OK...buckle-up boys & girls.
A little reality lesson for you 'Greenies'--- if you have the courage to insert some logic into the so-called global warming argument. First of all, is global warming even happening? If so, is it man made? Many reports show that it is not happening at all! (let alone prove that it is caused by human activity). How can that be? If it is really happening, there must be definitive proof which is able to correlate the 'supposed' warming with man-made activity? As far as I know, there HAS BEEN NO PROOF OF THIS!!!! If so, PLEASE show it to me. Remember, if man-made global warming is even happening, all scientists would have proof of it. There wouldn't be a 'consensus'... as Al Gore states in his propoganda movie & during his speeches. (Yes, I photographed one of his presentations at Castilleja School in Palo Alto) There would be undeniable proof. Why is this important? Because, the Scientific Method is the means by which it could be proven...not just a so-called 'consensus'. Remember high school, when we did our science projects (my kids still do this) and we had to do the whole Hypothesis, Experiment, Conclusion deal? This is the standard by which scientists are supposed to function...not consensus or opinion. It can be proven repeatedly ...with a predictable outcome...as a fact. If so, why can't climate 'scientists' even predict the up-coming weather with any kind of accuracy? Instead, it has become a political hot-button issue (with the help of PR agencies, I might add) that only clouds the non-sense. Why am I confident in these statements? Besides the scientific aspect of the issue, the political aspect is obvious... America is at fault. It doesn't matter that the US has the highest standards of any country in the world, we are always blamed. When was the last time you heard anyone being critical of India or China (even Mexico) regarding green-house gasses? They couldn't care less!!! Instead, the US is the villain & the other non-Kyoto agreeing countries aren't criticized...
Think About It! (And try to be intellectually honest, if you can.) As I've said before, this argument is based on facts rather than feelings.
OK...about John McCain being too late to jump into the nonsense. (Hello, Lilly?) Did he wait too long to jump into the non-provable hysteria for you? Or, is it just your political bias that motivates you? (Yes, you are biased. Obama, Wal-Mart, Conservatives, et al) Whatever the case, ALL politicians do what will help them convince enough people to vote for them in order to get elected. When presented with the acts, even us right-wingers are skeptical of the people that are supposed to represent our values...
The trouble is that too many people have fallen for the propaganda (John McCain, being one) to support their opinions (based on PR & media bias) about the subject. Again, if it's a liberal cause, it's usually based on 'feelings' and not research or facts.
FYI--- I conserve, recycle, re-use and intend to leave the planet better-off than when I was born ( I also teach my kids the same without being militant). It's too bad that the issue is polluted because of a political agenda. John McCain had fallen into a trap he won't get out of....hello president Barak Hussein Obama. God Help us All...even Canadians.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Friday, July 4, 2008
Censorship & WalMart
In order to have an intelligent debate about censorship, it is best that it is defined. Is it the government limiting free speech? Is it concerned parents not wanting sexually explicit material being used to teach their children at school (public vs private)? Is it Wal Mart choosing to not sell music with warning labels? After looking at a few sources, the consensus is that censorship is the suppression of speech or deleting/changing of materials because they are determined to be harmful or objectionable. What immediately jumps to mind is: Just who decides these things? Is it a bad thing to censor things? Sometimes? Or, as in the Wal Mart example, is it just a business decision based on the ideology of a corporation? Please, let's not dilute the debate by talking about 'feelings' or 'fairness'. It's about who has the authority to do the censoring in each example and what guides their decision making. First of all, every government censors something...even the US Gov't. While there are many examples that are far worse (Cuba, China), it happens today in our country. Is that a bad thing? If so, when does it start to become a bad thing? Regarding Wal Mart, I don't see it as a bad thing necessarily. Why? Because Wal Mart has a reputation that they want to maintain & stockholders that they are accountable to. They are a business & they can run it as they choose...as long as they aren't breaking any laws. Good for them! As far as only 'white, bible-belt conservatives' shopping there? (Lilly's words) Venture over to the Wal Mart by my house on Story Rd in SJ and you'll see many types of people shopping for their families. It seems their only concern is stretching their dollar, not about Sheryl Crow's CD.
I digress...
Censorship? Is it censorship by Lilly if she were to only assign certain chapters of our textbook? Is it censorship that the Mercury News editorial board doesn't consider hiring conservative journalists (as Joe Rodriguez flippantly stated last semester in my 100W class), or when they choose which stories to run & which not too? Is it censorship when my editors only post 25 of the 35 images I submit to them after an assignment? OR, is it just people with the proper authority attempting to use their judgment in the best interest of their company & customer? Before we start throwing around the 'censorship' accusations, I again, request that you leave out your 'feelings'. They don't apply here. Otherwise almost everything could be considered censorship and it only negates the real examples of it. It also begins to sound McCarthy-esque...know what I mean?
I digress...
Censorship? Is it censorship by Lilly if she were to only assign certain chapters of our textbook? Is it censorship that the Mercury News editorial board doesn't consider hiring conservative journalists (as Joe Rodriguez flippantly stated last semester in my 100W class), or when they choose which stories to run & which not too? Is it censorship when my editors only post 25 of the 35 images I submit to them after an assignment? OR, is it just people with the proper authority attempting to use their judgment in the best interest of their company & customer? Before we start throwing around the 'censorship' accusations, I again, request that you leave out your 'feelings'. They don't apply here. Otherwise almost everything could be considered censorship and it only negates the real examples of it. It also begins to sound McCarthy-esque...know what I mean?
Guess Who's Coming To Dinner?
My review...
I'm sure you've heard the term, "Talk the Talk & Walk the Walk". Well, this movie is a perfect example of putting that attitude into action.
Released in 1967, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? is a timely portrayal of families coming to terms with an upcoming interracial marriage. Directed by Stanley Kramer (Best Director), the film is the story of Dr. John Prentice (Sydney Poitier), his fiancee Joey Drayton (Katharine Houghton) and the challenges that arise after showing up unexpectedly to the parents of Drayton and announce their engagement. In addition to being caught off-guard by the visit, Joey's parents, Matt Drayton (Spencer Tracy) and Christina Drayton (Katharine Hepburn, Best Actress) were forced to re-examine, and live up to, the color-blind values that they raised their daughter with (because Prentice is black and Drayton is white). Even though Dr Prentice is the ideal man for their daughter to marry --- an accomplished, world-renowned physician with an impeccable reputation--- the Drayton's are concerned about the obstacles that the couple will be forced to endure in that day and age. (There is even a reference to the fact that in 1967 interracial marriages were against the law in a number of states). The movie, which happens in one busy day, takes place at the San Francisco home of the Drayton family. After the marriage announcement, the story is mostly about different conversations between the many number of people who happen to visit the Drayton home that day, and the different viewpoints expressed by each character. With varying levels of acceptance throughout the household, each character is examined thoroughly, even the crusty house staffer Tillie (Isabel Sanford), who takes Prentice to task, even calling him a niggar. What was supposed to be a small get-acquainted dinner turns into a very testy affair when the parents of Dr Prentice (Roy Glenn, Beah Richards) decide to fly north from Los Angeles to meet their sons wife-to-be. Everyone congregates at the Drayton home for dinner and what follows is a series of brilliantly scripted and acted scenes...the best of which is Tracy's incredible speech in the final scene. (Ironically, this was Spencer Tracy's final movies as well. He passed away in 1967 after suffering a heart attack. His career spanned over 40 years with 78 films, two Oscars and many more awards to his credit.) Along with Hepburn and Tracy, Poitier gives a stirring performance. A timeless, must-see movie.
I'm sure you've heard the term, "Talk the Talk & Walk the Walk". Well, this movie is a perfect example of putting that attitude into action.
Released in 1967, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? is a timely portrayal of families coming to terms with an upcoming interracial marriage. Directed by Stanley Kramer (Best Director), the film is the story of Dr. John Prentice (Sydney Poitier), his fiancee Joey Drayton (Katharine Houghton) and the challenges that arise after showing up unexpectedly to the parents of Drayton and announce their engagement. In addition to being caught off-guard by the visit, Joey's parents, Matt Drayton (Spencer Tracy) and Christina Drayton (Katharine Hepburn, Best Actress) were forced to re-examine, and live up to, the color-blind values that they raised their daughter with (because Prentice is black and Drayton is white). Even though Dr Prentice is the ideal man for their daughter to marry --- an accomplished, world-renowned physician with an impeccable reputation--- the Drayton's are concerned about the obstacles that the couple will be forced to endure in that day and age. (There is even a reference to the fact that in 1967 interracial marriages were against the law in a number of states). The movie, which happens in one busy day, takes place at the San Francisco home of the Drayton family. After the marriage announcement, the story is mostly about different conversations between the many number of people who happen to visit the Drayton home that day, and the different viewpoints expressed by each character. With varying levels of acceptance throughout the household, each character is examined thoroughly, even the crusty house staffer Tillie (Isabel Sanford), who takes Prentice to task, even calling him a niggar. What was supposed to be a small get-acquainted dinner turns into a very testy affair when the parents of Dr Prentice (Roy Glenn, Beah Richards) decide to fly north from Los Angeles to meet their sons wife-to-be. Everyone congregates at the Drayton home for dinner and what follows is a series of brilliantly scripted and acted scenes...the best of which is Tracy's incredible speech in the final scene. (Ironically, this was Spencer Tracy's final movies as well. He passed away in 1967 after suffering a heart attack. His career spanned over 40 years with 78 films, two Oscars and many more awards to his credit.) Along with Hepburn and Tracy, Poitier gives a stirring performance. A timeless, must-see movie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)