A Long Awaited Journey - The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey

In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit.




WARNING: This review may contain spoilers.

I was delighted that we got to see Bilbo write that line in the start of the Red Book. Yes, I am a fan of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings books. I have read each probably twenty to thirty times over the years. I know them well. But just because I love the source material it doesn't automatically follow that I will love the films. In adapting any book to film there are many ways that it can be screwed up. When Peter Jackson made the Lord of the Rings films I was both excited and worried at what the result would be. However, he did a fantastic job (although not perfect. There are a few things that I would have done differently). I was much less worried about The Hobbit.

In a word, I would call The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey, excellent.

I did see the film twice. The first time in 3D, the second time in HFR 3D. Lets talk about the technology first. Peter Jackson chose to shoot The Hobbit in 3D at a high frame rate (HFR) of 48 frames per second. This is different than films we are used to seeing which are shot in 24 frames per second. The idea behind shooting at a higher frame rate is to produce crisper, sharper, more lifelike images. At 24fps there is much more motion blur in each frame and strobing can occur when the camera is moved about quickly. You get much less motion blur and strobing at 48fps.
There have been many reviews both good and bad about HFR.
It certainly does produce spectacularly real images. Even the Warner Brothers logo (the first thing you see on screen) looks like it is physically there in the theatre with you. Some people have complained that it makes it look like you are watching a high quaity video. I disagree. It does look different than what we are used to seeing. One effect that I did notice and others have talked about is that occassionally some fast motion looks like it is sped up. It is not, but it appears that way. I'm not sure what the physiology is that would cause that effect, but it is interesting. Another thing to note is that, as with any new technology, the film makers will need to adjust some of their techniques. I found that the HFR made camera movements more noticeable. So camera operators will have to be more careful when they shoot.
Ultimately whether you like the look or not will be a personal preference. My feeling is that it will take some getting used to. We are used to seeing movies at 24fps. But I liked it and think it will be here to stay.
By the way, 24fps was never some magic number that gave the best look for films. It was simply the lowest frame rate (so less film could be used) that you could sync sound to when sound was added to pictures. They could have chosen any other number but it was 24.

Now, the film itself.

With The Lord of the Rings, I had many issues with how some of it was adapted to film (although still loved the movies). I have far fewer issues with how at least this first part of The Hobbit has been adapted to the screen.
It starts with Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm) writing the first lines of The Red Book of Westmarch (the book that in the Middle Earth universe tells the tale of The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings). "In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit". What a wonderful beginning.
We are then treated to the story of Thorin Oakenshield, son of Thráin, son of Thrór, King Under the Mountain and the coming of the dragon Smaug to Erebor, the Lonely Mountain. It is an action packed prologue in which we get to see the amazing dwarf city in the mountain and are teased with quick firey images of Smaug.
We then get into the real story 60 years before the events of the Lord of the Rings. Bilbo (Martin Freeman) meets Gandalf who is seeking someone to share in an adventure. Bilbo wants nothing to do with adventures but he is visited by the thirteen dwarves of Thorin Oakenshield's company and suddenly finds himself involved in one.
The scenes in Bag End with the dwarves are nice. There are even two songs. The book is full of songs.
Once on the road the adventure begins. Most of the scenes from the book are there. We have the meeting of the trolls. This scene is a little different than the book but the heart of it is the same. We go to Rivendel, climb the mountain passes where the company barely escapes a battle between stone giants, then the company is caught by the goblins (orcs) and Bilbo is separated from them.
The scenes with Bilbo and Gollum are amoung the best in the film. They are funny, but you are aware of the peril that Bilbo is in. The game of riddles is fantastic. The ultimate point where Bilbo has the chance to kill Gollum but doesn't ("It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand" - Gandalf - LOTR) is quite emotional. You did feel pity for Gollum.
The film ends after the Eagles rescue the company from the fir trees. The company is left high atop a rock where they get a long didtance glimpse of the Lonely Mountain. And then we (big spoiler) get our first real look at Smaug. He stirs from his sleep and opens an eye.

There are many things that have been added that were not in The Hobbit, but have been taken from the appendices of the Lord of the Rings. These are events that actually occured during the time of The Hobbit and tie it in with the Lord of the Rings. I think they add to the enjoyment of the film. Some of the highlights are Radagast the Brown entering Dol Guldur or the council between Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel and Saruman.

By the way, Cate Blanchett's entrance in the film is stunning.

Some people have complained that the film is too long. I disagree. I like that they have taken the time to tell the story. Too many films are rushed. People also complained that the Lord of the Rings had too many "endings". This of course is nonsense. LOTR could have done well with more material and time added.

The few issues I have with The Hobbit are more about Peter Jackson's style than anything else. He seems to like the over the top action sequences. At times I found that I really had to suspend my disbelief to buy that anyone could have survived a fall for instance. They also seem to ignore the geography of Middle Earth or the time passage in order to conveniently move the story along.

Overall, it is a fantastic film. Martin Freeman is Bilbo Baggins. You can't really imagine anyone else as the Hobbit. The thirteen dwarves are a challenge to get to know (in the book it is the same), but a few, Thorin, of course, Balin and Bofur have so far been developed quite well. I found it particularly satisfying to get to know Balin. It makes the scene in the Lord of the Rings where they find Balin's tomb in Moria more impactful.

Now we have to wait for part two. I will be interested to see how far that will take us. I suspect probably up to the destruction of Lake Town which would leave the battle of five armies and the journey home for part three.

 

The Transit of Venus

Venus passed between the Earth and the Sun today, June 5th, 2012. This is called the Transit of Venus. If you missed it, you will not be able to see it unless you live for another 105 years. The next Transit of Venus will be in 2117.

So if you missed it, I got some photos for you.




Update:

Now NASA has released its footage from the Solar Dynamics Observatory. Naturally it puts my photos to shame. It is incredible to see the Sun in such detail. Enjoy.

Annular Solar Eclipse May 2012

For those in the right place on the planet, an annular solar eclipse was visible on May 20th, 2012. The lucky ones witnessed a "ring of fire". This is where the moon has almost completely covered the sun leaving only a firey ring visible around the edge. This is different from a total eclipse in which the entire suns surface is covered. In the case of an annular eclipse, this does not happen because the moon happens to be at its furthest point away from the Earth in its orbit thus making it appear slightly smaller.

A "ring of fire" would be spectacular to see. Unfortunately from my location near Toronto, Canada we did not see that. Those watching would see a small section carved out of the sun right at sunset. And for those that were not watching, I did the watching for you.

Watch the video:

Supermoon 2012

The night of May 5th, 2012 saw a Supermoon. A supermoon is when the moon is at its closest point to Earth in its orbit while at the same time being a full moon. The last time this occurred was March 19th, 2011.

Read my blog from then: Supermoon March 19th, 2011

Here are photos from tonight's Supermoon.

"The Cabin in the Woods" Review

WARNING: This review is full of spoilers. In order to really explain what I liked and why I thought the film worked it is necessary to refer to specific plot points. Do not read this unless you have seen the film.

I went to this film knowing very little about it other than that people had said that it was good and was not what you might expect. I think that was the best way to go see this film. If you haven't seen "The Cabin in the Woods" yet, please stop reading now and see it before you know too much about it.

"The Cabin in the Woods" is directed by Drew Goddard and written by Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard. It stars Kristen Connolly as Dana, the smart and sexually inexperienced girl, Chris Hemsworth as Curt, the athletic jock, Anna Hutchison as the slutty girl, Jules, Fran Kranz as the pot smoking Marty, and Jesse Williams as Holden, the guy that they are trying to set up Dana with. As the tag line for the film says, "Five friends go to a remote cabin in the woods. Bad things happen."

It was important for the film makers to set the tone for this film right from the start. The film takes the stereotypes of the horror, thriller genres and stands them on their heads. If they didn't set it up right the audience could easily be lost or be confused as to what film they were watching. The set up starts right as the main titles role. The credits appear with menacing music and bloody graphics until BAMM! Suddenly we are in a conversation between two middle aged engineer types talking gossip and work. At this point you are not sure what to think. That scene ends with a cheesy title card for the film. Still not sure what to think.

The film then settles into what appears to be a typical set up for a typical horror, thriller. We are introduced to each of the characters. To me each seemed almost too stereotypical at first, but I believe this was intentional. We have the strong, athletic guy, the hot girl, the smart girl, the pot smoking hippy and Scooby Doo. In fact they all get into an RV (the Mystery Machine) and head up to the cabin.

As they leave we get the first real hint as to what is going on. A man with an earpiece reports that the group has left and is on their way. He is reporting to the very engineer types, played brilliantly by Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford, that we met at the beginning of the film. They are in some sort of control room. They are joined by Amy Acker.

Our gang of five stop for gas on the way and meet a strange and creepy guy who warns them of the dangers ahead. Of course they ignore him and continue on their way. In a particularly funny scene, he is revealed to be on the payroll for the organization.

So, if you have seen the film you will know that what is really happening is that some organization, we really don't know exactly who, is in charge of making sacrifices to some ancient evil force to keep the world safe and that our five young people are to be among those sacrificed. Pretty cool. What was so well done was the way that this was revealed to us. They never gave away too much too early. So while you might be able to guess a little of what was really going on, you never got the full picture until the very end.

Some of the hints that were dropped were really cool. We would see images of other sacrifices around the world on the control room monitors. My favourite was the Japanese school room with a "Ring" like ghost attacking the school girls.

The film did a great job of playing out the typical slasher type thriller scenes in the cabin and mixing it with the humour of the scenes in the control room. There were some genuinely funny moments like the team betting on what creatures would attack the young folks in the cabin.

Most horror films employ a bit of humour mixed with the horror, but this film did it remarkably well.

One moment that really stood out for me was the first death. Jules and Curt go out into the woods. They are hot for each other. This is all being watched by the group in the control room. When it seems like the two are not going to get it on, the control room releases pheromones and adds some mood lighting to encourage them. They are a success when they are able to get boobies exposed.
We are taken from scenes of people joking, to sexual tension, to joking around , to sexual tension, then the killer zombies appear and cut of Jules head.

Normally in a thriller the kills are expected and anticipated, but by cutting between the sex, and the casual joking around of the observers, to the kill, and then back to observers joking, we are not sure how to feel. For me I found Jules death had more impact because it felt wrong to be laughing at it.

Once the surviving duo of Dana and Marty, figure out what is going on and enter the control centre, we are treated to almost every monster and nightmare you can imagine. The cameo appearance of  Sigourney Weaver was a treat. When the tables are turned on the controllers it is very satisfying. However it is hard to imagine how our heroes will survive and in fact we are left believing that they don't.

I did find myself genuinely caring for the characters. They had been drawn as broad stereotypes (this is really because they were being chemically controlled by the organization to be such) but ended up being likable. I even felt for the guys in the control room when they met their demise, especially for Bradley Whitford's character who got taken out by a merman.

"The Cabin in the Woods" was all in all a really good film.

Cold Algonquin Spring

I have just returned from a four day canoe trip in one of my favourite places in the world, Algonquin Park.

Spring is an interesting time to go. The weather can be extremely variable, especially in early spring, which is what we discovered on this trip. When we booked the trip, the long range forecast showed that it would be a comfortable temperature with sun and perhaps a little bit of cloud. As it got closer that changed. We arrived in the park to a light snow and a temperature of -5 degrees. Some might call us crazy, but we got into the canoe and off we went. This is our trip.

photo: (There is a thin layer of ice on the water directly in front of the canoe)


The two of us on this trip are myself and a friend that I used to work with, Tim. We arrived at Algonquin Park just after 10:00am. There was a light snow in the air and it was cold. Not to worry we would soon be warm from paddling the canoe, if we could first get it through the thin layer of ice between us and the creek.

This is a really nice part of the park to canoe. Our start point was right on the edge of Highway 60 just west of the main visitor centre. We put in into Sunday Creek. This is the same creek that flows through the Spruce Boardwalk Trail (which is in fact on the other side of the highway). Sunday Creek meanders through a marshy area on its way to Norway Lake. That part of the trip is not very long, maybe 30 - 40 minutes. There are a few beaver dams across the creek. They were all fairly easy to push the canoe over going downstream.

From Norway Lake we followed another small section of river to Fork Lake. This portion had a slightly larger beaver dam. We made it over going down but knew that it would require getting out on the way back.

Once on Fork Lake we looked for our campsite. We had a choice of two. One was on the north west shore and the other was on a small island. From a distance we could see that the island looked rather sparse as far as trees. This would make it difficult to find wood for the campfire. On the plus side, there would be more sun. We were closer to the site on the north west shore so we chose to take a closer look at that first. Up a steep bank was the site. There was not really any good place to put the tents and it was clear that this would be in shade from mid-afternoon on. There was, however a big pile of would left behind by whoever had that site before. That would be ours.

We paddled over to the island. It was very nice despite there being some snow on the ground in the shaded areas. This is where we would stay for the next four days. We unloaded, then took a trip back to the other site to claim the wood. The wood, we knew, would not be enough. Like I said, it was cold. If it got above zero that first day we were lucky, so we knew that we would be needing a fire to keep warm from evening into night. So the search was on for more wood.

photo: (snow on the ground as we arrived at the island)

We canoed to a couple of portage points in our search for wood. There were plenty of dead trees and branches so we made daily trips to collect wood. And boy did we need it.

photo: (Tim and wood in the canoe)

I should mention, that I had unfortunately caught a cold earlier in the week and was not completely over it. Now the cold weather wasn't helping. The night of April 27th the forecast said that the temperature dropped to -10 degrees. I believe it! We had a good fire going from late afternoon onwards just trying to keep warm.I took a rock from the fire to heat my tent. That really works well for a couple of hours.

photo: (a nice warm fire)

photo: (a hot rock sitting atop a cold rock in my tent)


So the first night was fine to start off. The hot rock made my tent warm and the two bottles I filled with hot water also kept me warm for a few hours. Then it got really cold. I have a mummy bag that I believe is rated to about -12 degrees. Not quite sure what that means. It certainly doesn't mean that you will be comfortable in -10 degrees. Perhaps it just means that you won't freeze to death, I don't know. I also will be getting rid of the mummy bag and getting a conventional bag. To keep warm, I had it completely done up, only my face showing out of the top. Now you can't really move inside a mummy bag and it is a little difficult to get out of. Anyway, at some point in the night, I think around 2am, I woke to a cough. I realized that I couldn't breath at all through my nose. Combine that with the cough and the constricted movement of the mummy bag, I suddenly felt extremely claustrophobic. I felt like I couldn't breath. It was not nice. Despite the cold, I got out of my sleeping bag, put on my shoes and went outside for a few minutes.

I highly recommend going outside when it is pitch dark in the deep of the night when the sky is clear. The stars are stunning. Hopefully, in most cases it will not be so cold.

photo: (from previous trip to Norway Lake)

I had had thoughts that night about never being warm again. I pictured four days with no reprieve from the cold. But the next day was a little warmer, and sitting in the sun, out of the wind brought the warmth back.

The great thing about canoeing to a site and staying there, rather than moving each night, is that you can just relax and enjoy nature. While we did have to get wood every day, we also got to explore a little. We followed one of the portage routes along a stream with rapids and a small waterfall.

photo: (waterfall)

And we were able to just sit back and watch the days go by.



The second day some other people arrived at the site on the northwest shore of the lake. We felt bad for a second that we had taken the pile of wood from there, but then we got over it. The second night, being a little warmer, I stayed up to take some photos.

photo: (starry sky and campfire at the other campsite)

photo: (moon veiled by thin clouds at night)

photo: (canoe in the moonlight)


Getting back to nature is amazing. It is a good experience to be at the mercy of weather. I mean really at its mercy, not just inconvenienced as you go to and from your warm home to work or shopping. Out there, we had to deal with unexpected cold and with wind. We had to find ways to stay warm. It literally could be deadly if we were not prepared. But we also had calm and comfortable moments. And all of it is beautiful.

As with every trip, you look forward to going home, but are sad to leave.

Watch as we make the one and a half hour canoe trip from our little island back to the highway in just under a minute.

"If I Wanted America to Fail"

I recently watched a video entitled, "If I Wanted America to Fail". The video is produced by FreeMarketAmerica.org . I came across it through a link posted on twitter by Sarah Palin. As you can imagine this video is four minute and thirty-nine second piece of right wing propaganda.

Unfortunately we now live in a world where it is becoming increasingly difficult to get a straight story from people. The media (of all stripes) tends to report opinion rather than facts. They will have a pundit on from one side giving their view and then a pundit from the other side giving an opposing view. Then they typically wrap up the story with neither side agreeing and the viewer wondering what is the actual truth. I do put a lot of blame on journalists for this. It should be their job to research and report the facts. It's fine to have differing views on, but please, when somebody is talking out of their ass call them on it!

Back to the video. Click the link to watch it http://youtu.be/CZ-4gnNz0vc

The video makes a lot of claims that are either untrue or designed simply to put fear into the hearts of people. Fear of the evil liberals and progressives. By the way, I really don't think that most conservatives actually know the meaning of those words.

It starts out making the statement that if you wanted America to fail, "to suffer, not prosper, to despair, not dream. I'd start with energy." The rest of the video goes on to say that the only way for America to prosper is to use its cheap and abundant energy while showing oil rigs and coal production. It complains that politicians (obviously aimed at the Obama administration) want to make people feel guilty about using energy.

It then continues with the phony argument that schools had been teaching kids that an ice age was coming decades ago and now we have to worry about global warming. Of course if there is a cold spell, the name changes to climate change.

They make references to Al Gore preaching green technology while still using a lot of energy himself.

Then they talk about the free market being the be all and end all for prosperity.They attack regulations as evil things that must be removed or there will be no prosperity.

It ridicules efforts to protect endangered species. They call the environmental movement an economic suicide pact.


Wow!

Now let's take a look at some of these points. The cheap and abundant energy that they refer to is oil, natural gas and coal. All fossil fuels. These are people that have very little scientific knowledge if they don't believe that burning fossil fuels pumps tons of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. I think that it may be worse than that. They may actually be smart enough to know the truth but willfully ignore it because it is more profitable in the short term or too inconvenient to make the necessary changes.

For those that truly don't believe that climate change is real try this little experiment. Take two large jars (the bigger the better). Put a thermometer in both. Fill one with plain old air and the other with carbon dioxide (CO2), or if you have access to it, use methane (another greenhouse gas). Now put the jars out in the sun. Take a look at the thermometers. The one with the greenhouse gas inside will be at a significantly higher temperature. The greenhouse gases trap heat. That is precisely what is happening in our atmosphere.

Now I know very few of you will try the experiment for yourself, so that is why there are scientists that work on these things every day. They build models that make predictions, then they make observations that will either confirm or deny their predictions. The prediction that the world will get warmer with more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has been proven, that's right, proven by observation.

If you can't accept peer reviewed science then you should not be driving a car or reading this on your computer. It is the same scientific method that has given us all the technology that we use and rely on today.

In regards to America only prospering if it uses its cheap abundant energy, this is folly. There would likely be short term profit and prosperity for those in those industries but the long term cost of climate change would dwarf that. The video implies that green energy is expensive. It is more expensive at the moment. That is why we need to develop those technologies faster so that they become more efficient economically. India is doing wonders promoting the use of solar and the prices have dropped to be competitive with other forms of energy in that country.
http://ecowatch.org/2012/ambitious-solar-program-in-india-driving-prices-to-impressive-lows/

Think about how much more prosperous America would be if it had developed good reliable clean energy in the forms of solar or wind or a myriad of other techniques. These are sources that will never be depleted. Oil, natural gas and coal are finite. Granted there is plenty of coal to last a long time, but then again we come to the fact that we are burning it. We are putting CO2 that was captured out of the atmosphere millions and years ago back into the atmosphere. If we burn a tree (still not good) but that is newly captured carbon that can be captured again by new trees. What we are doing when we burn fossil fuels is putting greenhouse gases that have been out of circulation back into the cycle. The only possible result is an increase in temperature or climate change.

The attack on Al Gore in unfounded. It is true that he uses a good amount of energy. We all do. It is the only way we can live our modern lifestyle. All the more reason for us to develop clean energy so we can still have that lifestyle without the negative consequences of burning fossil fuels. These are not limited to greenhouse gases. Over 2.4million people die every year from causes directly attributable to air pollution.





The video attacks regulations. Regulations are put in place for a good reason. To stop people or companies from doing things that harm others or the environment. News for you; we all live in the same environment! Obviously regulations should be well thought out and efficiently enforced but to say that they should be done away with so that profit can be made is short sighted and dangerous. The free market is good. Capitalism is good, but unbridled capitalism is as bad or worse than any other 'ism you wish to mention.

Protecting other species is of the utmost importance. When species go extinct it is a clear sign that something is wrong. Again, we live in the same environment as they do. Always better to ere on the side if caution than steamroll ahead with no regard to other species. Teddy Roosevelt, a conservative, created the National Park system.

Calling the environmental movement a suicide pact is ridiculous. Not doing what we can to protect the environment is sure suicide. Believing anything else is willful ignorance.

I have included some links to recent articles that show the effects of neglecting the environment. I strongly encourage you to read them. Maybe you will learn something. Having an open mind and accepting actual evidence is far more important that rigidly and blindly sticking to an ideology.

The Global Cooling Myth
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/

Global Warming Has Driven Europe's Mountain Plants to Migrate 2.7m Upwards in 7 Years
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/275046_Global_Warming_Has_Driven_Euro

Antarctica Ice Melting Caused By Warm Water From Below, Study Claims
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/antarctica-ice-melting-study_n_1453179.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

State of Flux Images of Change
http://climate.nasa.gov/sof/#Icemelt_Alaska13.jpg

Fracking in Ohio
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/hhenderson/fracking_in_ohio.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+switchboard_all+%28Switchboard%3A+Blogs+from+NRDC%27s+Environmental+Experts%29

Oh, and for those interested, here are the definitions of liberal and progressive.

Liberal:

a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Progressive:

1. Moving forward; advancing.

2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.

3. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.

from TheFreeDictionary.com

Titanic - 100 Years

On April 14th, 1912 at 11:40pm the RMS Titanic struck an iceberg. At 2:20am on April 15th Titanic sank beneath the water claiming the lives of 1,517 people.

The story of the Titanic is one that has captivated people for 100 years. But why. It was far from the worst maritime disaster. It was just before the start of WWI in which millions lost their lives. It is one of those stories that if it was fiction would seem to good.

Titanic was the second of the Olympic class ships to be built. Olympic and Titanic were essentially the same size although Titanic was heavier, thus making it the largest ship in the world at that time. It was also one of the most technologically advanced ships with water tight compartments and remotely operated water tight doors. Many considered her unsinkable.

Titanic was also the height of luxury. It had restaurants, libraries, a gym and a swimming pool. The passenger list included some of the richest people in the world and high society.

The fact that this was Titanic's maiden voyage also adds to the story.

Titanic departed Southampton on April 10th, 1912. It picked up more passengers in Cherbourg, France then began it's trans-Atlantic crossing. Four days later tragedy struck.

The night of April 14, 1912 was clear and calm. There was no moon but the stars were described as brilliant. Lookouts said that the horizon was soft. It is very possible that the temperatures on that night led to some mirage lensing of the horizon making it difficult to see and almost impossible to see an iceberg.

Because the night was "clear" the Titanic was running fast. When they saw the iceberg there was very little time to react. The ship took a glancing blow on it's starboard side. Water began flooding into the ship. Five of the first water tight compartments were taking on water. The ship could stay afloat with the first four compartment flooded but not five. Additionally, as the bow went down the water began to overflow each of the water tight compartments. The ship would sink.

While Titanic had more lifeboats than were required by law, there were still only enough for half of the people on board. Many of those lifeboats were not even fully loaded when they left the ship. Almost all of the survivors were the people in those lifeboats. Only 13 of the people that went into the water survived. The water was cold and most succumb to hypothermia within minutes. Of course many actually went down with the ship to a watery grave at the bottom of the ocean.

It took just over two and a half hours for Titanic to sink. It was almost another two hours until RMS Carpathia arrived to pick up survivors. Only 710 people survived.

It is an amazing story of technology, nature and human tragedy.

A few other interesting facts:

The ship the Californian was close enough to Titanic to have been able to assist in rescuing people but did not come to its aid. They likely saw the Titanic but did not realize that that is what they were looking at.


Stewardess and nurse, Violet Jessop survived the sinking of Titanic and her sister ship Britannic as well as being on board the Olympic when it collided with a navy ship.


In James Cameron's movie, Titanic, the ship strikes the iceberg at the 1 hour 40 minute mark. If you are going to see the rerelease 3D version in a theatre tonight (April 12, 2012) and you go to a 10pm showing, the on screen ship will hit the iceberg at the same time that the actual Titanic did 100 years ago.

War On Stay At Home Moms... I Think Not

Two days ago during a discussion on CNN about why the presumed Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney doesn't connect with women, Hilary Rosen made the following comments:

On the economy, I think that Mitt Romney's right that ultimately women care more about the economic well being of their family and the like. But he doesn't connect on that issue either. What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, "well you know my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing."

Guess what, his wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school and why we worry about their future. So I think it's, yes it's about these positions and yes, I think there will be a war of words about the positions, but there's something much more fundamental about Mitt Romney. He seems so old fashioned when it comes to women and I think that comes across and I think that's going to hurt him over the long term. He just doesn't really see us as equal.

Video




Almost immediately after this piece aired, a firestorm of responses lit up, first on social media and then in TV, radio and print. People accused Hilary Rosen of attacking stay at home moms, that she doesn't think that raising children is work and that "liberals" and "progressives" hate the fact that some women make the choice to stay home and raise their kids.

Now before I go any further, I want to make it clear that I have the utmost respect for parents, mothers and fathers. Raising kids is not easy. I don't imagine it was easy for my parents and I know it isn't easy for my brother and his girlfriend who are raising a daughter and son. I don't have kids of my own, but am very involved with my niece and in the past worked at a childcare centre. So I know it is hard work. And worth it.

What got me so angry over this issue is the willful ignorance displayed by those attacking Hilary Rosen (who by the way has adopted twins). If you read or listen to what she said, she is in no way attacking stay at home moms. Any reasonable person would understand what she is saying in the context that she said it.

Unfortunately, in this insane partisan world and with the United States in campaign mode (when isn't it?), reasonable and intelligent people seem hard to find.

The attacks came fast and furious. Some of the first that I saw came from conservative blogger and political commentator, Michelle Malkin @michellemalkin . This woman spews the most vile hateful things at people she doesn't agree with. Here are a few of her tweets on the subject:

Wow @hilaryr doesn't know when to stop digging. Just put down the shovel. #waronconservativewomen

Funny, we never hear @hilaryr caviling about 1%ers @NancyPelosi @ariannahuff & THeinzKerry pretending to identify w/working moms' struggles

Just posted-- The Left’s war on conservative women: We’re damned if we do stay home, and damned if we don’t http://is.gd/rSg7cB

.@AnnDRomney joins Twitter to respond to radical feminist attack; @HilaryR digs in, @DavidAxelrod flees http://is.gd/NMXOoI

Her tirade continued for the next two days and likely beyond.

As you can see from the last tweet I posted, Ann Romney (wife of Mitt Romney) joined twitter that night to respond.

This is what she said:

 

 

I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work.

And like I said, I agree, it is hard work. However, she is not responding to some radical feminist attack. There was no attack on the fact that she is a mother.

 

 

The point was clearly, that for Mitt to look to his wife to tell him what is important to the average American woman, that is ridiculous. Neither he nor Ann have ever had to worry about money. Ann says that she made the "choice" to stay home. Good for her. The problem is that most American women (or men for that matter) do not have the luxury of being able to make that choice. Most probably would if they could. Unfortunately they have to work just to make ends meet while at the same time raising their kids.

 

 

Hilary Rosen was also hit upon be people on the left. They were mostly just trying to distance themselves from any controversy. Those trying to distance themselves included both President Obama and Michelle Obama. The thing is, there should have been no controversy to distance ones self from!

 

 

A couple more points.

 

 

Hilary was criticised for implying that raising kids isn't work. She did not say that. She used the word "work" in the way that everybody typically does to describe being employed, running a business or any other thing that gives you an income. We all know and agree that raising kids is work but not in the sense that was meant in her comments.

 

 

Others have criticised Hilary for attacking the wife of a candidate. Family should be off limits they say. I whole heartedly agree, except if a family member is actively involved in such a campaign or used to justify a position that a candidate has. In that case they are fair game.

 

 

This whole thing is as others have put it, faux outrage. I am outraged at the deliberate way people have chosen to misrepresent Hilary's comments. It is a sad state for humanity when there is such ignorance and worse willful ignorance out there.

 

 

Hilary did apologize for her comments. This is what she said on twitter:

 

 

I deeply apologize again to work-in-home moms, Mrs Romney & the POTUS. Not going on #MTP this weekend. I'm going to be a mom who stays home

 

 

She shouldn't have. She said nothing wrong. Perhaps she is the bigger person for doing it.

Theocracy In America

Recently I entered a video called "Theocracy in America" into a contest sponsored by The Richard Dawkins Foundation For Reason and Science. The video was to take a look at the growing desire of some in the United States to make America a theocracy, ignoring the Constitution and the separation of church and state.

I thought, since it is still a relevant topic given the tone of the Republican Presidential nomination race, that I would post it here for you to watch and read. There is a little more content in the script than in the final video.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The United States constitution and the subsequent Bill of Rights are not only important documents for America, but have had a great influence around the world.

One of the great achievements of America's founding fathers was that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”: the founding fathers wisely established a separation of church and state. Despite what some in America(an alarmingly large some) choose to believe, This is clear not only from the wording but also from the words of its authors themselves.

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

- Thomas Jefferson

"An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against......Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance........religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government."

- James Madison

"I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution."

-George Washington

The founders of the United States were creating a secular society based on reason. A society where people were free to have faith in any god, if they so chose, or no god, without any interference from the government. There would be a separation of church and state.

Over 200 years later, one could be forgiven for assuming that the United States would now be the shining example of a secular society. But that is not the case. America has in many ways become a more fundamental religious society. Religious groups (lets be honest, Christian groups) have warped the ideas of the founding fathers and increasingly we see the wall of separation between church and state being eroded. America is, as Sean Faircloth put it, under Attack of the Theocrats.

"I believe that God wants me to be president."

- George W. Bush

"Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests."

- Mitt Romney

"The first job we have as Americans is to reach out to everybody in the country who is not yet saved, and to help them understand the spiritual basis of a creator-endowed society."

- Newt Gingrich

"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

- George H. W. Bush

"I think it's time for us to just hand it over to God and say, “God, You're going to have to fix this.” ... I think it's time for us to use our wisdom and our influence and really put it in God's hands. That's what I'm going to do, and I hope you'll join me."

- Rick Perry

"God will wash this nation with blood if he has to."

- Glenn Beck

"Within the covers of the Bible are all the answers for all the problems men face."

- Ronald Reagan


"The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical."

- Rick Santorum

"I think we should keep this clean, keep it simple, go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant. They're quite clear that we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the Ten Commandments. It's pretty simple."

- Sarah Palin


"We need common-sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God."

- George W Bush

These are all people that have been or are in political power or who's views have influence over a large number of Americans.

Many of them continue to beat the drum, incorrectly, that the founding fathers of the United States based the constitution and the bill of rights on Christian values and the ten commandments. This is blatantly untrue.

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."

- James Madison


"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

- Thomas Jefferson

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."

- Ben Franklin

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."

- James Madison

And other more recent leaders, many who would be considered conservative, agree.

"To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular church, or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any church, is an outrage against that liberty of conscience which is one of the foundations of American Life."

- Theodore Roosevelt

"The great decisions of government cannot be dictated by the concerns of religious factions... We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn't stop now. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic."

• Barry Goldwater

Since its founding, the United States has had a great influence around the world. People everywhere look to it for guidance. So when the values, the secular and free values, change to be exclusive and based on the ideology of one religion, it worries the rest of the world.

Perhaps it is easier to see when you live outside of America. When you can see the way the political tone in the U.S. Is making its way into other countries.

When you see religious extremism in other countries react in violent ways to policies of the United States that appear to be based on religion.

If even one American soldier occupying a Muslim country is allowed to have Christian prayers inscribed on their guns, it gives the appearance of a religious crusade.

When you see religious groups denying science and insisting that creationism be taught in schools, it makes you worry about the education of future generations.

It is worrying when you see a state governor resort to praying to the supernatural for rain to end a drought while denying climate science.

When children are denied medical treatments because the religion of their parents forbids it, you worry.

The same when you see people discriminated against because of their sexual orientation because someones religion says its okay.

All of this worries the rest of the world and it should worry America.

If you believe in a free secular society that is based on reason, facts and science and not religion, hucksterism and bigotry, then I encourage you to think about these things. Get involved, talk to people. Talk to politicians. Let them know what is important to you. Lets hope that we can return to the brilliant guiding principles that inspired the writers of the Constitution of the United States.

An Early Spring Hike

I do enjoy a good hike. This hike took place on April 7th, 2012 on a very nice early spring day.

I hike in the Rouge Park a lot. So much that I know the place like the back of my hand, or perhaps even better. Although I hadn't been for a hike there in a couple of months. But a bright, sunny and warm spring day is to enticing to pass up. So off I went for a short hike in the Rouge Park.

For those of you that do not know, the Rouge Park is the largest urban park in the world. It is an area of natural space on the Eastern border of Toronto and Pickering. It naturally follows the watercourse of the Rouge and the Little Rouge Rivers. It is also going to be the first urban National Park. The park is home to 762 plant species, 225 bird species, 55 fish species, 27 mammal species, and 19 reptile and amphibian species.

The hike that I took started at the Rouge Park campground along Highway 2. From there a trail runs through wooded meadows, then up onto a forested ridge and then down to follow the river. It loops back to the campground. It is a fairly easy hike with only a few steep sections. It really shouldn't be a problem for most people to do. In wet weather or winter it can be more of a challenge. I would recommend this trail to anyone visiting the park for the first time.

This day, I decided to document my hike on video (which you can see below). As on any nice day you will run into many other people enjoying the trail. There are sections that have been closed off due to erosion or because areas are being allowed to naturally regenerate. It is a good idea to respect these closures. For the most part, people do respect the park when they visit, although unfortunately I do often see people doing destructive things. Remember that this is a natural area that while there for your enjoyment is also there to be protected. Do not pick plants or catch wildlife. I do see people harvesting fiddle heads and catching crayfish for food. While these might be good to eat, the park cannot sustain constant pillaging of its resources. Also remember that the trails are there for you to hike on. The are not meant for mountain biking. Mountain biking is fun, but the bike severely damage the trails especially when it is wet. The tires create huge areas of mud forcing people to go around thus widening the trail and damaging the local environment.

So enjoy the park, but please respect it.


VIDEO:
A Spring Hike in the Rouge Park
(Warning: Video contains course language)

I Unfriended Someone

Yesterday, I did something that I had only done maybe once before. I unfriended someone on Facebook. The previous time I had unfriended someone was because they were just always posting chauvinistic and sexist stuff, and it got irritating.

But this time it was someone that, for apparently ideological reasons, kept attacking me personally. Now I don't friend or unfriend at a whim, so this was a big deal for me.

Let me tell you the story...

There is a man, I'll call him Gordan, to protect his real identity. I had met him a few years ago to discuss the possibility of producing some video for an event he was arranging. Nothing came of it. Later he requested to be a friend on Facebook. No problem, as it is a great way to keep in touch with people and network.

I heard very little from Gordan until fairly recently, I would say over the last six months. He commented on a link I had posted to a story in the news. He obviously has very strong ideological opinions about things and his comment turned into a mini debate (although I hesitate to call it a debate). He made some sort of comment calling me radical and extreme. It became clear that he really didn't know what he was talking about. I asked if he had read the article that I had posted. He said, "No". I ask you, how can you debate something without having read what we are debating about. I let it go.
But the same thing happened on a few more occassions. Again, Gordan would comment on a link I had posted and start a debate without actually reading the article. I had been called extreme, radical and now Big Brother (BB). Although his definition of Big Brother is really bizarre.

Anyway this all culminated last night. I had posted a link to an article about the sad state of afairs at NASA. NASA, due to budget cuts is abandoning certain robotic Mars missions and is suffering in other areas as well. Now I believe that pushing the boundaries of science and exploration is an extremely important endeavor for the human race, and that is what NASA does very well, benefitting all of humanity.
"NASA is a force of nature on the hearts and minds of a nation." - Neil deGrasse Tyson

Gordan commented on this post as well. Now I would be happy to debate the merits of science, of exploration, and of NASA. No problem. People are welcome to have different views. But as usual this thread of comments was far from a debate. It again was a bizarre personal attack on me and my views. It began with him commenting that if I think it is important then I should fund NASA. I told him that that was ridiculous. And that as a government agency, it does not accept donations.

This is what followed. I ask that anyone reading this let me know what they think of it. I like to think that I am a reasonable, rational person. In my view, Gordan, was rambling all over the place. I am curious to know if I am wrong or right on this. And so here is the conversation...

14 hours ago

GORDAN

so fund rasing is out then for you?

BEN

it is not bad to raise funds, but it is an important government organization that deserves to be properly funded

GORDAN

well, fund it then

BEN

the government is, they need to give it more

GORDAN

why

BEN

there is very little that is more important than expanding the frontiers of science

GORDAN

so fund it then

BEN

the government IS, they need to give it more

GORDAN

why dont you fund it with your own money if you believe so much in it

BEN

don't be a dumb ass (I admit this comment was out of frustration, but I was not calling him a dumb ass, just not to act like one)

What would you do?

GORDAN

Your calling me a dumb ass because I think you should give money to things that you believe in?

BEN

Obviously no individual can fund something like NASA

GORDAN

and by the way,, have I ever used that kind of language with you? Have I ever called you a dumb ass?So, what are you gonna do about it then if you believe in NASA?

Why not get others involved in Raising money for NASA if you believe in it so much

Ben, are you typing using only two fingers?

Well Ben, I can't wait for you to post.. Gotta Go. I do think that if you believe in somthing so much that you should help it financially. Its only fair to do that if you really believe in it.

BEN

You have accused me of being a radical, big brother, extreme etc.

And complaining about my typing.

There are certain government programs that are important. There are probably some that are important to you but have no meaning to me. Everyone benefits from science and exploration, and throughout the history of exploration, all of the big things have been done by government funding first.

I wish you wouldn't just talk in circles.

GORDAN

Its seems that you do type slow

BEN

By the way, if I had the money I would love to fund something like NASA

GORDAN

I am not talking in circles. I do know that big projects cost money. So, if you believe in a Big Project ,, then dont you think that you should help financially?

Well, your a smart person.. Raise some

BEN

If I was an American, I would be through my taxes

GORDAN

What did you give to NASA last year?

But your not American

Why should Americans Pay for it and not you?

You said its important for you

BEN

It is an American agency

GORDAN

So

BEN

It is important to the world

GORDAN

Well , Shoot them some of your money

BEN

I would if I had some. What the hell is your agenda?

GORDAN

Send them 1000 bucks then

BEN

Do you like to just provoke people?

I don't have the money

GORDAN

sent them 10 bucks then

you have 10 bucks dont you?

BEN

What is it that you want?

GORDAN

nothing ,, I just suggested that you put up some money to assist NASA if you believe in it so much your a bright man.. go make some money.. give some of it to NASA

BEN

And I said I would if I had it, and if there was a way to do so. They need more than the average person can donate. They need long term steady funding and that comes from the government.

GORDAN

Can you send them 10 bucks?

BEN

No

Nowhere to send it

GORDAN

Do you want me to find out where you should send your 10 bucks to in NASA?

I have an idea for you

BEN

No, you are just being silly. Do you not think that science, exploration and pushing the frontiers are important?

GORDAN

I have an idea for you

My home show is coming up.. I will give you a job at it for 2 days..

I will pay you 120 bucks a day

why dont you keep 120 and send 120 to NASA?

BEN

You hire me to produce a video for the home show, and if there is a place to donate to NASA, I will donate 20% to it.

GORDAN

Why dont you do it for Free?

Do one for NASA

BEN

Video is my business. I am not a charity. I need to eat.

GORDAN

well, I will pay you 240 for 2 days.. you will work for me at my home show. you keep 80 percent and give NASA 20 percent

BEN

I do video work.

Don't want to do anything else. (do you think I should accept a job from someone like this?)

GORDAN

Does that mean you cant do any other kind of work?

ohh, well then,, send NASA 1 dollar

you can afford a dollar no?

BEN

You should have a video to promote or at least archive the show.(I figured if he really wanted to hire me then at least he could hire me to produce a video)

GORDAN

why? I dont want one

are you telling me how I should spend my money for my show?

BEN

Oh god.(frustration) No.

GORDAN

I dont feel I need that,, I feel that I need a general laborour to work for 2 days.

you can do it.. I know you can

AND,, you can keep 80 percent,, and send NASA 20 percent

Ben,, I wont twist your arm.. either you will do it or youwont

BEN

No. And you didn't answer my previous question (as usual) (If I ever asked a question related to the original topic or a followup question, he would never answer)

GORDAN

Ben,, I cant take you seriously if you dont send money for things you believe in..

BEN

Avoidance again

GORDAN

(I had in previous conversations, asked him to define Big Brother or BB)

BB ' s are people who want to spend other peoples money.. to have other people put forth effort for things THEY believe in ,, all the while NOT giving anything of their own. ,, you havent even sent in one fucking dollar to this thing you believe in and your asking me if its important?,, That doesnt make any fucking sense to me. ... If I asked you to put in some money for somthing that I believed in and you asked me ,, what did I send it, ,and I said ,, ,nothing.. WTF.. not even a nickle?.. are you kidding?Your the one avoiding.. not me.. I give to the things I believe in.

I also dont ask others to put in money If I dont

I beleive that to be retarted

This is why I dont believe in you

If you just told me that you would send in 10 fucking bucks
but no.. you wont even do that?

not even a nickle

dont you think thats embarrasing

Be a Man,, gut it up, ,and assist what you believe in

fuck,, do somthing

BEN

You have no clue what I do or do not give money to. You can donate to things that accept donations. NASA doesn't as far as I know.

Some people don't have the money to donate to things.

GORDAN

what did you give money to this past year?

Well make some,, your bright

get off your ass,, I told you I would give you a job for 2 days so you could send in your 20 percent,, and you wont even do that

BEN

Why should I tell you. It is non of your business.

GORDAN

sure sure

BB

OK Ben,, Your a non performer

your wasting my time (I'm wasting his time?! Remember, he is the one that initiated this conversation)your all talk and no action

BEN

By the way Big Brother, refers to an overseeing government or entity that peers into all aspects of people lives and controls what they do.

You have no clue. (I am geting a little more than annoyed)

GORDAN

OK BEN,, here is one.. you come up with Twenty bucks,, I will match it,, THEN ,, we can both send it to NASA.. will you do that?

BEN

What is important to you?

GORDAN

me offering to match your twenty

thats important to me

do we have a deal

BEN

No. I will not be bullied into doing anything. That is big brother

GORDAN

bullied?

Your a slug

BEN

Really, what issues are important to you?

GORDAN

nite ben

I offered you a job

no

I asked you to send in 10 bucks

no

I offered to match you 20 bucks if you came up with it,, but you still say no

and I am a bully?

your a sllug

you gotta be kidding

I offered you 20 bucks for somthing that YOU believe in and you said no

because I asked you to match it

BEN

Listen, you take an issue and you turn it around into a personal attack that has nothing to do with the issue. It would be great to debate someone on the merits of an issue.

GORDAN

are you going to come up with 20 ?

waiting

BEN

No! Because the only reason to do so at this point is because you want me to. Are you willing to debate an actual issue?

GORDAN

I dont debate with people who have no skin in the game

BEN

You seemingly don't debate at all.

GORDAN

you put up 20,, I will match it,, then we can debate..

Ben,, your the one who says you believe in NASA

BEN

I really don't understand because you were the one to comment on my post.

GORDAN

so, no to the twenty then?

BEN

Then lets debate the merits of NASA

GORDAN

Ben,, tell all your friends this,, GORDAN offered to match your twenty bucks and both of us to send it to NASA.. GORDAN said,, he cant take you seriously that you believe in somthjing if you dont put in some money of your own,, on your own volition.
Ask them ,, If what I offered was fair.. more than fair.

BEN

The offer was pointless. There is no way to donate to NASA.

GORDAN

nite BB

I immediately unfriended GORDAN

So there it is. I would really like some feedback. What would you have done? Was I unreasonable? Was I insulting?