i have no decorations up. i have no lights on. and yet, people are ringing my doorbell.
geez, no refuge from the sugar-craving hordes nowadays, eh? ;)
happy halloween.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Saturday, October 29, 2005
checks and balances.
The withdrawel of Harriet Miers' nomination to the supreme court of the united states has caused consternation in several political circles. it has also caused a lot of blame-slinging, with most people opining that, underneath it all, it was the religious conservatives who defected from their own president and bashed his nominee. the religios conservatives are slinging the blame on themselves, in fact, and crowing about the repercussions of not listening to them.
the problem is, they appear to have forgotten exactly how this country works. harriet miers was not rejected by senators on both sides of the aisle because of her conservative credentials, or lack thereof. she was rejected because she had been nominated to the bench on the highest court in the nation, and she had no experience as a judge. none. zip. she was a lawyer and a politician. she also had no experience in constitutional law. the voice of a single minority, however loud, should not be, and is not under our constitution, enough to swing the direction of our government. the religious right may continue to pat themselves on the back, however, for they are taking the credit for an action that cost them absolutely nothing in terms of effort or finger-lifting.
the other thing the religious right has forgotten is that the constitution of the united states structures our government in a system of checks and balances. neither the executive, legislative, or judicial branches outweigh each other. this is very convenient to forget, because while you can lobby politicians, you cannot lobby judges. the recent accusations of "legislating from the bench" overlook the fact that this is exactly what scotus is supposed to do. the supreme court is explicitly given the power to overturn legislation or executive orders that are unconstitutional, as analyzed by recognized experts in interpretation of said document. the judicial branch, as much as the other two, has the power to shape the legal landscape in this country. it is not to be a rubber stamp for congress and the president. it is to be an independent judiciary.
the moral stance of a minority cannot be allowed to be the guiding principle of this country. personal feelings are not law. the laws of this nation are not based on the establishment of a religion, but based on the rights of the individual. what the conservative christian lobby is doing is both un-american and un-christian. "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law." Galatians 5:22-23
(concience compels me to destroy the punchiness of that conclusion by adding that this is not to imply that christians qua christians should not get involved in politics at all, but to point out that that is a guide of conduct for all behaviour)
the problem is, they appear to have forgotten exactly how this country works. harriet miers was not rejected by senators on both sides of the aisle because of her conservative credentials, or lack thereof. she was rejected because she had been nominated to the bench on the highest court in the nation, and she had no experience as a judge. none. zip. she was a lawyer and a politician. she also had no experience in constitutional law. the voice of a single minority, however loud, should not be, and is not under our constitution, enough to swing the direction of our government. the religious right may continue to pat themselves on the back, however, for they are taking the credit for an action that cost them absolutely nothing in terms of effort or finger-lifting.
the other thing the religious right has forgotten is that the constitution of the united states structures our government in a system of checks and balances. neither the executive, legislative, or judicial branches outweigh each other. this is very convenient to forget, because while you can lobby politicians, you cannot lobby judges. the recent accusations of "legislating from the bench" overlook the fact that this is exactly what scotus is supposed to do. the supreme court is explicitly given the power to overturn legislation or executive orders that are unconstitutional, as analyzed by recognized experts in interpretation of said document. the judicial branch, as much as the other two, has the power to shape the legal landscape in this country. it is not to be a rubber stamp for congress and the president. it is to be an independent judiciary.
the moral stance of a minority cannot be allowed to be the guiding principle of this country. personal feelings are not law. the laws of this nation are not based on the establishment of a religion, but based on the rights of the individual. what the conservative christian lobby is doing is both un-american and un-christian. "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law." Galatians 5:22-23
(concience compels me to destroy the punchiness of that conclusion by adding that this is not to imply that christians qua christians should not get involved in politics at all, but to point out that that is a guide of conduct for all behaviour)
Monday, October 24, 2005
once more into the breach.
because i'm utterly insane, i am going to do nanowrimo again this year.
yes, you're absolutely correct. i never actually finished the story from last year. i mean, i made it over the 50,000 word mark within the time alotted, but i never actually finished the story. my brain is like that. but what the hell. that doesn't mean i can't write another novel, right? ;)
yes, you're absolutely correct. i never actually finished the story from last year. i mean, i made it over the 50,000 word mark within the time alotted, but i never actually finished the story. my brain is like that. but what the hell. that doesn't mean i can't write another novel, right? ;)
Sunday, October 16, 2005
a review.
Serenity, as reviewed by a non fan(atic).
two weeks ago, a friend called me up and asked if we'd like to go see Serenity with him, as he had no other friends even willing to consider the movie, so otherwise he'd have to go by himself. we said sure.
a little research basically gave me the impression that someone had finally taken gene roddenberry's "wagon train to the stars" idea seriously, as well as bringing to my attention the fact that the reason i had never seen Firefly (the tv series on which the movie was based, for those of you who aren't interested in sci fi either) was because it just happened to air the fall of my wedding. i was having enough trouble trying to delegate wedding organization (so i had to do as little as possible ;) and i can't manage to watch a tv show under normal circumstances, much less those.
so we went to see the movie. and it was good. it was good sci fi, and it contained things sci fi rarely contains nowadays, which is to say a) decent acting, b) the ability to laugh at itself, c) nicely complex characters, and d) a good low-budget grittiness (similar to the first star wars, not to be confused with low-budget cheesiness).
it also had problems. the first being a discordant dialogue. this movie demonstrates the pitfalls of trying to write in dialect. it works if the dialect is kept consistent and does not become distracting. when the actors are demonstrably tripping over the folksy phrases and deliberately ungrammatical delivery, it's a sign you've gone a bit too far. also, maybe mr.whedon will get a larger budget next time so he'll be able to hire a dialect coach and keep his main character's accent from careening wildly between cowboy and irish peasant.
the writing did, however, do a phenomenal job of giving the characters' backstory without having to resort to an exposition dump, for those of us who were taken by our friends and had not gone to see the movie of our own idea. the characters themselves are also really well-developed in the time he had (see earlier point). although while the plot looked cool and glossy up front, it, quite frankly, left some holes you could drive a truck through, as well as breaking continuity with the show (if what my friend told me is true). no spoilers here; if you want to debate, feel free to email me ;)
all in all, it was, in fact, a good movie. good action, complex and sympathetic characters, a sense of humour, edge-of-your-seat tension. better than average :)
two weeks ago, a friend called me up and asked if we'd like to go see Serenity with him, as he had no other friends even willing to consider the movie, so otherwise he'd have to go by himself. we said sure.
a little research basically gave me the impression that someone had finally taken gene roddenberry's "wagon train to the stars" idea seriously, as well as bringing to my attention the fact that the reason i had never seen Firefly (the tv series on which the movie was based, for those of you who aren't interested in sci fi either) was because it just happened to air the fall of my wedding. i was having enough trouble trying to delegate wedding organization (so i had to do as little as possible ;) and i can't manage to watch a tv show under normal circumstances, much less those.
so we went to see the movie. and it was good. it was good sci fi, and it contained things sci fi rarely contains nowadays, which is to say a) decent acting, b) the ability to laugh at itself, c) nicely complex characters, and d) a good low-budget grittiness (similar to the first star wars, not to be confused with low-budget cheesiness).
it also had problems. the first being a discordant dialogue. this movie demonstrates the pitfalls of trying to write in dialect. it works if the dialect is kept consistent and does not become distracting. when the actors are demonstrably tripping over the folksy phrases and deliberately ungrammatical delivery, it's a sign you've gone a bit too far. also, maybe mr.whedon will get a larger budget next time so he'll be able to hire a dialect coach and keep his main character's accent from careening wildly between cowboy and irish peasant.
the writing did, however, do a phenomenal job of giving the characters' backstory without having to resort to an exposition dump, for those of us who were taken by our friends and had not gone to see the movie of our own idea. the characters themselves are also really well-developed in the time he had (see earlier point). although while the plot looked cool and glossy up front, it, quite frankly, left some holes you could drive a truck through, as well as breaking continuity with the show (if what my friend told me is true). no spoilers here; if you want to debate, feel free to email me ;)
all in all, it was, in fact, a good movie. good action, complex and sympathetic characters, a sense of humour, edge-of-your-seat tension. better than average :)
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
sodden.
it's still raining. i haven't seen the sun in 5 days.
i know we were in a drought, but this is a little bit ridiculous.
i know we were in a drought, but this is a little bit ridiculous.
Friday, October 7, 2005
comfort food.
i don't think there's anything better when you're home alone on a wet, rainy fall evening than a hot cup of earl grey tea and a piece of buttered toast.
Tuesday, October 4, 2005
Saturday, October 1, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)