Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Ben Stein explores academia’s hostility towards Intelligent Design

I decided that it was time to see a documentary for my next review, so I took a trip to the Redbox and rented Ben Stein’s new work Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The film is narrated and documented completely by Ben Stein. He explores the foundations of intelligent design, misconceptions in Darwinist Theory that are taught in schools, and the overall hostility the academic world has towards even the slightest exploration of intelligent design.

There were several points the film presented. Stein is an obvious proponent of intelligent design, and throughout the course of the film, tries to have staunch opponents of intelligent design, such as Richard Dawkins, prove that intelligent design must be wrong. Obviously, none of these self-proclaimed atheists can prove that the theory must be incorrect. Stein also interviews several academics who claim to have been fired or not been given tenure due to their beliefs of intelligent design or even just begging the question of the issue. Stein wants to know why the idea is just completely thrown away in most aspects of the academic world without even a little exploration.

I believe Mr Stein achieved many of his goals in the film. First, it contrasts Intelligent Design from Literal Biblical Analysis, which it is often misconstrued to be. Second, he shows that there is a definite absence of freedom of thought in the academic world that is potentially poisoning to learning environments. Third, he shows how unreasonable some of the staunch academic atheists like Mr Dawkins can be on this issue and that they really have no reason to completely dismiss these ideas as irretrievably wrong.

Contrarily, I thing this film may have been a little too ambitious. I would’ve liked to have heard more about one of the points he made – the connection between Darwinism and Nazism. His argument on this topic was much weaker than some of the others, and don’t think that it had to be; he seemed to be on to something, and I think it would’ve been a potentially scandalous connection – and I love drama.

It is a shame that because this movie has a conservative flavor, it will be outright rejected by the Hollywood elite, and, as such, not up for any kind of reward; this film did not appear on the short list the Academy recently released for potential nominees for Best Documentary Feature. That’s a shocker!

Despite not being the most organized documentary I’ve seen, it was certainly interesting, and Ben Stein’s dry monotonous humor never seizes to amaze me. As such, I give it a B+.

Electoral College Prediction

This is a very different prediction than what the polls show.
My explanation?

North Carolina and Virginia will very heavily experience the 'Wilder Effect'.
Florida is Republican when push comes to shove.
The same can be said about Missouri, at least in Presidential elections.
Ohio could go Democrat, but I doubt it. Social conservatives will vote where their conscience tells them to.
Nevada has too many Mormons. They vote for Harry Reid because he is a Mormon. Obama is not.

None of this matters, however, because I am fairly comfortable that Obama will win Colorado, making the election:

Obama - 273
McCain - 265

And that's the best case scenario I can calculate for Senator McCain. I'm looking for a place to weep on Election Day.

Election 2008 - The Prelude

John McCain or Barack Obama? Americans will soon be making that decision at the ballot. All elections are important. We will be electing the first new president in the post 9-11 America. What's going to happen? What does this mean for America?

I generally refer to myself as a Republican, but this is a very broad generalization. In actuality, I am an Independent, but I could probably be placed within the confines of four boundaries: Traditional American Conservative, Libertarian, Centrist, and Republican Populist. Obviously, my ideology aligns with Senator McCain much more closely than Senator Obama. As such, I will be casting a ballot for him in a few weeks' time. However, I think most republicans agree that this election is not ours to win.

I agree with most of the ideology the McCain campaign has been preaching. I agree with major cuts in government spending, eliminating pork spending, capital gains tax cuts (I prefer an elimination, but that's another story - the FairTax), finishing what we started in Iraq and Afghanistan, tapping into our energy sources AND investing in alternative sources of energy, and many other ideologies that fall comfortably into the GOP platform. I also hailed the selection of Governor Sarah Palin as Senator McCain's running mate; Governor Palin has been close to my heart since I donated to her gubernatorial campaign in 2006. In my eyes, she is the exact kind of person that is going to reform the Grand Ole Party.

Which brings me to my agenda. I personally have resigned the Presidential Race. I will cast my ballot, and hope Virginia stays Red, but my hopes are pretty much shattered. The Republican Party has acted like liberals for the second Bush term and completely failed its constituents that gave it the White House for a second term and a wider Congressional majority. Is George Bush to blame? Partly. But so is the current and past GOP leadership that ripped off the American taxpayers with wasteful pork barrel spending and other reckless endeavors. We deserved to lose in 2006. We deserve to lose this coming election. It is going to be a wakeup call for the GOP.

We will have two years to get our act together and start embracing the principles we preach. We need to cut wasteful spending. We need to cut taxes. We need to make it easier for small businesses to operate - and I am confident we can win that battle after Barack Obama's promised tax increases that will inevitably hurt small businesses. We need to drill for our own oil and stop subsidizing Arab nations. We need to plan for our future without oil. We need to eliminate the reckless programmes that have put our economy into financial dismay. These conservative principles is what wins elections. We are not embracing them. When we spend $700 billion to bailout Wall Street, lining the pockets of wealthy CEOs, we lose elections. When we let Congressional Nazis like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, and lonesharks like Franklin Raines get away with embezzlement, we lose elections. To top it all off, even when we have a presidential candidate that adheres, for the most part, to the principles that win elections, we do a crap job at making our voices heard, and we resign the election to the opposing party. Republicans don't know how to campaign, and we often don't know how to stay consistent.

For the next two years, I will be working on the following:

-Helping to expose the treacherous deeds of those who caused the financial crisis. I will expose people in both parties, and elaborate exactly who is to blame, and why.
-Campaigning against Congressional representatives who put their names on pork bills, no matter what party.
-Campaigning against the current GOP leadership in the Congress. I would love to see Mike Pence, Jeff Flake, Marsha Blackburn or other principled Republicans to take the Leadership positions in the house. Likewise, I would love to see Jon Kyl, Jim DeMint, or Tom Coburn take the same positions in the Senate.
-Grassroots work for the FairTax.

And, hopefully, by 2012, we will be ready to put up a viable candidate against future-President Barack Obama. Ideas? Mike Huckabee. Sarah Palin. Mike Pence. Rudy Giuliani. (among others).

I will also be in prayer for the nation, and for the world. It took four years of Carter to bring Reagan to the White House. Let's just hope four years of Obama is not going to be even more tragic.

Trayless Programme

In a further effort to raise the Environmental-friendly rating of the College, the Sadler Center Cafeteria will soon go trayless, this following the removal of trays in the Commons Dining Hall last spring. The Green fees that we voted for were bad enough. With a $200 000 endowment to help us become greener, we’re now theoretically cutting spending in our cafeterias by going trayless. This is such a flawed argument in many ways. The Trayless program warrants the rise of students’ irritation levels, no doubt. But more than that, students need to know that they have been sold a bill of goods here. Why is this program a flawed effort?

Notice when you bring your used dishes to the conveyer belt to be washed. Water is constantly running, and it doesn’t slow down in light of fewer things to clean. It runs and runs, and now the water is no longer being optimized. If we are using the water, why not use it to clean trays. A driving theory behind the trayless program is that we will save on energy by washing fewer things. However, because the water is continuously running, we are still using the same amount of water. Unless we start turning the dishwashers off, there is no conceivable way that we are using a significantly lower portion of water.

Another argument that has been brought is that the trayless program reduces the amount of wasted food. Although a study showed that per pound, less food has been wasted, it still has not been enough to counter student frustration. Sophomore Joey Salvatore said, “It’s very irritating. I like to eat a lot, but now I can’t eat as much as I would like because I have to make multiple trips to get what I want. I don’t have an unlimited amount of time, so now I feel like I’m leaving my meals everyday still hungry”. I agree with Mr Salvatore. I also have to make multiple trips to get what I want, and even if I get all the food I want in one trip, I still have to put my food down before I get myself a drink. In a broad sense, I have to spend more time getting food and less time eating the highly nutritious Caf food. It’s a total waste of my time, and it is not fun. But that is just the tip of the iceburg.

One thing that has really irritated me is the amount of mess left on the tables and floors in the Caf due to the trayless initiative. Now that we don’t have trays on which to make a mess, we have the tables. Let’s all be honest – no one really cleans after themselves. I have yet to see a single student carry around a damp rag in order to clean their tables at the Caf. When I go to the Caf every day, there are plenty of tables available. Most of the unoccupied tables, however, are laden with old food and other messes. This presents a health hazard, as many germs can be spread inadvertently through saliva, which can come into contact with the tables. Sophomore Mariana Smith complained of the state of tables at the Caf, “I lose my appetite every time I sit down because the tables are so filthy.” With the recent school budget cut, we cannot afford to hire extra workers to make sure the tables are clean, and the Caf workers preparing and serving our food are too busy to abandon their work to clean the tables. The tables could be a lot cleaner if the trays were brought back, and then the dishwashers could clean our messes left on our trays. In short, becoming green runs the risk of becoming green around the gills. I choose my health over the environmental rating.

The effects of the trayless initiative are inconclusive. The goal of reducing water use and food waste has not been met. But, we now have water being used to clean nothing, a messy cafeteria, and students whose little time is being wasted. Unfortunately, all of this is about to spread to the UC Cafeteria. What can we expect? More water wasted, longer lines, messier cafeterias, a higher risk of catching other peoples’ germs, and the irritation of knowing that you are paying more in tuition for this swarming inconvenience. But, on the bright side, because we are supposedly going to be spending less on operating the cafeterias, I’m am certain that we will start to see a reduction in the price we pay in our tuition to go to the cafeterias. Or am I just wildly dreaming?

It is really a mystery to me why someone would see the logic, or, better yet, how someone wouldn’t see the irretrievable illogic in the trayless program. Going trayless isn’t going to turn our campus a brighter shade of green. In the words of Chuck Noblet, “You can’t unfry things…You can’t be something you’re not.”

Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist

“I never wash my pants. I like to keep the night on them.”

Although the playlist isn’t infinite, it’s still sufficient.

Admittedly, this is not the film I wished to review, but An America Carol wasn’t playing at Newtown, so I settled with Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist. This film was hyped up, mostly by my friends, but my expectations weren’t so high. I must say, however, that I was oddly impressed by what the film had to offer.
The film follows Nick, recently broken up with his girlfriend, and Norah, a friend of the girlfriend, who meet by coincidence. Both of them are searching the city for the secret venue of their favourite band. For the most part, the humor in this film depends on teen innuendos and toilet humor. It was lighthearted and easy to follow, and it felt nice to watch a film like that on the dawn of Oscar season, when all of the message-laden films will hit us.
There weren’t any major messages portrayed in this film. For the most part, it was a cute situational teen romance. It shows us what a good relationship is and what a bad relationship is, but it gives us such obvious distinctions between the two that there leaves no room for real life dilemma. However, I don’t think this movie was meant to be thought provoking. If it was, it failed miserably. The characters were, on the whole, presented in a light hearted manner, so there is no real strong inclination towards any set of them. With that being said, I doubt any of these characters will be remembered very well, nor do I think this film will be one that I constantly quote.
The cast was led by Michael Cera and Kat Dennings. I was impressed, after a great performance in Charlie Bartlett, with Dennings. She has a subtlety to her acting methods, down to the nuances in her facial expressions that really radiate a genuine character that we can all relate to. I think that we’re going to be seeing some great things from her. If only she would pick up a more serious script! I was far less impressed with Michael Cera’s performance. This film solidified my opinion that Michael Cera is only capable of playing one kind of character. If this is not the case, then he doesn’t have the heart to step up to a challenge and leave his comfort zone of the adorable awkward teenager. He better figure that out soon, because he isn’t getting any younger.
On the whole, this film left me feeling good. It wasn’t a thinker. This can be either good or bad on my rating scale. But, because I really had an overall positive opinion of this film, and would recommend it in six months or so for someone looking in the discount DVD bin, I will be generous. I give it a B.