To Facebook or not to Facebook...

I joined Facebook about a year ago but never really did anything with it.  Then when Julie and I got our new laptops a few weeks ago we both started playing around on it more.  I have to tell you, it's addictive.  Up to a bout three weeks ago I think I had eight friends listed.  I accepted friend requests, but never bothered asking anyone to be my friend.  I don't know, there just seems to be something pitiful with sending a message to someone you haven't seen, talked to, or emailed in years and saying "be my friend".  But as I started browsing the communities I started seeing more and more people that made me think, "Wow, I always wondered what happened to so and so."  So I started sending friend requests.  Then the other day I noticed that another friend from high school just joined Facebook.  So I sent him a friend request.  And I started thinking, hey, I saw these people every day for four years (in some cases 13 years!).  So what if I haven't seen them in over a decade.  They were friends and acquaintences for a large portion of my life.  And it's not like I'm asking them to be the guardians of my kid or to drive a getaway car, I'm just saying hi to old friends...  So now I'm up to 75 friends.  I feel so popular...  It's nice to see what everyone's been up to over the last dozen+ years.

So now I'm fully engrossed in Facebook.  It's addictive, it really is.  But I think it's worth it.  So many people cross my mind and now I don't have to wonder, at least for some of them. 

So to all my old friends and new facebook buddies, "Hey!  how's it been!"

My thoughts on Fringe

Julie and I have been watching the new FOX show Fringe the last two weeks.  I have to say, we're both a bit disappointed.  The show could be intriguing and interesting, but the attention to detail in the show is nowhere near the detail on Lost (Abram's other current show on the air).  Fringe is a little bit too unrealistic in the details that keep it in the real world.  I'm talking about the forensic investigations, classified operations, and scientific procedures.  The actual stories are pretty good, the characters have potential (especially the mad-scientist Walter Bishop), and the idea of investigating paranormal, supernatural, and just plain odd happenings is interesting.  But Julie and I just can't get past the real-world inaccuracies.

Why in the world was Bishop's lab at Harvard still around after 17 years?  In my experience good lab space is at a premium in academia.  I would have thought his lab would have been repurposed pretty quickly after he was committed.

And why were Olivia Dunham and Peter Bishop the only ones examining the hotel room in the second episode?  We saw from the first episode that, while everyone may not have had top clearance to know what was going on, the resources available to the team working on The Pattern were pretty extensive.  Don't tell me they couldn't have a proper forensics team exaining the room.

And speaking of Peter Bishop, if everything they were doing was so classified that Dunham didn't have the clearance at first, why in the world does he get to tag along everywhere?  Walter is out, you'd think that Peter would be set up in some hotel where he could be out of the way and uninformed, at least until after he signed the confidentiality paperwork.

These are just a few of the problems we have with the show.  There were a bunch more, like how did they get permission to move a comatose, quarantined body from isolation in the hospital to an old dusty lab, or why was the last thing the girl looked at a bridge when she was kissing the killer and later was staring at his face when he killed her (that's a lot of images between when she saw the bridge and actually died), or why the Miami Bank of America Tower was called the Boston Federal Building, etc. etc. etc...  In a show like this details make all the difference.

People have been comparing Fringe to The X Files, which I can see.  But The X Files was slightly more plausible in some respects.  At least Mulder was doing investigations alone (or with Sculley) because he was a rogue agent and besides that, other agents thought he was nuts and didn't want to work with hi anyway.  In fringe there's supposed to be this group of people all working on figuring things out, they obviously have vast technical and human resources, but they have a single agent and a mad scientist's son tracking things down alone?  I just don't buy it.

I hope the show doesn't get as involved as Lost or Alias where if you miss a week or two you're totally confused.  If that's the case we'll probably tune in when we can.  It's right after House, so there's a chance we'll keep watching, but after two episodes I'm not impressed and wouldn't miss the show if it was gone.  Sorry Fringe fanatics, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Meatatarian and proud!

Eating Red Meat Beefs Up Brain
Scott Reeves Sep 15, 2008 11:30 am

Brain shrinkage linked to B12 deficiency. Vegans beware.

This just in: Hamburgers may be health food.

Scientists at Oxford University in England have found that adopting a vegetarian or vegan diet may be bad for your brain.

Researchers found that those who adopt a meat-free diet are 6 times more likely to sustain brain shrinkage than those who gobble hamburgers, chicken or liver.

See, eating meat is healthy!  Say goodbye to lentils and beans and hello to burgers and steak.

Here's another article: Meat, fish and milk prevent memory loss

A cow jumped into the pond?

I was sitting downstairs playing on the computer waiting for Julie to finish putting Michael to sleep when I heard squealing tires. That's not unusual in a college town, but then they squealed again, very loud and sounding like the car was out of control, not just taking off fast. So I ran to the window and looked out just in time to see a car slide into the pond across the street. I ran to the phone and called 911.

I was on the porch talking to the 911 operator trying to tell her that a car went into the pond. "A cow jumped into the pond?" she asked. I suppose it is possible in DeKalb, but no, it was a car going into the pond. She said she'd send officers right over. I saw three kids walking away from the car, but I went outside to see if there was anyone still in the car. By the time I walked over to it the police had arrived. One officer had stopped the kids and was talking to them. Another talked to me for a few minutes after seeing that the car was empty except for a bottle of wine in the back.

So that was my excitement for the day...

Hayes Carll - She Left me for Jesus

Hayes Carll She Left me for Jesus live at European St Cafe Jacksonville, FL July 17, 2008

OK.  So this is probably the most controversial post so far.  I heard this song on my Last.fm station and thought it was pretty funny.  You'll either love this or hate it.

The problem with ordering cake over the phone.

If you're ever ordering cake over the phone make sure you have them repeat back to you exactly what they're going to put on it. Make sure they don't include instructions in the text.


"Best Wishes Suzanne" underneath that "We will Miss You".

Now that is classic...

On the race for president... so far.

OK. So I'm not big on politics. I didn't register to vote until 2004 because I never felt there was anyone that was worth a vote any more than their opponent. In 2004 the only reason I registered was because I felt anyone was better than Bush, not because I particularly liked Kerry.

This year has been different.

I've actually been following the campaigns since early January. With neither an incumbent president nor vice-president running for office things were interesting. I, like many other people, watched the Democratic primaries very closely. There were quite a few candidates that I thought would be good, or at least interesting (Obama, Richardson, Kusinich) and I was sort of rooting for Obama since he's from Illinois and Chicago, not to mention he would make history and it would be pretty cool to be around for that. Besides that, I despised Hillary (I applaud her for her accomplishments, but don't think I could trust her as far as my 2 year old son Michael could throw Bill), and really wanted to see her lose. On the Republican side I was less drawn in, but I liked McCain. I also thought Ron Paul was interesting, but man would he have a battle to make the changes to government that he proposes. I still don't think Ron Paul would get anything accomplished simply because he'd be going up against all of government with his radical ideas, not just the opposing party.

Anyway, as things progressed I became more and more drawn into Obama's campaign. There were things that I didn't agree with (I'm pro-choice, but not to the extent that he is, I think his energy policies are a bit too far reaching, etc. but more on those in a later blog), and other things that I think he is right on the money about (better pay for teachers and education reform, encouraging domestic companies, etc. but again, more on these later). And he was really elegant in his speeches. I kept saying I wanted him to say "Can you smellll what Barack is cooking!" and then he did one night on WWE Raw. I missed it because I don't watch wrestling, but I saw clips of it later. And it seemed like every time the media or Republicans tried to find something dirty about him, or something to criticize it just bounced off of him. He seemed like a fresh change to Washington politics. People criticized his lack of experience, but sometimes you need some fresh ideas. I thought Barack had those fresh ideas. By the Illinois primary I enthusiastically voted for Obama.

Then the primaries went on. And on. And on... McCain was basically the only Republican candidate (Huckabee was still in it, but in name only) and the battle became Barack vs Hillary. For a while it was interesting and then the mud slinging started. Both Clinton and Obama dug into eachother's closets, began accusing each other of being corrupt morally, personally, and politically. It was a mess. Instead of being interested int he race I became just as turned off by politics as I was before I registered to vote.

In the mean time McCain became the Republican nominee, although the more I learned about Huckabee the more I liked the man. I firmly believe that politics and religion shouldn't mix (except here on this blog, occasionally) and I think if he hadn't based so much of his campaign on his religious foundations he would have been taken more seriously. And he's funny, too. State of the Union addresses might have actually been fun to listen to. I've since learned that when he was governor of Arkansas he ran a very secular government and got a lot of good things accomplished.

In the months of primaries and the weeks leading up to the conventions more and more dirt has surfaced about Obama. There's all sorts of questionable ties to controversial people like Ayers, Rezko, Wright, Flager, etc. Nothing is definite, but if he's associated with this many extremists, what is he really like? My enthusiasm was beginning to wane, but I figured it's all just political dirt and I'll just wait until the presidential debates to make my final decision.

Now it's months later and Clinton finally backed out. I kept waiting for her to make one last ditch effort to get the nomination at the convention last week, but alas for all the fireworks earlier in the year she went out with a fizzle. I was a little disappointed, the way you get disappointed when David Letterman drops stuff off the roof and it just lands without the big splat. The race for the White House has begun in earnest.

Lately I've been getting more and more turned off by the Democratic campaign. It seems like every time there is an advancement in the Republican campaign the Democrats come back with an attack, excuse, accusation, or other low blow. And more and more these rants are seeming to be exaggerated, false, or spun way out of perspective. For all of Obama's criticism of conventional politics his campaign seems to be very willing to participate and even instigate dirty politics. It reeks of desperation. Here are just a few of the topics of late that really have me questioning my support of the democrats:

Barack's Speech at the DNC
In his speech at the DNC Barack said: "Why else would [McCain] define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year?"

This is flat out wrong. In response to Rick Warren's question at the Saddleback Forums, "OK, on taxes, define rich.", McCain's answer was "I think that rich should be defined by a home, a good job, an education and the ability to hand to our children a more prosperous and safer world than the one that we inherited. ... So, I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million? ... So, it doesn't matter really what my definition of rich is because I don't want to raise anybody's taxes."

McCain defined rich as making $5 million, not middle class. I have to agree with McCain here, someone who makes $5 million is rich in my book. Obama twisted the context of the statement to promote his position. That's the kind of politics that I despise.

On McCain being part of the Establishment
Obama has been accusing McCain as being part of Washington politics and part of the problem with Washington that needs to change. He's billed himself as a new face that can shake things up in Washington without being rooted in the political machine. At the DNC he said "John McCain has been there for twenty-six [years].", saying that nothing has been accomplished in that time.

So what does he do? He picks Joe Biden as his running mate. Last time I checked (two minutes ago) Biden has been a senator since 1973. That's 35 years! So he's been around for all the same problems as McCain, and then some. Had Obama wanted to stick with his platform of Change, why did he pick a running mate that's been around longer than almost all other senators (sixth longest among current senators). He should have picked someone relatively new to politics (like McCain did with Palin) or at least someone who wasn't entrenched in Washington politics (Richardson would have been a great choice). I lost a lot of respect for Obama's platform with this choice of running mate.

On Palin's Experience
The democrats and Obama's campaign have knocked Sarah Palin's political experience, but every time they do it ends up making Obama look more and more hypocritical. They seem to focus on the fact that she was a mayor of a small town, overlooking the fact that she's currently the governor of the largest state in the Union! Alaska has the same electoral vote as Delaware, DC, Montana, Vermont, and both Dakotas. Not to mention the fact that she has actually instituted change in the governments she took control of. I would think if anything, Obama might have been looking to her (or someone like her) for a possible running mate! Things Obama says he wants to do in Washington are things she's already done in Alaska.

Granted their stands on many issues differ, but the fact is she is all about change, and has a record to prove it. What leadership experience does Obama actually have? None really... That's not necessarily a bad ting, sometime we need fresh viewpoints and an unproven leader can sometimes make huge changes for the better (I'm hoping Kyle Orton can do that for the Bears this year). But all the criticisms that have been thrown at Obama about not having experience are now being thrown right back at Palin. And she does have experience! It's very hypocritical and I'm losing more respect for Obama's camp daily.

On Palin's Family
Now they're attacking Palin's family, her values, and her decision to accept the nomination.

Her 17 year old daughter is pregnant. OK, so that's not a good thing, but hey, lots of other families are dealing with the same thing, or know someone who is. And what was Obama doing at the age of 17? Drugs, and lots of them, enthusiastically. I appreciate Obama's candidness with this, but it's a little hypocritical to criticize your opponents for their shortcomings, especially when they don't affect her ability to lead. And, while I am pro-choice (to a point), it's refreshing to see a politician practicing what they preach. They decided to keep their youngest son despite him having downs syndrome (granted they do have the means to care for him, which some other people might not be fortunate enough to have), and the family is supporting Bristol with her pregnancy and it is planned for her to marry the father Levi. That's great, but what right do any Obama supporters have to criticize this? You know who else was conceived out of wedlock to a teenage mother? Oh yeah, Barack himself.

And they're criticizing Palin's choice to accept the nomination for VP, too! I've heard some say she should focus on her family and stay at home, not put them through the rigors of Washington political life, especially with a downs baby. I've heard them say that she shouldn't even be in politics, but should be home raising her children. Personally, I believe that strong family values include plenty of family time. I think it is important to have at least one parent at home if that is possible. However I also realize the need to contribute to society. This is an issue that we've dealt with in my own household - should Julie go back to work or stay home with Michael. I don't regret the decision we made for Julie to stay home, but don't criticize anyone else who goes back to work. It's a decision every family has to make for themselves. And the Palins are a big enough family where those decisions can't just be made on the fly. Watching the convention last night it was obvious that it isn't just Sarah that is responsible for raising the kids. The whole family is involved. And that's the way it should be. Sarah Palin started out in politics in a small way, joining the PTA. And that grew into more and more leadership roles. Now she has a once-in-a-lifetime chance to help lead the nation on a path that she feels will be right for not only her own family, but for all families in America. I don't know about you, but I would make a lot of sacrifices if someone gave Julie that opportunity. We would make it work by whatever means necessary. In eight years (more if she shoots for President) she will have had a world of experiences that most people can't even imagine. She'll have every advantage provided for her children. I don't see this as anything but a great blessing for her and her family and think she would have bee a fool to turn it down. I'm sure it'll be rough at times, but who can say no to the opportunity to help shape our nation's future?

Contrast this with Biden's election to the senate back in 1972. His wife and daughter were killed in a car crash and his two sons were severely injured. Biden seriously considered not taking office so that he could take care of his sons. He was convinced to take office anyway and managed a long career in the senate while still managing to take care of his sons. What the democrats don't dwell on is the fact that Biden seriously considered suicide at that time. Now I can't say that I disagree with Biden on any of this. My first instinct should something happen to Julie would be to drop everything to take care of Michael. And should something really tragic happen I can seriously understand not wanting to go on. I don't fault him for any of that. But the big problem I have with all this is that Biden was encouraged to continue with his career. Biden didn't have a large family to help take care of his sons. Yet he was encouraged to continue his career. No one gave it a second thought then and no one does now. But how is this so different from Sarah Palin? Except for the fact that she's a woman? That doesn't seem fair to me. And Barack has two daughters of his own. Shouldn't he or Michelle forgo their career and be taking care of them? This is just another point where democratic hypocrisy is getting out of hand.

So it's nice to see someone standing by her beliefs for once. I don't agree with all her stands, but at least she's consistent. She's pro-life and has a downs syndrome baby and future grandchild to prove it. She's pro-Iraq war and has a son and nephew in the military.

However there's a lot of hypocrisy in the Republican party, and with conservatives in general, too. My biggest problem is the stance on being pro-life, yet having no problem supporting the death penalty. Conservatives are opposed to stem cell research, which could eventually save millions of lives, because it requires human embryos, but they support the Iraq war. They believe in Creationism but have no problems exploiting God's great creation, the Earth.

But what I haven't been seeing from the Republicans much, and I think it speaks to John McCain's character, is exaggerated distortions of Obama's platform and character. Oh sure, there are the extreme conservatives like Hannity and to some extent Rush (who think Obama's actually a communist), but I take what they say with a grain of salt. Besides, those guys don't really like McCain much either.

I've said since the beginning that I would love to see Obama win the nomination and he would be a shoo-in, unless his opponent was McCain, and then things would get interesting. Well, that's exactly what happened and now it's getting interesting. With the way things are going lately I think McCain has been gaining ground and Obama has been losing it. That's definitely the case for me. In my opinion this is McCains election to lose. Like Palin said, "In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change." I'm becoming more and more convinced that for Barack this election is all about him and for McCain this election is about his country.

I'll probably make my final decision during the debates when I can compare and contrast both candidates' positions closely. Unless Obama continues the downward slide into political machinery, deceit, and exaggeration.

What Stargate Atlantis should have been...

OK. So to continue my thoughts from last night, but also to veer off a little bit, I'd like to comment on what disappointed me most about Stargate Atlantis when it first aired. Over the years I learned to like, and even love the show and am very disappointed that it's been canceled, however I still think the writers missed out on a great opportunity to remain true to the roots of Stargate while going off in a new direction.

What made Stargate SG-1 (and the original movie, too) so great were three main points:

1. It was science fiction based in the here and now. The main setting was Earth in the present day. That gave the show an aspect of reality that so many other sci-fi shows lack. It was possible that what was happening on the show might really be happening (a la Wormhole Xtreme). I really loved that so much more than the Star Trek visionary future and Star Wars made up past.
2. The science was baced on current scientific theory and practice. Sure, there were a lot of leaps, and a lot of theory was bumped up to science fact, but there was always a current scientific principal at the root. And of course there were technologies that were unknown to the Tau'ri (earthlings), but that's part of sci-fi. Over the years the stretches of hte imagination grew larger and more frequent to support the new technologies acquired by the Stargate program, but at least there was still that nugget of truth from earlier story lines and episodes.
3. The stories were rooted in actual ancient mythology. This is probably what I liked the best about the show. Mythological stories and characters were brought to life in a unique way, Egyptian, Mongol, Greek, and other gods were represented by the Goa'uld and Norse gods were represented by the Asgard. There were even hints of biblical stories and characters. Over the years a lot of the mythology was fictionalized to support the evolving Stargate timelines and stories, but in season 9 & 10 there were new inclusions of Arthurian legend, which was pretty cool.

With Stargate Atlantis all three of these premisis were very watered down. Earth began to play a very minor role in the plots (the team was basically either trying to figure out a way to get back to Earth or prevent the Wraith from finding Earth). Earth and earthly politics took a back seat to the conflicts in Atlantis and the Pegasus galaxy. This was OK because at least there was still some back and forth and Earth was still the main base of command. There was some political tension between Atlantis and Earth that could have been similar to what you might imagine happened between the original colonists and Britian in the 1700's (now that might have been a cool story line to develop, have Atlantis declare their independence from Earth...).

Because the technology in SG-1 had advanced way beyond what is currently possible, Atlantis is even less based in reality than SG1 was. I'm not big in biology, but from what I can tell that is the area where the science is still not to far ahead of actual science. Obviously there are still a lot of liberties taken with being able to alter someone's DNA and have effects show up in days, and all the genetic engineering that goes on, but I think a lot of that is still within the realm of current theory. Other scientific fields though are completely in the realm of science fiction, which is a little disappointing, but given the evolution of the show it was expected, just like the smaller role Earth has played.

My biggest disappointment with Stargate Atlantis, though, is the departure from earthly lore. I know the mythological gods thing is gone, SG1 pushed that as far as it could go. SG-1 laid the groundwork for Arthurian legend to play a bigger role in Atlantis. Unfortunately that was never developed int he Pegasus galaxy. But what I was saying since before Atlantis originally aired, and was still hoping for until it was clear after the first few episodes that this wasn't going to happen, was for the Pegasus galaxy to be the source of Earth's horror and fantasy lore.

Think of it... The back story is that the Ancients went to the Pegasus galaxy and had a long war against the Wraith before sinking their main base (Plato's legend of a lost continent) and returning to the Milky Way and Earth to complete their studies of ascension. The Wraith sound very much like vampires, just distorted over time. Maybe when the Ancients came back to earth they had a whole slew of stories of all the frightening creatures from the Pegasus galaxy. We could have been given a very vibrant galaxy full of fantastic creatures like warewolves, dragons, unicorns, trolls, goblins, gryphons, zombies, cyclops, giants, centaurs, golumn, deamons, and all sorts of other things that go bump in the night. And a lot of these could have been tied back to the mythology used in SG-1, too. Heck, the name of the Pegasus galaxy could have tied in to the story of Perseus and his battle against Medusa.(like in Clash of the Titans).

Instead we got the, admittedly pretty cool, bug like Wraith, and the not-so-cool replicators. I think the writers and producers missed out on a great opportunity to stay true to the Stargate roots. Unfortunately it sounds like the upcoming Stargate Universe series is going to stray even farther from the original premises. Now we're going to have a crew of younger adventurers on a starship with no way back to Earth. The ship is heading out to new locations that have never been visited by humans or Ancients. This sounds a little too much like Star Trek crossed with Big Brother for me. I'll give it a shot since I love Stargate, but I'm very disappointed and hoped for something more promising. Oh well, we'll see next year...