The Mind of a 4-Year Old

One of our neighbors, who we don't know really well, has a son that is probably 4-years old, I'm guessing. I'm guessing he's that age based on his vocabulary and height. Really nice kid, always says "hey" when we walk by.

I came home from running some errands today and saw him outside on the sidewalk. He had a little water gun with him. It wasn't a super soaker by any means, this water gun was one of those little tiny ones.

Here's how the conversation went:

Me: That's a neat water gun.
Him: It's not a water gun. It's a toy.
Me: It looks like a water gun.
Him: It's not.
Me: Is it a ray gun?
Him: No. It's a toy.
Me: Well, I think it really looks like a water gun.
Him: It's not. But I want a water gun. Would you buy me one?
Me: Ummm... (thinking here, what can I say that will just totally bewilder him out of a response so I can make it to the house).... I can't. I'm broke.
Him: I'm broke too.
(Crap, now I've got to say something in response)
Me: That's not good, is it?
Him: No, it's not.

Then he sees some other neighborhood kids, picks up his water gun, and runs off to join them.

I guess you never really understand the mind of a 4-year old as an adult. Here's to being 4 again and wanting someone to buy you a water gun.

Following the Water

I'm a big space nerd. I always have been. I think the idea of space exploration is fascinating.

Today was a big day for NASA. I can only imagine how tense but exciting it was today at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena.

The Phoenix Mars Lander touched down on the Martian north pole today. It was the first time in 32 years that we've had what is called a successful "soft landing," a descent controlled by thrusters, on Mars. The few probes that have landed on Mars since the Vikings of the 1970s have landed using airbags.

The next probe to be sent to Mars will be the 2,000 pound Mars Science Lab, a third generation rover set to be launched next year, which will also utilize a soft landing system.

But the big deal about this mission is that it will be analyzing soil and ice samples for traces of organic compounds - traces of the life. It may also tell us if Mars was ever warm enough to have flowing water on its surface.

This is a key part to NASA's Mars strategy dubbed "Follow the Water."

We've learned some amazing things from Phoenix's predecessors to Mars.

The rovers Spirt and Opportunity, which have been on planet since 2004, have provided us new information about the Martian terrain. The Mars Pathfinder and its rover Sojourner provided analysis of Martian soil and weather during it operation from 1997 to 1998.

The Mars Odyssey has been in orbit over the planet since 2002, searching for signs of past or present water and volcanic activity on Mars. The Mars Reconaissance Orbiter has been mapping the planet for the last two years, along with the European Space Agency's Mars Express Orbiter which has been there since 2004. The Mars Global Surveyor recently spent nine years in orbit studying Mars and its moon Phobos.

I know this may sound really geeky, but this stuff really excites me.

I wholeheartedly believe that the operation of NASA is very justifiable. Granted there are probably areas within the agency and its programs, as with every governmental agency, that need to be streamlined and/or eliminated and/or monitored more closely.

As time goes on, we'll more than likely see private industry become more and more of a player in space exploration - and someday they will probably take over as the primary platform. But for the time being, NASA has a very critical role in keeping the spirit of exploration alive and development of space technology moving forward.

The agency has accomplished some really exciting stuff in the last 20 years -- even with their faster, cheaper, better attitude. Just consider some of this:

• As of March of this year, the Voyager I probe (launched in 1977) was 9.82 billion miles from Earth and the farthest manmade object from Earth
• The Galileo, launched in 1989, spent 14 years studying Jupiter, conducted man's first asteroid flyby, discovered the first asteroid moon, and launched the first probe into Jupiter's atmosphere
• The Ulysses Probe has been studying the sun for the past 14 years and has flown through the tails of two comets in the process.
• In 2001, the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous - Shoemaker probe was the first manmade probe to land on an asteroid.
• The Cassini probe was the first probe to orbit Saturn in 2004. The Huygens probe which separated from Cassini in 2005 was the first to land on another moon (in an ocean of liquid methane, nonetheless)
• In 2005, the Deep Impact probe was the first manmade object to impact a comet's nucleus and study its interior
• In 2004, the Genesis probe returned samples of solar wind particles back to Earth. Then in 2006, the Stardust probe returned cosmic dust from a comet back to Earth
• The New Horizons probe launched in 2006 will be providing the first close-up images of Pluto, sometime in 2015.
• The Dawn probe launched last fall will study the two largest members of the asteroid belt - the asteroid Vesta and dwarf planet Ceres
• The Kepler Space Observatory to be launched next year will join the ESA's COROT telescope in looking for Earth-sized planets outside our solar system

From the launch of Sputnik to the landing of Phoenix on Mars, space exploration has provided countless benefits and allowed mankind to solve many mysteries of our solar system that were centuries old. No one can tell me that space exploration is not justified. Anyone who believes so is a moron. But there are a lot more mysteries that we will solve in the future.

There will also come a day when humanity will exhaust all of its existing resources on Earth and will be forced to look elsewhere to sustain our race. The steps we take today are important for that reason.

The steps we take today are providing and will continue to provide new technological breakthroughs to benefit all of mankind -- and advances in countless fields of science, from medicine to agriculture.

Mainly though, we're a race of explorers. We always have been. We can't sit still. We want to learn how to better oursleves. We have to know what's out there. Whether or not we ever come in contact with another race of sentient beings is beside the point --- we're going to learn more about ourselves, our creation, our solar system, and our universe in the process.

During the course of its history, NASA has lost 17 of its own either in flight or in launchpad exercises. Let's make sure that they didn't die in vain -- that their spirit of exploration lives on -- and we keep following the water.

Idol Watch: The Finale

David Cook all the way, baby

Back at week one, I was predicting Chikeze, Brooke, and David Archuleta as the final three, one of whom to become American Idol. Other than Archie making it to the final three, I got that one really wrong.

But I truly think the best contestant won. Archie is a talented singer, he's just not a performer. And I don't think he will sell nearly as many albums as David Cook.

America needed this win. Die-hard rockers needed this win. We've been listening to crap on the radio for the past 18 years. (This is the point where this post could really diverge into a discussion on what a wasteland the music industry and the airwaves have become, but....)

I'll definitely buy any album David Cook puts out. Congratulations David, you deserve this!




The best part of the night was watching him rock out with ZZ Top. These guys have not changed at all in 25+ years and still kick ass. They were one of my favorite rock acts when I was growing up.

I could have done without Donna Summer last night. Man she's looking old.

Bryan Adams was awesome as always --- for a guy who's 48 and has been in the business for 30 years, he's still got it and he still looks young. I've been waiting for seven years to hear some Adams on Idol and they brought it on last night.



It was a nice touch to have Graham Nash on last night also. His and Brooke's duet was awesome -- a very nice addition to the show. I could have done without George Michael though.

Anyway.- it was a great end to a very competitive season. Until next year....

Time For Another MPAA Ratings Change

We saw the new Narnia movie last night.

I liked it -- it had great scenery, great action sequences, decent acting, and a decent storyline. I never read the book so I can't really argue about what they did or didn't put in the movie. But overall, it was a very good sequel.

But I do have one major issue with it ------ it was a little too violent to have a PG rating. There is a scene where the Narnians are literally being slaughtered as their escape route is cut off and one of the main characters has to make a decision whether to flee or go back and face certain death. It was a very, very intense scene.

Of course there was a lot of battle violence throughout the movie anyway. Granted they really didn't show any blood, but I don't think you really need to show blood in a battle for children to have a lot of misunderstandings as to what is going on, for them to have a lot of questions, or for them to get scared.

There were so many children under the age of seven or eight in that movie theater that I couldn't count them all. There were many toddlers and even a few infants. Personally, I think toddlers and infants shouldn't be brought to the movies period -- not only because of potential emotional or psychological impact from the movie but because a movie theater is just not a place for a child that young. Children that young are hard enough for their parents to keep up with anyway, but they tend to be distracting to other moviegoers. Especially crying babies.

Personally, I would never take a young child to a movie, let alone let them watch it on TV, without thoroughly researching it. If it is something that I think I would still be wary about even after researching it, I would have to see it first before I were to make a decision to let them see it.

I think the MPAA has made a lot of strides in recent years in its rating methodology. Movies with violent battles, extreme cursing, or inappropriate subject matter for children are having a much harder time getting a lesser rating. Granted in some cases, I know there are movie directors/producers/writers/studios that want that higher MPAA rating because they know it will mean more $$ in their pockets and will draw a larger crowd that is interested in coming out just to see why the movie received the rating it has.

Should Prince Caspian have received a PG rating? I don't think so. It should have received a PG-13 rating. Should the MPAA revise its rating system even further? Yes. Every rating shoud be tightened down.

So I think the MPAA ratings need to be changed from top to bottom in the following fashion:

• G: All audiences admitted, parents encouraged to attend with children
• PG: Children younger than the age of 13 must have a parent with them during the movie
• PG-T(EEN): Children younger than 13 are not allowed in the theater. Period. Children between the ages of 13 and 18 must have a parent with them
• R: Children younger than 18 are not allowed in the theater. Period
• NC-18: Just have this take the place of any X, XX or XXX ratings. Nobody younger than 18 admitted.

There are a lot of bad things in this world that children are being exposed to more and more. Drugs, sex, nudity, language, adult content, violence of any form -----

Popular culture and the media are innundating our society with these things and children are experiencing things because of that at a much younger age than they should be (and many things that they should never have to experience).

We as a society should become more responsible in regard to this and give our children more of a chance to retain their innocence and let them be kids longer.

I remember seeing Star Wars in the the theater when I was little; I remember Raiders of the Lost Ark being the first movie my Dad and I saw in the theater without my mom. I thought the action in both was cool. Han Solo and Indiana Jones (aka Harrison Ford) made both of those movies hits. But I never turned to violence because of what I saw in the movies or TV.

I think my parents did a very good job raising me and my sister. They taught us good morals, instilled a strong belief system in us, taught us right from wrong, and always remained concerned about what we watched and listened to. I admire them for their parenting.

But there are a lot of parents out there that just don't seem to care about what their children are exposed to; who don't talk to their children about the things they see or hear; or who don't monitor what their children are doing. Yes children need their freedom to be children, but they don't need so much freedom that they do things in the real world that they think won't have consquences to them or other people just because they saw someone do that on TV or in the movies.

Parents need to be more accountable for the actions of their children. There are too many parents nowadays that are too lenient with their children, too ignorant of what their children are doing, and too into themselves and not their children. We can't just blame only the children for what they do anymore. Negative actions of children are not always entirely their own fault --- those actions often can be attributed to parents not being good parents.

It doesn't take much to become a mother or father. That math is pretty simple. But it takes alot to be a parent.

Children need good role models. They need their parents to be good role models who make decisions for them that will guide those children to become role models themselves when they get older. So to help those role models develop, society needs to jump in and help steer the wheel. We all need to be a part of that --- and so does the MPAA.

The Newest Fairground Game: Whack-a-Parent

My wife and I went to watch a friend's daughter in her elementary school's choral production tonight. It was, well, an elementary school production. The songs were corny, the kids did some things to make us laugh, and the dancing was just as hokey. It was an elementary school production, so it was what it was. But she had a fun time and looked cute in her '50s era poodle skirt, so that's what counts.

We don't have kids of our own yet. But we have lots of friends that do and have a church full of children also. We have one neice on my side, and two nephews and a neice on my wife's. So we're around kids alot.

I observed something this evening that I had observed alot at several other places, church in particular (you'll notice in the upcoming paragraphs many references back to this).

They had a professional videographer set up to shoot the production tonight. We have a camera set up in our sound booth at church to shoot our early worship service. Neither were/are elevated real high so the potential to get a lot of heads or backsides is pretty high.

The parents in attendance were made aware of the camera and asked not to block it by getting up and down or walking back and forth in front of it. Our early-service goers are well aware of where our camera is placed at church and of the fact that we record the service each week, yet continue to stand in its path or walk back and forth in front of it.

(When you watch the DVD of our early service, the sermon is often given by someone's bald head)

This fact in mind (camera in back of church during service and camera in back of cafeteria for choral production), the parents in both places decide not to care. They get up at random times during the service/choral production to stand up, walk around, and block the view of the video camera or other people.

It's like watching a whack-a-mole game come alive. I'd love to have a big 20-foot rubber mallet to whack people back down into the seats in either case.

I know they're thinking "I'm not going to settle for sitting in my seat and dealing with the fact that I didn't get here early enough to sit in the first two or three rows or bring my own tripod to set up in the back of the room also, so I'm going to stand up, make an inconsiderate ass of myself, and block people's view so they can't see their own children."

This irritates me.

I was asked to shoot the kids' Christmas skit at church the Christmas-before-last. So I took the church camera off the tripod at the back of the room and decided to carry it up to the front to get some nice close-ups of the production. I thought this wouldn't be too difficult and would be a little more intimate for the people watching the end-product video/DVD.

Yet, I was battling parent after parent walking in front of me thinking they're the shit because they have a 2.5 megapixel digital camera and are getting in my way.

"Hello, I know you see me crouching down here with the real nice, real expensive church video camera trying to some real nice footage of your kid. So get out of my way."

I have a really big issue with people who are just rude and don't show any respect to people around them. I understand that taking pictures or video of your kid is a big deal. I'll probably feel the same way when my wife and I have kids.

But when you're in a location where you're going to get in people's way and disturb their own enjoyment of their own child's participation in whatever is going on, at least have the common courtesy to stay in your own freaking seat --- or spend a few extra bucks, get a tripod, and stand in the back of the room with all the other more intelligent parents who brought their own tripods.

Or better yet -- just leave it up to the professionals, sit back in your chair, relax, and don't worry about it.