anyways bob and logan have a post to gather votes on the best rated 'r' movies. i, being unoriginal, am going to do the same. here are my votes
fight club
braveheart
dark city
memento
matrix
donnie darko
the passion of the christ
band of brothers (un-rated, but would have been 'r')
black hawk down
seven
send in your votes for your 10 favorite rated 'r' movies(even if you don't watch them anymore...maggie)
ok, a tale of two cities just bored me too much. the story was getting better, but it just dragged on. does dickens need to waste so much of my time to get so little through? maybe i'll finish it another day. i don't always have a long time to read. when i have the time, i wanna feel like i made some headway into whatever i'm reading.
next up is choke by my favorite author, chuck palahniuk
don't go see the village... unless, of course, you like wasting your money.
the idea is great, the concept incredible. i loved shyamalan’s movies (sixth sense, unbreakable, signs) because of the dual layers to them. the underlying story for the village is great, but the main overlaying story is just too predictable and far-fetched. i kept waiting for something to redeem the movie but nothing did. within the first minutes, i had it all figured out and spent the rest of the movie hoping i was at least partly wrong. their puritan way of taking seemed forced... and pray tell how a blind girl can run all over the terrain without tripping over anything. 'tis best to spend your money elsewhere.
...like napoleon dynamite...yay!
when my blogging gets boring... i change personalities.
things got pretty boring here when i went back to being loyd. maybe things will pick up and i'll start getting comments again.
having to wear white.
hair and/or dress can't float up.
exact word for word reptition.
that's all that i can think of off the top of my head right now. are these things absolutely necessary for baptisms, or are they things we do by tradition and symbolism? if it is necessary, does that mean that if the witnesses miss one of the above, that the baptized person's rite was insufficient and invalid?
what about the word-for-word repetition? i know christ said to say those words in third nephi and that oliver cowdery used third nephi for the basis of d&c 20, but did jesus mean it 'word-for-word'? also, jesus wasn't saying those words recorded in the book of mormon, that's just joseph smith's translation of what he said. and then what about missionaries in foreign countries. who decided which translation is the proper word-for-word usage for baptism?
well my last paper ended up getting a c+. as crappy as it is, the highest grade given to my class was a b-, i and another got a c+, the rest were c's, c-'s, and a d+.
if i do better on my next paper, he'll apply that grade to this paper. i still gotta figur what it'll be on. i'm thinking prolly something to do with crusades and jihads or perhaps something to deal with pacifism in some eastern religous thought... or maybe i can go the mormon route again.
next up is kant: a very short introduction which i have to read (along with kant's prolegamena) before the next semester to get into phil 4140 history of analytical philosophy . it's a small book, but the print is really really tiny so it'll still be a long read. war is a force that gives us meaning was an awesome book that everyone should read. it really showed the disgusting and damning reality of war. i'm still reading a tale of two cities, but i may stop and finish it later. it's a great book, but it drags on at times.
just got back from club vortex with some friends. unfortunately, my camera's batteries died so i didn't get any pics. had a great time though. gotta get to bed so i can be up for bishopric meeting at 8:30... yay....
yeah, i supported the idea of invading iraq last year. i never really bought into the whole wmd idea. the reason why we went into iraq was to take out saddam. wmd's were just an exuse to go in. the real reason was to take saddam out. looking back (with much clearer hindsight), we should have never gone in. too late now.
so should we pull out our troops now? we've already created a pretty big mess. if we leave now, iraq is going to be left in a pretty cruddy state, which will prolly just lead to bigger problems (though, without saddam, they at least now have a chance for a better nation.) if we stay, well, things might not get all that better. they live in a different world out there. they are not like us. i know this sounds prejudice, but they are uncivilized out there (by our standards). everyone is crying about the treatment and torture of iraqi prisoners, but the actions of these few soldiers is very different from actions of large civilian mobs in iraq.
no matter what, iraq is going to be a rotten place to live. the only way iraq can be helped is if the entire middle east changes... and that's just not going to happen. i think it's time to pull out.
here are some other reasons to pull out.
and these too
go see napoleon dynamite. i went and saw this movie and totally loved it. the audience was all cheering and clapping when it was over. napoleon is my new hero.
just finished watching fahrenheit 9/11. it's pretty interesting, but seems too more like anti-bush propaganda than a real documentary. while still undecided, i've been leaning more and more against the war in iraq and this pushed me more in that direction, though i don't really buy moore's view on why bush's reasons for attacking iraq. i found a site critiquing the film, but have only checked it out a little. like anything of this sort, the only way to get the full picture is to see both sides.
speaking of war.. i finished reflections on mormonism...well that book had nothing to do with war, but the new book that i'll be reading now is. i've gotta read it for my integrated studies course. war is a force that gives us meaning is supposed to be about man's need and desire for war to give him identity... or something like that
i finally finished my paper last night for my integrated studies class... it could have been much better if i hadn't procrastinated it as i do all my work. here it is...
towards a mormon environmental ethic
yeah, that include you bobby. how many times do i have to ask these guys to do a little cleaning up after themselves??? sheesh. i know i'm not the best at it, but i at least do it every now and then. it's embarrassing having people over.
some new goals (in no particular order of importance)
1. be in bed by 12:30
2. no more drinks from the soda machine
3. no more fast food
4. no eating past 9
5. up by 7:30 for scripture study
a girl who can be somewhat consistent for a few days... geez... i'll even settle for two days in a row.
jk... we all know girls like that don't exist
well.. my professor was cool with me doing my presentation on wednesday (which i just finished doing). i was up till 4:30 this morning working on it, which was mostly because i was studying for a biology exam until 2 am. i should hopefully have a rough draft of the paper finished by friday. the final paper is due monday.
First Presidency Issues Statement on Marriage
7 July 2004
The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued the following statement today. This is a statement of principle in anticipation of the expected debate over same-gender marriage. It is not an endorsement of any specific amendment.
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints favors a constitutional amendment preserving marriage as the lawful union of a man and a woman."
......................................
okay.. now i know this is in reference to gay-marriages, but (as has been pointed out in other blogs) this is also statement that supports an amendment that would ban polygamous marriages (a man and a woman). how can the church do that??? in the late 19th century we (mormons)were crying and protesting that we had the right to have plural-wives, and now we are trying to take that right away from others?
for my intro to integrated studies class, i'm writing a 10 page paper on mormon environmental ethics. i'm supposed to have all of my research finished for a presentation in my class tomorrow, but i can't get my stupid gospelink program to work. luckily, most of my paper is philosophical and the research is mostly a basis for the philosophy. hopefully, my professor will be understanding and will let me hold off 'til wednesday
i finally sat through and watched the book of mormon movie. simply put, this movie sucks. the acting is lousy and terrible at times. the script is pathetic. the settings, effects, and costumes just look fake. the directing seems like the directing from a ward youth play. it's unfortunate that the movie was made.
i guess you have to give them credit for giving it a try, but not too much credit.
luckily(?), another movie based on the book of mormon is in pre-production. a voice from the dust: journey to the promise land will actually have a decent budget and professionals to make it.
in other mormon movie news, saints and soldiers was able to get it's appeal for a pg-13 rating and will finally get releases in august. i've seen a screening of this one and loved it.
i'm still here. still alive and kicking, just been pretty busy. i've got a new goal to get more sleep, so maybe now i'll feel like writing more. of course, this won't be the firs time i've said this.
finished the lord of the rings and philosophy. it had some interesting essays, but i didn't like it as much as the matrix and simpson philosophy books. next up is an old out-of-print book i finally found at the used book store, reflections of mormonism: judeo-christian parallels. edited by truman madsen, this book is a collection of writings by non-lds christan and jewish scholars and some of their musings on things mormon.
