I suppose, one might say, that my last addition to the blog might have come off as unfairly biased to some perspectives. And as we all know a biased perspective might mean that I stand for something. Well I do. I know everyone really would rather deal nice fluffy blog that doesn't bite anything that anyone cares about. The Brego, however, will not stand idly by.
The Brego is an ideological libertarian. He will never vote a president just because of party affiliation. But mostly because the people of the good libertarian party have very little agreement on what needs to supported for the primary candidate, and whoever those people are running get approximately zero time on the networks. It is very clear a libertarian will not be made president any time soon. Mainly this is because all candidates so far are: 1. Outrightly crazy 2. Perfectly following the libertarian ideal but get lumped in with the other too categories as libertarian ideals are considered crazy by most people because they don't know how government is supposed to work 3. Slavering over the idea of legalized marijuana, prostitution, and pornography on network television.
It seems libertarians in general are trying to decriminalize moral crimes. The Brego agrees: lets ease the congestion of our prisons of people who have flawed characters and start throwing in the people that have broken a real law.
People have a right to choose what they do. If they make some bad choices along the way they suffer bad enough consequences for what they've done. Stealing and killing, ie. real crime, ought to be punished and discouraged. As for morality, let the families decide whats what, not the government(it might surprise you that families will do what they think is right with or without the government intervening).
Note that the Brego just used the words "steal and kill" in the last paragraph. Straight out of the ten commandments. For those of you separatists who are taking "separation of church and state" completely out of context; there are many good reasons to uphold the ten commandments that have nothing to do with God or the church. To begin with, there isn't anything really morally wrong with the Decalogue. It discourages bad behavior and enforces good. Which isn't to say that it will make a difference. The ideas behind them are solid building blocks of every good society. It is a historical document that does not deserve to be censored. It is an intrinsic element of humanity's travel to now. To put it in its corner without a fair trial is a sad thing just from a historical point of view. You wouldn't dare chop the penis off the statue of David would you? Its known the world over, so of course you wouldn't, you'd be hung by your own entrails by the end of the day. So it is with the document of the Decalogue. It is literature of great historical value, thousands of years old, and if you don't believe it should have anything to do with our country then, by relation you want to deface all history and art like a good communist and believe only what you want. How intolerant of the tolerance preachers, shame on you.
The Brego is a libertarian that believes in families choosing to raise their kids how they like, and that the government has no right to censor, well anything. And if that offends anyone, well, grow up. Minorities are a reality, but not one we should cater to, because when we do we make life harder for the majority. And to be quite honest, whats the point of life without obstacles?
Oh lets see: you live, and then you die. Nothing to overcome. Life becomes a void.
I will rise to every challenge and face it even if it means the death of me. Minorities don't need any more attention in government. This is the soul of the libertarian party. If only we had a candidate that reflected that AND got media attention.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Just to clarify
No I am not anti Christianity. I'm just a very harsh critic of movies in general. So far the movies that were made by religious groups are, in general, overly pretentious. I'm sure there are exceptions, somewhere out there, but I have neither seen or heard of them. When I do hear of a new movie that covers something religious I am very skeptical as whether I should bother myself to go to the theater.
Now, please note, I consider political activists and atheists both as religious groups. Their movies usually have a good script. The sad thing is I don't like their films either, for many of the same reasons. But also because I really think protesters are a diseased group of individuals who take the phrase 'not having anything better to do' very seriously.
I'm a family man myself. I am looking to expand my borders, increase my wealth, eliminate my debts, and see to it that my family is happy without fear of the future. I don't have time to protest. I'm busy seeing to all of these things. And, it may shock some of you, I wouldn't trade it to go protest with a bunch of wackos.
Similarly, I'm not going to go see another anti-war, anti-tobacco, or government conspiracy movie that points a finger at the most convenient target for people who don't want to think
(i.e. the President). I think most people agree with me.
I think this also explains why the movie 'Lions for Lambs' failed so miserably. I didn't see it but it was a fairly blatant anti-war film just from their add and review. 6.8 million dollars in its opening weekend. They said it wouldn't do less than $8 Million. So $6,800,000 divided by the median theater ticket price of lets say $12. That means about a half a million people showed up. Nowhere even close to blockbuster.
Let me explain why this happened. There are a few rich protesters. People who inherited their parent's hard-earned money. And there are poor protesters. Moochers and moochees so to speak. The rich fill up a few van fulls of the poor protesters and feel like they've done their moral and civic duty. Of course, this leaves many poor protesters high and dry, but they still want to join their buddies for a joint and to support some movie that tauts fiction as fact. So what do they do? They panhandle, as protesters, they obviously have no time for working a steady job. They wait for some hard working person with change in their pockets to walk by and grace them with a coin or two. As it must have happened, the prosperous people with change in their pockets stopped giving away their change this past weekend. And our POOR protesters were left to rot in their parent's basement, jointless. And Robert Redford, Tom Cruise, and Meryl Streep scratch their heads and wonder why so few showed up and why everything smells like weed.
Now, please note, I consider political activists and atheists both as religious groups. Their movies usually have a good script. The sad thing is I don't like their films either, for many of the same reasons. But also because I really think protesters are a diseased group of individuals who take the phrase 'not having anything better to do' very seriously.
I'm a family man myself. I am looking to expand my borders, increase my wealth, eliminate my debts, and see to it that my family is happy without fear of the future. I don't have time to protest. I'm busy seeing to all of these things. And, it may shock some of you, I wouldn't trade it to go protest with a bunch of wackos.
Similarly, I'm not going to go see another anti-war, anti-tobacco, or government conspiracy movie that points a finger at the most convenient target for people who don't want to think
(i.e. the President). I think most people agree with me.
I think this also explains why the movie 'Lions for Lambs' failed so miserably. I didn't see it but it was a fairly blatant anti-war film just from their add and review. 6.8 million dollars in its opening weekend. They said it wouldn't do less than $8 Million. So $6,800,000 divided by the median theater ticket price of lets say $12. That means about a half a million people showed up. Nowhere even close to blockbuster.
Let me explain why this happened. There are a few rich protesters. People who inherited their parent's hard-earned money. And there are poor protesters. Moochers and moochees so to speak. The rich fill up a few van fulls of the poor protesters and feel like they've done their moral and civic duty. Of course, this leaves many poor protesters high and dry, but they still want to join their buddies for a joint and to support some movie that tauts fiction as fact. So what do they do? They panhandle, as protesters, they obviously have no time for working a steady job. They wait for some hard working person with change in their pockets to walk by and grace them with a coin or two. As it must have happened, the prosperous people with change in their pockets stopped giving away their change this past weekend. And our POOR protesters were left to rot in their parent's basement, jointless. And Robert Redford, Tom Cruise, and Meryl Streep scratch their heads and wonder why so few showed up and why everything smells like weed.
Friday, November 16, 2007
The worst movie of my recent past.
We have all, at someplace in our lives, seen a movie and not only thought it was a waste of time, but the acting/scripting, for all the efforts of an able director and camera crew, could not keep you from cringing at each line and plot twist. Let me take this a step further: if you ever finished watching an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000 and thought that nothing made in our modern times could be made half so poorly; then you thought wrong.
I'll give you a clue as to what film I am talking about: It could not be saved by an appearance of Peter O'Toole, or a performance by Omar Sharif.
That's right. The person who wrote "Santa Claus conquers the Martians" and whoever wrote the script for "One Night With the King"(2007) had something in common that made both movies one big invitation for nail-bitingly bad one-liners. Not just any film can be 'MST3K-ed'. A film must deserve it.
So, ONWTK is about the story of Esther, right? Great story. I have always liked it. The fate of her people was preserved by the most attractive girl in all of Persia. A real rags to riches story. How could that go wrong? I'll tell you.
Let's begin with the cover art that is emblazoned upon the DVD case (no I didn't waste my money on it, I saw it on Netflix). It was so cleverly devised to incorporate not just one biblical story but several. I tell you, the cover (that some of you saps purchased for $16.99) is closer to being art than anything inside of the case. The tall doors being pushed apart by Esther's small form make it look epic, maybe even regal. The stretched arms remind one of Samson pulling down the pillars. The font used for the title of the movie mirrors that of another film from a few years ago. You might remember it. It was called "The Prince of Egypt" Or something. Which as some of us are burdened to know that it was about Moses. All this to link this movie to others in the Christian movie industry. I will give credit where credit is due. They paid the big bucks for a classy poster and skimped on the script.
As it would very nearly be impossible to go through and comment on each clumsily delivered line and scene without trying to kill myself.
How to put this as succinctly as possible? Xerxes is played by a failed British pop star. Haman is played by some Christian trying very hard to be a Mesopotamian Hitler (swastika and all). They could have gotten any pretty chica who could act, but its obvious that whoever was in charge of casting was choosing from a pool of evangelical actresses and picked not only the best actress in the group but also the best Christian example.
As we could have expected, Esther was neither incredibly attractive(maybe by Persian standards, but I would never admit if I knew what the hell that means) nor a great actress. One thing you can bet on. The actress will never be seen partying in Hollywood with Britney or Paris, she will most likely never go to rehab nor be convicted of having a big head for being in a feature film that lasted in theaters for about a week and half.
So if you're writing or doing something creative and want to see how badly a few million dollars can be wasted. This one is a sure fire way to boost your ego.
I'll give you a clue as to what film I am talking about: It could not be saved by an appearance of Peter O'Toole, or a performance by Omar Sharif.
That's right. The person who wrote "Santa Claus conquers the Martians" and whoever wrote the script for "One Night With the King"(2007) had something in common that made both movies one big invitation for nail-bitingly bad one-liners. Not just any film can be 'MST3K-ed'. A film must deserve it.
So, ONWTK is about the story of Esther, right? Great story. I have always liked it. The fate of her people was preserved by the most attractive girl in all of Persia. A real rags to riches story. How could that go wrong? I'll tell you.
Let's begin with the cover art that is emblazoned upon the DVD case (no I didn't waste my money on it, I saw it on Netflix). It was so cleverly devised to incorporate not just one biblical story but several. I tell you, the cover (that some of you saps purchased for $16.99) is closer to being art than anything inside of the case. The tall doors being pushed apart by Esther's small form make it look epic, maybe even regal. The stretched arms remind one of Samson pulling down the pillars. The font used for the title of the movie mirrors that of another film from a few years ago. You might remember it. It was called "The Prince of Egypt" Or something. Which as some of us are burdened to know that it was about Moses. All this to link this movie to others in the Christian movie industry. I will give credit where credit is due. They paid the big bucks for a classy poster and skimped on the script.
As it would very nearly be impossible to go through and comment on each clumsily delivered line and scene without trying to kill myself.
How to put this as succinctly as possible? Xerxes is played by a failed British pop star. Haman is played by some Christian trying very hard to be a Mesopotamian Hitler (swastika and all). They could have gotten any pretty chica who could act, but its obvious that whoever was in charge of casting was choosing from a pool of evangelical actresses and picked not only the best actress in the group but also the best Christian example.
As we could have expected, Esther was neither incredibly attractive(maybe by Persian standards, but I would never admit if I knew what the hell that means) nor a great actress. One thing you can bet on. The actress will never be seen partying in Hollywood with Britney or Paris, she will most likely never go to rehab nor be convicted of having a big head for being in a feature film that lasted in theaters for about a week and half.
So if you're writing or doing something creative and want to see how badly a few million dollars can be wasted. This one is a sure fire way to boost your ego.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
A change of topic.
I guess my blog, according to the 2 people who read it, is rather heavy and unappealing to most people. Which doesn't really surprise anyone, but I am now offering a new sort of entertainment. I know ranting about my philosophy can hadly be construed as entertainment for most of you. But it was entertaining (and fairly therapeutic)FOR ME.
The Brego will do movie reviews starting the next time he gets a damn two minutes to himself.
The Brego will do movie reviews starting the next time he gets a damn two minutes to himself.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Ideas
Yes some of the ideas I have adopted did not originate from my method. Many did but many did not. But they all had to be put through the method. Beginning with ideas. Most of us know Descartes' work. I know most people know that it doesn't really prove anything accept that we must challenge ourselves by doubt: the basis of my method.
But what does this famous statement tell us about ideas? Absolutely nothing. Descartes was asking the wrong questions of himself. He was trying to philosophize upon what he did not have. Obscurity is the death of meaning, and consequently, philosophy.
Again what does this have to do with ideas? Everything. There is no thing that exists in the universe that does not have an idea to go with it. This is important on many levels. We think of our existence as the most important. Destroy something, say, the chair you are sitting on; did you, in a single act destroy all chairs? Of course not. Let's say you succeed in destroying all chairs in the world: did you destroy the idea of it? No. Simply because someone somewhere will think: 'Gee, I need one of those thingys to sit on.'
The idea is immortal. It will always be there.
But why is that truth so damnably important?
As I stated earlier we think of our existence as the most important. But what ideas are telling us by their infallibility is that our existence is not. We are in a temporal reality where infallible permanence does not exist. But we understand things, like math, that express infinity.
Our existence does not express absolutes like ideas show themselves to be. But we naturally find ourselves clinging to absolutes. For this equation I have my suspicions upon its mysteries. But for now I will leave it as it stands: a beautiful, coincidental observation that will never go away.
But what does this famous statement tell us about ideas? Absolutely nothing. Descartes was asking the wrong questions of himself. He was trying to philosophize upon what he did not have. Obscurity is the death of meaning, and consequently, philosophy.
Again what does this have to do with ideas? Everything. There is no thing that exists in the universe that does not have an idea to go with it. This is important on many levels. We think of our existence as the most important. Destroy something, say, the chair you are sitting on; did you, in a single act destroy all chairs? Of course not. Let's say you succeed in destroying all chairs in the world: did you destroy the idea of it? No. Simply because someone somewhere will think: 'Gee, I need one of those thingys to sit on.'
The idea is immortal. It will always be there.
But why is that truth so damnably important?
As I stated earlier we think of our existence as the most important. But what ideas are telling us by their infallibility is that our existence is not. We are in a temporal reality where infallible permanence does not exist. But we understand things, like math, that express infinity.
Our existence does not express absolutes like ideas show themselves to be. But we naturally find ourselves clinging to absolutes. For this equation I have my suspicions upon its mysteries. But for now I will leave it as it stands: a beautiful, coincidental observation that will never go away.
factual perdition and the method
The great sin of facts is using them but ignoring others in a vain effort to support an ideal. We condemn our minds to something we like as opposed to what we are not brave enough to argue. We would rather be comfortable and ignore what we don't want to see, knowing that we are wrong and without the inspiration to get it right. This is willful ignorance. Not all people, but an alarming amount, desire stupidity as a subtext excuse for their petty lives.
I still find myself guilty of this from time to time. I have to examine my intentions for what I find to be right. Am I partial? Why? Does this intent of mine make my opinion false?
The unceasing self-investigation must be applied. This is my method. This is how I understand life. But I must be careful at every step. It is far too easy,after all, to taint perfectly good ideas. But what do I know about ideas?
I still find myself guilty of this from time to time. I have to examine my intentions for what I find to be right. Am I partial? Why? Does this intent of mine make my opinion false?
The unceasing self-investigation must be applied. This is my method. This is how I understand life. But I must be careful at every step. It is far too easy,after all, to taint perfectly good ideas. But what do I know about ideas?
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Truth be told.
This is a matter that never really dies out for me. It never gets old and I think about it every day. Truth is becoming harder and harder to talk about, and more difficult to assert everyday.
Why should I bother you good people into reading what's on my mind? How could it possibly matter? Could my thoughts contribute a change in society? Or is that my misplaced optimism? I would like to think that people are good by nature. Why then is there evil for humanity to address?
Why must I confirm in my mind that what I believe to be truth by all of you out there? It seems to be a useless attempt at some sort of sanity; That we all desperately need but avoid figuring out.
Yes. Now my ugly secret is out. I'm another penniless philosopher, an artist of my own design. So often scorned, avoided, and self-repressed. Philosophers all know that most people don't like to talk about why. Particularly when it comes to their own beliefs. I am one of those ideological sociopaths. I must know what people believe, even if they themselves don't want to hear themselves say it.
Why are beliefs so embarrassing? I am certainly not ashamed of what I believe. I do know most people aren't going to want to hear me explain it. And if I am asked to, I try to keep it as succinct as possible. Few people want the full explanation: the anecdote, the logic, the conviction and the conclusion.
My opinions, as I try to state them humbly, are nothing of the sort. I am proud of them. Deeply proud of them. I am proud of them because most of my opinions have been sorted out of a kind of thought experiment, on my own; after which I run them by the few friends I have in order to see if the logic holds. I tired of reading philosophy. It was interesting in the utmost, but you see, I was not doing philosophy. I was trying to understand the obscure in archaic writings of people trying to express truth. Philosophy was never meant to explain the obscure. Instead philosophy is to explain the everyday occurrence. And if I read of each philosopher's explanation of the everyday, I would be cheating myself and their work of the opportunity to confirm logic.
Why should I bother you good people into reading what's on my mind? How could it possibly matter? Could my thoughts contribute a change in society? Or is that my misplaced optimism? I would like to think that people are good by nature. Why then is there evil for humanity to address?
Why must I confirm in my mind that what I believe to be truth by all of you out there? It seems to be a useless attempt at some sort of sanity; That we all desperately need but avoid figuring out.
Yes. Now my ugly secret is out. I'm another penniless philosopher, an artist of my own design. So often scorned, avoided, and self-repressed. Philosophers all know that most people don't like to talk about why. Particularly when it comes to their own beliefs. I am one of those ideological sociopaths. I must know what people believe, even if they themselves don't want to hear themselves say it.
Why are beliefs so embarrassing? I am certainly not ashamed of what I believe. I do know most people aren't going to want to hear me explain it. And if I am asked to, I try to keep it as succinct as possible. Few people want the full explanation: the anecdote, the logic, the conviction and the conclusion.
My opinions, as I try to state them humbly, are nothing of the sort. I am proud of them. Deeply proud of them. I am proud of them because most of my opinions have been sorted out of a kind of thought experiment, on my own; after which I run them by the few friends I have in order to see if the logic holds. I tired of reading philosophy. It was interesting in the utmost, but you see, I was not doing philosophy. I was trying to understand the obscure in archaic writings of people trying to express truth. Philosophy was never meant to explain the obscure. Instead philosophy is to explain the everyday occurrence. And if I read of each philosopher's explanation of the everyday, I would be cheating myself and their work of the opportunity to confirm logic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)