Dan's Soapbox

Dan's views on current events, popular culture, and other topics of interest.

Name:
Location: United States

I'm now on Twitter: http://twitter.com/Racnad

Wednesday, March 30, 2005

Johnny Got His Gun Trailer

On Monday I posted a link to the IMDB page for Johnny Got His Gun.

Now here's a link to a trailer for the film anyone with a decent Internet connection can view. I recall the film being more grim and disturbing that the trailer suggests.

So if Terri Shiavo is not in a persistent vegistative state (as many are suggesting), is this the fate anyone would wish on her?

Monday, March 28, 2005

Terri Schiavo Got Her Gun

I haven't written much about the Terri Schiavo case since I haven't taken the time to inform my self on all the facts and alleged facts flying back and forth, but the whole thing reminds me of a film I saw more that 20 years ago, Johnny Got His Gun.

In this highly disutrbing movie, Joe Bonham comes back from World War I with a functioning mind, but no arms, legs, eyes, ears or mouth. The viewer follows Bonhams's thoughts, dreams, and perceptions of the doctors and nurses around him as he is trapped as a prisoner in his own hopelessly ravaged body.

Of course, this film doesn't reveal the thoughts or wishes of Terri Schiavo, or even if she's even had a thought or wish in the past decade, but I don't know how anyone who's seen this movie could wish a fate like Bonham's on anyone.

Thursday, March 24, 2005

West Wing: Vinick '05!

The March 23 episode shows a taste of what the West Wing could become if Arnold Vinick, played by Alan Alda, is selected to be the President next season. By putting a Republican in the driver's seat, the show can better explore the issues raised in current events and the conflicts among different factions of the Republican Party.

Vinick '05!!

Friday, March 18, 2005

West Wing: Polls favor Santos

According to Zogby, West Wing viewers favor Santos over Vinick with a 16-point lead.

Darn, it looks like I haven't backed a winner in a real or fictional presidential race since 1996 (except Bartlet's relection, the outcome of which was never in doubt). But it's hardly been a fair race since Santos has gotten at least five times as much air time on the show than Vinick.

But at least 19 percent are still undecided. Oh,... and the fact that NBC isn't really a democracy.

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Irrational Arguments Against Gay Marriage

The religious right is in a tizzy due to this week's ruling in California which stated "It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners."

While opponents of same sex marriage (SSM) claim to have rational reasons for banning it, the arguments are irrational because none of them connect to the stated goals:

1) "The institution of marriage will be destroyed." No, it won't. There is no logical reason to believe that heterosexuals will get divorced or stop marrying because of legal SSM.

"But look at Scandinavia!" Marriage rates may be dropping there, but no one has rationally explained how this is caused by SSM.

2) "Every child deserves a mother and father." True, but SSM would not threaten this goal. In fact, it may further it. Here's why:

Due to the widely held beliefs that homosexuality is immoral and wrong, many people who are natually lesbian and gay attempt to "cure" themsleves by marrying (or just having sex with) the opposite sex. If they have children in these marriages and later divorce to enter same sex marriages that are more appropriate for them, then the children may spend raised at least part of the time in a same-sex led household.

On the other hand, is SSM is legalized and the stigma against them is removed, then gays and lesbians won't attempt to cure themselves with insincere hetersexual relationships. The long-term result is FEWER children in same-sex led households and a HIGHER percentage of children with mothers and fathers.

Curiously opponents of SSM do not advocate banning divorce for parents with children, despite the fact that it would prevent children from being separated from their mother and father.

3) "There is no tradition of SSM." So what? There was a tradition of slavery for a long time, but there were some very rational reasons for letting that tradition die, so that's what we did. There is also no tradition of the Internet or email, but that doesn't make them immoral.

The argument that is rational for some people is "My religion teaches against it." If your religion prohibits SSM, then you don't have to enter one. But this country was founded on the value that the government should not impose the views of a religion on those who don't practice it.

Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Government "News" stories: NON-ISSUE!

I was as flabbergasted and frustrated as anyone at last November's election results, but I have to point out that this whole issue of "government produced new stories" is a NON-ISSUE!

For decades PR people representing their clients have written press releases in the style of news stories and sent them to media outlets in hopes that all or part of them would be published. It is standard public relations procedure. What most newspapers do is use the press released as one source of information, add other information and perhaps and opposing view, then publish the story. Only lazy journalists publish press releases verbatim.

VNRs (video News Releases) are just the video version of press releases. Private companies have been supplying VNRs to TV stations since the 1980s. Broadcast journalists know what they're getting, and use the information accordingly, usually by using video clips they can't get themselves or as one source of information for a story they produce themselves. If a TV station runs them unedited, then blame the TV station.

Besides, no one ever complains about government propaganda in the form of PSAs (public service announcements) against things like cigarettes or drunk driving!

Ironically, the "advertising links" section of the CNN story linked above lists ads for companies that produce VNRs, some with more than 20 years experience!

Thursday, March 10, 2005

24: The President is a Terrorist

For those watching 24 on Fox: President John Keeler is a terrorist!

I'm basing this prediction on

1) They replaced President Palmer. Why?? Because after the first three seasons, Palmer has impeccable credentials as a good guy and Jack Bauer's buddy.

2) President Keeler has been in the air for 12 hours now. Where is he going and where is he coming from? It is rather convenient that his schedule called for him to be in the air while terrorists engineered multiple nuclear meltdowns, as well as whatever Madwan is planning at the air force base.

You read it here first folks - stay tuned!

West Wing: It's Santos vs. Vinick

We're down to only political junkies watching The West Wing. But looking at my page load stats, it appears that the audience for this blog is also the audience for The West Wing. So here it goes...

Hoynes is out. After last weeks "coming next week" trailer, my wife & I thought vice president Buffalo Bob would be struck down by the sex scandal, but instead it is Hoynes, which is not surprising, since he resigned earlier in the show due to a loose zipper problem.

I think its shaping up to be a race between Vinick (Alan Alda) and Santos (Jimmy Smits) to see who will replace Bartlett as the next President. I'd vote for Vinick. As a moderate Republican, it will be easier for the show to explore current events, and the conflicts between conservative dogma and common sense. But on the other hand, virtually the entire cast would be replaced over a single summer, which is an unprecedented risk for a network TV show.

We will see. Stay tuned....

Wednesday, March 09, 2005

Dumb Thinking Part 2: Projecting Your Experiences on Others

You’re an adult, right? As an adult, you’ve had certain experiences, and from those experiences you’ve drawn certain conclusions. So people who have experienced similar circumstances should see things they way you do. And if they don’t, they’re wrong. Right? Wrong!

The second form of dumb thinking I’m writing about is projecting one’s experience and views on others. It is the expectation that people in similar situations to your own ought to see things as you do.

However, different people come from different upbringings. Different people have different experiences that affect how they experience new situations. And finally, different people are just plain different – they have different personality traits. This causes them to, well, be different.

Homemakers vs. Career Women

An example of this that comes up in the media every few years is the so-called “proper role of women. " That is, do women belong in the home, or in the workplace?

The stereotype of the 1950s was that the role of women was to stay at home to be mothers and homemakers. If a woman went to college, it was to find a college-educated man to marry. The only acceptable careers for women (according to the stereotype anyway) were teaching and nursing.

But some women did not find the home life fulfilling. Some longed for the stimulation of adult companionship during the day, a need not satisfied with knitting circles with other women. To some women, the role of homemaker felt more like a prison.

During the 1970s the women’s liberation movement cast off the shackles of housewife-hood and promoted the image of career woman. From the 1970s into the 1990s, women were supposed to have it all – husband, children, and career – and love it. Women that did not have paid employment outside the home were viewed as old-fashioned -- behind the times.

But in recent years there has been a backlash. If what the media says is to be believed, more women than before are rejecting the workplace to become full time home-makers and moms. On TV talk shows, new homemakers accuse career women of being selfish and neglectful of their children and husbands. On the others feminists see the new homemakers as representing a step backward for their cause, as if providing women with fewer options means more freedom for women, not less.

Folks, not all women are the same. Some women are completely fulfilled by devoting themselves to their children and the immediate needs of their family. Other women crave adult company during the day, enjoy the challenges provided in the workplace, or gain satisfaction that they are making a positive contribution to the world within in the career they have chosen. Other women would like to raise their children full time, but sincerely believe that they are best serving their families by bringing home a paycheck.

Why must women be negatively judged because their individual path to fulfillment differs from that of someone else?

Gay Recovery

Another heated area where people project is the “gay recovery” controversy. For gay rights and anti-gay rights activist, this is a political powder keg. If homosexuality is a natural, innate state, then conservatives who are uncomfortable with homosexuality must learn to accept gays and lesbians and their personal lives as they except other people to accept their own. But if homosexuality is a condition that can be “cured,” then it may mean the end of gay and lesbian culture, as homosexuality again becomes a condition to be treated. Both gay activists and anti-gay activists have much to lose if either position is proven true.

For these reasons, there is a lot of flack going back and forth between the two sides. I even found a web site for “ex-ex-gays!”

But both positions assume that that everyone who is gay or lesbian is gay or lesbian for the same reasons. The cause or causes of homosexuality have never been conclusively shown. Also, this is America! Can we not respect the personal preferences and choices or our neighbors? Data also shows that a number of people are bisexual to a certain degree. A person who is bisexual may very well be in a gay relationship at one point in life, and be married to a member of the opposite sex later in life. They may be successfully establish a relationship with the opposite sex the same way a man that likes a variety of female body types may be married and willing give up sex with different kinds of women. Other people may be 100 percent innately gay. To shoehorn them into heterosexual relationships serves the interests of no one. The fact that some gays appear to “change,” or than others cannot does not mean that all gay and lesbians would have the same experience. Everyone is an individual. So both sides should stop projecting their own experiences onto others, and respect others for the life choices they make for themselves.

Monday, March 07, 2005

No comment on Jeff Gannon

No comment yet from the homophobic Family Policy Network on whether admitting Jeff Gannon to the White House Press Corps is yet another example of the Bush Administration advancing the homosexual agenda.

I love the WARNING: Pro-Homosexual News Site warnings on this site. Are people afraid they will contract AIDS from reading a pro-gay web site?

Thursday, March 03, 2005

If It's OK for Jack Bauer...

When I watch news reports about prisoner treatment in Guantanimo Bay and Abu Ghraib prison, I think how aweful it is that they mistreat prisonors. Yet when I'm watching Fox TV's 24 and coercive pressure/torture is used when interrogating terrorists, my reaction is "You go, Jack!"

Yes, one is real life and the other is fiction. But I still feel that my reactions to real and fictional situations ought to be the same. I guess one difference is that on 24, we know most of the time who the terrorists are because we see their activities.

Actually, I'm not really concened with how 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed or would-be hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui were treated in custody. The people I empthize with at Guantanimo and Abu Ghraib are often innocent bystanders who became suspects only by an accident of circumstance. When the United States locks up people for months or years and subjects them to torture and mistreatment based on the thinest is suspicions, it makes it difficult to argue to much of the world that we're better than the dictatorships we're trying to save them from.

Wednesday, March 02, 2005

Casting Seattle

I've always found it fun to take a workplace or other environment I'm familer with and decide which actors to cast as which characters were Hollywood to make it into a film.

Today in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, columnist Joel Connolly selects his cast for "Emerald City - The Movie"

Our unanimous choice to play Mayor Greg Nickels was Fox Sports host and sometime actor Tom Arnold. Tough-guy Tommy Lee Jones is cut out to play Deputy Mayor Tim "the Shark" Ceis. Having roomed with Al Gore at Harvard, Jones can draw from observation on how to play a political character without becoming a droning bore.

My comments to his choices:

I find Tom Arnold a little too dumb for Greg Nichols and Tom Sellick a little too smart for Rep. McDermott, but Tom Arnold as Rep, McDermott is a perfect match.

Instead I find Sellick to be a perfect Sheriff-turned-congressman Dave Richart. I'd cast Jeff Bridges as Nichols instead.

Eddie Murphy doesn't have that "mountains out of molehills quality that Carl Mack shows so strongly. I'd recommend Spike Lee.

I'd cast the multi-talented Matthew Broderick as talk show host Dave Ross.

Finally, is Bob Denver available for the role of Dino Rossi?