In the film Pulp Fiction, by Quentin Tarantino the theme of capitalism was truely apparent. From the discusion of what they call the Big Mac in France to the success of the gang boss Marcialles. It is somewhat hard to tell if Tarantino is against capitalism yet never the less it is quite obvious that it played a big part in making the film.
Tarantino's style is very different from most other film makers. He jumps from one story line to another. What makes it so successful is the fact that he is able to link the stories together so that they make perfect sense to the audience. Tarantino's films are also unique, in the symbolism he uses.
Quentin shows us the negative side of capitalism when Vincent (Travolta) takes Marcialles's wife Mia (Thurman) out to dinner. Mia orders a five dollar milk shake, showing her wealth. In the restroom, where most of the other women are straitening their hair, she snorts cocaine, which in this movie is the symbolism of wealth in the black market. Eventually Vincent ends up saving her from an overdose.
Another more obvious display of greed and capitalism is at the end when the couple rob the restraunt. The man explains to his wife that nobody ever thinks to rob a coffee shop and he makes the point that it is the perfect crime of opportunity.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
The Blind Watchmaker
"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve this paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design. We shall look at a particular example and shall conclude that, when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly even began to state the case." Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1986.
This quote by Richard Dawkins, illustrates how even though the life on planet earth is so complex, it could not have possibly been created by a "master watchmaker." Dawkins is one of the most influential evolutionary biologists living. He has constructed rational and yet controversial arguments against intelligent design.
The argument that most creationists hold is that; "the life on earth is so complex, that it had to have been created by a creater (god). However, what if we turned that argument on its head and stated that; "life on earth is so complex, that it could not have been possibly created by an "intellegent designer." The difference between the two arguments is that one side has piles and piles of biological, geological, astronomical and chemical evidence, while the other side has no evidence. If you were to ask a religious fundamentalist what evidence he or she has for his or her god, he or she would probably tell you "because I believe." That would be the end of the discusion. A religious fundi, does not rely on evidence but relies on ideology.
This quote uses logic, reason and evidence to explain why something is. Something that all forms of literature, writing and film should use.
This quote by Richard Dawkins, illustrates how even though the life on planet earth is so complex, it could not have possibly been created by a "master watchmaker." Dawkins is one of the most influential evolutionary biologists living. He has constructed rational and yet controversial arguments against intelligent design.
The argument that most creationists hold is that; "the life on earth is so complex, that it had to have been created by a creater (god). However, what if we turned that argument on its head and stated that; "life on earth is so complex, that it could not have been possibly created by an "intellegent designer." The difference between the two arguments is that one side has piles and piles of biological, geological, astronomical and chemical evidence, while the other side has no evidence. If you were to ask a religious fundamentalist what evidence he or she has for his or her god, he or she would probably tell you "because I believe." That would be the end of the discusion. A religious fundi, does not rely on evidence but relies on ideology.
This quote uses logic, reason and evidence to explain why something is. Something that all forms of literature, writing and film should use.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Global Warming and the Solution
I find it interesting how in the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore, really doesn't show us a solution to the problem of global warming. Instead, he blames it on us, making the claim that we are wasting electricity, by forgetting to turn off our lights and T.V.s and alarm clocks. However, the real inconvenient truth, is that even if we were able to reduce all of our carbon dioxide, and methane emissions, there would be little effect. Since China and India are producing far more greenhouse gas emissions then ever before, from coal burning, our attempts would be dwarfed by their behemoth smoke columns. What we need is a clean, cheap, safe, environmentally friendly, and powerfull fuel source. The solution is nuclear power. Solar power and wind power would only be able to power a fraction of the growing demand for energy. Biofuels are NOT environmentally friendly since burning those produce large amounts of carbon dioxide. Coal is dirty, dangerous and ecologically destructive. So the best solution to global warming is nuclear power.
One more thing Al Gore was the policy maker, vice president and senator who really did nothing to start nuclear energy programs or make any effort to curb greenhouse gases. Which means he is the only one to blame for our environmental problems. Right?
One more thing Al Gore was the policy maker, vice president and senator who really did nothing to start nuclear energy programs or make any effort to curb greenhouse gases. Which means he is the only one to blame for our environmental problems. Right?
Friday, April 4, 2008
Nuclear Power
There is little debate whether we are facing an energy crisis or not. It is pretty evident that if we don't find an alternate source of energy, we are going to face a political, economic and enviornmental disaster. The search for oil has brought war and instablity. What if there was a source of electricity that was clean, renewable, cheap, safe and had a limited enviornmental impact. Well there is, and its called nuclear power.
Unfortunately, thanks to the anti-nuclear activists, there is a lot of fear in the United States on using nuclear power. There are around 50 institutions in the United States that are anti-nuclear, however one I've noticed one that really likes to the spew propaganda; it's Greenpeace. There are many misconceptions about the saftey of nuclear power that I am going to try to debunk.
First, lets ask the question; what is nuclear power? Nuclear power is the utilization of nuclear reactions to make electricity. Usually a process called fission is done, the breaking apart of atoms through the nucleus. Usually uranium is used. Uranium, is mined from the ground, usually in open pit mines. Uranium is a fairly common element in the earth's crust, 35 times more common than silver. It is then converted into yellowcake, once it has been mined. Then it is converted into uranium hexflouride and then enriched uranium once it enter a processing fascility. Fission is then used to produce electricity.
First of all people tend to associate nuclear power with nuclear bombs. That's kind of like comparing the study of biology to biological warfare, too completely different things. It's easy to see how nuclear power frightens people, after all the Greenpeace website discribes nuclear power as; "dangerous, high-risk, catastrophe." The truth is nuclear power is safe, clean, renewable and cheap energy.
First misconception is that people who live in the shadow of nuclear power plants are more likely to be exposed by radiation and are more likely to get cancer. However just about every major study conducted by the United States, Canada and Europe has concluded that the rate of cancer, including childhood leukemia, for people living near nuclear power plants is no higher than for those who don't. The fact is that nuclear power plants really don't release any radiation into the environment.
Second misconception is that there is a very big risk of having a nuclear disaster like what occured in Chernobyl during the 80's. Well eventhough the Chernolbyl incident was one of the worst technocological disasters in history, as time goes on, our nuclear technology is advancing and becoming far more safer. Experts say that the accident can really be blamed on the communist beaurocracy and incompitent personel, rather than the nuclear power itself. Yes, a nuclear power plant needs highly trained personel, but that can also create jobs and help make America more economically more stable. After all France is almost 100% run on nuclear energy and there has been zero reported deaths from nuclear radiation. Actually more people have died from other forms of energy extraction in this country. In 2003 alone, 30 coal miners lost their lives in coal mining accidents. Isn't it about time we had some intellegent presedential candidates that supported nuclear power.
Greenpeace argues that terrorists could plot to take over and destroy nuclear power plants. In that case we need to stop building skyscrappers, subways, trains and airplanes because these things are subject to terrorists aswell.
In the near future oil will run out. Inorder to prevent an oil apocalypse, automobile companies need to start building cars that run on 100% electricity; electricity that will hopefully one day come from nuclear power. With nuclear power we will able to stop global warming in its tracks and make this world a cleaner and safer place to live for everyone and everything. That is why it is important.
Unfortunately, thanks to the anti-nuclear activists, there is a lot of fear in the United States on using nuclear power. There are around 50 institutions in the United States that are anti-nuclear, however one I've noticed one that really likes to the spew propaganda; it's Greenpeace. There are many misconceptions about the saftey of nuclear power that I am going to try to debunk.
First, lets ask the question; what is nuclear power? Nuclear power is the utilization of nuclear reactions to make electricity. Usually a process called fission is done, the breaking apart of atoms through the nucleus. Usually uranium is used. Uranium, is mined from the ground, usually in open pit mines. Uranium is a fairly common element in the earth's crust, 35 times more common than silver. It is then converted into yellowcake, once it has been mined. Then it is converted into uranium hexflouride and then enriched uranium once it enter a processing fascility. Fission is then used to produce electricity.
First of all people tend to associate nuclear power with nuclear bombs. That's kind of like comparing the study of biology to biological warfare, too completely different things. It's easy to see how nuclear power frightens people, after all the Greenpeace website discribes nuclear power as; "dangerous, high-risk, catastrophe." The truth is nuclear power is safe, clean, renewable and cheap energy.
First misconception is that people who live in the shadow of nuclear power plants are more likely to be exposed by radiation and are more likely to get cancer. However just about every major study conducted by the United States, Canada and Europe has concluded that the rate of cancer, including childhood leukemia, for people living near nuclear power plants is no higher than for those who don't. The fact is that nuclear power plants really don't release any radiation into the environment.
Second misconception is that there is a very big risk of having a nuclear disaster like what occured in Chernobyl during the 80's. Well eventhough the Chernolbyl incident was one of the worst technocological disasters in history, as time goes on, our nuclear technology is advancing and becoming far more safer. Experts say that the accident can really be blamed on the communist beaurocracy and incompitent personel, rather than the nuclear power itself. Yes, a nuclear power plant needs highly trained personel, but that can also create jobs and help make America more economically more stable. After all France is almost 100% run on nuclear energy and there has been zero reported deaths from nuclear radiation. Actually more people have died from other forms of energy extraction in this country. In 2003 alone, 30 coal miners lost their lives in coal mining accidents. Isn't it about time we had some intellegent presedential candidates that supported nuclear power.
Greenpeace argues that terrorists could plot to take over and destroy nuclear power plants. In that case we need to stop building skyscrappers, subways, trains and airplanes because these things are subject to terrorists aswell.
In the near future oil will run out. Inorder to prevent an oil apocalypse, automobile companies need to start building cars that run on 100% electricity; electricity that will hopefully one day come from nuclear power. With nuclear power we will able to stop global warming in its tracks and make this world a cleaner and safer place to live for everyone and everything. That is why it is important.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Animal Rights v.s. Science
The other day I was reading an article on how an extreme sect of enviornmentalists, naming themselves the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), were responsible for burining down several multi-million dollar homes in Washington state. I thought it was interesting that while they found it perfectly ecologically "correct" to desimate eco-friendly houses, they didn't seem to understand that buring those structures produced tons of CO2, CH4, and other eco-hazardous gases. This article reminded me of another extreme group of people, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). Its not just enough to go vegan, there is no use of animals for scientific research, and no pets in the AFL's utopia either. AFL, who has also been endorsed numerous times by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), is responsible for firebombing of certain research facilities. Now, animal abuse and cruelty in the food industry is bad, however we are on top the food chain. Not only is morally acceptable to eat animals for our dietary needs, but at times they can also taste very good.
Rodney Coronado, founder of the Animal Liberation Front, has been responsible for sinking two whaling ships at Reykjavik, Iceland and firebombing the Michigan State Universities research laboratory. He believes that his activism is a religious experience. This makes sense, considering that his actions resemble very closley, many of the activities of the pro-life movement in America.
Without animal testing we would not have most of the antibiotics, vaccines and other medicines. With that said the next time you see a PETA protester, ask them if they have ever recieved medication from a doctor. I highly doubt if they haven't. If they say no, then they are probably lying. This makes many animal rights activists hypocrites. Even more hypocritical is the organization, PETA. PETA, who are against all medical research and all meat consumption, actually kill animals themselves. Yes, thats right, according to statistics, out of all the animals that PETA "rescues," it euthanizes around 97% of them. It is said that around 3,000 are killed each year by PETA, which not only makes them supporters of terrorism but it also makes them the most hypocrital organization of all time. Ingrid Newkirk, the co-founder of PETA once said “even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.” Anti-biotics, innoculations, and over and behind the counter drugs are all products of animal testing. Insulin used by diabetics, such as Mary Beth Sweetland, the vice president of PETA, is also a product of animal testing.
Biomedical research is one of the most important parts to our society. When ever we get sick we rely on doctors and our researchers, to give us medication. Just about all of that medicine comes from the use of animals. They only way to not use animals in testing, is to use people. Now that would be immoral.
Rodney Coronado, founder of the Animal Liberation Front, has been responsible for sinking two whaling ships at Reykjavik, Iceland and firebombing the Michigan State Universities research laboratory. He believes that his activism is a religious experience. This makes sense, considering that his actions resemble very closley, many of the activities of the pro-life movement in America.
Without animal testing we would not have most of the antibiotics, vaccines and other medicines. With that said the next time you see a PETA protester, ask them if they have ever recieved medication from a doctor. I highly doubt if they haven't. If they say no, then they are probably lying. This makes many animal rights activists hypocrites. Even more hypocritical is the organization, PETA. PETA, who are against all medical research and all meat consumption, actually kill animals themselves. Yes, thats right, according to statistics, out of all the animals that PETA "rescues," it euthanizes around 97% of them. It is said that around 3,000 are killed each year by PETA, which not only makes them supporters of terrorism but it also makes them the most hypocrital organization of all time. Ingrid Newkirk, the co-founder of PETA once said “even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.” Anti-biotics, innoculations, and over and behind the counter drugs are all products of animal testing. Insulin used by diabetics, such as Mary Beth Sweetland, the vice president of PETA, is also a product of animal testing.
Biomedical research is one of the most important parts to our society. When ever we get sick we rely on doctors and our researchers, to give us medication. Just about all of that medicine comes from the use of animals. They only way to not use animals in testing, is to use people. Now that would be immoral.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)