A prime example of those that take the bible too literally - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7h08RDYA5E. Apparently we can't possibly be experiencing climate change because god is the only one who can end the world... Actually, the logic on this one is a bit fuzzy for me. Climate change isn't necessarily the end of the world so the argument that god is the only one that can end the world/that he promises in the bible never to do the flood again doesn't really follow. Anyway, its tough to see people so tied to the letter of their faith that they won't listen to scientific studies or consider that science and faith can coexist.
Another interesting one on the subject of evolution - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO9IPoAdct8&feature=response_watch. Apparently everything the three guys say was taken from christian fundamentalist forums. ::Shakes Head::
Good Stuff - http://www.buzzfeed.com/lebuzzodrome/los-colorados-hot-and-cold-9ht/
and something for the nerd in all of us - http://andyfarrell.blogspot.com/2009/03/cannonball-in-mercury.html
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Monday, February 2, 2009
Green Shrug
My latest finished project in the yarn realm is the "Chunky Alpaca Shrug" from Sensual Crochet by Amy Swenson. I used Baby Alpaca Grande by Plymouth Yarn in (excitingly named) color # 798. The color is a piney green with a little bit of reddish brown mixed in. This crocheted up very quickly because of the open pattern and the fact that its simply a rectangle that you sew partway together for arms. The yarn was great to work with and is really soft. I tried to get a good picture of the shrug, but failed miserably. If I can ever figure out what to wear this with I'll try to get an actual picture of me wearing it. For now, enjoy the below.
There are a number of things in this book that I'd like to try, however, I'm not thrilled with the pattern directions throughout. They are not super intuitive and take a lot of reading and pondering - at least for someone like me who is on the intermediate/beginner borderline. Next project that is likely to be revealed on here will be a shrug in my own pattern. I hope it comes out well!
There are a number of things in this book that I'd like to try, however, I'm not thrilled with the pattern directions throughout. They are not super intuitive and take a lot of reading and pondering - at least for someone like me who is on the intermediate/beginner borderline. Next project that is likely to be revealed on here will be a shrug in my own pattern. I hope it comes out well!
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Yay for Science
A quote from Obama on science:
"The truth is that promoting science isn't just about providing resources," he said. "It's about protecting free and open inquiry. It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It's about listening to what our scientists have to say. Even when it's inconvenient."
And here is the article on npr that it came from should you wish to read the whole thing: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98564233
I'm just happy that it looks like we are actually going to turn back towards science and rationality with the next administration. Maybe we can turn all the bad around, at least to some extent instead of watching ourselves continue to spiral downward.
"The truth is that promoting science isn't just about providing resources," he said. "It's about protecting free and open inquiry. It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It's about listening to what our scientists have to say. Even when it's inconvenient."
And here is the article on npr that it came from should you wish to read the whole thing: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98564233
I'm just happy that it looks like we are actually going to turn back towards science and rationality with the next administration. Maybe we can turn all the bad around, at least to some extent instead of watching ourselves continue to spiral downward.
Friday, December 19, 2008
TDTESS
A few notes on The Day the Earth Stood Still 1951 vs. 2008 for those of you interested. First things first. Should you go see the new version? Well, its not the best movie ever, but it certainly isn't the worst. If there is nothing at the theatre you'd like to see more, then TDTESS is a fine option, but if you are debating, probably go ahead and see the other movie on your list and save this one for dvd. That said, the movie is interesting to compare to its 1951 counterpart. There is a lot about the two movies that is very different, however a lot of that is more surface and of the times than the main underlying themes. In both the death of the human species is impending because of our own actions. The reason that we are found to be a threat by the alien species is different between the two movies and is a really great example of what was on the mind of the collective conscious in 1951 and what is on our minds now. In 1951 it was nuclear war (the aliens were worried we might cause extraterrestrial destruction with our new rocket power), now its environmental degradation of the Earth (the aliens won't let us continue to destroy life on Earth so we have to go). Although I think the switch in focus is interesting and the environmental state of the Earth is an issue of concern, they could have stayed with nuclear power as a threat because it certainly still is.
A second similarity is the ineptitude of the American government in each movie. Both the 1951 and 2008 government react with force and it just makes things worse. Instead both movies hold up the world's scientists as the light of hope and reason amongst the thugs who run the government. One possible problem with this classification of people is that the scientists were the ones who actually created the nuclear and rocket power of concern in the first version...and science and tech is responsible for a lot of the emissions/pollution etc. threatening our world. So, perhaps scientists are not as pure as the world of this movie suggests.
Differences of interest - The role of women in the two movies. In the first, the main woman is a secretary to a scientist. In the 2008 our main women are a top scientist and the secretary of state or defense...I don't remember which. Obviously women are more liberated in the roles that they are allowed to have in modern society. We don't have to be secretaries or teachers or nurses. Also of interest is the makeup of the two families who figure in the storylines. In the 1950s we have a white mother with biological son. In the new version we have a white mother with a black step son. Family structure has become non-traditional (almost to an extreme in that the author has decided on both a step and interracial family) in the modern movie, reflecting the modern world. Then there is, of course, the tech. The modern robot is a lot more versatile (although I didn't really like the initial design when it appears on the screen). Instead of having a beam of light that turns things to slag, it dissolves into microbugs that devour through man and man-made objects.
In the end, I'll give them points for reinventing the classic, however, I do wish that there was more new stuff instead of vaguely recycled content available.
A second similarity is the ineptitude of the American government in each movie. Both the 1951 and 2008 government react with force and it just makes things worse. Instead both movies hold up the world's scientists as the light of hope and reason amongst the thugs who run the government. One possible problem with this classification of people is that the scientists were the ones who actually created the nuclear and rocket power of concern in the first version...and science and tech is responsible for a lot of the emissions/pollution etc. threatening our world. So, perhaps scientists are not as pure as the world of this movie suggests.
Differences of interest - The role of women in the two movies. In the first, the main woman is a secretary to a scientist. In the 2008 our main women are a top scientist and the secretary of state or defense...I don't remember which. Obviously women are more liberated in the roles that they are allowed to have in modern society. We don't have to be secretaries or teachers or nurses. Also of interest is the makeup of the two families who figure in the storylines. In the 1950s we have a white mother with biological son. In the new version we have a white mother with a black step son. Family structure has become non-traditional (almost to an extreme in that the author has decided on both a step and interracial family) in the modern movie, reflecting the modern world. Then there is, of course, the tech. The modern robot is a lot more versatile (although I didn't really like the initial design when it appears on the screen). Instead of having a beam of light that turns things to slag, it dissolves into microbugs that devour through man and man-made objects.
In the end, I'll give them points for reinventing the classic, however, I do wish that there was more new stuff instead of vaguely recycled content available.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Friday, November 14, 2008
Plan 9.2
I looked the movie up on wikipedia to see if they had some info on why its the worst movie ever made. Now that I've read about all the mistakes - which I did notice some of - I'm starting to agree that maybe its the worst...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Outer_Space
My favorite oops which I noticed but didn't really grasp is that the resurrected old man is actually played by someone other than Bela Lugosi for most of the film and that's why he walks around with a Dracula cape raised over his arm and covering his face half the time!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Outer_Space
My favorite oops which I noticed but didn't really grasp is that the resurrected old man is actually played by someone other than Bela Lugosi for most of the film and that's why he walks around with a Dracula cape raised over his arm and covering his face half the time!
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Plan 9
So...last night I watched Plan Nine from Outer Space. It's a movie whose description on netflix includes the following: "one of the most popular cult classics of the 20th century, a two-time winner of the Golden Turkey Award for Worst Film and Worst Director of all time." So, I was really excited for something awesomely terrible...instead it was just random and rather boring. I'm not sure why this is a cult classic or why its considered one of the worst films ever. Sure its pretty bad in many many ways - script, acting, screen composition - but I'm actually surprised that people give it as much notice as it gets. To me its the kind of movie that would just fade away into obscurity, bad enough to be forgotten, but the bad wasn't really interesting enough to be remembered. But hey, that's just my thought on the matter. Maybe there are some special reasons why this one has been remembered.
I'm sitting here trying to think of the worst or most random scene in the movie and I'm not coming up with anything too vividly. I did spend most of the movie wondering why the supposed corpse of the old man's bride is so young compared to him...also, why were they buried in vampire clothes? And why do the corpses, who are not vampires, move around like vampires. (The answer to this one is probably because two of the corpses are played by Bela Lugosi and Vampira who usually did play vampires - but still, they aren't vampires in this one and shouldn't have moved like them.) So, yes, it really is bad, nothing works quite right. Ed Wood really was not meant to write or direct or produce.
I'm sitting here trying to think of the worst or most random scene in the movie and I'm not coming up with anything too vividly. I did spend most of the movie wondering why the supposed corpse of the old man's bride is so young compared to him...also, why were they buried in vampire clothes? And why do the corpses, who are not vampires, move around like vampires. (The answer to this one is probably because two of the corpses are played by Bela Lugosi and Vampira who usually did play vampires - but still, they aren't vampires in this one and shouldn't have moved like them.) So, yes, it really is bad, nothing works quite right. Ed Wood really was not meant to write or direct or produce.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
