The Right Season

Highest Parachute Jump Record

2009-10-15T03:13:00.001-05:00

It is amazing that this occurred in 1959-1960.

Project Excelsior
by sonicbomb

Conviction Train

2009-10-05T00:15:00.002-05:00

Cool vid.

Disney To Buy Marvel

2009-08-31T08:51:00.003-05:00

If this will come to pass then I wonder if Disney could manage the edgier character set and maintain the older audience that Marvel draws upon. The marketing/distributing powerhouse that is Disney will help Marvel films but how much creative independence will Marvel be allotted? I guess since Warner Brothers already owns DC Comics it was a matter of time before Marvel was assimilated.

Remember Tianamen

2009-06-09T12:34:00.001-05:00

"Iraq was a just war"

2009-06-07T23:07:00.003-05:00

Excerpt from "Iraq the Model," a blog I have followed since 2004 and written by Iraqi, Omar Fadhil Al-Nidawi:

People of my generation who were born in democracies may take the freedom they enjoy for granted. This is certainly not the case for me or my people. I was born a decade after the murderous Ba'ath Party grabbed power in Baghdad in the sinister coup of July 1968. To us, the war brought an end to that 35-year-long nightmare and the beginning of an era of freedom, thanks to our friends in the coalition.

For me and many Iraqis, it was certainly worth it. Life is better today than it was before 2003. That is even though we were on the receiving end of this war in all its phases, from initial invasion through the bloody sectarian violence and terror that paralysed the country for years. Despite the high price in blood, today is brighter than yesterday. Above all, we have hope - something we did not have under Saddam's dictatorship - that tomorrow will be even brighter.

Thanks to our troops, the commitment of the coalition, and the endurance of the Iraqis for their continued efforts.

Fail

2009-04-08T18:37:00.003-05:00

Found this funny blog:

see more pwn and owned pictures

Tesla Music

2009-03-28T11:33:00.001-05:00

On Certainty - Part 2: Science and Religion (another look)

2009-03-24T11:55:00.006-05:00

Among skeptics, many hold fast to science as the be all and end all of all things, as the means to direct, disprove and prove everything else. Yet it so often gives a whiff of patronizing or feigned humility to say, "no one can know anything," while at the same time trying to disprove religion by science and or history. If everything is a great "I don't know," how can you use anything to justify your stance on anything?

Just as skeptics claim that philosophy, more specifically religion is a "stop to thought," skepticism also risks putting a stop to thought. Religious institutions so often welcomes the explanations except that which challenges their religion. At the same time skeptics welcome explanations except that which challenges science and more specifically Darwinism. Another way of looking at this is well articulated by self-proclaimed Marxist, atheist, evolutionary geneticist, and Harvard professor Dr. Richard Lewington:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Therefore the conclusion is already drawn for many religious or evolutionist that God exists or does not exist and to consider otherwise is unacceptable and any data must be molded or spun to fit that presumption or presupposition. I do not say that it is necessarily wrong at the outset to hold to one side or the other. I do say to claim that religion is the sole stop to thought is to defy self examination and risks hypocrisy. I myself am not above this as I presuppose the existence of God whereas a friend of skeptical leaning presupposes the absence of God. My friend cannot accept or acknowledge even the consideration of God as on the same level of discourse as science. However he puts forth that, "the sad thing is that there are fools on both sides."

Because the denial of God is presupposed, it is not Reason that motivates the denial but often a dogged refusal to change or challenge one's presuppositions. Is science the be all and end all? Skeptics chalk religion and philosophy up to human constructs and science as reality. However I say science is also a human construct in that it is our attempt to describe and organize what we observe. Of the sciences, evolution may very well be the least empirical and most philosophical. Philosophy and science are efforts to grasp reality and are not mutually exclusive. Science attempts to answer the what and sometimes the how, while philosophy attempt to answer the why and sometimes the how. Even this is simplistic as there is overlap however it is a start to see how the two can coexist.

On Certainty - Part 1: Self Assessment

2009-03-24T11:54:00.007-05:00

From my experience, skepticism is often synonymous with atheism or atheism in the guise of agnosticism--in other words, the denial of a God (usually singular) in the form of a denial of everything. The folly here is the claim of being certain about uncertainty. This is knowingly and even glaringly contradictory. So I want to direct attention to some certainties. From a pragmatic standpoint no average adult functions devoid of certainties. Everyone has a worldview/belief system/philosophy that they operate off of (whether they recognize or are able to articulate it is another question). Each system roots itself in a particular set of ideas that it assumes are truth. I find two means to start vetting out the certainties a person holds to at a given instance are the questions addressing "is" and "should":
1. What do you think you are or the state of the world is?
2. How do you think you or the world should be?

An honest assessment of how you answer these will quickly show, I hope, that you do hold to certainties. The next question that follows your answer to these first two questions is, "Why?" or "How do you know?" This will clarify the certainties that you assume and operate by.

In other words we live upon a foundation of understanding of our existence and purpose - the "is" and "should."

The Charity Revolt

2009-03-22T20:54:00.004-05:00

Claremont

2009-03-17T14:00:00.000-05:00

Adam Kimmel presents: Claremont HD from adam kimmel on Vimeo.

Quote

2009-03-17T10:37:00.003-05:00

"The philosopher Socrates said, 'The unexamined life is not worth living,' but I find--particularly in North America, because of distractions, because of diversions, because of the 24-7 media--that many believe that, 'The examined life is not worth living.'"
-Stuart McAllister

Newsboys' Frontman Leaving the Front

2009-03-11T17:21:00.009-05:00

Newsboys frontman Peter Furler will be replaced by former dcTalk member Michael Tait as the new lead singer of Newsboys. Peter Furler will assume a studio role. His lead will be missed. It'll take adjusting for fans to not see Peter. I wish Michael Tait and the Newsboys success though it'll be strange for a while.

Cute Dog

2009-02-10T12:34:00.004-06:00

Cheerio, Pomeranian, attends the Westminster Dog Show

Hellzapoppin'

2009-01-17T19:50:00.003-06:00

Movie to watch showcasing awesome swing/lindyhop.

Iraq War Movies

2009-01-17T18:48:00.005-06:00

I recently watched to movies about the current Iraq war. In the Valley of Elah is a drama/mystery that drives home how "messed up" and "crazy" the Iraq war is. It implies that American soldiers are dealing with fear, pressure and chaos so profound that it leaves them returning home desensitized and amoral. The movie is interesting and well made.

However it leaves me asking, are our soldiers really desensitized and amoral? If so, then is this war so different from wars of the past? Are these soldiers so different? I want to say our military has a history or training people to be upstanding citizens and promoting such a culture. There is such thing as PTSD but this movie is showing something else: normal young men now left emotionally and mentally destabilized. Tommy Lee Jones portrays a retired army military police sergeant who maintains his fortitude, discipline and mental sharpness. Why then are the present day soldiers portrayed so different from Jones? The movie does not give an answer.

The other movies, Full Battle Rattle, is the documentary displaying the U.S. Army's simulation of an Iraq town in the Mojave desert as part of the Army's training before soldiers go to the actual war. The town and military outpost are made up of Iraqi refugees, dummies and military personel. I am thankful for the refugees volunteers. The movie is fascinating and honest and I will have to see the first half of the movie before I make additional comments. I would recommend it.

Harder, Faster, Better, Stronger

2009-01-17T15:32:00.002-06:00

Daft Punk deconstructed by David Crowder - awesome.

First Sign of Intelligence

2009-01-15T16:23:00.005-06:00

I engage in frequent discussions with a friend and in the last month I was told, "That was the first intelligent thing you've said," which gives insight into what his perception of me has been or has become, but I want to focus on what I said.

I said "Your values are influenced by your parents. How they spend their time shows you what they value. If they don't go to church then they show that attending church or religion is not valuable." I think the weight of this statement lay in the simple truth of the statement and how the example literally hit home for my friend.

The lead up was a discussion on offending parents if a child chose a religion. If a son or daughter chooses to value something that the parents' don't value, would they necessarily be offended? I say, "no and even unlikely," especially in American society where there exists openness for exploration. What may change is the parents' perception of their child. I don't think offense plays much of a role here. Negative reactions would more likely be fear or confusion. I should ask another friend who had to deal with this very choice.

What my friend's comment informed me was that my conjectures and examples need to be relevant in order for our discussions to be meaningful.

A Take Away Show

2009-01-14T19:49:00.002-06:00

Fleet Foxes - A Take Away Show from La Blogotheque on Vimeo.

Objectified

2009-01-05T19:49:00.001-06:00

I'm interested in this documentary on Industrial Design:

Video game Therapy

2008-11-17T09:40:00.005-06:00

I first saw the use of video games as therapy at a bioengineering conference in 2001. Not surprisingly, Japan was using video games in physical therapy then. Here gaming is being used as adjunct pain management.

"Rigidity" of Liberals

2008-11-06T06:12:00.012-06:00

The New York Times recently reported on an interesting study showing that conservatives enjoy all forms of humor and for even the humor that liberals enjoy, conservatives enjoy more. This was considered surprising because conservatives have consistently been painted as closed-minded and rigid and liberals as open-minded. However it is liberals who more often take offense at political incorrectness and are suspected by the Times as having a less cheerful disposition. Also the study and analysis was performed by sociologists, a group with Democrat to Republican ratio of 7 to 1, leaving the Times wondering if the findings should be surprising in the first place or were the initial assumptions subject to bias.

McCain's campaign has been portrayed as based on anger and fear but I can tell you that the Democratic machine has fed on anger for at least the last 12 years. And the last 2 elections have campaigned on fear of another Bush-like term and fear for our economic future. I was placed on the Democratic Congressional Campaign listserve which doles a constant meal of anger and fear. This anger has been rationalized as the sole work Nancy Pelosi, but it is an anger that existed before her rise to Congressional power.

After the elections which selected George W. Bush as U.S. president, liberals gave up on the United Sates and there was common talk and writing of moving to Canada or Europe instead of coming behind the president and supporting him. There was outright hatred of a man they did not know personally and depicted as stupid, backward and ignorant [though he had one of the most diverse cabinets (black, white, Latino, Japanese, Chinese)]. There was a refusal to acknowledge the Bush presidency in part because of voter discrepancy, even though President Clinton also lost the popular vote during his election to presidency. With the election of Senator Obama there has been general consensus on both sides to support him as President. Is this a sign of Obama's reach or the willingness of conservatives to remain, not give up, and help this country?

A Symbol Exalted

2008-11-06T06:00:00.015-06:00

I've been thinking about the election of Obama and pose a hypothesis based on conversations, the news and the history of recent elections. For the majority of people who voted for Obama, the votes were cast not so much for a set of policies but for a symbol, a virtual blank slate by which they could ascribe their hopes and dreams. It comes at a time when America seemed to be in a slow decline in influence (politically, economically, culturally, etc.) and the world had stopped believing the American dream or that this young nation could live up to her ideals. Studies from this election and past elections have shown that most people vote with their gut--how do they feel about the candidates despite the candidate's policies? (A survey was done asking if people agreed with Obama's economic and health plans, but the plans described were those of McCain's and the consistent finding was they agreed with these "Obama" plans.)

The effectiveness of the Obama campaign was the creation of an image and a message of "hope & change" and McCain was a man essentially going against an amorphous symbol. Who can go against "hope"? McCain was not against hope nor change but he did not have any counter to it. What is interesting is these two ideas were never clearly defined (Hope in who/what? Change into what?) and the Obama campaign seemed satisfied with leaving it that way--up to our imaginations. But it strikes such an emotional chord. Just look at the "Yes We Can" music video by will.i.am. Other powerful images are his ethnicity (95% of blacks voted for him), oratory skill (mellifluous is the word thrown around), and youth (the younger the voter, the greater the proportion of votes went to Obama); but most powerful idea is the simple promise of hope and change which resonates around the world in a time when leadership is needed.

Warm Up

2008-11-06T02:00:00.001-06:00

I've been stretching all wrong... need to do dynamic stretches according to NY Times.

Proud American

2008-11-05T20:48:00.010-06:00

History is in the making in the United States and these are exciting times. There is a high expectation of renewal given the talk of "rebuilding" the nation. We are witnesses to a symbolic milestone. Yet I was initially put off by people's comments that almost negate or deny America's past accomplishments, comments such as: "I now think that America's so cool," "I can now be proud of America," or even "I can now travel outside the U.S." I suspect such people lack a sense of history or are ashamed of being identified with America, until now. But for others it may not be necessarily a matter of shame.

I never bought into the division of the "real" America versus unreal America but I think the Republican campaign was getting at patriotism versus shame. It leads me to wonder is it possible in this day and age to do right yet be unpopular even in the world arena? Are we not able to recognize the billions of dollars given out to aid countries whose constituents may even hate America? Are we not able to see the work we do to promote health, fight AIDS, fight genocide, rally to help in disasters, promote human rights and equality, provide excellent university education, allow for freedom of speech, fuel dreams? But for those who once lacked inspiration, Obama is an inspirational figure. I think there is something deeper at play in the form of people who never felt like they belonged to American now feel they are accepted and President-elect Obama is the embodiment of that vindication--one that allows them to be proud Americans because they are not lesser but equal and they belong. So for many it was not that they refused to be identified as American but they felt they couldn't until now. We can all be proud of the American system.