casa de bryant
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Thursday, April 27, 2006
the adult
tomorrow morning i graduate from college. today i had to pick up my grad stuff and go to a rehearsal thing. kim's fam is in town so it's been good seeing them, but i hate all the attention. naturally i try and be humble and recognition usually just embarrasses me or i have like feelings inside that just say that i'm actually inadequate and not really deserving of praise. i have a hard time even when kim says thank you for random crap i've done. doesn't mean i don't enjoy recognition some of the time. it's complicated. i didn't send out announcements, but i suppose i should send out a friendly email to friends and family out of respect to them. my mom will be there, emily has to work, the usual grovers, the usual wife, and possibly her aunt cindy. lia brought up a really good point today, saying that it must be really strange and difficult right now graduating from college and not having a strong idea about what is lying ahead. she's right as usual. i know what i want to do, i just don't know how possible it is. there are five law schools that i'm waiting on for decisions. five cities around the country that i might live in before the pools close for labor day. there is a lot of pressure on me coming from so many different directions. it sucks that we have to go through this crap. so many are at this strange turning point in life. folks are graduating, getting hitched, and procreating. one or two new years ago it all become so real.
you know what else is real? freaking armageddon is real. this world is going to hell. i figure that at the current rate we are headed, we will see a major world collapse in my lifetime. could come from the oil headache, having to do with good old prices, supply, and demand. gas and flying in planes will become a luxury. many economies of western and middle-eastern countries will collapse. this will further divide the rich from the middle-class and poor. many will die. next will be the avian flu. this will certainly an asterisk next to that years world census report when a chunk of the population dies. after a vaccine is created, for some reason the poor in third world countries don't seem to be getting theirs. the vaccine got caught up in bureaucracy and they all die. this all culminates to the main event of nuclear war. the order of the strikes and counterstrikes will be iran, u.s., china, and the u.k. and israel at the same time. france will stay out of it. and we'll all die. let's just hope that the bad korea doesn't have them by then, otherwise i don't think the brits or jews will get a chance to have their say in the matter. what's more likely is that the media is just doing a good job feeding us the fear.
tonight was the drum corp thing around the country at movie theaters. i know i made a strong push for it a few weeks ago, but i decided not to go because it said it was 180 minutes long. too long for my attention span that's for sure. i'm down with spending three hours watching the real thing in a stadium, but three hours on a screen is a little much. i'd still be there now if we had gone. i'm sure they will do it next year.
and a big thank you to big gay adam in fresno for saying on myspace the dumbest thing i've heard in weeks: "Why should I support this equality movement when I don't even have equal rights myself?" where are you living man? who thinks like this? there is some context behind this that lessens how dumb that sentence is, but still. it's a stupid sentence and a stupid idea. gracias adam.
you know what else is real? freaking armageddon is real. this world is going to hell. i figure that at the current rate we are headed, we will see a major world collapse in my lifetime. could come from the oil headache, having to do with good old prices, supply, and demand. gas and flying in planes will become a luxury. many economies of western and middle-eastern countries will collapse. this will further divide the rich from the middle-class and poor. many will die. next will be the avian flu. this will certainly an asterisk next to that years world census report when a chunk of the population dies. after a vaccine is created, for some reason the poor in third world countries don't seem to be getting theirs. the vaccine got caught up in bureaucracy and they all die. this all culminates to the main event of nuclear war. the order of the strikes and counterstrikes will be iran, u.s., china, and the u.k. and israel at the same time. france will stay out of it. and we'll all die. let's just hope that the bad korea doesn't have them by then, otherwise i don't think the brits or jews will get a chance to have their say in the matter. what's more likely is that the media is just doing a good job feeding us the fear.
tonight was the drum corp thing around the country at movie theaters. i know i made a strong push for it a few weeks ago, but i decided not to go because it said it was 180 minutes long. too long for my attention span that's for sure. i'm down with spending three hours watching the real thing in a stadium, but three hours on a screen is a little much. i'd still be there now if we had gone. i'm sure they will do it next year.
and a big thank you to big gay adam in fresno for saying on myspace the dumbest thing i've heard in weeks: "Why should I support this equality movement when I don't even have equal rights myself?" where are you living man? who thinks like this? there is some context behind this that lessens how dumb that sentence is, but still. it's a stupid sentence and a stupid idea. gracias adam.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
the debate: part iv
Brak: well i finally get around to respond. i enclose another article which i think is great and again i agree with. http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.pref=/mccarthy/mccarthy200604170640.asp
I do feel that Bush's biggest mistake is not selling this war. People need to know better the importance of this war and he must not only respond to the critics but make them respond to him. As for the article, i think it illustrates well why we chose iraq. I konw you're going to say, where is the proof of all of these claims and I haven't checked all the sources he states, however, i respond likewise to all the claims given by the critics of the war. Where is their proof. As time goes on, the proof indeed looks stronger that Bush was right. Perfect example is that of France. Kerry and others can't get over the whole, diplomacy blah, blah. I agree with diplomacy if it is going to work, however, would france ever backed what would be necessary to deal with Saddam? NO!!! they were banking on the Oil for Food scam and we had no idea. That goes for other countries also. As for the question of Iran. Well, indeed we haven't attacked, yet. Bush has called for diplomacy and hoped the Iranians would rise up against their government. He made these choices and comments partly, I believe becuase of the current political enviroment. With so many critics who want nothing more than to see Bush fails, he knows he can't get the support necessary for another invasion. As he said today, "all options are still on the table." My perspective of Iran is this: I think that the world community will, as usual shrug away from the fight. Everyone is concerned but most lack the balls. Sanctions won't happen because what would that do? The only thing the Iranians export is oil, being the 2nd largest exporter of oil, and if you put sanctions on oil, prices would triple. This would only hurt the world. So sanctions won't happen. Let's face the fact however that Iran doesn't want nuclear power for any other reason than weapons, (I really hope you can agree to that, otherwise you are way further left than I ever imagined) If they get nuclear power, we're in trouble, not to mention Isreal. The Iranians aren't going to bargain and it may just come to military intervention. I hope it doesn't becuase I imagine that war would indeed be much worse than the current war we're in. Having said that, if the time comes to drop a bomb on Iran, I fully support it. Diplomacy isn't going to work and if we wait too long we lose the first punch advantage. We must wait as long as possible but a pre emptive strike just might come. As for the censure thing, I can't think of anything stupider and more politically motivated. It only goes to prove that all that Democrats are concerned with is playing politics. It backfired on Feingold big time, becuase it was a stupid idea. Bush has done nothing wrong!!! He hasn't lied. He hasn't trampled civil liberties. He is a president at war. He acted upon the intelligence he had and he has followed the advice to "connect the dots" by doing all he can to protect Americans, including wiretaps on certain calls. As for the stockpiles of weapons, there is indeed proof about that. http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/10/29/iraq9575.htm ( I realize that this article points out another stategic error which is true, we should have protected these stockpiles, a strategic error still doesn't justify a censureship.) http://www.nysun.com/article/26514. As for the name thing, still nothing has come to us.
A Sound of Thunder (2005): watching this you'd think that it is a low budget sci-fi movie, but i just read that they spent a lot of movie to make it. if that's the case then this movie is one of the worst special effects movies ever and should not be seen. however, i watched it thinking it was low budget. after a while, instead of seeing just crappy effects, i began to see them as a technique to stylize the movie. whether they intended to or not, the movie looks very much like anime. it’s a very good story and has very good ideas about the way time works and traveling through time. it is somewhat along the lines of my own ideas on time, which were ripped off from me by that bastard steven hawking. but that’s for another time. the movie is basically about these tourists go back in time, do something that we don't know about, which causes the future to change and catch up with itself in ripples every few hours or so. the characters build up the suspense for the last time ripple which should bring in the new species of humans that should be enough to kill them all. so the audience waits the entire movie to catch a glimpse of what these evolved humans will be like, and when they show it, i was pretty caught off guard, making it rather comical. pre-evolved humans that came through the previous ripples were basically eight foot tall primates mixed with raptors. i was expecting more along those lines. instead, well, you’ll have to see it. sorry. it is a little unbelievable the way that time actually gets altered in the first place, or, what the tourist did to change all of time. i would have liked to see them explain that a little better. there were a few other plot holes here and there like that. nothing too distracting though. probably not a lot of sci-fi fans out there and even less that go for crappy special effects, so no one will want to see it. it’s interesting though. i think it is worth seeing because it’s so different from the usual movies we all see and movies are a delight. see it.
I do feel that Bush's biggest mistake is not selling this war. People need to know better the importance of this war and he must not only respond to the critics but make them respond to him. As for the article, i think it illustrates well why we chose iraq. I konw you're going to say, where is the proof of all of these claims and I haven't checked all the sources he states, however, i respond likewise to all the claims given by the critics of the war. Where is their proof. As time goes on, the proof indeed looks stronger that Bush was right. Perfect example is that of France. Kerry and others can't get over the whole, diplomacy blah, blah. I agree with diplomacy if it is going to work, however, would france ever backed what would be necessary to deal with Saddam? NO!!! they were banking on the Oil for Food scam and we had no idea. That goes for other countries also. As for the question of Iran. Well, indeed we haven't attacked, yet. Bush has called for diplomacy and hoped the Iranians would rise up against their government. He made these choices and comments partly, I believe becuase of the current political enviroment. With so many critics who want nothing more than to see Bush fails, he knows he can't get the support necessary for another invasion. As he said today, "all options are still on the table." My perspective of Iran is this: I think that the world community will, as usual shrug away from the fight. Everyone is concerned but most lack the balls. Sanctions won't happen because what would that do? The only thing the Iranians export is oil, being the 2nd largest exporter of oil, and if you put sanctions on oil, prices would triple. This would only hurt the world. So sanctions won't happen. Let's face the fact however that Iran doesn't want nuclear power for any other reason than weapons, (I really hope you can agree to that, otherwise you are way further left than I ever imagined) If they get nuclear power, we're in trouble, not to mention Isreal. The Iranians aren't going to bargain and it may just come to military intervention. I hope it doesn't becuase I imagine that war would indeed be much worse than the current war we're in. Having said that, if the time comes to drop a bomb on Iran, I fully support it. Diplomacy isn't going to work and if we wait too long we lose the first punch advantage. We must wait as long as possible but a pre emptive strike just might come. As for the censure thing, I can't think of anything stupider and more politically motivated. It only goes to prove that all that Democrats are concerned with is playing politics. It backfired on Feingold big time, becuase it was a stupid idea. Bush has done nothing wrong!!! He hasn't lied. He hasn't trampled civil liberties. He is a president at war. He acted upon the intelligence he had and he has followed the advice to "connect the dots" by doing all he can to protect Americans, including wiretaps on certain calls. As for the stockpiles of weapons, there is indeed proof about that. http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/10/29/iraq9575.htm ( I realize that this article points out another stategic error which is true, we should have protected these stockpiles, a strategic error still doesn't justify a censureship.) http://www.nysun.com/article/26514. As for the name thing, still nothing has come to us.
A Sound of Thunder (2005): watching this you'd think that it is a low budget sci-fi movie, but i just read that they spent a lot of movie to make it. if that's the case then this movie is one of the worst special effects movies ever and should not be seen. however, i watched it thinking it was low budget. after a while, instead of seeing just crappy effects, i began to see them as a technique to stylize the movie. whether they intended to or not, the movie looks very much like anime. it’s a very good story and has very good ideas about the way time works and traveling through time. it is somewhat along the lines of my own ideas on time, which were ripped off from me by that bastard steven hawking. but that’s for another time. the movie is basically about these tourists go back in time, do something that we don't know about, which causes the future to change and catch up with itself in ripples every few hours or so. the characters build up the suspense for the last time ripple which should bring in the new species of humans that should be enough to kill them all. so the audience waits the entire movie to catch a glimpse of what these evolved humans will be like, and when they show it, i was pretty caught off guard, making it rather comical. pre-evolved humans that came through the previous ripples were basically eight foot tall primates mixed with raptors. i was expecting more along those lines. instead, well, you’ll have to see it. sorry. it is a little unbelievable the way that time actually gets altered in the first place, or, what the tourist did to change all of time. i would have liked to see them explain that a little better. there were a few other plot holes here and there like that. nothing too distracting though. probably not a lot of sci-fi fans out there and even less that go for crappy special effects, so no one will want to see it. it’s interesting though. i think it is worth seeing because it’s so different from the usual movies we all see and movies are a delight. see it.
Monday, April 24, 2006
the failure
so i graduate this week. i had a final tonight in one class and my witch of a teacher in the other class wanted me to be there for her class during my final. she completely arranged it with the other teach that i could take the final early in one class and still show up for her class. she wanted me there for some chick to give her presentation and it turned out the girl didn't even show. this teacher's class is jacked. i probably don’t know anyone that i’m graduating with. a few people here and there might be at a point where a head nod would be appropriate to signify that we’ve had three classes together, but have actually talked to each other less than janice and i during the week we were together in tenth grade. there have been pretty memorable teachers that i’ve had the pleasure of taking my school. i’ll spare the one-liners i have for each professor. some were the typical mormon conservative professors you’d expect here. but i had some too, that were as liberal as you'd ever meet in a lifetime. and most of them were mormon too. i’ve grown very passionate about the majors i’ve chosen to study, but there better be a payoff to them. criminal justice and paralegal studies. they are kind of blah majors. they have been a part of me for over three years now, but i just feel like, “eh” (shrugs shoulders). i just want to get it done with so i can cut this hair.
today cu’s decision came. i didn’t get in, so i guess that’s that. sorry guys.
on a brighter note, it turns out that i'm a demomcrat.
Get Rich or Die Tryin' (2005): i really think this would have been a bigger hit with the critics if none of fiddy's story was already publicly known. the story would have been more interesting had it been based on some nobody. the film is really good though. for someone who is portrayed in the movie as shy and who blushes easily, he didn't have a hard time praising himself so much in the movie. there are tons of cheesy moments where they really over dramatize events of 'young caesar's' life. take fiddy out of the picture and it's a great story. kind of like a modern day godfather 1 and 2. there are huge themes in this movie that basically say violence isn't so bad and is just part of society, also themes in the godfather movies. i haven’t seen 8 mile so i can’t compare this with that. fiddy did a decent job for his debut performance. if he had been a nobody, i bet his role would have gotten him at least a golden globe nomination. i probably enjoyed this movie more since i’m basically playing his role in grand theft auto every day. if you want to know what san andreas is like, then see the movie; and vice versa. the film is not terrible, but it's far from being amazing. and because this isn't a type of film that a good chunk of the population would want to see, i'll have to recommend not seeing it (east coast/dirty south excluded). sorry fiddy.
today cu’s decision came. i didn’t get in, so i guess that’s that. sorry guys.
on a brighter note, it turns out that i'm a demomcrat.
Get Rich or Die Tryin' (2005): i really think this would have been a bigger hit with the critics if none of fiddy's story was already publicly known. the story would have been more interesting had it been based on some nobody. the film is really good though. for someone who is portrayed in the movie as shy and who blushes easily, he didn't have a hard time praising himself so much in the movie. there are tons of cheesy moments where they really over dramatize events of 'young caesar's' life. take fiddy out of the picture and it's a great story. kind of like a modern day godfather 1 and 2. there are huge themes in this movie that basically say violence isn't so bad and is just part of society, also themes in the godfather movies. i haven’t seen 8 mile so i can’t compare this with that. fiddy did a decent job for his debut performance. if he had been a nobody, i bet his role would have gotten him at least a golden globe nomination. i probably enjoyed this movie more since i’m basically playing his role in grand theft auto every day. if you want to know what san andreas is like, then see the movie; and vice versa. the film is not terrible, but it's far from being amazing. and because this isn't a type of film that a good chunk of the population would want to see, i'll have to recommend not seeing it (east coast/dirty south excluded). sorry fiddy.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
the debate: part iii
Ethan: i haven't read your response yet, but i will soon. just wanted to drop a note and say that the news was just saying that newt gingridge (sp.) is now saying we need to pull most of the troops out of iraq now and just leave a smaller force. what does that tell you?
Ethan: also, bush said that he hopes the iranian people can find a way to overthrow their government. why didn't he say the same thing about the iraqis then? you don't see us using force against iran, and they are on their way to actually making nukes. what made iraq so different then than iran today?
Ethan: i didn't mean to minimize the efforts and impact the u.s. had in winning wwii. i only meant to point to the fact that the author was minimizing the efforts and impact that other nations had on the outcome. your #2 was a pretty good counterpoint, although i am being lazy and not going back to review what i had originally wrote. so why, out of all the dictators in the world, did we choose saddam to take over? the terrorist on every one's mind at the time we started to really pick a fight with saddam, was osama. why didn't we increase efforts in that battle instead? Does it sound like a serious threat to you that i can think of half a dozen other dictators or leaders in the world that "would have jumped to endorse anything that would cripple the u.s."? when do we begin the attack on them? and let's just say that maybe the end will in fact outweigh the means and reasons for going in the first place. i still believe bush made a mistake, and letting him off without as least censure? think about that. you totally screw up, but hey, we forgive you because everything's great now. i'm not sure why you said that about afghanistan because i never implied that they were still doing bad today did i? as far as weapons go, you talk about how important the reason is for an america-hating dictator having a ton of weapons. but i've never seen any evidence that saddam, his crony's, or the common citizens of iraq was stockpiling weapons for an attack on the u.s. in any way. your final argument is a pretty obvious statement. i think everyone can agree that terrorism and a middle-east run by terrorists are a bad thing. so have you seriously decided on a name for the baby yet? or have you at least decided on the baby's middle letter?
remember those saturday morning cartoon commercial things that would say, "after these messages, we'll be right back"? i think they had a lot that were clay-mation or whatever. i'm sure they still have some today but they are probably jap anime. on kevin's blog he had some nifty survey-type thing. follow along.
go to your music player of choice and put it on shuffle.
say the following questions aloud, and press play.
use the song title as the answer to the question.
NO CHEATING.
Friends With Money (2006): the acting was pretty well done and believable. and i can believe that jennifer aniston's character would sort of date scott caan's character who treats her terribly. and i can also believe that her character could end up with this other guy at the end whose closest comparison that i can think of is hurley from lost. but what i can't believe is that she could not find a guy to settle down with until her mid-thirties. it's freaking jennifer aniston. and the character she plays isn't a bad person. she smokes a little weed and is kind of poor. none of that is too bad. and other than that she is the same jennifer aniston character seen in every other movie of her's. it is part of the backbone of the movie that she has gone all these years and is a single old poor girl, but i just kept thinking that there's no way she'd be single today. other than that it was a good movie. there are lots of different couple relationships going on, which are all very interesting. it's a grown-up movie for sure. it was also a sundance film, which makes it cool of course. it's rated r but right after leaving the movie i couldn't think of a reason it should have been except maybe for 'adult situations.' also jen tokes up a bit. so don't shy away just because of the r rating. it's cute and worth seeing.
Ethan: also, bush said that he hopes the iranian people can find a way to overthrow their government. why didn't he say the same thing about the iraqis then? you don't see us using force against iran, and they are on their way to actually making nukes. what made iraq so different then than iran today?
Ethan: i didn't mean to minimize the efforts and impact the u.s. had in winning wwii. i only meant to point to the fact that the author was minimizing the efforts and impact that other nations had on the outcome. your #2 was a pretty good counterpoint, although i am being lazy and not going back to review what i had originally wrote. so why, out of all the dictators in the world, did we choose saddam to take over? the terrorist on every one's mind at the time we started to really pick a fight with saddam, was osama. why didn't we increase efforts in that battle instead? Does it sound like a serious threat to you that i can think of half a dozen other dictators or leaders in the world that "would have jumped to endorse anything that would cripple the u.s."? when do we begin the attack on them? and let's just say that maybe the end will in fact outweigh the means and reasons for going in the first place. i still believe bush made a mistake, and letting him off without as least censure? think about that. you totally screw up, but hey, we forgive you because everything's great now. i'm not sure why you said that about afghanistan because i never implied that they were still doing bad today did i? as far as weapons go, you talk about how important the reason is for an america-hating dictator having a ton of weapons. but i've never seen any evidence that saddam, his crony's, or the common citizens of iraq was stockpiling weapons for an attack on the u.s. in any way. your final argument is a pretty obvious statement. i think everyone can agree that terrorism and a middle-east run by terrorists are a bad thing. so have you seriously decided on a name for the baby yet? or have you at least decided on the baby's middle letter?
remember those saturday morning cartoon commercial things that would say, "after these messages, we'll be right back"? i think they had a lot that were clay-mation or whatever. i'm sure they still have some today but they are probably jap anime. on kevin's blog he had some nifty survey-type thing. follow along.
go to your music player of choice and put it on shuffle.
say the following questions aloud, and press play.
use the song title as the answer to the question.
NO CHEATING.
1. How does the world see me?wow. yeah that's funny. and i didn't cheat either. gracias kevin.
close to me – the cure
2. Will I have a happy life?
king nothing – metallica
3. What do my friends really think of me?
random - 311
4. Do people secretly lust after me?
still waiting – sum 41
5. How can I make myself happy?
closedown – the cure
6. What should I do with my life?
just about done – blink 182
7. Will I ever have children?
toast and bananas – blink 182
8. What is some good advice for me?
japanese interview with rivers cuomo
9. How will I be remembered?
ironside – quincy jones
10. What is my signature dancing song?
frayed ends - midtown
11. What do I think my current theme song is?
strange attraction – the cure
12. What does everyone else think my current theme song is?
downtrodden song – dennis leary
13. What song will play at my funeral?
never say goodbye – the impossibles
14. What type of men/women do you like?
now the world - afi
15. What is my day going to be like?
new joint - =w=eezer
Friends With Money (2006): the acting was pretty well done and believable. and i can believe that jennifer aniston's character would sort of date scott caan's character who treats her terribly. and i can also believe that her character could end up with this other guy at the end whose closest comparison that i can think of is hurley from lost. but what i can't believe is that she could not find a guy to settle down with until her mid-thirties. it's freaking jennifer aniston. and the character she plays isn't a bad person. she smokes a little weed and is kind of poor. none of that is too bad. and other than that she is the same jennifer aniston character seen in every other movie of her's. it is part of the backbone of the movie that she has gone all these years and is a single old poor girl, but i just kept thinking that there's no way she'd be single today. other than that it was a good movie. there are lots of different couple relationships going on, which are all very interesting. it's a grown-up movie for sure. it was also a sundance film, which makes it cool of course. it's rated r but right after leaving the movie i couldn't think of a reason it should have been except maybe for 'adult situations.' also jen tokes up a bit. so don't shy away just because of the r rating. it's cute and worth seeing.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
the debate: part ii
Brak: Howdy,
Good to hear from you. As always, you have found a way to shut out from your mind any piece of information that could shed light on the dark abyss of liberalism. But I can't blame you for that, Hillary and Dean, Pelosi and Boxer, and all other libs are working overtime to polute the minds of populist idealists. As always however, I still stand by my opinion that anything written in a purely bias manner, usually construes the facts to brighten their side. Unfortunately, becuase of this "false painting" it is hard if not near impossible to draw conclusions independently. I agreed the article was written in a bias manner, however, I also agree that many points are worth accepting.
1) WWII would not have been won without the US. This is not to say our allies, including Russia, were of no import. It was Russia who fought so sternly against Hitler's army during the winter months that allowed the British to hold their ground. Many say it was Hitler's worst mistake to split his forces. But I will also remind you that it was the US that discovered, and had the "balls" to drop the bomb on Japan. Without that the war in Europe could have, and most likely would have turned out differently.
2)I agree with that giving Afghans weapons during the 80's to fight the Russians turned ugly on us. However, in defense of the "savior President Reagon" he did not enjoy the blessing of foreseeing the future. He did what he thought best knowing what he knew and unfortunetly that wasn't the best decision looking back. The big difference between what you pointed out is that the French, Germans, and Russians are all supplying weapons knowing the results. There is nothing right about giving weopons to a dictatorship that suppresses freedom unless you yourself are against freedom. The afforementioned countries don't have the best track records recently for defending freedom.
3)I agree, as do all others including the President, that we never predicted what happened in Iraq. However, we did pick Iraq to fight terrorism. We chose it to fight a dictator who supported and used terrorist tactics to rule his country. The direct link between Saddam and bin Laden has not been made, however I hope you would agree that given the chance, Saddam would have jumped to endorse anything that would cripple the US. That sounds like a serious threat to me. Having known the aftermath, which as I stated we did not, I would still chose Iraq becuase as you pointed out the terrorist have chosen to come together and fight there. It sure beats chasing them around the world. The Iraqis are paying a price to have there freedom and part of that price is to the US. The US is putting the soldiers and money into their independence as a way to win a war against the terrorist. France helped the US in its independence not becuase they cared so much about the right to representation (remember the French revolution came after the war had ended) but rather becuase they were fighting Britain and that gave them a chance to fight the British.
4)About Afghanastan, if you recall, the US gave the UN the dominion over Afghanastan after the Taliban was removed. Have you looked lately out how well they are doing? About as well as one would expect a body of corrupt countries could do.
5)There is indeed other dictators like Castro and Chavez that are a serious problem. I agree that we must watch them carefully. Cuba is a whole different issue that I won't get into (I'm not sure about the sanction idea, I think it probably only hurts the people and raises anti-american sentiment). Venezuela on the other hand i know a little about. One reason we don't attack is Chavez was supposedly elected. I don't know how true that is but for diplomacy purposes we have to agree. It's one thing to go to war against a person the world over agrees is a dictator (Saddam), its another to go to war against someone who was elected. That's awfully un-democratic.
6)Weapons in Iraq is a large threat. Weapons in Iran is a large threat. Weapons in Venezuela, or anyother anti-american country is a large threat to us. I agree, the more weapons we have, the more of a threat we are to Iran and N. Korea. That is a good thing for us to threaten them with our weapons. I would rather them threatened and behave than to have to prove that we really can beat them. It wasn't just the weapons in Iraq, it was the reason a dictator who hates America has so many weapons.
Lastly,
I agree the United States will never be run by the Mulluhs. However, if the Middle East is then more attacks like 9/11 would be much more likely if not inevitable from a group that believes we must die becuase we are a christian nation. I don't want that and I don't think the world, especially the middle east would ever want that. There are a few extremist that want to rule the world. To them, Bush, Blair, and all other democratic leaders that believe in liberty and peace, are those extremist. My vote goes to the extremist of democracy.
Sorry if this long and boring but quite frankly, what else would you expect from me? By the way we are finding out the sex of our baby tonight. I'll text you and let you know.
end quote.
okay, so i just have to get this on the record. no disrespect to all the real victims of columbine, but the whole ‘we are columbine’ thing is retarded and has been for seven years now. i’m sure there are a bunch of meanings we can twist it into so that the slogan works for the community or other students, etc., but none of those reasons come to mind whenever i hear(d) it and saw it on the back of every car in colorado. i’m sure people might know other people who were part of it. and i’d like to think i’m different when it comes to columbine because we all lived 30 minutes away with no traffic when it all went down. but i’m not different. just another stupid high school student in ’99. and i’m definitely not columbine. i’m sure i could network myself in somehow because i know this one guy who was doing this chick who goes to columbine, etc. it’s weird to think that these guys added a new day to the unofficial american calendar. actually, they gave the day a second reason for remembrance. that’s a lot of power though. so i’ve never met anyone who was actually at columbine when it happened. there’s a lot of phonies out there i can tell you that. and did you know that april 20 is also hitler’s birthday? that’s so weird.
Fun With Dick and Jane (2005): not the funniest movie of his. not by a long shot. it was made for the 35 and up crowd. the jokes are either really funny or kinda cheesy and dry. seems like they just wanted to make some movie where jim carey could exploit his physical comedy and his ego. the best performance came from alex baldwin as the top ceo exec that ruins the company. his part was really funny. the story is too unbelievable and tea leoni’s character was so fake. it’s pretty average. not worth seeing though.
Good to hear from you. As always, you have found a way to shut out from your mind any piece of information that could shed light on the dark abyss of liberalism. But I can't blame you for that, Hillary and Dean, Pelosi and Boxer, and all other libs are working overtime to polute the minds of populist idealists. As always however, I still stand by my opinion that anything written in a purely bias manner, usually construes the facts to brighten their side. Unfortunately, becuase of this "false painting" it is hard if not near impossible to draw conclusions independently. I agreed the article was written in a bias manner, however, I also agree that many points are worth accepting.
1) WWII would not have been won without the US. This is not to say our allies, including Russia, were of no import. It was Russia who fought so sternly against Hitler's army during the winter months that allowed the British to hold their ground. Many say it was Hitler's worst mistake to split his forces. But I will also remind you that it was the US that discovered, and had the "balls" to drop the bomb on Japan. Without that the war in Europe could have, and most likely would have turned out differently.
2)I agree with that giving Afghans weapons during the 80's to fight the Russians turned ugly on us. However, in defense of the "savior President Reagon" he did not enjoy the blessing of foreseeing the future. He did what he thought best knowing what he knew and unfortunetly that wasn't the best decision looking back. The big difference between what you pointed out is that the French, Germans, and Russians are all supplying weapons knowing the results. There is nothing right about giving weopons to a dictatorship that suppresses freedom unless you yourself are against freedom. The afforementioned countries don't have the best track records recently for defending freedom.
3)I agree, as do all others including the President, that we never predicted what happened in Iraq. However, we did pick Iraq to fight terrorism. We chose it to fight a dictator who supported and used terrorist tactics to rule his country. The direct link between Saddam and bin Laden has not been made, however I hope you would agree that given the chance, Saddam would have jumped to endorse anything that would cripple the US. That sounds like a serious threat to me. Having known the aftermath, which as I stated we did not, I would still chose Iraq becuase as you pointed out the terrorist have chosen to come together and fight there. It sure beats chasing them around the world. The Iraqis are paying a price to have there freedom and part of that price is to the US. The US is putting the soldiers and money into their independence as a way to win a war against the terrorist. France helped the US in its independence not becuase they cared so much about the right to representation (remember the French revolution came after the war had ended) but rather becuase they were fighting Britain and that gave them a chance to fight the British.
4)About Afghanastan, if you recall, the US gave the UN the dominion over Afghanastan after the Taliban was removed. Have you looked lately out how well they are doing? About as well as one would expect a body of corrupt countries could do.
5)There is indeed other dictators like Castro and Chavez that are a serious problem. I agree that we must watch them carefully. Cuba is a whole different issue that I won't get into (I'm not sure about the sanction idea, I think it probably only hurts the people and raises anti-american sentiment). Venezuela on the other hand i know a little about. One reason we don't attack is Chavez was supposedly elected. I don't know how true that is but for diplomacy purposes we have to agree. It's one thing to go to war against a person the world over agrees is a dictator (Saddam), its another to go to war against someone who was elected. That's awfully un-democratic.
6)Weapons in Iraq is a large threat. Weapons in Iran is a large threat. Weapons in Venezuela, or anyother anti-american country is a large threat to us. I agree, the more weapons we have, the more of a threat we are to Iran and N. Korea. That is a good thing for us to threaten them with our weapons. I would rather them threatened and behave than to have to prove that we really can beat them. It wasn't just the weapons in Iraq, it was the reason a dictator who hates America has so many weapons.
Lastly,
I agree the United States will never be run by the Mulluhs. However, if the Middle East is then more attacks like 9/11 would be much more likely if not inevitable from a group that believes we must die becuase we are a christian nation. I don't want that and I don't think the world, especially the middle east would ever want that. There are a few extremist that want to rule the world. To them, Bush, Blair, and all other democratic leaders that believe in liberty and peace, are those extremist. My vote goes to the extremist of democracy.
Sorry if this long and boring but quite frankly, what else would you expect from me? By the way we are finding out the sex of our baby tonight. I'll text you and let you know.
end quote.
okay, so i just have to get this on the record. no disrespect to all the real victims of columbine, but the whole ‘we are columbine’ thing is retarded and has been for seven years now. i’m sure there are a bunch of meanings we can twist it into so that the slogan works for the community or other students, etc., but none of those reasons come to mind whenever i hear(d) it and saw it on the back of every car in colorado. i’m sure people might know other people who were part of it. and i’d like to think i’m different when it comes to columbine because we all lived 30 minutes away with no traffic when it all went down. but i’m not different. just another stupid high school student in ’99. and i’m definitely not columbine. i’m sure i could network myself in somehow because i know this one guy who was doing this chick who goes to columbine, etc. it’s weird to think that these guys added a new day to the unofficial american calendar. actually, they gave the day a second reason for remembrance. that’s a lot of power though. so i’ve never met anyone who was actually at columbine when it happened. there’s a lot of phonies out there i can tell you that. and did you know that april 20 is also hitler’s birthday? that’s so weird.
Fun With Dick and Jane (2005): not the funniest movie of his. not by a long shot. it was made for the 35 and up crowd. the jokes are either really funny or kinda cheesy and dry. seems like they just wanted to make some movie where jim carey could exploit his physical comedy and his ego. the best performance came from alex baldwin as the top ceo exec that ruins the company. his part was really funny. the story is too unbelievable and tea leoni’s character was so fake. it’s pretty average. not worth seeing though.
Friday, April 21, 2006
the debate: part i
bracken sent me an email a while back from some guy in california who basically wrote this long letter voicing his opinion in favor of the war. the original email isn't really important. but from then on it became back and forth for a few days between bracken and i. i would usually just write the first ideas that popped in my head as i'd respond. this is really long stuff, so it will be broken up into a few posts. it is nothing spectacular, nothing we haven't already heard before, and probably not worth taking the time to read or post. but here it is:
ethan: oh man that is sooooo freaking long. you can't expect me to read all of this. it's like a freaking textbook. because it's from you, i probably won't read it. haha. kidding. no i'll read it. might not be this very second, but i'll get around to it. it's not like the war in iraq is going anywhere. unfortunately, not like your republican leaders. stupid delay.
ethan: so here are my thoughts on this email. these are basically notes of mine that came up as i read it. sorry, but i don't have time to re-read what i wrote and correct any errors or grammar or speling. i'm in class now and got a few projects to do. i hope you are doing well though. i miss talking to you and hearing your own propaganda =). anyways, talk to you later.
First off, it talks about Russia being our ally. I guess this lawyer forgot that the Soviets invaded Poland with the Nazis and took over control of half that country at the start of the war. Some ally. It was only after germany invaded the soviets that they began to actually fight germany.
And he goes on to say that basically the other countries were of no worth to the war and that their big brother (us) turned the tides of the war and without us, the war would have been lost. While some of this is true, it certainly wasn't us that was marching on berlin to end the war. And we came into the war in 1941. another four years passed before the war was actually won.
He talks about the Islamic minority that wants weapons and how france, germany, and Russia have all sold weapons technology to them. What about when we were giving weapons to the afghans who would become the Taliban? Or to saddam, which he used to kill people he is on trial for today? This all took place during your savior president Reagan.
So we have to fight the terrorists somewhere, he says, and we have picked iraq for that. Actually, we didn't pick iraq, they did after we started a war for different reasons. Iraq was not initially a war against terrorism. That was taking place next door in afghanistan. I know it's hard to remember that there was once a war over there.
It is undisputed that saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades? Really? Undisputed? I'd love to see that proof. And if he has, then we have too (see above). And what about kim jong-il or whatever? Castro? Your favorite dictator chavez? These retards haven't been supporting terrorism for decades? When do we attack these idiots? The answer is we don't. I'm not sure why not. You can ask your president that.
"saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction." This lawyer is just another person who doesn't know the meaning of an argument and like bush, only knows how to play with words to appeal to the narrow minded. When did he kill two million Iranians? Haven't heard of that one. I'm glad this lawyer cited all of his "facts."
"We now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihad, the French, Germans, and Russians were selling them arms - we have found more than a million tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq. If Iraq was not a threat to anyone, why did Saddam need a million tons of weapons?" This email is getting stupider and stupider. Why did you send this? How many millions of tons of weapons are probably in the u.s.? does that mean we are a threat to anyone? Well, that answer is yes, but the point is, weapons in a country don't necessarily mean anything.
"If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today." Do you really think there would ever, ever be a day when they have taken over the u.s.? this is ridiculous and just more rhetoric to put fear in people.
It's funny he never talks about the reasons bush went to war in the first place. I'm all for being over there today until iraq is somewhat stable and they can do it on their own. But we should never have gone in the first place.
And I would never dare pass this along to students because his history lessons are skewed and biased. All this is, is propaganda from the right.
that's it for now. tune in next time for b's response.
Lucky Number Slevin (2006): i saw this right after seeing inside man and it wasn’t as good. the opening credits went on forever. of course, the movie is clever and has all the usual twists you’d expect from a movie like this. but they give us so much to think about. there are just too many things that happen in the movie. the story is just so thick with crap going on. the whole plan that gets carried out through the movie is so complex and unbelievable. i like lucy liu’s character. other than that it was just okay. see inside man instead. i apologize that these reviews suck. for the life of me, i cannot remember my thoughts on these movies. i probably had more ideas to write down last week, but a week is a long time in my world.
ethan: oh man that is sooooo freaking long. you can't expect me to read all of this. it's like a freaking textbook. because it's from you, i probably won't read it. haha. kidding. no i'll read it. might not be this very second, but i'll get around to it. it's not like the war in iraq is going anywhere. unfortunately, not like your republican leaders. stupid delay.
ethan: so here are my thoughts on this email. these are basically notes of mine that came up as i read it. sorry, but i don't have time to re-read what i wrote and correct any errors or grammar or speling. i'm in class now and got a few projects to do. i hope you are doing well though. i miss talking to you and hearing your own propaganda =). anyways, talk to you later.
First off, it talks about Russia being our ally. I guess this lawyer forgot that the Soviets invaded Poland with the Nazis and took over control of half that country at the start of the war. Some ally. It was only after germany invaded the soviets that they began to actually fight germany.
And he goes on to say that basically the other countries were of no worth to the war and that their big brother (us) turned the tides of the war and without us, the war would have been lost. While some of this is true, it certainly wasn't us that was marching on berlin to end the war. And we came into the war in 1941. another four years passed before the war was actually won.
He talks about the Islamic minority that wants weapons and how france, germany, and Russia have all sold weapons technology to them. What about when we were giving weapons to the afghans who would become the Taliban? Or to saddam, which he used to kill people he is on trial for today? This all took place during your savior president Reagan.
So we have to fight the terrorists somewhere, he says, and we have picked iraq for that. Actually, we didn't pick iraq, they did after we started a war for different reasons. Iraq was not initially a war against terrorism. That was taking place next door in afghanistan. I know it's hard to remember that there was once a war over there.
It is undisputed that saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades? Really? Undisputed? I'd love to see that proof. And if he has, then we have too (see above). And what about kim jong-il or whatever? Castro? Your favorite dictator chavez? These retards haven't been supporting terrorism for decades? When do we attack these idiots? The answer is we don't. I'm not sure why not. You can ask your president that.
"saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction." This lawyer is just another person who doesn't know the meaning of an argument and like bush, only knows how to play with words to appeal to the narrow minded. When did he kill two million Iranians? Haven't heard of that one. I'm glad this lawyer cited all of his "facts."
"We now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihad, the French, Germans, and Russians were selling them arms - we have found more than a million tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq. If Iraq was not a threat to anyone, why did Saddam need a million tons of weapons?" This email is getting stupider and stupider. Why did you send this? How many millions of tons of weapons are probably in the u.s.? does that mean we are a threat to anyone? Well, that answer is yes, but the point is, weapons in a country don't necessarily mean anything.
"If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today." Do you really think there would ever, ever be a day when they have taken over the u.s.? this is ridiculous and just more rhetoric to put fear in people.
It's funny he never talks about the reasons bush went to war in the first place. I'm all for being over there today until iraq is somewhat stable and they can do it on their own. But we should never have gone in the first place.
And I would never dare pass this along to students because his history lessons are skewed and biased. All this is, is propaganda from the right.
that's it for now. tune in next time for b's response.
Lucky Number Slevin (2006): i saw this right after seeing inside man and it wasn’t as good. the opening credits went on forever. of course, the movie is clever and has all the usual twists you’d expect from a movie like this. but they give us so much to think about. there are just too many things that happen in the movie. the story is just so thick with crap going on. the whole plan that gets carried out through the movie is so complex and unbelievable. i like lucy liu’s character. other than that it was just okay. see inside man instead. i apologize that these reviews suck. for the life of me, i cannot remember my thoughts on these movies. i probably had more ideas to write down last week, but a week is a long time in my world.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)