The Grudge

Yes, I went and saw the Grudge yesterday afternoon. It was thrillingly scary. What does that mean you ask? Have you seen The Ring? I give the Ring a ten in scariness. The Grudge was a close nine. Yes, that scary. It would have scored higher but the movie takes place in Japan and only in a certain house. The Ring is in the US and could happen anywhere. It's much more personal. I definitely recommend this movie if you would like to be scared OR if you want your female friends to be grabbing at your arms in fear. My friend Joe suggests going to the gym before hand.

For those of you who have already seen the movie: There's a little boy standing behind you.

Mwahahaha!

Catholocism and Orthodoxy

The Catholic Pope is returning two relics of saints to the Orthodox church in Istanbul after 800 years of ownership. It's seen as a sign of goodwill between the two churches. It also seems that they may begin theological talks once again. I like to see the various Christian churches working together to make the world better. We may all have theological differences but that shouldn't get in the way of Chrisitian service.

That said, I don't see why the Catholic and Orthodox churches would begin theological negotiation. Let's look at it logically. The Catholic church believes it is the true church descended from the church began by Christ and the apostles. They claim that their authority has been unbroken over the 2,000 years. The Orthodox church broke off for many reasons, but foremost being the strength of the Pope. I don't know if the doctrinal changes between the churches occurred then or later, but they exist now. Basically if any side concedes to change, that shows that it is incorrect. I don't think either side is really ready to change their doctrine. And then logistically, let's say the Orthodox church merges with the Catholic. Would all Orthodox members agree? Would all Orthodox members automatically be Catholic? And you know for sure there would more schisms because of the changes. Lastly, the Orthodox church is poor. I can't see the wealthy Catholic church taking on such a liability.

My opinions are mostly one-sided. I lived in Romania for two years. They are predominantly Romanian Orthodox. And I only know one Catholic.

Posting up!

Get yer dukes up! My nine-year-old nephew could beat him. LOL

If that doesn't get you laughing, try the following:

Strong Bad strikes again.
And for more fun and humor check out William Shatner's new CD.

*Uppercut!*

That is, uppercut to the RIAA or Recording Industry Association of America. I just read on Instapundit's blog about this:

The Supreme Court handed Internet services providers and privacy advocates a crucial victory yesterday when it decided to pass on an important Internet piracy case. . . .
"The recording industry may not agree, but the U.S. Supreme Court thinks personal privacy is far more important that music piracy," Red Herring reported. "On Tuesday, the high court refused to entertain an appeal of a unanimous 2003 decision by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals that held that copyright holders cannot force Internet providers to identify file sharers using a mere subpoena. Industry watchers see this as yet another blow that the recording industry has taken in its fight against online file sharing -- a fight it is slowly losing. The lawsuits in question were between New York's Verizon Internet Services and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), headquartered in Washington, D.C."

Yes that's right. Personal privacy is more important than music piracy. Blow after blow the music industry will be forced out their 'evil lawyer' cave.

A smart idea.

I just read an article about the European Union threatening to put sanctions on Israel until they resolve their conflict. Much like the Europe did to South Africa until apartheid was eliminated. I was just thinking, why doesn't the United States place sanctions on Israel. Effectively, we could place a 'famine' on Israel until they comply. With the EU and US putting up a blockade, it could seriously harm Israel. I told my roommate this and thought that Israel would be even more stubborn than Cuba in the face of sanctions. I think I'd have to agree with him. But I still think it would be a serious push for peace in Israel.

Star Trek vs. Kerry and Bush

And the winner is... Star Trek! Yes, the Star Trek: Enterprise season premier is tonight. And it is on during the second Presidential debate. Yes, Enterprise isn't the best Trek series and it can be disappointing at times... But the debate will only be more so. Perhaps I'll catch the third one. I'll read the articles on it afterwards. If anyone does watch it and would like to give their comments, please feel free.

"Beam me up!"

An Abortion Surprise!

Okay, so that title is not very appealing. But I just read an article that clinched the already sure vote of mine for Bush. Apparently five of nine Supreme Court judges support current abortion rights. But if Bush is re-elected he will be able to appoint a new judge. This could upset the balance and allow the Roe vs. Wade ruling of 1973 to be overturned. Exciting! The article goes on to say that twenty-one states are at high risk for banning abortion, nine in middle risk, and twenty at lower risk. This surprised me. All 50 states are at risk for banning abortion. I had no idea that most of the nation's legislation actually want abortion banned.

This news definitely clinches my vote for Bush.

Shoplifting

Apparently the pick for the CIA's third highest position has withdrawn from the nomination because he was caught shoplifting twenty-three years ago. With the full background check, Michael Kostiw was cleared to be a CIA employee and see high class information. The article I read made it seem as if it was the Washington Post that did its homework and brought that up. I could have misread it. If that is the case I don't think that Mr. Kostiw should remove himself from the running. The fact that he passed the CIA's own requirements is enough for me.

That brings me to my question. Should government officials resign for any infraction in their past? I've been taught that the personal lives of government leaders should not be separated from their careers. I agree with that. But where should we draw the line? Should all officials be above reproach and never have made a mistake? Men and women are able to change themselves and leave behind past mistakes. I only wonder where the line should be drawn.

True to Its Name

Iconoclast:
1. One who attacks and seeks to overthrow traditional or popular ideas or institutions.
2. One who destroys sacred religious images.

The Lonestar Iconoclast claims itself as President Bush's homestar paper. And true to it's name, it is seeking to overthrow tradtional or popular ideas by now endorsing Kerry. Now I will admit, everything I know about Texas I learned from Fox's "King of the Hill". But apparently life in some parts of Texas is close to that of Arlen in "King". Check it out.

Apparently the Iconoclast only has 425 readers. And that is in a serious decline now. Once endorsing Kerry, the paper lost many of its advertisers. I'm left wondering if the paper was in a decline before declaring Kerry their candidate. Seems this could be a good way to get under people's skin. Any publicity is good publicity.

I won't be looking to the Iconoclast for political knowledge. But it is a portal into small town Texas. I wonder if I might see Hank Hill featured in an article.

Fun in two easy steps.

Would you like to have some fun? Here is my two step process:

1. Read any one of my blog entries below. I might suggest "Serious Wisdom..." or "The Debate" For extra credit actually write a reply to one of them. (I love when people do that.)
2. Follow the link I am about to share. Remember, until you do the first step, don't do the second. This is important. Link.

Come back after you're done. Comment.

Gay marriage in Spain

Shocking fact: 1 in 10 Spaniards is gay. Literally. Spain has now passed a bill that will allow homosexuals to marry. It is the third in the European Union. Of course the Roman Catholic Church (which has a lot of power in Spain) opposes the move. "'It would impose on society a virus, something false, which will have negative consequences for social life,' Juan Antonio Martinez Camino, spokesman for Spain's Episcopal Conference, insisted in midweek."

At the heart of this conflict is the new ability of gay couples to adopt. Some 60% of Spaniards favor gay marriage, but only around 40% favor adoption by gay couples. A 20% difference is a big thing. I would guess that most people (including myself) oppose it, not because the child wouldn't have good parents -gay parents can be as good as heterosexual parents- but because the child would think that homosexuality is normal and natural. It's fine to have adults make those choices but children shouldn't have that choice forced upon them. One Spanish gay activist said, "Most Spanish people think what is important in adoption is the well-being of the child quite apart from the sexual orientation of the parents." That is true only when you believe that sexual orientation doesn't matter.

But in closing, a whole TEN percent of Spain is gay!! I will be more wary if/when I should meet any Spanish.

The Debate

Yep, I watched the Presidential debate tonight. No I didn't watch it all the way through. I watched forty-five minutes of it. (Did it go an hour or two?) I'm sad to say that I didn't learn an awful lot from it. No I'll rephrase that. I didn't learn as much as I had hoped I would. But here is the basic rundown of the debate:
Kerry believes that the war in Iraq is not a just cause and should not have been started. He does however believe in getting our troops home as soon as possible and in giving them the supplies they need. (Ironic.)
Bush believes that invading Iraq was a good choice. He believes America needs to have a strong, unwavering stance against terrorism and to root it out wherever it may be.

Now here is what I learned. Kerry focuses on the past. He kept on reiterating that we should have entered Iraq. He didn't focus on the now. And that is that we are in Iraq... saying again and again that we shouldn't be there won't change that we are. He also stated that by voting against giving our troops the needed money for supplies he was in actuality voting against invading Iraq. That seems a little convoluted.

Bush is committed to this war on terrorism. He believes that removing Saddam Hussein has made the world a better place. He doesn't like sending troops into harms way, but there are causes that justify the loss. It seems that Bush does not want to rely on foreign intervention or help to achieve the goals he has set out. He will go to them the first time, but after that he will take matters into his own hands.

I could go on and on about their motives and details I saw in the debate, but I'll say a little bit about how they spoke in the debate. Kerry is a polished speaker. Bush was a little slower and not as smooth. But Kerry is a senator and I think that oration and speech giving comes with the territory. But it seemed that Kerry's words were made to tug on heart strings and persuade the audience to his side. Bush seemed to be more sincere. Time will tell if he is right or wrong. But you can tell by the way he speaks that believes he is right.

What are you thoughts on the debate?