Well, after much speculation, JK Rowling has released the title for book 6. Despite her making people work for it, its been dissipated on the internet fairly well. Its Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince.
Now we can begin the speculation on what it means. Rowling has released a few clues that we can play around with for a while. Obviously, Harry is not the prince and Rowling has already stated that the prince also is not Voldemort. Rowling has also mentioned that she thought about using this title before settling on Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets for book 2. She said that to do this, she would have had to include some information that she decided would fit better in book 6.
So now we can speculate if the prince is someone we already know or a new character. Given that Rowling almost used this for CoS, I lean towards it being someone we already know. So who are the half bloods we already know? Of all the people's ancestry we know, only two people match this description: Seamus Finnegan and Rubeus Hagrid. Everyone else is pureblood (Malfoy, Ron, Neville, etc.) or is Muggle born (Hermione, Dean Thomas, etc.). We could argue that its someone whose ancestry hasn't been revealed yet, but what would be the fun in that ;)
Seamus has been relegated pretty much to a background character as of now. His only real stint has been his extended argument that lasted through most of Order of the Phoenix. So, I'm dismissing him for the moment. Someone who did have a reasonable role in CoS was Hagrid though. Many people (including myself) thought that Hagrid was going to be the famous death in OotP. But Rowling continues to keep him around despite his real lack of purpose. He was important in the first book, but he's pretty much been relegated to a means of expressing the trio's thoughts about each crisis. So at the moment, I suggest Hagrid as our prince, until better information is available.
I'm sure someone will have a proper breakdown of CoS and what we might be missing to construe the title to any such characters as needed. In the meantime, we'll all just have to wait.
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Friday, June 25, 2004
Presidential Curse
I tried to publish this entry once before but blogger seems to have eaten it. I guess that's why one should save their stuff before doing a full publish. Well, live and learn.
Earlier today we were discussing presidential politics and we got sidetracked by the presidential curse story. I'm sure you've all heard it before. During the Indian Wars of the 1820's and 30's, the Native American warrior Tecumseh proclaimed a curse, saying that every American president who was elected in a year ending in 0 would die in office. His curse has had a remarkable degree of accuracy:
1840 - William Henry Harrison - died 30 days after taking office.
1860 - Abraham Lincoln - assassinated during his second term.
1880 - James Garfield - shot but in fact died from complications due to his treatment, see more below.
1900 - William McKinley - assassinated by a radical anarchist.
1920 - Warren G Harding - died of a heart attack in 1923.
1940 - Franklin Roosevelt - died of a cerebral hemorrhage early in his 4th term, although he became eligible for the curse by his 3rd term.
1960 - John F Kennedy - assassinated in Dallas.
1980 - Ronald Reagan - shot early in his first term but survived mostly due to modern medicine and a little luck. Reagan almost died although this fact was not released to the public until much later.
Another interesting thing about the curse is the 100 year parallels:
1840, 1940 - Both presidents die due to illness shortly after beginning their term. FDR waited for the next 4 year term though.
1860, 1960 - Both presidents are assassinated while enjoying high popularity after steering the country though a significant crisis.
1880, 1980 - Both presidents are shot but do not die from their wounds. Reagan survived completely. Garfield died, but not from the bullet. The bullet passed through his body and lodged in a cyst near his spine. It is widely believed that he would have survived the incident had it not been for his "treatment." Many of the doctors probed the entry wound with unsterilized fingers and instruments, even managing to puncture Garfield's liver during an examination. Garfield eventually died of a heart attack brought on by infection 80 days after being shot.
Given these parallels, George W Bush might want to be a little bit careful. Granted, John Kerry could defeat him in 2004 and render the curse moot, but if he doesn't, Bush is still a prime target. Already there are some unsettling similarities between Bush and McKinley. McKinley was elected president as a two term governor of one of the largest and most powerful states in the Union. He also came to power in the waning days of a significant economic downturn. After being elected, McKinley cozied up to major industrialist and was even derided as being a "little boy" who was led around by his "nurse", a representative of the corporate trust. Later, he went to war in a perceived attack on American soldiers when the USS Maine exploded off Cuba. His subsequent annexation of Cuba, Guam, and the Philippines earned him the name of imperialist by his reelection opponent (William Jennings Bryan). McKinley was reelected, but shortly into his second term, he was assassinated by a member of a radical movement, working to topple Western style governments.
George W Bush has said that he tries to model himself in the manner of Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. If he were told that he was more closely following the path of William McKinley, I wonder how interested he would be in seeking reelection.
Earlier today we were discussing presidential politics and we got sidetracked by the presidential curse story. I'm sure you've all heard it before. During the Indian Wars of the 1820's and 30's, the Native American warrior Tecumseh proclaimed a curse, saying that every American president who was elected in a year ending in 0 would die in office. His curse has had a remarkable degree of accuracy:
1840 - William Henry Harrison - died 30 days after taking office.
1860 - Abraham Lincoln - assassinated during his second term.
1880 - James Garfield - shot but in fact died from complications due to his treatment, see more below.
1900 - William McKinley - assassinated by a radical anarchist.
1920 - Warren G Harding - died of a heart attack in 1923.
1940 - Franklin Roosevelt - died of a cerebral hemorrhage early in his 4th term, although he became eligible for the curse by his 3rd term.
1960 - John F Kennedy - assassinated in Dallas.
1980 - Ronald Reagan - shot early in his first term but survived mostly due to modern medicine and a little luck. Reagan almost died although this fact was not released to the public until much later.
Another interesting thing about the curse is the 100 year parallels:
1840, 1940 - Both presidents die due to illness shortly after beginning their term. FDR waited for the next 4 year term though.
1860, 1960 - Both presidents are assassinated while enjoying high popularity after steering the country though a significant crisis.
1880, 1980 - Both presidents are shot but do not die from their wounds. Reagan survived completely. Garfield died, but not from the bullet. The bullet passed through his body and lodged in a cyst near his spine. It is widely believed that he would have survived the incident had it not been for his "treatment." Many of the doctors probed the entry wound with unsterilized fingers and instruments, even managing to puncture Garfield's liver during an examination. Garfield eventually died of a heart attack brought on by infection 80 days after being shot.
Given these parallels, George W Bush might want to be a little bit careful. Granted, John Kerry could defeat him in 2004 and render the curse moot, but if he doesn't, Bush is still a prime target. Already there are some unsettling similarities between Bush and McKinley. McKinley was elected president as a two term governor of one of the largest and most powerful states in the Union. He also came to power in the waning days of a significant economic downturn. After being elected, McKinley cozied up to major industrialist and was even derided as being a "little boy" who was led around by his "nurse", a representative of the corporate trust. Later, he went to war in a perceived attack on American soldiers when the USS Maine exploded off Cuba. His subsequent annexation of Cuba, Guam, and the Philippines earned him the name of imperialist by his reelection opponent (William Jennings Bryan). McKinley was reelected, but shortly into his second term, he was assassinated by a member of a radical movement, working to topple Western style governments.
George W Bush has said that he tries to model himself in the manner of Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. If he were told that he was more closely following the path of William McKinley, I wonder how interested he would be in seeking reelection.
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Political Overview
Since sports is in a bit of a lull right now, I'll just do a general political sweep around.
On Friday, Mr. Moore is releasing his new movie Fahrenheit 9/11, a title in tribute to Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. Bradbury was so impressed that he is threatening a lawsuit against Moore if he doesn't change the title for copyright violation. Not the best start. Reviews have been mixed. Most reviewers seem to say that if you leave the politics out, its very entertaining. Others, like Christopher Hitchens have a slight problem with it. Either way, liberals will rate is as the greatest thing since sliced bread, conservatives will call it the greatest move towards treason since Benedict Arnold, and people in the middle will bury their heads in the sand and scream "Why me?"
In other news, Bill Clinton is attempted to whitewash history and claiming that Ken Starr is the spawn of the devil. That may be true, but I don't think Mr. Clinton is the most objective observer of that fact. Clinton has done well in sales, although Mugglenet is quick to point out that he failed to come close to the opening day sales figures of Order of the Phoenix.
Also, the Saudis are trying to figure out how they can destroy all terrorists, keep their iron grip on wealth and power, and still preach a lifestyle of rebellion and mollification. Fareed Zakaria has good article on this that was published in Newsweek.
Last but not least, the great deciders of change have come to the conclusion that the election will be won by George W. Bush or John F. Kerry. USA Today put together a fascinating article that says that we really just don't know what's going on. So, all you people who don't care until September, keep doing what you're doing. The rest of us will be moving on to tea leaves and dreams very soon.
Paging Sybil Trelawney...
On Friday, Mr. Moore is releasing his new movie Fahrenheit 9/11, a title in tribute to Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. Bradbury was so impressed that he is threatening a lawsuit against Moore if he doesn't change the title for copyright violation. Not the best start. Reviews have been mixed. Most reviewers seem to say that if you leave the politics out, its very entertaining. Others, like Christopher Hitchens have a slight problem with it. Either way, liberals will rate is as the greatest thing since sliced bread, conservatives will call it the greatest move towards treason since Benedict Arnold, and people in the middle will bury their heads in the sand and scream "Why me?"
In other news, Bill Clinton is attempted to whitewash history and claiming that Ken Starr is the spawn of the devil. That may be true, but I don't think Mr. Clinton is the most objective observer of that fact. Clinton has done well in sales, although Mugglenet is quick to point out that he failed to come close to the opening day sales figures of Order of the Phoenix.
Also, the Saudis are trying to figure out how they can destroy all terrorists, keep their iron grip on wealth and power, and still preach a lifestyle of rebellion and mollification. Fareed Zakaria has good article on this that was published in Newsweek.
Last but not least, the great deciders of change have come to the conclusion that the election will be won by George W. Bush or John F. Kerry. USA Today put together a fascinating article that says that we really just don't know what's going on. So, all you people who don't care until September, keep doing what you're doing. The rest of us will be moving on to tea leaves and dreams very soon.
Paging Sybil Trelawney...
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
When did it Begin?
Most Americans feel that our war with Islamic fundamentalists began after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. However, I recently received an e-mail that listed various attacks committed against the US or its personnel starting back as far as 1979. Given the list and the manner in which we have dealt with them, is this simply a case of being something we can't pretend will go away any more?
November 1979 - Iranian revolutionaries break into US embassy, a violation of US territory, and seize hostages. They are eventually released as the clock hit midnight in the Carter administration.
April 1983 - A car packed with explosives detonates outside the US embassy in Beirut, Lebanon killing 63 people.
October 1983 - A truck loaded with TNT crashes into a marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 servicemen.
December 1983 - A car packed with explosives rams the gate of the US embassy in Kuwait.
September 1984 - A van filled with explosives drives into the gate of the US embassy in Beirut.
April 1985 - A bomb explodes inside a restaurant frequented by US servicemen in Madrid.
August 1985 - A car packed with explosives rams the main gate of the US Air Force Base in Rhein-Main, Germany killing 22 people.
November 1985 - The cruise ship Achille Lauro is hijacked and an American is singled out and executed.
April 1986 - TWA Flight 840 is bombed killing 4 people.
December 1988 - Pan Am Flight 103 is bombed over Scotland killing 270 people.
January 1993 - Two CIA agents are killed entering CIA headquarters in Langley, VA.
February 1993 - A van explodes in the parking garage of the World Trade Center killing 6 people and injuring over 1,000.
November 1995 - A car bomb explodes at a military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing 7 service men and women.
June 1996 - A truck bomb explodes outside a US Air Force barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia killing 19 people and injuring over 500 others.
August 1998 - Two bombs explode outside US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killing 224 people.
October 2000 - The USS Cole is bombed while in port in Aden, Yemen killing 17 sailors.
September 2001 - 4 planes are hijacked and crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Given this history, it seems to me that despite our best efforts to pretend that the situation will go away, it will not. However, I don't totally believe that the situation can be fully resolved militarily. War is upon us and will be needed to stamp out the engaged enemy. But we must also look to social and economic change to cut off the recruiting process. Unfortunately, much of this is out of our control, but maybe we can help push other countries in the right direction before things get much worse.
November 1979 - Iranian revolutionaries break into US embassy, a violation of US territory, and seize hostages. They are eventually released as the clock hit midnight in the Carter administration.
April 1983 - A car packed with explosives detonates outside the US embassy in Beirut, Lebanon killing 63 people.
October 1983 - A truck loaded with TNT crashes into a marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 servicemen.
December 1983 - A car packed with explosives rams the gate of the US embassy in Kuwait.
September 1984 - A van filled with explosives drives into the gate of the US embassy in Beirut.
April 1985 - A bomb explodes inside a restaurant frequented by US servicemen in Madrid.
August 1985 - A car packed with explosives rams the main gate of the US Air Force Base in Rhein-Main, Germany killing 22 people.
November 1985 - The cruise ship Achille Lauro is hijacked and an American is singled out and executed.
April 1986 - TWA Flight 840 is bombed killing 4 people.
December 1988 - Pan Am Flight 103 is bombed over Scotland killing 270 people.
January 1993 - Two CIA agents are killed entering CIA headquarters in Langley, VA.
February 1993 - A van explodes in the parking garage of the World Trade Center killing 6 people and injuring over 1,000.
November 1995 - A car bomb explodes at a military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing 7 service men and women.
June 1996 - A truck bomb explodes outside a US Air Force barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia killing 19 people and injuring over 500 others.
August 1998 - Two bombs explode outside US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killing 224 people.
October 2000 - The USS Cole is bombed while in port in Aden, Yemen killing 17 sailors.
September 2001 - 4 planes are hijacked and crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Given this history, it seems to me that despite our best efforts to pretend that the situation will go away, it will not. However, I don't totally believe that the situation can be fully resolved militarily. War is upon us and will be needed to stamp out the engaged enemy. But we must also look to social and economic change to cut off the recruiting process. Unfortunately, much of this is out of our control, but maybe we can help push other countries in the right direction before things get much worse.
Monday, June 21, 2004
HP III Review
So, Mrs. X and I went to see the third Harry Potter movie on Saturday. We were both very excited having heard lots of good things about it and having enjoyed the first two quite well. Our final opinion? Some good, some not so good.
The Good
I personally really enjoyed the darker tone of the movie and its edgier quality. Right from the beginning it kind of grabbed you and said that we were going for a left turn down this road. I also think that the acting quality of the three heroes has improved greatly over the years. Dan Radcliff still needs a little education on truly grabbing a scene and chewing it for his angst moments, but for the most part, I was quite impressed. I also liked the brief looks at their lives outside of classes and adventures. It really gave you the impression that he was where he belonged.
The Bad
Alfonzo Cuaron and Steve Kloves are a good director and writer team, but they did a bit of injustice to the movie in trying to trim it down. Two or three plot points were glossed over and a couple of things were never even addressed. Many of those things would have added barely 10 minutes to the movie and would have solved a lot of little problems that Mrs. X and I had. A perfect example is an explanation of how Sirius knew that Pettigrew was at Hogwarts. In the book we know its because he saw the picture of him in the photo the Weasley family in Egypt. So he knew he was passing himself off as an ordinary pet rat. In the movie, Sirius just knows and the point is never explained. Another point that was omitted and was quite noticeable was the explanation of how Lupin knew about the map and who Moony, Padfoot, Prongs, and Wormtail were. It could have been done quite easily at the end during that little session Harry had with Lupin. Five minutes or less of explanation. It also would have cleared up the Stag point. Instead, Cuaron deferred it to GoF which is going to be crowded enough without having to cover missed points from PoA.
The Ugly
The simple and most overwhelming flaw with this movie is that the director and scriptwriter are operating from the perspective that the audience already knows the whole story and from that, they can cut corners. As a result, anyone who doesn't know the story will be quite lost on several major points unless its explained to them. That is not a good movie making technique. I had similar reservations when The Phantom Menace came out back in 1999. There was never that explanation scene as in Episode 4 of what the force is, what a jedi knight is, and how the force is used. Lucas simply assumed that everyone knew the points from watching the first trilogy and didn't have to hit them again, despite the fact that from now on, a person will have to watch Episode 4 first and then go back to the beginning to clear up things. Not exactly what George had in mind I think.
Summary
Despite my strong language, I did enjoy the movie. I just felt that if a little extra care had been taken, it would easily rank as the best of the three. Now, I can't really bring myself to say that. Its still good and I imagine Mrs. X and I will buy it on DVD when it comes out, but it does leave you with a slight feeling of what could have been.
Overall grade: B
The Good
I personally really enjoyed the darker tone of the movie and its edgier quality. Right from the beginning it kind of grabbed you and said that we were going for a left turn down this road. I also think that the acting quality of the three heroes has improved greatly over the years. Dan Radcliff still needs a little education on truly grabbing a scene and chewing it for his angst moments, but for the most part, I was quite impressed. I also liked the brief looks at their lives outside of classes and adventures. It really gave you the impression that he was where he belonged.
The Bad
Alfonzo Cuaron and Steve Kloves are a good director and writer team, but they did a bit of injustice to the movie in trying to trim it down. Two or three plot points were glossed over and a couple of things were never even addressed. Many of those things would have added barely 10 minutes to the movie and would have solved a lot of little problems that Mrs. X and I had. A perfect example is an explanation of how Sirius knew that Pettigrew was at Hogwarts. In the book we know its because he saw the picture of him in the photo the Weasley family in Egypt. So he knew he was passing himself off as an ordinary pet rat. In the movie, Sirius just knows and the point is never explained. Another point that was omitted and was quite noticeable was the explanation of how Lupin knew about the map and who Moony, Padfoot, Prongs, and Wormtail were. It could have been done quite easily at the end during that little session Harry had with Lupin. Five minutes or less of explanation. It also would have cleared up the Stag point. Instead, Cuaron deferred it to GoF which is going to be crowded enough without having to cover missed points from PoA.
The Ugly
The simple and most overwhelming flaw with this movie is that the director and scriptwriter are operating from the perspective that the audience already knows the whole story and from that, they can cut corners. As a result, anyone who doesn't know the story will be quite lost on several major points unless its explained to them. That is not a good movie making technique. I had similar reservations when The Phantom Menace came out back in 1999. There was never that explanation scene as in Episode 4 of what the force is, what a jedi knight is, and how the force is used. Lucas simply assumed that everyone knew the points from watching the first trilogy and didn't have to hit them again, despite the fact that from now on, a person will have to watch Episode 4 first and then go back to the beginning to clear up things. Not exactly what George had in mind I think.
Summary
Despite my strong language, I did enjoy the movie. I just felt that if a little extra care had been taken, it would easily rank as the best of the three. Now, I can't really bring myself to say that. Its still good and I imagine Mrs. X and I will buy it on DVD when it comes out, but it does leave you with a slight feeling of what could have been.
Overall grade: B
Friday, June 18, 2004
The Unchecked Branch
Well, according to the ads on my blog, I'm a supporter of John Kerry now. Very amusing when you consider my politics. Of course, Mrs. X thinks I'm conservative enough to be chairman of the RNC, but I don't take it personally ;)
Much talk has been discussed (mostly in non-media circles) about the nature and problems with the press. In the past couple of years we've had the Jayson Blair scandal, the USAToday people firings, a couple of other incidents involving the NY Times, and of course, Robert Novak (guy who published CIA identities). I was reading Glenn Reynolds yesterday and he posted a story about how a couple of reporters were refusing to testify about some information they published in a story. The prosecutor wanted them to verify that the lawyer who was on trial had in fact told them the facts they used in their articles. They have refused so far as testifying would "compromise their neutrality" on the issue.
I'm not a lawyer, but I can't recall of any instance where a person was excused from testifying because it would force them to take sides. I believe that excuse is often thrown out the window when mob pigeons talk.
The press has long abandoned its true duty of informing the public. A proper press corp would state all the facts of a particular issue and leave it to the public to make up their mind about what to do about it. But in the age of news bites and 24 hour news coverage, its only some of the facts and we'll go ahead and summarize and tell you what you are supposed to think. Some of us are intelligent enough to filter out what they are saying and get the nuggets out of it. But too many people simply take the news at face value without looking at multiple sources and checking. I myself look at three different news sources when I read articles on-line. Each on presents a different perspective and it allows me to sift out what the truth is.
The press likes to call itself the "4th branch of government." However, they enjoy one aspect that the other three don't. They don't have a check and balance system on themselves. It takes great folly to knock down any reporter who has made up or embellished stories. And even then, news outlets are usually quite slow about correcting the issue and then they protect their own. Jayson Blair was dismissed as a NY Times reporter for making up stories. He then claimed it was racism that forced him out and he was quietly picked up by another outlet as a commentator and signed to a book deal. Robert Novak published the name of an active CIA agent, compromising any work that agent has done in the field. This is a felony, but Novak is still hiding behind protecting his source and no one is pursuing him out of fear of media reprisals.
I don't believe in policing the media by filtering out what they say, but we in the public should demand a much higher standard for the information we receive. If we do that, maybe we'll actually get news worth paying attention to now and again.
Much talk has been discussed (mostly in non-media circles) about the nature and problems with the press. In the past couple of years we've had the Jayson Blair scandal, the USAToday people firings, a couple of other incidents involving the NY Times, and of course, Robert Novak (guy who published CIA identities). I was reading Glenn Reynolds yesterday and he posted a story about how a couple of reporters were refusing to testify about some information they published in a story. The prosecutor wanted them to verify that the lawyer who was on trial had in fact told them the facts they used in their articles. They have refused so far as testifying would "compromise their neutrality" on the issue.
I'm not a lawyer, but I can't recall of any instance where a person was excused from testifying because it would force them to take sides. I believe that excuse is often thrown out the window when mob pigeons talk.
The press has long abandoned its true duty of informing the public. A proper press corp would state all the facts of a particular issue and leave it to the public to make up their mind about what to do about it. But in the age of news bites and 24 hour news coverage, its only some of the facts and we'll go ahead and summarize and tell you what you are supposed to think. Some of us are intelligent enough to filter out what they are saying and get the nuggets out of it. But too many people simply take the news at face value without looking at multiple sources and checking. I myself look at three different news sources when I read articles on-line. Each on presents a different perspective and it allows me to sift out what the truth is.
The press likes to call itself the "4th branch of government." However, they enjoy one aspect that the other three don't. They don't have a check and balance system on themselves. It takes great folly to knock down any reporter who has made up or embellished stories. And even then, news outlets are usually quite slow about correcting the issue and then they protect their own. Jayson Blair was dismissed as a NY Times reporter for making up stories. He then claimed it was racism that forced him out and he was quietly picked up by another outlet as a commentator and signed to a book deal. Robert Novak published the name of an active CIA agent, compromising any work that agent has done in the field. This is a felony, but Novak is still hiding behind protecting his source and no one is pursuing him out of fear of media reprisals.
I don't believe in policing the media by filtering out what they say, but we in the public should demand a much higher standard for the information we receive. If we do that, maybe we'll actually get news worth paying attention to now and again.
Thursday, June 17, 2004
Badge of Shame
Mr. Clinton was recently interviewed about things relating to his new book. Among the things he discussed was his impeachment and the following trial. He is quoted as saying that he considers his fight against the impeachment trial as "a badge of honor." He goes on, "I don't see it as a stain, because it (the impeachment process) was illegitimate." He added that the process was an abuse of power.
Illegitimate? Now, I may agree that the Republicans were a bit zealous with their pursuit, but Mr. Clinton did commit an impeachable offense (perjury) and under the constitution, Congress has the right to draft articles when the President commits such acts. One might argue that the first impeached president, Andrew Johnson, also did not really deserve his impeachment and it was a case of an over zealous Republican Congress getting after a Democratic president. But history doesn't make that argument. They note that Andrew Johnson was impeached for abuse of power. He was not convicted though and neither was Mr. Clinton.
It may have been mostly partisan politics, but Mr. Clinton should not whine about how he was the victim in the whole affair. He is the one who first committed the affair and then elected to commit perjury during the Jones deposition. If you want to avoid situations like this, jut don't do it in the first place. As a society, we rely too much on doing things we shouldn't do and then make up excuses and avoidances after we are caught. The upcoming months regarding the Kobe Bryant trial are going to be perfect examples.
You're like the thief who has no remorse about doing the deed, but a great deal of remorse about being caught. -Rhett Butler
Illegitimate? Now, I may agree that the Republicans were a bit zealous with their pursuit, but Mr. Clinton did commit an impeachable offense (perjury) and under the constitution, Congress has the right to draft articles when the President commits such acts. One might argue that the first impeached president, Andrew Johnson, also did not really deserve his impeachment and it was a case of an over zealous Republican Congress getting after a Democratic president. But history doesn't make that argument. They note that Andrew Johnson was impeached for abuse of power. He was not convicted though and neither was Mr. Clinton.
It may have been mostly partisan politics, but Mr. Clinton should not whine about how he was the victim in the whole affair. He is the one who first committed the affair and then elected to commit perjury during the Jones deposition. If you want to avoid situations like this, jut don't do it in the first place. As a society, we rely too much on doing things we shouldn't do and then make up excuses and avoidances after we are caught. The upcoming months regarding the Kobe Bryant trial are going to be perfect examples.
You're like the thief who has no remorse about doing the deed, but a great deal of remorse about being caught. -Rhett Butler
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Mono... D'OH!!!
I've been waiting for you Phil Jackson. When I left you, I was but a learner, now I am the master.
I know, Larry Brown isn't Darth Vader, but it was funny in my head when I thought it up a few minutes ago. If anything, Phil Jackson should be Vader since he is head of the evil empire Lakers. But the quote is funnier this way. Hats off to the Pistons. We'll get about two days worth of praise and then its back to the breaking of the Laker fellowship. Good riddance.
On the lighter side, I now have Simpsons: Season 4 on DVD. I haven't watched quite all of them yet, and I haven't even touched the commentaries yet, but I imagine that will change soon. I'm even going to save up a little bit and not watch "I Love Lisa" until Mrs. X and I are together for the weekend and she can enjoy it with me. She is a great fan of that episode. In the meantime, I'll just annoy everyone with quotes from season 4.
If you're going to get mad at me every time I do something stupid, then I'll just have to stop doing stupid things.
I know, Larry Brown isn't Darth Vader, but it was funny in my head when I thought it up a few minutes ago. If anything, Phil Jackson should be Vader since he is head of the evil empire Lakers. But the quote is funnier this way. Hats off to the Pistons. We'll get about two days worth of praise and then its back to the breaking of the Laker fellowship. Good riddance.
On the lighter side, I now have Simpsons: Season 4 on DVD. I haven't watched quite all of them yet, and I haven't even touched the commentaries yet, but I imagine that will change soon. I'm even going to save up a little bit and not watch "I Love Lisa" until Mrs. X and I are together for the weekend and she can enjoy it with me. She is a great fan of that episode. In the meantime, I'll just annoy everyone with quotes from season 4.
If you're going to get mad at me every time I do something stupid, then I'll just have to stop doing stupid things.
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Basketball Musings
Much ballyhoo and ink has been wasted in the last two days as we await the possible coronation of the Detroit Pistons as kings of basketball. Some of this is understandable. No Eastern team has won the NBA championship since the last year of the Jordan Bulls in 1998. In fact, over the course of the last 6 years, the West has fielded the top 4 or 5 teams in basketball. It was freely acknowledged a few years ago that the Western Conference Finals between the Lakers and the Sacramento Kings was the real NBA finals.
Such is not the case now. The quality of play in the West has slipped and at least two teams in the East seem to be returning to the ideas which made basketball fun to watch back in the 80's and early 90's. Back when it was all about the team and not the individual. Both Detroit and Indiana built teams designed to work together. Detroit beat an Indiana team that is still maturing (with the exception of Reggie Miller) and are now functioning smoothly against an overhyped Laker team.
Many people in the media and on the street like to think that the Lakers are just imploding from the personalities and egos. I won't say that's not true, but I think we give too little credit to the Pistons. They are not the exciting Bad Boys of the late 80's, but they are efficient and its quite nice to not have any chest thumping until the goal has been achieved.
Goodness knows what's going to happen in the off season, but it'll be interesting to see if there is any break-up of the "greatest team ever built" or if they give it one more try next year.
On a side note, I think we can expect that the US will not win the gold medal in basketball, losing to either one of the Balkans, Spain, or perhaps Brazil. Then we can at least drop this stupid Dream Team logo to every basketball team. I'm sorry. There was only one dream team: the '92 Barcelona team. Everything after that has been but a pale shadow, gold medal or not.
Such is not the case now. The quality of play in the West has slipped and at least two teams in the East seem to be returning to the ideas which made basketball fun to watch back in the 80's and early 90's. Back when it was all about the team and not the individual. Both Detroit and Indiana built teams designed to work together. Detroit beat an Indiana team that is still maturing (with the exception of Reggie Miller) and are now functioning smoothly against an overhyped Laker team.
Many people in the media and on the street like to think that the Lakers are just imploding from the personalities and egos. I won't say that's not true, but I think we give too little credit to the Pistons. They are not the exciting Bad Boys of the late 80's, but they are efficient and its quite nice to not have any chest thumping until the goal has been achieved.
Goodness knows what's going to happen in the off season, but it'll be interesting to see if there is any break-up of the "greatest team ever built" or if they give it one more try next year.
On a side note, I think we can expect that the US will not win the gold medal in basketball, losing to either one of the Balkans, Spain, or perhaps Brazil. Then we can at least drop this stupid Dream Team logo to every basketball team. I'm sorry. There was only one dream team: the '92 Barcelona team. Everything after that has been but a pale shadow, gold medal or not.
Monday, June 14, 2004
Splitting the Electorate
There has been a lot of discussion lately about the flaws in the electoral college system. Most Democrats will denounce the system, reminding you that Gore won the popular vote by nearly 500,000 votes. However, Republicans support the system and will point out that Bush won more states (30 vs. 20) and the electoral college total. This particular debate is pretty stupid as there were alternate outcomes for either side and if the roles had been reversed you would have had the same argument with the names of the parties reversed.
The real problem is that because its an all or nothing system within each state, 33 states have been taken off the board. People in those states are told that their state is going for candidate X or Y and, subsequently, they decide not to go out and vote, especially if their candidate is the one not going to win that state. Meanwhile, those of us in the other 17 states get saturated with ads and become so disgusted with the process that we decide not to vote because we hate both guys.
Yet we can't go to a popular vote either because then the candidates would focus solely on large cities. You would get the same effect were the rural voters are told that their votes don't matter and the people in the cities become disgusted and don't vote.
So what's the solution? A fellow I work with had a fairly good idea. Keep the electoral college system, but modify it such that electors are awarded based on how each candidate does in the state.
Example: Candidates X, Y, and Z are vying for the election. The state of Florida has 25 electoral votes. On election night, Candidate X gets 51%, candidate Y gets 45%, and candidate Z gets 4% of the Florida vote. Under the old system, candidate X would get all 25 electoral votes. Under the new system, candidate X would get 13 electoral votes, candidate Y would get 11 electoral votes, and candidate Z would get 1 electoral vote.
Such a system would one, force the candidates to pay attention to all the races in all the states and two, would enable third parties to get enough recognition that they would go up in eyes of the public and get enough support to get federal matching funds.
There are however, two small problems with this new system. First, large population states would get more treatment, although they pretty much already do now so I can't say that we can necessarily fix that no matter what the system. Second, the two parties are so scared of third parties taking hold that they will never allow the constitutional amendment needed to make this system viable to come to a vote.
The answer? Petitions. Most people will sign any petition if it means changing how government officials get elected and party anger will be pretty high after this next election that the losing party might actually consider doing something to get themselves back in power again. Maybe it will work, maybe not. But we can at least try. After all, we're the ones who are supposed to be in control here.
The real problem is that because its an all or nothing system within each state, 33 states have been taken off the board. People in those states are told that their state is going for candidate X or Y and, subsequently, they decide not to go out and vote, especially if their candidate is the one not going to win that state. Meanwhile, those of us in the other 17 states get saturated with ads and become so disgusted with the process that we decide not to vote because we hate both guys.
Yet we can't go to a popular vote either because then the candidates would focus solely on large cities. You would get the same effect were the rural voters are told that their votes don't matter and the people in the cities become disgusted and don't vote.
So what's the solution? A fellow I work with had a fairly good idea. Keep the electoral college system, but modify it such that electors are awarded based on how each candidate does in the state.
Example: Candidates X, Y, and Z are vying for the election. The state of Florida has 25 electoral votes. On election night, Candidate X gets 51%, candidate Y gets 45%, and candidate Z gets 4% of the Florida vote. Under the old system, candidate X would get all 25 electoral votes. Under the new system, candidate X would get 13 electoral votes, candidate Y would get 11 electoral votes, and candidate Z would get 1 electoral vote.
Such a system would one, force the candidates to pay attention to all the races in all the states and two, would enable third parties to get enough recognition that they would go up in eyes of the public and get enough support to get federal matching funds.
There are however, two small problems with this new system. First, large population states would get more treatment, although they pretty much already do now so I can't say that we can necessarily fix that no matter what the system. Second, the two parties are so scared of third parties taking hold that they will never allow the constitutional amendment needed to make this system viable to come to a vote.
The answer? Petitions. Most people will sign any petition if it means changing how government officials get elected and party anger will be pretty high after this next election that the losing party might actually consider doing something to get themselves back in power again. Maybe it will work, maybe not. But we can at least try. After all, we're the ones who are supposed to be in control here.
Friday, June 11, 2004
Reagan Memorials
In the last week, many Republicans and Reagan Democrats have been suggesting all types of memorials in his honor. Now, I for one, believe that Reagan should be honored with memorials and shrines. But I do not think that things should be taken to excess.
First, no discussion of monuments or renaming of buildings should take place for at least 2 years. You have to be dead for at least 10 years to get put on a stamp, so I think its only fair that you wait a few years before doing things. Granted, Reagan has been almost dead to the American public since 1994, but I don't believe that means we should accelerate things strictly because of this issue (or because the Republicans are in power at the moment).
Second, I've heard some absolutely crazy ideas regarding memorials. No one else should be carved into Mt. Rushmore. Its done and the last thing we want is to diminish the great men up there now by turning it into a political football. If Reagan goes up, then we'll have to put FDR and maybe Kennedy. Then things will just bounce back and forth in a really nutty fashion.
I've also heard about renaming the Pentagon, adding him to the $10 bill, splitting him with FDR on the face of the dime. Now, renaming the Pentagon is just stupid. People will still call it the Pentagon and Reagan already has National Airport named after him. You don't need to rename every building after someone, just as you don't need to sell the naming rights of every ballpark (but that's another rant).
Regarding the money, I think it would be actually be a great slight to Reagan if we put him on the $10 bill. If Adam Smith was the founder of Capitalism, then Alexander Hamilton is pretty much the high priest of it. To replace him with one of his loyal followers would do an injustice to the system that Reagan fought so hard to protect. If there is any bill that needs a new face, its the $50. What did Grant do that warranted his face being on money. I think he should be pulled and replaced with someone like John Adams, but again, that's a rant for another time.
Now, as far as the dime goes, I don't have as big of a problem with that. I think removing FDR completely would not be appropriate, but that having half of the newly minted dimes be with FDR and the other with Reagan wouldn't be too bad. I think most historians would probably argue that FDR and Reagan were the two most influential presidents in the 20th century, so tying them together isn't a bad idea. We've also been offering many variations with the currency in regards to the 50 state quarter program and the redesigned Lewis and Clark nickel, so varying the dime into two variations wouldn't be impractical.
But, we shall wait and see what happens. I think cooler heads will prevail once the funeral is over. Then we can start thinking about more practical ways of honoring Ronald Reagan.
*UPDATE* This opinion piece from USA Today is a good example of my position.
First, no discussion of monuments or renaming of buildings should take place for at least 2 years. You have to be dead for at least 10 years to get put on a stamp, so I think its only fair that you wait a few years before doing things. Granted, Reagan has been almost dead to the American public since 1994, but I don't believe that means we should accelerate things strictly because of this issue (or because the Republicans are in power at the moment).
Second, I've heard some absolutely crazy ideas regarding memorials. No one else should be carved into Mt. Rushmore. Its done and the last thing we want is to diminish the great men up there now by turning it into a political football. If Reagan goes up, then we'll have to put FDR and maybe Kennedy. Then things will just bounce back and forth in a really nutty fashion.
I've also heard about renaming the Pentagon, adding him to the $10 bill, splitting him with FDR on the face of the dime. Now, renaming the Pentagon is just stupid. People will still call it the Pentagon and Reagan already has National Airport named after him. You don't need to rename every building after someone, just as you don't need to sell the naming rights of every ballpark (but that's another rant).
Regarding the money, I think it would be actually be a great slight to Reagan if we put him on the $10 bill. If Adam Smith was the founder of Capitalism, then Alexander Hamilton is pretty much the high priest of it. To replace him with one of his loyal followers would do an injustice to the system that Reagan fought so hard to protect. If there is any bill that needs a new face, its the $50. What did Grant do that warranted his face being on money. I think he should be pulled and replaced with someone like John Adams, but again, that's a rant for another time.
Now, as far as the dime goes, I don't have as big of a problem with that. I think removing FDR completely would not be appropriate, but that having half of the newly minted dimes be with FDR and the other with Reagan wouldn't be too bad. I think most historians would probably argue that FDR and Reagan were the two most influential presidents in the 20th century, so tying them together isn't a bad idea. We've also been offering many variations with the currency in regards to the 50 state quarter program and the redesigned Lewis and Clark nickel, so varying the dime into two variations wouldn't be impractical.
But, we shall wait and see what happens. I think cooler heads will prevail once the funeral is over. Then we can start thinking about more practical ways of honoring Ronald Reagan.
*UPDATE* This opinion piece from USA Today is a good example of my position.
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Weekend News Recap
Hats off to the Tampa Bay Lightning. After only existing for 12 years, they have broken the Southern Conference curse and taken home the Stanley Cup. I for one don't believe the conspiracy theorists who say that the NHL deliberately kept Calgary from winning in game 6, but I will say that there was a bad call made. Calgary had scored the go ahead goal and it should have been reviewed instead of being called off as it was. Despite that, Calgary can't blame anyone but themselves for poor use of personnel which lead to their demise in game 7. They were too tired to skate with Tampa for the full game and they lost as a result. But for now we will doff our hats to Tampa and hail them as kings of hockey, possibly for longer than normal.
Detroit won game 1 of the NBA finals and maybe they'll be able to run with the Lakers for the full 7 games. I'll believe it when I see it, and tonight's game will go a long way in telling me whether Detroit is an actual threat or just a speed bump.
Of course, dominating the news is the remembrance of the D-Day landing and the passing of Ronald Reagan. I myself have mixed feelings about Reagan's death. On the one hand, I'm sorry he's gone, if for no other than the selfish reason that he's the president I remember from my childhood and it makes me feel old. But on the other hand, I know what a horrible thing he was going through and, in truth, he is much better off now that he has passed on. We'll revisit this topic in August during the Republican National Convention.
Then there is D-Day. Unlike many people, I don't have the ties to WWII that most people have. Both my grandfathers were too young to enter the war (serving their military service time in the late 40's and early 50's). Now, Mrs. X does have ties as both her grandfather's fought in the war. But one was in the Pacific and the other came into the war too late to be involved in the D-Day landings. As such, it moves me a little less than some other people, but I still appreciate it. However, I do question our overwhelming use of D-Day as the WWII remembrance. To me it snubs the thousands of Americans who fought and died in the Pacific and all those other brave soldiers who fought in Europe and North Africa, but were not part of the landings. If we choose to make a large issue of celebrating one day to remember the men and women of WWII, I suggest that we pick a day when all may be remembered, not just those who made the landing at Normandy. To continue to do so, slights the rest and even those who made the landings would not want that.
Detroit won game 1 of the NBA finals and maybe they'll be able to run with the Lakers for the full 7 games. I'll believe it when I see it, and tonight's game will go a long way in telling me whether Detroit is an actual threat or just a speed bump.
Of course, dominating the news is the remembrance of the D-Day landing and the passing of Ronald Reagan. I myself have mixed feelings about Reagan's death. On the one hand, I'm sorry he's gone, if for no other than the selfish reason that he's the president I remember from my childhood and it makes me feel old. But on the other hand, I know what a horrible thing he was going through and, in truth, he is much better off now that he has passed on. We'll revisit this topic in August during the Republican National Convention.
Then there is D-Day. Unlike many people, I don't have the ties to WWII that most people have. Both my grandfathers were too young to enter the war (serving their military service time in the late 40's and early 50's). Now, Mrs. X does have ties as both her grandfather's fought in the war. But one was in the Pacific and the other came into the war too late to be involved in the D-Day landings. As such, it moves me a little less than some other people, but I still appreciate it. However, I do question our overwhelming use of D-Day as the WWII remembrance. To me it snubs the thousands of Americans who fought and died in the Pacific and all those other brave soldiers who fought in Europe and North Africa, but were not part of the landings. If we choose to make a large issue of celebrating one day to remember the men and women of WWII, I suggest that we pick a day when all may be remembered, not just those who made the landing at Normandy. To continue to do so, slights the rest and even those who made the landings would not want that.
Thursday, June 03, 2004
...its made from PEOPLE!
What a difference 50 years makes. In the late 1950's (prior to the sexual revolution) a book called Make Room, Make Room was published. It caught on enough that it was made into a movie, although the focus of the movie was very different. The movie was called Soylent Green and stared Charlton Heston. The primary point to the book and movie was that the population had continued to expand on a geometric scale, thanks to high birthrates and advanced medicine, and food production had increased arithmetically. For those of you who didn't see these graphs while you were back in grade school, the food supply increases due to greater workforce like this: 2+2+2+2+2+2... etc. But population increases like this 1+2+4+16+32... etc. During the 50's and up through the late 70's, this was seen a terrible crisis coming for us. That the world would eventually starve because there just wasn't enough food and that would create social wars, battling over arable land.
Now, several countries are openly worried about depopulation. In order to keep a population stable, a country needs to keep a birthrate of about 2.08 children per household. Anything over that, you get population increase. Under it, you get population decrease and that could have nasty implications. Japan is expected to hit its peak population in 2006 and then suffer a sharp decline in population. Germany also has a birthrate below 2 and could start declining in population within the next 10 years. They're decline has been only staved off due to the large influx of people from former East Germany. Birthrates in the US are holding around 2.3 (I think), but even that is a drop from where we were only twenty years ago.
Industrialized countries don't need large families and the populations of these countries are so consumed with wealth and enjoyment of that wealth, that any more that 2 children is seen as an unnecessary drain. Non-industrialized countries still rely heavily on agriculture so more children are needed. You also don't have as good as medical technology so the child mortality rate is higher.
The problem for industrialized countries is that the generation that grew up in the 50's and 60's is getting older and forming a larger portion of the population. They are not being replaced by younger workers. So, the cost to individual workers to care for older members of the population is going up. Here in the US, we're all in a scramble because when the baby boomers retire, the fraction of employed to retired will be 2:1. Not exactly the set up FDR envisioned when he set up the social security system, which had a ratio of nearly 19:1. Now, for the US, which is facing bankruptcy in 20 years because of this quandary, our population is still increasing. Imagine having this problem and knowing that your population is going to start declining where you might actually be facing a 1:1 ratio of employed to retired. Instead of food starvation, the world now faces economic starvation by caring for its elderly. Who knows, maybe some of the ideas in those science fiction novels may be tried out before too long anyway, and that may be a very scary idea for some of the older generation.
Now, several countries are openly worried about depopulation. In order to keep a population stable, a country needs to keep a birthrate of about 2.08 children per household. Anything over that, you get population increase. Under it, you get population decrease and that could have nasty implications. Japan is expected to hit its peak population in 2006 and then suffer a sharp decline in population. Germany also has a birthrate below 2 and could start declining in population within the next 10 years. They're decline has been only staved off due to the large influx of people from former East Germany. Birthrates in the US are holding around 2.3 (I think), but even that is a drop from where we were only twenty years ago.
Industrialized countries don't need large families and the populations of these countries are so consumed with wealth and enjoyment of that wealth, that any more that 2 children is seen as an unnecessary drain. Non-industrialized countries still rely heavily on agriculture so more children are needed. You also don't have as good as medical technology so the child mortality rate is higher.
The problem for industrialized countries is that the generation that grew up in the 50's and 60's is getting older and forming a larger portion of the population. They are not being replaced by younger workers. So, the cost to individual workers to care for older members of the population is going up. Here in the US, we're all in a scramble because when the baby boomers retire, the fraction of employed to retired will be 2:1. Not exactly the set up FDR envisioned when he set up the social security system, which had a ratio of nearly 19:1. Now, for the US, which is facing bankruptcy in 20 years because of this quandary, our population is still increasing. Imagine having this problem and knowing that your population is going to start declining where you might actually be facing a 1:1 ratio of employed to retired. Instead of food starvation, the world now faces economic starvation by caring for its elderly. Who knows, maybe some of the ideas in those science fiction novels may be tried out before too long anyway, and that may be a very scary idea for some of the older generation.
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Quick Update
Mrs. X and I had a good Memorial Day weekend that involved a lot of eating (especially cake) and a fair amount of West Wing. Of course, these were all episodes back in the good era of the show (Season 1 - Season 3).
Anyway, I don't have much time so I'll save the rest of the posting for later. As I expected, the Lakers beat the T'Wolves and will be going on to beat up either Indiana or Detroit. Maybe Detroit can play enough defense to put together a win over the West but I'm not that hopeful.
On a brighter note, the Stanley Cup finals are tied 2-2 with a nasty series brewing between Calgary and Tampa Bay. I've only been able to watch parts of game 2 and 4 but it looks like there's some nasty blood brewing between these two. Over 92 penalty minutes assessed in game 2. That's a nasty game. It should get interesting in game 5.
Shockingly, the Reds are still 2.5 games up on Houston going into June. I don't know how long their luck will hold out, but I'm going to enjoy it for as long as I can.
Anyway, I don't have much time so I'll save the rest of the posting for later. As I expected, the Lakers beat the T'Wolves and will be going on to beat up either Indiana or Detroit. Maybe Detroit can play enough defense to put together a win over the West but I'm not that hopeful.
On a brighter note, the Stanley Cup finals are tied 2-2 with a nasty series brewing between Calgary and Tampa Bay. I've only been able to watch parts of game 2 and 4 but it looks like there's some nasty blood brewing between these two. Over 92 penalty minutes assessed in game 2. That's a nasty game. It should get interesting in game 5.
Shockingly, the Reds are still 2.5 games up on Houston going into June. I don't know how long their luck will hold out, but I'm going to enjoy it for as long as I can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
