Christians Call For HBO Boycott, Have No Idea What Is Actually On HBO

Over the weekend, Bill Maher made fun of Saint Tim Tebow on Twitter, after the Broncos lost to Buffalo during their Christmas Eve game.  Conservatives and Christians promptly lost their shit, and are now calling for a boycott of HBO, home to Maher's Real Time TV show.

Now, none of this is surprising.  Maher has always mocked religion, and the religious right has always stomped their feet and held their breath whenever anyone says something mean about them.  Got it.  But I do have a question for the people calling for the boycott.

Have any of you ever actually watched HBO?

I'm serious, because if you think a Christian led boycott is going to make any difference to HBO, then you obviously have no idea about the content they provide.  The whole point of HBO is that because it is subscriber based, their programming can be a hell of a lot more graphic than network and even cable.  Their shows can have the kinds of sex scenes and gratuitous violence that groups like yours keep off of network TV.  THAT'S WHY PEOPLE LIKE HBO.  It's where they can watch the kind of shows no one else can make for fear of boycotts.  And it's home not just to Maher, but to Ricky Gervais, another vocal atheist.  The Christian demographic has never been something HBO has concerned itself with.

I mean come on, how many of these people calling for the boycott even have a subscription to cancel?  I'm guessing few to none.  And that's what makes this call all the more irritating.  It really does come across as a child holding his breath til they get their way; a knee jerk reaction that comes about because you haven't thought things through.

Whether or not Maher's tweet was in good taste is one thing.  You have the right to be offended.  But it's not like he said this on a national broadcast.  He put it on twitter, where YOU DONT HAVE TO FOLLOW HIM (or use it, for that matter) and his show is on a channel that you SPECIFICALLY HAVE TO ASK AND PAY MORE FOR.  It is ridiculously easy to ignore him if you disagree with his views and humor and if they make your blood angry.  Why punish the rest of us by going after a channel you probably don't have anyway?  Can you really not deal with the fact that someone somewhere might be making fun of something you like or believe in? 

So Christians and conservative, please take a breath.   I know you don't like Maher, but HBO doesn't care how blue your face gets.  Time to pick another useless culture battle and move on.

On Christmas Wars and Hullabaloo

Well, Christmas is a day away, and with it the end of one of America’s greatest holiday traditions: the annual coverage of the War on Christmas, a heavy weight bought between good, wholesome, American Christians and the secular liberal hellspawn. Every year it seems that Christmas will be wiped out completely, but somehow they come from behind and get celebrated anyway, usually because Bill O’Reilly is brave enough to stand up for this marginalized holiday.

Everyone but straight white males are naughty.  Ho ho ho!

Except, of course, that Christmas has been nowhere near marginalized here in the US. It is the most prominent of all holidays. You can’t go anywhere the entire month of December (or November or even fucking October now) without seeing Christmas displays and holiday sales and enough Santa’s to make some kind of awesome drinking game out of it. So we really need to stop pretending to get upset about the supposed secular conspiracy to get rid of Christmas, like…

Happy Holidays?! What are you, a communist?!

One of the most easily identifiable battles in this yuletide war is whether stores wish their customers a “Merry Christmas” or a “Happy Holidays.” There has been a lot of back and forth over the years. This year, for example, Fox Nation declared victory because some stores started saying Merry Christmas again. Yay!

This is also one of the most ridiculous of the battles that rage because, well, Christmas is a holiday. Calling it a holiday is correct. I mean, holiday has derived from “holy day,” which is what my family assures me Christmas is. So to get upset about “Happy Holidays” would be like if I said “I live on that street over there,” and you replied “Street?! That’s Chestnut Ave, you soulless asshole!”

The reason Happy Holidays works for stores that do business with the public is that it is all inclusive, which is really important for businesses since it helps them bring in as many customers as possible and thus maximize profits. It’s plural, so you can knock out Christmas, Chanukah, Kwanza, New Years, and whatever Scientologists celebrate (Glofrhbtfzn?) with one simple banner, instead of having to print a whole bunch, which can get rather expensive.

The issue here is entitlement, as well as a need to have clear-cut labels for everyone. America is Christian. The Middle East is Islam. Europe is… I dunno, Elvish. And since America HAS to be Christian, it becomes a zero-sum game. To give any rights to another group is to take them away from Christians. So even though Happy Holidays seems like a harmless way to be more inclusive, what it really means is the stripping away of Christians’ religious freedoms. And that’s where the entitlement comes in. Christianity has been such a dominant force for so long that the idea that other ways of thinking are becoming more prevalent seems absurd to them, if not a little scary. They have gotten so used to being at the top that they refuse to acknowledge the fact that Christianity is becoming less and less important, even to members of churches, and that Happy Holidays makes more sense in today’s multicultural world than forcing a specific view on everyone else because it happens to be yours.

I mean, next thing you know they'll be taking down Nativity scenes.


Those Atheists Are Taking Away Our Nativity Scenes!

There is also always at least a couple stories every year about some battle over a town’s Nativity scene. Used to be that every town and city would put up a Nativity scene in the public square. But now those damned secularists and atheists are getting them removed, and in some cases putting up their own displays. They won’t stop until every Nativity scene everywhere is dismantled!

Except, actually, they will stop well before that. All these battles have one thing in common: the Nativity in question is on public property. Which means the property is maintained with tax payer’s money. Tax payers who very well may not be Christian. And since the Constitution guarantees the government cannot favor any religion over another, public venues (which again, are maintained by the government through tax payer money) cannot show any kind of favoritism.

So either everyone has access to the venue to share their message with the community, or no one does. Keep in mind, this is for public venues only. That is where this “battle” begins and ends. No one is coming after the Nativity scene your aunt puts up on her own, private property. It’s her property to do with as she likes. It is her money that went into purchasing it, her money that goes into maintaining it, so no one is going to (at least, no one should) have a problem. If an atheist is going to try and fight that battle, they are idiotic. Neither I nor any other atheist or secularist I know has any desire to take it that far.

As for atheists taking over the spots that were used by Nativity scenes in that story linked above, that has to do with the way the town went about distributing the available spaces.  Some towns go by a first come fist serve process, others a lottery process.  Either way, it's a system that allows EVERYONE to put in their lot and try to participate.  The fact that your group didn't get it this year is not an infringement on your freedoms, it's just how the dice rolled this time (I've been waiting to hear if there were any allegations of the lottery being fixed, but so far that hasn't seemed to be an issue).  Again, recognizing the rights of another group does not in itself mean your rights are being denied. 

Now, are these atheist displays tactful?  I suppose that one is up for debate.  Though if we are going to talk about tact I could mention how the ways stores drum up fever over sales and pit shoppers against each other in order to snag the doorbusters is pretty counter to the Christmas spirit.  After all, we need to...


Keep The Christ In Christmas!

Even among Christians who all celebrate the holiday, there is an issue about how much a role the Baby Jesus plays in the festivities. As nice as Rudolph and Frosty and Tim Allen are, Jesus is the reason for the season.  And so every year there are people who rally against the commercialization of the holiday, viewing that as another form of secularization.
 
And really, there is an admirable sentiment to it.  Setting aside the religious mythology, the values of charity, love and peace, of family and friends, and good will towards your fellows are great ones to champion.  It's why I still celebrate Christmas despite my atheism. 
 
But when you expand that and try to tie it into the birth of Jesus, things get a bit murky.  Most obviously, the Bible never gives us any indication of when this birth took place or even that it should recognized and celebrated.  That's why the Puritans outlawed it back in colonial days. And all the shops stayed open!  Scandalous! 

Also, THEY HAD NO HEADS!

 
See, the whole Jesus-Christmas thing is a relatively recent development in the history of Christianity.  The Christmas holiday was a hold-over from pagan solstice festivals as a way to attract converts. It was really just a month long drunken feast orgy to celebrate the harvest the years work had brought in (remember, lots of agriculture back then).  The religious aspects of the holiday were basically non-existant, because the religious people largely looked down on the celebrations. 
 
Attitudes eventually softened, as the children of those fire and brimstone preachers grew up.  After a childhood of wanting to get in on the celebrations but not being allowed to, they started using Jesus as a way to make celebrating the holiday more acceptable and made it more of a domestic affair.  The industrial revolution helped out here, as agriculture and the harvest became less important, and manfacturing goods replaced it. (Stephen Nissenbaum's The Battle for Christmas details this process nicely)
 
Which brings us to the commercialization aspect.  I hate to break it to you guys, but the the fact that so much money can be made of off the holiday is a huge reason it has become as popular as it has.  That's not to say Christmas wouldn't exist otherwise, far from it.  But I gurantee you we would not be having these debates every year if that were the case.  Stores wouldn't care about the holiday as much, and would play a far less important role, so the "Happy Holidays" controversy that plagues us year after year would be a non-starter.  Without the commercialized hysterics, the holiday would be internalized within families and groups of friends, so even a thing like whether or not a Nativity scene is in the twon square would seem less important.  It would be just another holiday.

But stores figured out how to make Christmas mega-profitable, and here we are.  They seized on the notion of generosity and fitted it with a giant robot suit with lasers and shiny things.  Because really, from a Christian standpoint, Easter should be the most important holiday, since it was his death that supposedly saved us from sin and what not.  THAT should be the big one.  But aside from candy, Easter has never been that profitable.  And so Christmas became the American holiday of choice, not because we are a Christian nation, but because we are a capatilistic one. 

So please, when the holiday season comes around next year, instead of fighting with people over percieved persecution or attacks on freedom or how Christmas is going to be wiped off the map, how about just celebrating it?  Public displays aren't necessary if the holiday is really about being with family and sharing your love.  Because if you are going to get bent out of shape of these supposed controversies, then the holiday really is in danger, just not from the outside.

Anyway, Happy Holidays everyone!

On Nice Guys

My friend Bailey recently shared a blog post with me written by a "Nice Guy" who went on to argue that he would no longer be a nice guy because women are all selfish bitches.  Or because he is still a virgin.  It's kind of up in the air, because his rant was not the most coherent.  All I know is it apparently drove him to move all the way to Japan because they will understand him.  Or something.

But really, the whole thing kind of pissed me off.  Mostly because there is a tiny, tiny bit of something resembling truth at the very bottom of his argument, and he uses it as justification for his dickishness.

Because yes, a lot of times it does seem the people who are genuinely nice and treat others well get the short end.  There is a biological  (sort of) explanation for why a girl might be more likely to remember the asshole she met at the bar last night instead of the gentler soul.  And it's not just relationships.  Douchebags tend to get ahead in the world in a lot of ways, which is can truly annoying and depressing to the rest of us.  Those are valid things to complain about.

HOWEVER.  To then say that all women are selfish bitches is a huuuuuuuuge unsubstatiated leap.  Because even if there is that an evolutionary bias that helps the dicks of the world, there are also plenty of women out there who actively act against those instincts.  Maybe they dated an asshole here or there, but eventually, they do find the nice guy they always said they wanted.  I have a lot of friends who are in very happy relationships with either boyfriends or husbands, and they are not in fact dicks.  They treat them well and respectfully.  It happens.

No.  The problem this "Nice Guy" has, and that others like him share, is they aren't actually nice guys.  They are the worst of the assholes; the one's who have deluded themselves into thinking otherwise.  Let's take a look at the sentence Nice Guy chose to isolate and bold:

I don't like having to tolerate women.

 See, women are just things he has to tolerate.  And he doesn't like having to do it.  So why is he putting himself through this?  Because he wants to get laid.  Plain and simple.  He didn't want to be friends, he wanted romance.  Who you were as a person and the actual relationship you had with him meant jack shit.  He wanted to bang.  And being "nice" was the way he thought he would get there.

Thing is, that's not being nice.  There is no sincerity to his actions, he is merely acting towards an agenda. He is, in fact, a douchebag.  Put another way, when someone tells you that you are "so sweet" or "so understanding," and your response is to want to "hit her repeatedly upside the head with a broken bottle," you kind of suck at the whole Being A Person thing.

The whole things comes across as nothing more than the bitter rantings of someone who has never been able to get a girlfriend (probably because his main concern seems to be getting their pants with no regard for things like "personality") and has thus decided that the problem must lie in all women being bitches and not in him being a tool.

There are so many red flags throughout it's hard to keep track.  Yeah, I've heard the joke(?) about women dressing revealingly and then complaining when men leer at them.  Because that makes it right, doesn't it?  I never realized that morality and ethics could be changed simply by the clothes someone wears.  And he obviously has no idea what sexual harassment at the work place is, since he thinks it's "dirty jokes" that are the issue.  It's a bit more than that.  For example, I'm sure he's cool with dick jokes, but if I always start telling tiny dick jokes whenever he joins the conversation, he'd probably start to feel a bit uncomfortable.

It all comes down to his mentality that "if it weren't for the possibility of having sex, half of all men wouldn't even bother talking to you."  That's where his priorities are.  And as a guy, it pisses me off.  If all I wanted was sex, that's what hookers are for.  I, and most men, I'd wager, are looking for a lot more in a relationship.  And you make us look bad.  Scratch that, you make us look awful.  You make it harder for those of us who do actually care about others for who they are, and who want to be there for them not because we want to get our dick wet but because they are genuinely important to us.

So here's the rule: don't call yourself a Nice Guy.  Not just this guy, everyone.  Because it's a silly label that does conjure up the image of being that "perfect guy" that is always overlooked.  But it's bullshit.  First, I don't care how nice you are, you also have a dick side.  We all do.  I consider myself a pretty good guy, but I've been an ass and made mistakes just like everyone else.  So while I may in general be a nice guy, I don't want to try and give off the impression that I will never hurt you or let you down, because I have in the past already (unintentionally or not) and by virtue of being human, will undoubtedly do it again.  That's why it's important to have more in common with someone you're in a relationship with than a desire to have sex, so that you are able and willing to work through all the problems that will surely arise.

Second, if you are constantly being "overlooked" there is probably a reason for it.  You might think you are just the bee's knees, but if girls just want to be your friend and nothing more, well, maybe you aren't as perfect as you think.  Granted there are times when a girl just keeps making the wrong choices, but most of the it's really simple as they aren't interested in you.  There could be a number of reasons, ranging from merely not being attracted to you in that way to holy fuck you are a creeper stop putting roofies in my drink.  To see that you don't have a girlfriend and immediately blame Women is a huge leap in logic.  Sometimes it takes a long time before you find someone.  Fuck, it's taken me years.  But I also never blamed anyone for my being single.  I was never a dick about it.

This post is a couple years old.  Hopefully Mr. Nice Guy got over himself and is in a happy relationship.  But I doubt it.  That's the major problem with "Nice Guys," they will never think they need to change.

Mishandled Message: Sucker Punch

When Sucker Punch first came out, and even before that when the trailers were first released, I dismissed it pretty quickly.  Like it did to plenty of others, the movie looked to me like nothing more than fanboy wish-fullfillment, eye candy for geeks to masturbate to.  Scantily clad girls kicking ass!  Heavy weaponry!  Zombie Nazis and genre mashing!  A fucking dragon!  It was everything you would expect a poll done at Comic-Con to come up with for what would make a good movie.

And while that sounds pretty awesome in theory, in practice it is a lot less interesting.  That's one too many ideas fighting for air, and it looked like a mess of CGI set pieces thrown together at random.  The trailer seemed to highlight all the things about geek culture I hate: things like the fetishization of women, and the style-over-substance mentality that is more concerned with things looking "awesome" as opposed to being part of an interesting and worthwhile story.  Giant robots fighting are cool, but that alone does not make a good movie, Transformers.

Not to mention Zack Snyder is the epitome of style-over-substance fanboy directing.  Coming from a background of music videos and commercials, Snyder is great packing a shot full of stunning visuals.  He knows the importance an image can have.  But when it comes to other things a story needs (that music videos and commercials don't necessarily), like dialogue or character development, he falls way short.  It doesn't matter how awesome the visual aspect is, without the other things to ground it emotionally, all that visual bombardment starts to get kind of boring.

But I am still a geek, and I knew I would watch it eventually if for no other reason than to be able to say for sure that it was a piece of crap.  This past weekend presented the best opportunity to so; I felt brain dead and didn't feel like doing anything else.  And since my local library recently installed a Redbox-like vending machine to check out DVDs 24-7, I picked it up and popped it in.

And hole-ee crap, is that movie a mess.

To get the plot description out of the way, the movie is about girl (named both "Baby" and "Doll," depending on what character is addressing her at any given time) who's mother dies and is then placed in a mental institution by her step-father to prevent her for telling anyone about his part in the accidental shooting of her sister.  This all takes place in some sort of alternate 1950's or 60s timeline.  I say alternate because the music used in the movie is not even close to 50s or 60s appropriate.

And then all of sudden, she is in some kind of sleazy cabaret.  It is here that she creates the CGI fueled fantasy world that is the reason most people went to see the film.  In these sequences she and the other girls she befriends must find four items in order to escape, and a fifth one that remains unknown.  And honestly, it's these fantasy sequences that really drag the film down.  First off this sounds more like the plot to a video game than it does a major motion picture.  Four objects = four levels, that's the overall structure.  And this would be more forgivable if the sequences didn't seem so interchangeable. The baddies vary slightly (the above mentioned Nazi Zombies), but the bleak, scorched background remains pretty constant.  Even though the actual settings technically change (war trenches, castle, runaway train) none of them feel fresh, and none of them really feel that different from the one before.  This is due mainly to sensory overload.  There is so much CGI, so much ass-kicking badassery going on, that it all blurs together.  Everything is set to 11, and as a result, nothing stands out.

That's all purely aesthetics.  There is also the question of why this would be the escapist fantasy of a young girl.  It is entirely believable that she would escape to a fantasy where she is taking control of a situation, where she is not helpless and is in fact dealing out punishment on others.  What does strike me as strange, however, is that her fantasies would adhere so closely to what a fanboy would want to see.  If you are going to have a character escape to fantasy world that is in their own mind, that world should reflect in some way the character who is having them.  Aside from it being something a 14 year boy would like to look at, why fantasize about fighting demon samurais and dragon's while wearing a school girl outfit?  What makes that a practical choice for fighting, well, anything?  It serves no purpose other than to make her a sex object, which is an odd thing to fantasize about being since being a sex object is what she is trying to escape from at the cabaret in the first place.

It is, in other words, very easy to write off as yet another example of geek culture pandering to an adolescent boy's mentality.  Or it would, if I hadn't noticed something towards the end of the movie.

All of the action fantasy sequences occur when Baby/Doll is supposed to dance in the cabaret.  As she begins to move, the scene transitions to whatever battleground she must conquer next.  The dancing, while never shown, is implied to be very sexual in nature.  So the film makes to give us sex, but then pulls the rug out and gives us violence instead.

This could actually make for a fairly sharp commentary on the general preferences for what American culture finds acceptable.  It's no secret that the MPAA is much more lenient in their ratings when dealing with violence but much harsher in terms of sexual expression.

This got me a little more interested, so I looked around and found an interview Snyder did talking about the point of the film. It is here he proclaimed that everyone like me who thought it was just geeky objectification totally missed the point. It was actually a criticism of that fanboy gaze, meant to call them out for it. We all just missed the point.

I have no reason to think that Snyder is lying. But it would almost be better if he did, because if Sucker Punch is meant to be a critique, then it botched the job right and proper.  It's commentary that plays it way too straight; like someone trying to get you to see how terrible murder is by murdering people, the message is drowned out by the fact that someone is being murdered either way.  Sucker Punch might have worked as commentary had it gone for a satirical tone, and perhaps twenty years the smashing together of every fanboy fantasy may have been over the top enough to qualify.  But genre-mashing has become common place in recent years.  In a world where cowboys fight aliens and zombies can be inserted into classic literature, Sucker Punch just feels like a repetitive reiteration.  

According to Snyder, there is a line of dialogue early on that is supposed to clue the viewer in on the film's real intention.  As Baby/Doll is about to be lobotomized and we transition to the cabaret world, another character says "This is a joke, right?  I get the sexy schoolgirl and nurse thing, but what's this?  A lobotomized vegetable?  How about something more commercial?"  In Snyder's mind, this is him saying "Why are you making this movie?  You need to make a movie more commercial.  It shouldn't be so dark and weird."  If his intent was to point out how sanitized mainstream movies can be in order to appeal to the broadest audience possible, this line works as a criticism.  But it really says nothing about female sexual objectification, except that lobotomized vegetables are not as sexy as school girls.  Not to mention one line of dialogue buried under mountains of computerized is easy to miss, and in actuality comes across more as a throw-away-joke than any sort of thematic statement.

This puts Sucker Punch in an even worse position.  Not only did it fail on an entertainment level and in terms of not being sexist, it fails to present the director's supposed intentions in a way can actually be picked up by the audience.  Sucker Punch doesn't just fail, it fails on multiple levels.  The only bright side is the film's tepid box office performance, which suggests that you can only pander to the geek community's baser impulses so far before they abandon you.  And hopefully it was a lesson that, if you want to critique something, you have to put a little more effort than simply doing that same thing really loudly.

What Do Atheists Do In Crisis? Wrong Question

One of the questions that continually gets asked by theists attempting to give themselves a higher ground is "What do atheists do in crisis?"  What do they do for comfort when things turn bad, what do they turn to when they have doubts, etc.  Recently, it was asked during a Fox panel as part of discussion about Hurricane Irene.  Why they brought an atheist on only try and bully for being "mocking" when you have to know full well what his opinions would be is it's own can of worms.  Douchebaggery aside, it's common for theists to use this as a way to try and show how empty a life without a divine creator would be.

On the surface, it makes sense.  The big sticking point for why many people do believe in a god is the feeling of security.  God has a plan and is in control, and you are a part of it.  This notion helps many people get through rough patches, so it's somewhat understandable that they would be a bit confused as to how people manage to go through life without the comfort of a supernatural bodyguard.

But really it's one of the dumber questions you can raise.  What do atheists do in crisis?  Largely, what just about everyone does.  They plan, prepare, try to figure out the best way to deal with the problem at hand.  The big problem with the panel I linked above is that it plays out more like gross parody than an actual debate.  Even among the religious, the majority of people are not simply going to pray that things will turn out OK, though they certainly will do that (and before you bring up Rick Perry's Prayer-a-palooza, I am very aware and disturbed by it.  But as much as they like to pretend they represent the American people, they are a small percentage of the actual population).  Most of them will also do at least basic preparations, such as, to use Hurricane Irene as an example, boarding up windows, storing food, or actually listen to local officials and evacuate.  Sure there will be outliers who will blindly believe that the savior of their choice will protect them and do nothing.  But then I also know fellow atheists who are boneheaded enough to wait out the storm without preparations because nothing bad could ever happen to them.  It comes down to stupidity and stubbornness, and while we may not like to admit it, there are atheists out there who do exhibit those traits.

But in general, both groups will prepare in ways any sane person would.  So really, the question should be reversed.  Since theists are the ones adding an extra step to dealing with crisis, they must be the ones to explain why they are doing so.  Basically, the whole "burden of proof" argument that theists have been ignoring forever.  Maybe praying brings comfort to believers to help them get through hard times.  But in what was the best point made in the above link, so do drugs.  The question should really be "Why do theists pray in times of crisis?"  That is the question that should be answered.  If you have two neighbors, and one of them leaves out a whole rotisserie chicken on their doorstep every night, you don't ask the other neighbor why they don't do that.  You ask the first neighbor what the deal is.  If we really want to make this into a big deal, let's do it correctly, shall we?

Why I Refuse To Buy Star Wars on Blu-ray

Yesterday I wound up browsing through FYE, where I saw loads of advertisements for pre-ordering the Star Wars movies on Blu-ray, which are coming out next month. I had known they were due out, but had somewhat forgotten about it as I waited for more details to emerge. But now they had packaging and pre-ordering on the ready, I figured now would be a good time to check back in and see what was actually being offered.

And it was exactly as I had feared.

First the good news. You DON'T have to buy all six movies, as the two trilogies are being offered separately, not just in the big "saga" package. So points for not forcing me to buy the three shitty movies in order to get the good ones. So far so good. And of course, there are going to be loads of extra features, many of which look pretty cool. Yay.

But then came time for the big reveal, the thing I was most concerned about: Which version of the original Star Wars trilogy would be released? Would it be the original theatrical release? (Fingers crossed!) Or would it be the bastardized special editions that were rereleased in the 90s? (Booooooo!) Or would it be both, giving fans the ability to choose which version they wanted to watch? To me, that seemed the most likely, and the best and easiest way to please a fan base that have given you billions of dollars over the years. But nope. Following his decades long trend of fucking his fans over, Lucas has opted to only offer the special edition re-releases on Blu-ray.

Now, on the one hand, a director wanting to present the version of the film he feels is best is understandable. That's why we have director's cuts for movies like Blade Runner. It's their work, so sure, they should get to decide how to present it. But that isn't the case here. The special editions weren't chosen because they were the version he felt was best. They were chosen because it was cheaper to convert them to Blu-ray over the originals. George Lucas, a man who makes millions off of anything he slaps the Star Wars logo on, uses the excuse "It's too expensive."

Bullshit. I understand that the conversion process does cost money, but Lucas is a man who NEVER HAS TO WORRY ABOUT MONEY EVER AGAIN. And he felt like pinching pennies when it came to bringing his beloved work to Blu-ray? To bring in a comparison, when the Alien Anthology was released on Blu-ray, it included both the original theatrical versions of all the films as well as all the different director's cuts and special editions. The Alien franchise is a far less lucrative franchise than Star Wars, yet they were able to find enough change in the couch cushion to convert all the different versions of the films.

This is also a travesty because it is history lost. The original versions are getting harder and harder to find, and if they are excluded from the transition to Blu-ray, there is a very real possibility we could lose them for future generations as technology continues to move forward and the older methods of watching movies continue to get killed off. What a shame it would be if a generation from now, no kid would be able to see the original version that started it all, the one that the legions of Star Wars fans fell in love with and made it possible to create the huge universe these characters inhabit.

However, as easy and as much fun as it is to blame Lucas, at least some of the fault also rests with the fans. I know too many who happily eat up anything Star Wars that Lucas offers up, even if they agree it isn't that good. When it comes to the prequels and crappy Clone Wars TV show, too often I hear the apologetic "But it's Star Wars." No. That is not a reason nor an excuse. A product should be judged by its own merit, not by nostalgia you have for a prior incarnation. Many Star Wars fans have stopped doing this, and Lucas knows it. He knows he doesn't have to put effort into his ideas anymore, and it will still sell. Fans may complain that Han is supposed to shot first, but most of them will likely still buy the Blu-rays where Greedo shots first. It is this passiveness to accept any addition to the Star Wars universe that has watered it down. Sure, there are still some worthwhile additions that have come out. The Force Unleashed was pretty cool. But the majority of it falls way short of the magic of the original versions, the versions that introduced so many fans to Luke and Darth Vader and Han Solo. But by all means, keep buying that god awful Clone Wars series on DVD.

I've long since stopped getting excited for new Star Wars releases. And Lucas's decision to exclude the original version from Blu-ray just furthers me opinion that, for all intents and purposes, Star Wars is over. They story has been told. Lucas can repackage his story all he wants, in as many ways as he want with as many gimmicks as he wants; I'm done buying. Fuck the special editions and extended canon, if I can't enjoy the story in its original incarnation, I'd rather forget it exists than remember it through these poorly thought out additions. Call me a purist. Call me a hater, as I'm sure many of you will. I just know what it is I like about Star Wars, what it is I want to be able to watch and show my kids, and I refuse for them to have any less of an experience than I did when I was first introduced to that galaxy far far away.

A Call To Arms: Fight Back Against Book Banning

As we have seen in the recent weeks, the political gridlock of our country has reached a point of cartoonish levels. During this whole debt ceiling debate, I could never be sure if Eric Cantor was really House Majority Leader, or a bad guy from a James Cameron movie. It was confusing. But despite so many differences in opinion and ideology, there are usually a few things everyone can agree on. Usually they revolve around how awesome America is at things, and the greatest of all these is our personal freedom and liberty. You can't go to any kind of political rally without at least one person chest-pounding about how great a nation we are because of it. And really, they are right to. We enjoy many great advantages over much of the world, mainly due to our 1st Amendment rights. Our freedom of expression, and freedom to consume other's expressions and opinions, are fundamental to why this nation was founded in the first place.

And that is why stories like this just piss me off. Yes, book banning in the United States. Setting aside the fact that I absolutely love Slaughterhouse 5 (and Kurt Vonnegut in general), this is unbelievable. Both Slaughterhouse 5 and Twenty Boy Summer by Sarah Ockler were banned by the Republic School Board in Montana. The reason? A local college professor complained on religious grounds, claiming that the content of the books was offensive to his interpretation of the Bible, and should not be taught to his children. Not that his kids need to worry about it, since they are reportedly home schooled, but why would that stop him? And now, no one at Republic High School will have either book as part of their curriculum, regardless of what their own personal beliefs on the Bible may be.

The fact that this happened is a big deal. Obviously, it is a breach of the Constitution, allowing the government (this is a public school) to favor one religious ideology over others. But let's set aside the religious aspect for a moment. This is censorship, pure and simple. In this case it is due to overly-religious nut bags, but in China it's politically motivated. In the Middle-East it's religious motivation of a different breed. Whatever the initial trigger, the outcome is the same: someone else is deciding what can be viewed by others based on a narrow-minded world view. This is unacceptable, especially in a country like the USA.

No book or film or anything should ever be banned. Even atrocious or hateful works of art can be used to gain some kind of knowledge. You don't have to support the ideals of the Nazi party to watch Triumph of the Will and see just how masterful a piece of manipulative propaganda it is. And, learning that and seeing how they did it, you can more easily recognize when other groups or organizations try to use the same tricks and guard yourself from it. Knowledge is power, and you gain knowledge from exposure, even (and especially) from works that go against your world view. Perhaps Slaughterhouse 5 does offend your view of the Bible. So what? You don't have to like it. But it challenged your view, and if you walk away with it intact, then you have gained something invaluable from the experience. That is what people don't seem to understand about having their beliefs challenged; it forces us to reexamine our position and make sure it is one we want to take. Banning books just puts the blinders on, and you can start down a path of believing things simply because you have never been shown an alternative, and that is a terrible reason to believe anything.

So this should be a call to arms. Fight back against would-be intellectual oppressors. Do not allow small groups of people to decide what you can or can't read. If it happens in your area, stand up and speak out. For the immediate, you can help donate money to the Kurt Vonnegut Memorial Library, who are sending out free copies of Slaughterhouse 5 to any Republic High School student who would like one. But more importantly, always keep yourself open to ideas that might be contrary to what you may believe. Challenge your world view. Even if you come away with the same stance you had before, it is a more enhanced stance that has the benefit of withstanding alternative viewpoints. Always strive to learn and take in something new. You may even find that you had been wrong, which there is no shame in. We are all wrong from time to time, and it's our ability to learn and change our minds that makes it all ok.

Banned Book Week is coming up next month, a week dedicated to books that have been challenged or are being challenged for a variety of reasons (though in this country it tends to be for religious reasons more often than not). Make a point to read one (or a few) and decide for yourself if they really are so offensive. Maybe they aren't, and people have made hullaballoo out of nothing (as is often the case, since they usually refuse to read it themselves and thus don't really know what they're talking about). Maybe it is offensive to you, but then, maybe that's point. Maybe you are supposed to feel offended so that you acknowledge and think about a given issue. You will never know until you read for yourself. Everyone should have that right.

What The New Dark Knight Rises Poster Reveals About The Plot

Earlier today, Warner Bros. released the above teaser poster for next summer's The Dark Knight Rises, which will most assuredly be the biggest movie of 2012, especially if Joe Johnston does his usual thing and completely screws up Captain America, and in the process tarnishes all our hopes and dreams for what the Avengers movie could be. But I'm getting distracted. BATMAN. And with the teaser trailer announced to be attached to the final Harry Potter movie, the rumor mills are once again turning as everyone tries to guess at what to expect from Nolan's third installment.

And I'm here to say all those other rumors can just shut the hell up. This poster tells us everything we need to know about the direction this movie will take. And for those of you unable to decipher this Da Vinci Code of the box office on your own, you are lucky I have free time and overdosed on NyQuil. Blessed NyQuil.

Batman Fucking Hates Buildings

It appears The Dark Knight Rises begins with Batman's insatiable hatred of all things skyscraper. "Since when does Batman hate buildings?" you ask, because you are foolish and untrained in the art of speculation. But this is not the first time Batman has acted out against the steel jungle.

I bet some of you thought that building-a-blaze in the background was supposed to represent The Joker's anarchy. But then WHY IS IT THE SHAPE OF THE BAT-SIGNAL?! No, this was all Batman. I mean, just look at the way he's standing there, all smug and shit. "That's what you get for having so many GODDAMN STAIRS" is what he's thinking.

And really, it makes sense. Of course Batman hates tall buildings. That's why he built his Bat-cave underground. It's the little things that give it away, people. So really, it was only a matter of time before Batman just decided fuck it, everything has to go, and bring down every building more than three stories high. And he'll do it because...

Batman Is The Fucking Bad Guy

You could argue that any superhero is, to some extent, a bad guy, because they very technically are. Aside from a few exceptions like Captain America, who does work directly with the government, most superheros are vigilantes acting outside the law. But we accept this, because even though taking the law into your own hand would be vehemently frowned upon in real life, it is great escapism, especially when the cause being acted out is a noble one. Sure, Batman may be out of line in many ways, but he's doing it for the good of Gotham City.

Except that by the end of The Dark Knight, the city has turned against him. Sure, they do so unfairly, and at Batman's urging. But people dressed up in bat costumes should never be trusted to emotionally stable.

"These people," Batman murmurs to himself. "I protect them, save them from exploding boats, and this is how they thank me? FUCK. This is bullshit. What's that Alfred? I voluntarily cast myself as the villain? YOU'RE ONE OF THEM AREN'T YOU"

It's a spurned-lover effect. After awhile of being treated like shit, you want to show them what life would be like without you. How bad things would really be if you weren't there to step in. They want me to be the villain, goddamnit I'll be the best villain EVER.

And don't think Batman is above making such points. This is a guy who cost the city millions in property damage by letting a train derail simply so he could prove to one guy that he could kill him without actually doing it himself. Destroying the infrastructure of your city simply to prove some sort of ideological point the general public doesn't care about...

Ohhhhhhh

Batman Is A Fucking Republican

This really should not come as a surprise. Batman is also Bruce Wayne, who is an extremely wealthy billionaire. Capitalism, free market, don't fucking tax me and all that stuff. It only makes sense that Bruce's politics would eventually worm their way into Batman's as well.

And it already has. In Batman Begins, the "bad guy" is the League of Shadows, a group who sets out to stop civilizations that become too corrupt. And Gotham is shown to be really fucking corrupt, even by Batman's admission. But rather than allow this organization to stop the corruption (like by introducing, say, health care reform), he cock blocks them, preferring to keep things at the status quo and fix things his own way whenever he feels like it (whatever the Republicans were doing).

And sure, in The Dark Knight The Joker is crazy. But deep down, he just wants to bring about change to Gotham. Batman doesn't want change. Batman hates change. This is a totally logical theory and argument to make so stop looking at me like that.

So anyway, this is the premise for the new Batman movie according to the new poster. Uh, spoiler alert. Shit. I need more NyQuil.

Bachmann Pledges To Protect Marriage, Because What Else Is She Going To Do

This week, presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann became the first and thus far (and hopefully) only candidate to sign The Marriage Vow, a pledge created by THE FAMiLY LEADER, a moral majority type group that in addition to wanting to protect the sanctity of marriage, seems to think having a lower case "i" in their name will make them as popular as Apple products.

To their credit, the group's pledge does not solely focus on "The Gays" as the reason marriage's sanctity is in trouble. It groups them with lots of other issues, such as high divorce rates, infidelity among heterosexual couples, and good ole pornography. So, you know, points for that.

Then you start actually reading the pledge. In addition to a seemingly pro-slavery sentiment, which I'll let this short post cover, it lists a number of things the candidate (Bachmann) "vows" to do and uphold. And this is where it gets fun.

In addition to things you would expect (defending and advocating the Defense of Marriage Act, opposing any change to the definition of the Institute of Marriage), there are a lot of other things that come out of left field, such as opposing Sharia Law. No joke, that is really in there. Now, Sharia Law is extremely oppressive, especially towards women, and is something I would never wish to be instated. But it's also one of those things we really don't have to worry about living in the USA. Similar to how we don't really bother worrying about lion attacks, Sharia Law is pretty much outside of what we encounter on a day to day basis. It's also funny that this vow makes a point to reject the totalitarianism of Sharia Law, while SETTING OUT TO TELL YOU WHO YOU CAN AND CAN'T MARRY.

This hypocrisy is driven home even more by the last "vow," which invokes "Fierce defense of First Amendment's rights of Religious Liberty and Freedom of Speech." Obviously, this means they are free to say they think marriage is between a man and a woman. It also means people have the freedom to say it can also be between a man and a man or a women and a women. Religious Liberty does not mean we have to protect one specific view, it means we accept ALL views, including ones we may not like, assuming they do not interfere with the rights of others. This is why people like THE FAMiLY LEADER infuriate me. Allowing gays and lesbians to marry does NOTHING to curb their freedoms. They can still marry heterosexuality and can even go on believing it's wrong if they want. But to take their side ACTIVELY PREVENTS other people from practicing their rights. People like Bachmann may be offended that The Gays can marry and are capable of having human emotions, but they lose no rights over the issue.

And then there is the childbearing vow, which states that "robust childbearing and reproduction is benificial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security." By "robust" I assume they mean "the fucking Duggar family." And I have a problem with this, because 1) It carries on the oppressive mentality that sex can ONLY be for making babies, so if you want sex you need to have lots of kids and 2) It is NOT strictly beneficial. We are quickly becoming an over-populated country and world. Job growth is struggling to keep up with population increase, and we are draining more resources faster to provide for everyone. That isn't to say we should stop having kids, but people like Bachmann take it too far in the other direction. Hell, in the first Republican Primary debate they were wearing how many kids they had as a badge of honor, as if that was some sort of qualification for holding office.

So what can we take away from this? Mostly, that Bachman is hitching her wagon to the furthest right-thinking segment of the population. This will surely help somewhat in the primary with Tea Party voters, but will (hopefully) alienate her in a general election. While she and THE FAMiLY LEADERS (seriously, why is that "i" lower case?) claim to represent the "christian majority" in this country, I doubt this is the case. For all my problems with religion, most of the people I know who are religious shake their head at crap like this. I take solace in the fact that none of the other potential candidate, and not even not-really-running-but-loves-the-attention-Sarah Palin, have signed this pledge (yet anyway). I choose to be somewhat optimistic and believe the general public is NOT completely insane and will see what absolute bullshit this pledge is. But I've been wrong before.

Why There Needs To Be A Debate Over "Under God"

Last weekend during the US Open, NBC aired the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God, indivisible" omitted. Because this is America, and we have nothing better to do than watch golf in the first place, this created an uproar, and the criticism lobbied at NBC (mostly through social media) caused them to issue an on air-apology and a statement from their Vice President of Sports and Olympics. It also once again opened the floodgates on the discussion on whether "under God" should be in the pledge to begin with.

Because first, a very brief history lesson: "under God" was NOT in the original Pledge of Allegiance. The original Pledge written by Francis Bellamy in 1892 was simply "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Then, in 1942, Congress officially recognized a modified version that read "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." This is pretty close to the verison we know today. Except that in 1954, after years of the Knights of Columbus including it themselves, congress passed and President Eisenhower signed a bill that added "under God" to the pledge.

But most of you know this. It is brought up every time the argument is breached. Which leads us to this most recent "offense." I use offense in quotation because it seems silly to become "distressed," as many claimed to be over the incident, over the exclusion of two words that weren't in it originally to begin with (this is overlooking the exclusion of "indivisible," granted, but that seems to have garnered far less attention and outrage).

But this outrage isn't what pisses me off. I expect that from the religiously fanatic, it's their job so to speak. They take this topic very seriously, and they don't pretend otherwise. No, what irks me are the ones who come out pretending it isn't. "Who cares if 'under God' is in the pledge? Why do you have to make a big deal about it? Stop making waves and accept it."

The problem with this line of thinking is that it betrays itself. If the implication is that the inclusion of the words is insignificant, then it should swing both ways. If atheists (or anyone who has a problem with the inclusion) should not make a big deal about it, then neither should the religious folk. You can't go to one side of a debate and tell them the issue isn't worth it unless you are willing to say the same to the opposing side. Yet, this reasoning is almost always directed at the secular side of the argument, and is usually delivered by someone who believes in some kind of god or creator. Somehow, it is logical to expect one side to admit that the issue on hand is frivolous while allowing the other to be in the right for standing by their ideals. If it truly is a frivolous debate, then both atheists and christians should drop it. Then christians should be just as expected to omit the phrase as atheists are to accept it.

But that isn't what these proponents mean. They want "under God" to be left in the pledge, but they don't want to come across as intolerant or fundamentalist or whatever other negative traits they associate with the really Religious Right. They want to come across as open minded, even though they aren't, not really, because they recognize that's the more socially acceptable mentality today. It's the more mainstream approach. But it's bullshit. They do care, otherwise they would address both sides of the debate. But they don't. At least the people who complained to NBC are upfront and honest about their views, even if I disagree with their stance.

Because it IS a big deal. The inclusion of the words "under God" implies that belief in a supernatural being is a requirement to being an American, which in turn implies that those of us who do not are somehow not real citizens. This is a terrible implication for country that prides itself on personal freedom to make. If the pledge is supposed to be able to be recited by everyone, then it needs to be as broad as possible so as to reflect as many people as you possibly can. "Under God" does the opposite, it helps to restrict which people can actually recite the Pledge. And for anyone who doesn't think it's a big deal for atheists to have to say "under God," I would ask them how they would feel about having to say "under Allah" or "under Zeus" whenever they were asked to recite it.

So yes, it is a big deal, and it is an important debate. There is a reason why each side gets as passionate as they do: words are powerful, as are the implications they carry. The people who fail to see what the big deal is about the pledge are the same ones, for instance, who can't grasp why the gay and lesbian community is not content with "civil unions," even if they have the same rights as those who are married. Because it isn't the same. If it was, we would use the same word for them. To use different words is to imply that they are in fact different entities, different unions between two people. It is the separate but equal mentality that was declared unconstitutional during the civil rights movement of the 60's. Words do matter, as does the way we use them.

So please do not pretend that it isn't. There is a reason that atheists and secularists have a problem with "under God" being in the pledge, just as there is a reason that religious people want to keep it in. To pretend otherwise is insane. Even if the words were judged to be unconstitutional and taken out, the debate would still rage on. The Religious Right would demand they be put back in, and the secularists would have to keep defending the separation of church and state. The debate would continue, as all debates over such important issues do. It is perfectly fine for an individual to not have an opinion of the matter, I'm not trying to say you have to take a side. But if being neutral really is your position, at least understand why the rest of us feel the to take a stand, and please do not try to belittle our passion.

So You've Been Left Behind! An FAQ Guide

Greetings! If you are reading this, one of two things has happened. Either the Rapture did in fact happen and you were left behind, or the Rapture did not happen because your religion is nothing but silly lies. Either way, you are probably feeling pretty depressed right now. Understandably so. That is why I have provided this FAQ to help you through the questions that are most likely running through your head right now. Ain't I a swell guy.

What?! I've been left behind?

Yep.

But why?

Well, there are a couple different options here. Maybe God changed his mind. Maybe it was all just a test. Maybe you were swindled by con men who raked in millions of dollars in donations promoting this "end time." Maybe it didn't happen because God doesn't exist. I guess just choose whichever option makes you cry yourself to sleep the least.

But I was really looking forward to being with my Savior.

Listen, I was really looking forward to reading in my hammock, but the rain put a kibosh on that. We don't always get what we want, pal.

What do I have to look forward to now?

Did you give away all your money and possessions in preparation for the Rapture?

Yes.

Poverty!

I was thinking more along the lines of my shattered belief.

Oh, right. Well, the good news is that we as a society are pretty gullible. We've believed in magic men in the sky for about as long as we've been around, and even with scientific progress rendering those explanations obsolete the majority of people still cling to those old fashioned notions, so I'm sure you'll find some other unprovable claim to believe in.

That sounds really depressing when you put it like that.

Right?! I don't even know how I get out of bed in the morning some days!

So should I just give up on my faith?

I mean, that's up to you. It is worth pointing out that the vast majority of Christians thought this rapture thing was silly, so if you don't want give up your faith completely, I suppose you could settle for being really stupid.

But... I don't want to be stupid.

No one does. Which is probably why people stubbornly cling to discredited beliefs like "the world is only 6,000 years old" and "the Black Eyed Peas are talented" for so long.

I guess. But what's the next step?

Well, step one would probably be getting your job back. And start rebuilding your kids college savings so they don't resent you anymore than they already do.

How do I face my family and friends who told me not to waste my time?

Don't! Go off the grid. Then you never have to face them, and maybe they'll think you were right and got Raptured after all. Win-win.

Any other advice?

Next time and 89 year old man tells you the world is going to end, it's just because he's old.

The Four Monsters You Meet In Heaven

We'll folks, we're in the homestretch. In a scant six day the Rapture will be upon us, and the end of the world will begin in earnest. At least, that is what Harold Camping and his small band of followers believe. And even though these are a pretty small number of Christians overall (I certainly don't personally know anyone who actually believes it), they are an incredibly vocal minority who have spent loads of money on billboards and a campaign to promote awareness that you better repent right now because the end is nigh, for real this time.

So let's look into this. Camping supposedly came to May 21st as the Rapture by "crunching the numbers" in the Bible. Okay. Cool. So he takes the Bible pretty literally. My question then becomes: why would you want to go to Heaven in the first place?

This may seem like a pretty stupid question. After all, conventional wisdom is that Heaven is a paradise, a happy place where we can reunite with our loves, presumably while cute little angles serenade us with classy harp music. Yay!

The problem is that this version of Heaven is nowhere to be found in the Bible. That is not to say the Bible has nothing to say on the matter. Jesus himself gives an account of what we can expect to John in Chapter 4 of Revelations.

1. After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. 2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne. 3 And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald. 4 And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold. 5 And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.

6 And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind. 7 And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle. 8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, LORD God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come. 9 And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever, 10 The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, 11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Talk about trippy. If anything were to sound like a bad acid trip, this would be it. A lion with six wings, made of eyes? Someone needs to make a movie version of this, because that's a pretty badass monster.

But let's assume that Heaven exists, and this is an accurate portrayal of Heaven. And for fundamentalists like Camping, who take the Bible literally, this would be exactly what Heaven is because not only is it in the Bible, but it is credited directly to Jesus Christ. This is what Heaven is. Anyone else think this is a really crappy way to spend eternity? I, for one, would go crazy having to listen to the non-stop hollering of those for beasts forever. And it all just seems boring, with everyone just sitting down all the time.

So if this is the Heaven we can look forward to, why are these May 21sters so excited about it? What do they find so appealing about sitting around, throwing your crown around, and having to deal with hideously mutated animals constantly shrieking? I'll gladly be left behind if this is the alternative.

Anyway, enjoy your week folks. Because it might be the last peaceful, eye monster-less week you ever have.

Fast Five and the Case of the Misplaced Calendar

This weekend saw the release of Fast Five, the fourth sequel in the Fast and the Furious franchise. These movies have become the gold standard for Hollywood movies featuring cars going really fast for an audience made up of guys who's vocabulary consists at least 50% of "Bro." As would be expected, the marketing for said movie featured of lot of fast cars, explosions, sexy women, and Vin Diesel and The Rock sizing each other up, which if you turn the sound off it looks like they're trying to ask each other to dance. Also, Paul Walker is still getting work somehow. Good to know. Anyway, it's exactly how you would expect someone to market this kind of film.

But then they drop the bombshell by informing you that this film is the "start of the summer movie season!"

For those of you not by you're calendar, the film was released yesterday, which was April 29th. APRIL.

I think Hollywood has forgotten when summer actually happens. Do you know when the first day of summer is? June 21st. ALMOST TWO GODDAMN MONTHS AWAY. Seriously, calendars are not expensive. Just show up at a Borders that is closing and walk off with one, they won't stop you.

"But Tim", you are asking even though no one asked you, "the summer season has been starting earlier and earlier every year. Like Christmas!" Well, why the hell should we just accept that? Why is that a good thing? Because the earlier and earlier Christmas starts every year, the more people end up getting burned out by the time the actual thing finally gets here. At least starting the summer on Memorial Day Weekend makes some sense, as it is a long weekend filled with what is often the first barbecues of the year. And since many have that Monday off, the box office tends to do well. Ok, fine. Now you're less than a month off, I can live with that. But this year, two of the years biggest movies are rolling out before Memorial Day Weekend; Thor and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides. Starting earlier and earlier runs the risk of creating blockbuster fatigue, which guess what Hollywood, that's a bad thing.

Audiences are already suffering some blockbuster fatigue. With the exception of Inception, last summer was brutal for the summer blockbuster. Remember Knight and Day? No one does. To be fair, this summer looks like it will be better in terms of box office success, with the above mentioned movies, Captain America, the final Harry Potter movie, and Transformers: You Idiots Keep Giving Us Money To Make These Shitty Movies So Here's Another One. Of course, these are all sequels or franchise films, so take that how you will. But those aren't coming out for a couple months at the earliest. So the summer just keeps getting longer and longer (and people say global warming is a hoax). And the longer anything keeps going on, the quicker Americans with their short attention spans start wanting something else.

I mean hell, last year some of the Oscar nominated films out grossed the summer blockbusters (For example, The King's Speech grossed over $138 million. Prince of Persia grossed under $91 million.) That never happens any more. But the summer has gotten so long, so crammed full of interchangeable action films, that it is getting harder and harder to muster the enthusiasm to care.

I'm facing this problem myself. While I am waiting to go see Captain America and Thor, my excitement pales in comparison to how much I was anticipating Inception last year. I've been burned out by too many blockbusters taking up a larger and larger portion of the year. We need variety, or else anything can become stale.

But variety has never been a strong point for Hollywood. And with theater attendance down, the studios are likely trying to rush into the summer season, which tends to be where they make their money. They want to skip over the rest of the year. But it won't work. I'm sure Fast Five will be Number 1 at the box office this weekend. But now they have a much longer stretch of time to carry the momentum.

Or who knows. Maybe they're starting early because they know the world is going to end before Memorial Day gets here. Those crafty buggers.

Ego and The End

Well, it's Easter weekend, but more importantly, we are only one month away from the end of the world. Or, to be a tad more specific, the second coming of Christ (the end of the world comes in October, duh). The countdown has truly begun. For believers, it is one month until they are reunited with their Savior. For the rest of us, it's one month until we are reunited with Captain Jack Sparrow.

But while the majority of us either scoff at or completely ignore the idea of these so called End Times, we should remember that there are plenty who take this seriously. Seriously enough to prepare their kids for the event. Now, parenting is hard. Parents have to get their kids ready for all the crap that goes on in the world, which is not easy. And part of this means dealing with religion; whether you support it or not, sooner or later you will need to address the notion of God with your kid. This is difficult enough as it is, but to tell them that oh, by the way, the world is going to end next month, so we won't be going to Disney World this summer after all, seems like a terrible approach.

Let's look at it this way. Assume that May 21 IS the Second Coming, the beginning of the End Times. From my understanding, children are considered innocent, so any sins they may have committed are intrinsically forgiven. They don't need to "prepare themselves" for the event, it's already assumed that they will be saved in the Rapture. So to tell them they only have so much time left seems cruel. They are robbed of fully enjoying the limited childhood they have.

And if the Rapture doesn't come? (Which it won't) Well, now you've essentially lied to your children. It's like if a kid wakes up on Christmas morning to see that Santa didn't bring any presents; their faith is shattered. If you want your kid to life a live dutifully believing in God and Jesus and the Easter Bunny, making these kinds of promises that don't get kept will be extremely counter-productive. "You lied about the Second Coming, what else did you lie to me about, Mom and Dad? I hate you I hate you I hate you!"

This really seems like a lose-lose situation to me. Why bother explaining all this to your kid? The only thing I can come up with it is ego-trip. These people want to seem important, and have latched onto this idea of Doomsday, so the feel a compulsion to preach to anyone and everyone, including their children, even though this knowledge does nothing to help them, and could actually drive them away from your beliefs in the (certain) event that you are wrong.

Now, to be fair, keeping this a secret might not be a plausible option, since billboards warning of our impending doom have been plastered across the country. Again, the logic seems to be missing in this approach. I assume the point is to get people to repent before it is too late. But let's say this works. Let's say someone is driving down the freeway, sees one of these billboards and goes "Shit! The end is nigh! I need to repent before it is too late!" Well, if the only reason he is repenting is because he fears the end of the world is upon us, that isn't really repenting. It's self-preservation. Repenting means being truly and genuinely remorseful for something you've done, not because you are afraid of repercussions. Again, this seems to me to be more about ego, more about appearing superior, which I guess explains a good chunk of religious behavior, really.

And if they want to act superior for the next month, they can go right ahead. Because on May 22, that sense of superiority will evaporate pretty quickly, and, because I am a terrible person, I will enjoy watching them deal with the aftermath and fallout at having been full of crap. Or, on the (infinitesimally small) chance they might be right, well, they kind of earned it.

All I know is I'll be at the Indians game with my free Choo jersey and a beer in my hand on May 21, so bring it End of the World.

An Open Question to High School Douchebags

I've recently gotten back into a pretty good running regiment, and back into decent shape. Enough so that I actually enjoy going on runs (hurray for me!). However, the past, oh, ten times I've gone for a run, I've been passed by high school kids driving in their car and honking at me. And so my question is: Why?

It isn't a big deal, I understand that. But it is rather annoying, and most irritatingly, there doesn't seem to be any reason for it. Not that I can see. So come on, high schoolers, let's figure this out.

I mean, is it meant as some sign of support? A "way to go" signal, a sort of audible fist pump? I guess that's nice, but not really appreciated. To have a horn blare behind me as I'm running, listening to music, and kind of zoning out is a bit of a startle. Makes you jump. I don't like it.

Is it you mocking me? That would be my best guess, as just about every high school kid in my area is a douchebag. I won't go to movies anywhere near opening weekend anymore because I'm tired of their "too cool for this" attitude, how they just talk and laugh during the whole thing. If it's so "gay" fuckface, then WHY DID YOU BOTHER TO PAY $10 FOR IT.

And what exactly would you be mocking me for? Exercising? Staying in shape? I didn't realize trying to be not obese and hopefully avoid developing diabetes and not die at the age of 40 was a laughable form of anti-social behavior. "Look at that asshole being healthy. He will outlive us despite being at least six years older. We shall laugh at him."

( I suppose I should mention that in each case of drive by honking, it was high school guys in the car. Take that to mean what you will)

Is it perhaps jealousy? A passive-aggressive form of dealing with some sort of envy? Maybe it just pisses you off to see someone perform a feat that you can't, which in this case would be a little sad seeing as I don't think I'm even running two miles. And if this is the case, maybe it would be a better use of your time to get off your ass and actually do something instead of honking car horns at people.

I mean, what is it? Why is this something I need to continually put up with? Because while this is a very trivial complaint, it then needs at least a trivial reason. Any reason. Just so I know why I keep having Layla or Feel Good Inc. interrupted by your irritating gesture.

Thanks for your time. I look forward to your answer

China Bans Time Travel, Because Of Course They Did

There has been a lot in the news in the past weeks. Continued unrest in Libya and the Middle East. A near government shutdown in the U.S. due to political squabbling. Continuing nuclear issues in Japan. The Royal Wedding (OMG!). But among all these there was a story that stuck out, even if it was lost under all the other headlines. It stuck out due to it's Onion-esque ridiculousness, but was very real. And that was that China is banning time travel.

That's right. TV shows and movies that depict time travel will be no more in China, or at least, will face very strict scrutiny. The reason for this? Apparently the Chinese government feels that these time travel stories are disrespectful to history, because they depict things that didn't actually happen in said history. They are "treating the serious history in a frivolous way, which should by no means be encouraged anymore." Right. Makes total sense.

No wait, the opposite of that. This makes no sense at all. If they find time travel stories disrespectful because they depict things that didn't actually happen, then ANY fictional story would be just as disrespectful. Any TV show or movie set in the present time would be disrespectful to the present, as the events shown are not actually occurring in reality.

More importantly, everything becomes history at some point. Fifty years from now, current events will be seen as historical, so any contemporary stories made about the present will be about the past in the future (that was fun to write). So if China wants to take their history so seriously, the will eventually have to ban every fictional story ever, as they will all eventually be about a past time period.

Of course, this is China, so that very well could be their end game, and this is merely the first step. However, if they want to convince the rest of the world that there is a reason beyond blatant censorship for doing this, they're going to need to do a much better job.

Really?: Newt Gingrich is Afraid of Athiest Muslims Somehow

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.

Ahhh, Newt Gingrich. No presidential election cycle would be complete without him pretending he's going to run for the office. I will admit, though, he is unusually committed to the prospect this go-round, which either is a saving grace for the country or makes you violently ill, depending on how much you hate yourself. And as part of that commitment, he recently gave a speech at the Cornerstone Church, the megachurch to end all megachurches led by Rev. John Hagee. You know, the guy who's endorsement John McCain dropped because he said Hitler was just acting out God's prophecy by killing the Jews? That guy's church.

Anyway, Gingrich gave a typical "I fear for the future of this country" address that has become a mainstay of conservative talking points. Within that address however, was the following:

I have two grandchildren: Maggie is 11; Robert is 9. I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.

Ok. So. Newt here thinks that America will be overrun by atheists. But not just any atheists. Atheists who believe in Islam. Somehow this is a thing now.

Newt, you do know that atheists and Islamists are two very different, mutually exclusive things, don't you? Atheists don't believe in any kind of god, Islam believes in Allah, who is a god. By the very definition of the words we use to describe those groups, it is not possible for both traits to exist within the same body. You might as well say America will be overrun by violent pacifists, or funny Jeff Dunhams.

This ridiculous and, frankly, comical way of thinking is a problem for one of two reasons. Either 1) Newt really has no idea what he's talking about, or 2) He is merely using buzzwords to rally the conservative base. The first is a problem because, well, I don't really think we want someone who clearly has no understanding of what words mean in charge of everything. I mean, we tried that in 2000 and 2004, and you see how that turned out. (ZING!)

The second is the more troubling scenario, because it implies that a fairly sizable segment of our population does not understand that people who subscribe to a religious belief, specifically a belief involving a deity, cannot also be atheists. It implies that a sizable segment of our population is so easily swayed by the simple minded fear of something different than them. It's all buzzwords, and this bit of confusing logic seems to indicate that it doesn't even matter what those buzzwords are.

And we wonder why we're in the state we're in.

Easy Target

Once upon a time there was a thirteen year old girl's parents, like all doting parents, thought their little princess was the brightest star in the sky. She was the most beautiful, most talented child in the world. And, in wanting to give their child every opportunity possible, ponied up a couple thousand dollars to make their daughters dream of being a pop star a reality, at least for a little bit. They paid for a company to record a "hit" single for her and produce a music video to be put on Youtube. It's a tween's dream come true.

This is what happened to Rebecca Black, and as you are all most likely already aware, the end result was "Friday," one of the worst assaults on the ears courtesy of pop music to ever vibrate one's eardrums. But while the song has been justly derided as not good, most of the energy has been aimed at thirteen year old Black. I will repeat that she is THIRTEEN FREAKING YEARS OLD.

Does the song suck? Yes. But let's keep in mind, Black didn't write the song. Honestly, it would be more understanding if she did. No one expects a thirteen year old to write freaking "Stairway to Heaven." It's the fact that the song was written by someone much older that makes this song such a failure. Let's make fun of him instead. I mean, come on, I like making fun of people as much as the next guy, but a thirteen year old girl is just too easy.

In fact, why aren't we doing that? Why aren't we attacking the people truly responsible for this garbage? You know, the guys working exclusively with impressionable 13-17 year olds and their easily duped parents. The ones actually writing this shitty music in the first place. Because making fun of a thirteen year old wears thin very quickly, because in the end, they really don't know any better. But the assholes at Ark Music Factory making pedophile-friendly music videos? They know full well what they're doing.

You know who else should know better? The hipster douchebags who thought it would be so hilarious to buy the song on itunes, because it's just so "ironic" to own such a crappy song. Here's the problem, you can't "ironically" own something. You either own it or you don't. Intent means nothing, you still shelled out the $1.29 to buy the song, $1.29 that went to the people who made, helping to ensure and support that they make more. If you want the song on your ipod to laugh at, fine, but then you lose the ability to complain about the state of music and how there's no substance to it, because by buying this song you are essentially saying "I will pay for this, please keep making more."

In fact, while we've all been laughing at Black, she could be racking up a million bucks off of this terrible song, much of which will undoubtedly be due to "ironic" purchases.

So yeah, that thirteen year old girl sure does suck. More importantly, she is completely deserving of all this attention, because the crises in Libya and Japan are just trivial by comparison right? And come one, it's not like you just not listen to the song if you hate it that much. Make a big fuss about it. Because there's no better way to put a thirteen year old girl in her place than to act like a thirteen year old.