A different perspective on BP

Tiger Hawk has this interesting perspective to add on the Gulf Oil Spill:

Somewhere within BP true heroes are working night and day to stop the gusher and clean up its consequences. These people -- everybody from petroleum engineers to the rough men and women who work in oil fields in the world's most challenging environments to the machinists and welders who labor around the clock to build the next solution -- are not, in the main, responsible for the disaster. They are responsible for ending it. They are not known to us as individuals. In the current climate, where liberal activists intimidate the families of corporate executives to gain leverage, they no doubt hope to remain anonymous. They are working around the clock, to the point of exhaustion, in conditions, both physical and emotional, more stressful than most American employees (including many who complain about all the stress they are under) can possibly comprehend. They will eventually solve this problem they did not create. At the moment of their success, which no doubt will come, these men and women will have prevented staggering incremental damage. Their only reward, though, will be relief and the satisfaction of a job well done.

Always good to remember before vilifying any company. There are very, very few organizations (even including Congress) that are corrupt from top to bottom. Most companies are full of honest, hard-working people, who do their best for their employers, their families, their communities, and their country. In our rush to blame someone--and surely there are plenty of someones who should take the blame on this--let's not forget that there are good people out there trying to clean up a very bad situation.

Does Peter Jackson hate Aragorn?

I've been watching Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers extended edition lately. I've never been entirely comfortable with their treatment of the character of Aragorn in the first place, but seeing all the other cut scenes has nearly convinced me they had it in for him. Something about the character made them start sharpening their scalpels to do a major makeover.

Aragorn in the books was not this conflicted slacker they show in the movies. I can understand their taking some liberties with the character. After all, other than their particular roles, there's not a lot of difference between Gandalf and Aragorn in the book. They both are strong, noble, and have a full sense of purpose. They are like two sides of the same coin, determined to see the business through come what may. I can see them making them more different for sake of the movie.

But the way they purposely change significant events in the movie to fit their new narrative really grates on the nerves. Aragorn was able to wrest control of the palantir away from Sauron, not give up in the attempt. And I certainly don't recall him going "all wobbly" at Helms Deep. The Aragorn Jackson builds up is such a wuss that it's actually jarring when he actually suggests they go assault Sauron's gates to draw his armies away from Frodo. What?! Did Aragorn actually suggest something brave? Or is he just wanting to get himself killed so he doesn't have to face Arwen dying? The scene fairly clangs with disconnect between a character that has gone so far afield that he hits a corner and the original intent of the author.

Perhaps that is why my favorite characters in the movie remain Theoden and Eowyn. Gandalf is done well, but he's Gandalf--aloof and unfathomable. Sam is played well, but his character is too simple, as are the characters of Gimli and Legolas. There's no depth to appreciate there. That leaves the only really interesting and heroic characters to Theoden and Eowyn. They are the strong characters that Aragorn is not. What Eowyn sees in Aragorn I have no idea.

To be sure, Viggo does his best with the character given him. I end up liking him in spite of what is done to him. Mortensen imbues the character with a strength and nobility that is not born out by the script itself. Even then, it took me the better part of the first movie to get it straight that Sean Bean was Boromir, not Aragorn. Sean Bean fit the image I had of Aragorn so much better.

But ultimately, just what does Jackson's Aragorn actually do in the film? His character is important to what happens in one instance only--walking the paths of the dead to raise the army that wins the Battle of Minas Tirith. Other than that, he's a throw-away character. Well, that and make it a bit more believable that the hobbits escape the Ringwraiths and make it to Rivendell. After that he becomes Aragorn, Tormented King of Angst, and doesn't surface again until the last half of the third movie. His character could have been left out altogether without much impact on the plot until that point. And after that point as well. He's a buff-studly fighter amongst a group of buff-studly fighters, nothing more.

The ironic thing is that in trying to avoid a static character that starts and ends the movie the same person, Jackson turns Aragorn into exactly the same thing. I don't see any real growth in Jackson's Aragorn. He starts and ends the movie as a man hiding not comfortable in his own skin, but who happens to be good at fighting. He's just going along with the flow, and that's really all he does for the entire movie. He doesn't become anything. He waffles his way from start to finish. At least if he was going to be a stereotype, they could have left him a strong, brave, noble stereotype.

It's enough to make one think that Jackson and company (for he had help in his character assassination) couldn't bear the thought of a character that was noble, just, and true, possessed moral clarity and a strong sense of purpose, and who would see things through to the bitter end because that's just what people do. Did they think that Americans today wouldn't be able to relate to such a character? Well, if that's the case, then why film Lord of the Rings at all? Because that's what the movie is about! How did they read the book so closely and miss that?

To be sure, Jackson's Lord of the Rings will remain one of my all-time favorite movies, because he got so many other things right. He captured the epic scale of the novel, and portrayed so many scenes so much better than even I had envisioned them. He captures many of the crucial themes and does them respectable justice. And he tells a good story. I'm only afraid he told it so well that no one else will ever try it and show how it could and perhaps should have been. There remains much about the books that Jackson never tapped into, and would benefit from better treatment than was given. I hope to see it done in my lifetime.

Ideological purity is counterproductive

I read a sad-but-amusing blog post over at The Watermelon Blog tonight. The writer's claim is that only atheists can be green. He believes (rather wrongly) that people of religion do not care about the planet because they believe they can get their imaginary friend (God, in his open, inclusive, accepting parlance) to fix everything if they screw it up.

Pardon me, sir, but your ignorance is showing. But even if his assertion was true, what good does it do the green cause to insist that people must first give up religion before they can care about the planet? How does that encourage anyone to even try to reach a compromise in their beliefs? On the contrary, it is an exclusionary, self-defeating tactic that will accomplish nothing.

I am a vegan, and I have learned that people can be vegan for a variety of reasons. Frankly, I don't care what their reasons are--the end result is the same. If everyone became vegan then no more animals would need to be harmed. So if someone wishes to go vegan because of their health, because of environmental concerns, or because the locked chest in their attic told them to, I don't care. If we can come together on something like that, great!

So why should this writer wish to throw down the gauntlet and insist on ideological purity in the green movement? I would think that he would welcome anyone that wishes to go green, whether they believe in the divinity of God or, like him, believe in the depravity of man. How does it help the planet he claims to care so much about to refuse to let anyone one try to save it until they renounce religion?

On the contrary, this person has revealed himself to be just as prejudiced, small-minded, and misguided as he feels religious people to be. He has denounced one religion only to take up another. I fail to see how he has improved himself in the process. He has proven himself the very model of the depraved human race he despises so much.

I, as a vegan with at the very least some green tendencies, who also happens to be religious, believing that God expects us to be good stewards of this planet and everything on it, have little use for people like that. The green movement has no use for people like that.

Obama is now a Luddite? Uh huh.

Quite a few pundits and bloggers are making quite a bit of Obama's commencement speech at Hampton University, in which he seems to declare war on modern technology:

"You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank all that high on the truth meter," Obama said at Hampton University, Virginia.

"With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation," Obama said.

He bemoaned the fact that "some of the craziest claims can quickly claim traction," in the clamor of certain blogs and talk radio outlets.

"All of this is not only putting new pressures on you, it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy."

I'm not going to worry too much about his trying to get rid of iPods. That is pretty much ridiculous. His much-lauded youth support would turn on him in an instant. They may anyway, since he seems to denigrate some of the most popular forms of entertainment around while in the same breath claiming he's never used them. Few things rankle youth than adults criticizing their favorite past-times without having given them a fair try.

But frankly, I think Obama is being less than truthful. This is, after all, the same president who had to fight to keep his Blackberry. You're telling me that he wouldn't know how to use an iPod? And while it's possible that Sasha and Malia don't have an Xbox or PlayStation, I'd be very surprised if he's never used one. In any case, such an admission is hardly becoming of the president everyone once lauded as the most tech-savvy president ever.

What is also sad, though, is Obama's apparent lack of historical perspective. While it is certainly true that modern media isn't always reliable as a source of truth, and that crazy ideas can spread like wildfire, this is nothing new. In the days of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson there were rag-sheets and tabloids spreading a constant supply of information not just of of questionable veracity, but out-right libel. Nor was is confined to one side of any issue. While they may not have been spread across the country within seconds, they certainly spread quickly enough to be difficult to combat.

So for Obama to start complaining about this now either shows that he is completely unfamiliar with the history of American political discourse, or that he just doesn't like it when it's used against him. Heaven knows he's benefited from it when it's in his favor.

Welcome to real life, Mr. President. My advice is to start telling the truth yourself. If you and your administration would actually live up to the promises of openness, clarity and disclosure you offered in order to get elected people might actually listen to you instead of going to all of these sources your disparage. We were all hoping for a president who could talk straight and resist the urge to ding everyone who disagrees with him every time he opens his mouth. But it didn't happen. We got another bully pulpit. After awhile we stop listening and look for information elsewhere.

Might I suggest, Mr. President, that you might be better served by learning how to use an iPad yourself? Get out there and see what is being said and what the American people really want rather than barricading yourself in your Washington echo chamber. Perhaps you might begin to understand just why it is you're beating your predecessor to the bottom of the presidential ratings. It's not because people have iPods and PlayStations, Mr. President. It's because they have brains.

What to do with lemons

If wisdom is to be found on t-shirts and bumper stickers, then I wonder what can be learned from these two bits of wisdom:

1) If life hands you lemons, make lemonade...but without sugar and water your lemonade is gonna stink!

2) If life hands you lemons, take them! Well hey! Free lemons!

Two thoughts. One: Even the best opportunities are usually going to require something from you to make them successful. There's no free ride.

Two: Life will now and then teach you things. Even if it's not immediately applicable, hang on to it. Something will come up where that knowledge will come in handy. While we tend to prize most what we gain at the highest cost, never turn up your nose at knowledge or experience that comes at a low cost.

Someone must be running scared...

Instapundit spotted a movement to infiltrate and sabotage the Tea Party by "exaggerating" the party's worst elements. In short, they're going to pretend to be racists, hicks, and idiots in order to discredit the movement.

May I suggest that if you have to do that then there is nothing really wrong with the group you hate so much--the problem is YOU. If the Tea Party movement is really full of racists and stupid people, then it will destroy itself. If you have to make it something it is not to destroy it then you've only proven yourself to be paranoid about and/or threatened by something you don't understand (aka racist/prejudiced).

Just further proof that the Left are hypocrites and determined to win the race to the bottom. If you have to resort to such nastiness to win the debate then you ARE the disease, not the cure.

Reid made the right call in withdrawing from church meeting

I don't have much good to say about Harry Reid, but he was right to pull out of speaking at a church fireside after receiving information/threats that protesters were coming to the meeting to protest.

Reid, you see, is a member of the same church as myself. Though I have to raise my eyebrows at some of the stunts he pulls and wonder how he reconciles his beliefs with his religion, that's ultimately between him and God. I have to assume his local church leaders know his heart better than I do.

But church firesides are not political meetings. They are religious meetings, designed to be spiritual, faith-promoting events in a somewhat informal, more intimate atmosphere than formal church worship services. Having a bunch of angry protesters disrupting such a meeting would benefit no one--certainly not the people who go there in order to have their faith reinforced and hear the quiet reassurances of the holy spirit.

In short, once Reid knew there would be protesters, he knew the meeting would not be successful in its purpose. Rather than subject the attendees to a irreverent, contentious situation that would benefit no one, he chose to cancel his involvement. I appreciate and respect that.

As for the protesters, if they were members of the church they should be ashamed of themselves. They should know better. If they were not, they should find out what they are about to disrupt before they do something like that and show a little respect for others. While I, too, would like to give Reid a piece of my mind, that was not the appropriate venue.

Singing in that good ol' harmony

I've been using Pandora at work lately to provide some background music, but I haven't been able to take any one station for long before needing a change. Yesterday, however, I created a station around acapella mens groups, and found it kept me going my entire shift.

Do Wop, Vocal Jazz, barbershop--whatever you call it, it covers a lot of ground; from the King's Singers to Boyz II Men, and some amazing groups I'd never heard of, like Tonic Sol Fa. There are covers of old chestnuts to jaw-dropping arrangements of familiar tunes to original works that left me speechless. The King's Singers' cover of Billy Joel's "And So It Goes" about left me in tears. If I had money for it I would have bought at least two or three albums yesterday.

In high school and college I was privileged to sing in several acapella groups. There is nothing quite like singing tight harmonies and energized rhythms with a group of guys that blend well. I've almost always enjoyed making music in a group over solo work, and I miss it.

I remember back before I moved to Boise coming over here for the River Festival any time I heard the Nylons were performing. I remember riding a shuttle bus home from one concert, my brother and I being completely unable to contain ourselves and breaking into song. I'm still a bit surprised we did it, but by golly if we didn't soon have a majority of the passengers joining in. We sang everything we thought people would know, including patriotic songs. That was probably the most enjoyable bus ride I've ever taken, and I still get chills thinking about it.

I think I disappointed my mother when I didn't become a music teacher. I don't regret that decision, but I do sometimes wish I'd tried some other ways to make music pay. I think the unbounded opportunity to make music was one of the main reasons I had a hard time getting out of college.

Right now my life is necessarily focused on supporting and raising a young family. But someday I will find my way back to performing. I don't think I'll be entirely whole until I do.

Is the Left inherently violent?

I watched a segment of MSNBC's Morning Joe today that really made my skin crawl. It started out fair enough, raising the idea that political violence is perhaps evenly matched on both sides of the political spectrum. I can accept that, even though their immediate examples seem a bit lop-sided to me: A racial epithet and a case of spitting on the Right side vs. death threats against a Republican senator and his family on the Left.

But then the segment took a quick turn into "yes, but" mode by making the apparent claim that the Right's violence is somehow worse because there are Right-leaning pundits on talk radio that incite rage against the government. They placed the burden of proof on Pat Buchanan that the Left is just as bad, then continually discounted his examples because there was no single voice advocating those acts. (I beg to differ; there are incitements aplenty from the Left, including from the Chief Executive himself.)

Think about that for a second. If there is a similar amount of political violence, and such violence from the Right is incited by a few self-proclaimed spokesmen, while such violence from the Left is unorganized and organic, does that not imply that people on the Left are inherently violent? People on the Right have to be stirred up to violence, but people on the Left just commit violence without instigation? Is that really what they want to say, regardless of whether it true?

Is that what amounts to a defense? It's in effect sending a note to the teacher saying "Please forgive Johnny for hitting Suzie yesterday at school. This is not something he learned from TV or from watching us, he's just a naturally violent kid and will sometimes hit others without provocation. But please forgive that, because Seth is also violent at school because of things he learns on Television and from his parents."

Violence is violence, regardless of impetus. The Right continually apologizes for it, condemns it, and warns against it, while the left refuses to even acknowledge it. As any behavioral specialist can tell you, recognizing you have a problem is the first step to overcoming it. In that case, the Right is the more mature, responsible side. The Left is still in denial.

Violence and politics...plenty to go around

The media is quick to jump on any cases of reported violence against Democrats and their offices, forgetting far too easily that liberals have advocated and engaged in more than their of politically motivated violence. I mean really, has there ever been a WTO conference that didn't include mob violence by protesters?

If there is anything remarkable about the supposed violence against Democrats it's that it's occurring at all. But the way they've been acting lately, it's just as likely that the violence is perpetrated by liberals as it is by conservatives. This administration has managed to tick off just about everyone, so they should only be surprised that it's not worse!

You do not regularly and contemptuously ignore the will of the people without reaping retribution. I do not advocate violence, but to whine and cry about it is just ridiculous. What did you expect? You crammed a bill through that the majority did not want using tactics the majority found reprehensible. Ye reap what ye sow.

Racists under every rock

The effort to spin America's dislike of the Health Care Bill has begun, using the same old tune: If you disagree with it you're a racist. They're starting to sound like a broken record.

But there are a few glaring holes in that thinking. First off, polls show that over 59% of Americans oppose the Health Care Bill. If they oppose it because of racism, then how did Obama get elected in the first place? At least 10% of those people had to have voted for Obama for him to win.

Secondly, this erroneously assumes that everyone associates the Health Care Bill with Obama. This is not true. I suspect most people associate this bill with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. I know I do. This is their bill, even though it was Obama who requested it. I blame them fully for this mess. But I'm white and they are white. Can I be racist against "my own kind?"

Actually, I am racist. I'm bitterly against the politician race. They're certainly not the same species as the rest of us. They are a vile, nasty lot who should never be let near power. This latest fiasco proves it. So if I'm a racist it's because they're making me that way.

And the fact that they immediately assume that opposition to their work is because of racism...well, that's just because they're racist. They hate the American race.

"Health Reform" passes. Remember this in November.

The House just passed the "Sit Down and Shut Up, America, We're Going to Fix This Even If it Kills You!" Bill, otherwise known as Health Care Reform. It's interesting to note that the MSNBC.com Poll currently shows 59% of voters feel this bill is a bad idea that will screw things up for a long time, compared with only 29% who think it's a good idea. MSNBC polls tend to run liberal, from what I've seen.

What scares me is that the Democrats won't stop here. Now that they know how to ram-rod things through effectively they're not going to be able to resist doing it again and again before November. They know they just signed their political death warrants, so they've got nothing to lose. Scuttle the Ship of State and grab all the gold service pieces they can pocket on the way to the lifeboats.

I am so disgusted with our "representatives" I don't even know where to begin.

Television is bad for you? Who'd have thought!

MSNBC.com has an article today citing five different ways that television is bad for you. In a nutshell, television:
- Increases your chances of heart disease
- Makes you drink more
- Increases the odds of teenage pregnancy
- Weakens your bones
- Makes parents interact with their kids less

But I'm sure they still maintain it's just the act of watching TV that's bad for you, not the programming they show you.

Democrats throwing Obama under the bus?

With very interesting timing, the Democrats are now starting to talk about how Obama should be listening to Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel:

But a contrarian narrative is emerging: Emanuel is a force of political reason within the White House and could have helped the administration avoid its current bind if the president had heeded his advice on some of the most sensitive subjects of the year: health-care reform, jobs and trying alleged terrorists in civilian courts.

It's been a long-held opinion of those opposed to Obama's agenda that either Obama failed to recruit the right people for his staff, or that he simply refuses to listen to them. It looks like the Democrats feel there is political capital to be gained by claiming the latter.

A fascinating development, to be sure. I'm sure this is just the beginning of...something. I wonder where this is headed.

International Conflict

Today the USA hockey team plays the Finnish team in the semi-finals. As I've mentioned before, we're a mixed-nationality house. But all things considered, I hope you'll all understand if I cheer for Finland to win. I mean, come on. Team USA has dominated the medals. Finland has three--and no golds.

I'm cheering for Finland.

Segregation based on health care?

Where I work they have the president's health care summit on the television. I can't see it, but I can hear it.

Some genius is going on and on about how we eliminated segregation based on gender, disability, and other factors, and now he wants to eliminate segregation based on health care.

This worries me when the people leading this country don't even know the meaning of a simple word. Since when are we setting up "premium coverage only" sections on buses? Where is the "insured only" drinking fountains? Where are the "uninsured" high schools?

Perhaps he knew full well he was using the wrong word, but used it anyway because of it's emotional connotation. Even so, it's probably a good thing I don't know who that was. I lost all respect for him.

Men only do bad things?

Here's an interesting YouTube video about the disappearance of men and the rise of misanthropy.

Interesting video, but I will take one exception to it. The narrator claims that misandry is a word. Not according to Websters. Misanthropy is the word he may be looking for, and it is accepted by spell-check.

EDIT: I checked in the Oxford English Dictionary, and "misandry" is a word in the British English. But since it's evidently not a word in American English, and MS Word is made by an American company, I wouldn't place too much stock in that particular argument.

If Vonn is drawing all the attention it's not her fault

It seems US Skier Julia Mancuso is annoyed by teammate Lindsey Vonn's popularity. While her remarks may be true, it's the nature of the sport. And with me, at least, Vonn's popularity is perhaps more deserved.

I admit my opinion is based only on a single medals ceremony; one of the first, when Vonn won gold and Mancuso won silver. Mancuso was wearing, of course, her trademark tiara. And when she took the winners podium she had to add a saucy dance to her waving. Vonn was much more staid, pumping her fists a few times, but otherwise keeping it more dignified. To be fair, both women placed their hands over their hearts for the National Anthem, and it appeared as if Mancuso were even singing along. But the podium dance rubbed me the wrong way. It's a small difference, but Mancuso seemed to be about "look at me", while Vonn seemed to be more about "look at this moment." What can I say? I prefer my winners dignified and a little awed at their success.

Certainly it's Vonn who has the media's attention, and no, it's not fair. But she could have it for all the wrong reasons, too. Ask Bodie Miller what that's like. It's not like Vonn did anything particular to become the media's Face de Olympique. I doubt she would feel at all bothered if the attention were elsewhere.

Mancuso's remarks also belie a predisposition to attention-seeking. The reality for most of us in the viewing audience is that women's skiing gets but a small percentage of the overall attention. Lindsey Vonn is no more important than, say, Apolo Ohno, Evan Lysacek, or Lindsey Jacobellis (how'd you like that kind of attention, Julia?). To assume that America is focused on Lindsey Vonn is untrue at best, delusional at worst.

Relax, Julia. There's enough limelight for everyone. You've already had more of it than I'm likely to ever have. Try to make sure it's not the wrong kind of attention.

Will we turn a blind eye to antisemitism this time too?

Sweden, where Jews were once given refuge during WWII, is now becoming a hotbed of antisemitism. Does this mean that for all our supposed intellectual and moral progress we're no better today than we were seventy years ago?

I hope not.

Glenn Reynolds on why spirituality is more popular than religion

Citing a Pew Research Forum report, which cites young people as being spiritual, but not religious, Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit had this to say:

Well, that’s because religion often tells you to do things you don’t want to do, or to refrain from doing things you want to do, while spirituality is usually more . . . flexible.

I'm not sure if he considers that a bug of a feature, but he hits the nail on the head. Far too much of the so-called spirituality today centers around the idea of God wanting our attention, but little more. The idea that God may actually expect certain things of us beyond a generic, flexible "being good" is inconvenient at best.

No, the inconvenient truth is that God has a plan for us, and that plan calls for us to meet certain standards of behavior. Attempts to water it down so that we can feel better about ourselves with less effort will not work out well for us in the end. I mean seriously, do you really think you can tell the creator of the universe that "I'm sure you didn't mean all that 'thou shalt/shalt not' business. Here, let me show you what I am willing to do for you, though."?

Good luck with that.