In one of my classes last week we had to work in groups, and somehow during the course of the group work, the topic of 17th century witch burnings came up. The girl who was in our group said how she thought seemed antithetical and hypocritical for Christians to burn people who they thought were witches, and it seemed apparent from the way she said it that she is a Christian herself. I couldn't help myself but interject, and explained how they weren't really being hypocrites in doing that, they were taking a passage from Exodus that says if you find a witch you are not supposed let them live. I could tell this made her slightly uncomfortable, and even though I pointed out that the witch hunters had biblical justification for what they did, she still thought it seemed hypocritical.
This brief exchange highlighted a couple of things to me. One- unsurprisingly, Christians don't know their own Bible. I've known this for a while, but this is more evidence to that fact. Two- Christians, even though they claim to get their morality from the Bible, they actually judge things to be right and wrong for themselves. I think 99% of people actually do this, but then claim they get it from their religion of choice, which I would imagine in this case, she would think it was hypocritical because Jesus said to love your neighbor, which isn't the whole story if you claim to believe the Bible. I think the what we should take away from this, is why don't we take the nice things about life/philosophy, it doesn't matter where they come from, and then get rid of the atrocious things along with the supernatural things that we have no proper justification to believe, and just get along with each other. Maybe it's just me but that seems like a better option.
Follow me on Twitter here! I tweet frequently.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Saturday, February 26, 2011
A Simple Mistake, or an Ignorant Buffoon?
I think my boss doesn't know my name. Well, I know he knows my first name, but I think it's possible he doesn't know my last name, even though I've worked at the theater for over four years, and under this manager for nearly three, not to mention the fact that he gave me a performance review just over a month ago. It seems like knowing your employees' full names, especially those who have worked under you for a long time would simply just happen.
Why do I think my boss doesn't know my last name? Yesterday (Thursday), I left my wallet at work, so I figured it would just be available for me to pick up when I got to work today, so I wasn't horribly worried about it (though I did have some concern about it getting in to some customers' hands or something). This morning just as I'm about to get in the shower to get ready for work, I receive a phone call from my school saying my wallet had been turned in at the theater, and I could pick it up any time after 3 pm, to which I replied, "That's really strange that I can't pick it up until after three, considering I'll be working there at 11:00." My boss would have been the only person at the theater earlier then 10:00 during the day, so it would had to have been him who made the call, which means either he didn't look at the IDs in it except to call the school (unlikely), or he saw the name, didn't recognize it, and called the school to call the appropriate person (more likely).
To me, this just adds to the list of things that makes him ill-equipped to be anyone's boss, especially people who are not mentally handicapped, and just makes me that more frustrated with the fact that I have to answer to him. It seems like every day there are more and more things that demonstrate his incompetence, and even though I've addressed several of these issues before with him via manifesto-ish letters of complaint; even arguing with him head-on, and I don't know how to make it better.
For now I guess I'll just listen to Matt & Kim to feel better. Goodnight.
Follow me on Twitter here! I tweet frequently.
Why do I think my boss doesn't know my last name? Yesterday (Thursday), I left my wallet at work, so I figured it would just be available for me to pick up when I got to work today, so I wasn't horribly worried about it (though I did have some concern about it getting in to some customers' hands or something). This morning just as I'm about to get in the shower to get ready for work, I receive a phone call from my school saying my wallet had been turned in at the theater, and I could pick it up any time after 3 pm, to which I replied, "That's really strange that I can't pick it up until after three, considering I'll be working there at 11:00." My boss would have been the only person at the theater earlier then 10:00 during the day, so it would had to have been him who made the call, which means either he didn't look at the IDs in it except to call the school (unlikely), or he saw the name, didn't recognize it, and called the school to call the appropriate person (more likely).
To me, this just adds to the list of things that makes him ill-equipped to be anyone's boss, especially people who are not mentally handicapped, and just makes me that more frustrated with the fact that I have to answer to him. It seems like every day there are more and more things that demonstrate his incompetence, and even though I've addressed several of these issues before with him via manifesto-ish letters of complaint; even arguing with him head-on, and I don't know how to make it better.
For now I guess I'll just listen to Matt & Kim to feel better. Goodnight.
Follow me on Twitter here! I tweet frequently.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Religion in the Doctor's Office
I went to the doctor this morning because of some sinus issues I've been having over the past month and at first it seemed like it would be nothing out of the ordinary. However, during the usual run of questions asked by the nurse, I was caught off guard when asked what my religion was. This caused me to hesitate before responding just for a fraction of a second, because I was wondering how the hell it was even relevant to my visit before answering "none". It wasn't until a little later (surprisingly) that I figured out some way to tie the two together, considering Jehovah's Witnesses won't accept blood transfusions, or even vaccines, if I'm not mistaken. Still, I feel like it was a weird question to ask. You would think if someone's beliefs were that opposed to particular types of medical treatment they would just tell the doctor from the outset or something. Maybe you can think of a reason why this question can/should be asked before someone is about to be seen by a medical professional, in what I'm pretty sure is a secular medical institution, but as of now, I feel like it's an inappropriate and irrelevant question to ask upon a visit to the doctor. Let me know what you think.
Follow me on Twitter here! I tweet frequently.
Follow me on Twitter here! I tweet frequently.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Just Because It's Alive?
There is an older fellow (between age 50 and 60) in my 18th Century Philosophy class with whom there doesn't seem to be anything I can agree with him on. I have had arguments in the past with him about the Existence of God a few times before. Not only that, but he is very conservative and seems to not even understand the dribble that comes out of people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck's respective mouths, because he takes what they say and tries to make it more moderate and less crazy.
To add to the list of things we have polarized views on, yesterday he said something like, "I don't understand why those hardcore vegetarians who hate people who eat meat can tear open a piece of lettuce and see water come out of it and not be upset, because it's alive and the water that comes out is practically its blood."
This is a really inane and idiotic thing to say, and I gave him a simplified explanation of why I (as a transitioning vegetarian) can do just that. Put bluntly, animals suffer and lettuce does not. I may not be able to know it as absolutely as I know my own existence, but it's about as certain as I can be about anything. Animals can display behavior and emotions, and from that we can attain a satisfactory understanding of the types of things that cause suffering and happiness in them. I think this should be practically obvious, but maybe I'm wrong. On the other hand, lettuce leaves and other vegetation, while they do perform biological functions, they don't display any kind of behavior whatsoever, and behavior is the primary way we can tell how an organism is feeling emotionally (e.g. body language). Some plants have mild internal responses to stimuli, but they aren't any more significant than how water reacts when you throw a rock in to it, and I think you would be hard-pressed to find someone who thinks water can suffer (except maybe homeopaths).
In a nutshell, I have no reason to believe that lettuce or, really, any other plant can suffer. It's irrelevant to me whether or not something is technically "alive" in whether or not I think it is immoral to kill it. My skin cells are alive, but I don't think that I'm inflicting suffering upon another mind when I scratch my arm because there is no evidence to support that, but there is a vast amount of evidence to support the fact that animals can suffer (just ask anyone who has a dog or a cat). To think that vegetarians/vegans don't eat animals simply because they're alive, in the vast majority of case, is, frankly, hugely mistaken.
Of course, he said after that he doesn't go out of his way to avoid suffering, especially to animals that caused him to suffer, which I doubt there are more than a few, if any, which I think is also without reason. It doesn't surprise me that his actions are without cause because he is an old, conservative fart. The discussion ended after that. I like discussing things with people I disagree with but that man sure is frustrating.
Have a pleasant day.
Follow me on Twitter here! I tweet frequently.
To add to the list of things we have polarized views on, yesterday he said something like, "I don't understand why those hardcore vegetarians who hate people who eat meat can tear open a piece of lettuce and see water come out of it and not be upset, because it's alive and the water that comes out is practically its blood."
This is a really inane and idiotic thing to say, and I gave him a simplified explanation of why I (as a transitioning vegetarian) can do just that. Put bluntly, animals suffer and lettuce does not. I may not be able to know it as absolutely as I know my own existence, but it's about as certain as I can be about anything. Animals can display behavior and emotions, and from that we can attain a satisfactory understanding of the types of things that cause suffering and happiness in them. I think this should be practically obvious, but maybe I'm wrong. On the other hand, lettuce leaves and other vegetation, while they do perform biological functions, they don't display any kind of behavior whatsoever, and behavior is the primary way we can tell how an organism is feeling emotionally (e.g. body language). Some plants have mild internal responses to stimuli, but they aren't any more significant than how water reacts when you throw a rock in to it, and I think you would be hard-pressed to find someone who thinks water can suffer (except maybe homeopaths).
In a nutshell, I have no reason to believe that lettuce or, really, any other plant can suffer. It's irrelevant to me whether or not something is technically "alive" in whether or not I think it is immoral to kill it. My skin cells are alive, but I don't think that I'm inflicting suffering upon another mind when I scratch my arm because there is no evidence to support that, but there is a vast amount of evidence to support the fact that animals can suffer (just ask anyone who has a dog or a cat). To think that vegetarians/vegans don't eat animals simply because they're alive, in the vast majority of case, is, frankly, hugely mistaken.
Of course, he said after that he doesn't go out of his way to avoid suffering, especially to animals that caused him to suffer, which I doubt there are more than a few, if any, which I think is also without reason. It doesn't surprise me that his actions are without cause because he is an old, conservative fart. The discussion ended after that. I like discussing things with people I disagree with but that man sure is frustrating.
Have a pleasant day.
Follow me on Twitter here! I tweet frequently.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Oscars: Original Score
For this post I've provided a sample of each of the scores so you may listen to them yourself.
Inception
While I think this Hans Zimmer score was pretty good, I think it's definitely the weakest of the nominees. I know a lot of people have a nearly dogmatic love for everything Inception/Christopher Nolan, especially people I go to school with, but I don't think this soundtrack was nearly as good as the other nominees. Not undeserving of the nomination though.
127 Hours
Another good choice, but I think this soundtrack had it's weak moments, along with some really strong moments. My favorite piece in the movie I don't think is actually part of the score (listen here) , but the score does a really good job of setting the tone for each scene.
The King's Speech
Likely my second favorite score, but I think if How to Train Your Dragon. Alexandre Desplat's score does really great in contrasting the very serious with the light-hearted, with the more dramatic moments in the film, and if it wins the Oscar, I wouldn't be upset.
How to Train Your Dragon
This is my personal favorite of all of the nominees. I think it hit a lot of emotional queues in a way that was really touching. It's my pick for the Oscar, but I'm not as sure about it winning as I am for some of the other categories.
The Social Network
This score I actually really like, and fits the theme of being specific to this sliver of time, but I'm not sure the Academy would have it win. I could be wrong, but I think it's to out of the vein of the majority of past Original Score winners. I definitely agree that it deserved the nomination though, and I'm sure I would enjoy just listening to it on its own.
Follow me on Twitter here! I tweet frequently.
While I think this Hans Zimmer score was pretty good, I think it's definitely the weakest of the nominees. I know a lot of people have a nearly dogmatic love for everything Inception/Christopher Nolan, especially people I go to school with, but I don't think this soundtrack was nearly as good as the other nominees. Not undeserving of the nomination though.
Another good choice, but I think this soundtrack had it's weak moments, along with some really strong moments. My favorite piece in the movie I don't think is actually part of the score (listen here) , but the score does a really good job of setting the tone for each scene.
The King's Speech
Likely my second favorite score, but I think if How to Train Your Dragon. Alexandre Desplat's score does really great in contrasting the very serious with the light-hearted, with the more dramatic moments in the film, and if it wins the Oscar, I wouldn't be upset.
How to Train Your DragonThis is my personal favorite of all of the nominees. I think it hit a lot of emotional queues in a way that was really touching. It's my pick for the Oscar, but I'm not as sure about it winning as I am for some of the other categories.
This score I actually really like, and fits the theme of being specific to this sliver of time, but I'm not sure the Academy would have it win. I could be wrong, but I think it's to out of the vein of the majority of past Original Score winners. I definitely agree that it deserved the nomination though, and I'm sure I would enjoy just listening to it on its own.
Follow me on Twitter here! I tweet frequently.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Oscar Nominations: Cinematography
Welcome to the first installment of my series on the Oscars. The category I'll be review this time will be Cinematography. I think a lot of people who watch the Oscars just as people who see movies without any background in the technical side of movies hear "cinematography" and simply think camera work. This is true to some extent, but not the whole story. Sure, nice camera moves and composition are important to cinematography but some of the other key aspects include extensive lighting, choice and implementation of film stock, and use of depth of field. All of these factor in to how the image is going to look and is perceived by the audience. With that being said I'll get to my analysis.
Nominees
The King's Speech
Personally, this could be my favorite of the year's films as far as cinematography goes. That being said, I'm kind of a sucker for shallow depth of field, so I don't know if my opinions would reflect the Academy's very well. The camera work was done in such a way that any time there was a shot of a single person, their face was very sharply in focus, and the rest of the image, including the rest of the head many times, was out of focus. I think in order to do this and well it takes a lot of precision, especially considering there were some crane and dolly shots that even carried that out well. Very well done, but I'm not sure it will win.
Black Swan
This was another example of fine cinematography from my point of view. The use of intense film grain, which is a product of the choice of film stock, really reflected the mood of the film, as well very dim lighting. These things really helped to maintain the grittiness and intense pressure portrayed throughout the movie. I also think using primarily hand-held camerawork was a good choice. To me it seemed through the hand-held, the audience was able to feel off-balance, even though as a ballerina, Nina (Natalie Portman) you would think have a great sense of balance. This film was a buffet of good cinematographic choices, but, I think it, too, will unlikely win.
Inception
To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what this movie is doing nominated in this category. Sure, the scenes where they are floating in the hallways took very intricate camera movements, but really, there wasn't much besides that and some of the super slow motion stuff that I thought was exceptional. The cinematography was pretty good in this movie, but not great, and certainly, as far as I'm concerned, not worthy of an Oscar nomination. I'm certain it won't win but I really am uncertain why it was nominated.
True Grit
Unlike Inception, I do understand the choice of True Grit as a Best Cinematography nominee. I'm sure part of this is because of the era, but some of this film's cinematography reminded me of that in There Will Be Blood. There was a lot of very nice camera choreography, and very nice use of the natural light in exposing the images. The work done in this department was probably worth the nomination, but I would be very surprised if it won the award.
The Social Network
This all of course leaves The Social Network. While this wasn't my favorite film of the year, I think it will probably win the Oscar, and will probably deserve it. This film had a very nice usage of several cinematographic elements, especially depth of field and film stock. These two things combined gave the film a look to the movie I feel I've never seen before, which I think is great for it in its attempt to be a zeitgeist film, making visuals from the film very memorable. Even the lighting was done in such a way so that it didn't seem unnatural, but at the same time gloomy and foreboding. A big "well done" to the Director of Photography.
Other Deserving Films
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part One
I was actually really surprised to see that this film wasn't nominated. It incorporated great composition, very smooth and fitting camera moves, along with a very bleak overall look of the film, coming together beautifully, and contained some shots that actually left me in awe. If I had made the list of nominees I would have replaced Inception with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows in the blink of an eye. Hopefully Part Two is just as good visually as Part One, and can be redeemed at next years Oscars.
Get Low
I would probably compare the cinematography in this film to that in True Grit, the highlight of which being the use of natural lighting and creating decent lighting with home fires and candles being the source light. I'm not heartbroken that it wasn't nominated, but I think if it would have been nominated it would have definitely deserved it, because it really was a beautiful film, and a large amount of the credit for that goes to the cinematography.
Follow me on Twitter here! I tweet frequently.
Nominees
Personally, this could be my favorite of the year's films as far as cinematography goes. That being said, I'm kind of a sucker for shallow depth of field, so I don't know if my opinions would reflect the Academy's very well. The camera work was done in such a way that any time there was a shot of a single person, their face was very sharply in focus, and the rest of the image, including the rest of the head many times, was out of focus. I think in order to do this and well it takes a lot of precision, especially considering there were some crane and dolly shots that even carried that out well. Very well done, but I'm not sure it will win.
This was another example of fine cinematography from my point of view. The use of intense film grain, which is a product of the choice of film stock, really reflected the mood of the film, as well very dim lighting. These things really helped to maintain the grittiness and intense pressure portrayed throughout the movie. I also think using primarily hand-held camerawork was a good choice. To me it seemed through the hand-held, the audience was able to feel off-balance, even though as a ballerina, Nina (Natalie Portman) you would think have a great sense of balance. This film was a buffet of good cinematographic choices, but, I think it, too, will unlikely win.
To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what this movie is doing nominated in this category. Sure, the scenes where they are floating in the hallways took very intricate camera movements, but really, there wasn't much besides that and some of the super slow motion stuff that I thought was exceptional. The cinematography was pretty good in this movie, but not great, and certainly, as far as I'm concerned, not worthy of an Oscar nomination. I'm certain it won't win but I really am uncertain why it was nominated.
True GritUnlike Inception, I do understand the choice of True Grit as a Best Cinematography nominee. I'm sure part of this is because of the era, but some of this film's cinematography reminded me of that in There Will Be Blood. There was a lot of very nice camera choreography, and very nice use of the natural light in exposing the images. The work done in this department was probably worth the nomination, but I would be very surprised if it won the award.
This all of course leaves The Social Network. While this wasn't my favorite film of the year, I think it will probably win the Oscar, and will probably deserve it. This film had a very nice usage of several cinematographic elements, especially depth of field and film stock. These two things combined gave the film a look to the movie I feel I've never seen before, which I think is great for it in its attempt to be a zeitgeist film, making visuals from the film very memorable. Even the lighting was done in such a way so that it didn't seem unnatural, but at the same time gloomy and foreboding. A big "well done" to the Director of Photography.
Other Deserving Films
I was actually really surprised to see that this film wasn't nominated. It incorporated great composition, very smooth and fitting camera moves, along with a very bleak overall look of the film, coming together beautifully, and contained some shots that actually left me in awe. If I had made the list of nominees I would have replaced Inception with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows in the blink of an eye. Hopefully Part Two is just as good visually as Part One, and can be redeemed at next years Oscars.
I would probably compare the cinematography in this film to that in True Grit, the highlight of which being the use of natural lighting and creating decent lighting with home fires and candles being the source light. I'm not heartbroken that it wasn't nominated, but I think if it would have been nominated it would have definitely deserved it, because it really was a beautiful film, and a large amount of the credit for that goes to the cinematography.
Follow me on Twitter here! I tweet frequently.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
I Popped My Jury Duty Cherry
Yesterday was my first time being chosen for jury duty. It was over all a good and interesting experience. Both of the lawyers and bailiffs were fairly nice and the judge was extremely nice. The process of selecting the jury actually wasn't terrible, as I've heard it made out to be from some people. I wasn't selected, which is fine, even though I'd like to someday, just probably not during the school year.
While the majority of the experience was a good one, there is one aspect of it that got me thinking a little bit about the legitimacy of having the lawyers come together to choose the jury.
Selection started with one of the lawyers (Defense) just asking questions about what you do for a living, and what you like to do in your spare time. My response to which was something like "I'm a full time student at MSUM, work part time at a movie theater and I watch a lot of movies and read a lot on philosophical issues." So far no problem. After everyone answered that question the first lawyer went on to ask people if they understand the burden of proof to convict someone, to pull someone over, to search a person, etc., which I think is a great thing, but the way he went about asking some people seemed very much like he was trying to get a particular response out of the jury. For example, he said "Can I policeman pull someone over, just because he feels like it?" which on the face of it doesn't sound like a terrible question, but his tone was very suggestive, in my personal opinion. This was one issue I have with lawyers choosing the jury, because of stuff like that. Trying to suggest a response out of someone doesn't help them to be impartial, I think it leads them to potentially be biased towards your side of the case.
Before I start talking about the other problem I had, I want to make clear that the following is purely speculative. I don't know whether or not it actually happened, but if it did, I see it as a huge flaw in jury selection.
The second lawyer (Prosecution) had follow up questions related to what people did for a living and in their spare time, and when it came time to asking me the follow up questions he asked, "What kind of philosophy do you study?" to which I replied, "Moral philosophy, philosophy of religion, philosophy of the arts, I could go on." He then asked "if you consider yourself kind of a 'rigorous thinker'?" and I responded yes. The thing about this is, for the most part, almost everyone gave virtually the same response to Lawyer #2's questions, so there wasn't a lot to set people apart, except for a couple of people, who were dismissed during the actual questions. Now I would imagine, most prosecution lawyers probably want less "rigorous thinkers" on the jury, because they probably wouldn't have as high of a standard of evidence to go beyond a reasonable doubt, and that's what the prosecution has to get to. If people are more easily convinced by less evidence, then it makes the prosecution's job easier. If this is the case it means the lawyer is more concerned about getting a conviction, then he is about truth, which is appalling if you ask me, but really not all that surprising, and I can imagine this type of selection could lead to potential wrongful convictions. Now, I have no idea whether or not this was considered in the selection process, but I think it's possible and thought it would be interesting to bring attention to. If it actually is the case, then it's one more reason why lawyers shouldn't be involved in selecting juries. They should be picked by other people so that all parties, including the questioners, are impartial.
That's it for that. Next post will either be related to Berkeley again or the Oscars (I'm actually going to do a whole series on some of the different categories and their nominations). Have a pleasant day. :)
Follow me on Twitter here! I tweet frequently.
While the majority of the experience was a good one, there is one aspect of it that got me thinking a little bit about the legitimacy of having the lawyers come together to choose the jury.
Selection started with one of the lawyers (Defense) just asking questions about what you do for a living, and what you like to do in your spare time. My response to which was something like "I'm a full time student at MSUM, work part time at a movie theater and I watch a lot of movies and read a lot on philosophical issues." So far no problem. After everyone answered that question the first lawyer went on to ask people if they understand the burden of proof to convict someone, to pull someone over, to search a person, etc., which I think is a great thing, but the way he went about asking some people seemed very much like he was trying to get a particular response out of the jury. For example, he said "Can I policeman pull someone over, just because he feels like it?" which on the face of it doesn't sound like a terrible question, but his tone was very suggestive, in my personal opinion. This was one issue I have with lawyers choosing the jury, because of stuff like that. Trying to suggest a response out of someone doesn't help them to be impartial, I think it leads them to potentially be biased towards your side of the case.
Before I start talking about the other problem I had, I want to make clear that the following is purely speculative. I don't know whether or not it actually happened, but if it did, I see it as a huge flaw in jury selection.
The second lawyer (Prosecution) had follow up questions related to what people did for a living and in their spare time, and when it came time to asking me the follow up questions he asked, "What kind of philosophy do you study?" to which I replied, "Moral philosophy, philosophy of religion, philosophy of the arts, I could go on." He then asked "if you consider yourself kind of a 'rigorous thinker'?" and I responded yes. The thing about this is, for the most part, almost everyone gave virtually the same response to Lawyer #2's questions, so there wasn't a lot to set people apart, except for a couple of people, who were dismissed during the actual questions. Now I would imagine, most prosecution lawyers probably want less "rigorous thinkers" on the jury, because they probably wouldn't have as high of a standard of evidence to go beyond a reasonable doubt, and that's what the prosecution has to get to. If people are more easily convinced by less evidence, then it makes the prosecution's job easier. If this is the case it means the lawyer is more concerned about getting a conviction, then he is about truth, which is appalling if you ask me, but really not all that surprising, and I can imagine this type of selection could lead to potential wrongful convictions. Now, I have no idea whether or not this was considered in the selection process, but I think it's possible and thought it would be interesting to bring attention to. If it actually is the case, then it's one more reason why lawyers shouldn't be involved in selecting juries. They should be picked by other people so that all parties, including the questioners, are impartial.
That's it for that. Next post will either be related to Berkeley again or the Oscars (I'm actually going to do a whole series on some of the different categories and their nominations). Have a pleasant day. :)
Follow me on Twitter here! I tweet frequently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)