Welcome to my life.

I'm a self-avowed WordPress Whisperer with a specialization in front-end design. I live in Maryland. I take lovely photos, go to the gym a lot, and opine strongly over design, aesthetics, and politics. I'm prolific on Twitter; I used to post to Flickr; I have a moblog and in my spare time I help out at the SemperFi WP Support forums. Read more about me.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

My friend and I went to see the latest Harry Potter movie at the theatres yesterday. That I saw a film during its theatre run is a small wonder in itself; having seen the two movies prior to this one, I figured this one was well worth the money.

I was in no way disappointed.

I’ve never read the books; my commentary is from a film viewer’s perspective. I’ll try to avoid spoilers, though I’m sure anyone who’s read the books know what’s up. The ones who haven’t read them, however, and are out to watch the movie, at least need to be treated fairly.

My first comment on this film from its very beginning, is that it is grim beyond belief. I thought that it was fairly bleak in Azkaban, but this one has taken the cake so far. Not even during the high points of the Tri-Wizard Cup did any lustre shine through. Just points of light in darkness.

Secondly, I need to get in depth on the nature of the Defense Against The Dark Arts class. In the past three movies, maybe in consideration of the students’ young age, that class was marked with almost a tinge of frivolity. In the current movie, upon introduction of the Three Unforgiveable Curses, I thought to myself: This is how a class like that should be taught.

The last point I have about the movie is the contrast to what happened in Azkaban. In the previous film, Hermione and Harry go three hours into the past to do the right thing and save two innocent lives, this after having done nothing to save the condemned hippogrif. In this film, Harry did the “right thing” at the end of the tournament and in doing so got Cedric Diggory in trouble. Of course, “what ifs” can be debated until we’re blue in the face, but this is the fact of life that Harry had to take with him this time: sometimes, we’d do the right thing and it would still lead to people getting harmed anyway. But you got to do it for your sake anyway.

This movie might just make me pick up the next two books considering the time I have to wait for the next movies to be shot and released.

Bulletfest

Just random thoughts this Saturday morning after work.

  • Trey Givens has a few perspectives on Batman versus Superman. Of their respective home cities he says: I like Superman better than Batman because Gotham is a bad place where good people happen, while Metropolis is a good place where bad people happen.

    Call me a cynic but I tend to take his view too, of the world. The world—the universe—is a dark, dangerous place filled with points of light. It is in those points that we take comfort. To believe that the universe is basically good and that bad things happen to it fills one with little hope and a pressing desire—at least with someone as anal-retentive as myself—to make things right.

    I would rather take comfort in the points of light than having to desperately fight the little clouds that tarnish and otherwise perfect sky. There is little solace in taking the latter perspective.

  • Eric the Red has some thoughts on gay marriage from an equality perspective. If we believe that rights are afforded not by men nor governments but as incidents of our humanity, then it is important to realize that the families formed by gays and lesbians are no different in standing nor validity as those of traditional families. They need the same protections these families have. Even if for their children.

    That said, equality by decree tends to take away a society’s opportunity for grace. Rather, choices are made for them, either by their elected representatives or wise men and women in black robes. This of course can stir resentment, no doubt, but how long should an entire group wait, and for what?

    Considering that tolerance demands even greater grace than acceptance, perhaps the last step for willful integration from the side of heterosexuals is for them to tolerate the marriages and families that homosexuals form.

  • I’ve dealt with people who are so grossly self-absorbed that I speaking with them is totally draining. A while back I knew someone who got seriously hurt. When our conversation was winding down, I wished him well and a great recovery. His response? Go on, act like you care.

    I was taken aback by his reply, given that it was he who opened up about the details of his recent past, that, rather than countering his gracelessness with my own, I did so with some malice: I take it back. I hope you contract sepsis and die. Have a good life.

    I really don’t know what became of him later on; since I was, in his mind, pretending to care, I might as well make his self-centered fanatsy come true.

  • Ever greet someone a Happy Thanksgiving and get the utterly classless reply that they don’t celebrate the holiday?

    Being gracious never really precluded honesty, but just how hard is it to simply say “thanks” and not be a self-centered nitwit?

Today I snorted some white stuff…

Salt, actually, in hypertonic solution. For the first time since May, I’ve gone half an hour without blowing my nose.

Happy thanksgiving!

Mistakes and lies

Michael Barone writes in Real Clear Politics about the findings of the Silberman-Robb commission. I haven’t read the whole thing, and we shall take away from it what we will based on our biases, but here’s what Barone has to say:

To the charges that Bush “cherry-picked” intelligence, the commission co-chaired by former Democratic Sen. Charles Robb found that the intelligence available to Bush but not to Congress was even more alarming than the intelligence Congress had.

The Silberman-Robb panel also concluded, after a detailed investigation, that in no instance did Bush administration authorities pressure intelligence officials to alter their findings.

Much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. But Bush didn’t lie about it. [...]

I don’t know how Joe Wilson’s assertions fit in all this. I don’t even know if he’s been mentioned in the report. As I said I’ll time to read the report on my own, but I am always particular about the distinction between mistakes and lies, and how the non-factuality of what one knows does not necessarily make one a liar should one spread this false knowledge.

A deception, or lie, is willful dissemination of what is known to be false. What we need to know, as much as we can without jeopardizing nat’l security, is what the mistakes are, and what the lies are.

We then take a closer step towards the truth.

Link credit: Barone column found from Right Rainbow.

Bulletfest

The circumventing circumlocutory talk edition.

  • My sister left a comment in Filipino in the previous post asking me to explain to ETR my desires for such violent vengeance to be met upon those who stole my sister’s van. Well, in not so many words, either. I was going to start a long reflective rant on how theft of a car is an egregious affront to one’s livelihood, and material worth. Instead, two bits. First, the opening to the would-be rant:

    One day a young boy, in Anytown, USA, lost his tooth in the playground. Crying in pain he took it to his mother. She consoled him and told him that the tooth fairy would come and give him money for it if he left it under his pillow. He did so, and when he woke up the next day he found a dollar under his pillow. Being the enterprising American boy that he was, he went to school that same morning with a big smile on his face and his dad’s pliers in his bag.

    I can be one sick bastard, ya? Second, I remember my friend John (now in NY) would say that one should never get between a man and his car; it is his wife until he finds a human one. I would say that one should never get between a mom and her minivan.

  • It’s orange for breakfast, apple for lunch. In this week’s Boston Legal we saw some Schmidt in a flaming brown paper bag. Crisp and hot outside, and soft inside. I found this past episode to be quite potent, and I’ve always indulged David E. Kelley’s shows because they’ve always appealed to that Pollyanna-ish liberal portion of me. This one is far from political though.
  • This whole “Open Sores Media” thing is way over my head. I do know this. If part of being part of them is having control over the way my site’s content is syndicated, I’m out. (I discussed this long before.) Professor Ann has some sauce; Doc Joyner has the meat. And since I’m nearly carb-free but not Atkins, I’m bringing the creamed spinach.
  • Dunno if Meryl‘s plugged me for my work on her site, but I want to plug her this weekend.
  • Lastly, I’m buying a Treo 650 from a trusted online buddy. So in legal terms, “right of first refusal” is almost like having dibs, yes? I learn something new everyday. I SMS like crazy and my A650 is going to be my mom’s now. Hey does the Treo 650 actually vibrate? I sound so naive! Just a warning: I don’t have a data plan with Verizon and I won’t be checking my email on it either. It’s more of an SMS and planner thing for me. OFJ email isn’t going to chase me all over the place.

Violent fantasy

In my perfect world, the punishment for car thieves like the one (or ones) who stole my sister’s van—stolen with enough audacity as to have been taken from her own driveway—would involve my personally yanking their teeth out with a claw hammer, removing their most distal phalanges from all their fingers, and dousing their legs with gasoline and setting them on fire.

Unfortunately the most I could hope for is their capture and subsequent imprisonment, if that.

I miss blogging…

I’ve been so busy at work with a schedule from 8p through 5:30a or so that I barely have time to blog these days. I have a design job on the side that I need to do, too, and so, as should be evident, my time for other things is down to a trickle. I’m not dead yet.

In the meantime let me plug the most recent design I’ve done: C. Frederick Wehba‘s blog.

My own Alitogasm

A few links I’ve gathered so far that bolster my belief that Alito is not a “far right extremist” and instead more of one who exercises judicial restraint:

  • Poliblogger notes four abortion-related cases, only one doesn’t rule in the pro-choice side. He quotes from the Christian Science Monitor:

    A 1997 challenge to a New Jersey law that prevents parents from suing for damages on behalf of the wrongful death of a fetus. Alito ruled that the Constitution does not afford protection to the unborn

    WHY aren’t the anti-abortion—*ahem* pro-life—folks not losing their minds over this? I for one, though opposed to abortion in general, find credence in Alito’s position in the quoted text.

  • And if there is one post you must read, absolutely have to read in terms of the now-infamous (thanks to the media) lone dissent in PA’s Casey case, it’s got to be Patterico’s. He quotes from Alito himself:

    Whether the legislature’s approach represents sound public policy is not a question for us to decide. Our task here is simply to decide whether Section 3209 meets constitutional standards… We have no authority to overrule that legislative judgment even if we deem it “unwise” or worse. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 U.S. at 175, 101 S.Ct. at 459. “We should not forget that ‘legislatures are ultimate guardians of the liberty and welfare of the people in quite as great a degree as the courts.’”

    This is the quiet, calm firmness and judicial restraint that bolsters my confidence in the guy

  • This third page of Michael Barone’s column on Alito says something about his demeanor: Alito’s supporters argue that he is a very careful and polite judge, not given to sarcastic and humorous remarks as Justice Scalia is. He certainly seems to have a solid grounding in the law. He may or may not have the charm Roberts showed, but he seems likely to make a very positive impression. His will be a good voice in all the opinions written where the theme is that the case is not in the province of the Supreme Court. I could almost imagine him giving Scalia a chill pill…

It is worth noting, however, that such a judge will tend to let legislatures have their way as long as they pass constitutional mustard. I’m guessing that he has enough condiments (bonus points to the first commenter who guesses where I got the food reference) to write an opinion based on current precedent to uphold most laws. It is a concern, then, among gays I know whether they can count on a Roberts SCOTUS with Alito in the mix to rule in favor of gay marriage as brought by lawsuit upon their doorsteps. I don’t know the answer to that. One thing I know is that if a state legislature were to deem it to be part of their state’s constitution, I see no way this guy would overturn it (unlike Janice Rogers Brown whom I suspect would actually find a way to rule against it, knowing her). I also see no way that he would not honor the full faith and credit clause in the constitution with regards to the issue. Of course, I can expect the “gay lobby” to ignore all this anyway.

I have no guess, so far, on how he might rule on corporate liability cases, governmental encroachment a la Kelo, or in cases that deal with the rights of the accused. We’ll just have to wait and see, won’t we?

Archives

Monthly

Categories