Why I Celebrate Christmas: A Holiday Message From A Non-Believer

Recently I had a very long (but ultimately rewarding) conversation with a friend over drinks about the nature of Christmas and how it relates to God. To throw some necessary backstory at you, I'm pretty much an atheist. I have found no logical reason to believe in a god, so I don't. There are some more aggressive atheists out there who think religion should just be wiped clean off the earth, but I can't bring myself to go that far. It's a choice, and even though I think I'm right (and have things called "science" and "evidence" on my side), having that choice is more important to me than anything else. Just as we atheists don't like religious people shoving their beliefs in our face, I'm quite sure religious people don't like us coming down on them as if they were a bunch of idiots. I am perfectly fine with a "to each there own" approach.

Anyway, the question came up "If you don't believe in God, don't believe in Jesus, then why celebrate Christmas?" It's a fair point to bring up. Christmas is predominantly associated with Christianity. Christ is right there in the name, after all. It would seem silly for someone who doesn't believe in God, let alone his Earthly son, to give a crap about the holiday.

But you have to realize that Christmas has had different meanings and been celebrated in many ways over the years. Before the colonies gained their independence, the holiday season had virtually nothing to do with religion at all. It was a celebration of the end of the year's harvest, and ended up being a month long feast and alcohol binge. In fact, the Puritans hated Christmas. Hated it. So much so that they tried to freaking outlaw it. They figured that since the Bible actually makes no mention of the specific date Jesus was born, God didn't want them to celebrate it. This view isn't that far off either, as the only reason December 25th was selected was because it coincided with the Winter Solstice feasts the pagans were already celebrating, making it easier for them to convert. Most Biblical scholars actually put Christ's birth at April 17th, so there's that too.

And really, that tradition has carried on. For all the bitching about Christ being taken out of Christmas, he has never really played that important of a part if we're being honest with ourselves (and yes, I'm sure there are some out there who really do take the spiritual part seriously, but I'm speaking in generals). This became especially true after Santa Clause was introduced, and the commercialism of the holiday spread like cancer.

But see what happens when you strip the holiday down. Remove the bells and whistles, the supernatural births, the feasts and drinking, and you're left with two things: inclusiveness and charity. These virtues represent the best aspects of human nature, the desire to be with the ones you care about, to reach out and help those who may be less fortunate. To set aside your own personal worries, your own selfish tendencies, and be a part of a bigger world. These are things that belong to no specific religion, they are merely part of the human condition. After all, Scrooge didn't find salvation in the Baby Jesus at the end of A Christmas Carol, he found in finding joy in being with and helping his fellow man.

And that is what I celebrate during the holiday season. Christmas is a culturally sanctioned time to be with family and friends. It can get crazy at times with all the gift buying and running around, but the trick is to block that out as best you can. Because the only reason you're out buying crap in the first place is because there are people in your life important enough to you to do so. That is the most important thing to take away from the season, and it is a sentiment that is not bound to any one religion, or religion in general.

And this is coming from a cynical misanthrope.

So Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas, and drinks all around!

GC

3 Reasons Tron: Legacy Is Going To Suck

This Friday (Dec 17) Tron: Legacy will be released in theaters, finally ending the year and a half internet anticipation, and allowing sci-fi fans to let their nerd-gasms climax after all this time. But for all the eager speculation and build up, people are overlooking one really important thing: the movie is most likely going to be a massive pile of dookie.

Many of you will scoff at that notion. We've been waiting for over a year, you say. There's no way all this anticipation could end in anything other than the best movie EVER. Well, you're wrong. And here's why.

1. The First Tron Was A Massive Pile Of Dookie

What most people remember about the first Tron was that it featured the best, most state-of-the-art special effects at the time. What tends to be forgotten is that the rest of the movie is a mess. The plot is clunky at best, nonsense at worst. Something about a religion based on worshiping "Users," and the computer wanting to kill all of the programs, and hating the concept of "Users." Or something. That really isn't important because all anyone cares about are the light cycles.

And let's remember, Tron was a commercial failure when it was released. Over the years it developed a cult following among nerds and sci-fi fans because, well, it was a movie about video games. And to be fair to the movie, it did feature a very distictive visual style, a sort of futurist german-expressionism schem, that practically screams "cult!" But cult movies can still be terrible, and in fact, many are embraced for that very reason (Hello, Plan 9 From Outer Space). But then, no one is making a big budget sequel to Plan 9, are they? Not yet anyway.

2. Style Over Substance Rarely Works

Quick, what's the first thing you think of when I say Tron: Legacy? It probably had to do with the visual effects and CGI, didn't it? (There is probably a segment of you who thought of Olivia Wilde, but that was probably quickly followed by the CGI surrounding her) The Tron: Legacy trailers are a bombardment of CGI effects, whether it's the light cycles, ships, or hell, even freaking Jeff Bridges. It's pretty clear that this is a speacial effects driven movie, that's what they're selling, and if this is anything like the first movie, they were too caught up in the visuals to come up with a story.

There's isn't anything inherently wrong with putting the focus on the visual flair of a movie (Tim Burton has based his entire career off of this). But the problem now is that we are at a point where even the low budget films can afford CGI, so if you're idea of visuals is "SO MUCH CGI", not only are you Roland Emmerich, but you have a lot of competition with films doing the exact same thing.

Last year at this time we had 2012 (Hey there, Roland!) and Avatar, two movies that relied very heavily on the use of CGI, to the point where that was the reason most people went to see them. Both also had awful stories underneath all the bells and whistles. Both made money at the box office, but that's not the same as being good (2012 in particular is sitting at a 39% on Rotten Tomatoes). Making money just means people were excited to see it, it says nothing about delivering the goods. And more often than not, CGI heavy movies have this problem. For every Inception and Lord of the Rings that manages to weave special effects and story together well, there are plenty of Transformers, 2012, Clash of the Titans, and Skyline's to go around. Flashy effects are too common place nowadays to be able to hold a movie together on it's own. And Tron: Legacy hasn't given any indication that it has bothered with anything other than cool CGI.

3. It's In 3D Because Of Course It Is

There has been a lot of talk about how necessary it is for movies to be in 3D. It seems that many are put in that format to squeeze a few extra bucks out of viewers at the box office. But it seems even more silly with Tron: Legacy. The movie's visual aesthetic consists mainly of various patterns of neon blue and red lights. Not the most exciting thing to experience in the third dimension. And much of the background surrounding those lights are very dark colors, which don't work particularly well with the 3D format. Anyone thinking it may add to the experience, the way it did with Avatar, will likely be very disappointed.

The Buffy Scandal The Internet Has Deemed More Worthy Than Potential War In Korea

Because there is nothing too trivial for the denizens of the Internet to throw a hissy fit over, every blog ever has commented on the news that Warner Bros. is going to reboot Buffy the Vampire Slayer as a new movie without any input from Buffy creator and the Web's favorite god Joss Whedon. Apparently, Warner Bros. forgot all about the first movie that, while scripted by Whedon, took no other input from him and, well, it was a pretty big pile of crap. Whedon himself has shown disappointment in the prospect, and his fans have gone into full on complain mode.

I myself am torn at the prospect. On the one hand, I like Whedon, and I hate seeing his signature creation reappropriated by others who probably won't put nearly as much care and craft into the characters as Whedon himself does. The chances of this reboot being even as good as the television series that is Buffy to most of its fans is pretty low.

But on the other hand, Joss goes ahead and opens his mouth and says this:

This is a sad, sad reflection on our times, when people must feed off the carcasses of beloved stories from their youths—just because they can't think of an original idea of their own, like I did with my Avengers idea that I made up myself.

Now, he's obviously being sarcastic with that Avengers comment. But I still find it slightly dickish that he could say that while also cashing in royalties from the Alien and X-Men franchises, both of which he had no part in creating. And yes, Whedon has also had his own ideas, but it's still a tad hypocritical to decry others for doing things that he himself does. And this is without bringing up the notion that Firefly/Serenity was in many ways a rip off of the anime Outlaw Star. So really, I'm not sure Whedon should be so quick to throw stones, even if it's sarcastically.

It's also important to note that Warner Bros. really hasn't done anything wrong. They acquired the rights to the franchise, and if they want to make a reboot, they have every right to. It might be tasteless and a blatant attempt at a cash in, but that's the business.

And in the end, who cares? Plenty of characters get reimagined or rebooted without input from the original creator. Do you think Christopher Nolan called up Bob Kane to see what he thought about the new Batman movies? Or if Ronald Moore gave a crap what Glen Larson thought of the Battlestar Galactica reboot? This happens all the time. Sometimes the reimagings work, as in the above examples, sometimes they fail miserably. Even if Warner Bros. completely butchers Buffy the Vampire Slayer in this reboot, it's sucking will not magically wipe the seven seasons of the TV show off the face of the Earth. They will still be here for everyone to enjoy. Stop crying, or "sighing audibly."

Because really, with North Korea launching missiles, unemployment bordering double digits, concerns about dwindling natural resources, and 30% (and growing) of the American population obese, this is what people are going to rally and protest about? A freaking TV show? This is what enrages the far reaching populace of the Internet? I'm all for people coming up with new and original ideas, and not continuously recycling stories over and over, but to react to such a strong degree to entertainment is kind of sad. Yes, the reboot will probably suck. In that case, just don't go see it. It's a pretty simple solution, and one that doesn't require idiotic Twitter campaigns that think they can change the way studio execs think by posting their grievances in 140 characters.

Or, you know, you could create your own characters and stories instead of living and dying by what happens to someone else's. Just a thought.

Facebook: Forcing Friendship On The World

With recent rumors going around that Facebook may be working on an e-mail service, it has become as clear as ever that the social network giant will one day grow up to be Skynet. But a cooler, more youth savy one.

But the site's power rests on it's users sharing information with each other. Facebook wants everyone to have access to everyone else's info. Also, advertisers. Lots of advertisers. This is, after all, what sparked all the privacy concerns and outcries over the past couple years. People are fine with showing their friends every mundane detail of their boring day, but not gigantic corporations who only see them as fuel for the future T-800s. So, somewhat reluctantly, Facebook restored user control of privacy settings in the most complicated and frustrating way possible.

But they still want you to share as much information with as many people as possible, i.e. they want you to make more friends. Facebook hates it when people are like "I only friend people I know in real life" because that means you aren't friending the random strangers who might be scammers just trying to get at your information. Ideally, they want us all to be friends with everyone.

Just look at the evolution of the friend request. At the dawn of Facebook, when someone sent you a friend request you had two choices: "Accept" and "Decline." After all, maybe you don't want to be friends with that person. We aren't friends with every homeless person we meet on the way to work, the same should apply to online interaction, right? It's our choice who we want to be friends with.

Then the choices changed. We could still "Accept" a request, but "Decline" was replaced with "Ignore." A much more passive-aggressive approach, it seems less like you don't want to be friends with them, and more like it's just not something you want to deal with. But the semblance of a choice is still there, so cool.

But now, "Ignore" has been replaced with "Not Now." This implies that you will be friends with this person, just at a later date. There is no longer a choice as to who you are going to be friends, but more an issue of how long you can hold out before Facebook forces you to accept it.

Because they will. Oh, they will. Using basic math I just made up, the next step from "Not Now" is "Or We Will Find You And Toss Your Body Down A Canyon." And they can find you very easily, because you conveniently put your address up on your profile (oh cruel fate!).

Why does Facebook want you to be friends with everyone? Information. The easiest way for Facebook to pair up advertisers with your own interests is through your friends. Everytime one of those "What Harry Potter/Twilight/Super Hero character are you?" quizzes gets passed around, the third parties who made those apps get access to the information of whoever it was who took it. That's why the ads that appear on your side bar appear to be customized specifically to your tatses. So when Sarah McInsecure keeps posting quizzes about what princess she thinks she is because a quiz told her so, gradually her friends start taking the quizzes too. And Facebook takes in even more information about users that can be sold off to third parties.

If, however, Sarah only has 10 friends on Facebook, the number of potential suckers goes down dramatically. That's why it's important to Facebook that you become friends with every person you ever come into contact with, and then some. It's the only way they can continue to grow, and absorb all the knowledge that ever existed.

The only solution, obviously, is to stop being friends with people. The only way to bring down Facebook is hatred. We must all become bitter enemies, whose undying scorn or each other will prevent Facebook from becoming the ultimate power it wants to be. So please, do yourself a favor and start burning bridges left and right. Hate is our only hope.

Christine O'Donnel Sells Out Post Election Bid

Delaware -- Following the footsteps of her endorser Sarah Palin, who after her failed bid for vice presidency with the McCain campaign quit her job as governor of Alaska to pursue book deals and speaking gigs, Christine O'Donnell has announced a line up of engagements in the wake of her defeat for the Senate seat in Delaware in order to capitalize on her 15 minutes.

"All this publicity has been great, not just for me, but for the American people, who's voices are now being heard," O'Donnell stated at a press conference. "The everyday American people, who have everyday concerns, like the possibility their brains will be implanted into mice."

Ms. O'Donnell, who lost the general election for Senate to Democrat Chris Coons, has announced a number of new projects and appearances that are now available to her as a result of her new found fame. These include paid speaking engagements, a book deal, and an "ironic" guest appearance on the Disney Channel show Wizards of Waverly Place.

Critics have been quick to jump on this announcement, saying that the speed in which she has moved to profitable ventures means she was never serious about politics. Like Palin, they see her political aspirations as nothing more than a way to get attention.

O'Donnell, of course, says this is absurd. "This is not about me. This is about getting the views and beliefs of the American people out there. And since I can't masturbate, I need something to do."

George Lucas to (Re-re-)Re-release Star Wars in 3D, Because Fans Haven't Given Him Enough Money Yet

Source

Rumors have been bandied about for a while, but today we finally got official confirmation that George Lucas would be re-releasing the Star Wars saga in 3D, with one film per year put out starting with The Phantom Menace in 2012. This is fantastic news for the millions of Star Wars fans who were afraid Lucas would stop coming up with ways to make them give him money for something they've already seen and know like they back of their robotic hand.

Because lets face it, Lucas hasn't had a new idea since the freaking 70s. He just keeps going back to the Star Wars well, (correctly) banking on the fact that Star Wars fans will eat up anything he slaps the franchise label on. Because make no mistake, even though 3D movies as a whole been in decline with both public opinion and profits, a re-release of the Star Wars movies in the third dimension will bring oodles of money for Lucas to stuff in his Jar-Jar piggy bank.

Why am I being so bitter, you ask? Why be such a hater? Because I do actually LIKE Star Wars, and I am sick of watching countless revisions and additions mess up was actually pretty good on its own. Seriously, since Return of the Jedi was released, what has been added to the Star Wars cannon that actually provided anything new and worthwhile to the franchise? Not the special editions, which just shoe-horned in new special effects that really add nothing to the world that had already been established in the original versions (And having Greedo shoot first, which ruined that subtle little bit of characterization that helped establish Han Solo as a badass). Not the prequels, which at best do nothing but fill in a bunch of backstory that we didn't really need because we learned enough in the originals to put much of it together, and at worst completely tainted the saga by being atrociously written garbage that was nothing more than an excuse for Lucas to fill the screen with a bunch of flashy digital effects. Shadows of the Empire, while a cool N64 game, was just filler that failed to bring any real insight or new perspective to what we already knew happened. The Genndy Tartakovsky directed Clone War shorts were great fun in their own right, but were once again filler for the prequels, which are unnecessary anyway. The new CGI Clone Wars series is even worse, for having all the fun and stylishness of the Tartakovsky shorts sucked out and replaced with awful dialogue and stiff animation. Which brings us to The Force Unleashed, which in my opinion is the only cannon addition that brings anything to the table, by showing the formation of the Rebel Alliance and how the Empire was responsible for bringing it together. It's a small but interesting piece of information that directly effects our perception of the events of the original trilogy.

(That was a big ole chunk of text up there, and I apologize)

Releasing the movies (yet again) in 3D is just another example of Lucas milking the franchise for all it's worth without giving us anything meaningful in return. We've already seen these movies, why should we pay to see them again? Is being in 3D really going to change the experience that much? Will it really be worth it, especially considering ticket prices will likely continue to rise by the time the first one is released in 2012? For many, the answer will be yes, "because it's Star Wars, man!" And for those people, I'm sorry your lives suck so much as you can't wait to see The Phantom Menace on the big screen again, and pay even more so that the train wreck will be coming right at you. (Sidenote: Does anyone else think this might be what the Myans predicted for 2012?)

So no, I will not bother to go see any of the Star Wars movies in 3D. I still prefer the original versions of the original trilogy over the special editions, and I have a feeling I'm going to like watching the old fashioned 2D versions over the 3D ones as well. For those who feel compelled to keep handing Lucas money for the same freaking thing over and over again, have at it. But the next time one of you complains about a lack of originality in Hollywood, I'm going hold a mirror up to your face. And then hit you with it.

Really?: Pope Connects Atheisim and Nazis, Also He Was a Hitler Youth

Sometimes you see or read something that makes you stop in your tracks and ask "Really?", while tilting your head slightly and raising the pitch of your voice just a bit.

That happened to me today as I perused the ole' Google news section and came across this story, where Pope Benedict associated atheism and Nazis. The relevant quote:

"Even in our own lifetimes we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live.

"As we reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the 20th century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus a reductive vision of a person and his destiny."

I find this hilarious, because of all the prominent religious figures out there, Pope Benedict bears the unique distinction of having been a Hitler Youth. So in a sense, the Pope was a Nazi.

Now, I know that being in the Hitler Youth was mandatory of all German children, and it is wrong to use that association to paint the Pope as some kind of Nazi sympathizer. And that's kind of the point. To say that all atheists are evil and want to destroy the world simply because a few monsters in our history have not believed in a god is a faulty generalization. Let's not forget that it was Christians who used to burn women for being witches. By the Pope's logic, that means that all acts of violence against women are a result of there being too many Christians in the world.

There is also the problem that the Nazis weren't, strictly speaking, atheists. Much of Nazi ideology came out of Lutheranism, which you may recognize as a form of Christianity (the irony!). While some of the top leaders of the party may have been anti-religious, that's a far cry from saying that Nazis as a whole were atheists. More importantly, the notion of a "superior race" has a lot more in common with religious dogmas, whether it's the Jewish notion of being "The Chosen People" or the Christian idea that only those who believe in Jesus Christ and are born again will go to heaven. It doesn't take a big push for a group of people thinking they are morally superior to everyone else to begin thinking of themselves as a superior group (or race).

Mainly, I have a problem with these kind of comments because I find it personally insulting. I don't believe in a god, and I think Christianity is bunk. Yet I have managed not to commit atrocious acts of violence or abuse upon my fellow man. I also have numerous friends who are also atheists, and they are some of the most compassionate and caring people I know. The same cannot be said for those Catholic priests who either abused children or helped cover it up. I know this is somewhat of a cliche point to make now, but it irks me that a group of people who allow those kinds of things to happen have the gall to tell me I am morally askew. If you are going to persecute a whole group of people for their beliefs (or non-beliefs), you best make sure you are not caught in a double standard.

Mo' 3D, Mo' Problems

For at least the past year people have talked about the renewed interest in 3D films, and whether or not it is simply a fad or the future of filmmaking. While there is more evidence to suggest it is heading down the fad route than anything else, for the sake of discussion let's say that there is a future for 3D movies. That they will be with us for the long haul.

There are two schools of thought on how to best utilize the format. There are those who see it as an "enhancement," meaning it helps fully realize a world and makes you feel as if you are a part of it (Avatar, Up, How To Train Your Dragon), and those who see it as "spectacle," meaning "OMG there are things flying off the screen at me!" (The Final Destination, My Bloody Valentine 3D, Piranha 3D, any movie that has to include "3D" in its title) There has been some disagreement between these two camps, with Avatar director James Cameron proclaiming his dissaproval of gimmick-fare like Piranha 3D, and Pirahna Producer Mark Canton essentially calling Cameron a prentious prick in return.

Is Cameron being a bit dismissive? Sure. But I think he has a point. While overall Avatar is mediocre at best ("unobtanium"? really?) the 3D presentation of the world of Pandora was exhilarating. Not because there were beasties and what not flying at you off the screen, but rather because the added depth of perception, obviously worked over in great detail, made that world seem that much more real. Instead of watching images on a screen you felt as if the action was happening around you.

Movies like Pirahna 3D, go in the opposite direction. Instead of creating an overall sense of being in the moment, they are specifically calling attention to the fact there are 3D effects being used. It's less about how the 3D helps make the movie, story, or experience better, and more about the split-second adrenaline rush. It's the same kind of novelty gimmick that was used in the 80s, and the fad crashed and burned once the novelty wore off.

So is there a problem with this spectacle driven use of 3D? Potentially, yes, and it's already becoming evident. As that first link shows, ticket sales for 3D films have been in a fairly steady decline, starting even before Avatar became a phenomenon. As more and more movies utilize it, the experience itself become less novel, which forces the rest of the film (the story, acting, etc.) to hold the audience's interest. For movies like, say, Up, this isn't a problem because the 3D visual effects were never meant to take center stage. It was meant a way to enhance (there's that word again) the visuals without taking the focus away (at least not drastically) from the characters and story. A movie like Piranha 3D, however, is selling itself solely on the technology being used. The only reason to see the movie is because it is in 3D, not because it seems like a particularly interesting movie (how many people want to see Piranha 2D?) And it is here that I agree with Cameron, that these kind of movies "cheapen" the medium. Every time one of these gimmick movies come out, the novelty of 3D is lessened, and the interest in 3D goes down, making it harder for films that utilize 3D in more artistic or unique ways to find an audience.

And audiences are getting burned out on 3D. A lot of this has to do with films that "upgrade" to 3D in post production, which creates the most god-awful 3D effects you can imagine (Clash of the Titans, anyone?). But some of it also has to do with films like the upcoming Saw 3D, where the filmmakers use the technology to lazily inject some kind of intrigue into movies that aren't that interesting in their own right (just about any movie that sticks "3D" in it's title is guilty of this). It's a cheap, uncreative, and boring way to going about using the technology. Look at the 90s, after Cameron and Spielberg made their huge gains in CGI with T2:Judgment Day and Jurassic Park respectively. Both films were heralded for their advances in special effects, and what followed were a schlock of films that went all out on the CGI to try and attract audiences. But what they failed to realize was it wasn't just the special effects that made T2 or Jurassic Park good; it was the way they used them, as one of many filmmaking and story telling tools. The story and suspense behind Jurassic Park are why it holds up. Technologies change, and what is new and impressive today may not be tomorrow. But good stories can last forever.

So back to that first, central question: Is 3D the future of movies? Only if directors and producers learn some self-discipline. As I said above, 3D is a filmmaking TOOL, like CG, wipes, wide angle shots, close ups, and on and on and on. When used correctly, these tools can be very effective and emotionally powerful. But this doesn't seem to be the direction Hollywood is taking the medium. With the Saw and Jackass franchises offering up 3D entries by the end of this year, Hollywood seems to be embracing the shortsighted, quick cash in approach, which will most likely kill off the audience desire for 3D. This is a shame, because I do think there is a place for 3D films. Avatar used it beautifully, even if the story was lacking, and animation studios like Pixar seem to have a good grasp on how the technology can be used to create a panorama effect, bringing the audience into the imaginary world. But apparently Hollywood would rather use it to let Steve-O wag his genitals at us, but in 3D!

If Cover Letters Were Honest

Dear Potential Employer,

Let's cut to the chase. You have a job opening and I need a job. Now, I could go on about all of my experience and skills, and how much I would benefit your company, but we both know it would mostly be a bunch of B.S. Just me shamelessly selling myself and saying whatever I think you want to hear to get an interview.

And it's all kind of pointless, isn't it? I mean, right underneath this is my resume, which has listed all my qualifications. Everything I say here is kind of redundant, don't you think? This is just a bunch of flowery language. No real substance. Nothing but salesman talk and exaggerated boasting.

So what else do you really want to know? I'm either qualified or I'm not, which you'll be able to tell from the resume. I suppose you could use this to try and judge my character, but there's a very good chance that these are just lies. You won't really know unless you interview me, and even then there is no way to tell how much of that is genuine, and how much is just more poppycock. So why not cut the possible bullshit in half by skipping this Letter of Lies and just go straight for the interview?

Thank you for your consideration, and I hope to hear from you, because I really need a job.

Sincerely,

GC

Park51, Or: How Dare We Let Them Excercise Their Rights!

So this Park51 Mosque-That-Isn't-Really-A-Mosque-But-A-Youth-Center-But-It's-Scarier-To-Call-It-A-Mosque-So-That's-What-It's-Being-Called thing has reached a fever pitch. I had tried to avoid writing about it, because it is obviously an issue that has created a deep divide within the United States. But the situation has gotten so ridiculous over the past week that, screw it, I'm about to get political.

To start with, all you idiots who are attacking President Obama for supporting the mosque need to get a clue. For one, he never said that HE supported the mosque/youth center. He said that they had the RIGHT to build it. Whether or not they actually should he refused to comment on. And that's what people are failing to understand. Whether or not building the mosque/youth center is in bad taste is irrelevant, because they have THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DO SO. Which is funny to me, because the same people trying to prevent the center from being built are the very ones who always complain about the government TAKING AWAY OUR FREEDOMS (if I did not make that clear, there is a double standard at work).

Well fine, some might say, just because they CAN doesn't mean they SHOULD. It's still insensitive to the victims of 9/11. I suppose there is an argument to be made there. But then, we'd also have to ban all the Japanese resturants and businesses in Honolulu, which is within 10 miles of Pearl Harbor, because that's just insensitive to all the victims of the attack. And I'm also not sure how having a strip club the same two block distance from Ground Zero, or having vendors shamlessly hock merchandise, isn't already insensitive to the victims of 9/11.

The answer is because this isn't about the victims at all. This is about Republicans (i.e. White Christians) disliking anything that is different from them. Which is why, even out in freaking California where there have been no terrorist attacks, there is still opposition to any mosque trying to be built. It's intolerance, pure and simple. Which means, hey, we're playing right into the terrorist's hands, guys! Great job! You've successfully disregarded the principles our country was founded on. Outstanding.

But really, that makes those invoking the use of 9/11 victims to oppose the mosque/youth center the insensitive ones. Not only were there Muslims victims in the 9/11 attacks, but the Right is using it as an excuse to continue the trend of opposing anything related to Islam, while being able to pretend it's not because they're bigots. Yes, yes, Muslims did attack us on 9/11, but it is a logical fallacy to say that all Muslims are terrorists and treat them as such. Remember how Timothy McVeigh, the guy who did the Oklahoma City Bombing, was a Christian (raised Catholic to be specific)? That didn't mean all Christians were like that, did it? Or that Huatree Christian Militia group that tried to blow up police officers a few months back? Surely they didn't represent all of Christianity. The same applies here.

And everyone who brings up the argument about the Greek Orthodox Church that got destroyed during the attack and still hasn't been OK'd to be rebuilt to try and say that the government is playing favorites or something, no. Just no. The reason the Greek church still hasn't been OK'd is because they want to rebuild it exactly where it was originally, which is on Ground Zero. The youth center/mosque, being two blocks away from Ground Zero, is a lot easier to do. So it's not that Islam is getting any kind of special treatment, it's pure practicality. Even 9 years after the fact, it's still much easier to build two blocks away from Ground Zero than it is to build directly on top of it.

So to all those opposing the youth center (by which I mean Republicans, cause who am I kidding), I give you a choice. Either admit that your reasons for opposing the building are because you are a bigoted xenophobe who is only comfortable with people exactly like you, or please shut the hell up, because logic is not on your side.

Don't Like Your Job? Become Famous in One Easy Step!

As someone who has worked in customer service, I know just how freaking stupid people can be. Those who's jobs require them to deal with people every day largely have my sympathies. So one would think I would be on this Jet Blue flight attendant Steven Slater guy's side after he cursed out a passenger on board his flight for not listening and removing his bags from the overhead compartment when he wasn't supposed to, which resulted in Steve getting bashed in the head with said bag.

Surprisingly, I am not on his side. Part of this is due to the fact that I got to this story a bit late, after everyone had already called him a working class hero, setting up a much more noble situation in my head that clearly didn't happen. But mostly, it's because when you work in customer service, it's your job to not blow up at the customer, no matter how idiotic, rude, etc. they are being. I may have bitched about customers to my friends and family after the fact, but never to the customer themselves.

So the fact that this guy couldn't keep it together until after the passenger had gone really doesn't do much for me. From what I've heard of the story, I've had to deal with far worse situations while not going ape shit in front of everyone. What makes it worse is the hero worship he has acquired. If after the situation the sentiments were "Well, I can understand how he might have cracked under stress," that would be reasonable. But to call him a hero who's actions should be replicated is ludicrous.

And coming late to the story, at the same time I was finding out about the conflict, reports were surfacing that called the story into question. The passenger who supposedly sparked this whole thing has yet to be identified (which considering the close quarters and number of people on board should be pretty easy), and other passengers have said that Slater seemed to be in a bad mood the whole flight. So it seems to me this is just a case of someone having a bad day and being a dick about it.

And topping the whole thing with even more ridiculousness is the fact that Slater has been offered a reality show, because of course he was. My faith in society is dangerously low as it is, but giving this guy a TV deal will set a new record. Supposedly the show will deal with him helping disgruntled employees find "extravagant ways" to quit their jobs. Because yeah, that's going to fix everything! Because there is nothing future employers like more than seeing that you quit your old job on a reality show in the biggest "fuck you" you could possibly give to your boss. They love that stuff! They will have no problem at all finding new jobs.

Oh society, you know how to solve everything.

In Which Jennifer Aniston Apparently Has A Fanbase Made Up of 12 Year Olds

I dislike the right-wing of politics. Their talking points seem to consist mostly of apocalyptic prophesying about how our world will crumble if legislation they don't like passes ("If we let the gays marry, then our children will explode!"). The conclusions they come to are often absurd and ridiculous, and I find it tiresome, annoying, and really stupid. It's fine to have an opinion and not agree with something, but at least attempt to come up with a real, logical reason for doing so.

They also don't know how to pick there battles, which is how we end up with Bill O'Reilly attacking Jennifer Aniston, because of course he is. Why on earth would Bill O'Reilly be attacking a mediocre actress who as far as I can tell appears to be a really nice person? Because she is DESTROYING OUR SOCIETY.

See, Aniston has a new movie coming out called The Switch, which involves her character artificially inseminating herself so that she can have and raise a kid despite not having found Mr. Right, proving that yesterday's science fiction is today's rom-com fodder. While promoting said film, Aniston went on to say this in an interview:

"Women are realizing more and more that you don't have to settle, they don't have to fiddle with a man to have that child. They are realizing if it's that time in their life and they want this part they can do it with or without that."

I happen to agree with that line of thinking. Most of us men-folk can be pretty dickish, so if a woman is having a hard time finding a halfway decent guy but still wants to be able fulfill a greater purpose by bringing in and guiding another life, power to them. Mr. O'Reilly, however, isn't as progressive in his thought process as I am (what with me being a college educated elitist). He demeaned Aniston's opinion, going on about how you can't replace the role of a father in a child's life and how they bring a "psychology to children that in this society is under emphasized" (yeah, I'm not sure what that means either). So all those single moms whose husbands died in Iraq are just terrible people because now their kids won't have the right "psychology."

But here's where it gets ridiculous.

Bringing in a "won't somebody please think of the children!" moment (because if anyone is thinking of the children, it's Bill fucking O'Reilly), O'Reilly went on to say that "She's throwing a message out to 12-year-olds and 13-year-olds that, 'Hey you don't need a guy. You don't need a dad.' That is destructive to our society."

Now, perhaps I missed something, but I don't think 12 and 13 year olds are hanging onto Jennifer Aniston's every word. In fact, I'd bet that many wouldn't know who she is. If this were Justin Bieber, yeah, 12 and 13 year olds would definitely get the message. But I'm pretty sure they're too busy reading about non-sex in Twilight to be bothered by anything Jennifer Aniston has to say. They are not her fanbase, and she is not talking to them.

If you have a problem with women being independent and not needing a man to be a parent because you are old fashioned and don't want to try and wrap your head around the idea that women can get around fine without them, fine, say so. But if you are going to instead pretend that some uppity celebrity is poisoning our youth, you should make sure the youth actually cares about said celebrity. You never hear anyone complaining that something Lady Gaga said is going to effect senior citizens, do you? Of course not, they don't care (or know) who she is. Same logic at play here.

Or better yet, DON'T PRTENED THINGS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Hey, Remember Nostalgia?

Photo by kafka4prez

Let's talk about nostalgia.

Nostalgia comes from the Greek word nostos, which means "returning home." We use it today as a way to describe a yearning for the past, an idealization of what was. More often than not, we get nostalgic about our childhoods, and the things we associate it with it. Any time you have a conversation with your friends that goes "Hey, remember ___?" chances are, that's nostalgia.

We all have nostalgic memories. I refuse to throw out the many POGS I have stored away for that reason. They're useless, but I still have an emotional tie with them that I can't fully explain. We all remember the cartoon shows we watched as children (Transformers, Smurfs, Rugrats, Scooby Doo, etc.) and pity today's youngsters for not having the entertainment that we did.

But I also see nostalgia as dangerous. It is, after all, an idealization of the past, and that's the part people forget. Ideals and reality are not always compatible. Many of my friends talk about the old Transformers cartoon as if it were some golden standard. Looking back on it, it was really just a crappy cartoon show hastily put together to sell toys. If it were a new show now, we all would look down our nose at it as garbage. But because it is a part of our childhoods, it's given a free pass.

This is problematic because it impairs our judgment. Instead of making decisions based on what is actually in front of us, and taking into account that things (ourselves included) can change, we start making decisions based on a preconceived notion that may or may not hold up. On the trivial end of the spectrum, it causes people to think the Star Wars prequels are good, even though, if their association with Star Wars were removed and they were merely another sci-fi epic, I guarantee they would be universally panned. But because they ARE associated with the original trilogy, and because people do not want to admit that something born of something held in such high regard could be bad, they are defended as being part of a greater picture. They may not be as good as the originals, some say, but it's still Star Wars. It's a flawed logic, and it is akin to playing pretend. (The same can be said of the last 10 or so seasons of The Simpsons for those who think im picking on Star Wars fans)

Now, like I said, that is a pretty trivial example. Whether or not nostalgia effects the entertainment we consume is a rather inconsequential point. But this same principle, idealizing the past at the expense of the present and future, can also have more problematic effects. Think of the high school hot, perhaps the star quarterback or other some such example, who never really moves on from his hometown. He still hangs around the high school, buys beer for the younger kids, etc. His inability to move on from his past leaves him stuck, unable to grow or evolve. He is resistant to the idea of change. As time goes on, his position becomes sadder and more pitiful.

Or think about politicians (or anyone, really) who talks about a desire to go back to the way things were, a more innocent time when father knew best and what not. For all the innocence and simplicity they yearn for, they also gloss over the fact that racism was much worse back then, and women were still viewed as largely inferior to men, their place at home in the kitchen. That's the biggest problem with nostalgia; it emphasizes the good while neglecting or ignoring the bad.

We all have moments of nostalgia. But it's important to keep an eye forward even when remembering the past. Otherwise, you end up so focused on what was that you become unable to cope with what is. The animated show The Venture Bros. deals with this theme quite nicely. Just about every character in it lives in the shadow of some idealistic version of the past, and are miserable because they're present lives don't seem to measure up to the promises of yesterday. They cling to their former lives, and in doing so are incapable of making the kinds of changes that could improve their current disposition.

This isn't to say that we should just forget the memories of our past. It just means we need to be careful of just how much stock we put in them. I recently came across an old VHS copy of the movie 3 Ninjas. As a kid, I watched it hundreds of times, thinking it was the greatest thing ever. Rewatching it now, it's a remarkably stupid movie. That doesn't mean I can't think back to a time I thought it was great, and remember the joy it gave me. But I'm also not going to try and defend it as some kind of masterpiece simply because I liked it way back when. I've grown up, my tastes have changed. Part of me will always like it in some capacity; there is nothing wrong with having a soft spot for the things you enjoyed in your past. But we do need to be mindful that our soft spot isn't clouding our judgment of the present. After all, there is always so much more that is yet to be explored than there are things already experienced.