Bought the new White Stripes CD yesterday. I like it well enough. Some songs I really like others...eh...
It does appear that Jack listened to A LOT of Zeppelin before laying this one down. If you've heard Icky Thump you know of what I speak. There are other songs that are very derivative of Zeppelin, even a song with Middle Eastern sounds. Much of the rest is straight up rock and roll.
I would say that this the best Zeppelin CD since Physical Graffiti, even better than Wolfmother's attempt at a Zeppelin CD, but they lose points for sounding a lot like AC/DC too.
It's probably the best rock album in a long time, it's just that Jack has a higher standard to live up to, so at this point after 2 listens, I'd give it a B+.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Why atheists are "better" people
I've been tossing this idea around in my head for a while, so here goes.
Virtue, it is said, is doing the right thing when NO ONE is looking.
Yet, many so-called "Christians" act in a decent way because they believe they will be rewarded for that behavior by entrance into Heaven. Isn't that the same as seeking a reward for your good behavior?
While atheists, the ones I know, are some of the most "christian" in their actions. They do unto others, etc. They live according to the Golden Rule. Not because they seek a reward in the afterlife, but because it's just the right thing to do. Doing the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing, not for gain.
Even if Pascal was correct with his wager, and you behave according to that thinking, atheists are still more "pure" in their actions.
Ironically, enough this occurred to me as I was putting a shopping cart back into the rack of carts at the entrance to a grocery store. I ALWAYS do that, yet as I walked back through the lot I saw dozens of carts left in the middle of the parking lot by those either too lazy or too selfish to walk 20 feet to put them into one of those cart corrals. Carts that will have to be rounded up by an employee, carts that will block parking spots, or dent other cars. Why do people feel so important that they are above fulfilling this little part of the Social Contract with their neighbors? Surely, this is a small, but telling, behavior amongst our fellow citizens.
I understand that people turn to God for all sorts of reasons. To fill emptiness in their lives. For comfort. To remove accountability for their own failures, to have someone to "blame" or to credit. But, I have such a difficult time believing that one religion has it "right". For these Bible thumpers to assume that by the chance of birth (being born into a Christian country as opposed to India or Japan) that they KNOW they have the correct understanding and version of God.
With "religion" existing in countless forms among all people and through time, whether is it Aboriginal Creation myths, Greek mythology, Islam, Jainism or Christianity. Through their existence humans have sought to seek understanding of what they do not know, "what causes thunder?". "How was the earth formed?" I have always found it fascinating that old religions are now called "Mythology" while current religion is gospel, but it seeks the answers to the same questions.
While a Christian finds it laughable that earth was created on the back of a tortoise, it's inconceivable that God did not create earth in 6 days. Genesis is just as likely to be right as the creation stories of Inuits or Buddhists, no? How arrogant is it for anyone to believe that they have the RIGHT version of God? Again, often just by the luck of the location of their birth or who their parents are.
Some people take the Bible as the literal word of God, but it wasn't written by God. it was written by men. and other men EDITED the book, left out whole sections. The people that are most upsetting are the ones who like to quote the Old Testament for justifying their hatreds while they completely ignore the teachings of Christ in the New Testament. Christ (at least he should have for Christians) changed the game. the Bible went from "eye for an eye" to "turn the other cheek", but the most zealous "Christians" are the ones least likely to follow the words of Christ.
That's what I call ironic.
Virtue, it is said, is doing the right thing when NO ONE is looking.
Yet, many so-called "Christians" act in a decent way because they believe they will be rewarded for that behavior by entrance into Heaven. Isn't that the same as seeking a reward for your good behavior?
While atheists, the ones I know, are some of the most "christian" in their actions. They do unto others, etc. They live according to the Golden Rule. Not because they seek a reward in the afterlife, but because it's just the right thing to do. Doing the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing, not for gain.
Even if Pascal was correct with his wager, and you behave according to that thinking, atheists are still more "pure" in their actions.
Ironically, enough this occurred to me as I was putting a shopping cart back into the rack of carts at the entrance to a grocery store. I ALWAYS do that, yet as I walked back through the lot I saw dozens of carts left in the middle of the parking lot by those either too lazy or too selfish to walk 20 feet to put them into one of those cart corrals. Carts that will have to be rounded up by an employee, carts that will block parking spots, or dent other cars. Why do people feel so important that they are above fulfilling this little part of the Social Contract with their neighbors? Surely, this is a small, but telling, behavior amongst our fellow citizens.
I understand that people turn to God for all sorts of reasons. To fill emptiness in their lives. For comfort. To remove accountability for their own failures, to have someone to "blame" or to credit. But, I have such a difficult time believing that one religion has it "right". For these Bible thumpers to assume that by the chance of birth (being born into a Christian country as opposed to India or Japan) that they KNOW they have the correct understanding and version of God.
With "religion" existing in countless forms among all people and through time, whether is it Aboriginal Creation myths, Greek mythology, Islam, Jainism or Christianity. Through their existence humans have sought to seek understanding of what they do not know, "what causes thunder?". "How was the earth formed?" I have always found it fascinating that old religions are now called "Mythology" while current religion is gospel, but it seeks the answers to the same questions.
While a Christian finds it laughable that earth was created on the back of a tortoise, it's inconceivable that God did not create earth in 6 days. Genesis is just as likely to be right as the creation stories of Inuits or Buddhists, no? How arrogant is it for anyone to believe that they have the RIGHT version of God? Again, often just by the luck of the location of their birth or who their parents are.
Some people take the Bible as the literal word of God, but it wasn't written by God. it was written by men. and other men EDITED the book, left out whole sections. The people that are most upsetting are the ones who like to quote the Old Testament for justifying their hatreds while they completely ignore the teachings of Christ in the New Testament. Christ (at least he should have for Christians) changed the game. the Bible went from "eye for an eye" to "turn the other cheek", but the most zealous "Christians" are the ones least likely to follow the words of Christ.
That's what I call ironic.
This pisses me off
Before I start...let's be clear. I am saddened that they have lost three children and I hope the other three live.
So, tragically, the third of six sextuplets has passed in MN, but the family is going to "continue to trust in the lord". Yet they didn't trust the lord enough to have him help them have a child. No, they turned to science and a science that created 6 babies. Something that God very rarely does on his own. So now that the family has lost half of their children they are going to put it on God?
You wonder why the parents decided to keep all 6 embroyos. I'm sure it was some religous conviction that wouldn't allow them to keep only a more reasonable number of embroyos and carry them to term with a MUCH greater chance of survival and success for the children.
I find it astounding that they will speak of this being in the Lord's hands when they used science to create a litter of children all of whom have a very slim chance of thriving. The human body was not meant to have litters, but science has enabled that. If God has anything to do with conception of every human being, why mess with his process if you're only going to turn to God as your children die.
"We continue to trust in the Lord and are hopeful for a good outcome for
Cadence, Lucia and Sylas," the statement said.
So, tragically, the third of six sextuplets has passed in MN, but the family is going to "continue to trust in the lord". Yet they didn't trust the lord enough to have him help them have a child. No, they turned to science and a science that created 6 babies. Something that God very rarely does on his own. So now that the family has lost half of their children they are going to put it on God?
You wonder why the parents decided to keep all 6 embroyos. I'm sure it was some religous conviction that wouldn't allow them to keep only a more reasonable number of embroyos and carry them to term with a MUCH greater chance of survival and success for the children.
I find it astounding that they will speak of this being in the Lord's hands when they used science to create a litter of children all of whom have a very slim chance of thriving. The human body was not meant to have litters, but science has enabled that. If God has anything to do with conception of every human being, why mess with his process if you're only going to turn to God as your children die.
One of two guys I can get behind
As a Libertarian, Ron Paul is an obvious choice. He says a lot of the things I believe. He'll never get elected or even taken seriously, but hopefully his principled ideas of limited government will get attention by both parties after 8 years of the most invasive, unprincipled, corrupt administration in 100 years, if not ever.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
I also like Richardson on the other side. If only for his fantastic resume. I don't know if there has been a person with such a varied and complete resume with the skills to run the country (Maybe John Quincy Adams?)
http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/
He's been a Congressman, a Cabinet Secretary, UN Ambassador and Governor (or a border state) and if Immigration is going to be a big issue, a guy who grew up in Mexico City might be in the best position to understand the issue.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
I also like Richardson on the other side. If only for his fantastic resume. I don't know if there has been a person with such a varied and complete resume with the skills to run the country (Maybe John Quincy Adams?)
http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/
He's been a Congressman, a Cabinet Secretary, UN Ambassador and Governor (or a border state) and if Immigration is going to be a big issue, a guy who grew up in Mexico City might be in the best position to understand the issue.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Re: Sopranos...shut up
I'm growing weary of all this belly-aching about the Soprano's finale. before I saw the last episode I had low expectations, mostly due to David Chase's own arrogant comments. Basically, he said (I paraphrase) "don't expect tidy endings, b/c life isn't full of tidy endings". So, I expected a finale with NO answers to anything and Chase sitting smugly at his home feeling all full of himself. But my immediate reaction to his comments leading up to the finale are this: "hey Dave, it's a TV show. it's not "life" or "real"". So, I expected some answers and the one that I decided I needed was "who lives: Tony or Phil?"...I got that answer ...repeatedly thru a combo of gun shots and SUV tires.
The last scene in the finale is genius. You've seen Tony making peace with his life both family life and "work" life. His looking off into the distance while raking the leaves showed that contentment. As they sit at the diner later, the family is all together. AJ has his shit together (although the fact that he got "all better" after watching his car go up in flames was one of the most unreal and lame course corrections in the history of the show). Meadow, while a poor parker has her shit together and TOny understands why she wants to go into law ...and maybe even defend Daddy once she passes the bar.
Carmela is fine. She has made her peace with the life she leads. She's had her chances to leave, and surely she has enough reasons, but she likes the nice cars, espresso makers and expensive watches that this life affords, she's going nowhere.
The guy in the Member's Only jacket going to the bathroom bring fantastic tension for anyone who knows The Godfather movies. It's an obvious shout out and there to make you think what could happen.
So, as the screen goes black does Tony look up to see Meadow walk in? Does he see a gun held at him by the guy coming out of the bathroom? Do those kids who walked in right before Meadow create some issue. It's all there, I was literally (and I NEVER use that term incorrectly) on the edge of recliner.
At first, I felt a little ripped off, but after an hour or so, I realized the genius of the ending. It was nearly the exact opposite of how "Six Feet Under" ended with it's litany of what happened to everyone over the next few decades by describing how they died. Chase went exactly the other way.
Your left thinking what you want to believe. If Tony lives on, does Paulie become his number two? Paulie who seemed to be the person most likely to be killed next for about the past 3 years, with his dealings with New York, the tension b/t he and Chris and basically his going bat-shit over the past year. Is this what Tony is left with? How can he hold on to power with such a young crew and no one left but Paul from the old school.
If he is dead, what happens to AJ? Remember how he wanted to avenge his father's shooting by going after Uncle Jun? AJ would surely end up in the family business, if only to avenge his father's death, but AJ too likes the comforts that life brings (remember his complete and instantaneous 180 about caring too much for the pain in the world to loving the new BMW dad bought????).
So many other things to consider, so many what ifs. A brilliant end, to a brilliant series. And a fitting end. It did not cheat fans, it gave enough answers, not all, but enough. Kudos Mr. Chase.
The last scene in the finale is genius. You've seen Tony making peace with his life both family life and "work" life. His looking off into the distance while raking the leaves showed that contentment. As they sit at the diner later, the family is all together. AJ has his shit together (although the fact that he got "all better" after watching his car go up in flames was one of the most unreal and lame course corrections in the history of the show). Meadow, while a poor parker has her shit together and TOny understands why she wants to go into law ...and maybe even defend Daddy once she passes the bar.
Carmela is fine. She has made her peace with the life she leads. She's had her chances to leave, and surely she has enough reasons, but she likes the nice cars, espresso makers and expensive watches that this life affords, she's going nowhere.
The guy in the Member's Only jacket going to the bathroom bring fantastic tension for anyone who knows The Godfather movies. It's an obvious shout out and there to make you think what could happen.
So, as the screen goes black does Tony look up to see Meadow walk in? Does he see a gun held at him by the guy coming out of the bathroom? Do those kids who walked in right before Meadow create some issue. It's all there, I was literally (and I NEVER use that term incorrectly) on the edge of recliner.
At first, I felt a little ripped off, but after an hour or so, I realized the genius of the ending. It was nearly the exact opposite of how "Six Feet Under" ended with it's litany of what happened to everyone over the next few decades by describing how they died. Chase went exactly the other way.
Your left thinking what you want to believe. If Tony lives on, does Paulie become his number two? Paulie who seemed to be the person most likely to be killed next for about the past 3 years, with his dealings with New York, the tension b/t he and Chris and basically his going bat-shit over the past year. Is this what Tony is left with? How can he hold on to power with such a young crew and no one left but Paul from the old school.
If he is dead, what happens to AJ? Remember how he wanted to avenge his father's shooting by going after Uncle Jun? AJ would surely end up in the family business, if only to avenge his father's death, but AJ too likes the comforts that life brings (remember his complete and instantaneous 180 about caring too much for the pain in the world to loving the new BMW dad bought????).
So many other things to consider, so many what ifs. A brilliant end, to a brilliant series. And a fitting end. It did not cheat fans, it gave enough answers, not all, but enough. Kudos Mr. Chase.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Bushie admits most of this is true
My Bushie friend sent this to me under the sub: line "I'm afraid a lot of this is true"
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/
I responded with:
I agree, especially b/c the Bush tactic of insulting, questioning the intelligence and patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them goes way back. Now that he’s insulting the GOP, you guys are noticing that this tactic is childish and offensive. Bush has NEVER debated or encouraged discussion of his positions. His position is you agree with me or you’re an idiot and unpatriotic. It’s been done by all the Bushies, but now that he’s doing it to you, Peggy and the other faithful are having an epiphany.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/
I responded with:
I agree, especially b/c the Bush tactic of insulting, questioning the intelligence and patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them goes way back. Now that he’s insulting the GOP, you guys are noticing that this tactic is childish and offensive. Bush has NEVER debated or encouraged discussion of his positions. His position is you agree with me or you’re an idiot and unpatriotic. It’s been done by all the Bushies, but now that he’s doing it to you, Peggy and the other faithful are having an epiphany.
So much for being like the "Business World"
Republicans are always going on about how Government should be run like a business (Bush's INCREDIBLE deficits are ignored while they say this...SURPRISE)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18553053/
I can’t speak for your employers, but I’m pretty sure it’s the same way with regard to ethics. You can’t date a subordinate, and you sure as hell can’t bend the rules to get your significant other promotions out of cycle and raises beyond guidelines. That would get you fired at here in about 10 minutes. I’ve seen it happen twice.
Why shouldn’t the president of the World Bank be held to the same ethical standard as the majority of American businesspeople?
I know why, b/c the current administration is absent any sense of morality and ethics. Most of Washington is ethically challenged, but this WH is beyond compare especially since they ran on restoring integrity to the office.
Shameful
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18553053/
I can’t speak for your employers, but I’m pretty sure it’s the same way with regard to ethics. You can’t date a subordinate, and you sure as hell can’t bend the rules to get your significant other promotions out of cycle and raises beyond guidelines. That would get you fired at here in about 10 minutes. I’ve seen it happen twice.
Why shouldn’t the president of the World Bank be held to the same ethical standard as the majority of American businesspeople?
I know why, b/c the current administration is absent any sense of morality and ethics. Most of Washington is ethically challenged, but this WH is beyond compare especially since they ran on restoring integrity to the office.
Shameful
Friday, June 01, 2007
More shameful behavior (AND THE MEDIA IGNORES IT)
The behavior of a 2 bit dictator from the third world, not the President of the United States .
Just more of Bush bringing shame upon the Office. Just who is Dick Cheney meeting with? Will we find out the Abrahmoff has been there dozens of times?
It’s like they think we serve him, but he serves America …and you Bushies know damn well if this was a Democrat you’d be losing your shit right now.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/01/cheney.secrecy.ap/index.html
Just more of Bush bringing shame upon the Office. Just who is Dick Cheney meeting with? Will we find out the Abrahmoff has been there dozens of times?
It’s like they think we serve him, but he serves America …and you Bushies know damn well if this was a Democrat you’d be losing your shit right now.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/01/cheney.secrecy.ap/index.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)