Chocolate Penguins

So I decided to buy some chocolate penguins for my wife for our anniversary. We had originally given away chocolate penguins at our wedding, and so I called the store that made them. Sure enough, they had two in stock, and I asked them to hold them for me. When I arrived to pick them up, the shop owner didn't remember me or the origin of the penguin mold (he'd ordered it for us) but he mentioned that these penguins were a special order. I was puzzled because when I called he already had them in stock.

The mystery was revealed when my wife and I exchanged gifts. It turns out she also had the idea to give me chocolate penguins, and had called the shop to get an estimate on the cost of the penguins. Since this shop rarely made these penguins the owner didn't know how much they'd cost until he made them and weighed the resulting creation. Consequently he made one batch of penguins, but my wife decided to get penguins elsewhere, and thus there were two penguins in stock when I decided to inquire about purchasing some.

Coca-Cola: Black Cherry and Vanilla

In case you were wondering what happened to your delicious* Vanilla Coke, it's been transformed into something new and marvelous. No longer content to add flavour to cola, which some would say is already cola-flavoured, the Coca-Cola company has reached a new pinnacle with Black Cherry and Vanilla Coca Cola. This is the summer drink that makes Cucumber Pepsi seem like a good idea.

When you first drink the Black Cherry and Vanilla concoction you will find your taste-buds numbed slightly by the fizzy bubbles, but then you will sense the vanilla-esque aromas fighting the cola wave in your mouth. However once you swallow this carbonated battle, you will be hit with the after-shock of artificial black cherry, a taste the majority of pharmacists and bloggers polled** said "tastes like cough syrup". Having downed the brown fluid, you are free to repeat the process until the bottle is empty, at which point you'll realize you drank 150 Calories of sugar and you never want to eat a cherry again.

----
* And by "delicious" I mean disgusting
** I polled one pharmacist, and one blogger

Andrew Speaker Update

Some good news has been reported in regards to the Andrew Speaker saga. It turns out his TB is not XDR-TB, or extremely drug resistant, but simply multiple-drug-resistant MDR-TB. This means that he may be treatable and anyone who may have been infected would also be treatable. This reduces the risk of a catastrophic outcome.

What this doesn't change is that Mr. Speaker willingly, and with full knowledge of his actions, risked the health and lives of hundreds of people to get back to the US when ordered by the CDC to quarantine himself in Italy. Mr. Speaker is still guilty of gross negligence, but at least the potential victims of his selfish behaviour have less to worry about now.

Shrek and McDonalds: evil unmasked

This letter to the editor of an Australian paper, says it all:
As a parent and school teacher, I appeal to companies like McDonald's to stop using Shrek in their promotions.
Shrek is an unappealing character, teaches unfaithfulness, immorality, has low, coarse crude humour, promotes homosexuality, cross dressing and divination (super-natural means).
By allowing these influences, McDonald's is numbing the hearts and minds of children.---Judith Bond, Glen Alpine, NSW
First, I'd have to say that children DO find Shrek appealing.... maybe this teacher isn't in the target audience for the movie? Shrek's definitely crude: he's an ogre for crying out loud. That's the whole point, and the movie definitely contains fart jokes. But fart jokes are not a new danger to children, and there is more to Shrek than stinky bubbles in the swamp. Shrek tells a story of love despite appearances and fighting even when the fight seems lost. Ms Bond just doesn't get it. It's too bad that teachers aren't taking the time to watch children's movies so that they can form intelligent opinions about them before writing angry letters, however since this teacher doesn't seem to understand that children can tell the difference between fiction and reality, the only thing that surprises me is how such a person gets to be a teacher in the first place. Must be a shortage, I guess.

Bacon

Ah, bacon. It is the world's most wonderful food. It turns a burger from "menh" to "wow!" It turns a hotdog from "pork" to "pork with added pork!" It's true that the world needs more bacon. Luckily, Wendy's restaurants are on the ball, with their new product: The Baconator. This sandwich fills the missing link in the food industry. I bought one the other day and it truly was a bacon experience. The only way to make it better would be to replace one of the beef patties with back-bacon.

Ocean's 13

I just saw Ocean's 13. The basic premise is that Danny Ocean and company want to get revenge on someone who did something bad to them. This someone (played by Al Pacino) is, naturally, a rich casino owner. Since this is a new movie, they can't re-use any stunts from the first two movies, so instead of a heist it's a scam they're trying to pull.

Minor Spoilers Follow

Overall the movie is pretty formulaic. There's the unbreakable security, which they break, using a combination of totally outlandish actions and magical technological ability. There's Danny's crew impersonating VIPs. There's the egomaniacal bad guy. Nothing is beyond infiltration; if they want to rig a craps game they infiltrate the dice factory, et cetera. What follows is a basic re-hash of the first movie, without the novelty or the excitement but with a slightly different story. The first movie was good because it seemed that what they were doing was impossible, yet they found a way to accomplish it. In this movie they do the same thing, but by the third time around it's just routine. They tell you the plan up front, then they do exactly what they told you they'd do. They turn supposed setbacks into victories by virtue of preexisting plans to deal specifically with those setbacks. There's nothing surprising anywhere in the movie, except perhaps the number of connections Ocean & Co. have: they know a guy at every company from the engineering firm that dug the Chunnel to the mobile phone division of Samsung. But even that seems mundane in this movie, as every character just plods along in his role. If you've never seen the first movie, you might enjoy this movie, but otherwise you won't find anything new and only a little entertainment.

Zeitgeist the movie

Zeitgeist The Movie, really three movies, is a film that attempts to demonstrate that several widely-believed things are myths. The first film deals with Christianity. Broadly, it begins by claiming that Jesus is nothing more than a "Sun God" in new clothes, and presents lots of arguments to support this, and then ends with a brief sidebar about how Christianity, specifically the Catholic Church, was created through political motives at the Council of Nicea. While it's true that the Council of Nicea was likely put together for political motives, and it's also true that the Catholic Church has a several blotches on its permanent record, one can't claim, based on the evidence in the film, that Jesus is a Sun God and that Christianity is merely a re-packaging of old Egyptian beliefs.

The film presents many similarities between astrology, sun-worship, and Jesus. First, it identifies many deities who share similar characteristics with Jesus, namely a birthday on or near the winter solstice, various nicknames such as "Prince of Peace", death then resurrection, and other similarities. The film proceeds to discuss how many icons and themes associated with Jesus are reminiscent of astrology, such as Christian artwork showing a cross and halo behind Jesus's head resembles the zodiacal chart. There are, however, some flaws with these arguments.

First, artwork showing cross and halo behind Jesus's head, is said to resemble a pagan symbol of a cross inscribed in a circle.
This symbol is shorthand for the sun and 12 zodiacal signs. The problem with this argument is that a symbol can have different meanings in different contexts. For example, the word "cong" would be pronounced "kong" (or maybe "song") if it were an English word, but in Mandarin Pinyin it'd be pronounced "tsong". One can't claim that the "c" in that word has any special significance, or that it somehow connects English and Mandarin. What happened is the Pinyin co-opted the symbol but gave it a new meaning. This is co-opting is a common theme in early Christian history: the incorporation of old ideas re-interpreted in a new light was often used as a tool to make Christianity more palatable to the new converts. Furthermore Christ was crucified; it stands to reason that he might be depicted on a cross. Is the cross a pagan symbol? Certainly, but we need to be careful not to reason in a circle: Do Catholics believe that Christ was crucified on a cross because crosses are an old symbol, re-used for a new story? Or was he crucified on a cross because the Romans used crosses, since crosses were already (astrologically) significant? Christ either died on the cross because that's a good way to tell the story, thus incorporating a pagan symbol (as the film says), or else Christ died on the cross because the symbol was important to his killers. The film itself claims that the cross was already important to the legions of sun worshippers; the fact that there is a similarity is not proof of a connection.

Another problem this film has is that it blindly accepts that Jesus was born on the 25th of December. Even the Catholic Church admits that they don't know when he was born. The early Church didn't even celebrate his birth but rather his conception. In the 4th century his conception was believed to be March 25th because the Church believed that he DIED on the 25th, and all prophets must live a whole number of years. The Bible doesn't tell us when Christ was born, the Church doesn't know, nobody knows. The Church claims that Christ's birthday was chosen to be on the same day as a pre-existing "Sun God" holiday, the feast of the Unconquered Sun. Again, this was done not because Jesus was a Sun god, but because the parallels made the new religion easier to accept for the new converts. Linking Christ's birth to the astronomical events (Sirius lining up with Orion's belt at the solstice) as is done in the film is circular reasoning: The film claims that Jesus is astrological because his birthday falls on an astrological day, however in reality the day was chosen to BECAUSE of the coincident, pre-existing astrological similarities. Jesus doesn't represent astrology: the astrology was co-opted to represent Jesus.

There are several other arguments in the film that also rely on convenient coincidences or circular reasoning. One that springs to mind is the argument that Moses's anger toward Jews worshipping a bull idol (when he returned from the mountain) was because, astrologically, a new age was beginning and the new age (Aries, the ram) was replacing the old (Taurus, the bull). The film claims that this is why Jews blow into a ram's horn. A simpler explanation is that the Hebrew people farmed sheep, and thus would be quite familiar with rams horns and use what's at hand.

Overall the film is entertaining and highlights some amusing similarities between Christianity and Astrology. But since the only evidence in the film is circular, this film falls short of being a documentary or research paper, and instead is merely sensationalist and reminiscent of a conspiracy theory.