An interesting article at the NYTimes  tries to find some common gound between evolution and creationism. Or perhaps it doesn’t strech that far, but it tries to briefly unite scientific and religious thought of a similar kind. I’d like to take a random moment like this to briefly outline my views on this subject for any who care to delve into them.

Evolution is a great idea, soundly scientific, roundly provable in most respects, and, at its very base, completely and totally absurd.

Okay, we can give in and agree on natural selection. Over time the tall giraffes got to eat the tall leaves and developed long necks, while other animals developed and adapted over time similar traits, behaviors, organs, and so forth, to deal with their environments. Perhaps we could all even agree that even most of our humanity and language were developments to help us increase our reproductive dominance in the world over time.

But reproduction makes no logical sense.

It is the basis for evolution: the strongest evolve and survive, and those with less adapted traits and features die off, leading to evolution of a species over time.

This completely ignores the notion of where the idea of reproduction came from. When you try and slice to the cosmological core of evolution, you get to something inbetween the big bang and an amoeba in what we might call early geology or “the primordial soup.”  You can read all about this most troubling portion of things in the Wikipedia entry on Abiogenesis, or the development of life from non-life. Various theories abound, but none is really provable in a grand sense, and most study ignores the total absurdity of the situation.

Let us assume for argument’s sake that some carbon was lying around somehow, over millions of years, somehow formed into a protien all on its own. And let’s assume again for the purpose of argument that these proteins and chemicals stayed around long enough to somehow turn into, well let’s just say that this line of thought involves, at some point, the spontaneous generation of ribozymes, or self-replicating RNA strands which are essential precursors to the DNA blueprint of living things. To understand how complicated a ribozyme is, read this, then think for a moment of how crazy it is to believe that something like that just accidentlly happend. And not just happened by accident, but survived strong enough to happen accidently over and over and over and over again…

Now, like you learned with the Chewbaca defense: that just doesn’t make sense! (South Park video, or wikipedia)

Whether you believe DNA spontaneously showed up on the scene after a big bang, or whether you believe in some religous something, there rests at the common heart of both systems of thought that most pernicious debate blaster of all:  belief.  Both side believe in something they can’t prove one way or the other for some personal reasons.

This is the common ground between the two thoughts. It’s the complicated watch, the wonder of life, the total absurdity of reproduction. If chemicals wanted a good way to reproduce they’d find ways to develop thinking rocks. Rocks last a long time. Rocks last longer than almost everything else. If the innate goal of chemicals and such was to last a long time and reproduce somehow, we’d have reproducing rocks or sentient water. Something powerful and easy and lasting a long time. It seems hard to imagine either a creator or random chance giving us what we have now: families, children, little baby bugs, bees, birds, crazy sharks, trees, flowers, and those underwater fish with the lightbulb organ that still totally scare me when I see the pictures of them.

Now, none of this stuff makes sense, and I’m hardly making sense talking about it. In order to move forward you need to admit that at some point like this nothing really makes sense. Then admit that, for all intents and purposes, we’re never every going to make any kind of rational sense of these things while we’re alive, and, given that thousands of years of recorded history (and some longer unrecorded periord before that when we wrestled with myth in the wilderness) humans have never really found a totally sound way of figuring this out: it’s not able to be made sensible. The foundation of life is not able to be discovered or made sense of.

Sure, we should postulate, argue, and study as much as we can. But that hasn’t proved all that helpful in this regard. Those science did give us the iPhone. Anyway, things won’t ever make sense on this basic level, so we’re never going to be able to decide who wins in the evoloution versus creationism debate. So take a grab bag of the best parts of both (natural selection from here, charity and kindness to mankind over here, oh, yeah, and Christmas presents too) and you have a winning solution. Which seems to be what most people end up doing by default anyway, and unless you’re on a school board or in an ivory tower somewhere, this is the kind of debate and discussion that you totally ignore and don’t care about.

Becasue, in the end, it’s absurd unknown and meaningful only as a mystery and meaningless if definitive.

Any substantive political debate needs to begin kind of like A.A.: the first step is admitting there is a problem.

Then there is a basic debate about whether efforts should be made to solve that problem.

Only when both parties agree on these two main points can substantive debate about a solution begin. If one of the two parties to the debae doesn’t believe in the existence of a problem or the need to solve the problem, then the debate isn’t about solutions to fix the problem, the debate is an existential one about whether we should do anything.

A large amount of folks on the right don’t see a problem with people being under/not insured, and even when folks less on the right and closer to the center agree that that is kind of a problem, a vast majority on the right just don’t think government should even try and attempt to solve it.

Right there you have the great gap. When your opposition is not just disagreeing with you (the best route for a highway, whether we need more roads or more trains, etc.) at least you’re talking about the same issues. It’s kind of like trying to discuss strategic priorities in Afghanistan with a pacifist. You’re not even on the same page, so don’t even try and have that discussion unless some kind of intellectual concessions are made at the front.

The great problem in the current debate is that the right currently begins discussions by admitting that we have a problem and need to do something, but then goes down a road that clearly exhibits that they really don’t believe we need to do anything. Intellectual dishonesty in politics is nothing new (is it a requirement of political discussion?) but we should stop trying to pretend that those on the right trying  to debate health care reform are really debating the need for any reform at all, and then move on from there.

For those arguing “death panels” there isn’t even the possibility of common ground, so it doesn’t make sense to try and make some where the ground is too rocky. Just move along. These aren’t folks who have legitimate concerns about the proposal, they’re against the proposal. When you start adding in talking points about Medicare being a Nazi/socialist initiative, we know that you’re not trying to engage in legitimate discussion, you’re trying to rabble rouse. I’m generally a great supporter of rabble rousing, but don’t try to pretend it’s political poetry.

Trouble is, they don’t have what some might call, well, for lack of a better term, cojones. Courage, perhaps. If you don’t believe everyone has a right to a doctor, just say “I don’t believe health care is a right, it’s a privilege you should pay for.” That’s a respectable comment about which I may disagree but which I can in some sense respect. If you don’t think people deserve health care who can’t pay for it, just say so. Don’t try and trick people into thinking that we’re going to convene a panel down at the local County Ag extension to decide if we’re going to “pull the plug on grandma”. That’s just a lie, and the worst kind. If you want to be dishonest in your positions, that’s your right. If you want to demogoge, you can go right ahead. But don’t pretend to be something that you’re not.

Man up and just say what you believe. Let your beliefs be judged by the terms of the debate, and try and make the case that healthcare is not a right. I’d like to see you make that case. I’d like to have that discussion. But if you agree that we have some duty to provide health care to those less fortunate, then let’s talk about how we do that.

I believe that people have a right to affordable health care. If the market can not provide affordable health care to them, then I support a public option to allow folks to see doctors and get taken care of. Currently everyone is taxed about 3% of gross wages for Medicare (about 1.5% for employee and 1.5% for employer) to cover the aged and many disabled. I would think that upping that to about 5 or 6% of all wages would end up covering everyone in Medicare without much trouble, and given that employers wouldn’t have to pay for health insurance and would pass on wages to workers, it would likely work out to a net raise for most people. If we can’t reform insurance, I have no problem paying for universal single payer health care insurance in my paycheck.

Perhaps you disagree. Perhaps you support a different way to insure everyone has affordable access to health care. Maybe drop me a comment or a note. But if you don’t believe people have a right to affrordable health care, tell me that too and then tell me why, and then I’ll respect your opinion. But don’t give me that bull, it’s not fun.

I ran across a video for a neat song called “City Bells” by the Autumn Defense, a side project of Wilco bassist John Stirratt. The song has a very mellow “Laurel Canyon meet Bossa Nova” vibe, with a bit of a lonely guy kind of lyric. It’s this kind of random live track that makes trolling youtube or lastfm worthwhile for me.  ALERT: Rabbit Hole…

 So dumb it’s funny.

That’s basically the short version of what you need to know about Paul Blart: Mall Cop. When you’re trying to figure out what to watch some night, looking at thriller, horror, comedy, or whatever. When there is no clear winner in the “oh we’ve got to see that” category: pick Paul Blart.

Sure, the quality here about the same as tv. There isn’t anything you haven’t seen on the tube. And the running time is about an hour and a half, more like an animated kids movie than a dramatic feature. But this is kind of a cartoony movie anyway, so that makes sense. (The short running time might explain the oversize box office: more shows per day).

The gags here are funny and original, if derivative of other stuff out there. You’re not going to get Borat levels of cultural parody or uncomfortable humor. There are a few moments where the humor in Blart kind of edges toward something, but you’e out of the woods and bag to silly gags quick enough.

My method of reviewing movies allows the movie itself to kind of dictate the terms of the deal. Some silly action flick that aims to be an action flick is good if, well, it’s good. When you watch something like That Thing You Do, you get a fun and well made music comedy. The quality of the production lends it a depth and import that holds up to multiple viewings, but if you’re looking for social commentary too much you’re not going to find it as “deep” (barf) as some “indie” nonesense. But when you get something like Backbeat, you’re getting something that’s so bloated with it’s own over-importance and lack of delivering the goods that you have a mediocre film.

It’s the reason that Napoleon Dynamite and Rushmore beat out Tropic Thunder  or The Royal Tennenbaums any day of the week: they accomplish all their goals and more and stay fun the entire time. They stay focused on characters and don’t let things get too complicated, too pretentious, too twee, or too stupid. They don’t get bloated with the weight of their own importance. All 4 of these films are good, but only the first two qulaify as great or classic.

Paul Blart is by no means a classic. But it might just be a good movie, and it’s worth at least one viewing. If it comes on cable some day, I’ll let it play to see if it holds up (like the next flick) and can be great.

Happened to catch Planet Terror, the campy and over-the-top zombie flick from Robert Rodriguez, this weekend on cable. This is the perfect movie to come on after you’ve watched something else, and just watch it and enjoy it for what it is: entertaining horrible stupid fun. The zombies are wild, the violence bloody spattered to the nth degree, the sex limited but kind of silly/sultry (and interrupted by a fake broken/missing reel) and enough old film stock effects to make you enjoy digital.

If you go to this movie thinking you’re going to get some great zombie film with underlying political message or Oscar caliber acting, you’re in the wrong place. This is a flick that seems like Rodriguez and Tarantino sat around with some drinks (or more…?) and thought of all the stupid old cliches of zombie flicks and how to take them to the top level drawer of crazy. They had fun making this, you can have fun watching, but don’t get too worked up about trying to figure it. If you need to, click on the pic and read more than you ever wanted to know on the wikipedia. Or when it comes on cable, just let it play. That’s the sign of a truly fun flick.

You know you’re getting old when you can say things about “kids these days” and mean it for real and not in an ironic kind of way.

Listening to a story on NPR about watches going out, or reading a NYTimes story on how textbooks are becoming obsolete makes me say “in my day…” and then drift off in to feeling old. And I’m not that old. But if I was 3 and met myself, I’d say I was really really really really old like a dinosaur.

The most interesting part of these stories is not the change itself (change is inevitable, go to your happy zen place, etc.) but the general feeling that “kids are so [insert quality] these days” leading directly to a “so we need to respond to this”. Perhaps I’m a bit wrong, but other than pop culture (music and the like) when I was a kid (there it is again) the fogeys didn’t say “gee you kids are such and such we need to treat you differently” they said “shut up and do what I’m telling you.”  It was clear in 1989 that the map of Eurpose was being redrawn, but this didn’t stop teachers from making us learn the old map. It became clear in these years that the Cold War was over, but we still learned about how horrible Russia was right up to the end. We had walkmen and trapper keepers and pee chees, but nobody said “gee, we should get an audio tape of the class to these kids to listen on their headphones”, instead someone was yelling “get that thing off your ears and listen up or you’re going to go to the principal’s office”.

The idea that because kids are tech savy these days we need to deliver lessons and other educational matierials on computer, power point, or other format seems wildly accomodating to me. How long have schools been using books? I mean I learned computer typing out of a book for Pete’s sake, which is about the most backwards thing I can imagine. But that’s how it was, and we liked it (with Grumpy Old Man voice, of course).

Saying things like “When I was a kid…” and “Kids these days…” and “Back in my day…” and “You know the entire foundation of western civilization is crumbing when…” Okay, maybe not the last one so much.

If you haven’t put yourself down the “Choose Your Own Apocalypse” feature over at Slate, you’re really missing out. It has all kinds of fun end of days stuff, and even some crazy conspiracy theories that you’ve never heard of and that start to make sense. Given that I’m usually a very optimistic (and trusting in a non-conpiracy kind of way) this was mostly funny, but a few really got me thinking. Enjoy wasting a half hour or more if you start playing the “What’s My Apocalypse” game.

  Having  a couple people over for beer and talk is cornerstone.

  Beer is not a complicated drink, however some might try and make it otherwise. It is a drink that for Americans (almost universally) is taken cold. This requires people to take a drink before it warms up, which keeps a certain pace going. Some salty snacks, or as a prelude to a meal or an item with a meal (of pizza, wings, sandwhiches, or nearly any other uncomplicated middle class cusine available). Where it comes from can show your American heritage, or your enjoyment of the world. But truly American beer drinkers understand that diversity and global appreciattion are, like America, part of the melting pot that makes us whole.

  In the past, when we have a “racial incident” we have protests, apologies, recriminations, histrionics, and all manner of tense dialogue. Given that at the end of the day the two parties to the current brew ha ha declared “we are two gentlemen who agree to disagree” shows a radical step forward in race relations. Some have tried to paint president Obama as the first post-racial (whatever that means is usually in the eye of the beholder) president, or that he somehow ushers in a new era of racial understanding.  And while President Obama has tried to state clearly that race does matter, his handling of his first “racial incident” speaks volumes for our country. At what point in our history would some arrest or affront result in all the parties sitting down and agreeing to disagree.

  It’s a non apologetic apology that admits to stupidity and difficulty all around without admitting anything at all about anything. Sitting down and having a beer and saying that you agree to disagree is the classic and poetic I ain’t sayin’, I’m just sayin’. Whatever you want to take away from that, go ahead and do it.

  Sure, the press is overblown. No, it doesn’t matter that the President spent 45 minutes having a beer with a couple of guys: even the President can take an hour here and there for a beer, filling out a bracket, dinner with the family, or [insert other human activity that seems reasonable]. Sure both parties to this whole thing bear some responsibility, but given that none of us was there and we can’t recreate that moment, we can never likely say for sure to any great degree. And sure, other hangers on in the larger culture are turning this into a 3 week news cycle event (as opposed to a real event).

  The Beer Summit was poetic. It was leadership at its most basic an instinctual. It was real. It was productive in its total lack of productivity.

  It was American.

I ran across an interesting little product that I’ve never used and can’t vouch for, but which has an uber-cool factor going on: the IronKey flash drive. It bills itself as indestrictible and loaded with encryption, but the neatest thing is the onboard FireFox loaded with all your personal surfing data, passwords and bookmarks that you take with you everywhere you go. It a tad pricey (4GB is $140 at Newegg) No word on whether anyone has used it to cheat around office firewalls. A picture (now deleted because it looked bad in this format) helpsed us know what a post looks like with a picture and whether that makes reading the new and improved SpoVegas anything better at all.