WARNING: PRETTY GRAPHIC POLAR BEAR GORE
no need for your brain to jump to any conclusions about the effects of CO2 in this ad. apparently the filmmakers can just give it the heave-ho for you. with any luck, it'll land somewhere between completely insensitive and downright bonkers. or in other words, YOU TAKE A VACATION AND TWO POLAR BEARS DIE!!!! at least it took out a gas guzzling oldsmobile in the process, right?
as you probably know, last night was a big election night win for conservative republicans in several states across the country. virginia and new jersey both elected republican governors and many people are viewing this as a gloomy reflection of the nation's waning support of obama. although i would agree that his support is waning, i think this more a reflection of people's waning support of democrats and their policies in general. but i'm not blogging about that right now. i'm back to blogging about what i blog best. something that has made a bit of buzz in america's forehead (maine): gay marriage.
thanks to my brother in law dan, i have been addicted to the drudge report for some time. DR is a no-nonsense political news page that basically just links to other news pages and their articles. from there, i read about the results of yesterday's same-sex marriage vote in maine from this associated press article. i couldn't help but roll my eyes. not at the results (i am pleased with the way maine voted), but with the reporting. it is clear by the way the information -and particularly the quotes- were presented that this AP reporter was him or herself disappointed with the results. i counted four quotes in this article and only one of which was from a "yes on 1" supporter. many of the quotes were paragraph(s)-long, except for the mentioned "yes on 1" supporter which was short and more just a statement of the obvious.
granted that by the title of the article, one would assume this is reporting on the atmosphere of the dejected activists' celebration-less party rather than on the results in general, but then why include the quote from the opposition at all? was he at the party? i simply percieved this article as the media's ongoing attempt to further perpetuate notions and ideas that have no basis in logic, the constitution, or any inkling of what a "right" is and how our governments work.
let me go through this quote by quote.
"'I'm ready to start crying,' said Burnett... 'I don't understand what the fear is, why people are so afraid of this change..."'
of course you're about to cry, you went to a metaphorical birthday party for somebody who wasn't even born yet. i'm not trying to rub salt in any wounds or anything; i take no pleasure in the emotional pain of others no matter how misguided i might believe it to be. but you guys bought an elaborate wedding cake, rented a ballroom, and had a whole party planned for something that, judging by historical polling trends, wasn't likely to happen. secondly, i suspect that perhaps you don't understand the "fear," because fear is not the issue. the issue is preservation of values, something that gay activists absolutely refuse to address in a public forum. "fear" and "hate" (or "H8"), are all misdirections perpetuated by YOUR side, not mine.
"'...It hurts. It hurts personally,' she said. 'It's a personal rejection of us and our relationship..."'
no, it's not personal. you're trying to make it personal because it wins you sympathy, but the vast majority of voters who voted don't even know you. nobody is telling you what you can and can't do. we're simply taking a stand on what society will not do, and that is civilly recognizing marriage as something it is not.
"'The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across the nation,' said Frank Schubert, the chief organizer for Stand for Marriage Maine"
really, that's all he said? that's it? an obvious statement of a fact? you expect me to believe that he stood up and said one line and then sat back down without a peep? not even one single, compelling, relative statement after winning a hard-fought battle against a financially superior and notoriously bully-esque political opponent? sure, whatever.
"'They love and they have the right to love. And we can't tell somebody how to love,' said Holman, 26."
disregarding our ambiguous and/or differing definition of what "love" is, this statement is damning of their plight. were this the actual case (that gays are being prohibited from loving), then it is currently illegal for gay people to love each other in the state of maine. is this the case? are gays who are in love being rounded up and placed in jail? is your ability to be enamored with somebody of the same sex impeded by a piece of paper signed by the state? the fact that gay people still exist in an open and vastly accepted manner in every state across this nation (as it should be in a free society) is all i need to discredit such a simplistic and ignorant statement.
then there's this statement, which is not a quote from a party attendee, but caused further involuntary eye-rolling nonetheless:
"For Burnett and Swanson, the July 10 wedding date — and a reception cruise on Casco Bay — is off."
you act like they voted to cancel your plans. nothing is stopping you from having your own wedding by your own definition and going on your own reception cruise around casco bay. the ONLY logical reason why you would cancel your plans in this case is for dramatic effect. to make it appear as if the law is prohibiting you from having a ceremony of mutual commitment (that you are free to call marriage) and then attending a celebratory boat ride with family and friends. all this statement verifies is that these people place more value in imposing their ideals on an unwilling society than on publicly declaring your mutual commitment to a loving relationship. were i placed in a similar scenario in which traditional marriages were treated in a similar way, no amount of public voting would cause me to cancel my boat ride.
"'We're not short-timers. We're here for the long haul and whether it's just all night and into the morning, or it's next week or next month or next year. We will be here. We'll be here fighting. We'll be working. We will regroup.'"
ditto.
so i competed in my first triathlon this morning and figured i'd blog about it before i head to mexico for a week and never do. it was the pumpkinman olympic distance and i decided to do this with friends mitch and christy. it was a 1.5 km swim, a 40 km bike ride, and a 10 km run. after making the decision two months in advance and consequently signing up, i was told i might have been a bit ambitious for the pumpkinman, a notoriously difficult tri race. i figured this was an exaggeration, but this morning i realized it was not. i had no idea a 28 mile bike ride (it was supposed to be 24, but they switched it up) could be that gnarly. i was pretty beat after each event and it took a few minutes to get adjusted after the transitions, but i finished the race albeit in an embarrassingly slow time which will not be posted. my swim was bad, i made up a bit of time on the bike, and i missed a turn on the run when a volunteer didn't bother to tell me to turn around. all in all, i felt it was a good time and a decent outcome. i also take comfort in the fact that just about any other triathlon i do in the future will be comparatively easy.
in the hotel this morning before the race:
the gang flexing off some pre-swim butterflies:
me looking mentally handicapped:
after an extremely grueling bike ride (notice all the bikes already there):
a few seconds from the finish line:
recovering:
i smelled so good, amanda couldn't stay away!
last night, i got duped and i'll tell you how in a minute. but i should first mention that this is not a movie review and although some might consider this a slight spoiler, i think it is very important if you are considering a night out to see "the invention of lying," which opened last night. from the previews, this movie appeared funny and looked to be an entertaining concept. halfway through the movie, it became apparent that the previews had intentionally left a key element out in order to ensure ticket sales.
so the premise of the movie (as shown by the preview) takes place in a world where "man has not evolved the ability to lie." as such, people are brutally honest with each other and believe everything they hear. the main character, played by the admittedly hilarious ricky gervais, is not the best looking man in the world to say the least, and as such is used to the brutal honesty that comes with it in a world without lies. it's not long into the movie, however, when he's down on his luck and he concocts a brilliant plot to get out of a sticky situation: lying. he's not sure what to call it, how to describe it, or what do do with it, but after realizing that nobody understands the concept, he quickly realizes that anyone will believe his lies and he can use that to get ahead in just about every aspect of his life. hilarity ensues.
that is until things turn, well, outright blasphemous. gervais' character, although selfish in many ways, still has good intentions. it is because of these good intentions that he ends up telling a "lie" to make his dying mother feel better. the "lie" was strikingly similar to the concept of heaven and when his "lie" is overheard by others, he is unquestionably believed and pressured for more information. it doesn't take long before he comes down from his apartment with a set of rules he has created inscribed on two pizza box tablets, complete with such crazy ideas as an invisible man in the sky who causes all things good and bad, the idea of a pain-free afterlife, and the concept of good and evil. when asked how he knows all this, he admits to speaking to "the man in the sky" on a regular basis. the entire world believes him without question and before you know it, "Christianity" is invented by a manipulative "moses." it doesn't take long before the movie illustrates this new "lie" as people's justification for bad behavior. or in other words, the movie depicts Christianity as a well-intentioned lie, believed by the naive and the cause of more bad than good.
now if you want to make a movie about how religion is nonsensical superstition, go right ahead. it's been tried before and it won't make money. i'm secure enough with my beliefs that i can have a logical religious discussion with anyone who wants to have one and to not feel threatened by people's argument against it. in fact, i can usually rebut these arguments when i'm not being shouted down. however, i don't enjoy being tricked into viewing something that you know i will view as blasphemous and offensive because you want my $10. i am proud to say i walked out of the movie and got my money back. i was also pleased to find that once i had explained my reasoning to the nice gentleman behind the help desk, that he was expressly disappointed with the turn of events, as he had thought the movie looked good as well.
now i'm not telling you to not see the movie; that's your prerogative. i just wish somebody would have told me this before i went to see it. it would seem that ricky gervaise, who also wrote this movie, has stumbled upon a new-to-him concept to sell movie tickets. a concept he can use to get ahead in life.
i believe it's called lying.
these are pictures to my recent trip to alaska. of course, this is all well documented on my facebook.
i've got a new blog setup for my bike crap so you don't have to look at them if you don't want to. because putting my bikes on this blog is basically forcing you to view them since nobody can be expected to not follow my blog daily.
soo without any further a dew:
http://bikebuilds.blogspot.com/
speaking of dew, check out this rad dew-ceptacon:
sweet!!
Posts
All Comments
