It's on CNN now!

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/offbeat/2008/05/21/natpkg.rat.cat.dog.kcoy

It's not a mouse, though, it's a rat. My mistake.

DOC REVIEWS INDY 4

MINOR SPOILERS.
READING THIS MIGHT SAVE YOU NINE DOLLARS AND THREE YEARS OF THERAPY DEALING WITH THE DEATH OF YOUR CHILDHOOD.

A FEW YEARS AGO:

Let's picture a scene, shall we? We are somewhere, deep in the Dreamworks movie lot. As we pass numerous office buildings, we zoom into one, and up to a closed metal door, with no window. Behind the door is some crazy (yet, strangely subdued chatter), something has got the people in this room extremely excited. We pass through the door, only to find a board room. A half dozen people are jammed around a conference table, gesticulating wildly. But we notice that the voices are a little subdued, hushed even. It is as if this meeting is top secret. We can barely make out snippets of conversation:
"Yes, I cannot believe that Harrison is going to do it!"
"We have got to make this one count! The fans have waited too long."
"I have got some good ideas."
"Yeah, but we have to get the feel right. Ya know, the dialogue, the action scenes."
"Yeah, yeah, and for heaven's sake, no CGI. Let's roll this old school."
"Let's get the original team, especially the writers. What's Larry up to these days?"

Suddenly, there is a knock at the door.

The entire room goes quiet.

The knock sounds again. A desperate, whiny voice (a Kermit the Frog voice) comes from behind the baracade.
"You Guys! You Guys! C'mon, you guys! I know that you're in there . . ."

From inside the room, several people make a low shhhhh sound. A man with a small, neat beard raises his voice to just above a whisper, "If we are really quiet, maybe he'll think we've gone away."

From outside the room, we hear, "C'mon, guys. Lemme in. This isn't fair."

The bearded man sighs, and begins to stand. There is a chorus of whispered no's, and dont's. But he just sadly shakes his head. As he walks toward the door, one last voice comes to him from the table,
"Stevie, at least make him do the Truffle Shuffle."

Steven Spielberg waves them off, and opens the door.

Behind it, George Lucas stands there, dancing like a kid needing to pee. "Hey, Stevie," he dances back and forth, "Wh-wh-what ya doin'?"

Steven sighs, "Oh, uh, hiya George. Not much. What's up with you?"

"You guys havin' a meeting?" George asks, trying to peer around Steven, and into the room.

"Meeting? Naw, just a little brainstorming session. Ya know, thinking about future projects like Tin Tin, Schindler's List 2, (cough cough) ahem Indy 4."

"I knew it!" Lucas yells, pumping his fist into the air. There is a collective groan from the room behind Steven. "Ya gotta let me in, Steven. It's in my contract. I created Indy."

Steven lets out the mother of sighs and then opens the door.

George walks into the room. He looks around, grins, and says, "How do you guys feel about aliens?"

*Thanks to Ryan C. for allowing me top steal and modify this analogy*


LAST NIGHT AT AROUND 2:34 A.M.

I took my six year old son to his first midnight movie experience, last night, and I will cherish that memory forever . . . no matter what other franchise they decide to destroy.

I can not begin to tell you the anticipation that I had for the new Indiana movie. I can catagorically say that I looked forward to this movie far more than any of the "new" Star Wars movies. Indy has always been my favorite of Harrison Ford's characters. Even when ridiculously silly events are happening on screen, Ford helps me suspend disbelief, and breathes a sense of credibility just with a subtle twitch of facial muscle, and the steely glint in his eyes.

Add that to the fact that the Indy series has always relied on practical effects and matte paintings, rather than the computer generated abominations that pranced around the Star Wars prequels, and you have one happy fanboy that can escape the reality of middle America for a couple of hours.

Unfortunately, Lucas has tarnished all of the old Spielberg magic by insisting on a subpar script, way too much CGI, and a Jar Jar Binks stupidity that permeates the entire second half of the movie. How do I know that it is Lucas? Because of the countless interviews that I read from him, where he stated that all of the silly crap that I hated about this film, he was responsible for.

The worst thing about this movie is that after almost twenty years of waiting for Indy, Marion, and their offspring, we didn't get Indy, and their child was more Marion than Marion was. I don't know who gave Marion Ravenwood the Lithium, but she walks around in a daze, with a silly grin on her face, the entire movie. There is no hint of the witty banner, the sly seduction, and the overall Rosie-the-Riveter grit from the first film. Instead, there is a vacuous old maid, who laughs at Indy's crazy antics, and gives enduring smiles. Seriously, what the . . . ?

And Indy? When did he become a giant wuss? I mean, there are moments that he really feels like Indiana Jones. There are moments when he delivers lines that made me want to cheer. There were a couple of times when I thought that this really was a throwback to my childhood. But those times were few and far between. I don't know what they were thinking, but when 90% of Indy's dialogue is exposition, the audience tends to lose interest really darn quick, especially if the overall story is just ludicrously silly.

Actually, one of the best things about this movie was Shia. I remember liking him when I saw him in Holes, and although the orignial purity and innocence that made him so appealing was not evident in this film, he still continues to grow as an actor. I was not a big Transformers fan, but I liked him in that movie, and I liked him in Indy 4. It is just too bad they made him do that one really stupid thing with the monkeys and the vines . . . On the plus side, one of the genuine "chill" moments that gave me fanboy goose pimples was his, and that came at the end of the movie. . .

Lastly, and most importantly. I HATE CGI! There, I said it. CGI freakin' sucks. Ok, it is one thing to use it to make a dinosaur walk or a killer ant attack, but come on, George and Steven! Why?! WHY!? The entire second half of the movie had everything that I hated about the prequels. The other Indy movies were so great, and largely because of their incredible production, sets, and practical effects. Why did they have to make an entire jungle chase be CGI? They couldn't have tried to find someway of recreating the Raiders truck chase? No, they had to rely on green screens and crappy Lucasfilm effects. It is amazing that a team that absolutely revolutionized movie storytelling, and created modern special effects, have sold their souls to the "easy way out" (or the dark side for you star wars fans) of CG effects. Nothing looks real anymore.

I will not go to any more Lucas movies. I am burned out and ticked off. Thanks for raping my heroes George. You did it with Star Wars, and now you did it with Indy.

The one good thing to come out of this experience was that I got to take my six year old. He will always remember that he and daddy went to that midnight show together. I wouldn't change that for all the world. I just wish that the movie had been worth the wait.

News!

First of all, I'd like to say that the wrong David won on American Idol tonight. I'm not a big fan of the show (I fast-forward through most of it), but I know enough to know a steaming pile when I see it.

I still say that the voting is unfairly rigged for people on the East Coast. Because of the different time zones, it airs three hours earlier there than it does out here on the West Coast. That gives everyone out east an additional three hours to vote, because the voting turns off based on the Pacific broadcast.

But I digress...

What I really wanted to talk about is something truly amazing that Laura and I saw on the news tonight. I don't normally watch the news, because it's a bunch of crap. I usually see a teaser for the nightly broadcast and make fun of it with Laura:

"Can sunlight give you herpes? Find out at 10!"

"This weekend there will be weather. Will you need an umbrella or a wife-beater? Find out at 10!"

"We couldn't find any news for today, so we're going to show you a boy that can whistle while riding a unicycle! It's news! At 10!"

But tonight after I watched the end of American Idol, the winner happened to be on the local news, so I kept it on. We watched the interview (complaining the whole time about the wrong person winning), and as the station headed for commercial, we heard it. I am not making this up:

"You probably never expected to see a mouse on top of a cat on top of a dog. But we've got it and we'll show it to you later on the 10 o'clock news."

This ludicrous sentence was accompanied by a video of ... a dog with a cat on top with a mouse on top of it, walking down the street on a leash.

Can you imagine the newsroom this morning? I imagine the conversation went like this:

----------
Editor: "Hancock! I need a story to fill the post commercial slot. What have you got?"

Hancock: "I got nothing, Chief. Nobody died today."

Editor: "Were there any earthquakes? Teachers caught with students? Mixed-race assaults? Anything?!"

Hancock: "No. But we do have something... But I don't know..."

Editor: "What is it, Hancock?"

Hancock: "Well, Chief, have you ever seen a mouse..."

Editor: "Yeah, yeah, I've seen one."

Hancock: "Wait, it gets better. The mouse is on top of a cat, and the cat is on a dog!"

Editor: "Dynamite! Why didn't you bring this up sooner? That's so good, we'll tease it before the commercial. You get a raise, Hancock."

-------

Seriously.

-------

I got Wii Fit tonight. I worked out for 30 minutes and I really like it. I'll try to blog more about it.

New and improved! (not improved)

I guess it’s time for another post, huh?

We’ve had a busy week. Laura’s brother, his wife, and their two kids have been in town. It’s been good hanging out with them, but I can’t take too many “structured family activities,” so I skipped a lot of it. I don’t have any problems with her family members (or none worth mentioning, anyway), but sitting around in someone else’s house and chatting isn’t my idea of fun. I’d rather watch a movie or play a game or … sleep.

Anyway, I was originally supposed to go visit Kansas this past weekend for my sister’s high school graduation. Hi, Dani! We’re proud of you! But scheduling issues at work kept me from going, so the plan changed.

The new plan was to go to Seattle with Laura’s family. We were set to leave on Friday afternoon and spend the whole weekend there. But then Laura’s dad broke his foot, so the plan changed again. Since Laura already had the weekend off of work (for the Seattle trip), we ended up staying in Portland and hanging out.

On Saturday we all went to the zoo. It was about 94 degrees outside, and there were 10 of us: one grandma, the five members of my family, and the four members of my brother-in-law’s family. Using one regular stroller and two double-strollers, we set off through the heat to see the animals. And, amazingly, the animals showed up better than they ever have before. The swimming animals swam directly in front of the glass, the eagles didn’t hide in the foliage, and Callie was able to stand about 3 feet away from some ducks and say “Quack, quack,” which was the highlight of her short life so far.

That night everyone came back to our place (we’re still at the old house) and we played Boom Blox on the Wii. If you haven’t played this new game, you should give it a try. It’s a fantastic multiplayer game. I’d try to explain it, but it would sound stupid. Just trust me.

-----------

So back to the old argument from last week…

I personally love arguing with people. One thing that keeps me blogging is the way I’ll write an innocent little post, and it will set of a flame war between readers. Please keep on posting, even if you don’t agree with my stance on issues. I want to ‘hear’ your point of view.

Having said that, I’m going to take issue with a small comment made about me. Jimmy Smits (if that is his real name…) said this:

“Anyway, I actually think that TacoDave is fairly "middle-of-the-road," except for the fact that he is too opinionated in too many areas that he may not have as much expertise in, as he thinks he does.”

First, I’m glad someone thinks I’m “middle-of-the-road.” I feel like a moderate, almost like a libertarian, and I sometimes get typecast as a right-winger because I am religious. Thanks.

But the second half of this statement is misleading. I don’t claim to have much expertise in anything. The only subjects I feel like an “expert” at are video games, movies, parenting, religion, and English. I have a lot of experience in those areas, obviously.

When I rant about evolution, global warming, sociology, etc., I am not doing so as an expert. Far from it. But they are subjects I have read a lot about, thought a lot about, and examined as rationally as a right-winger can. To put it bluntly, you don’t have to be an expert or have expertise to know facts.

Case in point – Laura asked me what Title Insurance was recently. I am far from being an expert in the field of home buying and real estate. But I knew the definition, because I have read about it before. Does my lack of expertise make the definition less valid? Not at all. I was able to explain it, even though I might not understand the nuances of the market.

So please don’t think I claim to be an expert at everything. I’m not a “know-it-all,” but rather a “well-read” kind of person.

Comments?

Retort.

Jimmy Smitts said:
“Man I get tired of the idiotic syncophants that frequent this site. It is almost a ridiculous experiment in stereotypical thought. On the one side we have the virtuous Bible bangers. On the other side, we have the "open minded" liberal thinkers.

Both camps look at the other side as idiotic and evil, but neither side will throw a proper punch. That's right, let's all become milquetoast wimplings, afraid to call the other side out.

With this last debate, I couldn't believe the amount of pussy-footing that was going on. Jeez-Louise, if you really think something, say so. If you are going to vote, then vote. Too many of us are just sitting around, afraid we are going to OFFEND someone.”

--------------------

First, a sycophant (there’s no ‘n’ after the ‘y’) is someone who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people. I’m not sure who the people who read my blog are trying to flatter, as there’s nobody influential here. And by the way: did you actually misspell and misuse a word you were using as an insult?

*Applause*

Anyway, let me dissect your thoughts one at a time. I assume you would put me in the camp of “Bible bangers,” because it’s obvious I’m not a liberal. That’s really ironic, because if you read through my old posts, you’ll see that I don’t think it is my job to convert anyone to my belief system. In fact, I’ve said that the Great Commission mentioned in the Bible doesn’t really apply to most of us.

So if I’m not trying to convert anyone, how am I a Bible banger? Because you choose to read my blog? That makes no sense.

In reality, we like to discuss religion, but we aren’t trying to convert anyone. If you don’t believe in God, I’m okay with that. I’m still interested in your opinion and worldview.

I think you threw out words like “stereotypical” and “Bible bangers” and “liberal” as straw-man arguments. Shame on you.

As for your second paragraph, that’s not true either. We’re happy to say that we disagree with other people. That’s very clear. The commentators on my blog “call the other side out” all the time. That’s practically all we do! I write something idiotic, then people get into an argument about it.

And speaking for the conservative side: we don’t see the other side as idiotic. I feel that most people with liberal leanings are very intelligent are actively seeking truth in life. I just think they are misguided. (However, I do think some liberals are literally evil… They are the ones in positions of power who know the truth, spew lies, and are hypocritical – think of celebrities who are anti-global warming, yet fly around in private jets…)

As for your last paragraph, how can you accuse anyone of ‘pussy-footing’? We are stating our opinions. Just because our opinions aren’t EXTREME! or fueled by Red Bull, that doesn’t mean anything negative. Most people in this world are peace-keepers. They have an opinion, and they hold dearly to it, but they don’t go around shoving it in other peoples’ faces. How can you treat that like a handicap? I think it’s wonderful.

I wish more liberals were like that…

Hooray!

It’s about time we had a good debate again. GodFearinDaddy – welcome! It’s always good to have another person in the conversation. Please don’t feel attacked or chased away. We’re just very passionate about our beliefs here.

(If you have no idea what I’m talking about, read the comments on the past few posts.)

The issue you’ve brought up isn’t the most important theological question in the grand scheme of things, but it is an interesting one. Should we, as Christians, judge other Christians based on their past and/or present sins? And if so, should someone who is a self-appointed ‘leader’ be judged different from us ‘normal’ people?

First, let me clarify what I mean by “judge”. I’m not talking about deciding whether or not a person should go to heaven. I’m not talking about deciding if they are better or worse of a person than me. Judging in the context of this post means to decide whether someone’s behavior/actions are sinful or not. There is no way of knowing if the person has made peace with God for their behavior, nor is there any way of knowing if they are truly repentant.

Not only that, but I sin just about every day. Since I am guilty of equally sinful behavior, it is certainly not my place to criticize or guess at someone else’s motives or guilt.

So, bearing in mind the context I’ve described, is it right for a Christian to judge someone? Absolutely – as long as the other person is also a Christian and claims to live by the same standard. You can’t judge an atheist based on a Christian worldview. It’s like asking “Am I a good Muslim?” The question is irrelevant, because I don’t believe in Islam.

Anyway, if I know that someone in my church is actively stealing money from people, it is my duty to “judge” this behavior as wrong, point it out to the person, and confront them with other people if necessary. But, as I’ve said on here in the past, I have a history of stealing from people. So does that make me a hypocrite? Not at all. That behavior is in my past, and I have made peace with it and made amends as much as possible. My past and the other person’s past have no bearing on whether or not their behavior is moral or immoral. The only thing we can judge is their current status.

Is John McCain sorry for cheating on and divorcing his first wife? I have no idea. Has he apologized to the people he hurt and asked for forgiveness? I still have no idea. Does he even consider his behavior sinful, or does his view of Christianity assume that grace covers transgressions, and thus morality isn’t even part of the equation?

I know I’m asking more questions than I’m answering, but I’m trying to point out how many variables there are, and how ill-equipped we are to reach any conclusions. If someone from my own church is sinning, and I know the person and know their beliefs and past, it gives me a frame of reference to ‘judge’ their actions. But McCain is a stranger to me, so I don’t feel I have enough information to conclude anything.

To put it another way, as a Christian, I believe his behavior was sinful. Cheating on a spouse and then divorcing them is wrong. So on a purely theological standpoint, I view his actions in a negative light, much like GodFearinDaddy.

However… since I don’t know the man personally, and since I have no insight into his mind, I cannot in good conscience judge him based on this information. And when I compare him to our only other option (Obama), I have no choice but to vote for him.

Comments?

Home again, home again, jiggity-jig.

I hate you all. That’s why I haven’t updated for an entire week, even though I said a post was imminent.

Or…

As mentioned in the Comment section: we have a house! The final title/escrow paperwork hasn’t been signed, but the offer/counter-offer process is finished and the place is ours (pending inspection).

This has been a long, but relatively smooth process. I chalk that up to two ‘people’: 1) Laura and 2) God.

Let’s face it: I’m not the most thorough, energized person in the world. If I was in charge of our home search, I’d still be reading news articles and listening to talk radio. There’s no way we would have a house already. But Laura took charge and paid down our debt, wrote a realistic budget, contacted the necessary people, and got the ball rolling. I’m impressed by how easy she has made it look.

If you’ve never been her friend, let me explain something: when she gets focused on a project, she works tirelessly, doing everything she can to make it happen. In fact, I fully expect to wake up in 3 weeks and say “We should probably start packing our stuff…” only to find out she has already packed 85% of our stuff (and has plans for the other 15%). To put it another way – she’s awesome.

As for God’s part, I think it’s pretty obvious what he has done. Our income has doubled since we moved to Oregon six years ago. That’s amazing.

And don’t forget we were in debt by almost $50,000 (not including student loans) just four years ago, with creditors calling upwards of 20 times per day. But somehow we managed to take that situation, turn it around, and dig our way out. I can think of no other explanation than divine intervention.

So if you didn’t see it before, look at our house here. It should be ours on May 31. Feel free to come by and help me lift heavy stuff.

New post coming...

I hope to add a 'real' new post tomorrow. I've been working on one for a few days, but it's not to my satisfaction yet. I know what you're thinking - the rest of this garbage is to his satisfaction?

You're so mean.

A response to anonymous

Hey Guys, Doc Here

As I was working on part 2 of my recent post, I almost decided not to write any more because of the apparent lack of interest in this subject. I figured that either everyone was too apathetic and burned out on this subject, or they thought the whole thing ridiculous, and that I was just going off on a foolish rant.

Or the darn post was just so long they got bored after the first paragraph.

But then I read the one legitimate response, which wasn't a response at all. Rather it was a link to a youtube video.

Interesting comment, anonymous. But I am curious as to why you posted anonymously. Obviously the rational scientific community has the high moral road, and the intellectually superior prowess that you can feel confident that you are standing up for truth, justice, and the scientific way.

Or something like that.

The interesting thing about your post is that it doesn't actually say anything. I mean, look, I can get on here and be as sarcastic as I want. I can make strawman arguments and try to be funny. Jeesh, if this all it takes to convince the American populous, then Tacodave and I need a tv show. We can be just as stupid and insulting as this guy. As we all know, if you ridicule and revile your oponent, then you almost certainly will win him over. As soon as he realizes how dumb he has been, and how smart you are, he'll come crawling over for your favor and give you his loving adoration. Right? Right!?

But Edward Current actually says nothing. Obviously he has not even watched the movie. He is typical of the morons that think they are smart and clever. Anyone can react in scorn. As a side note, he lists his inspirations as Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher, George Carlin, and Tim & Eric. I am sorry, but even though there was a vague David Cross- like charm to the guy, a Colbert he was not. His points were silly, fallacious, and not-very-well-thought-out, but in the interest of fairness, let's look at his arguments.

Hmmm.

Christians are stupid . . . And Evolution is accepted by multiple disciplines . . . And Christians are dumb . . . And theories are made by hundreds of hours of research . . . And Christians are moronic.

Well, shoot. I am convinced. I mean obviously this guy has the answer. The rest of us can just go home, now. We should no longer have any debate on the issue. Once I understood that Christians are just morons who should shut up, it all kind of fell into place for me.

And these guys wonder why they are looked at as closed-minded elitists.

Sheesh.

Some thoughts on Expelled

Hey Guys, Doc here. I just wanted to spend a couple of minutes exploring the movie Expelled. Tacodave and I have both viewed the film, and had some discussion over it. He should either be making his own post on the subject in the very near future, or commenting on this one.

(WARNING IF YOU FIND MY SETUP BORING AND JUST WANT THE MEAT AND POTATOES OF THIS COLUMN, GO AHEAD AND SKIP AHEAD TO THE 6th PARAGRAPH. MIND YOU, YOU WILL BE MISSING PURE BRILLIANCE IF YOU DO SO, BUT I KNOW YOU PEOPLE ARE BUSY, OUT THERE, AND THIS IS A LONG COLUMN)

Now, most of you who come on here have no illusions about the particularly conservative "lean" that both of us have. I make no bones about stating that I have a bias. I believe that this country's best chance of being prosperous, successful, and redemptive is to cling to the original ideas that made this country great (these being the pursuit of life, liberty, and the ever-evading happiness). I view these through the glasses of a Christian ethic. I believe that these glasses are the best (dare I say ONLY) way that these pursuits can be accomplished with the benefit to all men. This worldview has been developed through a mixture of upbringing, scientific exploration, philosophical soul-searching, and anecdotal experience.

So there you have it. You know my worldview. You know my bias. Some of you are squirming, right now, wondering about how I could be so closed-minded. Some of you are cheering my forthcomingness. Some of you are just shrugging and saying, "Yeah, so . . .?" The point is that I have laid it all on the table. I have told you where I am coming from. Thus, there is no surprise when I interpret evidence, starting with my worldview and continuing on from there.

I used to think that admitting and embracing one's bias was anathema. In fact, we have been taught that bias is something to escape, something to flee from. We have been taught that only closed-minded little people cling to their biases. The goal of the enlightened man should be to cast off their biases and thus free themselves to learning the ways of the world. Then. at last, we may be able to see from other's perspectives, and adapt our worldviews accordingly. I wonder what worldview has propagated such an idea.

You see, there is no escaping your worldview. It can be stretched. It can become murky. But your worldview is always there. Can you change it? Somewhat. But the bottom line is that everyone has them. They do color the way that we interpret evidence, stimulus, and our experiences.

Most people have this high and lofty view of science. They believe that scientists are emotionally clean. That they do not carry their various biases into the laboratory, that somehow, scientists are immune to their own worldviews, and can somehow rise above them and become objective.

Sure. Right. Just like journalists. . .

The bottom line, (and this is from dealing with scientists on a daily basis in my personal, professional, and academic career) is that scientists are people. They have their own beliefs, their own dogma, their own (dare I say it, GASP!) agendas. There is no such thing as the sterile interpretation of raw data. All data is interpreted through the hindsight of other experiment interpretation, the educational background of the researchers, and their own worldview. Period. End of story. No scientist comes to the laboratory with a clean slate. They are, at the very least, taught how to interpret the data, through the modicum of whatever philosophy rules the scientific theory at their university.

Let's be honest. Scientists start off by learning to regurgitate, not to think. Thinking, true thinking, may come in later, after the indoctrination. But the status quo of scientific education is not to do anything as dangerous as handing raw data to the ill-informed students, and then allowing them to observe, test, and reproduce. Instead, a healthy dose of Simon Says Repeat After Me, is handed out. Any modulation from indoctrination is not looked upon as something positive. Instead, most of the time it is deemed disruptive. After all, the teacher has a syllabus. There are theories to get to, and worlds to explore.

What this means, is that many (if not most) scientists get their scientific worldview handed to them by their education. In most cases, this education is presented to them through the glasses of humanistic naturalism. You really can not argue this. The very definition of the modern scientific paradigm completely disregards religion as having nothing to do with it. Now certainly, this is not how science has always been looked upon. In the early days of progressive scientific discovery, it was always tied into theology. But now . . . by its definition it is at least agnostic, if not full blown atheistic.

I think that I am going to stop, for now. I want these concepts to sink in, and to be discussed. I am sure that a few of you have some comments to make about what I have stated above.

Next time, we will discuss the method by which interpretation happens, what happens if your interpretation is not in line with the Institution, what is evolution, exactly, and what evolutionary biology has brought to the arena of ideas.

Let me just give this bottom line: Propaganda or not (and really, what kind of persuasive media will not manipulate the emotions to prove the point at hand), I believe that Expelled is one of the most important films of the last decade. Why? Because no matter where you stand on the issue of origins, the dialogue needs to be explored. The data needs examination. Both sides of this debate must communicate and actually consider the evidence. This is a basic tenant of scientific theory and exploration. To not consider evidence because of bias is intellectually dishonest, and draconian attempts at censorship are not good for science, America, or the world.

Wikipedia is NOT a valid source

Check out this link before you read the following post. The story is interesting, so read it all the way through. I'll wait patiently.



All done? Good.

Remember how a while back, someone was quoting Wikipedia on my blog and they claimed it was a valid source because it is 'policed' by the community? And remember how I claimed that it wasn't a valid source and they made fun of me?

There you have it. This guy documented a specific incident where an employee of Wikipedia went to great lengths to push an agenda on the site. The employee wasn't disproving something. They weren't refuting evidence with better evidence. They were simply silencing an opinion they didn't agree with.

In my opinion, the people in this world who have jobs and families don't have time to spend on political nonsense. They don't have time for protests. They don't show up at city council meetings on a routine basis. They don't have time to sit and edit Wikipedia all day. They are busy being productive.

That's another reason many conservatives don't like socialism or a "victim mentality": they have experienced hard work, and they know that it pays off. They don't need welfare because if something bad happens, they make the best of it and keep on truckin'.

It irritates me that this person has so much time, they can police Wikipedia and make it fit their agenda all day, every day. Who is paying them? And why? And if they believe in global warming, they are most likely liberal. Aren't they supposed to be 'tolerant' of other ideas? Why silence a dissenting opinion?

It boggles my mind.

Movie night - Friday, May 2

Hey, peeps.

If you are reading this, you are invited to a movie night on May 2. It's a Friday, and I know that most of you have nothing fun to do on Fridays.

We haven't decided which movie we're going to watch yet, but does it really matter? All you really need to know is that there will be a cool new TV, a fantastic picture and surround sound, and no annoying pre-teens chatting away while the movie is playing.

And if you're really lucky, you might get to see me in my official Nacho Libre mask that my wife bought in Mexico...

Pencil it into your schedule, and contact me if you don't know where we live. We're hoping to buy a house next month, so this might be your last chance!

Fun times.

Sometimes it happens. You awake with a start, confused and disoriented. Are you dreaming? Are you awake? Have you gone insane?

Your eyes see something – a person, a shadow, a book on the dresser – and for a brief moment, your brain can’t comprehend what it is. The person appears malevolent. The shadow seems menacing. The book is an unknown presence in the room that wasn’t there when you fell asleep…

That’s how I woke up this morning. I sleep on my stomach with my face pointed (usually) to the right, towards the dresser. I went from dreaming to alert in less than a second, and for a few seconds I couldn’t comprehend what was in front of me.

My son Ethan was standing inches from my face, writhing around, gasping for air. He’s dying! I thought. But my body wouldn’t react. I was frozen in place, unable to move, unable to figure out why my son was choking to death in front of me.

Then reality came into focus and I realized that he wasn’t just gasping for air, he was actually gagging. In between heaves, he would suck in as much air as he could.

When I realized that he wasn’t dying, my body re-activated and I was able to sit up. “Ethan?” I asked. “Are you throwing up?”

He nodded his head in affirmation, and finally began to grow calm. Looking down, I noticed some white-ish chunks only millimeters from where my face had been. A trail of them led down the side of the bed, and onto two little puddles on the floor.

“I threw up on Spot,” he said sadly. Spot is his stuffed dog. “I was in Caitlin’s bed.”

We’ve had a problem lately with Ethan getting into our bed at night. I finally put my foot down two nights ago and told him he isn’t allowed in our room anymore after bedtime. So being the wise little 5-year-old that he is, he found a loophole: I never said he couldn’t get in his sister’s bed!

I got him in the shower and noticed that Laura had just returned home from a double shift at work (2 p.m. yesterday to 6 a.m. today), so I yelled down to her “Ethan just threw up…” and went to clean up the puke from my bed. By the time I got back to the bathroom, she was washing Ethan and was about to start shampooing his hair.

Helpless to do anything else (or at least wanting an excuse to go back to bed), I went back to the room and fell asleep. A few minutes later, Laura came in and said “Callie threw up too. She was laying in it, and it is all over her hair.”

Thus began another fun day at the Dopps house. Seriously, there should be a rule in the universe that kids are only allowed to get sick 3 times per year, and they have to wait at least two months between sicknesses.

It’s getting freakin’ old.

Awesome.