why i'm right         10,000 jedi can't be wrong

So there’s this guy named Matt, who lo and behold, got Stride Gum to fly him around the world and dance at various locales. Nice gig. Here’s the third installment. you should read up on his adventures, as it’s interesting, informative, and pretty damn humorous to boot.

(http://www.wherethehellismatt.com/)

Anyway, someone he notes made a video based on the same idea within the World of Warcraft. I couldn’t stop laughing. Why? I don’t know. It’s ridiculous and stupid, yes. But the idea that someone is visiting “locales” in a virtual world and “filming” it is just about as ironic as it gets.

How ’bout them apples.

So, someone’s working on the cure for cancer, right? I mean, we’re not ALL doing this kind of thing, right? Oy.

This is a fantastic old movie. (Spoiler alert) Basically, the Earth stands still because there’s no electricity. (That really is the long and short of it. Obviously, there’s far more to it than that; aliens, etc.) But the implications of such an event BACK THEN were staggering. Just imagine now…

Here’s the trailer for the new 2008 version.

Now, I don’t know what they plan on doing to this classic movie. But, it has Keanu Reeves in it, so it doesn’t look good. Perhaps a good script will help, and the fact that he plays an unemotional alien will definitely match his acting prowess. So it’s feasably a decent film.

But seriously consider the original.

Now, what do YOU think? I’m doubtful. But I look forward to seeing what they try.

I am a patriot. Bring our troops home.

Happy Birthday, America.

Most people know the rhyme:

Red in the morning,
sailor’s take warning.
Red and night,
sailor’s delight.

But a friend of mine recently told me this one:

When the wind is in the North,
the bravest fisherman does not go forth.
When the wind is in the South,
it blows the bait in the fish’s mouth.

When the wind is in the East,
the sea’s not fit for man nor beast.
When the wind is in the West,
the fishing is at it’s best.

When did this one come around? I don’t think i’ve ever heard it. And this makes me wonder, are there more of these weatherly rhymes to help one figure out what’s going to happen meteorologically?

We all wonder whether lawyers have ethical standards. We wonder how a lawyer can do what they do; speak on behalf of someone they totally disagree with. We all wonder just what kind of ethical and moral differences must exist between us “normal people” and a lawyer. Differences, you say?

Ethics and morals, which include religion, are all based on opinion. And a lot of people wonder where the state of the world is going, nowadays, because of differences in ethical and moral opinion. And these same people, most likely, each have their own individual perspectives on ethical standards and moral (and religious) views; essentially their personal divining rods on right and wrong.

Unfortunately, what most people don’t seem to understand, are that graded scales of ethics, morals and religion are based solely on a majority opinion among a populace. What this means, is that as soon as the majority opinion in a group of people, no matter how big or small, changes, the entire ethical or moral or religious standard of the term “normal” changes.

For example:

• Let’s say you have a group of 12 random people who think that anything one guy says, is the absolute truth. They believe anything he says, they will do anything he asks and they will tell others why they are wrong because they disagree. Sounds like a cult, similar to Waco, but really it’s how Christianity began. Funny how globally influential and civilization-changing religions begin, isn’t it?

• Let’s say you have a group of a few million people who live in a particular village, town, city or country, and that the majority of them believe that anyone who speaks ill of their country, must be un-patriotic; and thus obviously spying on them from their enemy. To get to the truth, they publicly denounce them, possibly incarcerating them, merely for stating their opinion. Kind of ironic how a country of freedom-loving people in the United States are afraid of the Russians so much, during the cold war, they begin to put their own people in jail, isn’t it?

• Let’s say you have an elite group of people who discover that by modifying the chemicals within a human body, you can change the process of childbirth; possibly control it. And while at the beginning, their research is completely denounced by the public, eventually, it becomes accepted as a right of the individual. Strange how something as “harmless” as birth control sounds an awful lot like designer-babies, isn’t it?

The point is that each of these things, taken into 1) context, and 2) time-period, started from a minority opinion of “wrong” to the majority opinion of “right” while never actually changing the substance of themselves.

Nothing in the origin of Christianity changed, from it being “blasphemy” (religiously wrong) to “sanctified” (religiously correct). Nothing in the origin of the critical examination of your home country (treason) changed to be publically accepted as loving and wanting to improve your government (patriotism). Nothing in the origin of birth control changed, from it being acting-like-god (baby killer) to being a responsible adult.

This process can also go in reverse, bringing something thought of as “good” into the realm of “bad.” Depending on how far back into history you go, opium was completely legal, slavery was all over the modern world and leaving your born-crippled child in the woods to die was an accepted way to dispose of them. The context and fact of these events have not changed, only the majority opinion of them.

I am, of course, not implying that I think opium, slavery, or leaving your baby in the woods are good things. What I’m saying is that at one time, all of humanity accepted these practices and opinions as the “norm,” and would scoff at the thought of something different.

So, are these stated things really “differences?” Or merely points of view?

People say that lawyers are able to argue from both sides of their mouth, so they must be liars. Are these people sure that maybe the lawyers have a broader understanding of ethics, morals and religion, and how context and time vary these views, and that than the people who blindly believe whatever is the majority might only be holding an opinion, rather than fact? Probably not.

But then, there are some really stupid people in this world. And for every stupid person, trust me; there are twice as many bad lawyers.*

* (Which, of course, unfortunately reinforces the notion that lawyers have no ethics)

Related to my initial reaction to this movie and title, yet being stoked about this movie, I saw it.

It was great. I got to see Indy, being Indy, albeit an old man. And the script, while not polished, was adequate for an Indiana Jones movie. I love ‘em all. And I won’t give anything away, but they keep the possibility for future Indiana Jones movies alive and well. (Whether that should happen is up for debate, but still…)

While The Crystal Skull is not going to win Oscar nods, guess what: Temple of Doom is still the reigning champion as the loser of the series.

Rock on, Indiana Jones.

This is so well filmed; and hilarious.

All I can say is… It looks like hella-fun. But, holy lord… *puke*