Movie Review: Amazing Grace ****

This movie moves me greatly. It is one of the best movies I have ever seen.

For those who don't know, this movie is the story of William Wilberforce the father of slavery abolition in the British Empire. It follows him through years of struggle against political corruption, and social opposition. He fought against decades, if not centuries of entrenched political and social norms. But he brought the dirty shame of slavery to the forefront, and left people with this thought,

"Having heard all of this, you may choose to look the other way...but you can never say again that you did not know."

The lead character is played by Ioan Gruffudd, some of you may know him as Horatio Hornblower. He is surrounded by a wonderful cast, including Albert Finney, Michael Gambon, Rufus Sewell, Ciaran Hinds, and a new actor for me, Benedict Cumberpatch (tell me you've ever heard a more british name).

This movie still brings tears to my eyes, it is powerful in its message as well as its presentation. I strongly encourage everyone to see it.

He was in part inspired by the man who wrote the lyrics to the hymn Amazing Grace (obviously the title comes from this). This is a hymn that I have never been particularly fond of. I think that it has been overdone, and has become rather trite. However, much like many things in this cynical world, when one takes the time to look more closely, it is powerful and inspiring. I'll leave you with the second verse, as it is less well known, and the message is powerful.

T'was Grace that taught...my heart to fear.
And Grace, my fears relieved.
How precious did that Grace appear...
the hour I first believed.

A great man, and a fabulous movie. If you haven't seen it, you should.

Movie Review: Stardust.

The whole fam was raving about this one, so after wrangling a babysitter, Alisa and I went over to the dollar theater (now three dollar theater, dang inflation), to catch this one this last weekend. It was great.

Set in England/a bordering fantasy world, its the story of a boy born from the fantasy world and raised in England that goes back to the fantasy world to prove his love for a chick. Claire Daines was quite good in this, so where a whole host of others in bit/supporting roles. Robert DeNiro stole the show for several scenes, I found him hilarious. Great date movie, it was fun, well written, well-acted, and romantic. I want to see it again, and will probably buy it when it comes out on DVD.


Note: My wife correctly guessed that the old dude who guards the wall that is the border between fantasy and reality is one of the old dudes from Waking Ned Devine (another one we saw recently thanks to Netflix).

Life, liberty, and talking to your bff Jill. :)

So, I figure this will be an ongoing topic. I'll post on this topic when I hear something that bothers me. As a preface, I don't expect everyone to understand all the vaguaries of constitutional law, but, when people start asserting their rights, I think they should know whether or not its a real one.

Today's case in point. On the radio on the way in to work this morning, they were discussing the new idea of banning texting in school. This post is not a yeah or nay comment on that idea. They received texts from people expressing their opinions. They received one that stated, they can't ban texting, that goes against my freedom of speech.

Okay, I like the first ammendment. Its a nifty thing. But lets be honest here. Does anyone believe that the first ammendment protects your right to text messaging, in school? Anyone? You in the back, put your hand down, you still think income tax is unconstitutional.

I am all for people asserting and defending their rights. But, if you are going to publicly decry policies as 'unconstitutional', its probably best to at the very least, get familiar with the bill of rights. I'm not saying you need to understand the commerce clause, but at least the bill of rights. Thats it.

You don't have an inalienable right to texting. Thats all I'm saying.

Let me quote Joe Lieberman

I blogged a few weeks back about one of the problems in politics, the lack of civility. I was pointed to a speech given by Joe Lieberman that outlined incredibly well one of the other major, maybe the major problem in politics today, reactionary stances. I suggest that you all go read the article here. To give you a few snippets, that I found particularly good.

But there is something profoundly wrong—something that should trouble all of us—when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran’s murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops.

-and another-

Ironically, just as Democrats in the White House were growing more comfortable with the idea of an interventionist foreign policy, Republicans in Congress were moving in the opposite direction. In the absence of the Soviet Union, Republicans in the 1990s too often defined their own foreign policy vision as instinctive opposition to whatever President Clinton was doing in the world.

It is worth remembering, however, that some Republicans rose above this partisan reflex. Senator John McCain and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole courageously championed our intervention in the Balkans, without regard to domestic politics. But many others didn’t—and by the time of the 2000 presidential contest, it was the Democratic Party that was the more hawkish and internationalist, not the Republicans.

You should read the entire article.

If you ever plan on having kids, you should read.

So, last night as I sat talking with my Mom, a huge pet peeve of mine came up in the discussion. My brother had gotten a call from a former co-worker who was freaking out about an abnormal test that had come back on his pregnant wife. He called my brother because he knew that my brother and his wife had gone through the same thing a few years ago, with their second child. The test? The AFPTMS4. (alphafetoprotein tumor marker maternal screen). This is a test that is routinely run on pregnant women, and it "detects" the possibility of down's syndrome.

My suggestion to anyone, who ever becomes pregnant is this, do not have this test run, do not let your doctor run it without your knowledge, ask about it, then tell them no, you don't want it. Of course, everyone is free to make their own decision about this, but let me explain why I think this test is not only a waste of time and money, but very harmful to the parents. First, at least in the opinion of Alisa and I, the only real purpose of this test is if you would abort the baby if it was down's syndrome. Alisa tends to think that there also may be some people who just like to be able to plan ahead with all the info, but I think this test is the wrong way to go, even if you do like to be prepared for all eventualities.

Odds of a baby having down's are mostly related to the age of the mother go here for those numbers. The article linked above will also give you some (in my opinion) misleading info, that is part of my problem with the test. It says:

The screening test has been found to be 87% effective at detecting Downs syndrome in the first trimester. Combined with second trimester screening, results are about 95% accurate. It can be performed as early as 11 weeks after conception. However, it is important to remember that this is an assessment test, not a diagnostic test, and therefore can only suggest your child's risk of having Downs syndrome.

So, read that paragraph carefully, first it says it is 87% effective at detecting, then at the end it lets you know that it doesn't really detect the DS, only suggests the relative risk. An abnormal result on the test moves your chances from about 1-1500, to 1-800. Thats right. Thats what it does for you, but, you only get that much info if your doctor is half decently smart. My brothers friends doctor basically told them it was a done deal, they better prepare. What the crap is that? This test has multiple layers of how it can be screwed up. It is a calculation based on lots of things, last menstrual period, expected due date, etc. And, any of those numbers being wrong, or mistaken can screw with the result.

So, basically, if you get the abnormal, you spend a few weeks worried sick about your baby, before they can do the confirmatory ultrasound testing.

Alisa and I are lucky, the doctor (and nurse-practitioner) explained the test well, and are open about it, we choose not to have it done. Some peoples physicians explain the whole thing horribly, and may not even ask you if you want the test, they'll just do it anyway, like in my brothers case. False abnormals happen a lot, just since I've learned about the test I have found out about 3 false abnormals in my circle of family, and friends. Its a stupid test, that isn't diagnostic, merely predictive of possible risk.

My suggestion, don't even come close to having it done.

"Elevate your guns a little lower"

I have been thinking about how to approach this topic, it has been much in the news and, unfortunately for those of us who spend any amount of time in the car, much on the radio. The current voter referendum question about school vouchers has seemingly taken over any and all political talk in the state of Utah. Millions of dollars are being spent on both sides to convince people through 30 seconds of, at best, half-truths and misleading statements. No ones hands are clean, no one on either side will come away from this fight with their integrity fully intact.

Now, I'm not making this post about vouchers themselves, I frankly don't care that much. I don't see it as a big deal on either side, and believe it to mostly be about getting voters to think something is being done, but that is a different argument. No, this post is about political discourse itself. The title is a quote from Andrew Jackson as he led the defenders in the Battle of New Orleans, but it was used in a talk by Elder Robert S Wood in the April '06 general conference. For anyone who doesn't remember this talk, you can catch yourself up here.

The main theme of the talk can be summarized in his statement:

Have we who have taken upon us the name of Christ slipped unknowingly into patterns of slander, evil speaking, and bitter stereotyping? Have personal or partisan or business or religious differences been translated into a kind of demonizing of those of different views? Do we pause to understand the seemingly different positions of others and seek, where possible, common ground?

We hear on the news all the time how the "people of America" are sick of politicians fighting and slinging mud. Do you believe that? I don't. If it were true there would be some sort of consequence for such activities. If it were true that we as a people truly were incensed by the use of insulting rhetoric and blankent generalizations then we wouldn't use them ourselves.

Why do we assume the worst motives and intentions from those who disagree with us? Why is it that we feel that we can have our political opinions, and our religious opinions, and its okay if the way we conduct ourselves in those two lives is completely inconsistent? Why is it that we can become so quickly offended when someone else spells out what our opinions or stances are without asking us, but we are very quick to say, "He must believe _____ because he's a democrat, or he must be corrupt because he's a republican."

As members of the Church, do we assume that people who believe differnt religiously from us are evil or stupid or the avatar of all things dark and unholy? Usually not, we have a desire to share with them what we think is true, to try to show them truth so they can discover it and change. But, if we disagree with someone politically, how often do we try to have a calm, in depth, reasoned discussion of the differences, in an attempt to find truth?

Elder Wood goes on to say this:

On the other hand, we need to raise the level of private and public discourse. We should avoid caricaturing the positions of others, constructing “straw men,” if you will, and casting unwarranted aspersions on their motivations and character. We need, as the Lord counseled, to uphold honest, wise, and good men and women wherever they are found and to recognize that there are “among all sects, parties, and denominations” those who are “kept from the truth [of the gospel] because they know not where to find it.” 11 Would we hide that light because we have entered into the culture of slander, of stereotyping, of giving and seeking offense?

This talk was one of the most enlightening and personally touching talks of this conference, rarely do I remember very specific aspects of conference talks for long periods of time, but this one is still burned into my mind. Its probably because its something I have such a hard time with, I'm stubborn, and more than a little pompous.

It is, however, also one of the things that most bothers me. I have found in the last few years that my interest in all things political has waned quite a bit. I still like discussing political views and current events, but I don't have the drive or desire to follow them as closely as I used to.

I would think, that as you have read this, it has been very easy to see how others really need to follow this counsel and better follow the ideas contained herein, but thats the easy part. Now I would challenge you to actually look at how quick you are to judge others political stances. How often you judge the motives or intentions or righteousness of others political stances.

Remember, both the Dems and the Repugs think that they are the ones who engage in meaningful discourse, while the other resorts to name calling and obstructionism.

Its easy to see it in others, but harder to temper your own responses, especially since so often political things come near closely held beliefs.

This is why the current voucher debate has so sickened me. There is little to no discussion about the actual issue. There are 30 second soundbites about the evils of the idea, or the evils of those supporting the other side. There is condescencion and pandering. Lots of rhetoric and little to no information or attmepts at convincing. Its a sad state.

Love, in word and deed

I feel the urge to post about this subject today. I have, recently, seen so many examples of this profound principle.

As I type, I am sitting listening to General Conference, and Elder Worthlin just finished speaking. His talk was about love, the power that comes through it, the example we recieve from the life of Christ. As he spoke, the ravages of age, and deteriorating health began to take their toll. He began to shake, both in voice and physically. He was struggling to get the words that he had prepared across to those listening. Like a perfectly planned object lesson, from out of the shadow behind the pulpit came Elder Nelson. Standing like a much taller brother, he laid one hand reassuringly on Elder Wirthlin's arm, and placed the other supportively on his back. Tears came to my eyes, as thoughts ran through my head. Here was a doctor, standing behind Elder Wirthlin, a colleague, and an apostle, but perhaps most importantly, this was a man, supporting, reassuring his brother out of love. He remained there, silent, unmoving, until Elder Wirthlin finished his remarks, then helped him to his seat.

What a message it was. The powerful words of Elder Wirthlin resounding that much more with the visual message of love that was displayed. I couldn't help but think of all of the loved ones in my life.

Friends, family, those who mean so much, and make my life so wonderful. I see others displaying and offering love through support of their siblings, willingness to go and do, to help at the drop of a hat. I see the love displayed by men willing to leave their easy life to go enter the hard life of a soldier.

I am a lucky man.

Victim: a word that has lost all meaning.

This will be a longer post. It encompasses current events, politics, and pet peeves.

I wonder if you have all heard about the Jena 6. This should catch you up a bit, in case you have heard nothing. To sum up, seven high school kids jumped another from behind, knocked him unconscious, and beat him while he lay on the ground unconcious. Those facts are not in dispute by anyone. I'd like you to keep that in mind, if you read up other places about this story. The boy that was beaten, and taken to the ER had personally done nothing to any one of the attackers, that is also not in dispute. The seven boys were arrested and charged, the lead instigator was charged as an adult, and charged with attempted murder. A higher court ruled that the boy shouldn't have been tried as an adult, the prosecutor says the reasoning for it was that he had a violent criminal background.

Now, with those facts, note I said facts, I haven't given one ounce of opinion, all above things are fact, and not disputed by anyone, I would love to know why these high schoolers are the new civil rights poster children. Why are Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson marching, proclaiming that this is the new era of civil rights. Now, of course, the easy answer is because those two scumbags have become largely irrelevant and to stay in the public eye, they must stir any pots they come to.

Now, this is not to say that there aren't inequalities in the justice system, they are fairly well documented through studies, even though those studies leave many possible variables for why the disparity is there that isn't racism. I also can't argue that there isn't still racism rampant in the South. I lived there for two years, I saw it first hand. I lived in a town that had a current KKK group. I was 30-40 miles away when James Byrd Jr. was drug to his death behind a truck, sparking one of the biggest KKK rallies in the modern era. I know its there. But this isn't about that.

Stories like this might lead one to believe that this is a story of oppression. Or that it is a fight to free the wrongly accused, or the racially persecuted. One comment at that rally in San Francisco I found particularly telling.

We need to band together, and work together and free the people that are being enslaved in this country,” Keaton said. “Not physical slavery, but the slavery that the system gives us every single day as people of color.

I added the bold. I thought it was interesting, coming from a woman who is currently majoring in psychology, at a state college/university. I guess the system kept her out of Berkely, that must be what she means.

Victimhood has become a disease, a spreading miasma of putrid complacency. Oddly enough, Mother Jones (I know, seriously), had some great insights on this problem here. I particularly liked this here.

The 1960s Civil Rights Movement had to be about what whites were doing to us. Any modern movement needs to be focused inward, on what blacks are doing to themselves or what we're failing to pragmatically respond to.

If you want to stick it to the man, let's police our own neighborhoods. Let's snitch. A lot. Let's make our schools so good they're suing us to get in. Let's take care of ourselves and outlive the bastards. Let's stop using corporal punishment as our primary means of child discipline, limit their TV time and read to them every night. Any one of these will do more for us than a thousand Jenas.

I liked this quote, not because its like, "yeah, you guys fix your own problems", but because almost all of the advice is good for everyone. On the other hand I also saw in this quote proof of the problem. Continued division, and continued hatred. I mean really, it doesn't say take care of ourselves, so we can live long lives and enjoy our families, no, it says, take care, so we can 'outlive the bastards'. Its sad, in its own denunciation of victimhood, it perpetuates the idea.

Should people be involved to get rid of racism in themselves, and in the society as a whole? Absolutely. Should people be involved, and decry injustice when they see it? Without a doubt, and without a doubt, it is there, in many forms. However, lets be very, very clear on the 'Jena 6'. There was only one victim in that entire story, he wasn't a victim because of his color, he wasn't a victim because of society, he wasn't a victim for any other reason than 7 guys decided to beat the crap out of him, jumped him from behind, beat him into unconsiousness, and kicked him as he lay on the ground.

Those actions aren't anything but criminal, and if justice truly prevails in this case, Mychal Bell will, at the least, spend the next 5 years in juvenile custody.

"Studies Show"....whatever

I am sick of all the stuff that "studies show". First off, I don't buy that most of those studies have ever been done. Secondly, a lot of those studies have zero chance of having used good substantiatable scientific method. Case in point.

SIDS. Clearly this is a serious problem, 500 deaths per year, and no one has any idea what causes it. However, this has not stopped lots of people from making claims, and putting out very forceful warnings about what responsible parents should do. Many are very common sense, one is a huge pet peeve of mine. I'll quote from a SIDS website,

Always place babies on their BACK at nap and nighttime. Side and tummy sleep positions are not safe choices.

Sounds very definitive doesn't it. I am sure there is verifiable evidence that this is a true statement, after all, the association of pediatrics endorses this position, right? Yeah, try finding one piece of backing for this argument. Here's one gem, from the same website, that explains why they should sleep on their back.

As human beings, when we exhale we exhale carbon dioxide or“bad air.” This is normal – we all do it! But when a baby sleeps on its tummy, or there is soft, fluffy or loose bedding or other objects in their sleep area, that carbon dioxide can build up around their head and face.

Okay, so lets put some common sense to this. The fluffy, loose bedding thing makes sense, as it could trap carbon dioxide, totally believable. Now, take away any obstructions, no fluffy, loose, or soft bedding. How in the world will sleeping on the tummy cause carbon dioxide to pool around the face? How does that even make sense?

This page I found particularly ironic. It not only lists several big problems associated with back sleeping (which it tries to downplay as very unimportant), AND it lists benefits of what it calls "tummy time". Health benefits the baby needs, since it can't develop those muscles and abilities because the baby never sleeps on its tummy.

So, why is SIDs such a pet peeve of mine. Because it is a health risk, that no one understands, no one can put any ACTUAL finger on what causes it, or why it happens. Theories are constantly being debunked (like toxic gases from flame retardent mattresses). And yet, if you go to a pediatrician in this day and age, you are grilled and guilted about the loving responsible parent puts their baby on its back.

Well, guess what. My mom had seven kids, belly sleepers, my mother-in-law had seven kids, belly sleepers. We are on our third, belly sleepers. They sleep better, the are less fussy, they sleep through the night quicker, they don't have to wear the football helmets because their head is flattened, etc.

Fake science, perpetuated by scare tactics, that have no relation to common sense, shouldn't be pawned off as responsible parenting.

Hiro is Back

So, last night was the season premiere of Heroes. I love that show. Its one that both Alisa and I can watch, and agree that it is cool. If you haven't seen it, you should really watch it, or you should get last season on DVD and watch that, plus start watching this season. Mondays at 8, channel 5.

Oh, and on a side note, I put Rebecca (our new baby) on her stomach to sleep last night, slept for six hours straight without waking up screaming, thus Alisa got a lot more sleep. Its great.

Death of an artist

Sadly, yesterday, I heard of the death of my favorite author Robert Jordan. While, I am sure, he will never be discussed by the intelligentsia in any graduate level literature class, he was a master at storytelling. His words made a world rich with detail come alive. Unfortunately for his adoring fans, his final book, the culmination of a huge series, has not been completed.

There are of course rumors about its completion, etc., but for now, all I know, is that the world of literature has lost a genius. A man who was better able to fill a world with intense detail than anyone since Tolkien.

As anyone who knows me well has seen, I adore his books (owning them in both hardback and paperback). His death is quite a loss.

The Maiden Voyage

So, I have read blogs for years now, mostly following the exciting adventures of a buddy in D.C. (the adventures weren't so exciting, but it was something to read). I post constantly on the blogs I read, but have only ever been a part of a blog once, for a very short time.

I like the idea of putting down my thoughts and opinions, but for various reasons haven't ever started a blog myself. Whether thats because I want discussion, and think no one will post, or care, or whether its because I'm lazy, I can't decide.

Anyway. I have decided I don't care, I don't have a great outlet to rant about political things right now. The office isn't a good idea, and a lot of people just aren't into politics that much. But its not just politics I plan on writing about, frankly my own interest wanes now and again. Anything that catches my attention, that I have something to say on. Things I find neat, or annoying. Stuff I like, or dislike.

Oh, and as for the title. I am a self-professed geek. I like online gaming, I love fantasy novels, if I had an opportunity, and the group wasn't too wierd, I would be totally down with playing D&D.

So, there you go. Not the most auspicious beginning, but, my point is not to impress.