Solomon Kane

I'm watching Solomon Kane tonight. It has a good Netflix rating.



This is a movie with a very Christian premise. I am looking forward to seeing how it unfolds. Some of you who know me may think that strange, but I am willing to suspend disbelief and see how the makers of this movie interpret the concepts of redemption. As I type at this moment, the plot is just getting started. I will be "live blogging" after a fashion -- pausing to add my thoughts as the movie progresses. We shall see how my opinion shifts over time. Spoilers after the break.

Read more »

Click Bait

Click-bait posts like the one to the right seem to be all over social media these days. The sources on a lot of the ones I've seen on Facebook lately seem to be radio stations.

I assume that the likes, comments, and shares on these posts somehow translate into advertising revenue for the originator. They can claim to have hundreds or thousands or more interested eyeballs on their pages because of all the activity on their posts.

Some of them encourage you to try some simple keyboard trick that causes an image to be displayed (like entering "(^^^)" in Facebook, which displays a shark icon).

But more often they issue some painfully easy challenge like the one in this post, and you get to congratulate yourself for being one of the "smart" people. Come on, internet users -- anyone can come up with a movie name without a "T" in it! They just want you to promote them on your preferred social media site.

WIT's "Scientific Proof"

A friend of mine shared an article on Facebook recently: First Scientific Proof Of God Found. I've seen fundamentalists claim to have "scientific proof" of God many times, so I naturally approached this article with some grains of salt ready.

This one claims that geneticists at the Wyoming Institute of Technology (WIT) examining the human genome discovered patterns in the "junk DNA" that looked like some kind of alphabet. They consulted with linguists at Bob Jones University, who determined that the patterns translate into Aramaic words that make the phrase “At first break of day, God formed sky and land.”

My first clue that the site was a parody was the phrase "Bob Jones University, long noted for its intellectual rigor." Bob Jones University may be known for many things, but intellectual rigor is definitely not one of them.

Other articles on the site include such gems as:

• “Selfies” Linked To Brain Cancer, Experts Say
• New Chemical Makes Bacon Good For You
• Keep Pets Their Same Size Forever With Adoraberil® ; Anti-Aging, Anti-Growing Wonder Drug
• Autism Linked To Eating Organic Foods
• Obesity Impacting Earthquakes in US, Experts Say

It seems that some people are willing to believe anything or anyone if it supports their own position.

Edit: An anonymous commenter called me out for saying BJU isn't known for intellectual rigor. I went to college close enough that their student proselytizers would show up on our campus to street preach. I know from personal experience that BJU is not known for intellectual rigor. Their reputation is fundamentalism, creationism, and racism, if anything. Supporting links in the comments.

Curse of the Dragon Slayer

This has shown up on Neflix recently.

It was apparently funded by a Kickstarter campaign. I wasn't really expecting much from it when I decided to watch it. I watch plenty of bad movies, so I can be entertained by the badness itself.

This was better than I was expecting, though. The production value turns out to be decent, the acting is largely acceptable, the direction and editing mostly work, and the costuming is downright impressive (with one very obvious exception at about the 45 minute mark).

The fight choreography, on the other hand, was extremely disappointing. The establishing scenes for the leads don't make them look badass: they make them look incompetent.

The plot also has gigantic holes, of course, and when it comes to keeping the villains from obtaining the resources they need to complete their nefarious plan, the heroes do everything wrong, requiring something of a deus ex machina to save the world. That's a bit lame, but the film-makers obviously wanted to have a big special effects ending, so the villainous plan pretty much had to succeed and then be reversed.

Ken Has a Dinosaur Skeleton

Ken Ham has managed to get his hands on what appears to be a genuine allosaurus skeleton for his creation museum. Based on some of the weakest evidence I've ever heard, he claims that it is only 4500 years old and therefore disproves an old Earth.

Serious research could be done on these remains, but instead they're going to gather dust in Ken's museum as he uses them to spread creationist misinformation. I weep for the real paleontologists who won't get to examine this find.

Tuna Fallout

I'm seeing another round of Fukushima panic posts going around on Facebook. Apparently every fish in the Pacific Ocean (and probably the world) is contaminated with radiation from the melted-down Fukushima nuclear reactor.

Radioactive material certainly did reach the ocean from the Fukushima meltdown. As I understand it, the amount of contaminated water from the reactor that reached the ocean would fill a large swimming pool or two.

In the vastness of the Pacific Ocean, that doesn't amount to much. Given some time to disperse (like a couple of years), the radioactivity of ocean water contaminated with water from Fukushima is indistinguishable from normal background radiation. Furthermore, the "hottest" radioactive isotopes decay pretty quickly. Iodine-131, for example, has a half-life of eight days; there isn't even a word for the tininess of the fraction of iodine-131 remaining from that incident. It's effectively gone.

There are more persistent isotopes, of course. There are cesium isotopes from the meltdown with half-lives of years, but the danger is still negligible. Information I'm seeing tells me that you would have to eat twenty tuna steaks to take in the amount of radiation you would get from one typical banana.

This is paranoia based on lack of understanding. Don't worry about radioactive tuna.

Solar Roadway

Now there's a clever idea.

You might want to check out the IndieGogo page.

UPDATE: I'm going to revisit this, since some loud YouTube people have been defecating on the notion.

I don't believe for a second that this technology can live up to all of the hype that has been made about it on YouTube, but I do believe that it is worth investigating. It's certainly not cost effective at its current scale (the individual bricks cost thousands of dollars using current methods), but its potential can't be determined if it isn't tested on larger scales.

This project exceeded its expectations on IndieGogo, and there are vocal critics who think that is wasted money. I am glad it met its goal. I want to see if it really can be a cost-effective and useful alternative to current road technology. Existing asphalt roads need to be replaced or repaired every few years. I want to know if this alternative is competitive.

Financial Help!

An amusing new message appeared in one of my email boxes.

Subject: I will help you financially!!!

HELLO MY NAME IS JENNIFER CLINTON I AM A UNITED STATES CITIZEN USA BUT I HAVE MY COMPANY., I LOST MY HUSBAND AND THREE KIDS IN FATAL ACCIDENT IN 2005. SINCE THEN I COULD NOT GAIN MYSELF. HOWEVER, I WILL LOVE TO HELP PEOPLE IN NEED AND THE BUSINESS MAN AND WOMAN WHO NEED LOAN AND ALSO NEED MONEY FOR BUSINESS. IF YOU NEED MY HELP PLEASE CONTACT ME I WILL HELP YOU FINANCIALLY.

MAY GOD BLESS YOU

My email: [redacted]

jennifer

Gee-whiz, what a helpful, generous sounding person. I would never suspect this of being some kind of scam.

I'm not fooling anyone, am I? Of course it's some kind of scam! The "from" address on the message doesn't even match the email that "jennifer" provided. It's tempting to respond to see just how "jennifer" would try to finagle money from me.

Obsolescence

I find myself wondering what we'll do as a society when we've automated every job that currently requires a human. Hearing reports that computers are now able to write clean essays and papers is somewhat discouraging for me, personally, and brought this question into my head.

Sooner or later, computers will be designing objects, and then assembling them via robots, with little or no human intervention. Assuming there is no machine revolution, what will people do in a world where there are no jobs because machines do all of the work.

What happens when all vehicles on land, in the sea, and in the air have automatic pilots?

What happens when a computer can diagnose a medical condition more quickly, more accurately, and more reliably than a human doctor? When it can prescribe the best medications and control a robot to perform the best procedures?

What happens when all manufacturing is done by robots?

What happens when humans are no longer needed for anything?

I can only imagine that the wealth disparity that exists now will become far worse. It seems likely that the owners of the machines (and therefore all of the wealth and resources) will represent a tiny portion of the population. What will become of everyone else?

A machine revolution might not even be necessary for a vast depopulation event.

Coriander Chutney Wings

I get jars of coriander chutney from the international market at the Nashville Farmers' Market. It's good as a condiment, but I've discovered that it makes a terrific wing sauce.

I typically cook the wings in a cast iron pan in the oven at 350 for about half an hour. It doesn't get much easier than that.

The sauce isn't difficult, either.

• One heaping tablespoon of coriander chutney.
• A teaspoon or more of Ole Jamaican-style hot sauce.
• Enough olive oil to allow the chutney to coat the chicken.
• Salt and pepper to taste.
• Additional red pepper flakes if you need more heat.

That makes enough to coat about ten wings.

22 Messages from Creationists

These messages are ostensibly to Bill Nye at the debate he had with Ken Ham. Just hearing Ken's non-answers to Bill's questions was painful enough, but some of these really burn my brain cells. They show a complete lack of understanding of the Theory of Evolution and science in general, which I think is tragic.

Still, I can give my answers/responses to these questions. I am going to try to suppress my usual snark.

1) Are you influencing the minds of children in a positive way?
Yes. Bill is trying to teach children how science is really done.

2) Are you scared of a divine creator?
I dare say that Bill is not.

3) Is it completely illogical that the earth was created mature (i.e. trees created with rings, Adam created as an adult,...)?
The problem with such a belief is that it requires colossal deception on the part of the creator. Light from distant stars has to be created "en route" so we can see it today; hundreds of thousands of extra layers of snow ice must be formed; millions of rock layers must be formed; pre-decayed nuclear materials must be planted; fossils must be distributed in layers that indicate progressive evolution. The creator would have to have taken a lot of trouble to make the Earth and universe look much older than they are. If the universe were created by such a huge deceiver, why would we expect the Bible to be true?

4) Does not the Second Law of Thermodynamics disprove Evolution?
No, it does not. If thermodynamics disproved evolution, physicists would have laughed it out of universities ages ago.

5) How do you explain a sunset if there is no God?
I don't know if I can answer this without sounding condescending. The Earth rotates. From our perspective, the Sun dips below the horizon. The light scattering from particles in the atmosphere gives us the brilliant colors.

6) If the Big Bang Theory is true and taught as science along with evolution, why do the laws of thermodynamics debunk said theories?
As I said, the laws of thermodynamics don't debunk Evolution or the Big Bang.

7) What about Noetics?
I'm not familiar with Noetics. A quick search tells me that Noetics is a "branch of metaphysical philosophy concerned with the study of mind and intellect". I don't really see how this field of philosophy is supposed to relate to the question of Evolution and Creationism.

8) Where do you derive objective meaning in life?
I don't really understand the question. I don't think that deriving your meaning of life from the Bible is objective. "Meaning" is something you find for yourself: it's never objective.

9) If God did not create everything, how did the first single-celled organism originate? By chance?
Pretty much by chance, yes. Abiogenesis is the particular field of study of the early origins of life. It relates to how organic chemistry on the ancient Earth could have generated simple compounds and "cells" that replicated themselves, starting the process of life. No one has managed to generate simple, replicating cells in a lab yet, but this work is ongoing.

10) I believe in the Big Bang Theory... God said it and BANG it happened!
Thanks for making it clear that you're not interested in talking about this like an adult.

11) Why do evolutionists/secularists/humanists/non-God-believing people reject the idea of there being a creator God but embrace the concept of intelligent design from aliens or other extra-terrestrial sources?
By and large (in my experience, at least), non-creationists do not embrace the concept of alien intervention, either.

12) There is no in between... the only one found has been Lucy, and there are only a few pieces of the hundreds necessary for an "official proof".
This seems to be a simple case of misinformation. "Lucy" is only one example of the australopithecine fossils. There are at least nine significant finds of this genus, and "Lucy" is 40% complete, not just "a few pieces".

13) Does metamorphosis help support evolution?
I really like this question. The answer is no. Metamorphosis is something that happens to an individual organism during its lifetime. Evolution happens to a population of organisms over successive generations. They are separate phenomena.

14) If Evolution is a Theory (like creationism or the Bible), why then is Evolution taught as fact.
Misuse of the word "theory" is a common problem when discussing controversial science topics. To a scientist, a theory is a coherent group of tested propositions that can be used to explain a set of observations or facts. In other words, it is not a guess or an untested claim. A theory must undergo rigorous testing and peer review before becoming widely accepted.

15) Because science by definition is a "theory" -- not testable, observable, nor repeatable, why do you object to creationism or intelligent design being taught in school?
This is another clear case of misinformation. "Science" is an organized effort to understand the universe. A "theory" is an explanation for observed phenomena that is testable, observable, and repeatable. Creationism and intelligent design do not meet that standard: evolution does.

16) What mechanism has science discovered that evidences an increase of genetic information seen in any genetic mutation or evolutionary process.
One of the simplest is "gene duplication". An error in replication produces an extra copy of an existing gene. The duplicate is free to change in subsequent generations, allowing new content to enter the species' genetic code without losing the original gene.

17) What purpose do you think you are here for if you do not believe in salvation?
As I believe I said earlier, finding purpose in life is something everyone does for himself or herself. There are plenty of ways to find fulfillment in life.

18) Why have we found only 1 "Lucy", when we have found more than 1 of everything else?
As noted before, there are actually several australopithecine fossils, and more examples of other early human ancestors.

19) Can you believe in "the big bang" without "faith"?
There is observable evidence for the Big Bang, so faith is not required.

20) How can you look at the world and not believe someone created/thought of it? It's amazing!!!
It is amazing, but that does not require it to be the creation of a deity (let alone just six thousand years ago despite all of the evidence that the Earth is much older).

21) Relating to the big bang theory... where did the exploding star come from?
There are many questions to which scientists are still seeking answers. We can observe that the universe is expanding from a central point, but we still don't know exactly what happened there. The tools available to us now can't tell us exactly what "exploded" or what was going on before the "explosion". Scientists, however, see that as an opportunity for study, not a mystery to leave unsolved.

22) If we come from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?
Okay, I was trying to suppress my snark, but this is such an old and absurd question that I'm pretty sure the guy holding up the card is just trolling. There is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that says that monkeys have to go extinct for apes and humans to evolve from them.

Another Bean Soup

I need something, and I was feeling like a cheap bastard, so...

• One can of black beans
• One can of kidney beans
• A couple of links of sausage (your choice, diced)
• A tablespoon of fish sauce
• Shell pasta (half a box of 
• Oregano, basil, and pepper (cayenne, red, and black) to taste

Bring to a boil. Cover and simmer on low for 30 minutes or so.

Bean Soup

This is a pretty minor update. No pictures even. Still, I made a pretty decent little soup, so I wanted to get the process down somewhere.

Ingredients:

• One can of Goya pink beans with cilantro and onions (found at the international market; I'd never seen "pink beans" before, so I was curious)
• One can of great northern beans, rinsed
• One 14-oz can of chicken broth (use vegetable broth if you want it vegetarian)
• One yellow onion
• About one half of a bunch of cilantro
• About one tablespoon of fish sauce (or soy sauce, to be vegetarian)
• One cup of brown rice
• Two cups of water

Process:

1. I put the water and rice in one pot and started it cooking. Standard procedure there: bring it to a boil, then cover and simmer on low for twenty or more minutes (more like thirty for this rice).
2. I put the beans, broth, and fish sauce in a separate pot over medium-high heat to get them started.
3. I diced the onion and added it to the bean pot.
4. I chopped the cilantro and added half of it (the more stemmy half) to the bean pot.
5. After the beans come to a boil, simmer them covered on low while the rice cooks.
6. When the rice is done, add it and the remaining cilantro to the beans and mix well.

I think it's pretty tasty.

A Nuclear Pile of Nonsense

Someone shared an article on Facebook titled “Underground Nuclear Explosion At Crippled Japan Atomic Plant Shocks The World”. As I said on Facebook, you don’t need to know much about nuclear reactors to know it’s all false, but the more you know, the worse it gets. It appears to be a conspiracy crap website, although there’s always the possibility that it’s some kind of parody site. My best guess is that it’s a junk news source, much like the old Weekly World News.

According to this report, [Russian Ministry of Defense] “assests” associated with the Red Banner Pacific Fleet detected two “low-level” underground atomic explosions occurring in the Fukushima disaster zone on 31 December, the first measuring 5.1 magnitude in intensity, followed by a smaller 3.6 magnitude explosion moments later.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that there were no such explosions. Making an atomic explosion is extremely difficult when you are trying for one; it simply won’t happen accidentally. The fuel in this reactor was never “enriched” enough to explode, and even if it was, the conditions for starting such a chain reaction do not exist down in the wreckage of Fukushima. As the headline incident for this story is clearly made up, it follows that the rest of it is crap, too.

Important to note, this report continues, was that the architect of Fukushima Daiichi Reactor 3, Uehara Haruo, warned on 17 November 2011 warned that a “China Syndrome” (aka: Hydrovolcanic Explosion) was “inevitable” due to the melted atomic fuel that had escaped the container vessel and was now burning through the earth.

The Fukushima reactor core is still in the reactor building. Yes, it overheated and melted. No, it did not sink through the floor and start “burning through” the Earth. The graphic is particularly amusing. Even if the reactor core somehow melted through the Earth’s crust, the worst it would do is reach the center of the Earth and stop. There is no way it would ever swim back up through the mantle to re-emerge off the coast of Brazil.

Most curious to note, [the MoD] report continues, is that the United States appears to have had a more advanced notice of these underground nuclear explosions as evidenced by their purchase earlier this month (6 December) of 14 million doses of potassium iodide, the compound that protects the body from radioactive poisoning in the aftermath of severe nuclear accidents, to be delivered before the beginning of February 2014.

Oh look, a tiny shred of fact. One potential byproduct of a nuclear incident is radioactive isotopes of iodine. Those can be picked up by the human body and cause thyroid cancer, so iodide supplements may be given to people in the danger zone of a nuclear accident to keep them from absorbing radioactive iodine. I don’t believe for a second that the US made a big iodide purchase in early December, though.

With experts now estimating that the wave of radiation from Fukushima will be 10-times bigger than all of the radiation from the entire world’s nuclear tests throughout history combined, and with new reports stating that dangerous radiation levels have been detected in snows found in Texas, Colorado and Missouri, this MoD report warns the US, indeed, is going to face the severest consequences of this historic, and seemingly unstoppable, nuclear disaster.

Head for the hills! The sky is falling! We’re going to be hit with 750 Ridiculous Asian Danger units of fallout!

As to the American people being allowed to know the full and horrific mass death event now unfolding around them, this report warns, is not be as the Obama regime has, in effect, ordered all of their mainstream news media organs not to report it, and as recently confirmed by former MSNBC host Cenk Uygur who was told not to warn the public about the danger posed by the meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear plant during his time as a host on the cable network.

And, finally, we get the old “government cover up” ploy to paper over the fact that there is no evidence to support all of these ludicrous claims. The Weekly World News was just as absurd, but at least it was entertaining.

For extra brain death, read the comments.

Christmas Vengeance

Finding Bigfoot

DISCLAIMER: I have not watched the show!

However, I'm willing to bet, based on advertisements I saw, that it follows the same formula as Ghost Hunters and similar shows.

1. Discuss rumors of a Bigfoot sighting.
2. Go to general location of Bigfoot sighting.
3. Talk to locals about Bigfoot rumors and get more specific directions to where Bigfoot was reported.
4. Go out looking for Bigfoot or evidence of Bigfoot, but in the dark, with thermal cameras.
5. Assume any fur, droppings, tree damage, strange noises, or other signs of animal life that cannot be immediately identified as coming from a bear, deer, or other common animal are irrefutable evidence of Bigfoot.
6. Go home satisfied that Bigfoot is real and active in that area.

These are not shows that are really trying to prove anything. Their minds are made up.

If anyone watches Finding Bigfoot and thinks it doesn't fit the pattern, feel free to say so.

Balancing Baby?

I ran across this video recently:

Is the baby balancing? You can probably tell as well as I can that she's not. She stands up impressively straight, to be sure, but the man is doing all the work of keeping her balanced. I could do much the same thing with a baseball bat. As long as her center of gravity stays well above his hand, he has plenty of time to keep her from toppling.

Super Stuff

Starting with one especially for Nena.



Come to think of it, she'll like this one, too.


And I found even more Wonder Woman goodness.

GODZILLA!

King of the monsters!

He Won't Be Kept Away

Re-spun trailers of old movies are always amusing.

Shark Troubles

Some of these scenes are pretty darned horrific.


But none of them compare to Sharknado! Yes, it truly is this bad. This clip is a total spoiler, by the way. You're warned.



The classics don't compare, either. They surpass in every way.

Weapon School: Day One

The Death of He-Man

I thought it was hysterical.

Relax

Enjoy this guided meditation.


Villains take note: he gives you one chance. If you refuse, things will go badly for you.

But wait, there's more!

Ninjas!

Heroes was a show with tremendous potential, but they just kept dropping the ball when they got close to the goal line.

Cats!

They are plotting to kill you!

The Raven

F'taghn!

That was short, so...

Terror Squid

This is actually pretty awful, but it does have pirates and a giant squid.


Here's a better video. Am I not merciful?

It's On!

I actually had a different video in mind for today, but it suddenly became non-imbedable.

Not to worry...

Mutants to the rescue.

Phantom of the Opera

Axe Giant

Well, this looks... terrible.

To the Bitter End

Of course there was no way I was going to go the whole month without a game video.


And I'll be nice and include something less video gamey.

Young Buckaroo Banzai

Does It Seem Unusual?

You just catch.

Fear Profits a Man Nothing

It is fitting, for the thirteenth.



"Hey, these Northmen are actually pretty cool... wait. What?"

Bad Reasons

I recently came across an article named "Why I Am a Six-Day Creationist". Of course I had to read it, and of course I wasn't really surprised by what it contained. What wisdom has this creationist brought us?

“I spent a couple of days this week speaking at a conference at the Creation Museum—my first time visiting it. Before I arrived I decided to put a little bit of thought into why I am a six-day creationist. I wanted to affirm in my own mind that I was walking into the museum already convinced of a position.”

I am filled with pity, loathing, and curiosity.

“I believe God created the world in six days—six literal twenty-four hour periods. I believe the earth is young—probably less than ten thousand years old. I have always believed this. But why? As I considered this position, I realized there are three main reasons I hold to it.”

And I expect to be disappointed by all of them.

“THE BIBLE TEACHES IT

The first reason I am a six-day creationist is this: I believe it is what the Bible teaches. There have been endless debates about the meaning of the word we translate as “day” in Genesis 1 and so much of the debate stands or falls right here. There have been many attempts, some of them quite compelling and some bordering on the ridiculous, to make it express something other than “day.” But in the end, I believe a natural reading of Scripture, and a natural reading of the author’s intent in the passage, leads to the most natural and obvious conclusion: God created all that exists, from nothing, in six literal days. This is what the author said, because this is what the author meant to convey, because this is what the author believed, because this is exactly how God did it.”

So, basically, you’re taking the Biblical text as accurate, no matter what other evidence exists? I realize that scientific estimates have gone up over time, but that’s because the evidence (over time) has revealed that the age of the Earth could not be “less than” a certain minimum age. There was never an upper limit. Improvements in technology have allowed us to improve our estimates, and none of them have put the age of the Earth in the “thousands of years” range.

“THE WRITERS BELIEVED IT

The second reason I am a six-day creationist is that I believe this is what the other biblical writers believed. When the subject of creation arises elsewhere in the Bible, I see no evidence that the writers held to any position other than literal six-day creation. If we hold that Scripture interpets Scripture, I see the Bible confirming the simplicity of God creating all things in six literal days.”

What Bronze Age or Iron Age authors believed has negligible bearing on what the evidence we can obtain with modern technology tells us.

“SCIENCE CONFIRMS IT

The third reason I am a six-day creationist is that I believe this is what science tells us. I believe science confirms a literal six-day creation and a young earth. I find the science demanding millions or billions of years less compelling than the science supporting a much less ancient universe. Even though so many people today scoff at even the suggestion that the world may be young, I find the old-earth science built upon very shaky and ever-shifting ground.”

No. Just no. There are no reputable scientists who believe in a six-day creation that happened less than 10,000 years ago. The claims of “young Earth creationists” have been tested and found unsupported (if not outright wrong) many, many times.

“MY CONVICTION

I believe the Bible speaks with greater clarity and greater authority than what I believe I see or what I believe I experience. Where many interpretations of science appear to contradict a literal six-day creation, I am not ready to re-interpret a clear and natural reading of Scripture to make it fit with these observations. The Bible is infinitely more stable than science and infinitely more reliable. G.I. Williamson recently said this well: “ I do not believe that there is, or ever will be, any scientific discovery that will be able to discredit what God has spoken. Yes, scientific theories do appear to discredit that creation account. But be patient. In time it will be seen that those humble Bible believers were right all along: it was a six-day creation.” I believe this too.”

Are you ready to disagree with clear and basic math? With basic geometry we can determine that there are objects in the sky that are hundreds of millions of light-years away from Earth. The simple fact that we can see them tells us that the universe is at least hundreds of millions of years old. Either the objects we see are that far away, or God has deliberately deceived us to make us think that they are.

(And yes, a really good telescope can see objects billions of light years away, but I was being conservative.)

“I was and I remain a convicted six-day creationist, something that seems to increasingly be a minority position in the church. I do not make belief in a six-day creation a necessary mark of orthodoxy or a necessary mark of a Christian. But I do believe it is correct (I wouldn’t believe it otherwise, would I?) and I do believe it matters. How and why it matters is a topic for another day.”

All you need to do to hold on to your belief is to dismiss all of the reliable evidence that modern science has delivered to us.

To Kneel or Not To Kneel

On the subject of kneeling...


Cap's good, but Loki can pick up cars. Also, I may be over-using Marvel clips.

Kneel Before Zod

The Force is strong in this one.

Kung Fu Hustle

An obscure but pretty awesome movie.

Hammertime!

Time for a bit of Thor action...

Dueling Cellos

Use the Force, Luke.

The Pit of Despair

Where bad things happen to good (but not necessarily nice) people.



It gets worse.

Holiday Preparation

It seems that people start preparing for that OTHER HOLIDAY earlier every year.

Wrong Rec Room

One of the finest moments in cinema history...



That'll show 'em.

I Am the Law

This movie didn't get nearly the love it deserved.

A Little Piece of Heaven

There had to be at least one involving the undead. Language warning on this one. And a creepy, disturbing content warning, too. Seriously, this is twisted stuff.

Doctor Manhattan Is Born

The doctor is in.

Daddy

Bruce Boxleitner has messed up kids, it seems. Nice, disturbing way to kick off October.


Yeah, they made that. And this is also apparently a real thing...


One of the little tree-rats bit me when I was a kid, trying to feed it a peanut. Took the peanut and then bit me. Ungrateful bastard.

Education

This Washington Post article isn't new, but it's been showing up on Facebook recently, which makes it new to me. It describes the experience of an adult on a Florida school board who took one of the standardized tests administered to 10th grade students there (specifically, the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test).

I won’t beat around the bush,” he wrote in an email. “The math section had 60 questions. I knew the answers to none of them, but managed to guess ten out of the 60 correctly. On the reading test, I got 62% . In our system, that’s a “D”, and would get me a mandatory assignment to a double block of reading instruction.

I was interested to see a 10th grade math and reading test that was so tough that a school board member with "a bachelor of science degree, two masters degrees, and 15 credit hours toward a doctorate" flunked it. I therefore took the reading quiz and the math quiz published with the article, which reportedly use questions from the same student assessment.

I was appalled, not by how hard the test was, but by the fact that someone who claims to have three degrees did so badly on it. I scored 7 out of 7 on the reading quiz and 6 out of 7 on the math quiz, and I do think one of the math questions was poorly designed (it's question number 6 if you're interested, it requires eyeball-guessing the area of an irregular shape).

So how does this school board member react?

I have a wide circle of friends in various professions. Since taking the test, I’ve detailed its contents as best I can to many of them, particularly the math section, which does more than its share of shoving students in our system out of school and on to the street. Not a single one of them said that the math I described was necessary in their profession.

Having flunked an easy reading and math test, he claims that the material isn't relevant. I disagree. The math questions cover basic skills that anyone should be able to do, like multiplication, reading graphs, basic algebra, and simple geometry. This is not rocket science; he should be embarrassed by such a poor score on this test. I don't think he's stupid; I think the real reason for his failing score is that he made no effort at all to work out the answers.

I can’t escape the conclusion that decisions about the [state test] in particular and standardized tests in general are being made by individuals who lack perspective and aren’t really accountable.

Yeah, I think you just described yourself there, dude. If kids are having trouble passing this test in the 10th grade, I don't think it's the test that's the problem: the system is failing to teach them basic skills.

Always My Favorite Companion

Leela could always take care of herself.

Reignite

Nice music video.

Nemesis

I actually meant to save this for October, but since I was careless about the scheduling, I might as well leave it up.

German Longsword Drills

I really need to practice more of this stuff.

The Nuclear Option

Senate Democrats and Republicans managed to find some kind of agreement to vote on Presidential appointments, so Reid won’t be implementing the “nuclear option” today.

Why is it taking so long? I think the “nuclear option” should have been exercised ages ago. What the Senate has right now is not a filibuster: a filibuster requires effort. A filibuster requires politicians to occupy the floor and keep debate open endlessly to keep a vote from happening. It requires the kind of effort that Wendy Davis put forth in Texas and Rand Paul put forth in the US House.

What the Senate has is an “obstruct” button, and it needs to be taken away.

On the Trayvon Martin Case

I suppose that everyone with even a fleeting connection to the media has learned by now that George Zimmerman was acquitted of murder and manslaughter in the death of Trayvon Martin.

I hope that everyone realizes that being acquitted of these charges doesn’t mean that Zimmerman did nothing wrong and/or wasn’t being an idiot. This case isn’t over: there will be a wrongful death suit, and there’s a good chance he’ll lose that one.

I’m not terribly surprised by the verdict. I’ve been a juror in a criminal case, and the bar to convict is pretty high. For any given charge, there are several criteria that jury must agree have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If and only if all of them have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must find the defendant guilty. If there’s a reasonable doubt about even one of the conditions, the jury must find the defendant not guilty.

I’m willing to bet that the jury just followed their instructions and did what they had to do based on the evidence presented in court. Don't blame them: blame the politicians who set up this situation with Florida's insane gun laws.

Politics: Tax Policy Revisited

In a previous post I discussed how I would revise personal income taxes, if it were up to me. I also have a few ideas about corporate taxes that I would implement, if I had supreme executive power!

One of the arguments that I hear a lot is that corporate taxes hurt the economy and the people by discouraging employment. The corporations have less money available to them due to taxes, so they have less to put into payroll. I think that can be handled by letting corporations deduct legitimate costs of doing business from their income, payroll being one of those costs. Money that goes to payroll is subject to personal income tax, anyway, so there's no need to "double-tax" it.

Now, I would try to limit that by putting a "salary cap" on the payroll deduction. No more than $200,000 in compensation for an individual employee can be deducted, for example. That should keep the payroll deduction from being used as a tax loophole by giving outrageous compensation packages to executives; they would have to pay a lot of people good salaries to avoid taxes that way.

(Edit: To account for inflation, I think calculated value would be better than a fixed number. Instead of $200,000 as the deduction cap, make it ten times the compensation of the lowest-paid person in the organization.)

Other legitimate costs of doing business would be materials used in making a product, utilities, equipment purchases, and equipment maintenance.

Things I would not include are payments on corporate debt, be they loan payments or buying back stocks or bonds. I just don't want to encourage a lot of borrowing. Stock dividends would also be right out. Payouts to shareholders are things that you do with profits, not expenses.

Charitable spending I would make deductible, but only for the amount that actually goes to charitable work. There would be no such thing as a "non-profit organization" that was untaxed: just money used for charitable purposes that's deductible.

That's what strikes me as a fair corporate tax system that encourages investment and employment and doesn't reward stuffing the bank accounts of corporate executives.

"Aquaoir"? Really?

I'm sure that aging a wine under water will give it a different character than aging it in a cellar, but the descriptions in this article are typical of the kind of pretentiousness we've come to expect from "wine connoisseurs".

Ocean-aged wine is 'more complex' says Napa winery

You know its pretentious when they make up a new word -- "aquaoir". That's a play on "terroir", which describes subtle differences in wine derived from the soil in which the grapes were grown. A zinfandel made from grapes grown in France, for instance, can be distinguished from a zinfandel made from California grapes, even if the wine-making process is otherwise the same.

Of course, Mira Winery has invented the word "aquaoir" to describe flavor variations that occur during bottle aging, meaning that it really has nothing in common with "terroir" at all.

Sommelier Patrick Emerson produced some lovely nonsense after sampling some of the water-aged wine.

‘I am quite surprised – shocked at how quickly these two wines have changed paths – something magical has happened with “aquaoir”. The signature difference might be in the riddling motion of the tides.’

Mira winemaker Gustavo Gonzalez made the much humbler and more believable claim that...

‘It’s not better, it’s not worse and it is definitely different.’

Unfortunately he followed that with wine mumbo-jumbo rivalling Emerson's.

‘The land wine is tighter versus aquaoir-aged wine, which is more complex and broad, more open and relaxed.’

I love wine myself, and would love to do some taste-testing of water-aged versus cellar-aged wine, but wine descriptions tend to leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Checking My English Major Cred

Created by Oatmeal

I wish it were more specific about what I screwed up.

Internet "Censorship"

As I've occasionally mentioned in posts before, comments to the Saga are screened before they are published. Yes, I reserve the right to decide what appears on my blog.

I seldom refuse to publish a comment. If someone disagrees with me, I usually want their comments to be seen. Either they made a good point that I should address, or they helped me make mine through their absurdity. Most of the comments that I've refused to publish have just been spam.

But let's make no mistake: if I don't publish your comment, I'm not infringing on your freedom of speech. Respecting your freedom of speech does not require me to let you stand on my soap box. You can start your own no-cost blog just as easily as I did. That's why I have multiple blog articles that respond to Allecto: I understand that she blocks critical comments and that she has every right to do so. I can be critical of her on my own blog.

This is not a response to any complaints about my actions: it's a general broadcast. I've seen people complain that so-and-so screens comments on their blog or doesn't allow comments on their YouTube videos or "unfriends" people on Facebook. So what? It's their blog, their channel, their Facebook account! They have no obligation to publish anyone else's opinion. If you want to say something, you can start your own blog or channel. Your freedom of expression is not infringed just because someone else doesn't give you free access to their media channel.

End of rant.

"ME3: Citadel" Review

I finished the "Citadel" DLC last night, and I have comments. Naturally they'll be spoileriffic, so I'll do the real discussion after a jump, but overall I enjoyed the main plot.

Read more »

Mass Effect 3: Citadel

The timing of this release is really going to make it hard for me to get packed for Gulf Wars.

ME3: Reckoning

BioWare is determined to squander more of my time. They released the "Reckoning" DLC for Mass Effect 3 multiplayer yesterday.



Yes, of course I downloaded it. To my credit, I only played one mission before going to bed instead of staying up until some ungodly hour.

They very kindly give you one of the new characters as a gift when you download the expansion, and I scored the Krogan Warlord. It's the first Krogan character I have had the chance to play. I must say that I rather like him. He's designed to perform well without any worries about "cooldown" times on "powers". His powers are all things that you can start and then forget, as they're all armor enhancements or weapon enhancements.

He's quite the brute in play, too. I equipped him with a nasty shotgun, but I hardly ever use it, preferring to smash things with a power hammer. He's also a brick when it comes to durability: the game I played was against the Collectors, and it took a Praetorian to get him down. He was going toe-to-toe with Scions and winning (on the low difficulty setting, Bronze, of course). Quite a change from the other characters I've played: he's very much a "run up and smash it in the face" sort of character.

Good times.

Is That A Fact? - Gun Statistics

The Sandy Hook school shootings started another wave of interest in gun control legislation in the United States. Naturally, there are people who oppose tighter gun regulation, and I understand their view point. That doesn't mean I'm going to give them any slack on abusing statitics, though. This image is a recent example from Facebook.

In 1996, there was a mass shooting incident in Australia. It triggered a wave of interest in gun control legislation much as Sandy Hook has done in America. In Australia's case, new gun regulations were passed and implemented in 1997. Anti-Gun-Control activists like to cite some damning (but unsubstantiated) statistics about the effects of those regulations.

What we get are reports like those in the image: lists of percentages with no explanation of where the data was obtained or how the statistics were calculated. A scientific paper would require that kind of information, as scientists expect to be able to check each others' work. A bunch of percentages in a vacuum tell us nothing.

Gun legislation in Australia has been more restrictive than in the USA for decades, and gun ownership rates there have likewise been lower for a long time. The 1997 laws placed new restrictions on semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Gun violence in Australia was declining before the new rules were passed, and gun violence has continued to decline since. There are disputes over whether the new regulations made a difference, because there has not been a significant change in the rate of decline since their passage.

I don't expect the "assault weapons" ban to have a major impact on gun crime in the USA. According to FBI statistics, rifles of any kind are used in less than 6% of homicides in the USA (this figure includes homicides involving a firearm of unspecified type). The most prevalent weapons by far in homicides in this country are handguns, accounting for nearly half of all homicides.

I'm annoyed with people who share these kinds of statistics, since I'm pretty sure that they don't do even a small amount of fact-checking before they start spreading this kind of misinformation (otherwise, they wouldn't be spreading it). I'm downright angry at the people who initiate this kind of "viral" disinformation, because they are shamelessly lying to people about the effects of gun legislation on society.

Politics: The Election Process

I think that the way we choose candidates is one of the biggest problems with our current political system. It’s bad enough that we have a two-party system, but allowing them to choose our nominees from strictly within the parties lends itself to extremism.

As I see it, the party primaries encourage extremism on both sides. The most extreme members of the electorate tend to be the most likely to participate in the primaries, which means that candidates have to appeal to the extremists to get nominated. There were Republican candidates that I actually would have voted for if they’d been nominated in 2012, but they weren’t hardcore-conservative enough, so they were eliminated early in the primaries.

The party primaries always set up moderate, centrist candidates for failure, even though (in my arrogant opinion) the moderates would have far better chances in the general election, where most of the voters are moderate independents. The candidates with positions closest to the general population are always pushed out by the extremists.

The solution I see is to have open primaries instead of party primaries. On a specific date (probably in August), there’s a general election, and the two candidates with the most votes go to a run-off in November. If someone gets more than half of the votes in the primary, there’s no need for a run-off; that position is already decided.

The open primary would force candidates to try to appeal to the entire electorate during the “primary season”, instead of trying to appeal to the subset of their own party that they consider most likely to get them nominated, and I think that would result in better elected officials.

Movie Review: Hansel & Gretel – Witch Hunters

I’m way overdue for a blog post, so I’ll throw out a little movie review.



I’d have to say this movie is about what you’d expect: an excuse to throw some action scenes and special effects in front of an audience to make money. That’s not always a bad thing. Sometimes you want a movie to just be fun, rather than some kind of emotion-wrenching drama or thought-provoking social puzzle.

Hansel & Gretel follows the premise that after they survive their experience with the witch of the gingerbread house, they grow up to become professional witch hunters. Their work eventually brings them full circle to the area where they were born, where they will discover what was really happening the night their father lead them into the woods and abandoned them.

It’s pretty much Van Helsing with witches instead of vampires. If you like that sort of thing, then you’ll like Hansel & Gretel.

Invaded

Before I digress (at length) into video game videos, I offer this short live-action horror flick to my fans who will hate the rest of this post.



And the rest of the last day of the video spree is dedicated to the game that has had me semi-obsessed for seven months: Mass Effect 3.


Even after seven months, it still keeps me entertained, and there are a lot of solid fan-made trailers, too.


And -- because today is Halloween, and because I love it so much -- I also give you this little spoiler of the payoff you get if you bust your ass for three games.


Of course, if you don't bust your ass, things can go horribly wrong.

And finally, you can modify the game to create a zombie apocalypse scenario in multiplayer.

The Dark Knight Returns

I've actually been expecting this for years.


I wonder what took them so long.

The Grim Reaper

Needed to lighten up a bit after "Happy". Best make this one a double.

Happy

Who ever thought they were funny, anyway? Studies show that kids, in particular, really don't like them.

Prepare for the Future

Another of my time wasters.

Lil Cthulu

He's adorable!

Aw, Dang!

Poor Lance: didn't realize he wasn't actually the hero.

In Chambers

I had no idea what was going on until the very end.

Zombie Apocalypse Problems

Nena and I were watching Walking Dead last night (Season 2, Episode 2 - "Bloodletting"), and events started her on a short rant.

Spoilers follow, so don't jump if you don't want to know.

Read more »

No Different from Anybody Else

Has everyone seen this deleted scene from The Avengers?


And, since there wasn't any costumery in that clip.

So Lonely

Where are the brains?

Get the Door

An American Werewolf in London did great nightmare sequences.

Ninjas vs Vampires

Saw it. This is actually one of the best bad movies I've seen in a while.


Beats Syfy originals by a longshot, at least.

Thriller

My lovely Nena suggested a far better video than what I originally had scheduled. The ultimate music video.

Dishonored

Another one that looks very promising.

Presentation

Super-villainy 101, really.

Do You Fear Death?

I wasn't as fond of the second and third installments as the first, but Davy Jones is still a great villain.

Ominous

You just know nothing good will come of this.



Perhaps a little context is in order...

Mann vs Machine

Video game companies are making the best trailers these days.

Hail Seitan!

I actually want to make this, as instructed.


And because I love Firefly, and today is the 13th...

Death Lives

I might even be interested in getting this game.

Dead Snow

A strange little zombie movie from a few years back.

King of the Monsters

You can't have too many variations on "This Is Halloween".

Franchise Warfare

This is a nice little piece of editing.

The Blight is Coming

A trailer and cutscene from Dragon Age: Origins.


I squandered quite a bit of time on this game. That's why it gets double videos.

The Key to Time

I'm a Doctor Who Hipster.

The Danger Must Be Growing

There's no Earthly way of knowing...

Pets, Of Course

Now this is a real Star Trek villain.


And today is a good day for an extra video.

This is Aperture

There are some rhyme scheme problems, but it's still fun.

Killer Beasts

I nice rundown of movies involving animals turned into monsters. Not sure I'd agree with the ranking, but it's still fun.

Gabriel

The Prophecy is a surprisingly good low-budget horror/fantasy flick, and it's sequels aren't too bad either.

Cthulu!

It's what's for dinner!



Seriously, I would actually like to try this someday.

On a different note, how did I never see this?

Firefly and Feminism: Reflection

The various articles I wrote about feminism and Firefly in response to Allecto's rants continue to be among the best hit-getters for the Saga. Consequently, I tend to reflect upon the topic when I see that new visitors have come to the blog to see one or more of those articles.

On one of these occasions, I considered one of Allecto's questions.

The women who ‘choose’ to be ‘Companions’ are shown as being intelligent, accomplished, educated, well-respected and presumably from good families. If a woman had all of these qualities and opportunities then why the **** would she ‘choose’ to be a man’s **** toy?

I wondered, why would Inara choose life as a Companion? What other opportunities would she have in Alliance society? Are they so limited that they make high-class prostitution look preferable?

That's when it occurred to me that I've never seen a woman in the Alliance in a position of authority. Not on the core worlds, at least.

Out among the "border moons," there are women like Patience who have taken charge. Patience apparently runs the entire moon, but the Alliance really doesn't care what's happening on the more remote colonies. They certainly seem to have the means to assert their authority if they so desire, but the border colonies have small populations and negligible industrialization. They don't have anything to offer the Alliance, and they would expect a lot more support if the Alliance imposed a lot of restrictions. The Alliance apparently doesn't consider them worth the trouble, choosing to ignore them until they do have something of value.

Among the highly-developed core worlds, there are plenty of wealthy, well-educated women, but I can only think of one who was an authority figure of any kind. Inara entertained a female Councilor in "War Stories," and she's the only female politician, military leader, or business leader I can think of.

We certainly see women in working roles -- there were certainly female doctors and nurses in "Ariel" -- but not so much in leadership roles.

And when you get to the Alliance aristocracy, the only role available to women seems to be "trophy wife." Maybe Inara chose life as a Companion to becoming one man's "kept woman."

I don't know how that should be interpreted in the context of whether Firefly should be considered feminist or misogynist (the Alliance does tend to be villainous most of the time), but I hadn't really noticed it before.

Halloween Celebration Prepared

Halloween-themed video posts have been queued for the entire month of October. Check daily (in October) for a dose of amusement.