Defense of Truth

A quick internet search to see if there's an "Edited for TV" version of Back to the Future available to show Everett anywhere, and...nope. There's legit versions everywhere, bootleg versions everywhere, but evidently no one would rather hear Marty McFly say "Jeez Louise" instead of something profane. Actually, there ARE tons of us out here, but copyright laws have been interpreted in court decisions that make it darn near impossible to get one. You can own the movie and edit it yourself. You can't own the movie and pay someone else to edit it. You can buy software that edits language out on the fly. You can't buy software that permanently creates an edited copy for you to enjoy and re-use at your leisure. It's nuts! But the thing I hate worst about it is the sanctimonious tripe about the Director's artistic purity that they claim is the reason for such idiotic legal "protections". And this is coming from an art CRITIC (me), who sho

The double-speak never ceases. Politicians on both sides can't seem to avoid talking about regulation and capitalism. Democrats afraid of appearing too socialist claim to uphold free enterprise principles but allow for safety nets and programs that take the excesses out of business cycles of boom and bust. Republicans afraid of appearing pro-greed claim to want to reduce only the onerous regulations, and keep only the "common sense" statutes. I've always disliked the very term "common sense". It usually just means "I'm too lazy to actually think through the principles involved." So on the subject of "regulation" let me quote the immortal Mandy Patinkin of Princess Bride fame: "Jhoo keep useen that wohrd. I donna think eet means whahtchew think eet means." The problem is that when Conservatives talk about regulation, they mean the rules of order we need to keep competition fair in business. The laws that make cheating on

Inevitably we are all going to "friend" someone on Facebook who posts lots of bolstering material for their chosen political ideology on their wall. I don't like to respond there. The wall is for person to person contact, and it's public. I'm not going to start a big ole word fight over things there, unless I feel compelled by the nature of the post. But it would be fruitful to think some of them through here. Latest case in point: the Tea Party and the supposed hypocrisy of some of its candidates, Joe Miller of AK to be specific in this article (I haven't read the Rolling Stone in AGES--ever since they knocked Metallica for writing "Don't Tread on Me" because it didn't fit their idea of how anti-war the band was somehow supposed to be). Fair warning the article is mildly salacious and is not opposed to harsh language and imagery. Can I enjoy the wit in an opponent's sarcasm? Absolutely. But he's still fallacious. First off, Ca

Pres. Monson on Choice : "Although in our journey we will encounter forks and turnings in the road, we simply cannot afford the luxury of a detour from which we may never return." "I plead with you to make a determination right here, right now, not to deviate from the path which will lead to our goal: eternal life with our Father in Heaven." "Ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. Ye shall walk in all the ways which the Lord your God hath commanded you." (citing Moses in Deuteronomy) Detours, deviations, turning to the right or left. The metaphor of the path chosen, and the consequences which inevitably accompany the choice can't be stressed enough. You pick up one end of a stick, you've also got the other end. The problem is that with the veil in place (LDS terminology for necessary forgetting an immortal spirit goes through as part of the process of its coming to a test in mortality) all paths are necessarily blind ones.

Pres. Monson's opening remarks asked the Church to pay special attention to the need for full-time missionaries. The LDS have always asked all their members to be ambassadors of Christ, and to always be on the lookout for people who might be prepared to receive our invitation to come learn more of Him, and join us through baptism. The call for missionaries to leave their homes and go actively preparing people for just such invitations is anchored in equally longstanding tradition and commandment. But let me throw out the question... We're all asked to be missionaries. I have more experience teaching than the average missionary. I have developed a closeness with the Spirit for longer than most missionaries. Through longer study I know the doctrines of the Church better than most missionaries. If I meet someone I know who is interested, I have the added advantage of knowing the person about to be taught. Why should I need a missionary's help at all? Why shouldn't I