One disadvantage of being true to yourself all the time is that it’s hard not to take everything personally!

A two-week taste of the rock-and-roll lifestyle as seen through the eyes of a 15-year-old, this movie seemed a bit unnatural but it was fun and interesting. 3/5 stars.

This “bushism” is an excellent example of Bush’s shameless support of faith-based government:

“I think it’s important to bring somebody from outside the system, the judicial system, somebody that hasn’t been on the bench and, therefore, there’s not a lot of opinions for people to look at.” —On the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, Washington, D.C., October 4, 2005

From Slate Magazine.

When I first heard about current tv, it was promoted as “Al Gore’s new TV station”, which may have helped get the word out, but it probably helped many people make up their minds not to check it out. Al Gore has been portrayed as someone who tries to be cool and utterly fails… not someone’s name you’d want on a TV station that targets young people. Also… the idea that this channel would somehow merge the Internet with TV seemed like an impossible joke. It didn’t help his ‘net cred that Gore was famously quoted out of context saying that he “invented” the Internet.

Anyway, I did eventually check out current tv and it was instantly appealing. It’s a nonstop sequence of short documentary videos either filmed by viewers or by current producers. They are worldly, complex, and interesting. They seek out content that makes you think and helps you see parts of the world that you normally would not see. Al Gore’s oft-mocked stiffness is nowhere to be found on this channel… instead the production is super-slick and somehow manages to be cool and unpretentious. Although current is not a political channel, there is an undertone of general humanity and international connectedness. Common sense dominates most of the documentaries and they are often thought-provoking. Kind of like the opposite of Fox News! So do yourself a favor and check out current tv. Channel 103 for Time Warner Cable in NYC. Also, definitely check out the web site, http://current.tv, where you can view all the documentaries on TV and even some that aren’t.

A fun and stylish sci-fi action flick with some interesting ideas and just the right amount of cheese. 4/5 stars.

Brilliant wisdom and keen observations from the mind of enlightened computer nerd Paul Graham. 5/5 Stars!

I read two thought-provoking articles about ID on Slate Magazine:

An intelligently designed attack against Intelligent Design:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2127052/

Satirical support of ID:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2127054/

The thought that was strongest in my mind after reading these articles is that ID does not offer a truly valuable explanation. All it does is encourage ignorance and repress curiosity. Don’t worry about the details, God has it all under control! In doing some reading for my psychology research, I learned about the now-obsolete 17th century “Phlogiston Theory” which explained that combustible materials were filled with “Phlogiston”, a substance which was released upon burning the material (read the link for a fuller explanation). The funny part about this theory, which was disproven about 100 years later, is that is was basically valueless. Quoting Albert Bandura, “Phlogiston neither had any evidential basis nor explanitory or predictive value.” So why did people accept the theory? People like having things explained. My point is that ID, like Phlogiston, has no evidential basis and no explanitory or predictive value, yet people are passionately fighting for it to be required to be taught in schools.

Unfortunately, unlike the Phlogiston Theory, ID is something that many people rely on to understand their own existence and purpose. Society is far too invested in religion to accept that ID is untrue, even if somehow somebody disproves it. In 1530, Copernicus figured out that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and his work was confirmed by Galileo at the beginning of the 1600s. Galileo was forced to recant his views under threats of torture by the Church, and the Vatican finally accepted his work in 1993. Who will be the “Galileo of Evolution”? Hopefully whoever can prove evolution will meet with slightly less resistance than Galileo had.