Saturday, July 19, 2014
Refuting Secular Humanism - 1986
Note: The following is a paper I wrote for a writing class at Texas A&M in 1986. I got a decent grade on the paper and then sent a copy to my friend Robert (Eddie) Shearer who responded in kind and kicked off the lengthy exchange that will follow.
Major Argument Paper
Since I came to college three years ago, I have been exposed to a wide variety of old and new ideas. One such idea that I have heard upon occasion is that modern science and technology are upon the verge of knowing all the answers to everything: that mankind no longer needs to look to a superior being or God for answers and can basically be his own God. God had simply been invented by ancient man to make up for his ignorance and now that science explains all things we can cast God aside. This is what I assume to be a definition of a belief called secular humanism. It is this belief that I will try to refute in this paper.
I called secular humanism a belief because I feel that it takes a certain amount of faith to believe in secular humanism the same as it takes faith to believe in God. I will use the term faith as an antonym for doubt. No person can have faith in all things and neither can doubt or deny all things. Having faith in or believing in one thing requires a denial of or doubting of something else. Usually this means doubting the opposite of what you believe in. My prime example of this is that a person who believes in God as the creator at the same time denies the atheistic idea of no creator. Likewise, an atheist who is denying God as the creator is putting his faith in the idea of no creator. When a person denies God, he is leaving a large empty space in his faith. Since he cannot deny everything, he must find something to put his faith into. A simple faith in the non-existence of God is not enough to fill the void. In the case of secular humanism, a large amount of faith has been placed in science.
Science was originally intended to be the study of God's creation and for many scientists today that is still the case. (Frost, 1962). Science was the means to finding the answer, but for secular humanists science has become the answer. Albert Einstein felt that science and religion should go hand in hand when he said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." (Mead, p.367).
George Washington had similar ideas when he said "Religion is as necessary to reason as reason is to religion. The one cannot exist without the other." (Mead, p.374). I think that there are two points to be made here. First is that blind faith is not good and should be accompanied with reason and second is that science requires a certain amount of faith to be believable.
C.S. Lewis in his book The Joyful Christian talks about how his argument against God could not hold up against his own personal scrutinazation. His argument was that there was no God because the world was so cruel and unjust. He then wondered that if this was so, where had he got his idea of just and unjust? A man doesn't call a line crooked, he reasoned, unless he has some sense of what a straight line looks like. If the whole show is bad from A to Z, how does he who is part of the show find himself in such violent reaction to it all? A man feels wet, he reasoned, when thrown into water because he is not a water animal while a fish would not feel wet. Another analogy that he uses is that if the whole universe has no meaning we should not have found out that it has no meaning, just as if there was no light in the universe and thus no creatures with eyes, we should never know that it was dark. Dark would be without meaning. (Lewis, 1977). C.S. Lewis, who for many years was an atheist, became one of the leading Christian apologists of his time. A similar switch had taken place with the apostle Paul in the New Testament. Lewis' decision had been made using reason as well as faith. Blind faith is faith that is not supported with reason. At the same time, I would argue that there is such a thing as blind reason, or reason that is not supported by faith in something. That is just as bad.
A person who thinks that they can reason everything out without having faith in something has probably not thought about it enough. Immanuel Kant, famous philosopher and author of Critique of Reason, said "There is a limit where the intellect fails and breaks down, and this limist is where the questions concerning God and free will and immortality arise." (Mead, p.134). Also in this line of thought is Sir Francis Bacon who said "A little philosophy inclineth a man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds to religion." (Mead, p.10). My point is that reason without faith is just as inadequate as faith without reason.
As I said earlier, secular humanists try to fill the gap left in their faith from a denial of God by placing all their faith in science. Though I have a great respect for science and feel that it is a good thing, I think it falls far short of explaining all things. Today, science can tell you how almost everything is but it cannot tell you why. I believe that why is an important question. If there is no reason whey then how is it we have the ability to contemplate why? Today science can oversimplify everything into forces and energy. There are four distinct types of forces and energy can exist in the pure form or as matter, but basically that is it. We have taken this basic stuff and given it names (gravity, magnetism, strong force, weak force, energy, etc.) and can tell how it will work under certain circumstances but we still do not know the why. Not knowing why this basic stuff works means that we cannot explain why about a lot of things; for example, we really cannot explain why it rains unless we know why gravity works. Science by itself is inadequate in filling the gap left by a denial of God.
Is it more reasonable to have faith in science or faith in God? What are the consequences of a complete faith in science? That man is mortal? That life is meaningless? That ethics and morals are only around for convenience sake. That your goal in life should be to try and make yourself as deliriously happy as possible because once you die it is all over. That trying to make other people happy is a waste of time unless it directly affects you. That in the end it really doesn't matter how you spend your life, whether you are a millionaire or a mass murderer doesn't make any difference. That you are an incredibly insignificant fluke of nature. That the whole world could blow up the day after you die and it wouldn't matter to you one way or the other.
Friedrich Nietzsche thought this concept all the way through and established his philosophy of nihilism shortly before he had a mental breakdown. (Kung, 1981). It is a dreary and hopeless philosophy that doesn't make very much sense. It basically tries to deny all things and fails to answer the question why.
Sir Francis Bacon felt that without God man is not worth much. "They that deny a God destroy man's nobility; for certainly man is of kin to the beasts by his body; and if he be not of kin to God by his spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature." (Mead, p.456).
Bacon is not alone in his opinion, Napoleon Bonaparte said "You think you are too intelligent to believe in God. I am not like you. Not everyone who wishes to be is an atheist." (Mead, p.437). Voltaire thought that "Atheism is the vice of a few intelligent people." (Mead, p.13). Going back to the need to have faith in something, H.G. Wells said "The religion of the atheist has a God-shaped blank at its heart." (Mead, p. 13).
The modern humanist must look back and wonder at all the great men of the past who were duped into believing in God. He must sit back with satisfaction and think that he is much smarter than they for he has found that the answer to all things is that there is no answer. If he is really satisfied with that then God help him.
Frost, S.F., Basic Teachings of the Great Philosophers, New York, 1962.
Kung, Hans, Does God Exist?, Vintage Books, New York, 1981.
Lewis, C.S., The Joyful Christian, Macmillan Publishing Co., New York, 1977.
Mead, Frank S., ed. The Encyclopedia of Religious Quotations, Fleming H. Revell Co., New Jersey, 1975.
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Everyone knows that Tim Duncan now has five NBA championship rings, one for each finger.
Tony Parker and Manu Ginobli now have four apiece. Bruce Bowen, who retired in 2009, is the only one with three rings.
And Matt Bonner has joined an elite group of former Spurs with two rings.
But who else has rings with the Spurs? With five championships over 15 years, there are probably quite a few. I can’t find a definitive list online, so I have tried to compile my own, although I don’t know the criteria for getting a ring.
Does everyone on the team roster at the beginning of the season get a ring? Or at the end of the season?
Assuming that everyone listed on the official NBA team roster during the championship seasons received a ring, I have compiled a list of Spurs ring bearers over the years.
5 - Tim Duncan (‘99, ‘03, ‘05, ‘07, ‘14)
4 - Manu Ginobli (‘03, ‘05, ‘07, ‘14)
4 - Tony Parker (‘03, ‘05, ‘07, ‘14)
3 - Bruce Bowen (‘03, ‘05, ‘07)
2 - Matt Bonner (‘07, ‘14)
2 - David Robinson (‘99, ‘03)
2 - Steve Kerr (‘99, ‘03)
2 - Malik Rose (‘99, ‘03)
2 - Devin Brown (‘03, ‘05)
2 - Robert Horry (‘05, ‘07)
2 - Brent Barry (‘05, ‘07)
2 - Beno Udrih (‘05, ‘07)
1 - Antonio Daniels (‘99)
1 - Mario Elie (‘99)
1 - Sean Elliott (‘99)
1 - Andrew Gaze (‘99)
1 - Jaren Jackson (‘99)
1 - Avery Johnson (‘99)
1 - Jerome Kersey (‘99)
1 - Gerald King (‘99)
1 - Will Perdue (‘99)
1 - Brandon Williams (‘99)
1 - Stephen Jackson (‘03)
1 - Steve Smith (‘03)
1 - Speedy Claxton (‘03)
1 - Kevin Willis (‘03)
1 - Danny Ferry (‘03)
1 - Anthony Goldwire (‘03)
1 - Mengke Bateer (‘03)
1 - Nazr Mohammed (‘05)
1 - Rasho Nesterović (‘05)
1 - Sean Marks (‘05)
1 - Glenn Robinson (‘05)
1 - Tony Massenburg (‘05)
1 - Linton Johnson (‘05)
1 - Mike Wilks (‘05)
1 - Francisco Elson (‘07)
1 - Fabricio Oberto (‘07)
1 - Melvin Ely (‘07)
1 - Jackie Butler (‘07)
1 - Michael Finley (‘07)
1 - James White (‘07)
1 - Jacques Vaughn (‘07)
1 - Kawhi Leonard (‘14)
1 - Boris Diaw (‘14)
1 - Danny Green (‘14)
1 - Tiago Splitter (‘14)
1 - Patty Mills (‘14)
1 - Marco Bellinelli (‘14)
1 - Aron Baynes (‘14)
1 - Cory Joseph (‘14)
1 - Jeff Ayers (‘14)
1 - Austin Daye (‘14)
1 - Damion James (‘14)
And here is an incomplete list of notable Spurs who missed out on getting a ring.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
12 Songs (more or less)
RULES: in your status update, list 12 songs that have stayed with you over the years in some way. Don’t think too long over the list- just a few minutes. They don’t have to be great records or critical darlings, just ones that mean something to you personally.
Yeah, right. OK, that was IMPOSSIBLE. So I broke the rules just a bit by dividing my list into three eras - My earliest years starting with the first album I got as a kid (Elvis) and then moving on to the High School years and then the College/Post-college years.
Oh, and since some songs just go together in my mind, I ended up pairing a few together. So sue me.
“That’s All Right” - Elvis Presley
“Bad Man’s Blunder” - The Kingston Trio
"The Night Chicago Died" - Paper Lace
"Spinning Wheel" - Blood, Sweat and Tears
"I'm Your Boogie Man" - K.C. and the Sunshine Band
“Play That Funky Music” - Wild Cherry
"Tragedy" - Bee Gees
"Le Freak" - Chic
"Barracuda" - Heart
“Don’t Look Back” - Boston
“Who Are You” - The Who
"We Will Rock You"/"We Are the Champions" - Queen
"Freeze Frame"/"Centerfold" - J. Geils Band
"Spirits in the Material World"/“Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic” - The Police
"Heat of the Moment"/"Only Time Will Tell" - Asia
"We Got the Beat" - The Go Go's
"Rock Me Tonight"/"All Night Long" - Billy Squier
"Let's Go Crazy"/"When Doves Cry" - Prince
"She's Tight"/"If You Want My Love" - Cheap Trick
"Panama"/"Jump" - Van Halen
"Legs"/"Gimme All Your Loving" - ZZ Top
"Born in the USA" - Bruce Springsteen
"You Got Lucky" - Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers
“Twist and Shout”/"Long Tall Sally" - The Beatles
"Dazed and Confused" - Led Zepplin
“Like a Rolling Stone” - Bob Dylan
"Rocks Off"/"Rip This Joint" - Rolling Stones
"The Weight" - The Band
“Don’t Let It Bring You Down” - Neil Young
“Put Yourself In My Shoes” - Clint Black
“Don’t Believe the Hype” - Public Enemy
“Under Pressure” - Queen/David Bowie
“Her Good Lovin’ Grace” - Jerry Jeff Walker
"Gone" - The Black Crowes
"Baby, Now That I've Found You" - Alison Krauss
"Pennies From Heaven" - Bing Crosby
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Movies are getting better
After someone put together a list of the Top 25 Movies of the 1980s that did not impress me much, I decided to put together my own list. The '80s encompassed my formative high school and college years, so I figured I could find tons of good movies they were leaving out. But after perusing the lists at Boxofficemojo.com I came up with only 52 candidates for my own list. Not as many as I expected. So on a whim I decided to look at movies from the subsequent decades and found a few more in the '90s and a bunch more from the '00s. And so far in the '10s, not even half-way through, I already have a list as long as the one from the previous decade.
So does this mean that movies are getting better?
First understand that my criteria for good movies is simply whether I enjoyed the movie and would be excited about watching it again. So I tend to favor "popcorn" movies more so than heavy, artsy dramas.
So what appears to be happening is that Hollywood is pumping out more movies suited to my particular taste. I like action/adventure movies, sci-fi and fantasy and animated flicks. And since about 2000, those are the films that have been dominating the domestic box office. The Lord of the Rings films, the Harry Potter series, the Marvel Superhero movies and the Pixar/Disney combination have all blossomed during the past decade. Meanwhile, the James Bond franchise is still going strong and is now joined by the Jason Bourne series and the Mission Impossible flicks. D.C. Comics also made a comeback with the new Batman movies. And new animation studios have been competing quite well with Disney giving us the Ice Age and Madagascar franchises as well as Kung Fu Panda, Despicable Me and How to Train Your Dragon.
And the hits just keep coming with more Marvel Superhero movies in the dock, more Pixar and Disney animation movies (on fire now with the breakout success of Frozen) and another Hobbit movie as well.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Why I don’t like the Zak Brown Band
I picked up a music CD at the library the other day by the Zak Brown Band, a country group that has won a number of Grammys and CMAs over the years. The album was “The Foundation,” one of their first ones. I’m not a “big” fan of country music, but I do have a taste for a certain kind of alternative-folk-americana or what I call country-music-with-an-edge. I like artists like Dwight Yoakam, Lyle Lovett, Robert Earl Keene, Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson and the Dixie Chicks, to name a few. I was hoping that the Zak Brown Band would fit into that segment. Unfortunately, upon listening to the first song - a light-hearted number called “Toes” - I was immediately put off and did not like it.
It’s not a bad song, really. The guy sings about a carefree day at the beach:
“I got my toes in the water, ass in the sand
Not a worry in the world, a cold beer in my hand
Life is good today, life is good today”
So what is wrong with that? Why the negative reaction? Well, for me it is the beer reference. The glorification of alcohol and our whole alcohol-soaked culture that tells people that you need to drink lots of alcohol to be happy or to be cool or to be attractive to women or whatever. It’s a pet peeve of mine.
I decided to give it another try and I picked out another song - one that won a Grammy called “Chicken Fried.” But once again I was turned off.
“You know I like my chicken fried
A cold beer on a Friday night
A pair of jeans that fit just right
And the radio up”
It’s the same damn song! Got to have that “cold beer” to fit into southern culture. So I popped the CD out and put it away with disgust.
But wait! Was I being fair? Why am I so turned off by beer references in a country song? I don’t have the same strongly negative reaction to a rock song that makes drug references. Was I being hypocritical?
I guess I make a distinction because drug culture is so foreign to me, whereas alcohol culture is seemingly everywhere. I’ve never actually seen drugs that were not on TV or behind a display case. I’ve never done drugs and have never hung out with people who did drugs either. So it has never had a real impact on my life. But alcohol is inescapable. Our society today is totally immersed in it. Most everyone today drinks alcohol. And if they aren’t drinking it, they are talking about drinking it. Or watching TV shows about other people drinking it. Grocery stores and restaurants are stocked full of it. It is the requisite ingredient for any social gather involving two or more people. And most kids today see it as the passageway to adulthood.
And even all of that wouldn’t bother me so much if it wasn’t constantly advertised, pitched and glorified with such constant fervor.
Please! I do not need to numb my brain with chemicals in order to “feel good” and “have a good time.” I can be just as much of a southern good ol’ boy as anyone without having a “cold beer in my hand/on a Friday night”.
Monday, April 08, 2013
2012 Movies I've Seen
I did pretty well getting to watch most of the 2012 movies that I wanted to see.
Here is my list of movies I watched from the past year, followed by my list of movies I still want to see.
Movies I've seen:
Marvels The Avengers
The Dark Knight Rises
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
The Amazing Spider Man
Dr Seuss' The Lorax
Wreck It Ralph
Men In Black 3
Ice Age: Continental Drift
Journey 2: The Mysterious Island
Movies I still want to see:
Life of Pi
The Hunger Games
Snow White and The Huntsman
The Bourne Legacy
Rise of the Guardians
Wrath of the Titans
The Pirates: Band of Misfits
Rock of Ages
Monday, April 16, 2012
The sordid history of VP picks
All that is left now in the presidential race is for Mitt Romney to pick his vice presidential candidate. That an a lot of polling and horserace reporting.
But while VP picks tend not to have a significant impact on an election outcome, I still find it intriguing how we seem recently to have had a whole string of really wretched and horrific VP picks by both parties - Dan Quayle, Joe Lieberman, Sarah Palin, John Edwards....
But it didn’t used to be that way. The VP slot used to be considered the on deck circle for the presidency with Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon all being prime examples. During modern times, you might turn back to Richard Nixon’s first VP choice of Spiro Agnew as an example of a bad choice. But I don’t think it was considered a bad pick at first, but only after the scandals that came in Nixon’s second term that led to Gerald Ford becoming the first person to ever assume the presidency without ever having been voted on by the electorate.
There were not a lot of problems with VP choices back then - George McGovern’s choice of Thomas Eagleton being a rare exception. Walter Mondale, tapped by Jimmy Carter, went on to win his party’s nomination for president. Reagan’s choice of George Bush launched a political dynasty. Even Mondale’s choice of Geraldine Ferraro was seen as a politically smart move at the time.
So the real trouble seems to have started with Dan Quayle who was instantly panned the moment he stepped into the limelight. And even though Bush won anyway, Quayle was not able to build up any political capital out of his tenure as VP and saw his post-VP presidential campaign flameout almost unnoticed by the political mainstream.
However, Mike Dukakis’ choice of Lloyd Bentsen was almost universally praised, even though it did not help him win the election. And the next set of VP candidates - Al Gore and Jack Kemp - were considered good choices all around.
Then in 2000 we had Al Gore choosing the conservative Joe Lieberman while Dick Cheney chose himself to be VP for George W. Bush. In retrospect, Lieberman was a lousy choice for Gore and may have cost him the election. Cheney, on the other hand, while considered to be one of the worst VPs of all time by most liberals, proved to be highly influential and powerful in office as opposed to the hapless and largely ineffectual Quayle.
And even though Lieberman did everything he could afterwards to stab his party in the back, he was not as bad of a choice in retrospect as John Edwards was for John Kerry. We now know that Edwards was carrying on an affair at the time that has since landed him in court facing felony counts of misuse of campaign funds.
Not to be outdone, however, Republicans turned around the next election and chose Sarah Palin, who managed to turn herself into a political celebrity even as the presidential ticket she was on crashed and burned.
Presently, despite the best efforts of Republicans to characterize Barack Obama’s VP as a loose cannon, Joe Biden has proved to be a pretty steady and reliable asset to the campaign.
So now all eyes will be on Romney as he weeds through a long list of potential VP picks looking for one that could satisfy the Tea Party base without scaring away even more moderates - assuming there are any left at this point.
Friday, April 06, 2012
Little League Baseball
My son's Little League Baseball team is doing terrific this year. They currently have the best record in the Machine Pitch division of North Side Little League.
Until last night they were undefeated after 8 games, but they finally had an off-night. The first run through the batting order everyone struck out and the team fell behind 4-0. And yet, they still managed to nearly come back in the last inning and ended up only losing by one run.
Nathan got a hit his second time up that scored a runner from third, however he got sloppy running the bases and ended up getting picked off at second.
But tonight's game was completely different. Tonight they played the second best team in the league and walked away with it. The final score was 17-8, but only because we gave away 4 runs in the last inning.
Nathan got a hit every time up to bat, but only scored once. In his last at bat he hit a clear double - not a single where he advances to second on a throwing error which is very common at this age - but a solid hit that went all the way into the outfield and allowed him to run to second before they got it back in. I only hit one double the entire time I played Little League and I played all through junior high school. Nathan is only in the third grade.
Nathan's team is the Nationals, which ironically is one of the worst teams in Major League Baseball. The second best team is the Cubs.
Machine Pitch ball can be rough. The machine pitches the ball hard and fast every time. You have five chances to hit the ball and there are no walks. The only way to get on base is to hit the ball. But tonight, everyone was hitting the ball. We had a small team - 8 kids, just enough to field a team without being disqualified - because three kids were gone for Easter Break. That meant that they went through the batting order quicker. I think Nathan got to bat four or five times, whereas the night before he only batted twice.
The first time up, Nathan was able to drive in a run even though they got him out at first. Later on in the game, however, he kept coming up to bat with the bases empty because the kid in front of him kept hitting home runs. That was Andrew, the team slugger and the coach's son. Andrew had a fantastic night hitting three back-to-back-to-back home runs over the fence.
Isabel has been having a good time playing baseball too. She is in her third year of T-Ball and is enjoying it. In T-Ball they don't keep score and everyone gets to bat and play in the field each inning. Isabel can hit the ball pretty solidly every time off the tee and get on base. I've been pitching to her in the batting cages lately and am impressed with how well she can swing the bat and hit the ball. I think she will do fine moving up to machine pitch next year if she wants to keep going.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
John Wayne films
I’ve been watching John Wayne movies lately. Just watched the Howard Hawks-directed trio of Rio Bravo and its two variations - El Dorado and Rio Lobo - in sequential order.
They are all good in their own way. If I had to combine them, I would take the Dean Martin character from Rio Bravo; the James Caan character from El Dorado and the Jack Elam character from Rio Lobo.
Maybe because Deano is more believable as a recovering alcoholic, but I think he bests Robert Mitchum in the role as the down-and-out lawman who the Duke helps out. But then the young James Caan as the knife-wielding "Mississippi" out does the guitar-strumming Ricky Nelson as "Colorado" in Rio Bravo. And the wild-eyed Jack Elam is in top form as the crusty old guy with the itchy trigger finger who helps to guard the prisoner.
That got me to thinking about my John Wayne movie collection which is substantial but nowhere near complete. I own the following John Wayne movies on DVD:
Rooster Cogburn (‘75)
Big Jake (‘71)
Rio Lobo (‘70)
True Grit (‘69)
The Undefeated (‘69)
The War Wagon (‘67)
El Dorado (‘66)
In Harm’s Way (‘65)
The Sons of Katie Elder (‘65)
Donovan’s Reef (‘63)
How the West Was Won (‘62)
Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (‘62)
The Comancheros (‘61)
The Alamo (‘60)
North to Alaska (‘60)
Rio Bravo (‘59)
The Searchers (‘56)
The Sea Chase (‘55)
Blood Alley (‘55)
The High and the Mighty (‘54)
Island in the Sky (‘53)
The Quiet Man (‘52)
Rio Grande (‘50)
Angel and the Badman (‘47)
Plus the following movies in a 4-disc collection:
Hell Town (‘37)
Winds of the Wasteland (‘36)
Paradise Canyon (‘35)
Rainbow Valley (‘35)
Texas Terror (‘35)
The Dawn Rider (‘35)
The Desert Trail (‘35)
Blue Steel (‘34)
‘Neath the Arizona Skies (‘34)
The Lawless Frontier (‘34)
The Lucky Texan (‘34)
The Man From Utah (‘34)
The Star Packer (‘34)
The Trail Beyond (‘34)
Randy Rides Alone (‘34)
West of the Divide (‘34)
Riders of Destiny (‘33)
Sagebrush Trail (‘33)
Desert Command (‘33) (‘46)
His Private Secretary (‘33)
Shadow of the Eagle (‘32)
The Hurricane Express (‘32)
There are many more Wayne movies.
The ones at the top of my want list include:
Red River (‘48)
They Were Expendable (‘45)
Fort Apache (‘48)
She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (‘49)
Sands of Iwo Jima (‘49)
The Horse Soldiers (‘59)
Flying Leathernecks (‘51)
The Fighting Seabees (‘44)
Back to Bataan (‘45)
Operation Pacific (‘51)
The Shootist (‘76)
Cahill: U.S. Marshall (‘73)
The Cowboys (‘72)
Green Berets (‘68)
The Train Robbers (‘73)
Legend of the Lost (‘57)
The Fighting Kentuckian (‘49)
Wake of the Red Witch (‘48)
Flames of the Barbary Coast (‘44)
Tall in the Saddle (‘44)
A Lady Takes a Chance (‘43)
The Spoilers (‘42)
In Old California (‘42)
Flying Tigers (‘42)
The Dark Command (‘40)
The Three Godfathers (‘48)
Monday, January 23, 2012
Movie List 2011
I'm late getting my year end movie list up.
Here are the 2011 movies I have seen so far:
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
Captain America: The First Avenger
Kung Fu Panda 2
Winnie the Pooh
And here are the movies I expect that I will see eventually:
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Puss in Boots
X-Men First Class
Cowboys and Aliens
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
The Adventures of Tintin
We Bought a Zoo
Midnight in Paris