At first glance, you'd think that Will Eisner's A Contract With God did not belong with the other comics I'm going to review. You'll see why it fits in quite nicely, I'll get to that later.
Ka-pow!! I first have to go right into reviewing Wanted, which I just finished reading a few minutes ago. It completely knocked me on my ass, it was that good. Everything about it just completely blew me away. I hate to sound like some sort of adolescent reviewing this, but that's how it made me feel - like I was a pre-teen that just discovered something really illicit and awesome, that's what reading Wanted was like for me. I just started reading a few of the reviews on Amazon, and some of them hit the right points for me. Which are - if you like comics that resolve themselves with some sort of morality at the end, you'd best skip Wanted. As others have pointed out, this is a story about the bad guys, and the bad guys basically win here. The concept is fantastic here, that a society of super-villains are running the world and nobody knows it, and that there used to be superheroes but they're all gone, and that this lowly peon turns out to actually be the son of one of the greatest of all the super criminals, and capable of amazing feats. I know, it sounds like Fight Club, The Matrix and Star Wars all rolled into one, and I think that's probably fair. It also explains why I enjoyed it so much - not surprisingly, I love Star Wars, Fight Club and The Matrix. Imagine how much cooler Star Wars would have been if Vader got to Luke before Obi Wan did and convinced him to become a sith lord, and Luke was totally into it and the bad guys really and completely won out in the end? That's this story, except no light sabers. It's such an old and compelling idea - what you know as your life is not all that there is, there's this whole amazing world out there, and you are not just an ordinary person living an ordinary life, you are special, you are somebody, in this amazing world. A compelling idea, masterfully done here - with the added twist of a completely nihilistic world view, where the path to success is lined with wanton violence. This comic is violent and somewhat disturbing, and not for the faint of heart. It has my absolute recommendation. I'm very curious but also dreading seeing the movie adaptation, since I liked the comic so much and since I know that they changed the plot significantly for the movie.
I also enjoyed reading The Boys , a series which is so cynical about superheroes that it's hard to take it at all seriously, which I assume is the point. I read both Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 recently, and found them to be outrageously funny, vulgar, violent and crude, with more explicit sex, sexual references and sexual imagery than I would think was possible in a comic book (you may have gotten this point already, but I'll drive it home even more - this one is really not for kids). Anyway, it's a scathing take down of the superhero archetype, as the "heroes" here are portrayed as being egocentric, sadistic, corrupt, venal, lascivious monsters that you'd never want to be around - ever. The superheroes are all pretty much controlled by a large multinational corporation. The actual "heroes" of the story are a group of CIA-backed operatives whose job it is to keep the superheroes in line, and impose "rough justice" on them as necessary. I guess the author is going for the "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" idea. Anyway, I think I enjoyed Vol. 1 more than Vol. 2 - I wasn't as keen on the story where the Batman/Iron Man analogue "Tek-Knight" can't stop having sex with everything (and I mean everything). At some point the writer (Garth Ennis) just sort of lost me because the superhero characters are so devoid of merit, there's very little reason to take any of this seriously. On the other hand, the "Boys" are reasonably sympathetic, particularly "Wee Hughie" (the character who looks just like Simon Pegg ), but even the Butcher character - it takes a skillful writer to make you like such a loathsome character, but realize that he's not nearly as loathsome as he initially appears. Anyway, if you're looking for a totally crude, clever, satirical sendup of the superhero genre, this is a highly entertaining read.
The last item I'm reviewing today is A Contract With God which I read a few days ago. I'll say up front that it is regarded as the first Graphic Novel, by the legendary writer Will Eisner - and I really didn't love it. It feels sort of blasphemous to say that, like saying you enjoy plays but don't like Shakespeare, or you enjoy novels but don't really like Don Quixote. There are four stories in this collection - A Contract With God, The street Singer, The Super and Cookalein. Of these four, by far my favorite is the titular story. It's maudlin and over-the-top, but I really was moved by it maybe because it concerns a a father losing a daughter, and I have two little girls. Additionally, I enjoyed the way that Eisner used the visual medium to make his text work together with the imagery (on a rainy day, he has water dripping down from the letters - it's very clever and effective). So, I really liked this story. Unfortunately, I didn't like the other stories in this collection as much. Maybe it was something about the artwork, or something about the characters (they're all pretty selfish, unlikable, dishonest people), or the subject matter. I found the rest of the stories over-the-top, and although I appreciated Eisner's very funny and cynical take on human nature, I thought the stories were almost predictably amoral (if such a thing is possible). Now, to be fair, I've been reading primarily superhero stuff, so maybe I'd be more into it at some other time. I'll give it a try again down the road.
Reading A Contract With God right before I read The Boys and Wanted, I found (surprisingly) the worldview is not that different. All three provide a pretty nihilistic, cynical worldview. Actually, notwithstanding the fact that it is the most vulgar and explicit of the three, The Boys is actually the most "moral" out of all of them, because The Boys exist to keep superheroes in line and make sure that, in a very weird way, that justice is done in the world.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
Wow, I feel old now
Michael Jackson just turned fifty today. Not quite sure what to do with that, but that makes me feel old.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Comic Book Reviews - Persepolis and American Born Chinese
It was not my intention to have this be the "ethnic coming of age" graphic novel review blog post, but you know, I guess it is. It was over a month ago that I read The Complete Persepolis and not to sound like a broken record or to state the obvious, but it was fantastic. As a general note, you'll find that my reviews are mostly positive. I'll try to go beyond just saying "it's great, I loved it" but will also say why, and maybe anything I wasn't so crazy about - but I'm not going to have very many negative reviews because I'm not that snarky of a reviewer, and I try to only read things I'll like (i.e., I'll try to avoid reviewing crap, by not reading it in the first place). In the event that I review something I didn't like so much (like The Surrogates), I'll let you know why.
Anyway, back to Persepolis. First off, I learned a ton about Iranian history from reading it, a lot of stuff I really didn't know about the revolution and what happened afterwards. Extremely informative. Secondly, this was extremely moving - there were definitely parts I read where I almost started crying, because the author does such a beautiful job conveying the difficulty of adolescence occurring in the midst of a harrowing political situation. I mean, being 13 is hard enough without having a war and political repression. I know - I remember. I felt like it dragged in a few places, and I wasn't quite as into the parts when she was living abroad as I was when she was younger and back at home, but those parts were wonderfully rendered as well. The author is a really astute observer of life, of adolescents and young adults, and at people posing at being something that they are not (whether it is pseudo intellectuals, anarchists, or whatever.). The artistic style is extremely accessible but a little incongruous with the heady subject matter - discussion of torture seems particularly unsettling in this very cute and charming "cartoony" style. Anyway, any quibbles I have are minor - I loved it, and give it my highest recommendation.
I felt pretty similarly after reading American Born Chinese, which was equally fantastic. It didn't make me cry quite in the same way that Persepolis did, but made me laugh out loud at certain points, and always kept me engaged. The author uses three different stories to tell this bigger story, and they all come together in a clever and thoughtful way, which really ties all of the themes of the narrative together. There's the fable of the Monkey King and his quest to be something more than a Monkey, and there's Jin Wang and his struggles to assimilate into a school where he is one of the only Asian students, and then there is Danny, whose cousin "Chin-kee" comes to visit every year and makes things difficult for him in a very embarrassing and humorous way. While some of the ideas in this book relate specifically to the experience of being Chinese in America, the way the book deals with feelings of loneliness, feeling out of place, not knowing how to communicate with the opposite sex, fumbling through adolescence - these are universal themes, beautifully drawn and told throughout the story. Plus, in the story, characters play with old-school Transformers like Optimus and Megatron, which forever endears this book to me. As with Persepolis, I can't recommend this strongly enough, particularly if you are either an adolescent, were at some point an adolescent, or like things that are awesome.
Anyway, back to Persepolis. First off, I learned a ton about Iranian history from reading it, a lot of stuff I really didn't know about the revolution and what happened afterwards. Extremely informative. Secondly, this was extremely moving - there were definitely parts I read where I almost started crying, because the author does such a beautiful job conveying the difficulty of adolescence occurring in the midst of a harrowing political situation. I mean, being 13 is hard enough without having a war and political repression. I know - I remember. I felt like it dragged in a few places, and I wasn't quite as into the parts when she was living abroad as I was when she was younger and back at home, but those parts were wonderfully rendered as well. The author is a really astute observer of life, of adolescents and young adults, and at people posing at being something that they are not (whether it is pseudo intellectuals, anarchists, or whatever.). The artistic style is extremely accessible but a little incongruous with the heady subject matter - discussion of torture seems particularly unsettling in this very cute and charming "cartoony" style. Anyway, any quibbles I have are minor - I loved it, and give it my highest recommendation.
I felt pretty similarly after reading American Born Chinese, which was equally fantastic. It didn't make me cry quite in the same way that Persepolis did, but made me laugh out loud at certain points, and always kept me engaged. The author uses three different stories to tell this bigger story, and they all come together in a clever and thoughtful way, which really ties all of the themes of the narrative together. There's the fable of the Monkey King and his quest to be something more than a Monkey, and there's Jin Wang and his struggles to assimilate into a school where he is one of the only Asian students, and then there is Danny, whose cousin "Chin-kee" comes to visit every year and makes things difficult for him in a very embarrassing and humorous way. While some of the ideas in this book relate specifically to the experience of being Chinese in America, the way the book deals with feelings of loneliness, feeling out of place, not knowing how to communicate with the opposite sex, fumbling through adolescence - these are universal themes, beautifully drawn and told throughout the story. Plus, in the story, characters play with old-school Transformers like Optimus and Megatron, which forever endears this book to me. As with Persepolis, I can't recommend this strongly enough, particularly if you are either an adolescent, were at some point an adolescent, or like things that are awesome.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Reinforcing my decision not to see the Clone Wars
Pajiba (one of my new favorites) delivers the snark in this brutal review of the Clone Wars. George Lucas delivers a movie that is high on the suck-o-meter.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Comic Book Reviews - Y:The Last Man, The Surrogates, Astro City, The Authority Vol. 1
I have been reading so much stuff recently, the pace has been relentless. I've just felt this real drive to catch up on all this stuff that I used to love as a kid and had lost touch with for years. It's been fantastic. So, since there's so much, my reviews will be pretty short. On Friday, I read Volumes 2-8 of the Y: The Last Man series. I know, it sounds like I must have spent all day reading, but it wasn't quite that bad. I read on the way to work, and during lunch, and during the evening b/c LW was out. So, based on the fact that I read 7 volumes in 1 day, you can guess what I thought of it. The series is definitely as good as you have heard. It's compulsively readable - it's like cotton candy or popcorn or something totally addictive. You keep wanting more of it because it is so well plotted, and funny, and entertaining. The art is pretty realistic, straightforward (and extremely well done), and the pace is lightning quick, and as you can guess the writing is terrific. Who knew the death of every man on earth but one would be so much fun?
The next thing I read a few weeks ago, but that I want to discuss is The Surrogates. I wish I could recommend it as enthusiastically as other things I've read recently. If I used a "star" system like they do on Amazon, I'd give it three stars. Not bad, at least somewhat entertaining, but definitely not all I was hoping it would be. The main thing here to note is that the idea is really clever. Not to spoil much, but in the future, we will have "surrogate" bodies through which we can live our lives. The implications are interesting, and the author actually does a pretty good job discuss the impact on crime, career choices, etc., if you could essentially have an avatar live your life for you on the world. Sort of like treating the actual world like Second Life. Anyway, that's the setup, and the story itself concerns a "murder" mystery of a sort, and while it's a decent story, I didn't love it, for several reasons. First, i really didn't enjoy the artwork. It is minimalist to the point of sometimes just feeling like the sketches. It's like the artist made a general overview sketch at the beginning and showed it to the writer, just to get the overview of what the work should look like, but instead of going back and filling it in, the just stopped there. Now, I get that they were trying to go for some sort of minimalist moody noir vibe, but it really just didn't work for me. I'm not saying I need my art to be completely traditional, but it was a distraction for me here. Secondly, I didn't find the mystery particularly compelling. Eventually when you find out who the "bad guy" is, you're sort of like "oh. so what?" If you've got a mystery, the person committing the crime that you find out about at the end should be someone you've already met and someone in whom you have some kind of stake. Not to spoil too much, but that's just not the case here. I feel like in the hands of a more experienced writer, there could have been made a better story out of this good idea. Now, all that being said, it was the writer's first graphic novel and it is a terrific idea, and the author shows promise. Perhaps if he revisits the material some time in the future, he'll have some more compelling story ideas. Of course, I hear they're turning this into a movie, so what do I know.
I'm not going to go into detailed reviews of everything I've read, but let me just mention a few other things I've read recently. First is the Astro City series, which, not to overstate things, is really everything that a comic should aspire to be. If you're interesting in writing in the super hero genre, or interested in reading something in the super hero genre, and you want to read or emulate something that is entertaining, well written, moving (at times), skillfully rendered, and also happens to be (if such a thing is possible) a non-cynical, loving deconstruction (or perhaps a reconstruction) of the super hero genre, then Astro City is the series to read. I've read the first five books in the series - I have not yet had a chance to read The Dark Age because my library doesn't carry it yet. Just to describe it generally, because I feel like to go into too much detail would spoil the joy of discovering it for yourself, but Astro City posits a world where many super heroes and villains exist, and imagines what it would be like to actually live in such a world, whether you are someone commuting from one part of town to another, or you live in a neighborhood known to be populated by frustrated ex-super villains, or getting to see two major super heroes go on a date. Each story is like discovering a new treasure.
Next is The Authority Vol. 1, which is also a super hero comic but VERY different. Not to be completely cliche, but to describe this series as "hard-hitting" would be something of an understatement. These are superheroes who don't save cats from trees, they don't foil bank robberies, and don't worry about secret identities. Instead, they use all means at their disposal to stop evil and save the world. If it happens that 1,000 civilians have to die in order to save 10,000, so be it. The characters are extremely compelling, and while there are some fairly clear analogues to other series (Apollo and Midnighter = Superman and Batman, only gay), the series has its own, original, interesting vibe. The art is terrific as well, very wide screen, "cinematic" approach to the action. I'm looking forward to reading more.
The next thing I read a few weeks ago, but that I want to discuss is The Surrogates. I wish I could recommend it as enthusiastically as other things I've read recently. If I used a "star" system like they do on Amazon, I'd give it three stars. Not bad, at least somewhat entertaining, but definitely not all I was hoping it would be. The main thing here to note is that the idea is really clever. Not to spoil much, but in the future, we will have "surrogate" bodies through which we can live our lives. The implications are interesting, and the author actually does a pretty good job discuss the impact on crime, career choices, etc., if you could essentially have an avatar live your life for you on the world. Sort of like treating the actual world like Second Life. Anyway, that's the setup, and the story itself concerns a "murder" mystery of a sort, and while it's a decent story, I didn't love it, for several reasons. First, i really didn't enjoy the artwork. It is minimalist to the point of sometimes just feeling like the sketches. It's like the artist made a general overview sketch at the beginning and showed it to the writer, just to get the overview of what the work should look like, but instead of going back and filling it in, the just stopped there. Now, I get that they were trying to go for some sort of minimalist moody noir vibe, but it really just didn't work for me. I'm not saying I need my art to be completely traditional, but it was a distraction for me here. Secondly, I didn't find the mystery particularly compelling. Eventually when you find out who the "bad guy" is, you're sort of like "oh. so what?" If you've got a mystery, the person committing the crime that you find out about at the end should be someone you've already met and someone in whom you have some kind of stake. Not to spoil too much, but that's just not the case here. I feel like in the hands of a more experienced writer, there could have been made a better story out of this good idea. Now, all that being said, it was the writer's first graphic novel and it is a terrific idea, and the author shows promise. Perhaps if he revisits the material some time in the future, he'll have some more compelling story ideas. Of course, I hear they're turning this into a movie, so what do I know.
I'm not going to go into detailed reviews of everything I've read, but let me just mention a few other things I've read recently. First is the Astro City series, which, not to overstate things, is really everything that a comic should aspire to be. If you're interesting in writing in the super hero genre, or interested in reading something in the super hero genre, and you want to read or emulate something that is entertaining, well written, moving (at times), skillfully rendered, and also happens to be (if such a thing is possible) a non-cynical, loving deconstruction (or perhaps a reconstruction) of the super hero genre, then Astro City is the series to read. I've read the first five books in the series - I have not yet had a chance to read The Dark Age because my library doesn't carry it yet. Just to describe it generally, because I feel like to go into too much detail would spoil the joy of discovering it for yourself, but Astro City posits a world where many super heroes and villains exist, and imagines what it would be like to actually live in such a world, whether you are someone commuting from one part of town to another, or you live in a neighborhood known to be populated by frustrated ex-super villains, or getting to see two major super heroes go on a date. Each story is like discovering a new treasure.
Next is The Authority Vol. 1, which is also a super hero comic but VERY different. Not to be completely cliche, but to describe this series as "hard-hitting" would be something of an understatement. These are superheroes who don't save cats from trees, they don't foil bank robberies, and don't worry about secret identities. Instead, they use all means at their disposal to stop evil and save the world. If it happens that 1,000 civilians have to die in order to save 10,000, so be it. The characters are extremely compelling, and while there are some fairly clear analogues to other series (Apollo and Midnighter = Superman and Batman, only gay), the series has its own, original, interesting vibe. The art is terrific as well, very wide screen, "cinematic" approach to the action. I'm looking forward to reading more.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
My brief, informative, insightful book reviews - Review of Godland Vol. 1
I'm going to start posting reviews of books I read here, particularly comics that I read (since that seems to be most of what I'm reading these days). I may not catch everything I read here, but will try to get pretty much all of the comics have read recently and stuff going forward. Enjoy, true believers!
First up is Godland Volume 1 which I just read yesterday. Fantastic!! Ka-blow!! Cosmic and Celestial!! Yes, this is highly derivative of things like early Fantastic Four, Kirby's Fourth World series and the Celestials, but that is a GOOD thing. This book was a super quick read, and had that totally fun "cosmic" feel that you really don't seem to get much of these days in comics. By no means is it heavy duty reading a la Watchmen, but it was highly entertaining and readable, and even though it takes place now (as far as I can tell), it definitely has a "space age" vibe to it. The art is fun in an "almost realistic" depiction of humans (stylized, but not ridiculously so), and if full of bright imagery. So, I'd definitely recommend it as a fun read, and I look forward to reading more in the series.
First up is Godland Volume 1 which I just read yesterday. Fantastic!! Ka-blow!! Cosmic and Celestial!! Yes, this is highly derivative of things like early Fantastic Four, Kirby's Fourth World series and the Celestials, but that is a GOOD thing. This book was a super quick read, and had that totally fun "cosmic" feel that you really don't seem to get much of these days in comics. By no means is it heavy duty reading a la Watchmen, but it was highly entertaining and readable, and even though it takes place now (as far as I can tell), it definitely has a "space age" vibe to it. The art is fun in an "almost realistic" depiction of humans (stylized, but not ridiculously so), and if full of bright imagery. So, I'd definitely recommend it as a fun read, and I look forward to reading more in the series.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
My love affair with Star Wars is almost over
I love Star Wars. I love the original movies, and for years now I have been defending the prequel trilogy even though I am willing to concede some of the things people find problematic (wooden acting, overly complicated storytelling, comprehensive yet uninspiring CG, way too much stupid "kiddie" humor, plot and character motivation issues, racist or anti-semitic alien characters, etc.). Still, I have loved them because I have founds things in each movie that I really enjoyed, and because (I'm paraphrasing some movie, wish I could remember) I love them for who they want to be, and for who they almost are, etc. Also, I just love them because they are Star Wars and they get to keep me thinking about Star Wars a little bit longer. I would even argue that Episode III is close to or better than Return over the Jedi. Now, everyone knows that ROTJ is the weakest of the original trilogy, probably because by the time of the ROTJ Lucas had already started turning the Star Wars movies into "kiddie movies" (see Aint it Cool for a discussion of this, I can't say it any better than they did), but still, ROTJ has always had a special place in my heart b/c it was the first one I actually saw in the theater (being too young for the other ones). But I watched this sequence from The Empire Strikes Back, and it made me profoundly sad, as did the recent reviews for the "Clone Wars" movie. I'm unlikely to see that in the theater, though I'll probably still rent it when it comes out on DVD (just because of my "completist" tendencies).
I agree with everything the negative commentators have said about what Lucas has done to the Star Wars story. The reason that sequence from TESB made me so sad was that I'm pretty sure that there's nothing in any of the prequels one tenth as good as that sequence (except for maybe the light saber duel at the end of TPM, that was pretty spectacular) because all in one sequence it had humor, excitement, real human drama and tension. Pauline Kael and other may have complained about the acting in the original SW when it came out, but it seems like the Royal Shakespeare Company in comparison to some of what is delivered in the prequel trilogy.
So, I'm willing to concede now that despite the fact that they all have good stuff in them, the prequels are generally disappointing, when taken as a whole. I'm still not willing to say that they completely suck. However, the stuff that's good is really good, but then it is overwhelmed by the stuff I hate (less so in Episode III, but general principle still applies). Examples:
Episode I:
Love: light saber duel at end, rescue mission of Queen Amidala and escape from Naboo
Hate: stupid "roger roger" droids, ridiculous Asian stereotype trade federation, jar jar, offensive middle eastern watto character, pod race, pod race, pod race (did I mention I hate the pod race?), clumsy wooden acting (I swear Natalie Portman and Ewan McGregor are good actors, I've seen it elsewhere), etc.
Episode II:
Love: the notion that the entire war/conflict is being engineered by one guy to create a climate of fear and create the need for draconian security measures, the sequence when Anakin goes searching for his mom, Obi Wan on the cloner planet and his interactions with Jango (genuine drama!), watching a group of jedi fight, the arena sequence (how can you not enjoy the tearing of the shirt to reveal Natalie Portman's midriff?)
Hate: Anakin and Amidala on Naboo ("I hate sand", frolicking in the fields, etc.), Obi Wan in a diner (WTF?!?), tedious political talk
Episode III:
Love: initial flight sequence, duel between Anakin and Obi Wan, duel between Yoda and Palpatine, sequence between Palpatine and Anakin at the theater, duel between Obi Wan and Greivous, the genuine drama when Anakin goes bad and helps Palpatine kill Mace Windu, subsequent slaughter of the Jedi
Hate: Any Anakin/Amidala interactions, Amidala generally (she became completely useless in this movie), the fact that she died "because she lost the will to live"? (Again, WTF?), the fact that you never quite believe or understand Anakin's transition from good guy to bad guy, or the fact that as Hayden Christiensen plays him, you never really think Anakin is all that good of a guy in the first place
So, anyway, I can only be sad when I think about what a different prequel trilogy might have been like, one that was more true to the spirit of the original films, and one that had better directors (Spielberg, Peter Jackson, Guillermo del Toro) at the helm.
I agree with everything the negative commentators have said about what Lucas has done to the Star Wars story. The reason that sequence from TESB made me so sad was that I'm pretty sure that there's nothing in any of the prequels one tenth as good as that sequence (except for maybe the light saber duel at the end of TPM, that was pretty spectacular) because all in one sequence it had humor, excitement, real human drama and tension. Pauline Kael and other may have complained about the acting in the original SW when it came out, but it seems like the Royal Shakespeare Company in comparison to some of what is delivered in the prequel trilogy.
So, I'm willing to concede now that despite the fact that they all have good stuff in them, the prequels are generally disappointing, when taken as a whole. I'm still not willing to say that they completely suck. However, the stuff that's good is really good, but then it is overwhelmed by the stuff I hate (less so in Episode III, but general principle still applies). Examples:
Episode I:
Love: light saber duel at end, rescue mission of Queen Amidala and escape from Naboo
Hate: stupid "roger roger" droids, ridiculous Asian stereotype trade federation, jar jar, offensive middle eastern watto character, pod race, pod race, pod race (did I mention I hate the pod race?), clumsy wooden acting (I swear Natalie Portman and Ewan McGregor are good actors, I've seen it elsewhere), etc.
Episode II:
Love: the notion that the entire war/conflict is being engineered by one guy to create a climate of fear and create the need for draconian security measures, the sequence when Anakin goes searching for his mom, Obi Wan on the cloner planet and his interactions with Jango (genuine drama!), watching a group of jedi fight, the arena sequence (how can you not enjoy the tearing of the shirt to reveal Natalie Portman's midriff?)
Hate: Anakin and Amidala on Naboo ("I hate sand", frolicking in the fields, etc.), Obi Wan in a diner (WTF?!?), tedious political talk
Episode III:
Love: initial flight sequence, duel between Anakin and Obi Wan, duel between Yoda and Palpatine, sequence between Palpatine and Anakin at the theater, duel between Obi Wan and Greivous, the genuine drama when Anakin goes bad and helps Palpatine kill Mace Windu, subsequent slaughter of the Jedi
Hate: Any Anakin/Amidala interactions, Amidala generally (she became completely useless in this movie), the fact that she died "because she lost the will to live"? (Again, WTF?), the fact that you never quite believe or understand Anakin's transition from good guy to bad guy, or the fact that as Hayden Christiensen plays him, you never really think Anakin is all that good of a guy in the first place
So, anyway, I can only be sad when I think about what a different prequel trilogy might have been like, one that was more true to the spirit of the original films, and one that had better directors (Spielberg, Peter Jackson, Guillermo del Toro) at the helm.
Babies of the species Dada-LW
LW and I were talking about Baby and how cute she is. I just had a "vacation" for a week and a half, and at the end of it I am much more bonded to the Baby than I was before. I'm not any more or less bonded to the Banana, but my hair is a little grayer as a result of her inscrutable toddler-ness. She really is 8 different kinds of wonderful, but she also makes me want to bang my head against the wall some times, or consider selling her on eBay. She's very cute, so I'd do well.
Anyway, LW took Baby to a luncheon at her work and everyone was oohing and aahing over her. Rightfully so, she's very cute. We were talking afterwards about how much we love her personality, and comparing the children (which of course good parenting probably says you're never supposed to do, but all parents do it). Anyway, the conclusion we've come to is that our kids personalities at this age are pretty much the same. They are super-similar physically. Baby's head is a little wider and more square-shaped than Banana's was at this age, but both at this age (almost 5 months) are highly alert, don't cry for no reason (only when there is a specific issue), very smiley and good with people, not super-heavy, have high muscle tone (i.e., if you hold them up they will essentially use their legs to stand up themselves) completely bald, and physically seem almost exactly the same.
So, they're both lovely babies, but both are (or were) lovely in a very specific way. I joked with LW that it's almost as if there was a particular breed of child (let's call her the Dada-LW breed), since both kids have these pretty specific personality traits. If we had a third child (really, no plans to do that), I suspect we would make another baby that fit the Dada-LW mold. I mean, if we had a really fat baby with a lot of hair that was fussy all the time and didn't hold themselves up on their feet, I'd have to ask the LW some hard questions!
Anyway, LW took Baby to a luncheon at her work and everyone was oohing and aahing over her. Rightfully so, she's very cute. We were talking afterwards about how much we love her personality, and comparing the children (which of course good parenting probably says you're never supposed to do, but all parents do it). Anyway, the conclusion we've come to is that our kids personalities at this age are pretty much the same. They are super-similar physically. Baby's head is a little wider and more square-shaped than Banana's was at this age, but both at this age (almost 5 months) are highly alert, don't cry for no reason (only when there is a specific issue), very smiley and good with people, not super-heavy, have high muscle tone (i.e., if you hold them up they will essentially use their legs to stand up themselves) completely bald, and physically seem almost exactly the same.
So, they're both lovely babies, but both are (or were) lovely in a very specific way. I joked with LW that it's almost as if there was a particular breed of child (let's call her the Dada-LW breed), since both kids have these pretty specific personality traits. If we had a third child (really, no plans to do that), I suspect we would make another baby that fit the Dada-LW mold. I mean, if we had a really fat baby with a lot of hair that was fussy all the time and didn't hold themselves up on their feet, I'd have to ask the LW some hard questions!
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
A few political observations
A few thoughts about recent political stuff:
John McCain: Here's my concern about McCain. Let's say he's elected, and becomes President of the United States. What if, all of a sudden, he realizes that there's some younger, prettier country that he'd rather be president of. Let's be honest, America's not so young anymore and not so pretty. Let's say he looks at Israel who needs a new president at some point, and says, "hey, Israeli women are hot, and the modern nation of Israel is younger than the US." Given his track record, this is a legitimate concern. America, we better get some botox if we want to make sure to keep McCain's attention!
Russia/Georgia: Russia is like the former abusive boyfriend that just won't let the girl move on. Back in the old days, they were in an abusive, codependent relationship, and Georgia went along with it because Russia had all of the power and Georgia didn't know any different. All of a sudden though, they break up, and she's trying to move on. She's got a new job, is making new friends, really trying to move on with her life, and Russia can't stand it. Russia's sort of impotent for a while though, and just nursing the bitterness. All of a sudden though, Russia's circumstances change and maybe Russia's got a new job, making some money, and he decides that he's going to show that Georgia Bitch who is in charge, and that if he can't have her, no one can. So, nothing is out of bounds at this point, even physical violence. Poor girl, she's stuck now, her new friends are showing that maybe they aren't as willing to go to bat for her as she thought they would be, they don't want to interfere in the relationship, and just like that, she's stuck again, only now it's worse because he has money and he is bitter and resentful at past slights.
Hilary: I can't stand her. She could make things better for Obama but she doesn't want to. I think she's willing to have the country undergo 4 more years of Republican president just so she can have another chance in 2012. What if a bunch more justices retire before then? There's venal, there's really really venal, and then there's the Clintons. They're in a class by themselves.
Obama: Seems kinda weak at the moment. I like the guy, but I'm afraid he's about to get swift-boated. Some studies have shown that negative campaigning works, and doesn't really have much of a negative impact on the person on whose behalf the ads are run. With that in mind, I'd like to see Obama really cut loose and run all sorts of vicious (and accurate) ads asking the question "who is John McCain" and doing whatever he needs to do to win. I don't want to see him be yet another idealistic Democratic loser.
John McCain: Here's my concern about McCain. Let's say he's elected, and becomes President of the United States. What if, all of a sudden, he realizes that there's some younger, prettier country that he'd rather be president of. Let's be honest, America's not so young anymore and not so pretty. Let's say he looks at Israel who needs a new president at some point, and says, "hey, Israeli women are hot, and the modern nation of Israel is younger than the US." Given his track record, this is a legitimate concern. America, we better get some botox if we want to make sure to keep McCain's attention!
Russia/Georgia: Russia is like the former abusive boyfriend that just won't let the girl move on. Back in the old days, they were in an abusive, codependent relationship, and Georgia went along with it because Russia had all of the power and Georgia didn't know any different. All of a sudden though, they break up, and she's trying to move on. She's got a new job, is making new friends, really trying to move on with her life, and Russia can't stand it. Russia's sort of impotent for a while though, and just nursing the bitterness. All of a sudden though, Russia's circumstances change and maybe Russia's got a new job, making some money, and he decides that he's going to show that Georgia Bitch who is in charge, and that if he can't have her, no one can. So, nothing is out of bounds at this point, even physical violence. Poor girl, she's stuck now, her new friends are showing that maybe they aren't as willing to go to bat for her as she thought they would be, they don't want to interfere in the relationship, and just like that, she's stuck again, only now it's worse because he has money and he is bitter and resentful at past slights.
Hilary: I can't stand her. She could make things better for Obama but she doesn't want to. I think she's willing to have the country undergo 4 more years of Republican president just so she can have another chance in 2012. What if a bunch more justices retire before then? There's venal, there's really really venal, and then there's the Clintons. They're in a class by themselves.
Obama: Seems kinda weak at the moment. I like the guy, but I'm afraid he's about to get swift-boated. Some studies have shown that negative campaigning works, and doesn't really have much of a negative impact on the person on whose behalf the ads are run. With that in mind, I'd like to see Obama really cut loose and run all sorts of vicious (and accurate) ads asking the question "who is John McCain" and doing whatever he needs to do to win. I don't want to see him be yet another idealistic Democratic loser.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Changes to my list
I've been listening to the live album HAARP by Muse recently, and I totally love it so it is getting added to my Top 40 Albums, so something is going to have to come off of the list. I think it'll be "When I woke" by Rusted Root. I really enjoyed that album a lot in the mid 90's but it doesn't really speak to me anymore.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Top 40 albums, take two
I've thought it over and realize that I should just have some guidelines:
1. 1 album per band (hard to do w/r to my favorite bands but I'll give it a go)
2. No "Greatest Hits" albums
3. Live albums are ok if they are really good and distinct as live albums (you'll see my example below)
4. Soundtracks are ok (but I don't think I can have more than 1 on my list, absent special circumstances)
So, I want to further define what the list means. It is the 40 albums most important to me. Not necessarily the 40 most "important" albums I own ( as in important in a global sense), but the albums that have been most important to me historically. This means that an album may be less important to me now, but if it was at some point really important to me or I really really loved it, it at least merits consideration. Also, when choosing the one album from a certain band to include, I will include my favorite one, not necessarily the one I think might generally be considered the "best". Ok, here goes:
Nevermind - Nirvana
OK Computer - Radiohead
The Process of Belief - Bad Religion
Pet Sounds - The Beach Boys
Paul's Boutique - The Beastie Boys
Abbey Road - The Beatles
Odelay - Beck
London Calling - The Clash
Take Five - Dave Brubeck
Under the Table and Dreaming - Dave Matthews Band
Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots - The Flaming Lips
Welcome Interstate Managers - Fountains of Wayne
Franz Ferdinand - Franz Ferdinand
American Idiot - Green Day
Appetite for Destruction - Guns N' Roses
Lost and Gone Forever - Guster
Turn on the Bright Lights - Interpol
Utonian Automatic - Isotope 217
Nothing's Shocking - Jane's Addiction
Blue Train - John Coltrane
Houses of The Holy - Led Zeppelin
What's Goin' On - Marvin Gaye
Bitches Brew - Miles Davis
Double Nickels on the Dime - The Minutemen
Signals, Calls & Marches - Mission of Burma
Slanted & Enchanted - Pavement
Vs. - Pearl Jam
Dark Side of the Moon - Pink Floyd
Surfer Rosa - The Pixies
It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold us Back - Public Enemy
Pulp Fiction - Soundtrack
Document - REM
Californication - Red Hot Chili Peppers
When I Woke - Rusted Root
Melon Collie and the Infinite Sadness - Smashing Pumpkins
Superunknown - Soundgarden
Stop Making Sense - Talking Heads
Joshua Tree - U2
White Blood Cells - The White Stripes
Yankee Hotel Foxtrot - Wilco
So, now I've gotten it to 40. My next task will be to think about whether I can put it into some order, or maybe even say something about each album.
1. 1 album per band (hard to do w/r to my favorite bands but I'll give it a go)
2. No "Greatest Hits" albums
3. Live albums are ok if they are really good and distinct as live albums (you'll see my example below)
4. Soundtracks are ok (but I don't think I can have more than 1 on my list, absent special circumstances)
So, I want to further define what the list means. It is the 40 albums most important to me. Not necessarily the 40 most "important" albums I own ( as in important in a global sense), but the albums that have been most important to me historically. This means that an album may be less important to me now, but if it was at some point really important to me or I really really loved it, it at least merits consideration. Also, when choosing the one album from a certain band to include, I will include my favorite one, not necessarily the one I think might generally be considered the "best". Ok, here goes:
Nevermind - Nirvana
OK Computer - Radiohead
The Process of Belief - Bad Religion
Pet Sounds - The Beach Boys
Paul's Boutique - The Beastie Boys
Abbey Road - The Beatles
Odelay - Beck
London Calling - The Clash
Take Five - Dave Brubeck
Under the Table and Dreaming - Dave Matthews Band
Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots - The Flaming Lips
Welcome Interstate Managers - Fountains of Wayne
Franz Ferdinand - Franz Ferdinand
American Idiot - Green Day
Appetite for Destruction - Guns N' Roses
Lost and Gone Forever - Guster
Turn on the Bright Lights - Interpol
Utonian Automatic - Isotope 217
Nothing's Shocking - Jane's Addiction
Blue Train - John Coltrane
Houses of The Holy - Led Zeppelin
What's Goin' On - Marvin Gaye
Bitches Brew - Miles Davis
Double Nickels on the Dime - The Minutemen
Signals, Calls & Marches - Mission of Burma
Slanted & Enchanted - Pavement
Vs. - Pearl Jam
Dark Side of the Moon - Pink Floyd
Surfer Rosa - The Pixies
It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold us Back - Public Enemy
Pulp Fiction - Soundtrack
Document - REM
Californication - Red Hot Chili Peppers
When I Woke - Rusted Root
Melon Collie and the Infinite Sadness - Smashing Pumpkins
Superunknown - Soundgarden
Stop Making Sense - Talking Heads
Joshua Tree - U2
White Blood Cells - The White Stripes
Yankee Hotel Foxtrot - Wilco
So, now I've gotten it to 40. My next task will be to think about whether I can put it into some order, or maybe even say something about each album.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
my non-sleeping daughter, Eliot Spitzer, Top 40 albums
I think the Banana might finally be asleep. She should be, it's been almost 1.5 hours since I last went into her room, and more than 2 hours since I first attempted to put her down for bed. She just started sleeping in a "big girl" bed a few nights ago, and is having adjustment trouble. As for me, I have had a pretty miserable time this evening. I told her after the second time I came back that that was it and I wasn't coming back in, and I meant it. Still, listening to her call to us makes my head want to explode. Am I being heartless? I don't think so - I just think that she needs to learn how to fall asleep on her own. She finally seems to have stopped crying - hopefully not emptionally scarring her too much. She fell asleep eventually, but I still feel a little like I'm made of glass at the moment.
On the Eliot Spitzer thing, not too much to say other than to observe that he is another loathsome hypocritical political sleaze. I'm not sure which part I think is the worst - the hypocrisy (crimefighter hoisted on his own petard, much to the schaudenfreude of corporate types everywhere), the stupidity (thinking that as the f$%^ing GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK he would be able to get away with visiting prostitutes on a regular basis and funneling $ all over the place), or (not to sound too old-fashioned) the criminality and immorality of the whole thing. I think I liked him a few years back, now not so much.
I was talking with a work friend/colleague recently about Top 40 albums lists. Not sure why 40, but it was an interesting discussion because it made me realize I have over the past few years been thinking about favorite songs, not favorite albums. I'm going to try to rectify that though, by coming up with a list of my own Top 40. Actually putting them in order seems like it might be a huge challenge, so we'll see how that goes. In the interim, here goes (in no particular order, except slightly alphabetical):
Nevermind - Nirvana
OK Computer - Radiohead
Kid A - Radiohead
The Process of Belief - Bad Religion
Pet Sounds - The Beach Boys
Paul's Boutique - The Beastie Boys
Check Your Head - The Beastie Boys
Abbey Road - The Beatles
Sgt. Peppers - The Beatles
Odelay - Beck
London Calling - The Clash
Take Five - Dave Brubeck
Under the Table and Dreaming - Dave Matthews Band
Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots - The Flaming Lips
Welcome Interstate Managers - Fountains of Wayne
Franz Ferdinand - Franz Ferdinand
American Idiot - Green Day
Appetite for Destruction - Guns N' Roses
Lost and Gone Forever - Guster
Turn on the Bright Lights - Interpol
Utonian Automatic - Isotope 217
Nothing's Shocking - Jane's Addiction
Blue Train - John Coltrane
My Favrite Things - John Coltrane
The College Dropout - Kanye West
Houses of The Holy - Led Zeppelin
Led Zeppelin II - Led Zeppelin
Led Zeppelin I - Led Zeppelin
Led Zeppelin III - Led Zeppelin
The Sidewinder - Lee Morgan
Frances the Mute - The Mars Volta
What's Goin' On - Marvin Gaye
Bitches Brew - Miles Davis
Kind of Blue - Miles Davis
On the Corner - Miles Davis
Double Nickels on the Dime - The Minutemen
Signals, Calls & Marches - Mission of Burma
Slanted & Enchanted - Pavement
Vs. - Pearl Jam
Ten - Pearl Jam
Dark Side of the Moon - Pink Floyd
Surfer Rosa - The Pixies
It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold us Back - Public Enemy
Pulp Fiction Soundtrack
Document - REM
Automatic for the People - REM
Californication - Red Hot Chili Peppers
Blood Sugar Sex Magik - Red Hot Chili Peppers
When I Woke - Rusted Root
Melon Collie and the Infinite Sadness - Smashing Pumpkins
Superunknown - Soundgarden
Stop Making Sense - Talking Heads
Joshua Tree - U2
White Blood Cells - The White Stripes
Yankee Hotel Foxtrot - Wilco
Being There - Wilco
Blues & Roots - Charles Mingus
OK, that's actually 57 albums. I'll narrow it down at a later date.
On the Eliot Spitzer thing, not too much to say other than to observe that he is another loathsome hypocritical political sleaze. I'm not sure which part I think is the worst - the hypocrisy (crimefighter hoisted on his own petard, much to the schaudenfreude of corporate types everywhere), the stupidity (thinking that as the f$%^ing GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK he would be able to get away with visiting prostitutes on a regular basis and funneling $ all over the place), or (not to sound too old-fashioned) the criminality and immorality of the whole thing. I think I liked him a few years back, now not so much.
I was talking with a work friend/colleague recently about Top 40 albums lists. Not sure why 40, but it was an interesting discussion because it made me realize I have over the past few years been thinking about favorite songs, not favorite albums. I'm going to try to rectify that though, by coming up with a list of my own Top 40. Actually putting them in order seems like it might be a huge challenge, so we'll see how that goes. In the interim, here goes (in no particular order, except slightly alphabetical):
Nevermind - Nirvana
OK Computer - Radiohead
Kid A - Radiohead
The Process of Belief - Bad Religion
Pet Sounds - The Beach Boys
Paul's Boutique - The Beastie Boys
Check Your Head - The Beastie Boys
Abbey Road - The Beatles
Sgt. Peppers - The Beatles
Odelay - Beck
London Calling - The Clash
Take Five - Dave Brubeck
Under the Table and Dreaming - Dave Matthews Band
Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots - The Flaming Lips
Welcome Interstate Managers - Fountains of Wayne
Franz Ferdinand - Franz Ferdinand
American Idiot - Green Day
Appetite for Destruction - Guns N' Roses
Lost and Gone Forever - Guster
Turn on the Bright Lights - Interpol
Utonian Automatic - Isotope 217
Nothing's Shocking - Jane's Addiction
Blue Train - John Coltrane
My Favrite Things - John Coltrane
The College Dropout - Kanye West
Houses of The Holy - Led Zeppelin
Led Zeppelin II - Led Zeppelin
Led Zeppelin I - Led Zeppelin
Led Zeppelin III - Led Zeppelin
The Sidewinder - Lee Morgan
Frances the Mute - The Mars Volta
What's Goin' On - Marvin Gaye
Bitches Brew - Miles Davis
Kind of Blue - Miles Davis
On the Corner - Miles Davis
Double Nickels on the Dime - The Minutemen
Signals, Calls & Marches - Mission of Burma
Slanted & Enchanted - Pavement
Vs. - Pearl Jam
Ten - Pearl Jam
Dark Side of the Moon - Pink Floyd
Surfer Rosa - The Pixies
It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold us Back - Public Enemy
Pulp Fiction Soundtrack
Document - REM
Automatic for the People - REM
Californication - Red Hot Chili Peppers
Blood Sugar Sex Magik - Red Hot Chili Peppers
When I Woke - Rusted Root
Melon Collie and the Infinite Sadness - Smashing Pumpkins
Superunknown - Soundgarden
Stop Making Sense - Talking Heads
Joshua Tree - U2
White Blood Cells - The White Stripes
Yankee Hotel Foxtrot - Wilco
Being There - Wilco
Blues & Roots - Charles Mingus
OK, that's actually 57 albums. I'll narrow it down at a later date.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
New posting again and again
I keep saying that I'll be better about posting. This time I will (maybe). Banana is going to be a big sister soon, and I want to keep a better record of my life as a dad. We'll see....
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
posting again
Every once in a while I see something or do something that makes me wish I was writing on my blog more frequently. I can't even remember now what those thing were. For example, I was talking with people about my thoughts on the double album. I think that in most cases, this is a case of a band's ego getting the better of their judgment. Case in point, the Red Hot Chili Peppers' Stadium Arcadium. It has a number of good songs, but I think it's bloated at 28 songs - they could have exercised a little discipline and produced one excellent album. Don't get me wrong, I'm still a fan, we're going to see them in October at the Garden. Still - the album has a bunch of filler.
I did get two new CDs today, Till the Sun Turns Black by Ray Lamontagne and Broken Social Scene's eponymous album. I'll have to post back once I give them a listen.
I'm still getting the hang of this whole "linking" thing w/r to blogging. I'm also not sure what I am going to consider appropriate souce material for blogging. I sis previously post some family stuff, but I might consider that off limits going forward. We'll see.
I did get two new CDs today, Till the Sun Turns Black by Ray Lamontagne and Broken Social Scene's eponymous album. I'll have to post back once I give them a listen.
I'm still getting the hang of this whole "linking" thing w/r to blogging. I'm also not sure what I am going to consider appropriate souce material for blogging. I sis previously post some family stuff, but I might consider that off limits going forward. We'll see.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Life with baby - 6 months
Banana is six months old. Lovely Wife ("LW") and I were reminiscing a little bit about what she was like as a newborn. I wish I had started blogging sooner bcause for the life of me,. I don't really remember. I know she was smaller, less entertaining and not as cute. I know that sleep was not as continuous, and that she was not nearly as interactive. I know feeding her took much longer and that the first few weeks were kind of a blur. I know that before we taught her to "cry it out", she used to sleep in the room with us, and she would sometimes stay up really late.
Suffice it to say, if you have a newborn, take notes while they're really young, otherwise the whole thing will just be a blur later on. By the way, I do know what she's like right now. She is funny and sweet and good-natured and wonderful. She didn't even make that much of a fuss when she got her first vaccine shots today. Erica called her baby over easy. She is a really wonderfully low-key baby. We are extremely fortunate.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Cute picture of Banana
This is just a cute picture of Banana I wanted to share. I suspect I'll want to do a bunch of writing about her because she's so amazing. If you met her, you'd think so too. She's not like one of those docile, prozac babies. Also not one of those crazy colicky babies. No, this kid is alert, smiley, good natured and really fun. She's a little undersized, but we're about to start giving her formula too and hopefully that should help. 
"Intelligent" Design
Lots of people have weighed in on the intelligent design issue, but I feel like I want to as well. I would recommend to anyone looking into the issue that they go to www.slate.com and read articles by Dahlia Lithwick and William Saletan on the topic. They say it more eloquently than I can. Still, here it is.
I am critical of "intelligent" design theory because it is not science, but it attempts to replace science in the secular school classroom. I believe in G-d, I believe G-d created the universe and I believe that there are some things that natural science cannot explain. I also believe that the more science discovers, the more that the complexity of the world might be evidence of the creator.
However, that's not what intelligent design is or says. It says, that there are things that are so complex that science cannot explain them, and then says that G-d fills in the gaps. Now, while this may be comforting to people, it is NOT science. In fact, it is the opposite of science. Science looks at things that we don't understand and tries to figure them out. Intelligent design, or
Creationism, looks at things we don't understand and says "oh well, that's G-d".
Can you imagine if scientists 100 years ago had adopted that attitude? If Einstein, instead of trying to wrestle with the complexities of the physical universe and mathematics, instead just forgot about pursuing his theories? How many scientific innovations might not exist today? No cures for diseases, since those people would look at terrible things going on that they didn't understand and say "oh well, that's G-d, we can't do anything about it". There would be no technology, no modern medicine.
There is a proper place for people to wrestle with questions of faith and address the biblical creation story - that is with their families and at religious school. That's what it's there for.Also, you said that science is just as much based on faith as religion is. That's not really true. While evolution is just a "theory", so is gravity. It is however, a scientific theory which means that there actually has been actual scientific testing and empirical review. Evolution, along with other peer-reviewed scientific theories, can be tested. You look at various genetic mutations over time, along with historical and fossil records. How, exactly do you test the theory of intelligent design? You can't, because it's not even a real theory. How can you test a religious belief? You can't, there's no way. That is why they call them "faiths", because they rely on a belief in things unseen and unknowable. I'm not anti-religion, after all I am a practicing and believing Jew, and I was a religion minor in college. I love the study of religion, I love the intricacy and beauty of people's faiths, but it is not the same as science. Trying to bring the two together is a recipe for trouble.
Scientists don't want to take away your right to believe in the Bible, and neither do I. Many scientists are people of faith, and they know that there are things they don't understand. In fact, a researcher I once heard about said that the more he learned about the structure of cells the more he believed in a divine creator. This is a little different than intelligent design though, because all that does is critique the theory of evolution and act as a Trojan horse for creationism in the schools. It has no research, no data to back it up. All it has is faith, which means that the proper place for discussion of intelligent design is in the cultural and political arena, not in the science classroom. When they can actually produce scientific data that supports their non-theory, then I say that they can be in the science classroom.
Also, American students are really stupid. They lag far behind other countries (like for example, South Korea, where incredible scientific advances are being made in biology). The last thing that dumb American kids need is to have their minds clouded even further by something that isn't science. How can we expect to continue to compete on the global stage if this is the stuff we're teaching our kids?
Besides, I don't believe that the creation story is not meant to be taken literally. It is difficult to believe that the world was created 5766 years ago. In general terms, the recounting of the creation story does parallel the historical development of the universe, and because it does that, it is all the more impressive. First there was a black void, and then there was light, and then there were the seas and then there was land, and then there were little animals, and then there were bigger animals, and then there was man. That, as far as I know, is a pretty accurate description of the creation of the universe. I personally take the usage of the word "day" to mean "age" or "period of time".
The only issue is that with carbon dating, and with the red shifting of stars, we know that our planet and the universe are billions of years old. Think about when we see something like another galaxy millions of light years away. To say that the world is only as old as the bible says, you have to be willing to throw out the notion of the speed of light, and the extension of that being that we are seeing where objects were millions of years ago. That's a whole lot of provable science you have to be willing to throw out the window.
Also, another problem I have with the methods of intelligent design is that they don't have any actual ideas of their own, but all they do is critique other people's theories. In a way, they are a lot like Holocaust deniers. The main technique Holocaust deniers use is to point to some kind of disagreement between scholars. For example, someone might say that 200,000 people died at a certain camp, others might say it was 300,000. A Holocaust denier will point to that controversy and say "see, they don't agree, therefore no one died at that camp". In the same way, so-called intelligent design scholars will point to some minor debate at the margins of scientific scholarship and say "see, they don’t agree, therefore the whole thing falls apart". I reject the idea that this is legitimate scholarship. Besides, 95% of scientists agree on 95% of the stuff, so any debates are at the margins.
To conclude, I think that both faith and science have their place in the world. They are different ways of understanding the universe. Sometimes, though, it is best of they are left to their separate spheres. After all, you wouldn't want math and science being taught at Hebrew school, would you? That would make kids even less likely to want to go to Hebrew school. I had plenty of excuses when I didn't want to go.
I am critical of "intelligent" design theory because it is not science, but it attempts to replace science in the secular school classroom. I believe in G-d, I believe G-d created the universe and I believe that there are some things that natural science cannot explain. I also believe that the more science discovers, the more that the complexity of the world might be evidence of the creator.
However, that's not what intelligent design is or says. It says, that there are things that are so complex that science cannot explain them, and then says that G-d fills in the gaps. Now, while this may be comforting to people, it is NOT science. In fact, it is the opposite of science. Science looks at things that we don't understand and tries to figure them out. Intelligent design, or
Creationism, looks at things we don't understand and says "oh well, that's G-d".
Can you imagine if scientists 100 years ago had adopted that attitude? If Einstein, instead of trying to wrestle with the complexities of the physical universe and mathematics, instead just forgot about pursuing his theories? How many scientific innovations might not exist today? No cures for diseases, since those people would look at terrible things going on that they didn't understand and say "oh well, that's G-d, we can't do anything about it". There would be no technology, no modern medicine.
There is a proper place for people to wrestle with questions of faith and address the biblical creation story - that is with their families and at religious school. That's what it's there for.Also, you said that science is just as much based on faith as religion is. That's not really true. While evolution is just a "theory", so is gravity. It is however, a scientific theory which means that there actually has been actual scientific testing and empirical review. Evolution, along with other peer-reviewed scientific theories, can be tested. You look at various genetic mutations over time, along with historical and fossil records. How, exactly do you test the theory of intelligent design? You can't, because it's not even a real theory. How can you test a religious belief? You can't, there's no way. That is why they call them "faiths", because they rely on a belief in things unseen and unknowable. I'm not anti-religion, after all I am a practicing and believing Jew, and I was a religion minor in college. I love the study of religion, I love the intricacy and beauty of people's faiths, but it is not the same as science. Trying to bring the two together is a recipe for trouble.
Scientists don't want to take away your right to believe in the Bible, and neither do I. Many scientists are people of faith, and they know that there are things they don't understand. In fact, a researcher I once heard about said that the more he learned about the structure of cells the more he believed in a divine creator. This is a little different than intelligent design though, because all that does is critique the theory of evolution and act as a Trojan horse for creationism in the schools. It has no research, no data to back it up. All it has is faith, which means that the proper place for discussion of intelligent design is in the cultural and political arena, not in the science classroom. When they can actually produce scientific data that supports their non-theory, then I say that they can be in the science classroom.
Also, American students are really stupid. They lag far behind other countries (like for example, South Korea, where incredible scientific advances are being made in biology). The last thing that dumb American kids need is to have their minds clouded even further by something that isn't science. How can we expect to continue to compete on the global stage if this is the stuff we're teaching our kids?
Besides, I don't believe that the creation story is not meant to be taken literally. It is difficult to believe that the world was created 5766 years ago. In general terms, the recounting of the creation story does parallel the historical development of the universe, and because it does that, it is all the more impressive. First there was a black void, and then there was light, and then there were the seas and then there was land, and then there were little animals, and then there were bigger animals, and then there was man. That, as far as I know, is a pretty accurate description of the creation of the universe. I personally take the usage of the word "day" to mean "age" or "period of time".
The only issue is that with carbon dating, and with the red shifting of stars, we know that our planet and the universe are billions of years old. Think about when we see something like another galaxy millions of light years away. To say that the world is only as old as the bible says, you have to be willing to throw out the notion of the speed of light, and the extension of that being that we are seeing where objects were millions of years ago. That's a whole lot of provable science you have to be willing to throw out the window.
Also, another problem I have with the methods of intelligent design is that they don't have any actual ideas of their own, but all they do is critique other people's theories. In a way, they are a lot like Holocaust deniers. The main technique Holocaust deniers use is to point to some kind of disagreement between scholars. For example, someone might say that 200,000 people died at a certain camp, others might say it was 300,000. A Holocaust denier will point to that controversy and say "see, they don't agree, therefore no one died at that camp". In the same way, so-called intelligent design scholars will point to some minor debate at the margins of scientific scholarship and say "see, they don’t agree, therefore the whole thing falls apart". I reject the idea that this is legitimate scholarship. Besides, 95% of scientists agree on 95% of the stuff, so any debates are at the margins.
To conclude, I think that both faith and science have their place in the world. They are different ways of understanding the universe. Sometimes, though, it is best of they are left to their separate spheres. After all, you wouldn't want math and science being taught at Hebrew school, would you? That would make kids even less likely to want to go to Hebrew school. I had plenty of excuses when I didn't want to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
