet statue of Tur is operated by Vad Varo's friends as well.
So what is Burroughs saying? Vad Varo and company appear to be people of sound judgement, so leaving the country and followers under their rule doesn't sound like a bad idea. A well-run monarchy is supposedly the best form of government. Clearly he says that science should be conducted with human interests at heart.
On religion, though, he appears to be saying that there is no harm as long as the right persons are in charge. Throughout the series, religion (of course not Christianity directly) is treated largely as superstition and flimflammery; a tool of those in power to keep people in control. It's not just in this book, but "The Chessmen of Mars", and the other books as well, to a lesser degree.
This one in particular started out rather poorly, not only not starring John Carter (it'd be a Tarzan book without Tarzan, although not the first time Burroughs has done it thus far), but not even a person related to him or introduced in a previous story. But from there it goes on to what I'm writing about, which is science, religion, and extremism.
Our protagonist who comes to be named Vad Varo arrives on Mars and comes into the care of one Ras Thavas, master of the science of life and physiology. But Ras Thavas practices and studies his science in a very self-serving manner, purely for the intellect and the advancement of his science. Coldly, Ras Thavas says, "Sentiment is indeed a bar to all progress." Truly, in the pursuit of knowledge, he would sacrifice all save himself.
On the other hand, we have the Phundalians who blindly worship Tur, the scripture of the Turgan, and the high priestess Xaxa. From the book:
"He said that the Phundahlians maintained that Tur still created every living thing with his own hands. They denied vigorously that man possessed the power to reproduce his kind and taught their young that all such belief was vile; and always they hid every evidence of natural procreation, insisting to the death that even those things which they witnessed with their own eyes and experienced with their own bodies in the bringing forth of their young never transpired.As you can see, it's quite blunt in its analogy to Christian Fundamentalism. It's probably no coincidence that "Phundalians", phonetically, bears resemblance to "fundamentalism".
Turgan taught them that Barsoom is flat and they shut their minds to every proof to the contrary. They would not leave Phundahl far for fear of failing off the edge of the world; they would not permit the development of aeronautics because should one of their ships circumnavigate Barsoom it would be a wicked sacrilege in the eyes of Tur who made Barsoom flat.
They would not permit the use of telescopes, for Tur taught them that there was no other world than Barsoom and to look at another would be heresy; nor would they permit the teaching in their schools of any history of Barsoom that antedated the creation of Barsoom by Tur, though Barsoom has a well authenticated written history that reaches back more than one hundred thousand years; nor would they permit any geography of Barsoom except that which appears in Turgan, nor any scientific researches along biological lines. Turgan is their only text book--if it is not in Turgan it is a wicked lie.
Much of all this and a great deal more I gathered from one source or another during my brief stay in Phundahl, whose people are, I believe, the least advanced in civilization of any of the red nations upon Barsoom. Giving, as they do, all their best thought to religious matters, they have become ignorant, bigoted and narrow, going as far to one extreme as the Toonolians do to the other."
As the book draws to a close, Ras Thavas is ordered under Vad Varo's suggestion to be restored to his laboratory "Only on condition that he devote his great skill to the amelioration of human suffering". Xaxa is deposed and dead, replaced by one of Vad Varo's friends, and the puppet statue of Tur is operated by Vad Varo's friends as well.
So what is Burroughs saying? Vad Varo and company appear to be people of sound judgement, so leaving the country and followers under their rule doesn't sound like a bad idea. A well-run monarchy is supposedly the best form of government. Clearly he says that science should be conducted with human interests at heart.
On religion, though, he appears to be saying that there is no harm as long as the right persons are in charge. Throughout the series, religion (of course not Christianity directly) is treated largely as superstition and flimflammery; a tool of those in power to keep people in control. It's not just in this book, but "The Chessmen of Mars", and the other books as well, to a lesser degree.
Monday, January 02, 2006
Diagonal parking
What's so hard to get? Every now and then I'll see some idiot bearing down on me, going the wrong way down a one way parking lot alley; one way because the parking lot wisely chose to use diagonal parking spaces. So why is it so hard to understand? Diagonal parking spaces are easier to pull into and out of. Front first. And then there are the people who park rear first into a diagonal parking space. Surely they've missed out on this great parking idea as well.
Maybe I should keep some flyers in my car to enlighten people of their folly.
It reminds of this woman who came up to me in a store where I was a computer salesman. "I can never use mice, they're so hard to use," she said. As it turns out, she was holding it upside down with the cord facing out the back.
Maybe I should keep some flyers in my car to enlighten people of their folly.
It reminds of this woman who came up to me in a store where I was a computer salesman. "I can never use mice, they're so hard to use," she said. As it turns out, she was holding it upside down with the cord facing out the back.
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Happy New Year!
Well, another year, another step closer to the grave. This particular picture I like a lot because it happens to make fun of the biggest douche in the universe. It was the work of a DrToast of the Fark forums.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Avatar: the Last Airbender
I finally discovered Avatar a coupla weeks ago. It's probably the show I was least likely to find but most likely to like. I associate Nickelodeon with very kiddy fare, and reading the description of the show (which I'll spare you as it sounds cliched and simplistic), I almost passed it over. I'll never know why I didn't.
I just watched the last episode of the first season, and I'm not only impressed with the resolution, but its sustained level of quality; both in animation, but more importantly, in storytelling. The characters are each very well realized. Not just the main three, but characters on the opposite side, and even minor characters get some loving attention.
The jokes are genuinely witty, and even the touching moments are actually touching. Character designs are fitting, animals are cute, backgrounds are well drawn, clothing design is varied and detailed, the sound really give it that extra dimension without intruding, the voice acting is probably some of the most amazing I've heard in recent memory (I have a hard time remembering anything better). The dialogue runs from "nothing I'd complain about" to "who are these guys writing this stuff and how did they get roped into writing a cartoon?".
As far as design goes, the only black mark I'd give it is the ships, as they looked kind of meh. But not all mechanical design. For instance, some doors in the series seem to operate in a very realistic and plausible fashion. Of course, a show about amazing powers in a fantasy world would tend to invoke quite a suspension of disbelief, but I'd say their physics seem fairly consistent as well.
Some of the themes seemed rather advanced for children, though. I haven't been a child for quite some time, so I don't know the state of things, but I don't know how much of the spirituality and cultural aspects of the show they understand. Also, there were at least two different episodes that addressed gender inequality and sexism.
Speaking of culture, I really like all the Asian culture in the show. Of course, I don't think there are any direct analogues, but there's no denying some similarities. If I knew more about Asian history, I might be able to make some comparisons with the Romance of the Three Kingdoms of Warring states period, which I have some inkling of a clue that this might have something to do with. That said, I'll keep my mouth shut about which nation I think matches with which.
One specific gripe, which I think might have ramifications on the series later on concerns the battle at the end between the Fire nation and the Northern Water nation. It seems to me that the Fire nation should have pressed its reach advantage. Water could've countered with some specific attacks on their distanced weapons, such as with the Avatar or at night, when their powers were at their greatest. The other part of it is that since the Water nation's powers were greatest at night, it made no sense for them not to attack at night. They just sat their awaiting the Fire nation's next daylight attack. I think the writers could've had any number of attacks and ripostes, but that might be one of their failings. Or maybe the battle as it unfolded did have some sound strategical planning that I'm just missing. The fights between and among benders and warriors all seem to be pretty well choreographed, so I'll give them the benefit of a doubt for now.
I just watched the last episode of the first season, and I'm not only impressed with the resolution, but its sustained level of quality; both in animation, but more importantly, in storytelling. The characters are each very well realized. Not just the main three, but characters on the opposite side, and even minor characters get some loving attention.
The jokes are genuinely witty, and even the touching moments are actually touching. Character designs are fitting, animals are cute, backgrounds are well drawn, clothing design is varied and detailed, the sound really give it that extra dimension without intruding, the voice acting is probably some of the most amazing I've heard in recent memory (I have a hard time remembering anything better). The dialogue runs from "nothing I'd complain about" to "who are these guys writing this stuff and how did they get roped into writing a cartoon?".
As far as design goes, the only black mark I'd give it is the ships, as they looked kind of meh. But not all mechanical design. For instance, some doors in the series seem to operate in a very realistic and plausible fashion. Of course, a show about amazing powers in a fantasy world would tend to invoke quite a suspension of disbelief, but I'd say their physics seem fairly consistent as well.
Some of the themes seemed rather advanced for children, though. I haven't been a child for quite some time, so I don't know the state of things, but I don't know how much of the spirituality and cultural aspects of the show they understand. Also, there were at least two different episodes that addressed gender inequality and sexism.
Speaking of culture, I really like all the Asian culture in the show. Of course, I don't think there are any direct analogues, but there's no denying some similarities. If I knew more about Asian history, I might be able to make some comparisons with the Romance of the Three Kingdoms of Warring states period, which I have some inkling of a clue that this might have something to do with. That said, I'll keep my mouth shut about which nation I think matches with which.
One specific gripe, which I think might have ramifications on the series later on concerns the battle at the end between the Fire nation and the Northern Water nation. It seems to me that the Fire nation should have pressed its reach advantage. Water could've countered with some specific attacks on their distanced weapons, such as with the Avatar or at night, when their powers were at their greatest. The other part of it is that since the Water nation's powers were greatest at night, it made no sense for them not to attack at night. They just sat their awaiting the Fire nation's next daylight attack. I think the writers could've had any number of attacks and ripostes, but that might be one of their failings. Or maybe the battle as it unfolded did have some sound strategical planning that I'm just missing. The fights between and among benders and warriors all seem to be pretty well choreographed, so I'll give them the benefit of a doubt for now.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Free travel between states
A long time ago, I watched the Hunt for Red October. I remember Sean Connery talking with Alec Baldwin (or whoever they were), expressing his surprise at the ease of travel between states, "You don't have to show your papers?" And I think a lot of what it is to be American is based on that "your rights end at your fist, and mine begin at my nose" kind of attitude. I vaguely remember reading about John Gilmore before.
While I'm sure America's safer for it, and there are even other reasons for doing it (ticket theft, for one), I hope he wins. It all seems very Gestapo to me, and it irks me to no end to see my freedoms eroded.
While I'm sure America's safer for it, and there are even other reasons for doing it (ticket theft, for one), I hope he wins. It all seems very Gestapo to me, and it irks me to no end to see my freedoms eroded.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Burning the flag
For some reason, Hillary Clinton has decided to back a bill. From the article:
Talking with a friend of mine, he said that he would support such a thing, so I said, you're either for free speech or you're not. Just because you find something offensive doesn't mean you can all of a sudden revoke free speech.
Regarding flag burning in specific, though, it seems to me that political free speech is probably the kind of speech most in need of protecting. Flag burning does seem rather sensationalistic and non-specific, though. I wonder how much, or even if anything, can be accomplished with it.
In her public statements, she has compared the act of flag-burning to burning a cross, which can be considered a violation of federal civil rights law.So I guess it isn't as straight up bad or simple as it sounded, but it's really not that far from base.
The Bennett-sponsored measure outlaws a protester intimidating any person by burning the flag, lighting someone else's flag, or desecrating the flag on federal property.
Talking with a friend of mine, he said that he would support such a thing, so I said, you're either for free speech or you're not. Just because you find something offensive doesn't mean you can all of a sudden revoke free speech.
Regarding flag burning in specific, though, it seems to me that political free speech is probably the kind of speech most in need of protecting. Flag burning does seem rather sensationalistic and non-specific, though. I wonder how much, or even if anything, can be accomplished with it.
Friday, December 02, 2005
The Death Penalty
With the nation's 1000th execution (since its reinstatement, or some such) past, I learned about Tookie, a man also sentenced to be executed. He's apparently a founder of the Crips, an original gangster. He's since convincingly become a changed man, so should he still be executed? It seems like he can do so much good if allowed to live.
I was born in Texas, but moved when I was 8, so maybe that doesn't have so much to do with anything. Either way, I'm also a big believer in an eye for an eye. I believe that if you commit a crime (assuming that it is also a wrong), you should be punished for it in a manner befitting.
So then, the matter comes to redemption. While Tookie may be contrite, on a personal level, if I were a victim, I would certainly want to see him executed. That is, he would be beyond redemption. On a societal level, allowing him to live may allow him to undo some of the harm he's done. I suppose he could go to gang infested areas and make speeches in middle schools.
I really don't like the idea of a generally bad person going on to live a successful life. I suppose I could be fine with letting him go if all the proceeds from his life (books, speaking tours, personal property, etc...) were to be property of the state, effectively living a non-profit life. His penitence for his past crimes would be bettering society. In many ways, he wouldn't be a free man, but for his past crimes, I don't think can ever be free, if only in his own mind, if he is truly contrite.
I was born in Texas, but moved when I was 8, so maybe that doesn't have so much to do with anything. Either way, I'm also a big believer in an eye for an eye. I believe that if you commit a crime (assuming that it is also a wrong), you should be punished for it in a manner befitting.
So then, the matter comes to redemption. While Tookie may be contrite, on a personal level, if I were a victim, I would certainly want to see him executed. That is, he would be beyond redemption. On a societal level, allowing him to live may allow him to undo some of the harm he's done. I suppose he could go to gang infested areas and make speeches in middle schools.
I really don't like the idea of a generally bad person going on to live a successful life. I suppose I could be fine with letting him go if all the proceeds from his life (books, speaking tours, personal property, etc...) were to be property of the state, effectively living a non-profit life. His penitence for his past crimes would be bettering society. In many ways, he wouldn't be a free man, but for his past crimes, I don't think can ever be free, if only in his own mind, if he is truly contrite.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Rent = meh
I'm not a big fan of musicals. Sure there are some that I like, but by and large, they just don't do it for me. Rent, impressive in its production values, is pretty much what I expected, except longer. I kept getting taken in by its fake out endings. The first time they resang 525,600 minutes, I thought that was it, and said, "well, I guess at least it wasn't that long". But then it kept on going, and I said, "I guess everyone has to die first." Seeing Team America's spoof of it ("Everybody has AIDS. AIDS AIDS AIDS!"), I think I got the gist of the plot. I don't think I liked any of the songs, but they were sung very well.
Also, Rosario Dawson was quite hot.
Also, Rosario Dawson was quite hot.
Friday, November 18, 2005
Chungking
I've liked them for a few months now, but finally got one of their CDs today. I listened through it and I've got to say, it's pretty good. From an article:
“The feel of it is a kind of early 70s radio sound. It’s a kind of familiar nostalgia,” says vocalist Jessie Banks, describing the sound of her band, Brighton’s psychedelic soul three-piece Chungking. “It took a while to settle on our sound,” she explains. “It really came down to good songs. With a good song you’re prepared to sing it for a long time.”Here's another interview. I guess they don't have much of a web presence... Anyway, give them a shot if you get the chance...
Monday, November 14, 2005
Meat-eating
F42 from fark.com said, "When we go to the petting zoo, my mom feeds and then pokes the cows like she's shopping for meat, and she tells the cow how tasty it looks... The cows seem to enjoy it."
"If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?" -Unknown
"I'm not a vegetarian because I like animals, but because I hate plants." -I forget
A well known hypothetical is, "If you could grow meat without ever killing an animal, would you eat it?"
A favorite story of mine has a girl with something akin to universal understanding; not only could she speak with humans (gasp), but also plants, animals, and the environment itself. She was a very compassionate girl and so, for a while wouldn't eat anything (after all, they were all her friends!). But, the plants were all like, "You've gotta eat! Please eat us!" (paraphrasing)
And of course, there are those who are vegetarian for health reasons or religious reasons. Can't really argue with that.
I eat meat because meat tastes good.
"If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?" -Unknown
"I'm not a vegetarian because I like animals, but because I hate plants." -I forget
A well known hypothetical is, "If you could grow meat without ever killing an animal, would you eat it?"
A favorite story of mine has a girl with something akin to universal understanding; not only could she speak with humans (gasp), but also plants, animals, and the environment itself. She was a very compassionate girl and so, for a while wouldn't eat anything (after all, they were all her friends!). But, the plants were all like, "You've gotta eat! Please eat us!" (paraphrasing)
And of course, there are those who are vegetarian for health reasons or religious reasons. Can't really argue with that.
I eat meat because meat tastes good.
