prepare for your morning buzz-kill

make sure you haven't just eaten, you're sitting down and you haven't just puffed the magic dragon, cause this is gonna bring you down like a tonna.

make with the clicky

the global warming debate

Ad Nauseam, I know. This one's been flogged like a dead horse and, depending how cynical you're feeling, could be the latest straw man of imminent doom. But, this video I'm linking to asks not are the enviromentalists or are the wait-and-see-ers right, but what's the best worst case scenario for taking action or not taking action. Basically suggesting what we would reasonably conclude, that if the warming is not man-made and we take action, we're courting economic recession on a massive scale and if we don't take action and the warming is man-made we can expect catastrophucks on a biblical scale. So, really, the question becomes what's the best worst case, depression or cataclysm?
We can recover from a recession, but not from a cataclysm.

Obviously, the video is quite simplistic, but I think the point it makes is still very valid.

This weekend I took in Sweeney Todd staring Mr. Johnny Depp and I've been trying to form a firm opinion about it since. It's both good and bad, tacky (in the best ways possible) and polished.

Firstly, it's a musical, in essence that's the framework the entire film rests on. It's by Steven Sondheim, a 20th century American composer that I'm not all that familiar with. I had to say that as some one who does enjoy properly executed musical theatre I found the lyrics average at best and the music hardly memorable. Maybe Sondheim was going for an effect that completely passed me by but I found the libretto completely subpar.

Aside from the score, I did enjoy the story and felt it was reminiscent of Verdi's opera Rigoletto, which everyone knows at least one song from. Click here to hear the song you no doubt know. But the similarities do no continue on into the score. Rigoletto, the main character of Verdi's opera, is the hunchbacked jester to the duke of Mantua. There are many stereotypically operatic twists, but needless to say that Rigoletto ends up killing his daughter in a case of mistaken identity as he tries to exact revenge.

In Sweeney Todd we've got a main character who has returned to London after being falsely imprisoned, who's daughter is kept captive by the judge who framed him. He forms an elaborate revenge plan, assuming a new identity. The wife he believed to be dead is a half-mad begger, which is only revealed after Todd kills her, after which he is promptly killed.

The plot is an operatic stereotype but it's great. It's an operatic stereotype because it works so well.

So far we have a subpar score balanced by a fast paced and violent plot. The opera is not one of deep moral questions, it is a revenge tragedy, but the real redemption of the entire undertaking comes from the director and the cast.

Tim Burton brings his unique talents to this story with brilliant effect. I would submit that there is no deep philosophy to what Burton is doing here, but what he does is beautiful. It's bloody, it's dark...it's what we all think Victorian London as being like at it's most Gothic and terrible. The plot, as I said earlier does not complicate itself with motivations, but rather the unfolding of revenge. Burton is in his element, he makes the backdrop a beautiful dark tableau of Todd's black soul that has been consumed with revenge. It's a visual spectacle.

Now, add in Johnny Depp, someone Burton is quite comfortable collaborating with I'm certain given their previous collaborations and does a brilliant job in the lead. But the strength of the cast goes well beyond Depp, including Hellena Bonham Carter and Alan Rickman. And a special treat as Sasha Baron Cohen (Borat, Jean Girard from Ricky Bobby) appears in a minor role as an Italian dandy.

The movie is fantastically executed, but I can see going to see it preformed on broadway and being quite underwhelmed.

climbing back up onto the soap box

I should probably preface this entry by saying that I have not read "The God Delusion" but have only heard the author speak on its subject and read reviews. That being said, I greatly disagree with the crux of the argument, equally as one with religious convictions, as one who despises fallacious arguments.

Mr. Dawkins is immensely popular at the moment on campuses and in the intellectual community at large, not so much because of the argument he has put forth, but rather because he has lead athiests out of the proverbial closet, empowering them to embrace their beliefs. That in itself is a noble ambition, but there's a reason he's dubbed Darwin's rottweiler. Dawkins has what can be described diplomatically as an abrasive and direct manner of discourse. His book centres on the ridiculous axiom that the owness of proof is not on athiests but on religion. That faith demands proof.

Just let that sink in for a second. It's like having a debate where the two sides can't agree on the definition of the terms. Faith does not require proof, if it did, it would not be faith. But, this is the statement upon which his book rests.

To paraphrase him; he claims that most theists are partial atheists as they have already denied all other Gods but their own, he is simply taking it a step further and adding one more God. This is such a ridiculous over simplification, and is on par with that thought you had as a child, "if my religion is right then aren't all the other gods wrong?". Dawkins is a scientist, an empiricist, and a very linear thinker. Monists believe that god is unknowable and we only see him though facets of our own lives, I myself adhere to a form of monism, would Dawkins deny me this view? probably.

I think my own brother put it best when we were having a philosophical argument and I asked him if he was an athiest. He said, Nietzsche waited til he was 29 before he killed God, perhaps he should wait at least that long. In other words, this isn't a simple endeavor to be dismissed as mere superstition.

However, I would not deny Dawkins his view that morality is possible externally from religion. You need look no further than Ancient Greece where schools of philosophy became the centers of moral thought, schools like stoicism, epicurianism, neoplatonism etc... These all existed alongside but separately from the polytheism of the day. Especially if you consult the works of the emperor Marcus Aurelius, who declares his own uncertainty about the existence of the gods, but claims this has no bearing on his own morality. Virtue is it's own reward.

But to bring it back to Dawkins, I've heard him state in interviews that science, despite not knowing the answer to the creation of the universe, one day soon will. That science will give us the answers we turn to God for. But, even Nietzsche described this kind of scientific knowledge as surplus to requirement and irrelevant. Nietzsche, an avowed atheist (and philologist), would tell us that even though we know what fire looks like, can write a formula detailing it and can replicate it, we still cannot say what it is. "It's a chemical reaction" does not tell me what fire is. Similarly explaining to me that the sun rises because of an equation does not satisfy the why. Why is the sky blue? all these questions hold a beautiful mystery that we cannot explain. I myself, would not want the answer were it available. There is poetry and there is soul in all these unknowns.

"God is in the details" is not just some hyperbolic statement. It's a statement about the beauty in the world.

Democracy on the Move!

Russian politics is in the news once again. Last we heard Mr. Putin was very much on his way to creating his own kingdom. He was setting up a yes-man to take over from him after his term of office expires, and aledgedly apoint himself his prime minister. He's also crafted the demands of party status to the effect that no one can oppose him and have a voice in the parliament. So now, the voice of the opposition, former international chess champion Gary Kasparov has quit the presidential race due to an inability to fulfill requirements, one of which is to hold a meeting of his supporters numbering 500 within Moscow before December. According Mr Kasparov, he's booked multiple halls and payed up front, only to be canceled at the last minute by the venue.

tv comes to iTunes Canada

if you go to Apple Canada's homepage, you'll see splashed across the screen the new TV programs up for download from iTunes. Previously, TV programs have only been available from the the US and UK stores. Which might be cause for rejoicing, but the selection, while adequate, is less than stellar. And there-in lies the reason that our iTunes store even has TV programs available. NBC pulled the the plug on it's agreement with Apple, so no original NBC programs are available on the US iTunes store.

Judging from my own viewing habits, NBC accounts for a fair bit of my programming, like 30 Rock, the Office and Scrubs, not to mention that they produce the immensely popular, if over rated in my opinion, Heroes. So, if we take away that piece from the iTunes pie, it's logical to assume that it's left Jobs and Co. looking to expand their market.

So, enter the Canadian version. We've got lots of Canadian content, CBC's mercer report, little mosque, Dragon's den; CTV's corner gas, and Degrassi as well as some classic Hockey Night in Canada Stanley Cup games. Non-canadian content is limited to comedy central, which consists of south park and the Sarah Silverman program. We can only hope that this allows for the Daily Show and the Colbert Report to make their way up there after the writer's strike is resolved.

So, really Canada has ended up with a poor man's tv selection. None of my must see shows made the list, no House MD, no Boston Legal, no Dexter.

It's also worth noticing that amazon has been pushing a music store of their own in the states, underselling itunes per song, and without copy protection of any kind as well as offering a better sound quality, and they also have a service for purchasing digital tv programs and movies. Will they move up to Canada? seems like a logical progression.

for those who can't whedon any longer

I'll admit that pun was a bit of a stretch, but Joss is back in the medium!

but...and you knew there would be, it's on Fox with a 7 episode commitment. Which most likely means that it'll suffer the same fate as firefly; poorly advertised and be given an inconsistent timeslot. On the plus side, the concept sounds very cool, and with Joss you know it's in good hands. Oh, and did I mention Eliza Dushku is the lead?
The drama (...) stars Dushku as Echo, a member of a group of men and women who are imprinted with different personalities for different assignments. In between tasks they are mind-wiped, living like children in Dollhouse, a futuristic dorm/lab. They have no memories of their previous lives, until Echo begins to try to find out who she was.
from the hollywood reporter

Knowing Joss' literary pedigree, I was hoping the title was an allusion to the Henrik Ibsen play, especially considering Whedon's predilection towards exploring feminist themes. I think it would be interesting to see Joss do something outside of the scifi-fantasy genre, but having him back on TV, even if it's not long lived, will be great.

facebook clones

shamelessly snurched from FSJ
the striking resemblance between Alfredo Linguini, the young and incompetent yet hubristic and overconfident chef who is manipulated and controlled by rats in Disney's Ratatouille, and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg

behold, FACEberg, furthering my thesis that all Marks with a kappa are quite mad, or at least trouble.

world religions part 1

I think one of the neatest things about Mormonism is how quintessentially American it is. It was born in America, features a great migratory story, pretty much echoing the Jewish Exodus, and makes no compromises (at least it didn't initially). It's all about Joseph Smith (yeah, that guy from the south park episode) who at a young age claimed to have met Moses and Jesus and had divine revelation. And young Joseph convinced his religiously divided family (his mother was a protestant and his father was a catholic if I remember correctly) to abandon their fates and follow him as the new prophet.

The religion draws alot of skepticism as the next part of the story involves Joseph discovering what would become the book of Moron, which involves mysterious golden plates of which no evidence remains, which claim that Jesus came to the new world and brought the word of god to the natives, which lead to a war between these new Christians and other natives.

The really interesting thing about Mormonism isn't just the mythology behind it, and how it perhaps doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny, but rather it's evolution. The book of Mormon was first published in 1830, not even 200 years ago, relatively speaking, it's a very young religion, and unlike other religions' formative periods, we have relatively accurate records of what was going on at that time. In addition, Smith lead one form or another of the church until his death in 1844. So we have a prophet, making prophecies for his people, including endorsing polygamy at one point, and creating the Mormon doctrine of baptism at death. So, from an objective, logical point, we can question these prophecies and perhaps attribute them to less than pure desires, but what about our other world religions? are their doctrines any better for their uncertain genesis?

Mormons believe in baptizing a soul after death, for a life after death that is quite unlike any christian concept. They believe that the body is completely reconstituted in heaven, and that your family in this world will be your family in the next. In fact, Mormons believe that the message of Joseph Smith is that we all have the potential to be like God by attaining the highest level of heaven. (yup, Smith's heaven has levels). And don't forget about those mormon missionaries you see going door to door, that's a key precept of the faith that everyone partakes in at a young age, and finances from their own life savings.

Definitely a polarizing religion, but the end result is a very tight knit group of faithful...minus the gays. Mormons don't like gays.


A link to a great documentary by PBS on Mormonism

the weight of pretention

Battlestar galactica is the show everyone is watching, even those who don't claim to like Scifi, it's topical, it's serious and it's more weighty than those old greek words like hubris.

And I loathe it. I loathe it with a special enmity I only reserve for the premier of the province and anyone remotely associated with the name Chretien.

My problem stems from the entire concept of the show. It claims to be non-specifically topical, dealing with the issue of terrorism, ie how would the last survivors of earth survive whilst continually pursued by robots who are trying to become human (by killing the humans). As a result, we've got more anixt than Lilith Fair and the entire series of Dawson's Creek put together. Everyone's conflicted, so conflicted in fact that there's really no character development at all, everyone's in a rut with their father issues, or their woman trying to be a guy issues. The there's the self proud imagery, the women all fighting over phallic imagery and, my own personal favorite, is the pretentious names, not the least of which is the executive officer named Saul...yeah, like the biblical Paul before he converted. And shocker, Saul turns out to be a sleeper agent. I should mention through, that some of the actors on this program are spectacular, Mary McDonnell especially.

Anways, all this leads up to this month, where battlestar galactica (BSG), in preparation for it's final season, aired a 90 minute episode which features extra backstory to an episode from last season featuring Michelle Forbes (Ensign Ro from TNG) as an admiral of another battlestar who made more draconian decisions than the crew of Galactica. Now the previous arc did not show these attrocities but rather mentioned them as hearsay by the crew, which, in my opinion made the episode better, ambiguity makes for better motivation and better television. Instead this episode takes us through a catalogue of these atrocities in excruciating detail, while taking breaks to show us how none of the characters have really made any kind of headway with their issues, the previously mentioned father issues figure prominently.

scifi is going through some growing pains these days, the vaccum left by the absence of the star trek franchise on the small screen has made for some unexpected successes. Star trek had definitely run its course (and then some), but now we're stuck with an equally underwhelming array of programs, from the successes of Stargate Atlantis and BSG, to the cancellations of stellar shows like Farscape and Firefly, and Doctor Who which rose from the dead in 2005. This recent season of television, instead of bringing in fresh new ideas for scifi, has been rehashing old ones, a re-imagining of the bionic woman, a tv series based on terminator 2, and a new version of the prisoner is scheduled for next season. (the original prisoner staring Partick McGoughan is must see tv FYI). Interestingly, some scifi writers have abandoned network TV and are going into other mediums, JMS, creator of Babylon 5, has returned to his franchise with direct to DVD movies and Joss Whedon has abandonned the visual medium and is writing Buffy comics. The henson company is making webisodes of the their cancelled Farscape series with the hope of creating interest in a return for the series.

So where are the fresh ideas?

Scifi isn't the only genre to be suffering, what i'd term as the HBO genre is also in something of a tail spin, more on that next time.

must be youtube day

I tend to rabbit on about Stephen Fry quite a bit, and as he's something of an unknown this side of the pond I thought I'd post a little something of his. He hosts a quiz show that's not really a quiz show, more an excuse for witty banter between himself and his comedian contestants. As he says, the points don't matter! enjoy!

hilarious bubble 2.0 video

a Chav-update

color me surprised, Chavez's reforms were defeated by the slimmest of margins, of 51 to 49.

Honestly, I'm most surprised that Mr Chavez hasn't been using his already considerable power to influence the results. He was elected with a majority in excess of 60%, which, while not impossible, is pretty remarkable, and does raise the question of electoral tampering, especially in a country not well known for a long democratic history.

Speaking of electoral fraud, the white house had this to say;

"It looks like the people spoke their minds, and they voted against the reforms that Hugo Chavez had recommended and I think that bodes well for the country's future and freedom and liberty," spokeswoman Dana Perino said.