Life, Liberty, and making fun of politicians

Politics is slow right now, so how about a new TV season

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:14:00 +0000

Okay, so I will cover my standard favorites another time, but I feel like documenting how I feel about first episodes of a few new series.

Defying Gravity (ABC) - I REALLY want to talk about this one... I am pretty much pissed off that ABC is not giving this show what it deserves. It was sold poorly as "Grey's Anatomy in space", and the show is SO much more than that. No, it isn't fully a drama, but no it also isn't fully a sci-fi. Lots of reviews have said that because it isn't enough of either that it isn't good, but from actually having watched it and LOVED it, I can't stand the fact that it isn't getting its fair shake. If ABC holds on to the remaining episodes and never airs them I might stop watching ABC shows... if they air the remaining episodes and still drop the show just because of ratings I will treat them like FOX and put them on a short leash.
Archer (FX) - The animation is a bit odd for the style of comedy that they are doing, but it could work... it was very funny in the first episode so we'll see how it goes.
Community (NBC) - Amusing enough. I don't know that any of the characters are compelling enough to me for it to be anything more than a time killer, but from the first two episodes it is at least funny enough to watch.
Glee (FOX) - From the Pilot I thought this show might really be going places with the humor of the over-the-top stereotypical characters and music, but the last two episodes really haven't gone anywhere... not giving up yet, but it is disappointing.
Bored to Death (HBO) - A pretty morbid show, but it seems like it could go places. I generally like Schwartzman.
Accidentally on Purpose (CBS) - It seems like a chick show... not sure where it is going, but it wasn't particularly funny, but not horrible. Again, we'll see.
The Forgotten (ABC) - If every show focuses on finding dead people and trying to figure out who they are only to reveal to their families that they are dead I don't know if I am going to be that interested in it. Plus cop shows rarely interest me.
The Good Wife (CBS) - Not really sure about this show either... I like lawyer shows more than cop shows, but as far as lawyer shows go this one isn't high on the list from what I can tell... which is sad because I like Josh Charles. Maybe he will have more of a role as things go on and it will be better.
Cougar Town, (ABC) - Not nearly as funny as I think it was cracked up to be... maybe it is because I am male and not over 40, but I found none of it amusing. It was like 2 minutes of funny and 20 minutes of constant reminders that the show was about Cougars.
Eastwick, (ABC) - A blonde a brunette and a redhead walk into a coven... but there is no punchline. It wasn't really a comedy, wasn't really a drama, and wasn't really worth watching.
Mercy, (NBC) - You know, I pretty much had enough of Girl Hospital with Grey's Anatomy and Private Practice, and in this show they aren't even the doctors. Yeah, I get that the focus is on their lives rather than the medicine, but still... would it be so hard to get a straight male character on the show that isn't there just to be the temporary object of affection of one of the women? Honestly if the show doesn't do something to break out of that mold I don't know if I will stick with it, although I am shocked that Taylor Schilling hasn't done more work as she seems to be at least a reasonably good actor. We'll see.
Modern Family, (ABC) - Also not as funny as I was expecting. Ed O'Neill was pretty great in a very subtle way, but I really wasn't getting much from the rest of the characters. There wasn't nearly enough comedy to carry even a 30 minute show.
Flash Forward, (ABC) - I actually really like the premise of this show... but since the flash was for 6 months I don't really see how the show can last longer than that... I am sure they will come up with some twist, but watching this episode I wasn't really that into any of the characters or any of the plot enough to think I really wanted to watch it again.
The Beautiful Life (CW) - No. Seriously, no. Bad acting, bad plot, the show really had no redeeming qualities whatsoever... but at least from the looks of things it won't last long.
Trauma, (NBC) - I don't really know what to make of this show... I mean yes it has the action, it has the drama... I just don't know if the characters and plot will really pan out. I don't know if I am up for just another medical drama. Given how much this has been promoted though I think it will make it through the whole season, so hopefully they can write something useful to make it more than just an episode by episode drama that is the same every week.
The Cleveland Show, (Fox) - I will admit it, I really like Family Guy. I was shocked and confused when both it and Futurama were canceled by FOX. Did they seriously think that something else in that time slot would get better ratings? You are generally dealing with football intros for a good chunk of the year and that means preemptions... and plus it is Sunday night... nobody is really watching TV. That said, I am not sure based on the premise if The Cleveland Show will really work, but it is basically just another 30 minutes a week of Family Guy as far as I see it... I can dig it.
Hank, The Middle (ABC) - Okay, I will review these together just because they are very similar in purpose... generic family comedies aimed at trying to get a wide appeal... which from watching them really offers me very little in terms of things to like or dislike. While I really enjoyed Frasier and Everybody Loves Raymond I really see none of the same characteristics in these shows that would make me enjoy them so far. With both Frasier and Raymond they had things from the beginning that really had me hooked... namely good writing. Neither Hank nor Middle had much to speak of for writing... or characters... or plot. Generic situational comedies that don't delve into the characters much at all and didn't really have anything to offer beyond generic wide range appeal. I will try them again for episode 2, but it doesn't look like they are going to be much for watching... and it's sad because ABC will probably keep these shows around forever and cancel things like Defying Gravity and Castle that are genuinely great shows. Urgh ABC! Why would you do this.
Three Rivers (CBS) - As far as medical dramas go Three Rivers was pretty standard, but unlike most other medical dramas right now the characters were very boring. None of them had any interesting interaction with one another, and none of them had anything compelling that made me care about seeing them ever again. The first episode was a full fail and makes me have no desire to see it again.
V (ABC) - Well I vaguely remember the original, but I was quite young and didn't get all the imagery... I definitely remember the eating of the guinea pig eating bit... but this is about the new series. The big thing about the new series seems to be the connection to our current situation... the aliens come in offering freedom from our bad economy, universal (pun?) health care, and of course coming in peace... but in reality they are the reptile people (lol conspiracy theories) that have come to cleverly take over and I suppose eat us all. I laugh at all the connections made to Obamania and socialism... not because they are fake but because so many people don't see it. Anyway, it looks good and I will definitely be watching it... at least after the 4 episodes and 4 month break.

And more to update as I see them... no, I won't watch them all, but I will see quite a few.

Will definitely watch again: Community, Glee, Archer, Defying Gravity, Cleveland Show, V

Might give another try: Mercy, Modern Family, Flash Forward, Cougar Town, Bored To Death, The Middle, The Good Wife

Will not watch: Eastwick, Beautiful Life, The Forgotten, Three Rivers, Trauma, Hank

Sometimes you wake up at 3AM and want to write...

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Fri, 29 May 2009 08:35:00 +0000

Money. It drives almost everything in the world today, and yet it is also the thing that Jesus talked about more than anything else. The funny thing about that though is that in church you never really hear about money the way that Jesus talked about it.

It seems like most churches have the same agenda as any corporation: Get more money. When the rich man came to Jesus and asked how he could get to heaven, he said "Sell all your possessions and give to the... church"? Right? Is that not how it went? Matthew 19 and Luke 18 certainly tell a different story... but what about those disciples in Acts that sold any property, land, possessions, etc and gave it to any as they had need? Well, would that be the same thing as giving to a church today? Not really. For as far back as I can tell, "the church" in a worldly corporate sense has always been driven to add to their number in their one location. These days we have churches that are bigger than sports arenas. For hundreds of years the Catholic church has built huge buildings, including not just a sanctuary building, but housing, schools, almost everything imaginable. This made sense for them though, because they actually WERE a school in a sense. Many catholic churches were built to house the priests and nuns, giving them a place to live and learn in proper solitude from the outside world. When people do that today we call it a "cult compound"... but that's another issue entirely. Somewhere along the line though, churches became more and more ornate, more decorations, more art, more gold, more architectural significance, and the church leadership became more and more concerned with gaining wealth. I suppose it was only a matter of time before the Christian church took a lesson from what the Synagogues were doing for centuries as well.

Things were a little different before the corporate church took hold. People in the early years of Christianity didn't meet in a group building. Some of course met in the local temple, but for the most part that wasn't an option seeing as they weren't exactly welcomed with open arms. No, the typical "church" was a few people in a house. Maybe I got reminded of this with the story about the home in San Diego that got fined for having a weekly bible study that met in their house... but anyway, that is what it was about. Just people getting together in the street, in a house, wherever they happened to be they gathered around and heard about their daily message of choice. So back then, where did the money go? While it is true we do have ONE reference of people gathering money to provide for a teacher of the Word, most of the time it went TO THE POOR, DIRECTLY. There was no idea of corporation, no savings account unless you perhaps consider Judas being the "bank" of Jesus' crew... they pooled their money together, he held it, and they used it as they had need. Well, what would they have spent money on other than food? Some new sandals perhaps? Maybe new robes? It's possible. How about the church in Acts? Pretty much the same way. People sold their possessions, pooled the money, and for the most part it was used to provide for each other. The earliest form of Communism perhaps. Yes, people always hate it when I refer to it that way... but that really is what it was like. There were no funds toward a new roof, or new parking lot, or new choir uniforms, or anything else like we have today... there wasn't even a budget. There was probably no yearly stewardship campaign to motivate the people to loosen their purse strings...

So where did things change? Well I think it came with the idea of the church being centered at a consistent location. Once you have that ONE thing, everything else falls apart. When you build the building, then you have a place of operation for the orphanage, the school, the giant auditorium, the pews, the offices, the kitchen... don't get me wrong of course. I don't think any of those things are evil and worthy of full blown condemnation to hell. I just think it got the focus away from what it was all supposed to be about. Selling ALL PROPERTY AND POSSESSIONS AND GIVING TO THE POOR. If you run a charity today, the one thing that most people look at is how much of each dollar given goes to benefit the actual target of the charity. Most of the time it is less than 80 cents per dollar, but there are plenty of charities that are almost half administrative expenses. Well what about if we look at churches the same way. What percentage of each dollar given to the church actually goes to the poor? I think that is how we really need to start looking at how things are run. In my search for a "church home" I hope I actually start finding some that will divulge that information.

Well what about me? How does my life reflect all this? Obviously I am not perfect. I own a home, I have a car, I have furniture and technology and all that... but I do live pretty simply. I decided a long time ago that the acquisition of goods didn't really suit me. I have never bought a car new, I have never paid someone to build me a home, all the furniture I own fits inside my bedroom... it allows me to live pretty cheap. There is more to it than that though. Living cheap by itself doesn't mean a thing, and I will fully admit that in the last year I haven't given much of anything to anyone... but in the last year my salary has also been $0... at least since September. Before that I can pretty much account for where SOME of my money has gone. $16000 here, $7000 there (half of which was repaid), a car given here, a car sold there (with so far no indication of payment), a few hundred over there to help with rent, a few hundred here to help with a phone bill... I could almost say that I spend more money on other people than I spend on myself. Almost. Things change a bit when you are unemployed, but when I did have money I can safely say that I did pretty well with things.

What most people ask me about when I tell them any part of this, and they always ask it, is if I felt like I was getting taken advantage of. It almost makes me laugh to think about it because of all the implications that come with that question. Do I feel like someone takes advantage of me because I give them money and the spend it? Not really. For that I would have to put some value on money, which other than providing for myself to eat and sleep and have a shelter I really don't. For the most part I wouldn't even blink an eye at someone stealing from me or mugging me. People question that I don't even lock my car or front door... the same implications. I am not that attached to anything I own. I give freely, expecting nothing in return, and expect nobody to share the same view that I do on possessions. Somewhere along the way we all seem to have lost the idea of living as a community and giving to others freely, and have fully embraced our global ideals of capitalism and accumulation of wealth. We put value, even sentimental value, on things that hold no real relevance in the grand scheme of things. I think more than anything in this entire diatribe on the state of our greed and lack of concern for the reality existing outside of our own walls, this one thing is what bothers me the most about how far we have come in two thousand years.

Many seem to think it is okay to just allow the government to take care of those in need, which flies in the face of the original idea, at least in a Christian sense, of how we are told to live our lives and use our money... but when I look at the fact that the government gives about 20% of it's budget to Medicaid and welfare, it's hard not to make a comparison to the amount that churches actually use on similar things... or even individuals... although there is the issue of the fact that a huge chunk of that money would go to administrative expenses rather than the actual program, far worse than any of the charities... even the bad ones. I know that if I give a dollar to a homeless person (or apparently homeless in any case) at least 100% of that dollar goes to them, even if it does get spent on alcohol or drugs.

And there is more... there is tons more. A lot of what is in my head can't even really be converted to language, but I think the idea is clear. If this were any sort of an official document I would probably trim half if not more of what is in here, but I can't be bothered to proofread or edit.

You know, if this were a sermon, in spite of all the extraneous stuff, it would probably be titled "Widows and Orphans". Yeah, I know I never mentioned that specifically, but that's pretty much what it is all about.

Tea Party April 15th, 2008

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:32:00 +0000

So already there is controversy surrounding the grassroots effort to protest the tax system (and government spending system) in the United States this year. Of course as a lot of people already know that actually pay attention this was not by any means the first "Tea Party" in recent years, but it was the first to actually get some media attention, mostly thanks to Fox News. Of course this meant that they themselves were taking credit for it after the fact even though they had nothing to do with the planning or execution of the events.

Let's actually look at some of the people that have been given credit for the Tea Parties around the country.

Dick Armey : Probably not a real credit, just CNBC making yet another teabagging reference

Newt Gingrich: Had nothing to do with it but probably saw a chance to take some credit

The Republicans: Had nothing to do with it since just about every tea party had signs indicating that "Republicans suck too"

Fox News: They did give a little publicity to it before it happened, but that's about the extent of their credit goes

Ron Paul: Although not directly planning all of this, he did have the idea and started the main force driving the planning - The Campaign for Liberty

Right Wing Extremists: I wanted to throw this in because the Department of Homeland Security in their infinite wisdom labelled everyone that opposed the size of government as people to keep a close eye on... right in there with the KKK, militias, and any other groups that criticized government as a whole. Nothing new.

So what was really behind all this? People. People sick of paying taxes that are too high and getting nothing in return for it other than government spending spiraling higher and higher every year. CNNs coverage of the event consisted of a single interview of a person on the street in Chicago that was questioned by the reporter, after saying that Obama claimed to be like Lincoln, as to why he was protesting taxes since he was eligible for a $400 credit for his two year old son that was with him. She didn't even let him finish talking about why he was there before the barrage of unrelated questions came... like Illinois getting $50 billion from the stimulus and wasn't that awesome? How could someone possibly protest when their state was getting money from that government?

Anyway, for those that weren't aware, here are some quick notes of truth about the Tea Parties

- Planners of the event were not affiliated with either major party
- No news organization or corporation or lobby had any part in planning when, where, and how any of the events would take place
- I knew about the event coming up for at least the last 6 months, if not a year. The date was already planned, details got worked out later.
- The closest thing to anyone actually affiliated with any official organization taking part would be Campaign for Liberty, and End The Fed
- The protest was focused mainly on HR 1207, trying to increase transparency in the federal reserve.
- Other people were there in part against the tax rates increasing (proactively), the current level of taxes being too high, the tax system being corrupt, and a lack of representation about how our taxes are actually spent. For those that actually responded and called in, the bailouts were opposed 99-1, and yet passed easily in congress.

And overall it was a major success... counts at each event from what I have heard ranged from 2,000 to 10,000 at each location... and those locations were far more numerous than just what was covered on CNN or Fox.

So sometimes it is about both...

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 08:33:00 +0000

I don't always have to blog about just one thing, or just two things, but if I do blog mostly about TV and Politics, the two definitely go together. Ever since JFK made Nixon look like a zombie, the two were inseparable.

So coming up this week are the first new episodes of Survivor and The Dollhouse, and I am looking forward to both of them. The Dollhouse because Joss Whedon has a tendency to make a decent series every once in a while, especially when the networks hate it. Already Fox indicated that they were less enthusiastic about the pilot episode they saw, which means only good things for the series. In fact, the new series almost mirrors the way Firefly started out. So instead of what was probably a great pilot episode, we get to start with a chase... again. So as long as Joss ignores the suits and avoids the vampires, I think it could still turn out just fine.
And I am looking forward to Survivor also, just because I am. It is really the best show on television to see an almost real world example of the internal workings of the human mind, but instead of holding back and avoiding doing the horrible things that most people do, it's all out there in the open, with a running commentary on it by each person. It's like an office workplace with alcohol thrown in the mix. People always say too much, backstabbing goes on constantly (but this time we actually get to see it), and people get sent off the island because nobody likes them... or because too many people like them and they are a threat. It is seriously just like the real world for those who choose to see it.

And politics... seriously, I just wish there would be an uprising of the people who are paying all the taxes and are tired of getting nothing to show for it. Personal taxes are about a third of what the government spends every year, and corporate taxes are most of the rest. Corporations are already starting to move overseas since we have one of the highest corporate tax rates of any country in the world, and I can't help but think that individuals are going to start doing the same if they get the chance. I can just see some billionaire going and buying a country, and then developing it to the point that it is easily livable with reasonable infrastructure physically, and then just opening it up to all comers. There would be a mass migration of people with money heading for new scenery where they actually get to hold on to their hard earned money... or for most of the rich people in the world, most of thier great-great-grandparents' hard earned money. They could buy Canada.

American Idol Season 8

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:16:00 +0000

Okay, so continuing on with my theme of never picking the winner on American Idol, I decided to go with that and once again pick the non-winner this year. After the tryouts are over, I will name the definitive non-winner.

And for those who aren't in the know, every year on Idol there are "plants" in the running that already have ties in the music industry or to the show itself, or even those that have already had record deals with various labels, that always seem to have some sort of influence on who ends up making the top 10. In season 7 David Cook was the only one of the top 10 that wasn't one, and he ended up winning, probably due to the efforts of votefortheworst.com

http://votefortheworst.com/20090113/dictionary_plants_american_idol_8_so_far
But of course this does include a few spoilers as to who does and doesn't make it past Hollywood week, so you might click with caution.

And for your time, here is an awesome picture of Chris Daughtry

What still bothers me

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 07:49:00 +0000

So here we are, a day before the election, and the typical question people ask is "who are you voting for". The response I always get from my well thought out, well researched, and properly worded response is "who?". Seriously, we can't possibly have gotten this far in our country when people don't know who is running for president. Most people know about Ralph Nader in general, but they don't even realize that he is running for president. Every time though, without exception, whenever I say I am still deciding between Barr and Baldwin, people seem to think I am not talking about the presidential election. But seriously, if you are in Texas your vote doesn't really count. McCain will win Texas with at least 55%, so the only vote that does anything at all to get noticed is one that goes for neither of the two parties that are getting us into the current mess. But this blog obviously isn't going to be read by enough people (if any) to make much of a dent in that either, but it still just bothers me that people are crazy enough to think that they are throwing their vote away if they DON'T vote for the winner.

So we are spending HOW much now?

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 03:29:00 +0000

Well, the initial bailout for Bear-Stearns was $29 billion, Fannie and Freddie got $200 billion (initially, with freedom for the Fed to give as much as they wanted to), AIG got $85 billion, $168 billion additonally for stimulus, and now $700 billion dollars (plus who knows how much more)... so that is something like $1.3 trillion dollars for "stimulus" and "bail-outs". The ENTIRE federal budget this year was $2.9 trillion to start with... and the ENTIRE reciept from income taxes was $1.25 trillion. That means already this year we have spent more money trying to "fix" the economy in the short term than we have taken in from the top source of income to the federal government.

But what is causing this whole problem in the first place? Why are all these businesses failing? Well, most of them are banks. You would think banks would be plenty safe considering all of their regulation and income, right? Well, not really. People who are getting loans now are misrepresenting their income, even being ENCOURAGED to overstate their income to get bigger and better houses than they can afford, and in the end can't make their payments on their Escalades and 3000 sq ft houses on their meager incomes. Basically what happened is that 10 years ago, people complained that the poor people couldn't qualify for loans based on their bad credit and no income. So a law that was passed back in the day got repealed so that anyone could get a loan, the "sub-prime" thing everyone is talking about, and now we are seeiong the effects of it. Companies when they have to forclose on a property have to auction off that property... and knowing people that work in the forclosure sector, let me tell you that they ALWAYS lose money when they have to forclose. Banks hate forclosing, but it's just what has to be done. But that isn't even the real problem. At least there, money is backed by a property. The big issue is when the loans get overlent. It used to be that banks had to have money in the bank as a percentage of what they lent out. For every 10 dollars they lent, they had to have a dollar in the bank. This was the issue back during the depression when the banks had rushes on them and they didn't have anything on hand to deal with it. Banks went under because all of their loans failed and they didn't have ANY money to back it up. Of course now banks often loan 60 dollars to every dollar that they have on hand because it is just created out of thin air in a computer, or the loans are actually given from someone other than them. When you go get a car loan, often the loan is actually through someone else. Lots of banks are paid to give out loans and have to meet certain quotas, but those loans aren't even done through their banks, they are FHA loans or done through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac even today... and there just isn't enough demand for them. A caller in to Rush Limbaugh the other day said this and said it isn't that there isn't money, because they have tons they need to loan (unlimited, because they create it out of thin air) but people just aren't getting loans. And now with the "crisis" the congress has actually cleared away ANY requirements to have cash on hand, and banks can basically create loans in an unlimited number without having anything at all to back it up. It's just created numbers in a computer system that gets transferred between banks. From 10% to 0%... and when you realize what this actually does (Indie Mac anyone?) it is a very scary thing.

At last count, there is only $900 billion dollars in actual physical US currency in circulation... and we owe 10 times that much. How much more do we have to print before people around the world realize that it is backed by nothing and it becomes completely worthless?

Disillusionment of politics

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 03:29:00 +0000

So it really makes me wonder if the powers that be in Washington, on both sides, actually care at all about the money they force us to send them every year. Both candidates for president are promising to spend more money, both candidates are promising that the government will do more things (which sounds nice to SOME people that actually get a benefit from what the government does), and both are promising that they will be the best person for the job. Neither the R or the D vice-president is superior to the other in my opinion after having watched them debate, just like neither the R or the D presidential candidate are superior to the other... but my biggest concern right now is Congress. While MY representative, Jeb Hensarling (who I am definitely a fan of) voted against the bill in the house, which didn't pass, BOTH Texas senators voted for it. 700 Billion Dollars. Billion with a B. That is nearly a trillion dollars, which it probably WILL end up being by the end of this. Now I for one did get my 600 dollar "economic stimulus", which didn't even make a dent in anything, but when I think about it, even if every single person in the US got that (which they didn't) that would be 305 million people getting it, for a total of 183 Billion Dollars. This bill is basically spending the equivalent of $2000 for every single person living in the United States... is that not insane? If you consider there are only about 170 million people that are actually working, that is $4000 per taxpaying person. I personally didn't intend to give banks and insurance companies $4000 of my income this year, did you?

So instead of doing something that would be helpful, like letting the lying, cheating, and stealing banks that have already been discovered to be commiting fraud at every turn, the government is giving them money. Couldn't smaller companies just pick up the slack? Or even larger ones. Bank of America and JP Morgan-Chase have been buying out the banks that are failing... there are plenty of insurance companies that could buy up the ones that are failing. Plenty of them make a ton of money and have it available to spend. So why in the world is the government trying to give them money? Well... a simple reason. Money. It's the biggest scam in the world, and nobody bats an eye. The companies that are getting bailed out are some of the biggest donors to political campaigns. And not just one side or the other.
Look at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. From Banks and insurance companies, which this bill concerns, she recieved $228,000. That is about 10% of her TOTAL contributions. Crazy Democrats, right?
Well then lets look at my own two senators from Texas.
Kay Bailey-Hutchinson
$439,000 from banks and insurance companies. Closer to 5% of the total, but that is still a TON of money for a political campaign.
John Cornyn
$734,000 from banks and insurance companies. About 5% of his total.

The only people that donate more to political campaigns in general than banks, "wall-street" securities firms, and insurance companies are lawyers, and we can see the effect that has with nothing getting done in the court system for reform. It's the same thing with these huge corporate bail-outs. They allocate money and tax-breaks for the companies (I am not against the tax breaks), and they get their kick backs. Not directly of course, because that would be illegal. It is just "campaign contributions".

Well I for one am tired of it. With the exception of my own representative, who voted NO on the bill in the house, I have no incumbents in any position in government that I care to vote for ever again. I won't go so far as to just vote for any random Democrat that is going up against them, but I will certainly find a valid "third-party" alternative.

I am fed up with the people in government that probably don't even remember when they first sold their soul to the mighty dollar, it was so long ago.

Hensarling voted no, and my former district Rep Sam Johnson (who I am also a huge fan of) voted no, but there are a TON of representatives in the House even from Texas that voted yes, so there is no end to the level of my disappointment with the politicians in Washington that supposedly represent MY state right now...

Update: Johnson and Hensarling voted NO on the second go round in the House that actually passed. Still my heroes.

More movies that made me think

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:07:00 +0000

So today I managed to find time in my "busy" schedule to watch Made of Honor, and Definitely Maybe. Both actually had about the same idea. Guy and girl are friends, but end up finding romance with each other... but not til the very end. Love is such a huge concept, but so simple as well. The whole concept of commitment seems so lost on people today, but then you see a movie or read a blog or whatever and you see that it isn't totally lost, just absent from 99% of what you see on television or experience in life. In fact, watching Enchanted I saw the same basic idea. People choose someone based on their idea of what "true love" or "love at first sight" is, and things go dreadfully wrong. This is one concept that definitely carries over into the real world. Bill Clinton argues about whether or not he really lied, John Edwards admits he lied about one thing, but denies what is probably another lie... or several. John McCain avoids the topic altogether, because he got with his current wife while his former wife was crippled and disfigured after a car wreck. There is just something missing with all of these people. Their aspirations for success and power have carried over into their personal relationships, which seem to continue on being about finding success and power even while being married. It would be like if Michael Phelps was winning gold medals only to have more than anyone else had. Well, that one might be true, but we will never know. But if relationships are only about winning and losing, then everyone loses. I've been there before, it's not fun. Really though, I don't want to get THAT far off track, although I have somewhat come back to my original point. Relationships aren't about finding the best looking person, or the one with the most money, or the one whose schedule works out best for you, or even the one that fits best with you on a series of personality driven tests. It's just about being there for someone, better or worse, and them being there for you back. The two movies were completely about that because it was about great friends finding each other in the end, even when one or both of them might not have realized it to begin with. Genuine friendship is hard enough to find, so I suppose it should carry over to be difficult to find love too...

Well, two nominations are finished...

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Mon, 26 May 2008 01:55:00 +0000

The Constitution Party about a month ago at their convention nominated pastor Chuck Baldwin as their candidate for president, and today the Libertarian Party nominated Bob Barr as their candidate. The Republican Party isn't done yet, and the Democratic Party isn't done yet... but it is always weird to hear the media report only on one of those four. It is like they have already decided the way this primary season will go, and report it as if it is going that way.

Barr/(possibly Root), Libertarian Party

So Bob Barr... an interesting guy... formerly a Republican in the house, most well known for his efforts to impeach Clinton... and now he is part of the Libertarian Party. This is unusual for a lot of reasons, mostly his stance on the War on Drugs that he supports still in spite of the LP view that it is unnecessary, costly, and ineffective. He is pro-life (although his wife had an abortion) while the LP is very much pro-choice, or at least against a federal law for or against it. He also seems to be a lot bigger government and taxing and spending than the 0 of both that most of the LP stands for. But he is pretty well known and will definitely get more notoriety than Mary Ruwart or Wayne Root would have gotten. And another plus, he has a cool mustache.

Baldwin/Castle, Constitution Party

And Chuck Baldwin... I really can't say anything bad about this guy. He is definitely a small government believer. He brings with him a ton of the potential conservative support that McCain can lose this November, and as a pastor is a great speaker. I think it will be very interesting to see if the media will actually give Chuck Baldwin a public voice, because if most conservatives actually hear his positions and are able to research his significantly more "clean" record than any of the other potential nominees, then a huge chunk of the historically Republican voters would throw their support to him instead of McCain.

And here is a quote from Baldwin back in December before he even considered trying for the nomination...

"Unfortunately, it has been the Christian Right's blind support for President Bush in particular and the Republican Party in general that has precipitated a glaring and perhaps fatal defect: the Christian Right cannot, or will not, honestly face the real danger confronting these United States. The reason for this blindness is due, in part, to political partisanship or personal aggrandizement. Regardless, the Christian Right is currently devoid of genuine sagacity. On the whole, they fail to understand the issues that are critical to our nation's--and their own--survival."

Ideologically I match up closest to Ron Paul out of anyone currently still involved in the presidential run, which is why I keep getting more and more disgusted with the Republican Party and the way they are shutting out delegates from the national convention. In Lousiana, Nevada, Hawaii, Missouri, and others, party delegates that support anyone other than McCain are being disqualified and ignored. The convention process is being completely derailed to prevent any Ron Paul delegates from being able to show up in St. Paul to make their voice heard at the national convention. It just blows my mind to think that state GOP organizers would choose to (Nevada) completely halt their convention and not reconvene, disqualifying them from having any delegates at the national convention, rather than allow a few Ron Paul delegates to go. Ron Paul beat McCain in Nevada... but what does that matter.

So, my vote in November will most likely be going to Baldwin/Castle... but we will see what happens before then. Plenty of time for an Independent to come up and get some support...

Into The Wild

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Sun, 25 May 2008 06:46:00 +0000

So I just finished watching this movie... and rather than talk about the movie and spoil it, I will talk about what I have thought about along these lines over the years.

Every year just about, I consider making a cross country trip. Just getting up, getting in the car, and driving. The thing that usually keeps this from happening, and moreso recently, is the cost of gas. I have driven from Dallas, TX to Calgary, Alberta Canada, but that was just three days. I have driven in a single day to Omaha, Nebraska, several trips to Oklahoma, one single trip east of the Mississippi River to Nashville, but never really anything of the scale that I really would like. When I was a kid, we took a big trip one summer and went to see a lot of different places. We hit the big sights like the Grand Canyon, Carlsbad Caverns, Mount Rushmore (didn't get to see the secret golden city), and hitting the Pacific Ocean for a while. We had trips where we would spend a few weeks on the Gulf Coast, but never really any massive summer-long adventures. Now of course the major problem with any trip of this kind is money. Transportation is a huge part of it... I calculated out that just travelling from home to Florida, to Maine, To Washington state, to Southern California, and back would be at least a 30 state trip (not bad, and could easily include a few more) and would be 9,000 miles. Now with a car that gets 30mpg, which I do have, this is still 300 gallons of gas... which is $1200. That doesn't even include tolls, hotel rooms for at least the occasional shower, and food. Now of course the trip would be useless if I didn't spend at least a little time in each state I went through, or at least the major cities... so it could be okay to be a 90 day trip. That of course leaves three days per state on average, which I could totally do. This would take up the entire summer (and then some) and if I spent $10 a day on food, a few dollars a week on washing clothes, and of course find some meaningless item to pick up in each state as a collection, it would probably end up costing somewhere around $5000. That is for a single road trip. And I have seriously considered this. Miami, Florida is the southeast most city worth visiting, Bangor, Maine is the Northeast most, Seattle Washington to the Northwest, and San Diego, California to the Southwest. I have even thought up relatively specific paths to drive to make sure I go through useful cities along the way to not waste all the time just driving (like skipping Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, etc).

Now where does this all come into the movie? Well, the guy spent several months living off of nothing. Ditched the car, gave every last cent he had to a charity, and just went. This of course is a much much more difficult endeavor, especially the part about going to Alaska, and he managed to do it with almost no money at all, just living off the land, accepting the kindness of strangers, and hitching rides, jumping trains, and paddling down rivers. I don't know that I'd be up for all that, especially since I don't have the kind of time that he took. I would be up for a much more tame version. Maybe someday I will visit Alaska... or maybe move there depending on how things go with the next presidential cycle... but I don't see myself just living off the land. I have far too much fear of bees and bears and snakes to really do that. I could totally do that in a controlled situation, like being on Survivor, but not just doing it with nobody knowing and no way of being in contact with anyone. Who knows though... maybe when I hit my midlife crisis at 50 I will want to travel around and live off of nothing.

So anyone out there want to take a major road trip and split the costs???

Video Games

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Wed, 21 May 2008 00:07:00 +0000

So I am generally one to play a lot of different video games once or twice... I like to finish what I start. When a game is really really bad I can't even play through the entire thing, but lately I have come upon a great deal of games that I couldn't even really get started much with, but that is for a whole other time. A few games that I have played lately and what I thought about them.

Rock Band: One of the few genres recently to completely revolutionize the way gaming is done. The Wii remote is one and the guitar remote is the other. Rock Band takes this one step further and adds drums and a microphone. Okay, so I was a LOT late on joining in on the Guitar Hero craze (a few years) and the Dance Dance Revolution craze (a few years) but I think both are spectacular ways of combining music and games. Rock Band is probably the best I have ever seen because not only is there the challenge of following the music, but you are actually playing something remotely resembling the notes on a controller that is a guitar... or microphone or drums. There is a significant amount of challenge involved in being good, although I have been really very good at each part, but it is great for groups of people and still good for a single player. I have done both of course and this is definitely a party game. And it is console only, but with Frets on Fire I already have a way to play it on PC with at least the guitar parts... as well as Guitar Hero 1,2,3, and 80s.

Call of Duty 4: Having played COD and COD2, I was expecting a lot from this game and it did pretty well for the single player. I haven't gotten into the multiplayer part, but based on the single player aspect I can say that it is probably good as well. The one thing about this game that stood out to me as being something completely different and new and cool was the one level where you are manning a gun on an AC-130 gunship and shooting targets based on heat signatures of bodies on the ground. It was truly an amazing level and completely new thing based on what I have seen in games. Very realistic and very well done. The rest of the game was pretty good as well, being a great story and good gameplay, although it was very linear and somewhat predicable in the tasks and AI.

Turok: A decent game. Once again, this is very much like Crysis/Far Cry/Every other FPS in the last few years. The premise is different, but the gameplay is the same. The only new thing is dinosaurs that you get to shoot and be eaten by.

Bioshock: Finally something different. While the Adam/Eve powers thing wasn't a completely new concept, the idea of tying it to all the different things it did during the game as well as having seperate weapons was pretty well done. The levels were unique although not completely different, but I did like the way things were put together. Maps worked very well, hints were somewhat helpful if not a bit intrusive and far too frequent. Yes, I know I press R to reload, just like the last time you told me 5 minutes ago and every time before that. This game was definitely designed with consoles in mind and isn't a very mentally involved game, but it was new, fresh, and fun. I have just started this one really, but it already seems like it will end well... I just hope the final boss isn't one I just have to run circles around and shoot... I hate when that happens.

Grand Theft Auto - San Andreas: No, not the new one... the older one I finally got around to playing through. I hated this game. Vice City was FAR more entertaining. The cars were cooler, there was way less "fluff" in the game (seriously, 400 different outfits? Working out? Eating food?) Games like this need to be more about the story and less about building up your character. Money and ammo should be the only things you would need to worry about. I don't plan on playing GTA4 for a while though.

Need for Speed - Pro Street: Graphically this game was great. The controls were not as good. I think they were going for a blend of realism with easy gameplay and got neither. I thought Most Wanted was the best Need for Speed game for a while. Carbon was terrible, but Pro Street was just okay. Underground and Underground 2 were way too focused on how the car looked. This was a pretty good mix of the two, with most of the focus being on performance. I definitely like the way the races were done, although I miss the drifting aspect of the Underground games.

Assassin's Creed: The first game in a long time that I really really liked to play as a story. Everything about this game was great. The gameplay was very well done, although again, I could see how it was geared toward a console rather than a PC. The combat could have been made to be more than just the timing of hitting two buttons, or two of four (yes of, not or) over and over again. It didn't have the open aspect of a game like Oblivion, but it didn't feel 100% linear. Everything had to happen in a mostly specific order, although you could choose which ones to do (best 4 out of 7?) and what order to do them in. I would liked to have gained assassin powers in the real world though. A very good game.

Crysis: Great graphics, horrible story. Seriously, the same old thing again. You are fighting the bad guys only to find aliens have invaded. Didn't I play this game a few years ago when it was called something else? I could name 20 different games and each would have the same premise. Maybe it was zombies instead of aliens.

Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas 2: This game was actually fun. I really liked the way the weapons were implemented and the AI was reasonably well made. I love when an enemy sees me and then tries to sneak behind me, or at least hides from me. Being able to do no look shooting, leaning around corners, and even healing teammates all made for a pretty well immersive experience.

Iron Man: Another movie spinoff game. Except this one isn't good. Well, neither were any of the others. It is a general rule that if a movie comes first, the game is horrible, and if a game comes first the movie is horrible. This one is no exception. I hated every minute of it that I could tolerate to play.

Black & White 2: I was a lot late getting on to this bandwagon, like most. Vast improvements of the controls of the first game, excellent strategic gameplay, and really well done graphics. It was a lot of fun playing it, and even playing through the second time and with the expansion. I will probably never play it again, but it was a good play through twice.

Team Fortress 2: I played on the free weekend... and for a FPS this was an excellent time killer. It was like all of the other multiplayer FPS's that I have played, but with one great exception... it didn't take itself too seriously. Tons of fun while being cartoonish and weird.

Civilization 4: Maybe it is just me, but I found this game to be incredibly hard. My first few tries I could never find the right balance of expanding and developing. Even when I did, everyone then ganged up on me (I could never be everyone's friend, because they hated me when I was other peoples' friends) and wiped out my entire civilization. If I were somehow really good at this game, I might just play through once or twice. It didn't have that quality to me that would keep me playing it for fun, although possibly as a multiplayer thing.

And I am sure in the last 6 months I played another game or too, but I can't remember them currently. So that's it for now.

Survivor, in general

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Sun, 18 May 2008 02:44:00 +0000

So this season is over, and I still hate more than anything the fact that they always seem to put the finale on Sunday night. Granted, I still watch it, but it makes no sense. An entire season of a reality show on the same night and time, and then for the one that people really want to see, it is on a new night. That, more than anything else, bothers me about this show.
Now just to qualify, I do watch every episode of Survivor. There was a time where I sometimes made a difficult choice between Friends and Survivor on Thursday nights, but Survivor ended up winning that fight due to Survivor: Australia. I never watched the first season. I saw the finale, at least part of it, but that was all. Everything else since then I have seen, and I did go back and watch the first season later on. I think the show is definitely getting better, although the contestants are not. People know the show too well and they play it now like a formula. What they really need is to recruit people thinking they are going to be on another show and then the twist is they get dropped off in the middle of nowhere and filmed. Surprise, you are on Survivor. Now vote each other off.
Next season is going to be in high definition... not sure how I feel about this. It will be good to FINALLY see survivor in widescreen like my TV is, but every cut and scrape, every oozing bug bite, all will be clearly visible. They will still blur out anything that would be advantageous to high definition anyway.
One thing about this show, much like American Idol, is that the producers intentionally make it so that you only see one side of how things happen. Often this is just so that the winner is a surprise. Alliances are hidden, comments about who is getting voted out are edited out just so there is drama at the end, and nothing ever actually gets said at tribal council. Isn't the point of tribal council to voice issues and opinions? This never happens. If I were on Survivor, the first thing I would do is to make alliances with everyone, and then at tribal council reveal what every single alliance in the group was. Every backstab, every blindside, they would be done away with. It would all be done out in the open.
I might last a week.

American Idol, Season 7

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Mon, 12 May 2008 03:53:00 +0000

Every season... every single one, the person I like doesn't win. Doesn't matter when or where, but they never win. Usually they don't even make the finals.
Since now I don't care who wins anymore, I figure I should summarize how I felt about this year on American Idol. There were a few contestants that I thought had a chance to actually be good, and they were. Michael Johns was one. The other was the kid living out of his car that didn't make it to Hollywood. He was genuinely talented and had a story that people could get into. The rest of these jokers are so generic that it is laughable. It is like American Idol cut off a session of travelling the country looking for people to be in a band and just decided to let the 32 fight it off to be the top 1. You have your rocker girl, your rocker guy, your diva girl, your diva guy, your cute young girl, your cute young guy, the folksy girl, the folksy guy, and of course you have Michael Johns... but I digress. So it is now down to David, David, and Syesha. David Cook is the one that I am hoping wins because he is the only one that doesn't previously have a relationship with a record company or a reality singing show. Plus he is actually a good singer unlike the other David. I can't stand the fact that he STARTS a song being out of breath. Syesha isn't a bad singer, but I can't stand her for various reasons, most of which were obvious during the early rounds. Also, Brian Dunkleman, season 1 co-host with Seacrest,said that Clay Aiken actually had the most votes for the final in season 2 but they gave the title to Ruben anyway. And it isn't even so much that people don't know the show is somewhat rigged... but it is like professional wrestling. They watch anyway.
So now is just the wait until Archuleta wins the title, and next season starts.

And for the record, my picks to win (not who I thought WOULD win)
2- Clay Aiken (2nd)
3- George Huff (5th)
4- Bo Bice (2nd)
5- Chris Daughtry (4th)
6- Chris Sligh (10th)
7- Michael Johns (8th)

Politics Today

noreply@blogger.com (Jason) — Fri, 09 May 2008 22:16:00 +0000

First post, so I will clarify that I won't be voting for either the Republican Party OR the Democratic Party in the presidential election this November... already decided.

So if the mainstream media ruled the world, there would be two candidates left in the running for president. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and Clinton would be on the way to her demise. In reality of course John McCain is still in the running as well, but he is on vacation or something while waiting for the Democrats to make up their minds... and meanwhile, Ron Paul is still gaining traction across the country from people who realize that they still do have a choice besides the two candidates who keep tripping over their own lies, or the lies of their friends... and in some cases just who their friends are when they are honest.

So about Ron Paul... yes, he is mathematically eliminated from winning based on MSM estimates of McCain delegates. In reality of course, across the country at local, county, and state conventions, the Republican party is so afraid of Ron Paul supporters that they are cutting and running from the legal process that they have used for years and years. Now technically they are private entities and they aren't bound by the legal process of voting that includes the "one man, one vote" concept... and this is ever more obvious in states right now like Nevada, Missouri, and various local conventions.

In Nevada, the Chairman declared recess and walked out when it was apparent that Ron Paul delegates were more numerous and were going to win nearly all of the delegates to the national convention. Why is this a problem? I don't know. Mitt Romney won the state primary several months ago, and Ron Paul came in second, beating McCain. Mitt Romney dropped out before his delegates were selected, so the process continues on without him. Why then would Nevada be required by their rulers in the party to send McCain supporters to the national convention when Ron Paul hasn't dropped out and has support? Who knows, but it seems that with the current indefinite recess that was never voted on (majority vote is required under Robert's Rules of Order) will cause no delegates to be sent from Nevada rather than sending a few Ron Paul supporters. Out of the 2200 or so delegates at the national convention, Nevada makes up about 31 total I believe, so even having 1.5% of the delegates being Ron Paul supporters doesn't seem to be okay with the Republican machine.

In Missouri, every single Ron Paul supporter that made it as far as the state convention had their credentials challenged. Now to be honest, there aren't any qualifications to being a delegate. All you have to do is show up to the caucus, which is generally after the primary, and have the people that show up choose you. From there it is the same thing only in smaller numbers and larger areas represented at the county and state level. Apparently since the delegates did not sign and swear an oath to support John McCain at the state convention, they were being dismissed as delegates. To me this seems to fly in the face of the whole point of the political process... but apparently, as I suspected many years ago, there is nothing fair nor representative about our voting process.

And this whole thing repeats itself over and over again across the country. In a town in west Texas a convention consists of the chairman standing up, completely ignoring calls to explain what he is doing while he reads a list of names, and afterwards people find out that the names on the list, many of the people not there, were those that were selected to move on to the state convention. Once again, those that are legitimately involved in the process are excluded based on the fact that they might not support who the GOP machine have chosen. In several locations in Florida, the same thing. Committees to select delegates have three people come in as part of the selection process, and the result is that the three alternates and three delegates selected do not include the people that actually show up.

And now, I hear that a lot of Independent voters, Libertarian Party members, Green Party supporters, and others who have no affiliation have banded together to try and put forth a voting bloc for the Constitution Party. I may just have to vote that way this Fall, but it depends on who their nominee is and what their poltics are. Yes, I actually vote based on someone's politics, not whether they wear flag pins, cry about how hard the process is, or were a POW 50 years ago. Nothing against any of those things, but they have nothing to do with politics.

And my favorite quote relating to this wonderous process...

"A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil."