The United States of America is politically older than many of the other nations that are often given credit for maturity, such as France, Germany, Italy, China, Japan, etc.  Each of these nations came to their present governments later that the the U.S., and some have had more than one form of government during America’s history.

The “immature teenager” does not apply culturally either.  Culture is either as old as those who live in it (in which case every culture is the same age), or it is as old as the principle ideas that underly it (in which case, most cultures, especially in the West, have a common birth in the ancient past).

This metaphor is usually used in context with the Federal Government’s post-war ‘imperial’ behavior and the ‘uncultured’ behavior of Americans relative to foreigners.  Speaking as a conservative American, I can say both of these things reflect poorly on the American people and ought to be changed.  However, they are neither unprecedented nor related to any kind of maturity.  Consider for the moment the imperial behavior of Great Britain or Rome at times when their political structures and cultures were already older than America’s is today.  In truth this behavior had nothing to do with ‘maturity,’ and everything to do with the natural human desire to gain and exert power.  The same thing is true in America today, and will likely be true in other places in the future.

As to the belief that many Americans hold that theirs is the best way, that is also a natural human tendency, especially for those who have not traveled much, or know little of the wider world.  As a geographer, this is something that saddens me, but not something that is best described with a condescending metaphor like ‘immaturity.’

That is what I think.

Advenamundo

This 1951 version centers around a visitor from outer space who comes to earth to warn humanity that they will be destroyed if they do not mend their ways.  Specifically, they need to stop making war on each other.  This is a variant on the Noah/Jonah/Sodom&Gomorra story.  The alien first aims to speak to the leaders of the various nations, but, after being denied such an opportunity, eventually gives this message to a group of distinguished scientists.  Humanity is left with a choice.

The new version changes this basic story in a couple of ways.  Most notably, the great crime mankind is guilty of is ‘killing the earth.’  What exactly this means is not clearly stated.  There is little opportunity given for humanity to repent.  Rather, after his token attempt to contact the UN is rebuffed, the alien simply proceeds, without even the slightest explanation to the 6 billion people who know nothing of his reasons, to start the process of destroying the earth.  Only after being enlightened by a distinguished scientist does the alien reconsider and alter the fate bestowed upon mankind. 

The thing that gets me is the attitude behind the concept in the remake:  Mankind is destroying the earth.  I will be the first one to admit that people have done, are doing, and will do damage to the natural order.  Landscapes permanently altered, ecosystems disrupted, species driven to extinction, and so on. There are numerous examples of human action that have needlessly and mindlessly disturbed that order.  But destroying the earth?  I think not.

I will restate as best I can what I believe to be the key line from the movie: “There are only a few planets capable of supporting complex life in the galaxy.  This one must not be allowed to be destroyed.”  On the face of this I agree.  Earth is almost certainly a diamond in the rough when it comes to celestial bodies, and that given the value of its unique environment it should not be allowed to be destroyed.  However, this line hides an insidious assumption: that humanity is worthless.  The alien race(s) are clearly more concerned about the planet (I assume by their actions that this means Earth’s various non-human species) than its human inhabitants.  A better sentence would be this: “There are few sentient species in the galaxy.  This one should not be allowed to destroy itself.”  While habitable planets are no doubt rare, sentient species like humanity are doubtless much more so.  On that basis alone (and that is hardly the only one) people are worth more than the planet.  It is a massive logical flaw in this alien’s thought process that this concept is clearly missed.  The role of outside judge, which is played by the aliens in both versions, requires a greater wisdom than people have.  Otherwise, the destruction to be visited upon Mankind is unjust and little more than galactic imperialism.  It also seems more reasonable for the alien race, who clearly are a technological society, to provide a solution to the problem, other than 

So, the movie has problems, one might argue. What movie doesn’t?  This is true.  However, if the purpose of this metaphor is to encourage people to behave more ecologically, what is the benefit in the assertion of human worthlessness?

At the end of the movie, the alien, on advice from a human scientist, comes to recognize the need to give humanity a chance to change in this moment of crisis.  Yet, the human race is left with a catastrophe, and no real explanation on what specifically was the error or what could be done about it. 

So, in summary, The Day The Earth Stood Still (2008), is passible entertainment, but fails on its underlying philosophy.  I will probably  not watch it again.

That’s what I think.

I am not unhappy merely because the DFL candidate was elected, although that doesn’t help.  I am not un happy just because it is Al Franken, although that is a large contributing factor.  I am unhappy because it yet another campaign were enormous amounts of money were spent and the results are ambiguous at best.

Some might say that this is merely something to be expected from time to time in a democracy or representative republic.  This is true.  However, it is also true that the margin of victory for Franken appears to be less than .02%.  This is a margin that is so small that giving the victory to anyone seems a bit dubious.  Even after a hand recount the margin is well inside the error margin.  I would call it a tie.  I would call it a tie, even if Coleman was the victor.  If this is how democracy works, then it is little different than random chance.  If Coleman’s people manage to convince the courts to intervene, then it really isn’t even democracy, we have here.

I would like to suggest to my fellow Minnesotans that we should emulate the great state of Georgia on this issue.  I understand that having more than two candidates in an election is a good thing.  Personally I would advocate as many people running as possible.  However, I think that in elections it is important to have the consent of the people, not merely the consent of 50%+1 or, in this case, whoever has the most votes, regardless of the margin of victory, wins.  Georgia has a system where the winner must get at least 50% of the vote to win.  If that was the case in Minnesota, we would have had a runoff election between Franken and Coleman, without Dean Barkley and company thining the results.  The chances of a pathetic margin of victory such as we have this time would be minimized and the 16% of so of the voters who supported one of the third party candidates would have more of a say in the matter.

That is my suggestion.

Advenamundo

Well, it is that time again.  Every four years, under the Constitution of  These United States, We the People are called upon to cast a vote toward who will lead us until the next cycle.  This will be my fourth presidential election and seventh biannual election.  As in the past, I have considered my choices, and finally decided on what I will do.  Here are some thought I have had in the process.

I admit that I tend to lean in a certain direction.  My party generally (at least publically) defends positions that I feel need to be defended and promotes actions that I would promote.  However, I try to keep an open mind about these things.  The last 8 years have taught me a lot about the nature of the choice that each of us will be making on Tuesday.  It is not always apparent in the voting booth however each candidate will handle the inevitable surprises that history brings.  Therefore, one must simply weigh the options as best as they can and pray that things work out.  

Each of the last two election provided me with a reason that I can look back on, years later, and, despite whatever comes after that, know that that choice was the best one I could make.  I think that I have found one (although there are a couple of other potential ones) in the make up of the 111th Congress.  It is my understanding that the Founding Fathers of the USA designed our representative government to be balanced, with each of the three branches checking the actions of the others.  In the partisan atmosphere we find ourselves, giving both house of congress and the Executive to one party is a recipe for dramatic action which is sure to “change” things in a way that less than ideal.

I have been trying to find a good solid reason (other than hope, loyalty, tradition, or theory) that I can use to explain my decision in the future regardless of what happens.  I have generally speaking been more impressed this time by the major party presidential candidates than in the last two elections.  John McCain has experienced much of the Washington atmosphere and still maintains an admirable flexibility and willingness to do  what needs doing, regardless of party.  Barack Obama has presented himself in a way that is impressive and has said many things that I agree with.  For example, as a former teacher, I laud Senator Obama for his recent ad concerning education in which he puts as much emphasis on parental involvement as on government programming.  This is the way to go.  So, I have found my decision harder to make this time around, which is actually a good thing.

On a side note, the decision on the senatorial campaign in my home state of Minnesota has been an easier one to make.  My opinion of one of the candidates was firmly established before the election began and combined with the recent actions of the man I intend to support, I have little hesitation about who I wat representing me in the Senate.

That is a brief summary of my thoughts on this election.  Thanks for visiting.

Advenamundo

Now, I realize that we all have our moments.  I will be the first to admit that I am not always 100% alert when driving.  However, incidents like this, remind me of the seriousness of driving.  So remember (as I will try to), when you drive, be alert for your safety and mine.  Thanks.

This concludes the Public Service Announcement.

Advenamundo

Firstly, I am now, as I have been for some time, relatively impressed with Barak Obama.  The Democrat party has, in my lifetime, generally nominated cadidates that have been flat and, at least as far as I can tell, supporting positions that I think are dangerous and misguided.  Much of what I have seen and heard from Obama has seemed more reasonable than what his predecessors have said. 

That being said, I feel that John McCain, somewhat surprising for me coming in, came off as more of a leader in this debate and Barak Obama as a member of the Harvard debate club.  I appears that while Obama is familiar with many of the nuances of the many issues facing the world today, John McCain (who also knows the topics) seems more ready to lead in these difficult times.

It is interesting to see this debate between to sitting senators.  One can’t help but wonder if more quality action would come from the senate if the ‘debate’ that you can see on C-SPAN were more like the one tonight, rather than formalized lecturing to a seemingly empty room.  I was disapointed that both men (maybe understandably given the effort needed to prepare for such a debate) seemed to use so many ‘talking points’, i.e. phrases that get used in commercials and limit an issue of great complexity to a simple sentence.  Repeating a sentence and changing a critical word (like great to orgy).

I am certainly not perfect and would not likely do well in the situation and under the pressure that these two men are.  That being said, I did have some comments about their performances.  I would suggest, as McCain’s advisors have undoubted done, the John McCain should making statements that pain him as an old fogey.  He should also stop interrupting himself.  There were several very interesting sentences that the Senator from Arizona began that he never finished because he was interrupted by John McCain.  Senator Obama would do well to tone down the analytical presentation of the situation and work to inspire the people to work for a more perfect future.  I am still considering what I think about John McCain’s frequent quoting (right or wrong) of Senator Obama.  Is that normal in debates, to quote your opponent?

Those are my thoughts.

Advenamundo

Initially, I was excited by the idea.  My more than passing interest  in the subject has always left me with an open door to the possiblility that something of this sort could happen someday.  I have to admit that this desire clouded my judgement on the issue in the beginning.  There were several people that were sceptical immediately.  I did not see anything that I could use to decide for sure.  It wasn’t until after the ‘press conference’ that I began to have grave reservations.  It was highly unusual to hold a press conference on the topic and not actually show more than a couple of indistinct photos.  The DNA added weight to this.  When the ‘body’ was thawed, I can’t say that I was in anyway surprised.

I still believe that a creature such as bigfoot may have lived, or even is still living, in the wildest and most remote parts of North America.  The lesson is however that, given events such as this recent hoax, its exisitance will remain very much under the shadow of doubt until real physical proof is presented, in public, for unrestricted scientific examination.

That’s what I think.

Jared

Firstly, in order to understand my position concerning this movie, you should understand my thought about the the TV show Stargate SG-1, upon which it is based.  SG-1 ran for ten seasons.  I have seen all of the first 9 and at least one of the last season.  The show was enjoyable because of the camaraderie of the cast, the relatively simple yet creative story lines, and the general upbeat tone.  At the end of the eighth season, the writers of the show clearly believed that it was about to be cancelled.  I believe this becasue the over-arching story line that ran through the first eight seasons was wrapped up and the the characters all but rode off into the sunset.  When season 9 came, the show had several new characters and an adversary never mentioned in first 8 seasons: the Ori.  Given the radical change this was, the writers and actors did their best, but the show was never quite the same for me.  They recently released another movie straight to DVD called Ark of Truth which wrapped up this story line.

Continuum is a much better movie than Ark of Truth.  It tells a story that harkens back to many different elements of the show, as seen in the first 8 seasons, and essentially ignores seasons 9-10.  It was a reminder to me why I have been such a fan of Stargate.  Naturally, Richard Dean Anderson’s role enhanced the movie in a way little else could.  The other characters The story line managed to make a time-travel-driven-reset story interesting, allowing one to put aside the utter ridiculousness of the scenario and simply enjoy the film.  Instead of all-but ridiculing organized religion (intentionally or otherwise), as they did in season nine, or even just fighting ‘false gods’ as was the theme in the first eight, in Continuum, the bad guy (Ba’al) is no longer conflated with religion and is simply an über-bad guy.  One might argue that all the cookie-cutter villians, flat characters, and bizarre plot-lines makes for poor television, but I disagree.  While more serious shows are also good, I think a show like Stargate SG1, which doesn’t take itself too seriously, is a good thing, maybe even a necessary thing,

So, in summary, I find Stargate Contunuum to be a welcome return to the roots of the TV show, and look forward to watching other productions by the people involved with it.

For now, I will stick to my opinion on the identity of the planet at the end of the finale. (It has been several weeks, so I am not going to worry about spoilers.)  I believe that it is both Earth and NotEarth.  In other words, it is the planet that they have been looking for throughout the series, but it is not the planet that we call Earth.  Starbuck’s viper, Gaeta’s constellations, and the presence of what looks like the Temple of Aurora and the ruins of a large city suggest that this is the planet that the Colonials were looking for, the planet where the Thirteenth Tribe settled and the place from which Pythia returned to Kobol.  The characters are rightly unhappy at its state.  However, as a viewer I became aware of the large open door in regards to the planet’s identity shortly after watching the finale.  Season 3 ended with an image of a planet that was clearly the planet on which we live, with Florida and much of North America easily identifiable.  This planet had nothing like that with which to confirm its identity.  If this was Earth, I mean our Earth, and the producers of the show wanted us to know this, something, like the moon, the Statue of Libery, the Eiffle Tower, the Great Wall, the Pyramids, Machu Picho , or even a street sign saying London 8 km would have been easy to include.  Given the fact that they did this very thing a mere 10 episodes earlier, I surmise that something here is fishy.  

The identity of this planet was clearly intended to be murky at this point.  Maybe that is just the producers yanking our chain, or maybe not.  With ten episodes remaining there is certainly enough time for it to not be our Earth.  Laura Roslin was on the planet, which suggests that it is not the final stopping point for the fleet.  The planet they found is certainly not help for them.  My guess is that they will move on, like the survivors on the planet probably did, and will find another planet (ours), by the end of the show.  That is how I think things will go and how I would like them to go.  It would be awesome if those two things came together.

That is what I think.

Advenamundo

Firstly, there is little reason to believe that Extraterrestrial biological creatures of comparable intelligence to human beings exist.  The Bible gives no reason to believe that God created any such creatures.  Actually, it leans to the contrary.  If you deny our special creation in favor of some version of Darwinian evolution, you must consider the odds.  The chances of life (i.e. complex self-replicating, bio-chemical machines) arising by mere chance are so astonishingly low that even the vastness of outer space cannot significantly improve them.  Then there are all the steps that evolutionists require to get from that first simple, but amazing organism, up to a creature that is ready, willing, and able, to develop a civilization that includes  investigative, cooperative science.  To say that that is not an easy road is an understatement of astronomical proportions.

Secondly, these ETs must find a way to traverse the nearly unimaginable depths of interstellar space sufficiently that they are able not only to find our star system amid countless others, but actually get here.

Thus, the claim that aliens have visited earth is an extraordinary one, which, in my view, requires extraordinary proof.  Government coverup has been the standard excuse to avoid providing such proof for decades and for me is a clear sign that this claim is little more than that.  Government cover ups are certainly possible, but given the general performance of the US government, I says the odds are not in favor of one in this situation. (Although they are MUCH better than the odds of ET.)

That’s what I think.

Advenamundo