Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/31/2002 01:00:00 AM (Archive Link)
You may not have heard about this, but George Michael is a marked man. Yes, the singer’s very life is in mortal peril in these United States. Read it for yourself here. He apparently has made some song that criticizes the war on terror and satirizes the close political/diplomatic relationship between England and America. Naturally, there was some controversy over it (I hope you didn’t miss the uproar and national outrage) and now the artist who formerly led Wham feels threatened. Says Michael, “It's been very heavily inferred that I was actually an al Qaeda sympathiser, that somehow I thought that there was something not horrific and shocking about the attacks on September 11. I was trying to do some damage control because my life was in danger. Americans are very reactionary right now and I -- because of that article -- cannot return to America, even though my partner lives there.” George Michael is not too bright. The man has obviously overestimated his importance and popularity. There are plenty of Americans who criticize all sorts of things, including the war on terror. They manage quite easily to avoid lynchings and assassinations. We’re hardly going to be concerned about a washed-up singer and a mediocre song that won’t even be released in the U.S. In short, his life is in no danger. Michael has claimed that he didn’t do this song to receive publicity. However, it seems pretty obvious that he’s playing this up for the European media so he can generate some hype before his new album is released there. Rather sad practice, really.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/29/2002 12:50:00 AM (Archive Link)
I’m getting married this coming December and so I was at a bridal show today with my fiancée. I was rather struck by the grand capitalism of it all… all these different businesses offering the same services (cakes, DJ’s, dresses, etc.) advertising themselves and competing against each other. That’s what it’s about.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/29/2002 12:50:00 AM (Archive Link)
On a somewhat related note, I read in today’s paper that Fidel Castro gave a speech criticizing capitalism and calling the current corporate problems the system’s natural comeuppance. He also stressed how it was hurting old widows, the working man, and cute brown-eyed puppies. I found this absurd and amusing. Better a couple of bad year’s under capitalism than 50 bad years under communism. And even then, the former’s worse years are far, far better than the latter’s best years. Castro forgot to point that out.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/25/2002 01:36:00 AM (Archive Link)
I read an article in the paper today about Pope John Paul II’s visit to Canada. Let me just state for the record that there are few men I admire more than Pope J.P. This is a man who has led the world’s largest organized religion through some of the most turbulent times of the 20th century; a man who ardently worked to bring down Communism; a man who has sought reconciliation with other Christian groups; a man who sought greater communication and cooperation with other faiths and yet still shunned pluralism while supporting the integrity and truth of his own faith; a man who exhibits some of the finest moral points of Christianity. In short, there’s a lot to like there.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/25/2002 01:27:00 AM (Archive Link)
So I’ve taken time to consider it and I’ve decided that I don’t trust Islam. I obviously don’t trust the radicalized version that openly advocates terrorism and violence against the non-believers. My problem is that I sometimes wonder just how far the rest of the Islamic world is from this radical mentality. This is the only major religion whose holy text calls for not just for the conversion of the infidel, but their elimination if conversion fails. It is the only major religion that was born not out of violence committed to it, but by violence that the faith itself committed on others. It is the only major religion that consistently perpetrated violence against non-believers throughout its history. It is the only major religion that specifically calls for a particular type of government. For these reasons alone, I don’t trust it. And yes, you can say that Christianity has its share of blemishes, it has its Crusades, its Inquisitions, and yes, you can bring up the great medieval Arabian academia as evidence of Islam’s positive side. Yes, and again yes… don’t bore me. The western, Christian countries of the world long ago leapfrogged, lapped, and utterly passed by the Islamic nations that stayed the same. The character and values of the West and of Christianity have changed for the better while the Middle East’s character has remained fundamentally the same. And yes, there are many, many peace loving Muslims out there and in America. However, I wonder how much of that is a quality of the religion or a quality of the surrounding culture imposing itself upon the religion. I wonder how much of a nudge it would take to persuade a majority or even a minority of these peaceful people to change their nature to radicalism… back to the roots and historical character of the faith. Honestly, I don’t think it would take much to push the disillusioned given the right circumstances. And thus, I find Islam uncomfortable.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/24/2002 01:41:00 AM (Archive Link)
Those of you who may be familiar with this site know that I'm a rather ardent supporter of Israel. However, I can't very well condone the method in which they eliminated a prominent Hamas leader, Salah Shehade. Using an F-16 to fire a missile into a residential area was ill-advised at best and it resulted in killing 14 others besides Shehade, including several children. One Israeli pointed to a massive intelligence failure, but I don't buy it. If their intelligence was so good that they knew where Shehade was, then they must have known about the nature of the people around him. Their damage-control/spin is pretty woeful too, with Ariel Sharon declaring the mission a success in the face of international criticism. I'm afraid that Israel's zeal to remove a potent enemy outweighed its better judgment and blinded them to the consequences, the unnecessary collateral damage, and the resulting rhetorical losing battle. They need to use more prudence in the future but that will be a given as this incident will certainly make them overly cautious.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/21/2002 02:28:00 AM (Archive Link)
I just finsihed watching AI: Artificial Intelligence for the first time. I didn’t like it all that much. The special effects were great and the overall concept was compelling, but it was just too Spielbergian for me. I would have preferred a little more Kubrick to keep the darker themes alive. For me, the main points involve whether or not a machine can possess real emotions and conciousness, and the inevitable conflicts between highly advanced androids and humans. The film deals with the themes here and there but ultimately veers off into territory that could have been have covered by a Lifetime movie of the week as the protagonist tries to win his “mother’s” love. This made the “second” ending to the movie absolutely hideous because it’s so insipid and sugar coated. If you’re a diabetic, you should leave before this part. Kubrick, of course, would have left the kid stuck in the ice and ended the movie that way. It would have better and shorter. Ummm… I hope I didn’t give anything away with that last part.

I don’t want to spoil anything (more anyway), but for me, the best scene was Chris Rock’s brief voiceover.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/21/2002 02:27:00 AM (Archive Link)
After I watch a movie, I usually hop online and look up details and trivia on IMDB.com. Then I’ll read Roger Ebert’s review (Ebert's AI review is here). I do this because I’m interested in what somebody else has to say about a flick and because Ebert reviews everything. Sometimes I wish I didn’t read his reviews, though, since I usually think he’s a complete idiot. AI is a case in point. As I said before, I consider a primary theme to be the question of whether or not a machine can love and have emotions. Ebert, however, skips right over this because he’s already decided the answer is no, and then that colors the rest of his review. He already answers the question and therefore is ignorant that the question exists in the first place. Besides, if the twit knew anything about philosophy of mind and the issues at stake, he wouldn’t be so dismissive of the concept. It’s a tad more involved than wondering if a toaster can think.

So, no, I don’t like Ebert. Aside from this, there have numerous other occasions where he’s utterly missed the point of a movie or where he’s gotten details dead wrong. Thus far, I’ve only read one review where I completely agreed with him. For the rest of the reviews, I only agree with certain sentences… when they’re taken out of context.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/18/2002 10:47:00 PM (Archive Link)
I was flipping through the channels when I came to the public access station. The program on was from The Nation of Yahweh. I thought this was an interesting title so I decided to watch for a little bit. Apparently, the Nation of Yahweh is this group who consider some guy calling himself Yahweh ben Yahweh to be the Messiah. The group seems to be an odd mixture of Judaism, Christianity, and Nation of Islam. It’s an African American group and they say that when the Bible speaks of God’s people or of the Hebrew people, it’s really referring to black Americans. The real fun part of the program, though, was listening the logical proofs showing Mr. ben Yahweh is the son of God. I missed most of the last half of the show, but it appears ben Yahweh is in prison for some reason. So the host quotes Matthew 27:62,64 which portrays the Pharisees asking Pilate to keep Jesus’ tomb secure three days so his disciples can’t come along and swipe the body. Specifically, they ask Pilate to command such action. Ok… here goes… when “command” is looked up in a book called “The Synonym Finder,” (no, really!) you see that a synonym is “mandamus.” Then if you look it up in the dictionary, the definition involves issuing a request, etc., or a writ. “Writ” is defined as being a legal order by a government. So then it becomes clear that the request was a legal issue and the group of Pharisees were composed of judges, lawyers, and parole commission authorities. Please, stop snickering… they really did say parole commission authorities. Furthermore, this meant that Pilate represented the Supreme Court of which he was the judge and the three days was the group trying to keep Jesus locked up for the maximum time. I love it! Later, we also learn that the virgin was a term for an unconscious people (black Americans) who would give rise to the Messiah. I thought it was odd how they quoted the Old and New Testaments as proof of Yahweh ben Yahweh’s divine parentage but they never directly mentioned Jesus. It’s as if that whole aspect didn’t exist. Anyway, I really love reading about different cults just because their reasoning is so bizarre and the logic so poor that I find it fascinating and amusing that people buy into them. If you care to find out more about this particular cult, go here. You’ll discover that these people were actually very violent. It also mentions the very program I just saw! The show gave a website address, www.yahwehbenyahweh.com, but it doesn’t seem to exist.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/16/2002 10:53:00 PM (Archive Link)
Check out the following article on TheNation.com. Rarely I have a read anything that packs so much American self-loathing, revisionist history, and left-wing thinking in so short a space. The author, Edward Hoagland, apparently means the point of the article to be thus, “Simple hedonism and materialism was not the point of crossing the ocean. Our revolution was better than that. It was to paint the world anew.” Those are the last two sentences and TheNation’s main page uses them as the summary. The actual article, though, does nothing to get to them. Instead, it’s filled with invective towards America concerning: capitalism, greed, racism, war-mongering, racist war-mongering, oppressive policies towards the third world, shallowness, environmental abuse, religious intolerance, cultural snobbishness, and a few other things I’m not quite sure how to word. It’s all in there in a few short paragraphs. Its breadth of whining is really quite impressive given the space. My problem with it is that Hoagland concerns himself so much with diverse complaints that he doesn’t bother backing anything up. He just throws it out and expects the choir to eat it up. My real irritation, though, is that he never bothers getting to the stated point. He puts forth a great deal of negativity but never clearly puts that in relation to his thesis. Then he doesn’t positively support the thesis. Very well… our revolution was better than hedonism and materialism and its purpose was to paint the world anew. So give me some detail on that. What were the goals? How have we fulfilled them? Frankly, given the rest of the piece, I don’t know why he considers America’s existence to be of any value. The article is absurd in its points, ugly in its lack of evidence and development, and sinful in its overall ignorance of the thesis. Absurdity I can stand. The latter two problems, though, are just bad writing.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/16/2002 01:19:00 AM (Archive Link)
For those who doubt or question the greatness of America and the hope and light it is to people around the world, let me recount a story told to me by my friend, Lisa, who recently returned from a mission trip in Uganda. On at least one occasion (although I think were more instances), she was holding a baby while the mother looked on. When Lisa attempted to return the child, the mother refused to take her back, saying, “No, no, please… you take her to America.” It wasn’t because she didn’t love her child, it was because she loved it so much that she was willing to give it up so she could have a better life in the U.S. Dwell on it.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/16/2002 01:18:00 AM (Archive Link)
A recent article in the Denver Post discusses country singer Chad Brock’s remarks at a July 4th concert. In between sets, he asserted that immigrants should learn to speak English. “You are coming to our country. We don't speak Russian. We don't speak Spanish. We speak English here,” he said. I fully agree with him. Many, however, do not. One college professor accused him of being “bigoted, inflammatory, and hateful.” It remains, though, that the predominant language in this country is English. You simply cannot expect to advance and be successful if you don’t speak the language. This should seem obvious and yet the pendulum on this issue has swung back and forth. Thirty, forty years ago, an immigrant’s native tongue was a thing of shame. It wasn’t used except at home, if even then. The previous generation would go to great pains to use English exclusively so that their children would know it well and advance in the wide world. For these now-adult children, however, some of them feel a sense of loss and ethnic detachment in not knowing the language of their ancestors. So perhaps exclusive English isn’t the best. The pendulum swung the other way in the past twenty years, though, and we started nurturing the native language, we encouraged it. We set up bilingual classes so immigrants could better learn things like math in school and so they wouldn’t have crushed self-esteem. Studies have shown, however, that these children never master English as well as English-only students and they ultimately have a tougher time academically and socially. If the pendulum were to stay in the middle, then English would be exclusively used in school and government. The nurturing of native languages would be left up to those families that speak it, with no attached stigma.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/16/2002 01:16:00 AM (Archive Link)
A question has occurred to me recently as I’ve watched the news or read the newspaper. The images from dictatorship countries or other leader-worship nations many times have a picture of said leader in them. A giant banner of Arafat, Kim Il Sung’s mug occupying the side of a building, Mao everywhere in China, Lenin everywhere in the old Soviet Union. I once read a joke that’s popular in Iraq… an Iraqi man brings his broken black and white TV to the shop to get fixed. The repairman takes out the tube and pastes a nice picture of Saddam Hussein on the screen. When the TV owner protests, the repairman’s response is, “What? Not only did I fix it, but now it’s in color!” The point and punch line, of course, is the ubiquity of Saddam’s image in Iraq. So my curiosity is this… are the people who immigrate to the United States from these countries at all surprised that we don’t have pictures and statues of George Bush all over the place? Nor do we have founding father images scattered about the cityscape? All we have are a few modest monuments here or there, maybe a little bigger in D.C. I wonder if the poor souls in those nations think everybody has the big leader displays.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/16/2002 01:15:00 AM (Archive Link)
I was just flipping through the channels and I came upon an old G.I. Joe episode on the Cartoon Network. I haven’t seen that show since I was a lad. It never occurred to me just how pro-military it was. I like it. It’s also a little strange considering our present circumstances. The cartoon revolved around a potent American fighting force battling against a nebulous, terrorist enemy bent on undermining America. Sound familiar? Ahhh… the deep and prophetic aspects of G.I. Joe. Knowing is half the battle.

Something else that hit me… this has to be one of the few shows where the archenemy (Cobra Commander) has a really bad lisp.

One more thing concerning this episode in particular that I found very amusing is a reporter character called Hector Ramirez. He was Hispanic, had a mustache, and was looking for a sensationalistic story. Yes, we’ve found many ways over the years to make fun of Geraldo.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/10/2002 01:39:00 AM (Archive Link)
Check out this article on NationalReview.com or this story at the New York Post concerning the Al Sharpton/Michael Jackson episode I discussed in a previous post. It appears I was right on several counts: Al Sharpton is crafty, Michael Jackson is very strange, and the King of Pop has no credibility with African Americans or at least black artists.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/09/2002 12:55:00 AM (Archive Link)
You may have noticed that I added a Favorite Blog section that is currently occupied by only Superfly Pete. Mr. Superfly is a friend of mine and he just started up his own blog. As such, it's now in the early, slightly undeveloped stage, but I'm sure it will be quite good once he gets it going.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/09/2002 12:46:00 AM (Archive Link)
Just read this article on CNN.com. It appears that Michael Jackson has come out and said that the music industry is racist. His particular target is Sony Music chairman Tommy Mottola. Jackson referred to him as “mean, he’s a racist, and he’s very, very, very devilish.” I find the timing on this to be rather poignant considering that Jackson currently owes millions to Sony music after his last album, Invincible, failed to make much money.

What I don’t find odd is that the Gloved One has teamed up with Al Sharpton to help with his cause. If there’s anything Mr. Sharpton is skilled at, it’s attaching himself to a high profile, racially charged cause. He’ll do whatever he can to make the case more public, even more racially charged, and will fill the air with rumors, innuendo, and astoundingly daring lies. It certainly helps that the primary target of his invective is one person. Having a single enemy makes a smear campaign much easier.

Although, I’m hoping that the only person getting smeared by all this is Mr. Sharpton himself. As I’ve complained elsewhere about the current state of the civil rights “movement,” its proponents have a bad habit of choosing rather poor subjects as their poster boys. They often defend the cause of somebody who has a history of violence or who is blindingly guilty. In the case of O.J. Simpson, for example, he not only fell into those two categories, but he was hardly a member of the black community. He had amassed a great deal of money, was married to a white woman, hobnobbed with stars, lived in an exclusive and white part of town, and never did anything noble to give back to the village that raised him. He couldn’t much care for black people. And yet he was raised up on the shoulders of the oppressed minority as a paragon of… well, not virtue… but of a dark skinned guy given a raw deal by the man. Suddenly Mr. Simpson was adored and uplifted by a community he explicitly shunned.

So in a similar vein, I find Michael Jackson to be a very strange poster boy. Granted, he doesn’t have a history of violence, but he’s certainly not the sort you would expect to be touted as the key to a racial agenda. Over the years, the man has done almost everything possible to obscure his African roots. Even if you put aside the debate concerning the veracity of his skin-lightening condition, the massive amount plastic surgery speaks for itself. He’s changed his nose, chin, cheekbones, eyes, etc., and now looks like a frightening mannequin-like white man. He’s been an isolated superstar all his life and has used his fame and fortune to further isolate himself on his fantasy ranch. All this and his increasing weirdness severely limit his credibility as somebody who is representative of your typical African American. I can only hope that this in turn will strain Mr. Sharpton’s credibility as well. He’s crafty, though, so I wouldn’t count on it.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/03/2002 12:19:00 AM (Archive Link)
So I was reading the paper, as I am wont to do, and I came across an Associate Press story about Abner Louima. You may recall that he was the gentleman upon whom two police officers decided to practice police brutality. In this case, it took the form of sodomizing Louima with a broken broomstick in a police station bathroom. This resulted in a torn rectum and bladder. What I found curious about the article is how it seemed to intentionally avoid the word, “sodomize.” Every other account of the incident that I have read up to this point has always referred to the assault as sodomizing. However, this AP version referred to the action as “torture” and “brutalization.” Accurate words, yes, but not descriptive as to what actually occurred. If you weren’t already familiar with the case, you’d be left wondering what exactly the officers did to Louima unless you pieced a few clues together. My point to all this is that the AP writer obviously avoided using the verb, “sodomize,” which I think is quite odd and I can’t think of a good reason why he did so.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 7/02/2002 12:08:00 AM (Archive Link)
Make sure to check out this site. It puts a real face on the results of terrorism.