Summer Movie Preview: I'm marking July 15 on my calendar

Considering that I generally see about two or three movies in an actual theater in a year, the fact that two movies that I want to see in a theater are coming out on the same day is quite surprising.  And what are those two movies?  Why, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 and The Undefeated (the documentary about one Sarah Palin), of course.

I expect both to be quite good movies that will keep the viewers engaged throughout.

One movie, as I understand it, is about an Everyman-type protagonist who continues to withstand the endless assaults of an overlord and his cronies, who are bent on destroying the protagonist using any means necessary.

The other is about Harry Potter.

(H/T:  Conservatives 4 Palin, Hot Air)

Why I don't trust government at pretty much any level: Part 2

I've pointed out the wont of state governmental agencies to be inefficient.  The federal government, for those who may have been living under a rock for the last 80 years, is about the same.*  Today, let's take a look at a city government that, in a PR debacle, as good as spit in the face of a good Samaritan.

I did not see much coverage of this anywhere except in the Dallas area, where it happened.  The story started when a teenager, Ashley Donaldson found a large amount of money and did the right thing.  As WFAA reported:

The 15-year-old Shepton High School student spotted the money on the ground and took it to a nearby Chase Bank.

That's what she was supposed to do, right?  Of course it was.  But the City of Dallas, after searching for the original owner of the found cash, decided to do just the wrong thing:

On Tuesday, police said under a new city policy, the unclaimed money will go into Dallas' general fund — not back to the person who found it, as in years past.

"We appreciate your honesty," said Dallas police spokesman Senior Cpl. Kevin Janse. "We're going to put the money to good use. It's not going to be wasted, but put to good use for the City of Dallas."

Yeah, thanks for your contribution to bloated city government, Ashley!

Thankfully, public outcry caused the city to reconsider, as WFAA reported:

Dallas police Chief David Brown issued a statement Wednesday afternoon saying the department will follow a provision in state law [emphasis mine] in determining what happens to the funds.

• It requires public notice be given 30 days after someone finds money and turns it into the police.
• There will then be a 90-day waiting period.
• If a claimant comes forward, the police department will hold a hearing.

If no rightful owner comes forward during this four-month period, the money will be returned to Ashley...

Oops, we got caught, so I guess we'll follow state law on this. 

Makes you want to turn in lost money within the Dallas city limits, doesn't it?  Meanwhile, Ashley is still waiting for the money.  Does anyone else think Ashley will never see it?

But not everything is lousy for Ashley; WFAA also reports that an anonymous donor is helping out Ashley and her family.  That's good, since the City of Dallas seems to be interested only in helping themselves.

Aside:  Researching this story yielded probably the silliest picture caption I've seen in quite a while:  "We don't have photos of Ashley Donaldson's discovery, so we have simulated what she saw at a North Dallas shopping center in February."

(Photo courtesy WFAA, used under Fair Use)

* As you know, people who have been living under a rock for 80 years will immediately find a computer and pull up this blog.  Find someone who has lived under a rock and prove I'm wrong.

This is why the Alamo Drafthouse is awesome

Courtesy KTBC/Fox 7:

The Alamo Drafthouse, arguably Austin's most well-known theater chain, has come up with what I believe is the best don't-text-in-theaters PSA.  Having seen the telltale sign of a lit phone screen in a theater before, I can appreciate why texting during movies is prohibited by the Alamo Drafthouse; all cinemas ought to prohibit it, if you ask me.  It's almost as distracting as the screening Mrs. Snowed and I attended once in which an employee opened the exterior door midway through the feature, letting in loads of totally unwanted sunlight and rather messing up our enjoyment of that portion of the movie.  (The cinema at which this happened, the Regal Gateway, did give us free passes as a result of that.)

Here is the more PG-rated version of the PSA.  (There is an uncensored version that will air before R-rated features.)  Enjoy, and don't be like the person whose voice you hear here.



(Disclaimer:  My employer has done work for the Alamo Drafthouse.  I'd say they were awesome even if that weren't true.)

Why I don't trust government at pretty much any level: Part 1 of infinity

An online friend, Stacy Petty, has run into a case of government trying to address a problem it caused itself by, what else, taking more money from the people it is supposed to help.  In this case, a state government agency is going after business owners to help pay for unemployment benefits because they (the agency) overextended themselves (sound familiar?).



Because, you know, government agencies can't be bothered to:  1) improve efficiency; or 2) enforce their own regulations when they might actually help people.  No, government agencies, for the most part, seem to be mostly focused on squeezing more money out of people to pay for their own broken bureaucracies.  They're looking out for themselves, not for you.

(H/T:  Colorado Blonde, which is Stacy's blog)

The media's love/hate relationship with Sarah Palin, Part 2

Building on what I wrote the other day, I saw the perfect summation of how the media has acted during Sarah Palin's bus tour:

(Picture courtesy Barracuda Brigade, used

Simply put:  Sarah Palin is not going to let the old-school, dying mainstream media set the narrative of what she does.  Her handlers in 2008 during her vice-presidential campaign convinced her to let the media do just that back then, with disastrous results.  (How many people in this country still think she was the one to say she could see Russia from her house?  Put your hand down, Meghan McCain.) 

No, Governor Palin is setting her own narrative this time.  And that's what has the talking heads so bent out of shape.

The media's love/hate relationship with Sarah Palin

This isn't exactly breaking news, but maybe you, like me, have noticed the tendency of many commentators in the (old-school) news media to cover every little thing Sarah Palin does with the same intensity as the paparazzi did Paris Hilton's trip to jail, while at the same time decrying the influence and popularity Sarah Palin presently holds.  For example, a few months ago some guy named Dana Milbank, who works at some old dinosaur called the Washington Post, decided that the best way to get himself some attention attempt to take away from the influence wielded by Mrs. Palin was to declare that February would be a Palin-free month in the (so-called) mainstream media.  The fact that most of my readers probably are not aware that this even happened speaks volumes both to Sarah Palin's influence and to Dana Milbank's lack thereof.

Anyway, the current even that has those types frothing is a bus tour by the Palin family to historic sites around our nation.  This may be followed at the SarahPAC webpage. You can view the introductory video to this tour right here:



Now, most rational people would not think that there is anything wrong with a bus tour.  Heck, John Madden did it every week when he did NFL color commentary.  But when Sarah Palin does it, it's a real problem!  She can't do this!  But it must be reported to death anyway!

Or at least so sayeth the talking heads.

For example, I don't need to go into the details of how some of these people are annoyed at not being told where the Palin family is going...Matt Lewis already summed up most of the grumblings:

Some journalists believe Palin is behaving like a celebrity, and that covering her may be beneath them. For example, The Atlantic’s Garance Franke-Ruta Tweeted: “reality TV star Palin treating pol reporters like paparazzi — needing & hating, inviting & making chase.” Politico’s Ben Smith Re-Tweeted her — and Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post agreed, responding: “seriously, why dont media outlets have entertainment reporters cover her instead of polit. press?”

The whining got even better, or more shrill, or something, with one CBS News producer blaming potential future car crashes on Mrs. Palin.  As Geoffrey Dickens of NewsBusters writes:

The press is pouting because potential GOP presidential contender Sarah Palin is apparently having a bit of fun with them, by refusing to let them know in advance where she is headed on her bus tour. One of them, CBS News producer Ryan Corsaro, even suggested the former Alaska governor is a "dangerous" traffic hazard because she is forcing reporters to chase her around like they were paparazzi.

[...]

In a May 31 CBS News.com article headlined "Sarah Palin's bus tour treats reporters like paparazzi" Corsaro complained:

I just hope to God that one of these young producers with a camera whose bosses are making them follow Sarah Palin as a potential Republican candidate don't get in a car crash, because this is dangerous.

But the prize for the lamest take on the Palin bus tour has to go to MSNBC's Martin Bashir, as quoted by Alex Fitzsimmons, also of NewsBusters:

Anchoring his eponymous program, Bashir scolded, "In fact, the whole thing could be in breach of a federal law because the United States Flag Code establishes important rules for the use and display of the stars and stripes, the flag of the United States."

The entire video of the rant can be found at the previous link; I don't care to post it here.  

Hey, perhaps Mr. Bashir would prefer people who use and display American flags like this:

(Picture courtesy the Denver Post via HotAir.com; used under Fair Use)

(That, in case anyone has forgotten, is how used flags were "used" and "displayed" following the conclusion of the coronation nomination acceptance speech of Barack Obama in 2008.  But hey, at least he didn't put them on a bus!)

But regardless, with regard to Sarah Palin, if it isn't one thing, it's another for the dying breed of media talking heads so desperately hanging on to their waning prestige and their nonexistent influence.  They can't live with her, but in these present days with their many choices for information gathers, they sure can't live without her.

(Oh, and I am on record as hoping that the Palins will make it to the Austin area, despite its deep-blue condition, and check out The Salt Lick.  I can dream.)

(Hat tip: Texas for Sarah Palin)

That $50 LED light bulb? Total non-story. Here's why.

In the past week or so, Twitter, or at least the group of people I follow there, has been abuzz about a story about an LED-based lamp (as I've stated before, those in the lighting industry do not call them "light bulbs") that produces an equivalent output to a 100-watt incandescent.  The 100-watt incandescent lamp, as most people now, has been targeted for extinction by our friends in the federal government because, as with most things, they think they know what is best for you.  So, one would think an LED lamp capable of the same output is a good thing.

The buzz, though, is not about the abilities of such a lamp.  No, the buzz is that such a lamp will cost $50.

To that point I say:  so what?

Now, I'm not going to debate whether Congress should be sticking its nose into what lighting sources we buy (other than to say they shouldn't) because at this writing, it's a done deal.  If a future Congress repeals EISA (or if somehow the court system manages to shift its leanings and overturn it), we can talk about incandescent lamps.  (And yes, I know that some states are skirting EISA by saying that incandescent lamps can be sold if they are produced in that state.)

No, I'm simply going to say that people freaking out about the $50 cost of a 100-watt equivalent LED lamp need only look at history to see that this will not be an issue for very long.

I remember, two or three years ago, seeing the very first LED lamps with a medium screw base (that is, those designed to replace the incandescent lamps we use mostly these days).  It produced a fairly good light, but not a lot of it.  And it, back then, cost $50.  That cost has dropped dramatically since then as LED lamp technology has improved, and as the industry has gotten more efficient, and, yes, as people bought them.  Someone is going to buy a $50 LED lamp and be darn proud of it, I assure you.  (I can also assure you that, owing to finances, I will not be that someone.)

Don't believe me?  Perhaps you don't remember seeing the first flat-panel LCD HDTV models back in, say, 2001 or so.  They certainly didn't have nearly the number of bells and whistles that today's versions do.  (3D in television?  240-Hz technology?  Not even close.)  And some of the largest models sold for over $10,000 back then.  And people bought them.  (And then we were all forced into HDTVs in the same way as we are being forced out of incandescents.  But I digress.)

Perhaps being on the cutting edge of new technologies is a status symbol for some people.  I don't know.  But I do know that there are always buyers for these technologies.  It's a good thing that there are those buyers, too, because they are the ones who drive the costs down, so that a couple or so years later, you and I can buy those same items for a lot less.

Another consideration, of course, is that now that the 100-watt equivalence barrier has been breached, there will be many others rushing their own copycat products to market.  This, too, helps the price to come down, though I would urge caution, as some LED products are not made using quality materials, and it will be obvious once you turn the light on.  The color from these cheaper lamps will not be consistent, and the light produced will not be attractive.  Buyer beware.

But, really, the main point is that for about 99% or so of you, a $50 LED lamp price is nothing to worry about, because you will never pay it.  When these lamps go mainstream, the price will have fallen 80-90%, similarly to the eventually-to-be-obsolete fluorescent spiral lamps that most people hate.  And given that your electricity rate (if your utility is anything like mine) will have gone up quite a bit, saving over half the wattage for every light in the house, not to mention the much longer life LED lamps have, will make this product worth it sometime soon.

(In the meantime, go ahead and stockpile the incandescents while you still can.)

Want to know why we homeschool?

One reason we homeschool is because we don't want our children to be indoctrinated by others' political agendas (usually at the expense of unimportant things like, you know, actual learning).

Case in point:  an ethnic studies text presently in use by the Tucson (Arizona) Unified School District, which, one mother was told, is presently used in multiple classes, including third grade.  This mother read excerpts from this text in a school board meeting earlier this week, as shown below.  Note:  objectionable language warning.  Also note the absurdity of the school board member's comment at 2:53.



(Hat tip:  The Blaze.  A partial transcript of the excerpts may be found at The New American.)

A few questions for President Obama's Austin visit

Everyone who has paid attention to the news the past few days knows that President Obama will visit Austin tomorrow (that's Tuesday, for those reading this after midnight, or much, much later, for those reading after the fact).  Here are a few relevant (or not so much) questions for this occasion.

To evening rush-hour commuters:  Got an alternate commute?  The rolling roadblock will be blocking all traffic wherever the president is going.  That includes a trip right in the middle of the 5:00 hour from the airport to the ACL Live theater on 2nd Street, and then a later trip to some undisclosed location west of Lake Austin before returning to the airport.  (Just a reminder:  thanks to geography and really poor planning, there is absolutely no direct route from 2nd Street to west of Lake Austin.  Hey--maybe the motorcade will be going right through your neighborhood!)  Perhaps you might consider leaving early or staying really late.

From the governor, and others who are like-minded on this, to the Obama administration:  Where is the disaster declaration for the areas affected by wildfire?  Are you really so petty as to deny Texas any help because people from Texas have bad-mouthed the Obama policies, as was insinuated by an anonymous Democrat legislator?  Because if you are doing that for that reason, then you truly are as thin-skinned as has been said pretty much every day on Twitter and elsewhere.

(To the person at McClatchy who entitled the article linked in the last paragraph "Grumpy Republicans await Obama in visit to Texas":  did you ever state that the Democrats who hated George W. Bush as much as, or more than, some on my side hate President Obama were "grumpy"?  Didn't think so.)

For those, such as Republic of Austin's Chris Apollo Lynn, who appear to think that those opposed to President Obama's policies are just "grouchy Republicans", "illiterate white hicks", etc.:  Really?  I'd invite you to get to know some of those people (like, say, myself), but you appear to have your mind made up, based on your warning to avoid areas where there might be protesters "[i]f you don't want to get teabagged".

To those, such as Mr. Lynn, who still use the phrase "teabagged":  it was a worn-out phrase two years ago.  Sorry, I guess that's not a question.

And, to the best of my knowledge, the only real question President Obama will be asking on this quick trip:  Cash, check or credit card?  Enjoy yourselves, donors.

Rejoicing in someone's death?

When I first heard on Sunday night that Osama bin Laden had been killed, I really didn't have much reaction to it.  Whether I was too tired to think at that point is a fairly valid question, but nevertheless, I did not have feel the jubilation that so many others did.

From looking around the net in the past couple of days, one could see that reactions have run the gamut from hoping that bin Laden is roasting in hell to praising the troops (as Sarah Palin did Monday in a speech previously scheduled to praise them anyway) to, unfortunately, using his death to make really lousy political points (as Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) also did Monday).

As for my personal reaction:  when I first got online Monday morning, the first thoughts I had were to blip some appropriately themed music (For the uninitiated, Blip.fm is a service for sharing music; I have my Blip account tied to my Twitter account.  That way, everyone can see that I have very diverse and strange tastes in music.) such as Toby Keith's "Courtesy of the Red, White, & Blue", or even "Ding, Dong, the Witch Is Dead", but I stopped myself.

And I stopped because I had to ask myself this question:  should I be celebrating anyone's death?  Yes, the death of Osama bin Laden is definitely a relief, a closure, as it were, for so many people affected by the events of September 11, 2001.  And it is probably a good thing.  But was it the best possible solution?  As a Christian, I say no.  At least three of my Facebook friends posted some reference to the following:

¹⁷ Do not gloat when your enemy falls;
   when they stumble, do not let your heart rejoice,
¹⁸ or the LORD will see and disapprove
   and turn his wrath away from them.

(Proverbs 24:17-18, from the New International Version (2011), courtesy BibleGateway.com)

Another friend posted that she "should have wished Bin Laden would get right with God and that his soul would be saved".  That's an awfully hard thing for me, at least, to think about someone who obviously took great joy in watching so many people die through the events of September 11.

So I've been doing some soul-searching to determine if my response to this week's news has been what it should be for me as a Christian.  I started by reading a column from Joshua Graves written just before bin Laden's death; in this column, Mr. Graves reminds Christians about Jesus's call to love our enemies, up to and including those who would kill us. 

Then I read another column from Ryan Messmore entitled "Rejoicing in Justice Done".  Mr. Messmore was describing how he talked with his 8-year-old son about bin Laden's death:

I was able to remind him that acting out of vengeance or hatred is wrong, but that we are called to seek justice. The cheering in our home is not gloating over someone’s death. Rather, it is celebrating the fact that a terrorist’s murderous acts have been judged wrong, and he won’t be committing them again.

(Personally, I don't know if absolutely none of the cheering could be considered to be gloating over bin Laden's death, but since I don't want to get any more political in this post than I have already done, I'll drop it for now.)

But I think this section from Pastor Dan Scott's blog best reflects how I feel about everything:

Perhaps we believe his death brings some sort of closure to a decade that has been extraordinarily bloody and disruptive. Perhaps we think that justice has been done, since the architect of the 9/11 infamy has now paid the ultimate price. Perhaps we feel that a national shame has been erased.

I feel all those things.

As a Christian however, I cannot rejoice in any one’s death, however wicked. Even if I believe, as I do, that some offenses are so unspeakably evil that it becomes the responsibility of human government to end the life of the one who perpetrates them; the scripture forbids me to rejoice or gloat that such an action was necessary.

I'm happy that justice is done.  I'm relieved that there is finally some sort of closure.  I'm proud of our military for its continued service to our country. 

But I'm sorry that there are so many people who turn their backs on God's call to love each other, and that there are so many lives wasted, as bin Laden's was, because of his own hatred.

As Peter wrote:

The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

(2 Peter 3:9, from the New American Standard Bible, courtesy BibleGateway.com)

God wants us all to be saved, and, I'm sure, is not rejoicing in the death of Osama bin Laden.

And I don't care if people say I'm not a true American, or a true conservative, or a true whatever, just because I am not dancing in the streets about Osama bin Laden's death.  Because I'm called to be something more than that.  And that's what I am aiming to become.