Saturday, June 25, 2005

Stupid Parents - Good Batman

So I went and saw Batman Begins this afternoon. Great movie, better than any of the other Batmans. Mostly dark with a couple corny moments, but hey, you need a little bit to lighten the load.
So here's my gripe. I noticed a fair amount of kids at this movie. That got me to thinking about the most recent lawsuit against video games, the one involving Grand Theft Auto. Then I'm thinking about all the times parents go on TV and blame violence in movies, video games and music and sex in music videos and all the bad media to which their children are exposed. Well, stupid parents, why don't you stop taking your children to violent movies? I can say that about a quarter of the full theater today were children under 10 with their parents. Oh, am I to feel sad that you really wanted to see this movie? That there weren't any other movies to take the kids to? That you just had to get the kids to be quiet for two hours. This isn't the first violent movie I've seen parents bring their kids to. So you better stop blaming the media and start taking care of your kids!

Thursday, June 16, 2005

King Tut - A Fresh New Face



So I'm watching the local news last night and there are people protesting the King Tut exhibit that opened in L.A. yesterday. I missed the actual news story, so I looked it up and found out what all the commotion was about. The protesters want the curators of the exhibit to remove three modern representations of Tutankhamun. At first when I read the story, I disagreed with their protest. I think it was due to the quotes by the protesters' spokesman, Legrand Clegg. The focus of the protest is that the busts in question portray King Tut as white rather than black. I looked into the "reconstruction" of King Tut as it was covered on the National Geographic website. It is based on CT scans of the mummy and uses forensic methods of facial reconstruction from skulls. That's all fine, but they do admit that the skin tone is just based on a middle tone of modern Egyptians. OK, so there is varying opinion as to the skin tone of King Tut. Well in my opinion, this will always be a subject that will be in question. From what I've read, there is no conclusive data as to who was King Tut's mother, so his actual lineage is not factually substantiated.

So this leads me to where my gripe is actually going.
I do agree with the protesters that the new representations of King Tut should be removed from the exhibit. However, I do not agree with their reasons. The exhibit is comprised of artifacts. Why do the artifacts need to be tainted with modern technology's view of this ancient figure? There are many realistic representations of him in sculpture constructed in his time already. Why do we have the constant need to modernize history. What is so important to know exactly what King Tut looked like. Aren't the representations done in his own time sufficient? Does knowing exactly what he looks like truly affect his rule, his history and his legacy within Egyptian culture and understanding of the ancient dynasties? I don't think so. I think representations of him based on modern technology should have their own place. Forensic science is its own discipline. I believe the use of advanced technology in researching and reconstructing the past needs to be discussed and observed on its own without influencing actual physical evidence of the past in an exhibit such as this one. Just let the artifacts speak for themselves.
This is a privately funded exhibit, so the way to really protest it would be to not attend. I still want to go though. Can I really sacrifice seeing great artifacts because I don't agree with the juxtaposition to modern day technology? Still deciding...

Thursday, June 09, 2005

Public Healthcare. Is it that great?

Quebec's Ban on Private Health Insurance Is Nixed - New York Times

"The justices took a year to rule on a case that began in 1997, when George Zeliotis, an elderly Montreal man, tried to pay for hip replacement surgery rather than wait nearly a year for treatment at a public hospital."

Good for the Canadian Supreme Court!

"the universal health-care system -- while considered one of the fairest in the world -- has been plagued by long waiting lists and a lack of doctors, nurses and new equipment. Some patients wait years for surgery, MRI machines are scarce and many Canadians travel to the United States for medical treatment."

So liberals of the U.S. always point to Canada and their government funded healthcare. Is it that great? Apparently, it's illegal to pay for your own healthcare unless you're a non-resident. So great, the government pays for your healthcare, but you just have to wait a couple years to get it! That would be great to find out in 2 years that you have a cancer that could have been helped if caught early on.

But yet, "Most polls indicate Canadians support Medicare, despite the high taxes needed to fund the service, seeing it as a marker of egalitarianism and independent identity that sets their country apart from the United States, where some 45 million Americans lack health insurance."

Egalitarianism?? Haven't they heard? THE WORLD IS NOT FAIR!

I don't know about those Canadians. I have a more hands-off view of government. I think it is cruel to make people who can afford quicker medical service wait for their public service to come along a year later. As for millions of Americans lacking health insurance, well the only thing I would support the government to do is to improve public health facilities and make the more affordable healthcare systems (like county hospitals), safer and more desirable places to seek healthcare. The funds it would take to support every American's health insurance would be way to great! How about regulating insurance companies to make their plans more affordable and less limiting? I know I consider what I pay for the "what if something terrible happens to me" insurance seems like quite a lot for something I haven't had to use ever!