September 10, 2005 at 6:46 pm
· Filed under Entertainment
Previously posted on September 10 at: http://spaces.msn.com/members/evandodds/Blog/cns!1phaOgcvNsBxzvBN9Zpx1vbQ!184.entry
I am a James Bond poser. Let’s just get that out of the way. Before
AMC ran their huge August marathon of James Bond movies, I had probably only seen 5 or 6 total (and fully half of those were the ones from the last few years!). But at the implied request of AMCTV, I watched pretty much all of the classic Bond films recently.
Ok, that too is a lie. I actually still have a couple more recorded and ready to go (thanks
Windows Media Center!). Plus, I… uh… only half paid attention to one or two of them when I got busy and they got boring.
Overall, I have liked a couple of them (mostly the ones from the early/mid-sixties) and I have been indifferent on a couple of them. But one, in particular, requires additional comment.
I have to admit. Since we just recently had a shuttle (er “moonraker”) mission that ended with the shuttle flying-tandem across the country on a 747, I was intrigued right at the start! Plus, Jodi really had wanted to see this one, so we ended up watching it together (and I couldn’t easily space out and work on other stuff while it was on).
Wow. This was a monumentally stupid movie. Alright, it was shortly after Star Wars… so “pew peew” space-laser noises were all the rage; it got them an oscar nomination too. And it’s James Bond, so “Can you think of anything to do for 5 hours in Brazil <winkwink>” is par for the course in “cheez”. But Jodi and I both agreed that it was about an hour too long. And since it was (according to IMDB) only 126 minutes long, that’s a pretty strong indictment!
Permalink
September 10, 2005 at 5:49 am
· Filed under News and Politics
Previously posted on September 10 at: http://spaces.msn.com/members/evandodds/Blog/cns!1phaOgcvNsBxzvBN9Zpx1vbQ!183.entry
Congressman
Rush Holt of New Jersey has written a
great article explaining how Intelligent Design is not science, and cannot be science by its very nature. It can’t be proven right (the whole concept of ID defies proof), and it also cannot be proven wrong.
(my comments now, with apologies to
Dr. Seuss) It cannot be proven in a house, it cannot be proven with a mouse.
Intelligent design makes a fine topic for philosophy, religion, or anthropology classes, perhaps. But it is not science. It should not be taught in science classes.
Permalink
September 5, 2005 at 7:08 pm
· Filed under Ramblings
Previously posted on September 5 at: http://spaces.msn.com/members/evandodds/Blog/cns!1phaOgcvNsBxzvBN9Zpx1vbQ!182.entry
We had James and Yenie visit from Philadelphia this weekend. We went all around Seattle, and spent Sunday over at Olympic National Park. More details (and photos) at
Doddsnet.
Permalink
September 5, 2005 at 11:08 am
· Filed under Transit
Permalink
September 5, 2005 at 11:03 am
· Filed under Ramblings
Previously posted on September 5 at: http://spaces.msn.com/members/evandodds/Blog/cns!1phaOgcvNsBxzvBN9Zpx1vbQ!180.entry
So, now it’s > August 31st, and I don’t find any updates that indicate a deal was reached. In fact, I don’t find any updates at all. Curious what will happen here.
I’m torn on this one, mostly because it’s not laid out in an easy to understand black/white manner.
On the one hand:
- I like the dinner train
- It’d be a shame to tear out a great right-of-way with rails already in place. WE CAN USE THIS FOR TRANSIT!
But on the other hand:
- If KC metro not acquiring this land means it gets sold ANYWAY (and not in one lump) then we lose the dinner train, we lose the potential reuse later on for transit, and we lose a potential hiking trail.
I wish the county would buy the land and use it for transit first (plus work out some continued use plan for the dinner train). When time and money permit, find a way to incorporate a (safe) hiking trail along the path also.
Permalink
September 1, 2005 at 8:24 am
· Filed under News and Politics
Previously posted on September 1 at: http://spaces.msn.com/members/evandodds/Blog/cns!1phaOgcvNsBxzvBN9Zpx1vbQ!179.entry
According to
this article Susan Wood, women’s health chief at the
FDA, has resigned in protest over the handling of the morning-after pill decision. Here’s the summary:
- A decision on whether the pill can be sold without prescription has been delayed
- It’s available today, but only with prescription
- The morning-after pill is NOT the RU-486 “abortion” pill
- The morning after pill is just a high-dose of the birth-control pill many women today take
- The claim is that it can only be sold without prescription to people > 17
- They don’t know how to enforce the prescription for <17 and not prescription for >17
- The scientific advisors at the FDA have said it’s safe and effective
- When taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, it can lower the risk of pregnancy by up to 89%
- Commissioner Lester Crawford overruled the scientific advice to issue the ruling
In other news, conservatives who consider the pill tantamount to abortion were pleased with the decision
- “tantamount” means “equivalent in value, significance, or effect”
- “abortion” means “termination of pregnancy”
- The morning-after pill prevents implantation of the egg, just like a regular birth-control pill
- There is never any pregnancy to “abort” in this case
Therefore, it seems that the morning-after pill is not tantamount to abortion and this whole thing is probably derived principally of faulty understanding. I don’t like it when scientific decisions on health and reproductive-rights are decided on political grounds rather than the basis of science.
Permalink
September 1, 2005 at 8:04 am
· Filed under News and Politics
Previously posted on September 1 at: http://spaces.msn.com/members/evandodds/Blog/cns!1phaOgcvNsBxzvBN9Zpx1vbQ!178.entry
Ok, that’s a silly title. Everyone agrees that abstinence is a fine way to prevent the spread of AIDS. In fact, I’d say it’s pretty much universal — nobody is actively against abstinence as a way of preventing its spread.
The problem is, abstinence a the principle prevention policy is unrealistic. You have to be living in a world of denial to think that saying “just don’t participate in sexual activity” will prevent the rampant spread of AIDS in 3rd-world countries. It’s not that easy. If it was, the years and years and years of preaching this message would have had positive results. It hasn’t.
Ran across
this article on the spread of AIDS in Uganda. The main contention of this article is that AIDS is spreading as fast as ever in that country. In fact, since so much of the aid spending has been dedicated to telling folks “just don’t have sex”, there is not money left to provide real-world prevention like condoms. Condoms are often only available at a monetary cost — often a high cost (the article states a three-fold increase in cost of condoms). Activists say that the condom shortage is so bad that men are using plastic garbage bags in an effort to protect themselves.
Why no condoms available for free? They had them back in the early 90s?! Well, it’s almost certainly heavily influenced by conservative pressure to push for abstinence solutions instead of real-world solutions. With limited funding for these real-world solutions, the problem gets worse.
Permalink
