Move Review: Transformer Revenge of the Fallen

This is the first review I've posted of a movie, but thought I'd go ahead and do this one.  We checked it out last night (yay for redbox's 1 dollar movies).

I'd like to point out that my biggest problem with the first movie is that, in my firm belief, a Transformers movie should be 80-90% giant robots fighting, and instead got 50% teen romance, 30% teens outwitting experts employed by the government, 15% people fighting giant robots, and about 5% of actually giant robots fighting each other.

So, initial overall:
90% -Movie was mainly about giant robots fighting.  Glad you learned your lesson Mr. Bay.
+5%- Optimus Prime is awesome, from nostalgia to just kick butt coolness
+2%- Geriatric Jetfire was well done, and very amusing

However, this movie had a lot of small detractions.
-5%- Excessive amount of scrotal jokes and references...I don't want to hear or see that thank you very much
-5%- "Pseudo-gangsta" talking robots, wow, obnoxious.
-3%- Potty mouth robots.  Related to the above, but not only.  In a movie with a bunch of soldiers and military dudes, it's the robots that are cussing like a sailor, well and the kids mom.
-2%- Stereotypical over the top annoying parents.  We got it last movie, we get it again, it's still not funny.
-3%- Cheese/"Fan service" Megan Fox shots.  I don't want this junk in my movies, why the heck does it keep showing up?
-2%- Still to much teen romance, in fact, between the parents and the protagonists you wonder why they let the real actors on at all, the cgi-animated voice actors do much better job acting...
-2%- Stupid trope of "higher authority who doesn't get it taking over the job" and this one doesn't even make sense.  How can the US threaten to "order the autobots off the planet?"  Out of the country maybe...and all the justifications for the threat are meaningless to.
-2%- Dude in a thong...it's not funny just gross.
-1%- Dude who constantly cries like a girl.  It was annoying in the first one, why do we have to have another one in the second one?
-1%- Coming up with a new villain that only Optimus can beat.  Okay there was enough bad guys in the original group, couldn't you use those, why do you have to come up with something new?
-1%- Optimus almost got his butt whipped by megatron, why then does he beat down the BBG in like 10 seconds...worst fight ever.

Final grade: 70...C-

Long time, no book

My I-Pod died...don't know why, but it makes me sad.  And bored.  And, no more book reviews for a while.  I'm behind on the ones I did read to.  Ah well.

Book Review: The Four Seasons of Marriage

I've enjoyed Gary Chapman's The Five Love Languages so when I came across this, it made an impromptu introduction to my reading list (the fact that I was still #2 or 3 on all my holds was a contributing factor as well).  This made an interesting "read" and I really enjoyed it, as a husband and as a student of counseling.  The premise that all marriages shift through various states of marriage was a gain in useful knowledge in itself.  Note, the seasons are not stages, they are states.  You move from one to another in some order, yes, but people do not begin in spring and end in winter, they fluctuate between them all.

The crux of the book was that Spring (the growing joy of marriage) and Summer (the warm and happy time of marriage) is the place we want to be, so we need to learn to move from Fall (the rough spots) and Winter (the spot of absolute despair/misery) to those happier states.  He details the states quite well, but mentions there is some overlap.  You can't point to a given place in your life and says "There is where we moved from Spring to Summer."  But they are different, and useful to understand. 

Probably the best part was the ending where he discusses seven different methods of moving out of fall and winter and into spring and summer.  I think the best, and hardest, was learning where you failed your mate, both through your own meditation on the subject and consulting family and your spouse!  That would be so hard, to go to others and say, "Tell me how I failed."  Then, and only then, you can begin to repent and ask for forgiveness.  There were many others, but this one really amazed me, to commit that much would seem hard in the season of winter.

Overall, great book on marriage.  I'm almost considering adding it to my mandatory reading list for marriage (which I should put on this blog I guess).   Great read for anyone in marriage to think of how their marriage is and where to go from here.

Book Review: Who Moved My Cheese?

Okay, this was kind of a silly tale.  However, I think once you get over the silliness of the story, it gets really good.  It seems to me to make a very good point about how we as people over complicate things.  We DO NOT LIKE CHANGE!  Who took my stuff?  Why was I fired, I worked hard!  These things are all bits of whining we have done over the years and it shows how we over complicate our lives.  Change happens, you need to roll with it.

Short review for a short book:  I like it, it has a good message about an aspect that is deficient in our own lives.  I would recommend it, especially in light of the current increase in joblessness and lay-offs.  It's a good place to learn about how to deal with the curve balls of life.

Book Review: The Millionaire Next Door

Amazing book.  I really enjoyed this one.  A book on money, backed by research on how the rich handle money.  It is very enlightening to hear a description other than that of Trust Babies and Super-Stars.  To hear about people who make money in a slow and steady way, to hear and find how people best become wealthy.

It is a very through book, describing multiple levels of the way money is handled.  A couple of interesting things to me were:  The largest indicator of wealth accumulation seemed to be the way the spouse that stays at home.  They referred to two aspects of wealth building: financial offense and defense.  Financial offense was acquiring money.  You know, high salary, good yielding investments, being born into the right family, etc.  Financial defense was keeping expenses low, spending on what is necessary without fluff, etc.  They found sound financial defense was the strongest indicator of wealth building, and the wife most often was influential one in this realm.  Very interesting.

Another interesting aspect is how they view the acquisition of vehicles.  One thing they mentioned is how once someone remarked flippantly how the wealthy tended to buy their vehicles by the pound.  Then, when they checked, they found that they were in fact buying vehicles that were cheapest by weight!  The buying techniques were interesting to.  Once those with a "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" arrangement with a dealer was removed, the most prevalent car shopping technique was to shop all locations for used cars.  They said that people who do this are always casually looking for a car, but never in a hurry.  They will often check, even test drive, then make a low ball offer.  If it's not taken, they politely say good bye and walk off.

I really liked this book, and found it very interesting.  It's actually kind of nice to know I already have a number of these habits having been taught by my parents.  Not that wealth building is my goal in life, but being able to be wise with my money is, and it's nice to know I'm on the right track.  A recommended read.

The Book Review: The Richest Man in Babylon

Great book on money that is actually different than all the others.  Most books on money I have read are either heavily based upon one man's experience and story (Rich Dad Poor Dad for instance) or heavily a research book describing what they found (Millionaire Next Door is next on the list).  This one, however, goes about it in a different way through a number of parables from Babylon.  Seriously, if you want to learn about money, but find most money books to dry try this one.  It's a good, easy read, with lots of information on how to live a life that is wise with money.

My biggest critique is the attempt to use Elizabethan English.  It is really annoying, I realize it's supposed to convey an antiquity feeling.  The reality is, the Babylonians spoke Akkadian and therefore anything we hear is a translation, so what not actually do it all the way?  That being sad, as long as you are reasonably familiar with the language it's not to bad to listen to or read.

I do wonder about whether there is any basis in history for any of these stories, or if they were based upon actual myths and stories from Babylon.  Somehow I doubt it, I mean on character actually mentions how he envisions life insurance in the future.  There is no real explanation about the historical connection, though they try and imply such in a correspondence letter from a Sumerian linguist and and archaeologist, but that doesn't necessarily mean that is not fictional as well.

Overall, this is an excellent book.  It's easy to read, flows well, tells compelling stories, and manages to educate you about money in the process.  Oh, and if you think you don't need to learn about money, then let me tell you this: those who think they have nothing to learn usually have the most to learn.  Money handling ability, like everything else, is a learned skill.  You can learn from the school of hardknocks, and maybe squeak by, or you can learn from others of wisdom (parents, authors, etc) and become stable, independent, and able to use your money for good will rather than just scraping by to meet your own needs.

Coercive help is better than volunatry according to Mr. Obama

Obama Closes Summit, Vows Broader Engagement With Latin America - washingtonpost.com

In this article, 5th paragraph the line states that President Obama " felt the United States could learn a lesson from Cuba, which for decades has sent doctors to other countries throughout Latin America to care for the poor." So apparently apparently the US needs to learn that rather than the thousands of volunteers, we need to curtail our efforts and make it mandatory for top doctors to win us geo-political support. Stupid doctors who volunteer...

Seriously, the IMB, Samaritan's Purse, and Doctor's Without Borders all export VOLUNTEER doctors in vast numbers. These people sacrifice their financial abilities, earning no pay beyond what support they get (which is no more than the lay, untrained man with a hammer) to use their years of expensive study to simply aid others. Added to that, often these missionaries go with no compensation and at their own expense! Now, I don't know about you, but to me that seems to be a larger amount of compassion and caring than state funded doctor's drawing a salary as they go over seas. Added to that, private practice physicians have to pay staff while they are paying their way.

Shame on you, Mr. Obama, for disparaging those who sacrifice so much. Medical missions is just one of a plethora of foreign aid put out by private individuals. Step back from your socialist agenda for a moment and see what good the free market has had. Yes, greed can abound and people do run around using their wealth to their own selfishness, but that happens in socialism to. What is more interesting is the huge amount of aid, both financial and service based, that the US sends over seas. Learn to see what Americans do, and then think about whether we should embrace a political gambit that would actually lower our aid to others.

Book Review: Do Robots Dream of Electric Sheep? (Bladerunner)

Continuing my Sci-Fi theme, I listened to "Do Robots Dream of Electric Sheep" by Philip K. Dick, which is the novel Bladerunner is based on.  I have to admit I have never actually seen the movie (yes, I know I'm a sinner, forgive me), and from listening to this I have to wonder how well you could make a movie based upon this book.  I say this as it is a very thought based novel.  It seems to follow mainly a stream-of-conciousness approach.  It was good, don't get me wrong, but I fail to see how well it could be transitioned to the screen without major alterations.  There were action scenes, but they were short and uneventful.  "Oh no, an andy, DIE!" Pew Pew, dead.  That's about it, very short action scene, so I'm curious as to how it was altered.

The novel really had a number of 60s era psychological concepts throughout.  A high emphasis on medical model of psychology as well as emotional concepts, especially empathy.  In fact, empathy seems to be the major point.  I am kind of vague about the message, and all good Sci-Fi must make a point, but I think it has to do with the idea that as computers get more sophisticated what distinguishes us?  Empathy seems to be it, the ability not only to feel, but understand and feel what others feel.  Maybe I'm wrong, but that did stand out to me.

Typical of Dick, or so I'm told, it was rather dark about how the future is.  Post nuclear war, death of many animals, etc.  Especially in the era it was, that seems pretty normal motif.

Overall, I liked the book, but it was a bit different than a lot I've read.

Up Next: Money books- "The Richest Man in Babylon"

Book Review: Dune

Wow, can't believe I had not read this yet.  As a Sci-Fi junkie, you'd think I would have read it by now, but somehow it slipped out.

Really though, what can I say?  I liked it, but I think it's beyond my liking or not liking.  This book did for Sci-Fi what Lord of the Rings did for fantasy.  A whole set of motifs, genre trends, universe conceptions go back to this book.  I actually recognized trends from the fantasy setting that come from this book as well.  Any and all Sci-Fi readers must read this.

The plot flowed well, a world and universe was created.  A character came, grew up, and you came to to see the world through his eyes.  A message was made, a world was changed.  It was good literature and a good story.  I am ashamed not to have read it until now.

Book Review: Reading Judas

So after my foray into liberal theology, I listened to a book in secular scholarship about a non-canonical book, Reading Judas: The Gospel of Judas and the Shaping of Christianity by Elaine Pagels and Karen King.  To my surprise, I actually liked it.  I was preparing myself for all sorts of nonsense about how this should be part of the canon, yada yada yada, but I did not get any of that.  Instead, this book took the book of Judas to be what it was, an obvious pseudonymous work dated to the mid second century at the earliest, and explored what that might mean.  Most notably, it used the content of this book and other heretical writings of the time to analyze what it tells us about the church today.  Rather than trying to raise controversy, it was simply an attempt to peer into history, and an interesting look it was.

The summation of it all was that the book of Judas probably was written to argue against the attitude of martyrdom of the time.  The idea was that the writer felt marytrdom was exalted to the point that the church bascially implied that realy Christians get martyred, or something of that nature.  The writer of the Book of Judas attempted to invoke Christ and Judas as a reprimand for essentially recommending human sacrfices.  It also dealt with some more esoteric ideas, but that crux of the historical nuances gained centered around the martyrdom point.

The biggest gain I personally had to this book is it finally showed me something about secular biblical scholarship I had been grappling with but not quite grasped.  There are two types of secular biblical scholars.  The first study the Bible with the explicit intent of showing Christians up.  This author, and others like her, are of another sort.  They study the Bible as a historic piece of literature.  Much like my undergraduate paper at Oklahoma Baptist on Germanic culture in Beowulf, they study the Bible to understand a segment of early Christianity.  They are not trying to prove Christianity wrong, they really don't care.  They may be amused that we take these things so seriously, but they are not out to attack us.  Rather, they are simply taking an academic literay and historical approach to the Bible like others do the Iliad or Gilgamesh.  Its helpful to realize that, I think, as it lets me know intent.  To be fair, some of this scholarship does create controversy and difficulties in the church, but they are not attacking, merely studying.

Overall, I would say it was a good read (or listen in my case).  It gives an interesting insight into the book without getting all preachy about what it really means for the Bible as the National Geographic tends to.  It also gives some possible insight into what was happening in the second century, though I wonder if there might be competing explanations, or at least wonder if we still have enough information to reach much of a conclusion.  I'd recommend it as a reading of interest to thouse dabbling in Church history, but probably does not have broad appeal.

Book Review: 10 Things your Minister wants you to know (but can't because he needs the job)

I read (or rather listened to the audio) because the description of the book called it the "centrist's answer to the Purpose Driven Life." I have heard from my fellow conservatives about liberal theologies, and decided I'd like to get it from the proverbial horse's mouth rather than more 3rd party. Ironically, I think there is correlation between 10 Things and Purpose: they are both very shallow. Don't get me wrong, Purpose Driven Life is a very good primer on living a life of faith, but it is actually sad that it was so big as that really reveals how shallow Christianity was. Likewise 10 Yhings really is probably a good primer of liberal theology, but rather than providing solid support for what it proclaims it simply makes statements.

The book opens criticizing "fundamentalists" (which he misues interchangeably with conservative and evangelical) for their poor exegesis, or selective use of scripture as he says, and their caricatures of those who disagree with them. With great irony I quickly realized most positions espoused by the author came from very selective use of scriptures and refutations came via straw-man arguments and caricatures. "Kettle, this is pot, you are black."

What follows the introduction is a series of statements about either questionable exegesis or historical/philosophical theories that are of some question. For example, Daniel was written in the 2nd century and the "4 Kingdoms" were Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece. Apparently, Daniel is totally ignorant of his own history since there was no Media empire, and he even contradicts himself in his own book since he ties the two together. Now, this is not an uncommon theory, but it is based upon secular idea of anti-supernatural bias against foretelling. No alternative is even mentioned, rather this theory is stated as fact. Likewise, Israel did not cross the Red Sea, but the Sea of Reeds (more a tidal bog really). What is the argument for this? We're left to wonder, it is just stated as true.

Another interesting is his proposition that homosexual monogamy is biblically blessed, only loose living for either sex and child molestation is condemned. Now, he quite right I believe, points out flaws in citing biblical texts against homosexuality. After all, its hard to argue from one verse that is in the midst of others about stoning people for working on the sabbath and for wearing mixed fabrics (at the moment I have a cotton/polyester blend shirt on). However, he then takes a creative run-around on 1 Corinthians' citation about men who have turned their unnatural desires to other men. Apparent, the first man means Roman patrician, and the second man means "slave boy." So, it's really written against a not uncommon practice of Roman rich taking slave boys for sexual pleasure. Except for two things. 1) He mentions men, not boys, slaves, or rich men. 2) This is corinth, and THE city of the time for sexual misconduct, including homosexuality between consenting men, not Rome where boy sex slaves were the practice.

Another mistake he takes is called scientific/theological parallelism. Theology and science are two different worlds, and they do not overlap. The problem is, there are definite areas of overlap, and to deny such is intellectual dishonesty. Yet, he blissfully asserts that science and theology have no meeting points, so we can be happy being a theist and naturalist, because even those two are mutually exclusive, they're from different realms so it doesn't matter.

Overall, I would say it is a decent primer to some liberal ideas, but it is a very weak book when it comes to justifying its position. It might persuade those with a very weak sunday school education, but any serious student of the bible will find some very obvious flaws in his arguments. The danger is, because his arguments are so flawed, a conservative might become more confident than is justified. A more serious study of liberal theologies perhaps may be found elsewhere, but this does give a loose index of some ideas.

edit: Addendum to all that, having been a minister and been very good friends with other minsters, I can tell you his list is pretty bad. There are much more vital things church goers should know, and the pastor is afraid to tell them about. How to handle disputes with leadership for instance. How to leave a church.

Iran is a Problem

Clinton has doubts that Iran is open to discussions - International Herald Tribune

You know, I rarely agree with either of the Clintons, but in this case I do.  However, I doubt it is for the reasons she has.  Actually, this goes along the same lines of how I felt that Rice was a poor choice to work with Iran.  Namely, cultural values towards women.  Do you really think the Iranians would have any respect for us if they were to negotiate with Hilary?  I think not.  Their view of women is so low, and then to have one so emblematic of what the conceive is wrong with American women would just be icing on the cake.  Of course, I do not think they are far offin Mrs. Clinton's case, though I do not think she really would represent all of what is wrong with American women any more than A Rod represents all that is wrong with American men.

"Facts Schmacts" in the News, according to Wiley Miller

I was given a non-sequitor calendar for Christmas, though I'm not really sure why, other than because I like comic calendars.    Non-sequitor, to me, is one of the most inane of the big comics.  Take this one that came up recently: 



Seriously, Fox News?  I'm sorry, but maybe he's confused.  You see, I recall CBS being the one who made up facts about George Bush.  Or how about the fact the New York Times and Washington Post putting up recently that "Survey Reveals Broad Support for President" and "Obama Gets High Marks for 1st Month" respectively about Obama's opinion poll.  On the other hand, ABC said "A Strong Start for Obama- But Hardly a Bipartisan One"

Now, consider this.  Barack Obama has lost about 5% approval, and is not average accross the board with the rest of the presidents since Nixon, the exact same as George Bush senior, and 1 point higher  (which would be statistically insignificant) than George W Bush.  I first read this here.

Tell me then, how is Fox News the problem.  If you ask me Fox News may be guilty of bias, but no more than any other.  I genuinely feel that most news programs try to cover their stories fairly.  Yet, the real bias can show through (see WP and NYT above).  Also, the bigger bias shines through in what is covered more than how it is covered.


Or, read this article titled on Yahoo news: "Early study shows AIDS-fighting gel promising".  Now read the second paragraph, and then again in the seventh paragraph.  Did you catch it.  Evidently not only is yahoo misleading, but the AP "Medical Writer" does not understand the basics of science.  When a study is not conclusive, it means the evidence is not strong enough to make a conclusion.  Surely you see the problem, right?  There was a difference, but the statistical analysis found that the results could just have easily been from confounding factors.  But, no, let's not obscure agenda with facts.

So, yeah, if my family actually ever reads my blog: Thank you for the present.  Next year though, I would prefer Dilbert or even Garfield more than this schlock.

Must Read About the Economy and Investing

This wisdom of great investors


For those of you who are worried about and freaking out over the economy.  Two recommendations.  First, turn off the TV news.  Way to much drama there to actually learn anything.  Secondly, read the above link.  It gives a very straight forward but smart talk about how to invest and 'weather' an economic crisis.

Irony, we have found thee

CitizenLink: TV Stations Cancel Paid Ad about Homosexual Agenda

A beautiful little piece here, detailing how a TV station wants to silence a Christian paid ad for...talking about Christians being silenced? 

There is no recession...

What does Best Buy, AMC Theaters, and UPS all have in common?  They are suffering from a decline in business for no real reason.  You see, we are suffering a recession, yet why?  Real estate is facing a real problem.  Almost every area of real estate was living in a bubble caused by people who had no money being able to get loans for houses well beyond their means.  Bubble burts, market begins correction by swinging the opposite direction a while.  Which leads to the mortgage sector, which suffers from a number of foreclosures on bad loans.  The bigger problem comes from mark-to-market rules, since no one wants these bad loans, banks are forced to mark their assests down considerably.  The banks involved with this are understandably suffering from liquidity problems.

Beyond that, why are the rest of us hurt?  Well, the reality is, we aren't.  If you are not involved directly in sub-prime lending, you should not be hurt.  Yet we are in a recession, and the question is why?  Yes, there are inter-connected factors, but as I listen to news, I'm more convinced that the reality is that we are facing a socio-psychological problem more than anything.  With the Drama Queens, I mean the media, and the sychophants, I mean politicians, screaming bloody murder every single day about how we are living in the apocolypse, we are all convinced life is terrible.  The reality is, most of us are not making less money.  With slashes in retail prices, we actually have practically more money!  We are just freaked out.  Those of us who want mortgages and car loans can still get them, if we have MONEY to pay those loans. 

So what's the problem?  We are scared.  Me, I refuse to be scared.  Not that I will be spending wildly.  After all, I'm a student with a part time job, wife and daughter to support.  Yet, I refuse to be frightened by the media and the politicians.

Now coming to an economy near you!

We, the people, in order to further our own selfishness, do refuse to learn.  Or at least that's what it appears we believe about the nature of the world.  I mean, look at two things about the government and our current economic woes.

1) The stimulus plans:  We are now onto Stimulus Plan 3: The Social Engineering coming to a Theater near YOU! It follows in the footsteps (supposedly) of the last one, Stimulus Plan 2: The Bailout, well, except that the money is earmarked for social things, and not, you know, economic things.  And that itself followed upon Stimulus Plan! where we all got hot shiny checks.  The problem is, if 1 and 2 didn't work, why in the world are we trying the same thing a third time?  I think Alcoholic's Anonymous has a saying about repeating the same action and expecting different results...

2) The principles of learning:  A basic idea of learning is we learn through rewards and consequences.  If I do A, and good things happen, I'll continue to do A.  If I do B, and bad things happen, I'll stop doing B.  Skinner lays this all out very handily in his writing on Behaviorist theories.  The thing is, after writing big checks to banks, they start buying airplanes, giving bonuses, going to Hawaii, and redoing their offices.  Now, people are understandably upset, but they are upset at the wrong people!  We showed them that if they are stupid with their own money, then Washington will reward them!  We reinforced bad behavior, and now we are mad that they are continuing on in bad behavior.  Except, we should be mad at Washington for rewarding idiots who misbehave.

Oh, but wait, it gets better.  After Stimulus Plan 2 you all voted your guys back into office!  Therefore, all of you who did not vote against congressmen who voted for the bailout reinforced voting for bail outs, so it's all your fault!  You reinforced bad behavior, you encouraged Washington to be this way, and therefore, executives to be this way.  Fortunately for me, none of my congressmen voted for it. 

Now, it's time to learn about how to change behavior.  Remember, punishment to extinguish behavior.  E.g. You vote for huge spendings of my money to fund corporate retreats, I will send you home.  On the other hand, rewards encourage behavior.  E.g. You vote that people should be responsible for their own actions then I will vote for you again.  Sound hard?  Let's try to remember this in two years.

The pursuit of selfishness

You have no right to be alive.  You should realize that of course, but maybe you have not thought about it.  Theoretically, after you were born you then somehow gained that right, but people are working at limiting that.  The idea is to put it somewhere between 1 week and 1 year, though honestly I don't know why those specific ages should matter.  I guess you could make an argument for 18.  After all, once you reach that age you are no longer under your parents legally. 

I'm talking about abortion, of course, the single most sickening legal practice I have heard about in America.  Under such laws you nor I have no real right to be here, our mere existence is at the whim of our parents.  Why, once abortion is accepted, we make such arbitrary inferences of where we can end that life.  Why is birth the limit?  After all, birth can easily vary across a 4 week span of time, and even more so and still survive with limited assistance.  So why cut off birth?  Seems reasonable to move it to 1 week, 1 year, or heck anyone who has teenagers would tell us 17 is prime age to do away with our children.  There seems to me to be no reason there should be a distinction across those ages.  And it sickens me.

Transfered

Yay, I figured out how to transfer over my last blog to this one.  Since I'm in a google account now, thought it'd be better to stream line over.  Anywho, fun times.

Test test test

Yay, new blog up and running...now to see if I can think of anything to write about...