Thursday, December 01, 2005
A true moment of silence.
Title link is to UNAIDS homepage with links to the Annual AIDS Epidemic report showing too few successes, and far too many disappointments.
MSNBC.com's World AIDS Day coverage
Pledges of abstinence, help on World AIDS Day. (CNN.com)
FDA panel considers home AIDS test. (CNN.com)
UN: 40m now have AIDS virus. Prevention starting to pay off in some countries, report says. (CNN.com)
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Gobble, gobble, gobble...
Happy Turkey day to all!!!
I learned a fun factoid today! Did you know the reason Twister got so popular was that it encouraged the breaking of social norms in a friendly, "family" enviroment? Bending, laughing, twisting, writhing, hot, sweaty bodies falling.... um.... well...
Thanks Ro-bear for the lesson in pop culture, I will meditate on it at great length. (he-he-he) I hope you see this and smile Ro, it's just for you.
Today I give thanks for my family and friends, who keep me (relatively) sane, and always feeling loved.
Wonderful day, hearing from wonderful friends, and spending a wonderful day doing absolutely nothing of consequence.
And tomorrow- shopping! (Heavens help me!)
I learned a fun factoid today! Did you know the reason Twister got so popular was that it encouraged the breaking of social norms in a friendly, "family" enviroment? Bending, laughing, twisting, writhing, hot, sweaty bodies falling.... um.... well...
Thanks Ro-bear for the lesson in pop culture, I will meditate on it at great length. (he-he-he) I hope you see this and smile Ro, it's just for you.
Today I give thanks for my family and friends, who keep me (relatively) sane, and always feeling loved.
Wonderful day, hearing from wonderful friends, and spending a wonderful day doing absolutely nothing of consequence.
And tomorrow- shopping! (Heavens help me!)
Monday, November 21, 2005
New photos!
Hi, everyone!
I (finally) put some of my artwork on my flikr site.
The link's under Ravenscar's Visions in the sidebar.
Let me know what you think.
Friday, November 18, 2005
happy, yet... becoming underwhelmed
Mmmm, butterbeer at the Drafthouse.
Yes, last night was the midnight screening of HP4- The Goblet of Fire. And don't get me wrong, I really liked the movie. But I was a little disappointed, which I suppose was inevitable due to the sheer amount of information that had to be left out just to get a movie under 6 hours.
That will be the shame of the rest of the movie series, right there. The books have gotten so big, that huge amounts of information, characters and exposition are just going to disappear in a rush. The directors will have to count on the audience, a) having read the books to fill in the gaps, or b) being quick enough to catch the blink-and-you-miss-it references. Goblet had to rush so swiftly from Triwizard challenge to challenge, that the characters, which are the driving force of any tale, become rapid sketches of themselves.
Spoiler alert!!
Dobby was completely lost, along his entire subplot (although I did like the substitution of Neville), and Sirius Black's scene was such a throw-away, he should have been cut entirely. Malfoy, whose reaction to Voldemort's return would have made a great foil to everyone else's (not that anyone else got to have a reaction- keep reading...) was in two scenes (barely). I greatly enjoyed the ferret bouncing, though, so that made up for some of it. If you hadn't (at the very least) seen the other three movies, most of the character relationships would have made little sense.
Which is the catch-22 of translating any series-based media to the big screen- you can't keep explaining the same points over and over, but you can't NOT explain some of them without losing your audience. Director Mike Newell (with screenwriter, Steve Kloves) had the unenviable task of making sense of an entire universe. Goblet kinda rewrote all the characters, and turned a lot of what you "knew" on its head. You can't do that in 2 1/2 hours.
What I missed the most was Voldemort's return and the absolute fear that should have instilled in all the characters. Yes, the entire movie was very dark and scary (compared to the others), and yes, Cedrick's death at the end was wrenching (kudos to the guy who played his Dad!), and Ralph Fiennes was at his chilling, creepy best, but I'm talking after. Cedric died, Dumbledore made a speech, and we end with Hermione hitting us over the head with the cliche- "It's all going to change, isn't it," and then everyone nods in agreement and, that's it. If there had been any way to give Goblet a "happy ending," that was it. Oi! I would have preferred the sound of Voldemort laughing as we run into credits, if we have to resort to a cliche that blatant. Big build-up, three movies worth of talking up the terror of the Dark Lord, and basically we get, "aw shucks, guess we might have some problems on down the line." I really liked the scene in the book where the Minister of Magic keeps trying to deny what happened, it gives Dumbledore's speech the justification and weight it needs. With just the information in the movie, when Dumbledore make reference to the Ministry not wanting the students to know, my first question was, why?
It's a good movie, don't get me wrong. There's a lot to like, but I was left kinda empty. I expected more of a payoff....
Yes, last night was the midnight screening of HP4- The Goblet of Fire. And don't get me wrong, I really liked the movie. But I was a little disappointed, which I suppose was inevitable due to the sheer amount of information that had to be left out just to get a movie under 6 hours.
That will be the shame of the rest of the movie series, right there. The books have gotten so big, that huge amounts of information, characters and exposition are just going to disappear in a rush. The directors will have to count on the audience, a) having read the books to fill in the gaps, or b) being quick enough to catch the blink-and-you-miss-it references. Goblet had to rush so swiftly from Triwizard challenge to challenge, that the characters, which are the driving force of any tale, become rapid sketches of themselves.
Spoiler alert!!
Dobby was completely lost, along his entire subplot (although I did like the substitution of Neville), and Sirius Black's scene was such a throw-away, he should have been cut entirely. Malfoy, whose reaction to Voldemort's return would have made a great foil to everyone else's (not that anyone else got to have a reaction- keep reading...) was in two scenes (barely). I greatly enjoyed the ferret bouncing, though, so that made up for some of it. If you hadn't (at the very least) seen the other three movies, most of the character relationships would have made little sense.
Which is the catch-22 of translating any series-based media to the big screen- you can't keep explaining the same points over and over, but you can't NOT explain some of them without losing your audience. Director Mike Newell (with screenwriter, Steve Kloves) had the unenviable task of making sense of an entire universe. Goblet kinda rewrote all the characters, and turned a lot of what you "knew" on its head. You can't do that in 2 1/2 hours.
What I missed the most was Voldemort's return and the absolute fear that should have instilled in all the characters. Yes, the entire movie was very dark and scary (compared to the others), and yes, Cedrick's death at the end was wrenching (kudos to the guy who played his Dad!), and Ralph Fiennes was at his chilling, creepy best, but I'm talking after. Cedric died, Dumbledore made a speech, and we end with Hermione hitting us over the head with the cliche- "It's all going to change, isn't it," and then everyone nods in agreement and, that's it. If there had been any way to give Goblet a "happy ending," that was it. Oi! I would have preferred the sound of Voldemort laughing as we run into credits, if we have to resort to a cliche that blatant. Big build-up, three movies worth of talking up the terror of the Dark Lord, and basically we get, "aw shucks, guess we might have some problems on down the line." I really liked the scene in the book where the Minister of Magic keeps trying to deny what happened, it gives Dumbledore's speech the justification and weight it needs. With just the information in the movie, when Dumbledore make reference to the Ministry not wanting the students to know, my first question was, why?
It's a good movie, don't get me wrong. There's a lot to like, but I was left kinda empty. I expected more of a payoff....
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Highly insulted by a "Higher" authority
"If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected Him from your city. And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help, because he might not be there." - Pat Robertson on the ousting of the Dover, PA school board in the last election.
Sometimes I wonder if God is just hiding under a rock somewhere, shaking his head, and wondering why His children seem willing to insult, threaten, and belittle each other in His name. Forget the hubris involved in claiming that your word is God's Word, this is just getting stupid.
If God wanted religious theories thought in schools, we would have lost the Revolutionary War, or the framers of the Constitution would have instituted a national religion, or we would have been struck down when Darwin opened his big mouth. Just because parents are too lazy to insist their children learn religious instruction in church, where, let's face it, the people teaching it would have a little more cred than an art teacher drafted into the science department, or too lazy to teach it to their children themselves, doesn't mean that schools have to pick up the slack. And if little Johnny and Jenny come back home from school crying that teacher is teaching different things than Pastor Paul, feel free to refer them to me.
One of the wisest pieces of educational theory I have EVER heard was mounted on the wall of my high school choir room: "When we study religious music it is not to teach you what you should believe, but what others in the world believe." And if you can't accept what others may believe, and think just because yours is the majority religion you have the right to enforce its teaching in a public arena, than you can go be a good little Nazi somewhere else.
R-E-S-P-E-C-T is not a song, and if you think I should go to hell, than I say, "after you."
And please, don't point out that intelligent Design is a scientific theory unless you're willing to admit that the "Designer" in question could be the little green men from a galaxy far, far, away. You can "prove" one as easily as the other.
And I'm not saying that ID has no place in schools, just not in a science class. If these parents really, really want this taught in public schools- lobby to make it an elective. Comparative Creation Theory 101, or Judeo-Christian traditions in Modern Science. Heck, the latter can include topics on the abortion debate, stem cell research, and assisted suicide. We can teach children to listen and debate topics without resorting to "I'm right, you're wrong and you're going to hell."
The link in the title is to the Washington Post article that sums up Mr. Robertson's latest tirade, and yes, while I don't agree with a thing the man says I do defend his right to say it. It's always nice to be reminded why I believe what I believe, even if I have to be offended in order for that to happen.
The link below is to an interesting article by William Saletan, posted on Slate.com. Mr. Saletan covers a lot of the scientific/religious debate in today's politics.
http://www.slate.com/id/2130282/?nav=tap3
Sometimes I wonder if God is just hiding under a rock somewhere, shaking his head, and wondering why His children seem willing to insult, threaten, and belittle each other in His name. Forget the hubris involved in claiming that your word is God's Word, this is just getting stupid.
If God wanted religious theories thought in schools, we would have lost the Revolutionary War, or the framers of the Constitution would have instituted a national religion, or we would have been struck down when Darwin opened his big mouth. Just because parents are too lazy to insist their children learn religious instruction in church, where, let's face it, the people teaching it would have a little more cred than an art teacher drafted into the science department, or too lazy to teach it to their children themselves, doesn't mean that schools have to pick up the slack. And if little Johnny and Jenny come back home from school crying that teacher is teaching different things than Pastor Paul, feel free to refer them to me.
One of the wisest pieces of educational theory I have EVER heard was mounted on the wall of my high school choir room: "When we study religious music it is not to teach you what you should believe, but what others in the world believe." And if you can't accept what others may believe, and think just because yours is the majority religion you have the right to enforce its teaching in a public arena, than you can go be a good little Nazi somewhere else.
R-E-S-P-E-C-T is not a song, and if you think I should go to hell, than I say, "after you."
And please, don't point out that intelligent Design is a scientific theory unless you're willing to admit that the "Designer" in question could be the little green men from a galaxy far, far, away. You can "prove" one as easily as the other.
And I'm not saying that ID has no place in schools, just not in a science class. If these parents really, really want this taught in public schools- lobby to make it an elective. Comparative Creation Theory 101, or Judeo-Christian traditions in Modern Science. Heck, the latter can include topics on the abortion debate, stem cell research, and assisted suicide. We can teach children to listen and debate topics without resorting to "I'm right, you're wrong and you're going to hell."
The link in the title is to the Washington Post article that sums up Mr. Robertson's latest tirade, and yes, while I don't agree with a thing the man says I do defend his right to say it. It's always nice to be reminded why I believe what I believe, even if I have to be offended in order for that to happen.
The link below is to an interesting article by William Saletan, posted on Slate.com. Mr. Saletan covers a lot of the scientific/religious debate in today's politics.
http://www.slate.com/id/2130282/?nav=tap3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
