Rosencrantz & Guildenstern, Ltd.

Archive for February, 2010

• Grades, grades, go away. Come again another day. #
• @tjlpodcast Yay! in reply to tjlpodcast #
• Today is definitely a Monday: alarm failed to go off + headache as a cold front comes through. Yay. #
• RT @FakeAPStylebook: "Forbear"is something given to a bear."Forebear" is the portion of the bear before the main bear."Fourbear" is a party. in reply to FakeAPStylebook #
• RT @FakeAPStylebook: Describe a spring shower as "light" or "pleasant." If you're in California, use "STORM WATCHAGEDDON 2010." in reply to FakeAPStylebook #
• Not sure why this should be a surprise – NYT: Panel Finds Rangel Broke House Rules With Caribbean Trip: http://s.nyt.com/u/7Y8 #
• @StarShipSofa – May I say, sir, I support your potential move from Mac to PC. in reply to StarShipSofa #
• First OAP practice festival today: no costumes or complete set, plus an actress who just got the script this week. #
• @Veronica That's what Molly Wood has dubbed the "literalnet" for you. in reply to Veronica #

Powered by Twitter Tools

• So I go into my spam box to check, just in case a legitimate email got caught, and there are a bunch of message to "Mr. starflyer3000." #

Powered by Twitter Tools

China has generally proven to be increasingly unwilling to co-operate with America,

via US foreign policy: Speaking too softly | The Economist.

I was pretty disappointed with The Economist‘s endorsement of then-candidate Obama during the election, and since then they’ve been pretty meager in their criticism of him.  However, this article shows that President Obama’s attempts to pussyfoot around controversial international issues to avoid offending Iran, Russia, and (especially) China have not had the intended results.  For example:

The Chinese government responded by becoming more assertive. It helped to scupper a deal at the Copenhagen summit on climate change in December and snubbed the American president by sending a deputy minister to a crucial meeting. China has generally proven to be increasingly unwilling to co-operate with America, for example over United Nations sanctions against Iran.

Now, I’m not the biggest fan of the Dalai Lama (as I tend not to like autocrats in general), but at least the administration is showing some backbone by meeting with him despite China’s objections.  The lesson to be learned here is that we cannot ever compromise our principles just to get along with repressive, anti-democratic regimes.

“Man can’t use his mind to know the truth; if he uses his mind he just comes up with something stupid like the theory of evolution.” – Jimmy Swaggart (quoted in C.S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason by Victor Reppert)

This quote made me laugh, so I thought I’d share it.  A note of context: Reppert used this quote to demonstrate the idea of fideism, which states that “religious beliefs are not open to rational evaluation.” (Reppert, p. 29)  I’ll leave it to you to determine how you think this is funny.

From http://michellemalkin.com/2010/02/08/colorado-springs-derangement-syndrome/.

City Councilman from Colorado Springs (my favorite city outside of Texas) Sean Paige, when discussing the cities economic problems:

This is a city with above-average rates of volunteerism and charitable giving. We don’t look reflexively to government to do things citizens can do themselves. And we’re counting on that can-do spirit and civic-mindedness, along with a willingness to consider out-of-the-box solutions, to see us through this budget crunch. (Emphasis mine.)

This demonstrates to me the big difference between classic conservatism and liberalism/progressivism.

So I recently made a trip to Hastings (“You’re entertaiment superstore!) and picked up a few things. First, I got volumes 4 and 5 of Scott Pilgrim by Bryan Lee O’Malley.  I’ve been enjoying the Scott Pilgrim series over the past month or so, and these two volumes were great.  For those who don’t know, the book’s titular hero falls in love with Ramona Flowers, who has seven evil exes that Scott must defeat to continue dating her.  The book is great for fans of video games and music, and I’ve enjoyed the romance story between Scott and Ramona.

Second, I got volume 1 of The Walking Dead by Robert Kirkman and Tony Moore.  I had heard about this book for years but had never picked it up (as with Scott Pilgrim as well).  I felt that the beginning was too much like 28 Days Later in why the main character, Rick (a small town police officer), doesn’t know what’s going on (he was shot on duty and in a coma for a month), but overall I enjoyed it.  There were a couple of times when reading it, however, that I had to double check the pages to make sure I hadn’t missed something; at times, there is a slight jump in time, but there’s no obvious indication of it.  Other than those two quibbles, it was good, and the art style helps to capture the creepiness of a world overrun with zombies.

Third, I finally bought Night by Elie Wiesel.  I’ve wanted to read this book for a while, and I found it in the used the section.  I’m considering teaching it in my Reading class, given its shorter length.

Fourth, I got C.S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea: In Support of the Argument from Reason by Victor Reppert.  The book is an examination of Lewis’s argument that the existence of rational thought proves the existence of the supernatural (an idea Lewis explored in Mircales).  It was fortuitous that I found this book at this time, as I was listening to a podcast in which the hosts briefly discussed recent scientific developments in brain research that suggest that there is no free will (something atheists have been claiming for years).  This “discovery” (if it’s held up) basically proves Lewis’s argument: in a “naturalist” system (in which nothing exists but nature), there cannot be true rational thought (because everything is cause and effect); thus, reason is a supernatural miracle.

Let me know if you’ve read any of them.  I may post fully reviews as I finish reading these books.

Despite the fact that I have never owned a piece of Apple hardware (although I did buy Snow Leopard to attempt a ‘hackintosh’ PC), I was eager to see what Apple would announce on January 27. My interest was not really in a product that I would buy, but in what their announcement would herald for consumer electronics. And the introduction of the iPad is just the sort of announcement I was hoping for.

While Apple has not created a new category (despite their PR), Apple might just do what tablet makers for years have failed to do: create a market for tablets. That’s necessary because without a market, developers have little reason to enter a space and because it will help to lower prices (most tablets before were over-priced and under-powered laptops).

I also think that Apple’s potential entry into the tablet space has helped spur other companies’ development of tablets, as companies want to have something to offer in the marketplace.

Now, I won’t buy the iPad for the same reason I won’t buy an iPhone: I don’t want Steve Jobs or anyone else dictating how I’ll use a product. (I’ve already been burned by the Zune on that front.) I want to use my devices the way I want to, and I enjoy playing around on them to see what they can do. Jobs’s mentality on products is too centrally focused, too technocratic for my tastes.

But despite that, I’m glad they entered the space, if only to spur other companies to give me the device I’m looking for.