Thursday, September 24, 2009
For shame
HIV/AIDS is a worldwide epidemic. The infection rate all over the world is huge, especially in areas where people are poorly educated. Like the United States of America. Seriously, no one in this country is ever taught how to use a condom or why wearing one is so important. Do you have any idea how hard it is to put on a condom for the first time if you don't know how? Good, neither do I since I am as pure as the driven snow. But I hear its incredibly difficult if you do not know how. Also, I'm astounded by the number of people who eschew the use of condoms. Really? They're not that expensive and you're almost always less than 5 minutes from a place that sells them (or so I hear). I'm always critical of older generations being upset because people are sexually active. I say to each their own, mostly because what they do with their genitals doesn't really effect me. However, when they're spreading a disease like AIDS, that does effect me. So wrap that shit up, its not that hard, expensive, or time consuming. And I hear they even make ones that make sex feel better. Not that I'd know, these are just things I hear.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
You look like you just ate soap
This'll be a short one. Probably
Have you ever noticed how when you're standing waiting for an elevator on the first floor of a building, every person will come up and look to see if the up button has been illuminated. They're basically saying, "You look like someone who is barely able to stand up straight, let alone operate something as complex as an elevator button, I'd better check your work." Seriously, what do they think I'm doing there? Do they think I just enjoy elevator lobbies? Then again, I probably do the same thing. Can't trust people today, they're all stupid.
Have you ever noticed how when you're standing waiting for an elevator on the first floor of a building, every person will come up and look to see if the up button has been illuminated. They're basically saying, "You look like someone who is barely able to stand up straight, let alone operate something as complex as an elevator button, I'd better check your work." Seriously, what do they think I'm doing there? Do they think I just enjoy elevator lobbies? Then again, I probably do the same thing. Can't trust people today, they're all stupid.
Friday, September 18, 2009
The New Batman
As many people know, DC Comics has recently killed Bruce Wayne in much the same way as I put my dog outside: sure, he's outside right now but everyone knows when the neighbors complain I'll bring him back in. I'm not 100% sure that sentence works but I'm going with it because my backspace key is sticking today. Basically, Bruce Wayne will be back soon. Everyone who has ever read a comic, seen a comic book movie or taken a breath knows that they won't keep the real Batman dead forever. In the mean time, however, this gives the artists at DC a chance to tell a new story, a story that could never be told with Bruce around. That story is Dick Grayson as Batman.
I've always liked the character of Dick Grayson. As a kid, its easy to like Batman's wisecracking sidekick, mostly because at that age it would be more believable that I could be Robin rather than Batman. The thing I liked about Dick as I grew up was that he had faced most of the same horrors as Bruce but he'd come out of it with a bit of what I'm going to call sunshine for lack of a better term. His costume was brighter. He cracked jokes at inappropriate times. He just seemed happier.
The one thing I always hated in the comics was the modern trend of putting Bruce and Dick at odds. It must have seemed edgy when they first put friction between the most famous crime fighting duo this side of Holmes and Watson. Now, though, its just a tired cliche and yet DC sticks with it. These guys are in their universe literally the most successful crime fighting duo ever. And yet they can't seem to stand each other. I liken it to the Beatles: sure, they fought and broke up after being the greatest band of all time but its not like they hated each other, at least not for long. The same thing applies to Bruce and Dick. I can see them fighting as Dick grows up and becomes his own man (much like a father and son would in real life) but eventually they would come to see that the other had a point and come back together. Originally in the comics Bruce was proud when Robin become Nightwing after retiring as Robin. However, that's been retconned out in favor of Bruce firing Dick as Robin because he's saving other parts of the world. Because Bruce never helped the Justice League, the Outsiders, or any of the other superhero groups he's been a part of in his time.
Damn, that was a long preamble to saying that I'm excited about the new era of Dick Grayson as Batman. I think he deserves it. He's been the loyal helper for so long, he deserves a shot at the top spot. Unfortunately, I'll have to wait for the comics he's in right now to hit tradepaper back because there are two comic book stores near my house: one is in a demilitarized zone I wouldn't go into without Batman backing me up and the other closes at 7 every night, even Saturdays. You know, some comic book fans do have jobs. That's how we keep you guys in business. I'm just saying.
I've always liked the character of Dick Grayson. As a kid, its easy to like Batman's wisecracking sidekick, mostly because at that age it would be more believable that I could be Robin rather than Batman. The thing I liked about Dick as I grew up was that he had faced most of the same horrors as Bruce but he'd come out of it with a bit of what I'm going to call sunshine for lack of a better term. His costume was brighter. He cracked jokes at inappropriate times. He just seemed happier.
The one thing I always hated in the comics was the modern trend of putting Bruce and Dick at odds. It must have seemed edgy when they first put friction between the most famous crime fighting duo this side of Holmes and Watson. Now, though, its just a tired cliche and yet DC sticks with it. These guys are in their universe literally the most successful crime fighting duo ever. And yet they can't seem to stand each other. I liken it to the Beatles: sure, they fought and broke up after being the greatest band of all time but its not like they hated each other, at least not for long. The same thing applies to Bruce and Dick. I can see them fighting as Dick grows up and becomes his own man (much like a father and son would in real life) but eventually they would come to see that the other had a point and come back together. Originally in the comics Bruce was proud when Robin become Nightwing after retiring as Robin. However, that's been retconned out in favor of Bruce firing Dick as Robin because he's saving other parts of the world. Because Bruce never helped the Justice League, the Outsiders, or any of the other superhero groups he's been a part of in his time.
Damn, that was a long preamble to saying that I'm excited about the new era of Dick Grayson as Batman. I think he deserves it. He's been the loyal helper for so long, he deserves a shot at the top spot. Unfortunately, I'll have to wait for the comics he's in right now to hit tradepaper back because there are two comic book stores near my house: one is in a demilitarized zone I wouldn't go into without Batman backing me up and the other closes at 7 every night, even Saturdays. You know, some comic book fans do have jobs. That's how we keep you guys in business. I'm just saying.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Never give up, never surrender
Too many people are ready to give up on President Barack Obama.
We fought too long, too hard to just give up now. Has his Presidency been a little disappointing? Of course it is but that's forgetting the fact that nothing he could have done could have lived up to our expectations. If he had gotten us single payer healthcare, ended the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and balanced the budget all while pulling us out of the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression, people would have bitched about not closing down Gitmo fast enough. He's been a victim of his own success. He came from such long odds (being black, being new on the scene, going against the Clintons) that people began to believe he could do anything. He can't. No man can.
This is not to say that he shouldn't be criticized. When he does something wrong (like cave too early on single payer which would have been a useful card to play during the debate on healthcare rather than before) we should criticize him, that's about being a responsible citizen. But to abandon the President that we helped put in office less than a year into his term, that's just stupid. There is so much left to be done. In a couple of months healthcare in this country could be radically different, its up to us what that difference looks like (something helpful to people or yet another cash grab for the insurance industry). Then the President is trying to ramp up regulation of the financial sector (and people not in the financial sector that are basically loan sharks with slightly less knee cap breaking). From there who knows where we'll be headed to next (though I'd guess it rhymes with Fuckghanistan). Its not time to give up hope, not when there is so much left to do.
We fought too long, too hard to just give up now. Has his Presidency been a little disappointing? Of course it is but that's forgetting the fact that nothing he could have done could have lived up to our expectations. If he had gotten us single payer healthcare, ended the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and balanced the budget all while pulling us out of the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression, people would have bitched about not closing down Gitmo fast enough. He's been a victim of his own success. He came from such long odds (being black, being new on the scene, going against the Clintons) that people began to believe he could do anything. He can't. No man can.
This is not to say that he shouldn't be criticized. When he does something wrong (like cave too early on single payer which would have been a useful card to play during the debate on healthcare rather than before) we should criticize him, that's about being a responsible citizen. But to abandon the President that we helped put in office less than a year into his term, that's just stupid. There is so much left to be done. In a couple of months healthcare in this country could be radically different, its up to us what that difference looks like (something helpful to people or yet another cash grab for the insurance industry). Then the President is trying to ramp up regulation of the financial sector (and people not in the financial sector that are basically loan sharks with slightly less knee cap breaking). From there who knows where we'll be headed to next (though I'd guess it rhymes with Fuckghanistan). Its not time to give up hope, not when there is so much left to do.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Now, this is what I'm talking about
The title of my blog is born out by the fact that many sports stadiums now have a service where complaints about fans behaving poorly can be texted to security and that person will be observed and removed if necessary. Seriously, it might actually become nice to go to games soon if this keeps up.
Pay no attention to the timber in my eye
Does it strike anyone else as hypocritical that so many people in the US argue that we have to go to any means necessary to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons when we're the only country on the planet to ever actually use nuclear weapons? I mean, in the interest of full disclosure, I still think that America did the right thing, faced with an insanely militaristic Japan and possessing a very limited nuclear arsenal, if they were ever going to be used, that was the time to use them. The thing that gets lost in all this talk about how Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons is the question of why any of the rest of us should have them.
In a perfect world, Superman would exist and he could fly around the world with his x-ray vision and take all the nukes in the world and throw them into the sun (ok, maybe not a perfect plan since I have no idea what this would do to the sun). But, crappy movie plots aside, the elimination of nuclear weapons should be a serious topic of discussion for the whole world. With Russia rising from the ashes of the end of communism and China chugging towards a spot at the hegemon's table we seriously risk going back to the days when the end of the world could be any day. The idea, to paraphrase JFK, that a few men hold in their mortal hands the power to end all life on this planet is scary. I barely trust Obama with this power, let alone people I didn't vote for and don't know. I don't even trust our allies with nukes. Its just a bad idea overall. The problem is, can we ever close pandora's box?
Let's say that after years of negotiations and political arm wrestling the world finally rids itself of nuclear weapons (how they would get rid of them, I don't know, I say launch them into space and hope for the best). What stops some country from deciding that if they can create nuclear weapons before its enemies realize what they're doing that they can conquer the world? Then a nuclear arms race begins anew or most of the countries in the world are just charred craters leaving billions dead and most of the world uninhabitable. That's a bright sounding future. Is our safest option really to keep all our nukes around for mutually assured destruction? Doesn't that plan rely on everyone involved being rational? Doesn't the fact that George W. Bush was once President of the USA prove that that is not always the case? This whole issue makes me depressed. When do we get to have Gene Roddenberry's awesome rational future people with their space ships?
In a perfect world, Superman would exist and he could fly around the world with his x-ray vision and take all the nukes in the world and throw them into the sun (ok, maybe not a perfect plan since I have no idea what this would do to the sun). But, crappy movie plots aside, the elimination of nuclear weapons should be a serious topic of discussion for the whole world. With Russia rising from the ashes of the end of communism and China chugging towards a spot at the hegemon's table we seriously risk going back to the days when the end of the world could be any day. The idea, to paraphrase JFK, that a few men hold in their mortal hands the power to end all life on this planet is scary. I barely trust Obama with this power, let alone people I didn't vote for and don't know. I don't even trust our allies with nukes. Its just a bad idea overall. The problem is, can we ever close pandora's box?
Let's say that after years of negotiations and political arm wrestling the world finally rids itself of nuclear weapons (how they would get rid of them, I don't know, I say launch them into space and hope for the best). What stops some country from deciding that if they can create nuclear weapons before its enemies realize what they're doing that they can conquer the world? Then a nuclear arms race begins anew or most of the countries in the world are just charred craters leaving billions dead and most of the world uninhabitable. That's a bright sounding future. Is our safest option really to keep all our nukes around for mutually assured destruction? Doesn't that plan rely on everyone involved being rational? Doesn't the fact that George W. Bush was once President of the USA prove that that is not always the case? This whole issue makes me depressed. When do we get to have Gene Roddenberry's awesome rational future people with their space ships?
Monday, March 23, 2009
In Defense of the Jedi
I'm writing this because I think that the Sixth (or third) film in the Star Wars Saga, Return of the Jedi, is unfairly maligned. Sure, it, like every other George Lucas film, has its flaws, but overall it is a good movie with fewer flaws than people think. I'll tackle what people usually complain about one at a time.
The DeathStar again?
Sure, the Deathstar already showed up in the first movie and it is a bit of a cop out to do it again, but in this case I mostly feel bad for George Lucas. The movie he originally wanted to do was too long to every be filmed, so he had to break it up into three parts. Of course, that left the first part without an ending. Since Lucas never thought people would let him make a sequel to his crazy movie and he probably believed that audiences would want a real ending to the first movie, the Deathstar was moved up. Its hard to think of another setting for a showdown between the Rebels and the Empire. Just try to ignore the fact that it apparently took them twenty years to build the first one and built the second in like six.
Teddy Bear Picnic
Harrison Ford famously called the last segment of the movie a Teddy Bear Picnic because of the party involving the Ewoks. People's problems, however, go much deeper than just the party to the very involvement of Ewoks. I loved the Ewoks as a kid, hated them as a teenager, and have turned back around to them as an "adult." First, if the people of the forest moon of Endor (not Endor itself as many people mistakenly believe) had been scarier than midgets in bear costumes the Empire would have picked somewhere else to park their moon sized space station. I mean, really, what did the Empire have to fear from a bunch of teddy bears? I think that is the ultimate reason why I like the Ewoks once again, it shows how cocky the Empire was. They got so full of themselves that they ignored a technologically unadvanced people, let the Rebel Alliance bring all their ships to a "trap," and took their two biggest players out of the fight (more on that later). The Empire got cocky and they ended up getting screwed because of it. Also, everyone complains about how rudimentary the weapons used by the Ewoks were in taking down Imperial Forces. If you really think about it though, the Empire has marched across the galaxy, stamping out resistance from people who shot at them with blasters and had space ships. Do you really think they spent a lot of time in basic training covering what to do if your AT-ST gets logs rolled in front of it? I don't think so either.
Luke was basically useless
Some people like to claim that Luke was basically wasting his time during the last act of Jedi. I have a different take. Those saying that Luke wasted his time point to the fact that the Deathstar was going to blow up soon anyway as proof that Luke really didn't do anything. However, if the Skywalker saga doesn't take place, do things really unfold the same way? First, Luke is one of the main reasons that the Emperor decides to set his "brilliant" trap for the Rebellion in the first place. I mean, he has to be sick of hearing Vader talk about his kid all the time. He also probably heard about Vader's offer to Luke about joining him and overthrowing the Emperor (which, coming from a Sith is not that surprising, but still couldn't have been pleasant to hear about). Also, I'm sure he would be more than happy to trade Vader in for a younger, less messed up model. Anyways, the Emperor decides to spend his and his right hand man's time during the biggest battle of the Rebellion dealing with one boy who isn't even a Jedi yet. Can you imagine what might have happened had he set Vader loose on the Battle of Endor? Do you really think that the shield generator gets blown up if Vader is guarding it personally? I mean, lightsabers work just as well on Ewoks, you just swing a bit lower. What if Vader had hopped into his TIE fighter? Do you really think that Lando flys the Falcon into the Deathstar with Vader flying around? Luke took the Empires two biggest pieces out of play for the Battle of Endor, which was certainly valuable. Less valuable was when he threw away his lightsaber after defeating Vader. Did Luke think the Emperor would just let him go?
Anyways, that's my defense of Return of the Jedi. Maybe soon I'll try to defend the prequels.
The DeathStar again?
Sure, the Deathstar already showed up in the first movie and it is a bit of a cop out to do it again, but in this case I mostly feel bad for George Lucas. The movie he originally wanted to do was too long to every be filmed, so he had to break it up into three parts. Of course, that left the first part without an ending. Since Lucas never thought people would let him make a sequel to his crazy movie and he probably believed that audiences would want a real ending to the first movie, the Deathstar was moved up. Its hard to think of another setting for a showdown between the Rebels and the Empire. Just try to ignore the fact that it apparently took them twenty years to build the first one and built the second in like six.
Teddy Bear Picnic
Harrison Ford famously called the last segment of the movie a Teddy Bear Picnic because of the party involving the Ewoks. People's problems, however, go much deeper than just the party to the very involvement of Ewoks. I loved the Ewoks as a kid, hated them as a teenager, and have turned back around to them as an "adult." First, if the people of the forest moon of Endor (not Endor itself as many people mistakenly believe) had been scarier than midgets in bear costumes the Empire would have picked somewhere else to park their moon sized space station. I mean, really, what did the Empire have to fear from a bunch of teddy bears? I think that is the ultimate reason why I like the Ewoks once again, it shows how cocky the Empire was. They got so full of themselves that they ignored a technologically unadvanced people, let the Rebel Alliance bring all their ships to a "trap," and took their two biggest players out of the fight (more on that later). The Empire got cocky and they ended up getting screwed because of it. Also, everyone complains about how rudimentary the weapons used by the Ewoks were in taking down Imperial Forces. If you really think about it though, the Empire has marched across the galaxy, stamping out resistance from people who shot at them with blasters and had space ships. Do you really think they spent a lot of time in basic training covering what to do if your AT-ST gets logs rolled in front of it? I don't think so either.
Luke was basically useless
Some people like to claim that Luke was basically wasting his time during the last act of Jedi. I have a different take. Those saying that Luke wasted his time point to the fact that the Deathstar was going to blow up soon anyway as proof that Luke really didn't do anything. However, if the Skywalker saga doesn't take place, do things really unfold the same way? First, Luke is one of the main reasons that the Emperor decides to set his "brilliant" trap for the Rebellion in the first place. I mean, he has to be sick of hearing Vader talk about his kid all the time. He also probably heard about Vader's offer to Luke about joining him and overthrowing the Emperor (which, coming from a Sith is not that surprising, but still couldn't have been pleasant to hear about). Also, I'm sure he would be more than happy to trade Vader in for a younger, less messed up model. Anyways, the Emperor decides to spend his and his right hand man's time during the biggest battle of the Rebellion dealing with one boy who isn't even a Jedi yet. Can you imagine what might have happened had he set Vader loose on the Battle of Endor? Do you really think that the shield generator gets blown up if Vader is guarding it personally? I mean, lightsabers work just as well on Ewoks, you just swing a bit lower. What if Vader had hopped into his TIE fighter? Do you really think that Lando flys the Falcon into the Deathstar with Vader flying around? Luke took the Empires two biggest pieces out of play for the Battle of Endor, which was certainly valuable. Less valuable was when he threw away his lightsaber after defeating Vader. Did Luke think the Emperor would just let him go?
Anyways, that's my defense of Return of the Jedi. Maybe soon I'll try to defend the prequels.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
It seemed like a good idea at the time
America needs to seriously consider legalizing all drugs. It needs to consider it for five minutes then just do it.
Nothing is gained by making narcotics illegal. The number of people who refrain from using them because they're illegal has to be tiny (and even among those people most would try pot or coke at most, not hardcore drugs if they were legal). The one issue I foresee is people driving while doing legalized drugs. I have to wonder, though, just how many people are doing that now anyway. I doubt worker productivity would go down at all (also, most businesses would still be allowed to prohibit drug use if they wanted, they'd just have a smaller pool of workers to draw from if they wanted to make pot verbotem at their work).
Here is what is gained by making drugs illegal (not just this paragraph, I'm assuming I'll need more): Mexico, Columbia, Afghanistan and others get to stop being failed states. Two of those countries are locked in a brutal civil war between two factions: the governments and the cartels (though the governments are rarely anything more than just glorified cartels). Removing the billions that Americans ship there for the illegal drugs would cripple these people. Afghanistan would certainly be better off if farmers didn't have to worry that American helicopters were coming to burn down their poppy fields every time they heard an American chopper. Who cares if that's the only crop they can grow there? If its really that good, maybe Afghanistan will become to opiates what Russia is to vodka.
The American police could go back to be a police force instead of a paramilitary unit. Have you seen police forces recently? They all have body armor that would make Robocop jealous. And they cops up in Philly are practically at war with the drug dealers, and its not really clear who is winning. If you can walk into any local store and buy drugs, the drug empires crumble. Just as prohibition made the Mafia the powerhouse that it was, drugs make the modern criminal empires function (they also put the Mafia on life support when the liquor money dried up). These people will be put out of business by corporations so fast it'll make their heads spin.
American's get their civil liberties back. Most of the roll back on civil liberties (thanks to the Burger, Rehnquist and Roberts courts) have been because of drug related cases. Thanks to drugs, the police can pull you over in your car, arrest you, put you in the back of their police car, and search your car (trunk and locked glove box included) all to "protect the safety of the officer" (read: to find drugs). If they don't need to find drugs, we might actually give our civil liberties back (I say might because we're still in the early stages of the Roberts courts).
American farmers get to grow crops people actually want. You don't think American farmers would jump at the chance to grow new cash crops? I'm sure tabacco farmers would love to have something to replace their ever shrinking crop. Also, this could mean the end of having to pay subsides to farmers to cut back on food production since this plan could see them making money.
The tax revenue would be awesome and considering the amount of money this move will save us, Republicans will cum in their pants when they see the numbers. We'll be going from spending billions to stop something from happening to making billions taxing it. We're already paying for the results of drug addiction, why not profit off it too? (that may be a little callous, but I'm ok with that)
Any other problems or suggestions can be left in the comments.
Nothing is gained by making narcotics illegal. The number of people who refrain from using them because they're illegal has to be tiny (and even among those people most would try pot or coke at most, not hardcore drugs if they were legal). The one issue I foresee is people driving while doing legalized drugs. I have to wonder, though, just how many people are doing that now anyway. I doubt worker productivity would go down at all (also, most businesses would still be allowed to prohibit drug use if they wanted, they'd just have a smaller pool of workers to draw from if they wanted to make pot verbotem at their work).
Here is what is gained by making drugs illegal (not just this paragraph, I'm assuming I'll need more): Mexico, Columbia, Afghanistan and others get to stop being failed states. Two of those countries are locked in a brutal civil war between two factions: the governments and the cartels (though the governments are rarely anything more than just glorified cartels). Removing the billions that Americans ship there for the illegal drugs would cripple these people. Afghanistan would certainly be better off if farmers didn't have to worry that American helicopters were coming to burn down their poppy fields every time they heard an American chopper. Who cares if that's the only crop they can grow there? If its really that good, maybe Afghanistan will become to opiates what Russia is to vodka.
The American police could go back to be a police force instead of a paramilitary unit. Have you seen police forces recently? They all have body armor that would make Robocop jealous. And they cops up in Philly are practically at war with the drug dealers, and its not really clear who is winning. If you can walk into any local store and buy drugs, the drug empires crumble. Just as prohibition made the Mafia the powerhouse that it was, drugs make the modern criminal empires function (they also put the Mafia on life support when the liquor money dried up). These people will be put out of business by corporations so fast it'll make their heads spin.
American's get their civil liberties back. Most of the roll back on civil liberties (thanks to the Burger, Rehnquist and Roberts courts) have been because of drug related cases. Thanks to drugs, the police can pull you over in your car, arrest you, put you in the back of their police car, and search your car (trunk and locked glove box included) all to "protect the safety of the officer" (read: to find drugs). If they don't need to find drugs, we might actually give our civil liberties back (I say might because we're still in the early stages of the Roberts courts).
American farmers get to grow crops people actually want. You don't think American farmers would jump at the chance to grow new cash crops? I'm sure tabacco farmers would love to have something to replace their ever shrinking crop. Also, this could mean the end of having to pay subsides to farmers to cut back on food production since this plan could see them making money.
The tax revenue would be awesome and considering the amount of money this move will save us, Republicans will cum in their pants when they see the numbers. We'll be going from spending billions to stop something from happening to making billions taxing it. We're already paying for the results of drug addiction, why not profit off it too? (that may be a little callous, but I'm ok with that)
Any other problems or suggestions can be left in the comments.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Wow, just wow
So, apparently, Chuck Norris has lost his mind. No this isn't the start of some sort Chuck Norris joke, those were not funny almost as soon as they started. This is far more frightening than another internet joke gone mainstream. Norris was on Glen Beck's show the other night and joked about running as the President of Texas. Now, certainly, for a ten year period, Texas was a republic that had its own sovereign government (until Mexico started a war with them and they ran to the US government like little kids to their mommy when a bully comes after them). Unless some of the very unfunny things people say about Norris are true, he has no ability to travel through time, thus he must be expecting Texas to be an independent republic again. He confirmed this is what he meant when he went on Beck's radio show today and spoke about the future where Texas would succeed from the Union (didn't they do that once already? How'd that end up turning out?). Just to make sure there were no misunderstandings, Norris went on his own blog and said that he didn't mean to imply that Texas would be the only state with enough balls to leave the USA, just one of many.
To be fair, rebellion is what our nation was founded on. We're the upstarts who wanted a vote before we got taxed. So we started our own government, that then taxed people without giving them a vote (in the beginning of our nation, only landholders had votes). That being said, fuck off Chuck Norris. He is complaining because the government wants to take away his guns. First off, not a lot of people care if Chuck Norris has guns. Liberals care if criminals have guns. Specifically, we care if guns that can do a lot of damage end up in the hands of criminals. Secondly, bragging about your ranch full of guns makes you sound creepy, not like a Patriot.
Look, I get that the Second Amendment grants people a "right to bear arms." I'm not going to mention the unmentioned portion of the second about militias (oops, just did). That right is protected just like the right to speech, the press, and religion (same language and everything). Try expressing your speech with child pornography or talking about how much you'd love to kill the president (for the record, I am a huge fan of the President and even if I wasn't, I would never harm someone I disagreed with, that's what votes are for, so I would request the Secret Service use lube during my cavity search). Every right needs to be regulated. I would love to know what Norris would say about our right to nuclear weapons. Those are arms. There really is no way to draw a line between muskets, handguns, shotgun, machine guns, tanks, and nuclear weapons. As soon as you draw the line, that's regulation. But that's ok, because regulation is a part of life, regulation is why we need government. I like living my life, secure in the knowledge that the odds are good that the stuff I own will remain mine, even if the guy walking down the street next to me is bigger or better armed. If men were angels, there would be no need for government. I have absolutely no desire to live in a world were there is no government.
I hate people who wax philosophical about civil war. The American Civil War was one of the bloodiest wars ever fought and cost America quite a bit. Hell, if you look at the electoral map you can see that we're just starting to get over it. Look at other countries around the world who are engaged in civil war, do those situations really seem appealing to you? If so, you really need to find a good shrink.
Where were all these nutjobs when President Bush was illegally detaining American citizens and people from around the world? Where were they when torture was being oked? They weren't rebelling then because they were cool with everything that was going on. The majority of the country was not and that's why we have a new President. So, you lost at the ballot box and now you want to rebel? Sounds more like what happens in failed states than in a country where every four years there are real elections.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is this: Shut the fuck Chuck Norris. Go back to Texas and play with yourself while you look at your gun collection. We promise not to take your guns if you'll just shut up and leave us alone.
To be fair, rebellion is what our nation was founded on. We're the upstarts who wanted a vote before we got taxed. So we started our own government, that then taxed people without giving them a vote (in the beginning of our nation, only landholders had votes). That being said, fuck off Chuck Norris. He is complaining because the government wants to take away his guns. First off, not a lot of people care if Chuck Norris has guns. Liberals care if criminals have guns. Specifically, we care if guns that can do a lot of damage end up in the hands of criminals. Secondly, bragging about your ranch full of guns makes you sound creepy, not like a Patriot.
Look, I get that the Second Amendment grants people a "right to bear arms." I'm not going to mention the unmentioned portion of the second about militias (oops, just did). That right is protected just like the right to speech, the press, and religion (same language and everything). Try expressing your speech with child pornography or talking about how much you'd love to kill the president (for the record, I am a huge fan of the President and even if I wasn't, I would never harm someone I disagreed with, that's what votes are for, so I would request the Secret Service use lube during my cavity search). Every right needs to be regulated. I would love to know what Norris would say about our right to nuclear weapons. Those are arms. There really is no way to draw a line between muskets, handguns, shotgun, machine guns, tanks, and nuclear weapons. As soon as you draw the line, that's regulation. But that's ok, because regulation is a part of life, regulation is why we need government. I like living my life, secure in the knowledge that the odds are good that the stuff I own will remain mine, even if the guy walking down the street next to me is bigger or better armed. If men were angels, there would be no need for government. I have absolutely no desire to live in a world were there is no government.
I hate people who wax philosophical about civil war. The American Civil War was one of the bloodiest wars ever fought and cost America quite a bit. Hell, if you look at the electoral map you can see that we're just starting to get over it. Look at other countries around the world who are engaged in civil war, do those situations really seem appealing to you? If so, you really need to find a good shrink.
Where were all these nutjobs when President Bush was illegally detaining American citizens and people from around the world? Where were they when torture was being oked? They weren't rebelling then because they were cool with everything that was going on. The majority of the country was not and that's why we have a new President. So, you lost at the ballot box and now you want to rebel? Sounds more like what happens in failed states than in a country where every four years there are real elections.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is this: Shut the fuck Chuck Norris. Go back to Texas and play with yourself while you look at your gun collection. We promise not to take your guns if you'll just shut up and leave us alone.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
Am I the only one who is starting to think that the New York Post cartoonist put the chimp in his cartoon so people would pay attention? Seriously, that's really the only thing I can think of. I doubt it was anything overtly racist, since I would just hope that those sort of people don't write (or draw) for the NYP in this day and age. I think they did it just so that people would pay attention. I'm sure copies of that paper have all but disappeared off the news shelves. You know? I say fine. The best part of this whole thing for me has to be the fact that most of America (even the non-black parts) really didn't like this cartoon, which means good things for us as a country.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Memories
I was just thinking about this time I was sitting at my computer, minding my own business, when my phone started to ring. I didn't recognize the number but I answered anyway because I would just be curious later who it was. Shockingly, the voice on the other end turned out to be female (these were well before my days of getting phone calls from random girls)(ok, you win, I never had those days, happy?). The girl refused to identify herself, which was kind of annoying, but I stuck with the phone call trying to figure out if it was a friend of mine just messing with me. Then the girl started asking why I hadn't called her back after last week. At this point, I just got annoyed and hung up the phone, because there was no one I should have been calling back from the week before.
About ten seconds later the phone rings again, same number. I pick it up. The girl on the other end tries her "you didn't call me back" routine again but soon realizes its not working. At this point, she breaks character to tell me that I was the victim of a prank phone call and that they were trying to freak me out that there was a girl I'd slept with the earlier that I didn't call back that was calling me. But the joke was on them, I hadn't slept with a girl ever at that point. Actually, I still think the joke was on me.
About ten seconds later the phone rings again, same number. I pick it up. The girl on the other end tries her "you didn't call me back" routine again but soon realizes its not working. At this point, she breaks character to tell me that I was the victim of a prank phone call and that they were trying to freak me out that there was a girl I'd slept with the earlier that I didn't call back that was calling me. But the joke was on them, I hadn't slept with a girl ever at that point. Actually, I still think the joke was on me.
Right around the corner are annoying gay gold robots
Apparently we've invented robots with the ability to answer the telephone and no one told me. The following is an actual phone conversation I just had:
Phone rings several times and gets picked up
Person I'm about to discover is a robot: Hello.
Me: Hi, may I please speak to M*. **** ****?
Robot: No one is home right now. Who is this?
Phone rings several times and gets picked up
Person I'm about to discover is a robot: Hello.
Me: Hi, may I please speak to M*. **** ****?
Robot: No one is home right now. Who is this?
I just carried the bullet awhile
They're not dead yet, but it can't be long now. Bigots and xenophobes are seeing their time come to an end and I couldn't be happier.
Sure, there are still people who burn crosses and scream about the evils of Mexican immigrants but those people are losing the war for the soul of this country. (A quick note about those fears about Mexican immigrants: they sound an awful lot like those leveled at my Irish and German ancestors when they came to this country. 80 years ago, there were certain parts of New York you could probably walk for hours without meeting anyone who spoke English. Through the German, Italian and even Irish ghettos, it would have been hard to find people who spoke English. And guess what, it all worked out in the end. Two generations later and everyone pretends to be Irish on March 17th. The fear that people have over others not speaking English is as understandable as it is misplaced. These people see our language as the thing that unites us as a Nation. However, what really unites us as a nation is the American spirit and you cannot tell me that people who run across barren land in the middle of the night while rednecks try to shoot them just for a chance that their children can one day do better than themselves don't have the American Spirit.)
The thing is that children being raised today in a world with a biracial president and people in other countries literally a computer and an internet connection away. The world has become a smaller place and there is no where for bigots to hide themselves away. Gone are the days when someone could grow up without ever seeing someone of another race.
The fight against these types isn't over. Membership in racist groups has gone up since the election of Obama. However, these are no where near the numbers they had just half a century ago. As the President himself reminded us many times during his campaign, in no other country in the world is his story even possible. Where else could the member of an ethnic minority be elected to a nation's highest office? When that minority had been enslaved 150 years ago and had been treated as a second class citizen by the law just 50 years ago. America has once again started leading the way for the world, showing them that the old racial tensions don't have to matter, that we can get over the old wounds, no matter how deep. That is why, no matter what the economy does, I still have hope. We are on the right path, we have the right leader, we are going to be ok (or even better).
Sure, there are still people who burn crosses and scream about the evils of Mexican immigrants but those people are losing the war for the soul of this country. (A quick note about those fears about Mexican immigrants: they sound an awful lot like those leveled at my Irish and German ancestors when they came to this country. 80 years ago, there were certain parts of New York you could probably walk for hours without meeting anyone who spoke English. Through the German, Italian and even Irish ghettos, it would have been hard to find people who spoke English. And guess what, it all worked out in the end. Two generations later and everyone pretends to be Irish on March 17th. The fear that people have over others not speaking English is as understandable as it is misplaced. These people see our language as the thing that unites us as a Nation. However, what really unites us as a nation is the American spirit and you cannot tell me that people who run across barren land in the middle of the night while rednecks try to shoot them just for a chance that their children can one day do better than themselves don't have the American Spirit.)
The thing is that children being raised today in a world with a biracial president and people in other countries literally a computer and an internet connection away. The world has become a smaller place and there is no where for bigots to hide themselves away. Gone are the days when someone could grow up without ever seeing someone of another race.
The fight against these types isn't over. Membership in racist groups has gone up since the election of Obama. However, these are no where near the numbers they had just half a century ago. As the President himself reminded us many times during his campaign, in no other country in the world is his story even possible. Where else could the member of an ethnic minority be elected to a nation's highest office? When that minority had been enslaved 150 years ago and had been treated as a second class citizen by the law just 50 years ago. America has once again started leading the way for the world, showing them that the old racial tensions don't have to matter, that we can get over the old wounds, no matter how deep. That is why, no matter what the economy does, I still have hope. We are on the right path, we have the right leader, we are going to be ok (or even better).
Monday, February 9, 2009
Best job to have in a recession is selling belt hole punchers
I know that money does not make problems go away, that rich people have money problems too, but does being rich always have to mean being tone deaf? The screaming from Wall Street about limiting their salaries to $500K if they take government money is getting a little ridiculous for several reasons:
If you're really worth millions of dollars in salary, wouldn't your company not need government money just to continue to exist?
I know that the cost of living is higher in New York and that these people have become used to a better lifestyle than most of us know. However, when people who used to make minimum wage are getting fired, people making millions having to cut back a bit is a hard thing to feel bad about.
They still get to have stock options, so if they do their jobs and get these companies back on the right track, they could be looking at a huge financial gain. These people have gotten lazy, they want money that is not tied to succeeding long term. If you aren't willing to bet your future earning on your preformance, you aren't worth the money.
Finally, it just looks bad to bitch about getting your salary cut to $500K in the midst of an economic downturn. Though it must be weird to have to give a shit what all us little people think of them after so long not caring.
If you're really worth millions of dollars in salary, wouldn't your company not need government money just to continue to exist?
I know that the cost of living is higher in New York and that these people have become used to a better lifestyle than most of us know. However, when people who used to make minimum wage are getting fired, people making millions having to cut back a bit is a hard thing to feel bad about.
They still get to have stock options, so if they do their jobs and get these companies back on the right track, they could be looking at a huge financial gain. These people have gotten lazy, they want money that is not tied to succeeding long term. If you aren't willing to bet your future earning on your preformance, you aren't worth the money.
Finally, it just looks bad to bitch about getting your salary cut to $500K in the midst of an economic downturn. Though it must be weird to have to give a shit what all us little people think of them after so long not caring.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Wawa subs are good
I enjoy eating made at Wawas all around my area. My favorite thing about Wawa is that all ordering is done from an electronic screen, instead of shouting an order over the noise in the store and hoping the person behind the counter gets the order right, you just push buttons on a screen until your order is done, go up and pay, and your food is ready soon there after and you leave. This system means that the person making your food is almost completely unknown to you outside of pleasantries. As long as that person makes a good sub, I really could care less about who they are. If the guy making my sub molests collies in his spare time, I really don't care as long as he makes a good sub (provided he washes his hands inbetween the molesting and the sub making). This is all a long lead up to me saying I could give a fuck if Christian Bale is a bad person.
Christian Bale has stared as Batman in two movies I have really enjoyed. He has also been in several other movies I have enjoyed. By all accounts, he's a nice guy who got caught on tape on a bad day. Even if he was an asshole, I wouldn't care, he makes good movies, beyond that it does not matter to me. Bale and I will never hang out, so whether he's an asshole in real life really does not seem to matter to anyone with brain cells. Russel Crowe is another exampe. Crowe is, by all accounts, a raging asshole that is hard to work with. But I don't work in the movie industry, so I don't care. He is, however, one of the most gifted actors in Hollywood and I have never thought he gave a bad or lazy preformance.
Now, I know as soon as my fiancee reads this, I'll be getting yelled at because, really this is one long hypocritical ranting. I have in the past refused to watch any Roman Polanski movies because he fled the country after a statutory rape charge was filed. Whether he was framed or really did drug and fuck a 13 year old really shouldn't matter if all of the above is true. And it really is true, I shouldn't care, but I do have several defenses to put forward. First, its always different when its children. I can forgive a lot of stuff, but I really cannot forgive people who hurt children. Jesus had the right idea, tie shit around their necks and throw them in the ocean. Second, the main movie I'm pressured to watch, The Pianist, seems like an incredibly depressing movie. I'll confess, I've never watched Schindler's List. I know the Holocaust happened and I know it was a tragedy, I'm just not sure I can watch a movie based around the events of the Holocaust. Finally, I'm not perfect. Though I often claim to be, I have failings. I try to live up to my ideals, but it is hard. Who knows, maybe I'll watch the Pianist some time soon. Editor's Note: James is probably lying about watching the movie because he wants to appear less hypocritical. Don't trust James, he's a filthy liar.
Christian Bale has stared as Batman in two movies I have really enjoyed. He has also been in several other movies I have enjoyed. By all accounts, he's a nice guy who got caught on tape on a bad day. Even if he was an asshole, I wouldn't care, he makes good movies, beyond that it does not matter to me. Bale and I will never hang out, so whether he's an asshole in real life really does not seem to matter to anyone with brain cells. Russel Crowe is another exampe. Crowe is, by all accounts, a raging asshole that is hard to work with. But I don't work in the movie industry, so I don't care. He is, however, one of the most gifted actors in Hollywood and I have never thought he gave a bad or lazy preformance.
Now, I know as soon as my fiancee reads this, I'll be getting yelled at because, really this is one long hypocritical ranting. I have in the past refused to watch any Roman Polanski movies because he fled the country after a statutory rape charge was filed. Whether he was framed or really did drug and fuck a 13 year old really shouldn't matter if all of the above is true. And it really is true, I shouldn't care, but I do have several defenses to put forward. First, its always different when its children. I can forgive a lot of stuff, but I really cannot forgive people who hurt children. Jesus had the right idea, tie shit around their necks and throw them in the ocean. Second, the main movie I'm pressured to watch, The Pianist, seems like an incredibly depressing movie. I'll confess, I've never watched Schindler's List. I know the Holocaust happened and I know it was a tragedy, I'm just not sure I can watch a movie based around the events of the Holocaust. Finally, I'm not perfect. Though I often claim to be, I have failings. I try to live up to my ideals, but it is hard. Who knows, maybe I'll watch the Pianist some time soon. Editor's Note: James is probably lying about watching the movie because he wants to appear less hypocritical. Don't trust James, he's a filthy liar.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
The Doctor v. G.I. Joe
During the Superbowl the ad for the new GI Joe movie was debuted. I hadn't realized till now that Destro was going to be played by the 9th Doctor. I have a dilemma now, who do I root for in this movie?
Sure, I used to love GI Joe when I was a kid. Had a box full of the action figures (some of them even in one piece) and I watched the show (I can't count how many times I've said, "because knowing is half the battle"). And I've only recently started watching Doctor Who and I've only just now seen all the shows that the 9th Doctor was in (I started on David Tennant and as they say, you never forget your first Doctor). I know, I really should be rooting for GI Joe. I mean, they're from my childhood and they're the good guys in the movie. I do, however, think I've found a way to rationalize rooting for the bad guys.
First, this isn't really GI Joe. I mean, sure, they have the names and the characters are based off of the cartoon, but its a huge Hollywood blockbuster instead of the extended commercial for GI Joe related toys that I used to love so much. I mean, this is GI Joe but only in the same way that Michael Jackson is the same little kid from the Jackson 5. Second, it is specifically stated in the previews that this elite squad answers to no governmental agency. How does that make them any better than Cobra? Sure, they fight on the "good" side but if they answer to no one, who decides good? Third, the whole GI Joe v. Cobra fight never seemed terribly fair to me. I mean all those years and Cobra never won once. Even the Washington Generals squeaked one out a few years back. America loves an underdog (unless its voiced by Jason Lee) and who is really the underdog here the ultra secret government organization that can afford combat suits that seem like they can fly or the hapless bad guys who couldn't beat up Glass Joe from Knock Out!? And finally, seriously, I can't root against the Doctor (seriously, once I found out that David Tennant had played a bad guy in Harry Potter I started rooting for the one who shall not be named).
Also, I loved the new Trek trailer, but that's a post for another day.
Sure, I used to love GI Joe when I was a kid. Had a box full of the action figures (some of them even in one piece) and I watched the show (I can't count how many times I've said, "because knowing is half the battle"). And I've only recently started watching Doctor Who and I've only just now seen all the shows that the 9th Doctor was in (I started on David Tennant and as they say, you never forget your first Doctor). I know, I really should be rooting for GI Joe. I mean, they're from my childhood and they're the good guys in the movie. I do, however, think I've found a way to rationalize rooting for the bad guys.
First, this isn't really GI Joe. I mean, sure, they have the names and the characters are based off of the cartoon, but its a huge Hollywood blockbuster instead of the extended commercial for GI Joe related toys that I used to love so much. I mean, this is GI Joe but only in the same way that Michael Jackson is the same little kid from the Jackson 5. Second, it is specifically stated in the previews that this elite squad answers to no governmental agency. How does that make them any better than Cobra? Sure, they fight on the "good" side but if they answer to no one, who decides good? Third, the whole GI Joe v. Cobra fight never seemed terribly fair to me. I mean all those years and Cobra never won once. Even the Washington Generals squeaked one out a few years back. America loves an underdog (unless its voiced by Jason Lee) and who is really the underdog here the ultra secret government organization that can afford combat suits that seem like they can fly or the hapless bad guys who couldn't beat up Glass Joe from Knock Out!? And finally, seriously, I can't root against the Doctor (seriously, once I found out that David Tennant had played a bad guy in Harry Potter I started rooting for the one who shall not be named).
Also, I loved the new Trek trailer, but that's a post for another day.
This isn't geeky, just my ranting
So there's a webpage I just got invited to join: NoCheckPoints.com. Basically, they're saying that because DUI checkpoints are a waste of taxpayer money, we should notify others as to where DUI checkpoints are so that they can avoid the checkpoints. I hate people.
I'm not sure why they just weren't honest and tell people they like to drive drunk and would rather the state not try to stop them in a systematic fashion. The expense of DUI checkpoints isn't changed by avoiding the checkpoints, it's not like the cops charge the state per car. DUI checkpoints are no big deal, generally, if you haven't been drinking. I've only ever been through one, it was a minor inconvience at best. If people really want DUI checkpoints to go away, they should stop being irresponsible when they go out to bars. Take a designated driver, call a cab, walk home. I really don't care but you cannot drive as well after you've been drinking, no matter who you are. Most times people get away with it but when they don't, other people get hurt. You're driving around a two ton piece of metal that travels at high speeds, its time to zip up your man suit and act responsibly. Sermon over.
I'm not sure why they just weren't honest and tell people they like to drive drunk and would rather the state not try to stop them in a systematic fashion. The expense of DUI checkpoints isn't changed by avoiding the checkpoints, it's not like the cops charge the state per car. DUI checkpoints are no big deal, generally, if you haven't been drinking. I've only ever been through one, it was a minor inconvience at best. If people really want DUI checkpoints to go away, they should stop being irresponsible when they go out to bars. Take a designated driver, call a cab, walk home. I really don't care but you cannot drive as well after you've been drinking, no matter who you are. Most times people get away with it but when they don't, other people get hurt. You're driving around a two ton piece of metal that travels at high speeds, its time to zip up your man suit and act responsibly. Sermon over.
Friday, January 30, 2009
It's not sexism, its just people who have never seen other people naked
I really get mad when people complain about how sexist comic books are. Editors Note: James means superhero comics, but since those are the only sorts of comics he officially acknowledges he refused to clarify himself.
Complain about the lack of good female characters if you want, but go ahead and make a list of all the good male characters and you'll realize its shorter than you think. Complain about all the damsels in distress, but that has more to do with lazy story telling and is a lot more widespread than comics.
By far, the biggest complaint is how busty women in comics are and how tight and skimpy their costumes are. First, no comic book character looks realistic. There has never been a human being that has the muscle definition of a Superman or a Batman. Both of those characters have pecks that would have made the Governor of California envious back in his bodybuilding days. This is probably due to the fact that comic book writers have never seen an in shape man naked, in person, in their lives. The lack of realism in the female characters can be explained for the same reason (seriously, would you fuck Alan Moore? I wouldn't even touch him with a ten foot pole). Complaining about the costumes of the female superheroes is just as silly. Last time I checked, most male superheroes weren't running around in baggy clothing. The only reason they don't show a little chest is that most supervillians aren't distracted by male chest (the same cannot be said of the female chest which is distracting when it isn't large and headed straight towards you). All I'm saying is, its hard to walk with an erection, can you imagine fighting with one?
I'm not saying that there is no sexism in comics, I'm just saying, point to the fact that there aren't a lot of female comic writers rather than superheroes who show a little boob.
Complain about the lack of good female characters if you want, but go ahead and make a list of all the good male characters and you'll realize its shorter than you think. Complain about all the damsels in distress, but that has more to do with lazy story telling and is a lot more widespread than comics.
By far, the biggest complaint is how busty women in comics are and how tight and skimpy their costumes are. First, no comic book character looks realistic. There has never been a human being that has the muscle definition of a Superman or a Batman. Both of those characters have pecks that would have made the Governor of California envious back in his bodybuilding days. This is probably due to the fact that comic book writers have never seen an in shape man naked, in person, in their lives. The lack of realism in the female characters can be explained for the same reason (seriously, would you fuck Alan Moore? I wouldn't even touch him with a ten foot pole). Complaining about the costumes of the female superheroes is just as silly. Last time I checked, most male superheroes weren't running around in baggy clothing. The only reason they don't show a little chest is that most supervillians aren't distracted by male chest (the same cannot be said of the female chest which is distracting when it isn't large and headed straight towards you). All I'm saying is, its hard to walk with an erection, can you imagine fighting with one?
I'm not saying that there is no sexism in comics, I'm just saying, point to the fact that there aren't a lot of female comic writers rather than superheroes who show a little boob.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
And the award goes to...
David Letterman for being the biggest douchebag, ever.
Check out this top 9 list from one of the funniest people on the internet today.
Within the list are (ironically) 9 videos of interviews done by David Letterman. In each he basically treats the people he's interviewing like something gross his dog left on the living room carpet for him. He made me feel bad for Paris Hilton for Christ's sake. He made me feel bad for a shallow, useless, spoiled, amateur porn star.
"But James", you're saying in your head, "Dave is hilarious." And that's still true, people can be douchebags and funny all at the same time (ex. Dennis Leary, Lewis Black, Me (not implying I'm anywhere near as funny as the other three people listed, just couldn't think of anyone else to put here), etc.). And I know it is just this sort of edgy humor that makes him beloved by everyone who hates Jay Leno. I also understand that every person he interviewed had it coming. However, it is not as though Paris Hilton or Richard Simmons tied him down and started talking to him. The people who David Letterman employs actively went after these people to be on the show and the way Letterman treated them was just mean.
That being said, at several points, I laughed so hard I nearly pissed my pants, so what does that tell you about me?
Check out this top 9 list from one of the funniest people on the internet today.
Within the list are (ironically) 9 videos of interviews done by David Letterman. In each he basically treats the people he's interviewing like something gross his dog left on the living room carpet for him. He made me feel bad for Paris Hilton for Christ's sake. He made me feel bad for a shallow, useless, spoiled, amateur porn star.
"But James", you're saying in your head, "Dave is hilarious." And that's still true, people can be douchebags and funny all at the same time (ex. Dennis Leary, Lewis Black, Me (not implying I'm anywhere near as funny as the other three people listed, just couldn't think of anyone else to put here), etc.). And I know it is just this sort of edgy humor that makes him beloved by everyone who hates Jay Leno. I also understand that every person he interviewed had it coming. However, it is not as though Paris Hilton or Richard Simmons tied him down and started talking to him. The people who David Letterman employs actively went after these people to be on the show and the way Letterman treated them was just mean.
That being said, at several points, I laughed so hard I nearly pissed my pants, so what does that tell you about me?
As I see it
Editor's Note: The "As I see it" feature will be done whenever James sees a movie, either old or new, and feels a need to share it with others.
Further Editor's Note: I don't really have an editor, I've just always really wanted to put in an Editor's Note and I'm also partial to Italics.
Paul Blart- Mall Cop.
My fiancee had very little desire to see this movie, feeling that it would be stupid, but for some reason I just thought it looked like a good time. Turns out, I was right.
Since the commercials have been all over tv I'll refrain from describing the plot, as you can pretty much figure it out.
The movie starts out as basically one long insanely awkward scene after another. Really it gets to the point where you start to wonder why the main character doesn't just go ahead and kill himself. His ex-wife was an illegal immigrant who used him to become a citizen and left him with their offspring to raise. He lives with his mom. He works as a mall security guard. He has the misfortune of falling for a girl that is light years out of his lead. To top it all off, he gets drunk one night in front of said girl (played by the girl who Hiro fell in love with on the show Heroes, which means larged boned men must really find her attractive) and makes a bigger ass of himself than you could have thought possible. As if losing out on the hot real life girl wasn't bad enough, the dating site he'd signed up for has found no possible matches for him (if you cannot find someone on the internet willing to fuck you, it is time for some soul searching (Even Further Editor's Note: I'd delete that last part, but its true, so I don't feel bad)). At this point I was really praying for the terrorists to come in and kill everyone, just so I wouldn't have to live through another awkward moment. Then the movie kicked into gear.
The mall is taken over by robbers and Blart must combat them, which he does in a stylistic mix between Inspector Clouseau, Inspector Gadget, Mr. Magoo, and John McClain. He bungles his way through most of it before turning into Mall-McGuyver to defeat the robbers. The thing I liked most about this movie is that it was a send up of movies like Die Hard without becoming too full of itself (like Hot Fuzz sort of did not only in tone but by the fact that its eighty hours long).
Overall, it was an enjoyable movie, though the beginning could have stood to be less awkward. I'm going to go ahead and give it the insanely arbitrary score of 72 out of 93 on the James Scale of AwesomeTM.
Further Editor's Note: I don't really have an editor, I've just always really wanted to put in an Editor's Note and I'm also partial to Italics.
Paul Blart- Mall Cop.
My fiancee had very little desire to see this movie, feeling that it would be stupid, but for some reason I just thought it looked like a good time. Turns out, I was right.
Since the commercials have been all over tv I'll refrain from describing the plot, as you can pretty much figure it out.
The movie starts out as basically one long insanely awkward scene after another. Really it gets to the point where you start to wonder why the main character doesn't just go ahead and kill himself. His ex-wife was an illegal immigrant who used him to become a citizen and left him with their offspring to raise. He lives with his mom. He works as a mall security guard. He has the misfortune of falling for a girl that is light years out of his lead. To top it all off, he gets drunk one night in front of said girl (played by the girl who Hiro fell in love with on the show Heroes, which means larged boned men must really find her attractive) and makes a bigger ass of himself than you could have thought possible. As if losing out on the hot real life girl wasn't bad enough, the dating site he'd signed up for has found no possible matches for him (if you cannot find someone on the internet willing to fuck you, it is time for some soul searching (Even Further Editor's Note: I'd delete that last part, but its true, so I don't feel bad)). At this point I was really praying for the terrorists to come in and kill everyone, just so I wouldn't have to live through another awkward moment. Then the movie kicked into gear.
The mall is taken over by robbers and Blart must combat them, which he does in a stylistic mix between Inspector Clouseau, Inspector Gadget, Mr. Magoo, and John McClain. He bungles his way through most of it before turning into Mall-McGuyver to defeat the robbers. The thing I liked most about this movie is that it was a send up of movies like Die Hard without becoming too full of itself (like Hot Fuzz sort of did not only in tone but by the fact that its eighty hours long).
Overall, it was an enjoyable movie, though the beginning could have stood to be less awkward. I'm going to go ahead and give it the insanely arbitrary score of 72 out of 93 on the James Scale of AwesomeTM.
Monday, January 26, 2009
I'm not the Doctor
It occurred to me today that I would be the worst person to give the power to time travel to. Hell, that's been true for as long as I can remember. When I was a child I wanted a time machine so that I could go back and save Davy Crockett at the Alamo and Jesus at Calgary (in that order too). For some reason, my young brain didn't see the issue with going back with machine guns to the past to show those Mexicans/Romans why they shouldn't have killed Coonskin Cap Jesus/Regular Jesus.
Even today, I promise you I would use time travel to my own advantage. If everyone wakes up one day and I'm rich, famous, and I own the Dallas Cowboys, I've invented a time machine.
The problem with a time machine, or really just fucking with time in general is how selfish it is. Let's say you'd like to correct a mistake you've made in the past, like when you threw up on yourself while trying to ask the girl you liked to prom. I mean, sure, it would be nice for you to get a second go around for that, but what about her? Maybe she had a great time with the person she went with that was better able to keep down their stomach contents. What about the guy who went with her? Shouldn't he be allowed a chance too? What about the girl you went with instead, the shy one who turned out to be into punching you while taking your virginity? What about all the women who have had a good laugh at your expense when you flinched every time they moved during sex? Should you really have the right to rob all those people of that part of their life just for yourself?
Even today, I promise you I would use time travel to my own advantage. If everyone wakes up one day and I'm rich, famous, and I own the Dallas Cowboys, I've invented a time machine.
The problem with a time machine, or really just fucking with time in general is how selfish it is. Let's say you'd like to correct a mistake you've made in the past, like when you threw up on yourself while trying to ask the girl you liked to prom. I mean, sure, it would be nice for you to get a second go around for that, but what about her? Maybe she had a great time with the person she went with that was better able to keep down their stomach contents. What about the guy who went with her? Shouldn't he be allowed a chance too? What about the girl you went with instead, the shy one who turned out to be into punching you while taking your virginity? What about all the women who have had a good laugh at your expense when you flinched every time they moved during sex? Should you really have the right to rob all those people of that part of their life just for yourself?
Let's start over again
DC Comics has recently decided to be ridiculous (ok, maybe not recently, but my specific examples are recent) by having an entire run of Batman comics entitled Batman R.I.P. which ended with Batman not really dying. Then, in DC's Final Crisis, a muddled, terrible story, Batman is apparently killed by Darkseid. I say apparently because DC has worked themselve a loophole that is far too dumb to go into. So now, DC is going to spend a year having a "Battle for the Cowl" in which a bunch of people will fight to be Batman before the real Batman comes back to take back his cowl. Yawn. I liked the idea better when it was called Knightfall. Now, I'm not just one to make fun without offering a suggestion (ok, I am, but not this time). DC needs an Ultimate line of comics. They need to steal Marvel's idea for an Ultimate line, which is basically a reboot of everything but without ruining the continuity that hardcore fans love. I'm not even a Marvel person, but I own a ton of Ultimates stuff because its easy to get in to (without 30 years of backstory to get caught up on).
Seriously, an Ultimate line for DC (obviously with a different name) would give DC a chance to do things that would make fanboys go nuts but without effecting their readership. They could make Batman something besides a rich white dude (probably change the white before the rich since poor people can rarely afford bat-shaped jets that fly out of holographic mountains). Make one of the major superheroes homosexual (I'd say the Flash, but that would lead to so many very terrible jokes). Kill off some people and leave them dead (Jimmy Olsen, I'm looking at you). Change who characters are (wouldn't a Supergirl who wasn't related to Superman make for more interesting stories than having cousins have to move to West Virginia to restart their species?). These are just some of a million things they could do.
Some will argue that DC has sort of done this with their All-Star lines, which are out of continuity and often change things. I'll admit, the idea of All-Star is good, the execution was piss poor. Basically, it became a forum for Frank Miller to show us all how crazy Batman is (Miller's Batman is a whole other post). Aside from my dislike of Miller's Batman, it was just a shitty comic. I also tried reading the All-Star Superman. That wasn't so much a reboot as it seemed like a bet between the writers as to just how much Superman continuity they could cram into a comic while leaving a page or two for story along the way (however, in their rush to make every Superman nerd orgasm in his pants while reading the story they forgot to include the story part). I know this is never going to happen, until I rule the world. I promise though, after I rule the world, this is the second thing I'm changing, right after the institution of Topless Tuesdays.
Seriously, an Ultimate line for DC (obviously with a different name) would give DC a chance to do things that would make fanboys go nuts but without effecting their readership. They could make Batman something besides a rich white dude (probably change the white before the rich since poor people can rarely afford bat-shaped jets that fly out of holographic mountains). Make one of the major superheroes homosexual (I'd say the Flash, but that would lead to so many very terrible jokes). Kill off some people and leave them dead (Jimmy Olsen, I'm looking at you). Change who characters are (wouldn't a Supergirl who wasn't related to Superman make for more interesting stories than having cousins have to move to West Virginia to restart their species?). These are just some of a million things they could do.
Some will argue that DC has sort of done this with their All-Star lines, which are out of continuity and often change things. I'll admit, the idea of All-Star is good, the execution was piss poor. Basically, it became a forum for Frank Miller to show us all how crazy Batman is (Miller's Batman is a whole other post). Aside from my dislike of Miller's Batman, it was just a shitty comic. I also tried reading the All-Star Superman. That wasn't so much a reboot as it seemed like a bet between the writers as to just how much Superman continuity they could cram into a comic while leaving a page or two for story along the way (however, in their rush to make every Superman nerd orgasm in his pants while reading the story they forgot to include the story part). I know this is never going to happen, until I rule the world. I promise though, after I rule the world, this is the second thing I'm changing, right after the institution of Topless Tuesdays.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Do english teachers dream of ambiguous stories?
I recently saw Blade Runner for the first time (shocking, I know, but I'm slow, sue me). After watching a movie I generally tend to read all about it online (because I'm a geek). Apparently, there is a disagreement between the people involved in making the movie whether Deckard (the main character) is human or a replicant (I'm not going to use this space to explain the difference, just to say, go see the movie). The director, Ridley Scott, thinks that Deckard is a replicant. Harrison Ford, who plays the character, says he's human. Phillip K. Dick, who wrote the story the movie was based on (Do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep?) says he wrote Deckard as a replicant. Which side is right? Is there a right side. That made me wonder, 100 years from now if this film is being studied in an English class, will teachers just decide one way or another like they do now? That was always my least favorite part of English class was teachers telling me that one way to look at a work was better than another. While movies are different than books, I seriously doubt every writer meant to put as much meaning into their works as teachers seem to like to think. I have a feeling most writers just pounded shit out in the early morning hours before their deadlines just like everyone else. Some times, letters combine to make words, words combine to make sentences and those sentences mean exactly what they say, no more, no less.
A quick aside about Ridley Scott. My brother pointed out to me that Ridley Scott has released what feels like a Director's Cut of every movie he's ever made, most of which are far better than the cut seen in theaters. Does this mean that Scott is the world's biggest wuss when it comes to getting his way with studios? Hell, he even let the studio release a Director's Cut of Blade Runner that he wasn't really a part of. The man is a great director. One of these days we may even get to see a whole film of his in the theaters.
A quick aside about Ridley Scott. My brother pointed out to me that Ridley Scott has released what feels like a Director's Cut of every movie he's ever made, most of which are far better than the cut seen in theaters. Does this mean that Scott is the world's biggest wuss when it comes to getting his way with studios? Hell, he even let the studio release a Director's Cut of Blade Runner that he wasn't really a part of. The man is a great director. One of these days we may even get to see a whole film of his in the theaters.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Whose is cleaning up this mess?
At the end of The Dark Knight, did Commissioner Gordon really need to smash the Bat-Signal? Couldn't he have just asked the maintenance crew to take it down? I know it made for an awesome scene, but what poor minimum-wage-making guy has to clean up all that glass?
My questions about The Dark Knight aside, I have to say I'm slightly disappointed that the film got no Oscar attention beyond the obvious and self-serving nomination for Heath Ledger (the producers of the show are probably already salivating at the ratings that award could draw). I was upset when I first heard the news, but now I don't really care. I loved that movie. I still love that movie. Seeing TDK on IMAX was the best in theatre viewing experience I've ever had. What do I care what people in Hollywood think of the movie? Their opinion means nothing, really. TDK won all the award it needed to this year when people paid half a billion dollars to go see it. Plenty of great movies never got little gold statues because they happened to have something the academy doesn't think makes for a serious movie. That's fine, they can feel free to touch themselves while the watch the plodding, nothing new, Benjamin Button movie. Seriously, 13 nominations for Forest Gump II: No Mental Disability this Time?
Several other issues with the Oscar nominations: Did people already have Robert Downey Jr. down for an Oscar nod in that movie where he helps a helpless musician and then when that movie got pushed they were too lazy to think of someone else so they just crossed that movie out and wrote Tropic Thunder? I mean, that was a good role in a funny movie, but Oscar worthy? Really? Another thing, I hear that Kate Winslet, if she wins the Oscar, will be winning for both her roles this year, instead of just the one she's nominated for. Is that really fair? What about that year Jude Law released like 6 movies, shouldn't he have gotten an Oscar nod for all those preformances added up? I'm not one of those people who says that the Academy needs to pick movies that everyone saw, but can you really argue that all 5 of the nominations were better movies than Wall-E? Just because you created an animated category doesn't mean you can't honor that movie as one of the year's best. I'm just saying.
My questions about The Dark Knight aside, I have to say I'm slightly disappointed that the film got no Oscar attention beyond the obvious and self-serving nomination for Heath Ledger (the producers of the show are probably already salivating at the ratings that award could draw). I was upset when I first heard the news, but now I don't really care. I loved that movie. I still love that movie. Seeing TDK on IMAX was the best in theatre viewing experience I've ever had. What do I care what people in Hollywood think of the movie? Their opinion means nothing, really. TDK won all the award it needed to this year when people paid half a billion dollars to go see it. Plenty of great movies never got little gold statues because they happened to have something the academy doesn't think makes for a serious movie. That's fine, they can feel free to touch themselves while the watch the plodding, nothing new, Benjamin Button movie. Seriously, 13 nominations for Forest Gump II: No Mental Disability this Time?
Several other issues with the Oscar nominations: Did people already have Robert Downey Jr. down for an Oscar nod in that movie where he helps a helpless musician and then when that movie got pushed they were too lazy to think of someone else so they just crossed that movie out and wrote Tropic Thunder? I mean, that was a good role in a funny movie, but Oscar worthy? Really? Another thing, I hear that Kate Winslet, if she wins the Oscar, will be winning for both her roles this year, instead of just the one she's nominated for. Is that really fair? What about that year Jude Law released like 6 movies, shouldn't he have gotten an Oscar nod for all those preformances added up? I'm not one of those people who says that the Academy needs to pick movies that everyone saw, but can you really argue that all 5 of the nominations were better movies than Wall-E? Just because you created an animated category doesn't mean you can't honor that movie as one of the year's best. I'm just saying.
Doctor who?
That would have been my response as recently as a year ago had I been asked if I'd ever seen Doctor Who. Now I (like many Brits) am addicted to the show. Its not just me, I'm pretty sure if given the chance my fiancee would leave me for David Tennant. I'd have to say, I love DW for the same reasons I love most of the geeky things I love. Like Star Wars, LOTR, the DC Universe, DW has a universe all its own, a world to get lost in thought in. To be fair though, I also love that there is almost no chance I'll ever end up watching ever episode (it has been on air for 30 seasons). And as much as I love David Tennant (you never forget your first Doctor) I'm also excited to see the new guy take a crack at it. Doctor Who is the highest rated show on the BBC. This truly is the Age of the Geek.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)