I watched Rocky III for the first time in 1983. I was 4 years old. I watched Rocky III for the one hundredth time in 1983. I was 4 years old.

The Rocky series captured the drama potential that exists in the sport of boxing in a way that even a 4-year-old can appreciate. When you transition from the Hollywood into the real-world sport of boxing, however, the drama becomes much more subtle, and scarce. One has to be selective about the fights that he watches, lest he become engulfed in oceans of boring bouts between mediocre fighters. I generally only watch the fights that are broadcast on HBO. This is a form of personal quality control and it raises the likelihood of a fight being exciting from 1% up to about 35%. Still, it is seldom in real boxing to see the level of drama that the Rocky series conveyed.

Despite these low odds, I am still drawn to boxing for the potential of drama. I enjoy the thrill of seeing two undefeated champions go head to head (e.g. Oscar De La Hoya vs Felix Trinidad). I hope for my aging heroes to be able to turn back the clock, if only for a night, and reclaim their former form to defeat a younger rising star. Muhammad Ali’s defeat of a younger, stronger favorite George Foreman is one example of drama that exceeded the manufactured drama of Hollywood.

On Saturday night, Bernard Hopkins brought some more genuine drama to the Ring. At 43 years old it looked like he didn’t have much left to offer, based on his previous couple of fights in which he made his opponents look awkward but didn’t offer much offense himself. On Saturday, against middleweight champion Kelly Pavlik, however, he looked like a finely tuned and youthful boxing master. He completely schooled and dismantled Pavlik, leaving him in bewilderment of what had happened.

Prior to the fight Pavlik was undefeated, and was (and still is) a rising star in the sport. He had recorded two decisive victories over Jermain Taylor, who had defeated Hopkins twice a couple of years ago to take the middleweight title which Hopkins had held for a record ten years. Pavlik was a 4-to-1 favorite to beat Hopkins. The only question was whether he could knock Hopkins out. What actually happened was very different. Hopkins owned every round and, by about the fourth round, the question became whether Hopkins could knock Pavlik out.

Watching this fight reminded me of why I enjoy the sport of boxing. It can be seen as an allegory for life. You can watch a young prospect come of age, gain skill, face challenges and climb to the top of the proverbial mountain. Within a few short years, however, you are forced to watch this same prospect begin to diminish with age and be overtaken by the shadow of what he once was. But once in a while you get to witness a blazingly beautiful sunset to cap a great career and peel away the shadows that must ultimately prevail. I believe I watched such a sunset on Saturday with Hopkins’ brilliant performance.

I hope the sun never completely sets on Hopkins, but knowing that it must, I hope that it lasts at least a few more years.

Focus on the Family distributes bulletins that are handed out in many Churches across Canada and the United States. It contains small pieces of wisdom on Christian and family living. I was quite angered to find that they are abusing their trusted position in the minds of Christians to spread blatantly republican propaganda. The following story appeared in this week’s bulletin:

Before You Vote by Tom Minnery

You know you should vote, but how can you tell whether you’re voting for the best candidates? Here are some thoughts and questions to consider:

Separate principles from policies. Achieving noble goals like world peace or affordable housing requires how-to policies. Would the candidate’s policies likely increase the size of government? New programs usually mean higher taxes and more waste.

Does the candidate have a Christian world-view? Is he pro-life? Does she firmly support God’s definition of marriage? Does he believe that parents have ultimate say over what a child learns in school? A candidate’s positions on such issues are important.

Political parties matter but may not define a candidate. Sometimes a candidate takes a stand that his party does not. Some conservative Democrats were elected to Congress in 2006 by pledging to stop the wasteful practice of earmarks in the budget. But neither major party had the will to stop this.

…

It goes on, but I want to focus on these first three points to start.

Their first “thought to consider” (Separate principles from policies) is an underhanded way of scaring people away from the Democratic party.

New programs usually mean higher taxes and more waste

In plain English, this statement says that the Democratic party, if elected, will bankrupt the United States. This is a common form of fear mongering that Republicans have been using for years to scare the public away from Democrats.

So what does this recommendation have to do with Christianity? In fact it seems to fly in the face of teachings that we take care of the poor. Hence their first “thought to consider” is unrelated to Christianity, at best – at worst it is opposed to Christian doctrine.

The next thought speaks to the issues that should be important to a Christian (Does the candidate have a Christian world-view?). A good question to ask. But then they proceed to outline the important issues:

1. Gay marriage
2. Abortion
3. Teaching religion in school

Hmm… If this list were comprehensive, then it would be clear that a Christian should vote Republican. But it is not. What about issues such as caring for the poor, ending bloodshed abroad, health care, education, etc… . These issues are not mentioned because the Democrats are (at least arguably) stronger on these issues.

The last “thought” (Political parties matter but may not define a candidate) is meant to demonize Democrats who profess to be Christian. In plain English it reads: “Don’t be fooled by Democrats who claim to be Christian. They are just as evil as their Democratic contemporaries.”

At the end of the article, they have the gall to refer you to their website that is purportedly “non-partisan”, to help you make your voting decision.

This article is deceitful (claiming to be non-partisan), and shameful from an organization such as Focus on the Family. If its views truly represent the issues that are important to Christians, then Christianity is in trouble and in danger of becoming irrelevant. The heartfelt concern that a Christian has over the definition of marriage would be a little more credible if he shows the same concern over the horrors of poverty and inequity in society.

Based on this article, I conclude that Focus on the Family is a partisan political organization that caters to upper middle-class white people and uses its trusted position to disseminate its right-wing propaganda.

My Recent goal. Minimize the amount of infrastructure in building a small website (i.e only use static HTML pages), and still incorporate dynamic content such as news and events in the web page.

Feed2JS is an invaluable tool for achieving this (at least the news and events part). You can embed an RSS feed into your web page with a tiny bit of HTML code (a script tag). Likely this RSS feed would go to a blog of sorts (easy to set up on any service).

You now have a web page with updated news and events, but doesn’t require any infrastructure (e.g. database or scripts).

I have been following the American presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama with some interest, partly because I am interested to know what kind of a person will be in charge of our southern neighbour for the next few years. These are my impressions after having watched a debate and followed the campaigns of both candidates:

1. Hillary Clinton is quite happy to play the game of petty politics.
2. Barack Obama is a very strong speaker, and is quite good at avoiding the petty politics game.
3. Americans, by and large, seem to buy into petty politics.
4. Americans are VERY defensive about their country and do not tolerate criticism.

Let me elaborate on my impressions.

1. Hillary Clinton’s petty politics.

During the debate that I watched last week, she focused most of her energy into the following issues:
a. Obama’s connection to Pastor Jeremiah Wright, who made some controversial comments about 9/11.
b. Why doesn’t Obama wear an American flag? Doesn’t he love America?
c. Accusing Obama of being out of touch with the working man.
d. Characterizing herself as being from working stock because her grandfather had been a working man, etc…

Hence she didn’t really speak to any important issues. She focuses entirely on irrelevant little hot-button issues that are meant to get under people’s skin.

2. Barack Obama is a strong speaker:

Every attempt by Hillary Clinton to make Obama look bad on a petty issue was eloquently cast aside by pointing out the pettiness of the issue, while redirecting out attention to more important issues like the war, health care, and the economy.

3. Americans seem to buy into petty politics:

Despite the fact that Hillary is obviously playing petty political games, many in the American public seem to be buying into it. Who gives a damn whether Obama wears an American flag? Well I guess a lot of people do.

4. Americans are VERY defensive about their country

The comments of Rev. Wright have been blown way out of proportion. He suggested that the 9/11 attacks were some how brought on the US because of the US foreign policy. I cited many cases of US aggression that could have been causes of people “hating” America. His statements, in any other part of the world, were not controversial at all. Americans like to think that they have never done anything to the rest of the world and that they are completely innocent victims in the 9/11 attacks. Any talk to the contrary is met with calls of heresy. Get real, America!

I sincerely hope that there are enough intelligent Americans to see through the petty politics that Clinton is playing so that the election can be won or lost based on real issues – and not on petty politics.

I recently bought a mac mini to serve as a central server, backup manager. It sports an Intel core duo 1.83 GHz processor which runs about 2.5 times faster than the 1.67 GHz G4 processor in my powerbook. Well, now I can barely use my powerbook because I’ve gotten used to the speed of the mini. Hmph!

IBM is trying to patent the practice of giving customers free stuff while they wait:
http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/240588926/article.pl

Something has to be done about the sorry state of the US patent system. Just about anything can be patented, opening the doors for patent trolls to sit back and wait for someone to become successful, then sue for patent infringement.

The patent system used to be about protecting inventors from being robbed by big business. It has been perverted into a system that allows lawyers to rob inventors with the help of the almighty corporation.

I have been living in pain for the past 5 years or so. Recently it has gotten so bad that I can’t sleep, sit, or watch TV without feeling like there is a vice tightening around my rib cage.

Thankfully the last X-ray has allowed the Doctor to give me a tentative diagnosis. Apparently I have arthritis. Specifically, Ankylosing spondylitis. Read more about the condition on wikipedia.

The really good news is that the good doctor has prescribed some anti-inflammatory pills to get help stop the inflammation of my spine.

Wow! What a difference. When I’m on these meds, I’m like a new man. No back pain … for the first time in 5 years. No more limping, and crying out in agony whenever I need to roll over in bed.

Bring on the roller hockey. Bring on the football. Bring on .. whatever. I’m back!

Last night we filmed yet another Steve Hannah show. This filming went a little different than usual in that we got on to the subject of abortion and decided to ride the debate out for a while. This was different because it was very serious in contrast to the usual light but absurd view points usually expressed on the show.

One thesis that was proposed was that the Pro-choice lobby has effectively won the fight already by causing anyone who would defend an anti-abortion stance as irrational Christian Conservatives who are making the stand based solely on their religious beliefs. In reality this is far from the truth as there are many logical reasons to oppose abortion, not the least of which being on the grounds that it is murder (you don’t have to be a conservative Christian to believe that murder is wrong).

In today’s climate it is very unfashionable to be against abortion. For politicians it is tantamount to political suicide. If you look at the democratic presidential candidates in the US (Obama and Clinton) both support the pro-choice movement. I’m not going to question their motives for their beliefs, but the fact is, they wouldn’t have a chance of winning office if they stood on the other side of the fence on this issue. Of course Republican candidates are far more likely to support the anti-abortion camp, but they have been wearing the reputation of stuffy old conservative Christian white man for centuries, so this is no surprise. Perhaps this is where the perception that anti-abortionists are all irrational Christian conservatives – the fact that on the political level, many of them actually ARE!

If a man is against abortion, does that make him callous and uncaring? Certainly he cannot fully understand how it feels to carry a child, to give birth, or to have an abortion. He can only try to empathize. With an issue like abortion, though, would emotions and feelings not serve only to cloud the matter? Can we not talk about abortion policy without invoking how it makes someone feel? Can we stick purely with logical and moral arguments and not delve into the black hole of a woman’s feelings.

During the debate, one of the hosts introduced another interesting thesis: that one can be pro-choice and anti-abortion at the same time (I am paraphrasing); That perhaps the reason why the abortion issue is so heated is because any legislation that takes a person’s choice away as it pertains to their own body (as an anti-abortion legislation does) oppresses that class of people. That an anti-abortion law would serve as yet another symbol of woman’s sub-ordinance to man which has been forced on women since the dawn of civilization. What, then, if we take the stance that a woman retains the choice of whether or not to abort – but that we disagree with any choice to abort barring extreme circumstances? If we take this position, we are basically hoping for hegemony (i.e. we allow the woman to have an abortion but we hope that she will choose not to).

Perhaps this stance is more inline with our society’s values, as democratic society is largely based on hegemonic control, and not on the iron hand. An interesting thesis whose adoption as a belief would certainly be less likely to elicit judgement as an irrational Christian Conservative.

This post is basically a note to self because I find myself having to do a google search every time I want to do some diffing and merging of file trees.

If I want to create a patch to bring the source tree in www up to date with the source tree in www_new, I would do:

#diff -urp  www www2 > mypatch.patch

Note that this doesn’t include creating new files or deleting old ones (i.e. applying this patch will only modify files – not create or delete files).

The flags are:
-u : Unified format – not sure why this is necessary, but presumeably this is a preferred format of diff.
-r : Recursive so that it will merge files in subdirectories too.
-p : ??

Now to apply this patch we would:

#cd www
#patch -p1 < ../mypatch.patch

We entered the www directory because that is the directory we want to patch.

Flags:
-p1 : This means we will be stripping 1 level of the path from each file. This is because we made the patch from the parent directory so all of the files will be specified with paths beginning with www/ or www2/ . But our new context should only contain the portion within www.