Climate Denier’s Day of Reckoning

November 9, 2007 By 3 Comments

At some point (hopefully in the very near future) politicians, skeptics and blowhards who deny that human beings are altering the Earth’s climate will have to snap out of their right-wing fantasy lands and face facts. For Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina, that day finally came, thanks in part to his children:

Once a skeptic of global warming, Inglis got a hint that the political winds might be shifting when a longtime supporter warned that he might vote against Inglis if he “didn’t clean up his act on the environment.”

The warning came from Inglis’ eldest son, Robert Jr., now 22.

His daughter was no less blunt about the congressman’s refusal to embrace the view that global warming was being caused by human actions and that a serious response is needed. “I have three more kids coming up — and they seem to share the same view,” Inglis said.

Family pressure worked. Inglis traveled to Antarctica and, most recently, to Greenland to witness the effects of rising CO2 levels and temperatures. He now believes the science behind global warming. And he believes the politics are equally conclusive: Republicans will “get hammered” if they do not reckon with the issue soon.

Imagine that. A representative does a little research, takes a trip to see the effects of climate change first hand, and realizes that the bullshit climate critics have been force-feeding him for years was wrong. Perhaps there’s hope for us yet. In the meantime, Al Gore continues to fight the good fight and come to the aid of whales everywhere.

Filed Under: Politics, Science

Lean On Me

November 7, 2007 By 1 Comment

My long-time friend from college, David Miller, has written a wonderful post about Twitter, the internet and blogging in general. His post goes to the heart of why so many people enjoy sharing their thoughts and experiences online. I’ve often read that some people don’t “get” why individuals blog or why someone would express themselves on Twitter in 140 characters or less. Dave hits the nail on the head with this bit:

“I think that it helps us not feel alone in the situations whether they are good times or not so good. That there are others out there who have had these experiences that make us human. It’s also cathartic for me to help express whatever feelings I’m having at the time.”

In a world when people can sometimes go days or weeks without talking or interacting with friends and family face to face, it’s comforting to know that you can reach out via the “tubes” and feel connected instantly. Blogging allows people to express themselves to those who might never have ever met in real life. Twitter goes one step further and distills these expressions down to ultra-concise nuggets of internet gold. It parses whole conversations into manageable chunks that we can either pay attention to or completely ignore.

I liken it to when I was in college, hanging out in the dormitory lounge for hours on end. People would come and go, things were happening all around me. I could either choose to participate in the discussion by throwing out my own occasional 2 cents, or I could sit back, watch TV, and eavesdrop on those over my shoulder. I knew friends like Dave were only an arm’s length away and would be there for me if I needed them. In a very small, and important way, Twitter is a lot like that. Think of it as a social, technical and professional support system for the digital generation. What’s not to “get”?

Filed Under: Geek, Myself

It’s Not Torture When We Do It

November 7, 2007 By 7 Comments

A couple of weeks ago, Brad & Britt invited callers to phone in and give their opinions on whether or not the interrogation technique known as “waterboarding” was torture and if the United States should be engaged in it. I listened to the program for about 30 minutes before heading to work and most of the callers who phoned in took the stance that it was not torture and even if it was, it was acceptable in order to save American lives.

Over on The Conservative Alternative (a local Greensboro blog) a similar discussion has broken out on the topic and I find it both fascinating and scary what some people will justify to themselves in the name of security. To them, waterboarding is acceptable because it combats the nature of the “greatest threat” our nation has ever faced – Islamofascism. As if we never faced any greater challenges than a religious mindset.

To the folks over at TCA, and all those who phoned into the Brad & Britt show that morning, I have one simple question:

“If you consider the interrogation technique known as ‘waterboarding’ to be an acceptable form of treatment for prisoners held by the United States, do you then agree that American service men and women, held by our enemies in a time of war, can be subjected to waterboarding themselves as a means to gain information?”

I tried to get several of the conservative commentators over at TCA to give their answer, but no one had the balls to actually come out and say yes or no. The reason why this is so difficult for them is simple. If you believe that waterboarding is okay when we do it, then it has to be okay when they do it to us, and that is something no one would ever agree to. No one in their right minds would try and justify applying “extreme interrogation techniques” to American service men and women held in foreign lands, nor should they. Torture is cruel, inhumane and ultimately self defeating as a means to gather information. Even those in our own government have admitted that waterboarding is torture, and yet somehow, it is considered acceptable behavior for the greatest nation on Earth.

I don’t know about you, but from where I’m standing we’ve lost the moral high-ground on issues like torture. The United States I grew up in didn’t lock people up without representation, it didn’t didn’t try to silence dissent and it sure as hell never tortured people. We’ve lost a great deal in the last six years, not the least of which is a true sense of what we’re fighting for. I have no desire for this nation to become like those who would seek to destroy us. But sadly in many ways, it appears we already have.

Filed Under: Politics

Where Have All the Heroes Gone?

November 3, 2007 By 55 Comments

SPOILERS AHEAD: This post contains potential spoilers for seasons 1 & 2 of the NBC drama, Heroes. If you’ve not watched yet but are planning to, then you’ll want to skip this post. You’ve been warned.

Unlike many of the fans that are addicted to NBC’s hit show, Heroes, I wasn’t hooked from the start. In fact, I never even tuned in until my wife convinced me to give it a try with the release of the season 1 DVD. She had been telling me how good it was for months and that I should really watch it. The guys at work loved it too and I often had to drown out their weekly discussions of the show with loud bouts of Tears for Fears pumping through my headphones while they would theorize about the various characters, plot points and next week’s episode. From the start, I had thought of Heroes as a cheap, TV knock-off of Marvel’s X-Men and not really worth my time. It took a couple of episodes before I saw how well crafted Heroes was, but once I did, there was no stopping. Burning through season 1 on DVD was thoroughly enjoyable & utterly addicting.

Each episode flowed freely into the next and I found myself caught up in multiple story arcs and solid character development. I really enjoyed watching Hiro Nakamura’s evolution from geeky Star Trek nerd to full fledged warrior, all the while keeping his sense of humor. Series favorite Claire, was surprisingly well handled too. I had assumed her character would be a rip from one of my all time favorites, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but again I was wrong. The story of Claire and her compelling father played by Jack Coleman, brought both drama and realism to this fantastical universe. The show even found a catch phrase that gave fans a type of “secret hand-shake” that only others of their kind would understand – “Save the cheerleader, save the world.”

Life was good. Until it immediately turned to crap.

I’ve been patiently waiting for season two of Heroes to “start”. So far, no luck. Unlike season 1, this year, the various characters don’t seem to be developing. There are vague notions of a new threat, and more foreshadowing of the future thanks to Isaac’s lost paintings, but in general, the arc is moving at a snail’s pace. By this time in season 1 viewers were solidly hooked and couldn’t wait for each new episode. This time around, I barely remember what happened last week. If it wasn’t for the “previously on Heroes” leader at the start each episode, I think I’d be lost. What’s going on? Where’s the magic?

I think one problem is expectations. So many fans got caught up in the amazing writing, acting and story arc development last year, that nothing the writers could do this time around could ever hope to come close. They’ve attempted to placate fans with new characters, abilities and a few geeky stars thrown in for good measure, all to no avail. Veronica Mars’ Kristen Bell and even Nichelle Nichols from Star Trek: TOS, can’t keep the sub-par writing of season 2 from showing. The new heroes we’ve been introduced to are relatively exciting (Monica the copycat girl and Parkman’s dad, aka Nightmare Man), but too many of the original favorites have taken steps backwards.

Peter loses his memory and has to rediscover his various abilities. Sylar lives, has lost all of his powers and is stranded somewhere in Mexico. Niki Sanders checks into the company “hospital” and suddenly she’s whole again. Claire has to go back into hiding and struggles to conceal her abilities from her high school peers. All of these developments are frustrating, regressive and unsatisfying. These “mini arcs” need to end immediately. Many series fans (including me) felt the season 1 finale was disappointing because Kring didn’t let the heroes be heroes. Instead of a climatic battle to defeat Sylar and solve the riddle of the exploding man utilizing all of the cast and their abilities, Hiro simply appears and stabs Sylar without so much as a whimper. Tim Kring spent the entire season introducing us to these incredible characters, building to a crisis the players would have to band together to stop, and it was over before it began. Kring can’t afford to make the same mistakes again, but he is.

Word comes this week that, due in part to the Hollywood writers strike, and dramatically reduced ratings, the planned mid-season spin-off, Heroes: Origins, has been shelved. The strike might be the official reason why we won’t see these six episodes (heck we might not even see the last half of season 2), but I think the drop in ratings is the more worrisome factor. Unless Heroes gets back to its roots and puts these characters in situations worthy of their namesake fast, we won’t have Claire, Noah, Sylar, and Parkman to kick around much longer. Will Heroes become just another great show killed before its time? As Hiro Nakamura might say, only time will tell.

UPDATE: Tonight’s episode “Out of Time” took some steps in the right direction. Several of the plot threads theorized by people commenting below came true (I won’t say which ones incase you don’t want to know) and things seem to be picking up. Perhaps November sweeps is just the kick in the pants the viewers like myself need to start to feel good about Heroes again. I just hope the writers strike doesn’t take the wind out of the series’ sails before it manages to get going.

UPDATE II: It seems that Heroes creator, Tim Kring, is aware of the problems with this season and issued a few statements about the fan’s disappointment. The good news is it seems he is committed to righting the wrongs and getting things back on track. Hat tip to Talos for this.

Filed Under: TV
Newer Posts »