One Hit Kill

Batting Average Matters

2011-11-27T09:21:00.001-06:00

You wouldn't know it if you've met me in the past seventeen years, but I was the biggest baseball fan you'd ever meet. I wasn't old enough to understand or truly like baseball until about 1990, when the Royals World Series victory was only five years in rear view. On Sundays back then, the paper would publish every player's stats in the back of the sports section. I poured over these statistics. I filled notebook after notebook with projected statistics, trying to determine how well the teams would finish the season. I was a stat rat.

For Christmas in 1991, my dad bought me Total Baseball, a several-thousand page book with every batting and pitching statistic ever recorded. It listed the box scores and summaries of every Championship and World Series. It also introduced me to SABRmetrics, advanced statistics that helped determine the actual value of a player, rather than his raw production (Though, back then OPS+ was PRO+ and WAR was TPR. They were renamed due to slight tweaks in the algorithm used to figure them.). MORE stats! I was ecstatic.

By 1994, I insatiably consumed everything Baseball. What a year it was for Major League Baseball. I had never seen the Royals in the playoffs and they were in the wild card race. I was barely five years old when they won the World Series. Tony Gwynn was assaulting .400. Ken Griffey Jr, Matt Williams and Frank Thomas were on pace to hit fifty home runs, a feat accomplished by only eleven men before. Thomas was even in the hunt for the Triple Crown and was close to hitting a Home Run once every ten at bats, which hadn't been done since Hank Aaron in 1973. The only other players able to accomplish that were Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, and Hank Greenberg. Greg Maddox gave one of the best pitching seasons in major league history. A Royals pitcher, David Cone, was a lock for the American League Cy Young Award.

The players went on strike and the magical season ended after 112 games. There were no playoffs. There was no World Series.

I was crestfallen. I had never felt so betrayed. I couldn't believe that pure greed could rob me of something I enjoyed so much, and the players I loved and supported were the ones who did it to me. (The owners were also to blame, but they were willing to compromise earlier. The players felt that the proposed salary cap, which would have made the game fairer, would be unfair to the players.)

I tried to get back into baseball, but found it hard when seemingly everyone was a power hitter. I never saw so many home runs in my life. I never read about so many home runs. Because there never were so many. In the shortened 1995 season, there were hundreds more home runs than there were in the full 1993 season. Home runs became just another hit. They were pedestrian. I kept only enough of a passing interest in baseball to watch a powerless outfielder named Brady Anderson hit fifty home runs for the Orioles in 1996. I was done. Baseball meant nothing anymore.

The fifty home run club's ranks swelled disproportionately. Only those elite eleven players, nearly all Hall of Famers, managed to hit fifty or more home runs in the previous seventy-four years. Within the next ten measly years, the list had more than doubled. Seventy-four years of baseball before the strike had produced exactly fourteen immortals who hit 500 or more career home runs. An incomprehensible testament to potent longevity. Since then, ten more names have been added (Fred McGriff would have been one of them if the strike didn't short him in 1994 and 1995. Instead, he ended his career with 493). I previously mentioned that only three players had hit a home run once every ten at bats; for the next nine years after the strike, there wasn't a season in which a player DIDN'T do it. As it became increasingly clear that the players were cheating, baseball lost all credibility. I watched 'roided-up gorillas like Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds smash beloved and honestly obtained home run records. Their records are beyond tainted. They're meaningless. On top that: since the strike, the Royals have become the worst team in Baseball's modern era with the longest playoff drought by a wide margin.

Finally, in 2008, the players got caught cheating and home runs dropped back to about where they were supposed to be. Thirty home runs was a lot again. I began to casually peruse through current stats. With only a handful of exceptions, all the players who went on strike in 1994 had retired. The Royals have the first promising franchise in a long, LONG time. Their roster is filled with young talent who will stick around for years to come, under contract, so they can't run off to the richest teams in the Big Leagues. Without Steroids to tip the scales against the Royals, they look like they will be a competitive team next year or a year after. I found myself regularly checking current baseball stats. The league leaders in home runs and slugging percentage looked more like pre-strike numbers. By mid-season 2011, I was somehow back into baseball.

I noticed that something is fundamentally different about how people view baseball now. I was pleased to see SABRmetrics was mainstream among baseball fans and statistical analysis was more valued. I had never heard of Billy Beane or the book Moneyball until the movie came out, but was glad to know they had an influence on which statistics were more noteworthy than others. Ever since I started collecting baseball cards, I knew that On Base Percentage (OBP) was the most important statistic for a batter. It includes every way a player gets on base, including walks and hit-by-pitches, not just base-hits like Batting Average. I once asked my dad why nobody cared about OBP, and he said something like "hits are more exciting." I couldn't argue against that. Walks end plays. Hits start plays.

Unfortunately, batting average has been cast aside by the more hardcore baseball fans as irrelevant. They say "it doesn't matter." I instinctually disagreed. I wasn't sure why, exactly, but hearing that batting average, a statistic I cherish, being dismissed out of hand rubbed me in the worst way. Ted Williams .406 average in 1941 meant nothing? Rogers Hornsby's .424 was a meaningless 20th century record? Surely nostalgia wasn't the only reason I so violently opposed the hypothesis that batting average didn't matter. Maybe its just how dismissive the claim was. To say that OBP is more important is obvious. To say that a stat is without the enough merit any consideration is insulting. Maybe I'm upset because high Batting Average requires talent that steroids didn't directly affect. Watching record after record being broken by cheaters may have made me hold on tighter to the ones they hadn't fully tainted.

Hearing the arguments against batting average made me research its true value. I will only concede one point in which batting average doesn't matter--the lead off hitter in an inning. Then, and only then, is batting average completely unworthy of statistical consideration. The lead off man of an inning must get on base. It doesn't matter how. After he is on base, that's when average matters in the next batter. A single will move him from first to third. A walk will not. If the lead of hitter steals second, or makes it to second base on a double or throwing error, a single by the next batter will probably score him. A walk will not.

Many baseball statisticians have already picked up on this line of thinking and include numbers such as Average with Runners In Scoring Position (RISP) or Average With Runners On Base. These stats are nice to show what a player has done with runners on base, but overall, their average over career with runners on base is the same as their overall batting average. In other words, statisticians are unnecessarily shrinking the sample size because they believe in a myth called "clutch hitting." If a batter's performance was considerably altered by high pressure situations, he wouldn't be in the big leagues. Players who can't keep their composure in clutch situations are a liability. If they suddenly get better when something important is on the line, they're otherwise lazy. Both bad signs in a ballplayer.

If runners are on second and third with two outs, which is better to have, a player with a .400 OBP, or a .300 hitter? What if this batter was followed by a pitcher who was incapable of hitting? In Kansas City, I grew up when our number nine hitter was Brent Mayne. If he were up next, their opportunity to score the runners would mostly be reliant on a hit by the batter before him in the lineup. A walk would likely result in nothing but three stranded runners. In fact, if it was early in the game and the pitcher was smart, he'd walk whoever this theoretical batter was and take his chances with the pitcher or Brent Mayne. Take into account the psychological power of a hit off a pitcher. As my dad said, hits are more exciting. It causes the fielders to exert themselves and generates more opportunities for mistakes on the part of the defense. Not just contact, but base hits. Fielders have to chase balls to the wall, dive for short fly balls, try to spear line drives, and failure to do so may end up as extra bases or easier runs.

Different statistics have different importance for different members of a team. On Base Percentage is important for everyone. Batting Average is important for everyone on a team, but not every time they step into the batter's box. I can't defend the importance people place on RBIs, but it's disheartening to see other valuable stats getting shunned because there are more precise indicators of overall player value. It's like saying doubles don't matter because home runs are better.

The flaw in SABRmetrics is its contempt for situational baseball. Because all stats eventually flatten out over long periods of time, some baseball fans think that individual moment are completely irrelevant. You can see this if you watch the movie Moneyball, when Billy Beane tells his players to never bunt or steal bases. Never? That's just stupid. In the long run, sacrifice bunts may be statistically negligible. That doesn't justify losing a game because the manager didn't bunt home a run because it is rarely justified. To say stealing doesn't produce runs is weird too. Stealing bases is the sacrifice of OBP for Slugging Percentage. Sometimes, being on second is valuable when being on first is not. Most of the time bunts and steals are unnecessary. At times, even costly. But using ultimate language like "never" and "worthless" is an overcorrection resulting from the longtime under-appreciation of valuable information. Batting Average is now sneered at by hardcore baseball fans due to this overcorrection. It's just too much.

Yes, OBP is better, but Batting Average matters.

The Good Ol' Days

2011-10-04T12:18:00.002-05:00

There were no good ol' days.

The world has not gone to hell.

Things are not worse "now-a-days."

To what utopian past are the people who make these claims comparing the present? When people talk about how bad things have gotten on the floor of Congress, that politics have "gone down the drain," do they really not know United States History? Do they not know that Charles Sumner was beaten with a cane on the Senate floor? I'm sure they are unaware that he was preceded in being beaten with a cane on the floor of Congress by Matthew Lyon, Horace Greely and Josiah Grinnell. That didn't even include people like William Stanberry who was caned in the street by Gov. Sam Houston or the multiple fistfights and brawls that have broken out in Congress. Those are just the canings. Do these people, who look back to America's Glory days, back before we supposedly "lost our way," consider it glorious to shoot political rivals to death? According to Joanne Freeman, at the beginnings of our United States, losers in political elections would often challenge the winner to a duel. In total, counting petty and professional quarrels, more than twenty politicians were killed in duels, most notably former Treasury Secretary and Founding Father Alexander Hamilton killed by then Vice President Aaron Burr.

People talk of government corruption and, of course, about how bad things have gotten. Politicians certainly haven't gotten crooked. Have people forgotten Nixon already? It's somewhat understandable to forget that Warren G. Harding had the most corrupt presidential administration in our country's history, but Grant's was nearly as bad and no one seems to mention that. Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe, before either was president, committed what we would now consider treasonous acts by feeding confidential information to the French government. The aforementioned Aaron Burr was actually tried for treason after trying to steal land from the United States and create his own kingdom. Eldbridge Gerry spawned the name "Gerrymandering" after manipulating the boundaries of his congressional district so much that it looked like a salamander. The last four men mentioned hold places on the roster of our revered team of Founding Fathers.

What time period was so crime-free that it now terrifies people to think about how much more violent the streets, schools and homes have become? It certainly hasn't been any time in the past 42 years. We have the lowest crime rate since 1969 (when hippies were putting flowers in gun barrels) and the lowest violent crime rate since 1975. America certainly wasn't low crime from 1882 to 1968, when nearly five thousand men, women and children were lynched to disenfranchise blacks. It's difficult to find an exact number of how many black women were raped during that time for the same purpose. It was a lot; virtually all unreported. I'm sure there aren't too many of the black community who look back and see glory days of years gone by. It seems that only whites can look back and see the utopian past, but it's not like white people were unscathed by crime. In the 1930s, eight FBI agents were killed by gangsters and outlaws. Oh, and wasn't that decade particularly high in crime because of The Great Depression? That doesn't sound so glorious. It was halted by the even less glorious attack on Pearl Harbor. If we go back further than 1868, we will find ourselves in the bloodiest war ever to wage on this continent, costing over a million casualties. Soldiers on both sides incessantly pillaged and looted. They sometimes raped and murdered civilians as they swept through towns. The people would just have to hope that armies didn't burn their whole town to the ground or use it as a war zone. It had all the things that you might expect from a war. The streets sure weren't safer then.

Folks who reminisce about the Good ol' Days believe that issues today have bred a new type of criminal. A bloodthirsty sociopath whose selfish desires have annulled his humanity. Only today could produce such a monster, they believe. For some reason, old folks seem to think psychos are more prevalent now. Psychopaths are hiding in all the old people's closets waiting to rape, kill and rob them. I guess they don't know about Baby Face Nelson, who fired automatic weapons into crowds of women and children as he literally cackled with laughter. He also killed three of the aforementioned FBI agents. Dick Hickock and Perry Smith broke into a Kansas house in 1959 and blew the heads off a family of four with a shotgun in a pathetic robbery. Ed Gein killed women in the 1950s and kept their heads as bedposts and he wasn't the first, or the worst, serial killer. As near as we can tell, there hasn't been any change in percentage of serial killers in the population.

When people claim that scams are everywhere "nowadays," do they realize that Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme got its name from Charles Ponzi, a con man in the early 1900s? Con men used to mail instead of email, but the scams remain the same. The Nigerian 419 scam used to be called the Spanish Prisoner in the late 19th century. Scam tactics date back to at least 300BCE when Ancient Greeks perfected insurance scams on Maritime vessels.

Like I said before, it seems that only white people talk about the good old days, and it mostly seems to have existed in 1950s and maybe early 60s. Think Mad Men. It amazes me that women say anything about any time other than the last 20 years as being anything but degrading, but they do. Old women frequently accuse the world of going to "hell in a handbasket." I guess they liked it when they were known as nothing but housewives and secretaries, and could be nothing but housewives or secretaries. There were exceptions, yes, but not too many. During that same time, the richest were taxed 91% of their income, so it's not like Obama's tax hikes are anything but wimpy when compared to taxes under the Eisenhower administration. I suppose people didn't care about having their phones illegally tapped by Hoover and his FBI, having their first amendment rights trampled on, being ostracized or blacklisted for being communist or even accused of being a communist. Do these old white men not remember that the world almost ended during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962? We almost blew up the world. That is not an exaggeration. For two weeks, almost every American was glued to the TV, preparing, if necessary, to die, while the government lied and said school children could cover their heads under their desks to avoid serious injury from a thermonuclear explosion. Good Ol' Days indeed.

Looking back at writings from the past, we see that a group from every generation has argued this point. People are always fearing for the future and claiming that some great doom is unavoidable. So far, for the past 250 years, we've managed to avoid this unavoidable doom. And while we were fending it off, we also improved every aspect of living.

WTF Happened to Frank Miller?

2011-04-14T19:22:00.003-05:00

Remember the late 90’s sitcom trend of parents failing to correctly use the youth lingo? They would hopelessly use words like “hip” and “groovy” when giving their teenage children the low down on the birds and the bees. Kids would roll their eyes, say “oh, Dad” while the laugh track would mock him. From the release of The Dark Knight Strikes Again to present day, Frank Miller has turned himself into the lame dad of the comic book world. He keeps attempting to captivate them with a hardcore Batman, but has lost all touch with what younger generations find interesting.

By now, most people know who he is--writer/artist of Sin City, The Dark Knight Returns and 300. In the early 80’s he was one of the first to start writing “gritty” comics. He redefined Daredevil, The Punisher, and Batman. From 1991-1998, he was, in my opinion, the best comic book creator alive. His comics mixed heroism with exaggerated action, hard-boiled cynicism, and wit. Characters took equal time thinking of clever ways to conquer goals as they did physically pummeling enemies. With Sin City, Miller created a distinct, high contrast, art style that was unique in comics. The hard crisp lines separating black from white were nearly devoid of the typical 90’s comic book crosshatching that made Jim Lee famous.

Something changed in 1997 with Sin City: Family Values, or slightly before. His sense of goofy humor began crawling into inappropriate moments of his testosterone drenched Sin City world. For the first time, humor trumped the noir tone. For some reason, Miller thought it would be a good idea for Miho, an assassin, to roll around on roller blades for the entire comic. Miller’s previous Dwight storyline, The Big Fat Kill, balanced humor and action more effectively. His art, also, was noticeably diminished from his previous books. Family Values lost most of Miller’s hard black and white compositions and introduced scribbly cross-hatching. The main character, Dwight, no longer wore the hard outlined trench coat. Miller replaced it with a knee-length fur coat with a loosely scribbled silhouette. Miller began drawing faces with lines that contoured the natural lines of the face, giving his characters the weathered appearance of characters beyond their years. It’s the cardinal rule of shading faces: each line ads a year to character’s life. Comic book artists usually shade faces with straight lines that cannot be mistaken for wrinkles. The same way Miller did in the 80s.

Miller created several quality comics for the next few years (even with his new, looser style), including the wonderful 300 in ‘98 and, to a lesser extent, Sin City: Hell and Back in ‘99. That all fell apart in 2001 with the release of The Dark Knight Strikes Again, or as DC marketers pompously called it, DK2. The goofy title should have been a warning sign. Frank Miller said in an interview that he wanted to make the comic have more of a cartoony feel. I didn’t like this idea, considering the first Dark Knight book had a forlorn, gloomy tone. Still, I thought, there could be hope. “Cartoony” made me think of Rick Burchett’s clean crisp lines in Batman Adventures or Frank Quitely’s minimalist but precise artwork in All Star Superman. Miller gave us neither. We were exposed to the worst art I’ve ever seen in a professionally made comic book, surpassing the previous champion crap-pile of Mitch Byrd’s pencils in Generation X 23. Miller must have a different interpretation of “cartoony” than I do, because DK2 looked like a thirteen year old got a box of crayons and tried to draw like Frank Miller. And then got bored. And then started doodling.

I first noticed how inconsistent and sloppy the inks were. Miller didn’t even pretend to make contour outlines of characters. They had jagged starts and halts with inconsistent thickness. John Romita Sr. once shared inking tips with Wizard magazine. He demanded that inkers control the thickness of their lines. It could be crucial to the illusion of depth and making the foreground distinguishable from the background. Miller had been able to abide by this for the past thirty years. All of the sudden, he was either incapable or too lazy to bother. His lines strayed off characters’ bodies like loose threads. One internet review of the comic generously labeled the art as “hastily drawn.” I would call it a big pile of shit.

Characters’ limbs and appendages changed size. Their hands would increase or decrease in size depending on how much time Miller took to draw them. Same with feet and heads. For instance, look at the size of Batman’s hands in these panels below.

According to the perspective of his stance in the top panel, his left hand should be smaller than his right. It is obviously larger. It’s also TWO AND A HALF TIMES the size of his head. By the way, he’s also punching on Superman there, who’s splotchy and shadowed for no apparent reason. Frank Miller also seems to have decided that being beaten up makes you look like you spilled an ink well on your face.

What about this?

Wonder Woman’s thighs belong to Kathy Bates and she looks like a transvestite. The laces on her forearms don’t match the angle of her arm. And what is up with her triceps becoming one with her torso?

He correctly determined that he couldn’t draw hands, so he frequently hides them in this book. Sometimes Miller doesn’t want to draw hands or feet, so he hides them behind truly awful artwork.

Miller doesn’t even bother to make sure he doesn’t accidentally ink the torso over the top of an arm.

Then we have the worst drawing of the Joker ever.

I just don’t know what to say about that one--moving on.

How about the man of steel when he’s not a giant ink blot? Still sucks.

This too, is so bad that it could pass without comment. I’m just not going to let it. Superman looks 80 years old and Japanese, he has a 24 inch waist, once again, an arm becomes a torso at the bicep, and the fingers on his left hand don’t match the angle of his hand.

Look at Robin’s forearms in the first panel.

Hell, look at any panel. The art makes Rob Liefeld look good.

Most cartoony comics have distinct colors to make up for the lack of shading. Lynn Varley’s colors are muted and dull. I feel bad for ragging on her, though. She didn’t have much to work with. Still, I see colorists like Edgar Delgado elevate all the artwork they touch.

This page from DK2 also exemplifies the worst writing in comic books. It’s goofy, like the rest of the story. Anything that Miller thought would be cool was so obviously awful, I’m surprised DC’s editor didn’t cancel the book at the script’s first draft.

I’ve been holding out hope that my beloved Frank Miller would pull himself out of the creative tailspin he’s been in for the past decade or so. It hasn’t happened and, worse, he’s degenerating. Frank Miller has stayed afloat by retreading the glory of his 80s and 90s creation, getting royalties from his reprinted comics, selling film rights to his comics, and doing one-shots on characters he perfected decades ago like Daredevil and Batman. He has since forgotten how to write Batman, as proven in the awful All-Star Batman and Robin, which was cancelled before it was finished. It was supposed to come back this spring after a two year hiatus, but I haven’t heard anything.

All Star Batman and Robin has a moment where Batman cackles with laughter. That’s right, cackles. Once you let that sink in, Robin makes the comment “He may be faking that voice, but his laughter still creeps the crap out of me.” As bad as that line sounds, it’s actually worse. I don’t need to dwell on how artificial “creeps the crap out of me” sounds, so I’ll move on to the context. What does he mean “still”? It’s not like Robin ever mentions being creeped out beforehand and Batman doesn’t commonly go around cackling like a madman. And the whole idea of Batman creeping someone out with a laugh was stolen from Batman the Animated Series when he does it to freak out Harley as a stalling tactic. It is not and never should be a character trait as Miller made it.

In an earlier page, when Robin doesn’t know who Batman is, Batman answers: “What are you dense? Are you retarded or something? Who the hell do you think I am? I’m the goddamn Batman.” This is not the tough-love mentor we know in love. He’s a petty, mean-spirited asshole.

Other than the pathetic attempt to overwrite the Batman he helped to create in Batman: Year One, which removed every ounce of camp from the Adam West era and transformed Batman into the Dark Knight we could appreciate, Miller has tried his hand at directing. Which actually pisses me off more than it should. For Sin City (2005), Robert Rodriguez kept as close to the comic books as possible while Frank Miller in his “co-director” status, helped actors become his characters. I greatly enjoyed Sin City, but it replaced the tone of the comic with camp. This was the first time in 20 years that Miller had let his work be adapted to another medium. He said it was because the Hollywood process had destroyed his ideas in the past and he didn’t want to put up with it anymore (Robocop 2 & 3). Makes sense. However, his next directorial project was to adapt Will Eisner’s The Spirit. Miller did exactly what he hated about his previous film efforts--he took someone else’s idea and destroyed it, changed it to fit his own style and ignored the creator’s intent. Eisner is a legend whose image is fiercely defended by rabid comic book fundamentalists. It’s not like we wouldn’t notice how much the movie sucked. I also checked out Frank Miller’s storyboards for The Spirit because it’s the only art he’s done in about five years, not counting a few pin-ups in the backs of his friends’ comics. The Spirit artwork is awful and it pretty much only consists of guys shooting at the camera with two guns.

From 2001 until this day, I’ve wondered if Frank Miller has a medical condition, because his art has taken a stylistic turn for the worse, much like Picasso’s. It’s sloppy. It’s inconsistent. It’s lazy--as if he were trying to avoid the most difficult details and distort the human form so much that we wouldn’t realize he could no longer draw it with consistent precision. In the most recent months, his hollowed cheek bones might also indicate an illness. As a human, I certainly hope he’s just being a lazy artist, because that can be corrected. But his work has meant so much to me for so long, that a part of me wants it to be beyond his control, just because I’d hate for these last ten years to be the lasting impression he gives a generation of comic readers.

Atheists Try to Steal the Founders Too

2011-02-08T16:38:00.003-06:00

I'm defensive when anyone proclaims on which side of modern issues "the Founders" would land. I wrote a blog last year about the religious right's blatant attempt to superimpose the founding fathers into their warped version of history. They inaccurately and perpetually try to convince the world that the U.S. Constitution was founded on Judeo-Christian values. They rarely bother giving evidence because it would require them to take quotes out of context. The truth is that the Constitution was formed by a group of great men who agreed that our government would be "godless" and to further express the idea, they amended the document to expressly restrict government involvement in religion and vice versa. When college drop out Sean Hannity or woefully uneducated and plagiaristic Glenn Beck claims we live in a Christian nation, I waste no time booing them from their undeserved stages. When the well-educated Newt Gingrich or Bill O'Reilly make the same claims, I demolish them with evidence. I don't care why they have twisted the truth to fit their ideologies; it is a despicable display of intellectual dishonesty, whether or not they are sincere.

That brings me to my disappointment in Dr. Richard Dawkins. In his book The God Delusion he devotes a few pages to the foundation of the United States and the men behind it. He too attempts to dispel the illusion that the religious right would thrust upon us. Dawkins, however, doesn't seem well-versed enough in early American history to succeed without resulting to falsehoods. He seems to have relied on the testimony of more heavy-handed atheist writers and printed what they told him. Dawkins declares at the head of the section, "Certainly their writings on religion in their own time leave me in no doubt that most of them would have been atheists in ours." That sentence sets the tone for the argument he lays before us over the next few pages. To give some perspective, a "few" pages in a book equals the amount of words dedicated to complete argumentative essays. Even though the section about the founders was aside the main point of his chapter, he dedicates more time to it than I do to most blogs.

I believe at least one impartial party should give an accurate refutation of his historical evidence. So far, only creationists have argued against the veracity of Dawkins' use of the Founding Fathers. I would rather people not get their facts from a group who dismisses solid evidence and considers it virtuous. (note: I have run into creationist websites that purposefully misquote Dawkins to make his point even less sustainable. It is another form of intellectual dishonesty and I doubt they even read the book.)

As with many atheists, Dawkins primarily uses Thomas Jefferson in his argument because Jefferson was an atheist or extremely skeptical deist. Either way, he did not believe that God was an intervening force in the affairs of man. Dawkins makes the same mistake that his opponents do. He fallaciously aggregates the beliefs of the Founders. His argument considers them parts of a hive mind with intellectual convictions in line with those of Thomas Jefferson. This was not the case. All of the men at the Constitutional Convention had their own opinions and frequently disagreed with each other. Dawkins ignores this and by using very few examples, gives the impression that the founders were collectively anti-religious.

He makes an interesting observation about different eras perceiving religion differently, but overstates the difference by calling the founders atheists. Christianity now bears little resemblance to Christianity of the Enlightenment and I touched on the subject in a previous blog. The intellectual Christians of the founding generation generally rejected the concept of miracles, conceded that the Bible was corrupted by a millennia of crooked priests, dismissed many fables in the Bible that were borrowed from other lore, they didn't treat the Bible literally, recognized its inconsistencies, and wholeheartedly believed that the only way to understand Christ's divinity was through reason. Though dissimilar to today's Christianity, they still believed that Jesus was God.

Dawkins leaves out a considerable amount of information in order to continue to more integral points of the book's primary argument: the existence of God. By doing so, he only quotes Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams and James Madison. First of all, these four men do not represent the Founders' beliefs. There were 56 delegates to the Constitutional Convention who all had their own religious beliefs. They made the United States Constitution to protect their right to those beliefs. Worse yet, three out of the four Founders used by Dawkins were obviously believers in a divine force that guided the actions of men. To say they were secularists is perfectly accurate in all four cases. To say they were atheists is blatantly false.

Adams was Ambassador to England during the Constitutional Convention. He was still an influential presence at the convention because of his Thoughts on Government, widely read among the delegates and many of his ideas made it into the final draft of the Constitution. Even if Adams could have been at the Constitutional Convention, he would have had no interest in forcing his religious beliefs on anyone. He said in a letter to his brother-in-law about his ministerial education,"I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself." John Adams could be anti-religious at times and openly doubted the truth to great passages in the Bible, but never rejected his belief in God.

Jefferson was not at the Constitutional Convention either. Though he corresponded with James Madison regularly at the time, he did not have an active hand in the debates. Jefferson is often included in debates about the framing of the Constitution because the founders were essentially arguing over the correct interpretation of the Declaration of Independence, written by Jefferson. The founders argued for months over the correct way to honor the "spirit of '76." Jefferson was a non-believer and fought very hard for the separation of Church and State. He rejected Christianity and all superstition. He is the only person on the list that could even possibly be considered an Atheist.

Benjamin Franklin, by that late point in his life, was religious and believed in divine intervention, though not the divinity of Christ. Benjamin Franklin was a Christian...then a Deist...then...something. He was never an atheist. He rejected Christianity quite early in his life and never went back to it. By the time he attended the Constitutional Convention, he could most accurately be described as a follower of Judaism. He believed there was a divine presence that actively guided goings-on in the world and considered the Bible's tales as a moral guide. He appreciated Jesus as a moral philosopher, but no more than that. During the Constitutional Convention he even requested prayer be said to focus the delegation's efforts.

James Madison was probably the most fervent in his efforts to create a wall of separation between church and state, but he was a clearly devout Christian. This is why I'm so confused as to why Dawkins chose to include him in a list of people he considered "atheists." Madison is the biggest ally to the cause so there's no need to twist the fact that he was Christian. He wrote volumes about the separation of church and state and vehemently defended it all his life. He went to church too. Why Dawkins felt a need to claim him as an atheist, I don't understand.

In the end, Dawkins makes the point that no matter what the founders actually were, agnostics, atheists, theists, or deists, they were, above all, secularists. Above all else they wanted Religion and Government in opposite corners of the room. For the most part, that is true. Dawkins stumbled, groped and misinformed his way to a good point. Because the Founders realized the importance of their role in the creation of the first secular nation, they preserved their writings on the subject. It's very easy to get copies of the [almost] complete writings of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Adams. They can speak for themselves. There's no need to lie about it.

Obama Caused the Revolts in Egypt

2011-01-28T14:12:00.002-06:00

For several years, the United States has given Egypt billions for the promotion of democracy. We believed that if we ensured Egypt's financial dependence on us, they would be forced to listen to our recommendations about installing democracy. Because those efforts have failed for decades, Obama began to pull funding from Egypt to invest it in more worthwhile prospects.

The United States still heavily supports the Egyptian military with around $1.25 billion per year. However, we used to give $45 million to programs for Governing Justly and Democratically. Under Obama, it dropped to $20 million.

In the past few days many Egyptians Tweeted about the reasons for their protest and how poor things have gotten recently. They blame President Mubarak for the deteriorating economy and conditions. They recognize his increasingly brutish tactics used to squelch independent thought and individual success. Coupled with the overthrow of their next door neighbor's dictator in Tunisia, the Egyptians feel quite empowered to reform the government in the way they see fit. I'm not saying it's a good thing. It's too early for that. Based on the funding cuts by Obama, Jordan was predestined to protest and possibly revolt.

If Obama was truly committed to democracy in Egypt he would cut funding to the Egyptian Military as well. After all, President Mubarak will inevitably use them against the protesters (I just heard that he has called them in).

I'm intrigued by all the events that led to this and how they will turn out. I'm far from convinced that the overthrow of two semi-secular dictatorships and replacing them, almost certainly, with yet another Muslim theocracy will lead to anything more sanguine in the Middle East.

Why America is Losing its Religion

2011-01-03T18:11:00.002-06:00

All recent studies about religion in America show a steady decrease in religious beliefs and an increase in non-belief and atheism. Distress has grown among American Christians who fear an Atheistic revolution that will seduce righteous youth and negate their religious majority. Fox News has launched an all out assault on anything Atheist. Ringleaders Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck demonize atheists and literally blame the country's problems on them--a la Salem witch trial style. Newt Gingrich openly admitted in his new book that he wants Congress to vote for Pro-Christian laws, a completely unconstitutional and anti-freedom concept. They have opened up with both barrels against non-believers, science, and the first amendment. The biggest fighters are mostly "mainstream" Catholics, Christians and Evangelicals. The "unaffiliated" Christians seem to acknowledge the rights of non-religious.

There are two dominant reasons why more Americans are turning away from religion. The two reasons work together. The first reason is because the religious have developed a sense of "literalism." American Christians, in the past two-hundred years, have demanded that their followers believe in the infallible and literal nature of the Bible. If the Bible says something happened, then by God, it happened just the way it was written. This mentality was not around during the early days of Christianity. It's roots were sown during Reformation when Martin Luther encouraged a personal relationship with God. When commoners began directly accessing the Bible (and believed they wouldn't go to purgatory for their actions) they started interpreting events differently from Roman Catholic Dogmatic law. Without access to other points of view or philosophies or leaders to help interpret the Bible, many sects began taking it literally. In America, literalism seemed to take a great hold on the country from 1800-1900. By comparing the texts of political leaders from the foundation of the country to those after the civil war (both groups primarily Christian), a literal fanaticism slowly tightened its grip on the country in between. The critical analysis of the Bible by John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison was replaced by Biblical authority over our national sovereignty and blind faith in its text. Around this time, "In God We Trust" was first printed on our money. Not just any God: The Christian God.

Literalism creates a dilemma for any thinking person. The events in the Bible, if we are to believe them literally, are at times contradictory and other times absurd. For instance, most people recognize the inconsitency of the Gospels (i.e. retelling of Jesus's story). Paul wrote the story about 50 A.D. and was around during the life of Jesus. He never mentions the Resurrection. Yet, 40-50 years later, John gives a detailed description of Jesus's ascension to Heaven and the miraculous Resurrection. Most people would realize something as important as a man rising from the dead would not escape Paul's attention. Some more astute observers would recognize Genesis has countless inconsistencies resulting from its four different authors, yet many Christians hold to the notion that Genesis was written by a single author, Moses, and it is infallible truth. What about the scholars who have found language that didn't exist during the time the Book of Samuel was supposedly written? What about the fact that Jesus wasn't even officially "Divine" until 325 A.D because too many Christians disagreed with the premise? At the risk of going on too long, just look at this chart or this list. It will cause any thinking Christian to question the literal infallibility of the Bible. Instead of reacting reasonably to queries about their faith, evangelicals respond with militant animosity, condemning anything that throws a monkey wrench into their outlandish belief system.

"Christianity" did not start the way literalists/fundamentalists/evangelicals would have you believe. Jesus never said he was the son of God and his followers argued whether he actually was for generations. Jesus preached that people need not appease God, we should rather attend to issues on earth, give to and take care of the poor, spread the wealth, love thy neighbor, don't give into selfishness, etc. God wasn't involved in the finite actions of humans. God was fine up in heaven doing his thing; he didn't need incessant praise. He's God, not a petty human. Humans needed to improve themselves, not beg God for help. Instead of following through with his message, within two generations of his death Jesus was worshipped as God himself, believed to have come back to life, and supposedly demanded fervent and active allegiance to God. A fuller critical analysis of the life and beliefs of Jesus can be found HERE.

Again, when questioned about the motivations behind Biblical texts and why several Christian communities saw fit to include them as holy texts, most American Christians demand blind compliance with the texts' messages. Instead of explaining to followers that these inconsistencies and absurd events are metaphors for proper Christian behavior or that it was written to fulfill Prophecy and not to be considered a factual retelling, or that the various books were written by competing communities with agendas of their own, not individuals, thereby convoluting Jesus's message, church leaders tell the curious to believe in the Bible or risk damnation in Hell for all eternity. Fear of a supernatural justice system keeps hold of many. However, blind compliance doesn't jive with anyone who has a brain, so most people will seek alternate explanations.

The second reason for the loss of faith comes after Christian leaders and churches refuse to give adequate answers to reasonable questions due to their rejection of anything contradicting Biblical literalism. This turns people to look things up for themselves. With all this wonderful technology, online access to scholarly studies, treatises, books, essays, and dissertations, they are quickly exposed to historical interpretations of the Bible, alternative viewpoints, and scientific evidence that thoroughly dismantles a literalistic interpretation of the Bible. They are exposed to massive Atheist communities who openly welcome new members and reassure former Christians that they are not alone, and they will not be condemned to damnation for turning their backs on a nonsensical belief system.

We need look no further than the Middle East to see a culture deformed by literalistic religious tyranny mounting strength on the backs of blind followers. This is a bit unappealing to Christians and they claim to be above it. However, colonial settlers fled religious persecution from Christians, not Muslims. Due to fear of a recurrence in Christian persecution, our First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees no matter how hard fundamentalists and Fox News and Newt Gingrich try, they will not succeed in getting God into the law. For that wonderful inclusion by our founders, I say God Bless America.

Judaism and Catholicism both reject literalism. Catholicism believes the Bible is "inerrant" but truth can be found in metaphor and allegory. Jews can actually disagree entirely with the Torah if they feel justified. They are encouraged to question everything. Judaism allows disagreements so extreme that Jewish Atheism recently evolved. Most Christians in America make their children choose literalism or the highway. "Literalism" is almost entirely an American phenomenon that has spread from Missions to third world countries. This type of Christianity is a self-perpetuating control mechanism that should be ignored and it appears that more and more people are starting to agree.

Police Still Pretend to Get it Right

2010-12-31T19:17:00.002-06:00

Police interest me because of their necessity and their corruption. Many people have many sites dedicated to police corruption and essentially hating the police. That's not me. I think the vast majority of police are pretty decent guys, ego and all. Some police egos get too big and they like showing off how awesome they are. I see it regularly. You probably have seen your share of it. It's worse in cities. Many of our cops are burnt out and will do anything to get out of paperwork. Not many of them are there to help people.

In Kansas City, I have been worn out by apathetic police. It's disgraceful. They then pretended to be doing something productive and it prompted me to write a blog about how they handled the Waldo rape press conference. They announced they had arrested a "person of interest" (whatever the hell that means, because it's not the same as a suspect) in the Waldo rape cases. He was charged with rapes from the 1980s. The police then forced him to shave his beard which he had for years, took his mugshot and then placed his mugshot side-by-side with a composite sketch of the Waldo rapist suspect. They then refused to take a single question on the current rapes investigation and ended the interviews when they received too many questions about the very subject they called the conference over. It was absurd. They made Kansas City residents believe they had caught the guy they'd been looking for. I loudly objected to how they handled the case, mistreated civilians, abused their power, and misled local residents.

I was mostly convinced that the police did not catch the Waldo Rapist because of the descriptions given by the victims--black male, 6'0", 250lbs, pock-marked cheeks, and bad breath. The "person of interest" Bernard Jackson was 5'10", 180lbs, bearded at the time and without pock-marks anyway and carried mouthwash in his car. The 70 lbs difference was the real kicker. The police were so eager to make it look like they caught the guy, they were willing to mislead us. Further suspicions arose when St. Joseph Police Commander Jim Connors said he didn't believe Jackson committed the recent Waldo rapes. Now, six months later, no charges have been brought in the Waldo rapes. The victims have not identified Jackson as their rapists. No DNA evidence has been made public. Nothing. The rapes remain unsolved and as near as we can tell, uninvestigated since Jackson's arrest.

I no longer hold out hope that the police are even going to bother looking for the truth, just the story that is most convenient. I've been provided with too much evidence of their self-serving corruption. I decided to revisit this topic when my neighbor called the cops because a man was lunging at the women from our building, trying to gain access and the cops never showed.

A Few Things

2010-12-20T20:04:00.000-06:00

I finally decided to add some content to my website www.Onehitkill.com. It was originally going to be Something more ambitious, but I don't have the time. Instead, it will have links to all of my other projects, blogs, artwork, comics, reviews and stories, including this blog. Right now it has only a few links. Even though there's enough content to keep most people entertained for quite awhile, I hope to improve on the selection as time goes on. I have a comic project that is slow to get off the ground, a novel that I will probably self-publish (I don't want to jump through a bunch of hoops) and put online, some short stories to upload, several art projects-including some contests that I may enter, movie and video game reviews and maybe comic book reviews. I've been trudging through Marvel's online archive lately. I totally recommend subscribing to their online digital comics too. It's well worth $60 a year. I also just caught up on theWalking Dead. I was a year behind. I'm surprised that it's still so good. More to come.

Dear Rockstar Games, Please Don't Make GTA5

2010-11-10T16:26:00.000-06:00

I was admiring your new project, La Noire, when I saw a surprising number of comments whining about you not announcing Grand Theft Auto 5. Considering the upcoming La Noire and this year's Red Dead Redemption both have aspects of the GTA franchise built in, I'm not sure I see a point in another entry. After your pioneering efforts in the genre with GTA III, Vice City and GTA IV, is there really anything else we need to say about low-life crooks moving their way up the criminal command chain? Even if some of us gamers enjoy having a grand theft fix, there are plenty of other competent knock offs of the GTA franchise, including Mafia, Driver 2 and Saint's Row. There have even been improvements and fun tweaks with such games as Crackdown, Mercenaries 2, and Just Cause 2.

Your company redefined the driving game genre with radio stations, non-linear missions and sandbox cities. You've created the best third-person shooter of all time, Max Payne. You brought us Earthworm Jim 64 and made fake table tennis fun. You have proven time and time again that you are one of the forerunners in gaming production, ahead of the curve and improving on nearly every genre. With all this in mind, I beseech you, use your talents elsewhere. Why not jump over to the stagnating first-person shooter and inject some life into it or add some enjoyment to RPG stories instead of relying on the mind-numb self-plagiarism running rampant through Square-Enix? We have enough third person, sandbox driving games. Seriously, do not make GTA5.

Our President, The King

2010-10-31T23:45:00.002-05:00

Once upon a time the American people didn't want an all powerful ruler. Our system of government was constructed to reduce the chances of it happening, with the inclusion of just enough elasticity as to avoid entirely neutering the President of his usefulness. That elasticity has been stretched far beyond the original vision of the Constitutional Framers. After years of slow expansion, Presidents hold powerful sway over the Legislature and can sign whims into law with executive orders. They have control of an extensive bureaucracy whose agencies create rules to be followed as law. Appointments to offices boil down to the President's preference of political party; merit is secondary. This has happened for a few reasons. First, of course, is because our Presidents have slowly usurped power from the other branches of government. Secondly, we like the idea of a ruler, a figurehead and lightning rod, to affix our insecurities and blame, to pass as much responsibility onto as possible. We downright demand Presidential intervention in the most banal arenas. The President is having conferences on High School Football injuries and is forced to respond to accusation about smoking cigarettes. The President is expected to weigh in on every subject.

I mentioned in an earlier blog how the president has extensive influence over congress. Because the President is the party leader, all members of congress in his party back his initiatives, proposed laws, programs, orders and policies, essentially making the leader of the Executive the most powerful influence in the legislature. This party influence extends to the governors and legislatures of the states. Presidential power is top-down policy all the way to county level. This wasn't an unforeseen development. Before George Washington's death, nearly every political leader voiced concern about the dangers of letting factions (parties) get a foothold of power in the government. Political Parties could push their agendas above the will of the people and infiltrate various branches of government, creating an infrastructure that would override the impartial operation of federal branches. Parties could create laws that favored themselves and then enforce them. Alexander Hamilton spoke about the dangers Factions posed in Federalist #9. James Madison suggested how to guard against them in Federalist #10. George Washington warned against them in his Farewell Address. Within 20 years, the Republican-Democrat party seized control of the presidency and the legislature and their dominance wasn't seriously threatened until the 1850s, despite some losses along the way.

Many of the concerns about separation of power and Presidential abuse of power were voiced in anti-federalist essays by New York governor George Clinton, Virginia Revolutionaries Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, and other prominent founders. To allay these concerns Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, with an assist from John Jay, published 85 essays explaining the benefits of the proposed Constitution. These essays, now collected in one volume called The Federalist, stated arguments in direct refutation of the anti-federalist papers. Over the centuries many of the arguments laid out in The Federalist have been ignored. In addition to the loss of separation of power in the federal government, as explained above, the President can now wage war, probably the most significant fear voiced by anti-federalists and carefully guarded against by the Constitutional Framers. Obviously, all attempts to thwart this presidential abuse of power have failed.

Delegates to the Constitutional Convention made every effort to reasonably limit presidential war powers, allowing him to use his designation of Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces only when he was "called into actual service of the Union," as Hamilton said in Federalist #69. He goes on to state, "while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature." The power to wage war was not only excluded, it was and still IS forbidden under the current Constitution. To invade another country is supposed to be left solely up to Congress. Swift action without the consent of Congress by the Commander in Chief was only for the purpose of repelling invaders, suppressing rebellions and Indian attacks, securing the border against the Spanish, and guarding trade routes. Over the next century, it understandably extended to covert military operations and military escorts. For a President to send hundreds of thousands of troops into foreign lands without the consent of Congress was not part of the plan. It was the exact thing the founders despised about the power of kings. Kings could start wars the people didn't want and then force the people to pay for them. You may think I'm making reference to the current Iraq war, and its certainly an example, but I'm more aggravated with all the times in the past that people supported the actions of the president when he expanded his powers to the point where he could do something like invade Iraq. This power didn't come from conservatives. The ability to wage war came mostly from liberals who wished to extend presidential power without considering who might inherit the throne.

In a few instances the American people attempted to limit the expansion of presidential power, but the efforts largely failed. For example, a few years after the death of Franklin Roosevelt, the United States ratified the 22nd amendment, which created term limits for the Presidency. Roosevelt was elected president four times and died while barely into his fourth term. For twelve years he set up a vast support structure throughout the government and even tried to further secure his authority by pushing through new laws that would allow him to appoint even more people. The amount of power he wrangled out of the position caused opponents to call him "King Frank." Due to the fear of the wrong person getting into the same position, the U.S. decided that Presidents should only be allowed two terms. To limit the tenure of office was not a new sentiment. New York Governor George Clinton stated in one of his anti-federalist papers in 1787 channeling Montesquieu, "the greatness of the power must be compensated by the brevity of the duration" and "the deposit of vast trusts in the hands of a single magistrate enables him in their exercises to create a numerous train of dependents." Limiting terms turned out to not matter much because a president of the same political party as his predecessor is very much like having the same President. They can continue to build up their bases of party support in the federal government, appointing people, sometimes for life, and their agenda may be carried out even if they leave office or die.

The epitome of presidential power comes from "executive orders." They have the "force of law" and are now frequently used as laws over the American people. Executive orders were intended for very few uses. War, of course, would require swift policy orders from the president that should not be obstructed. Policies for martial law in occupied territories could fall under the jurisdiction of executive orders. Mostly, executive orders were for administrative purposes only. In the last hundred years or so, executive orders are becoming more like Royal Decrees; the President signs it and it is a law. Presidents have expanded this power at such an exceptional rate they can now dictate our personal management of valuables, prevent us from striking against employers (just about the only thing that has been challenged in the courts), imprison citizens without trial based on ancestry, persecute political undesirables, unconstitutionally distribute tax dollars to support churches (some safeguards have been attempted and continue to fail), and impede scientific research without the consent of the people. (Anyone waiting for me to attack President Obama for his abuse of executive orders, don't hold your breath. He has exerted a nearly unparalleled influence over congress but, as near as I can tell, hasn't abused executive orders. Then again, he hasn't needed to.)

Where does this leave us? Basically under the rule of the Founders' definition of a King. I think that many people are not only tolerant of this development, but prefer it. Maybe because we haven't had to fight very hard for the freedoms we enjoy. I think it's dangerous and if we continue down this path, the current incarnation of federal government could become the greatest enemy to freedom we have ever faced. Many times, we are afraid to point out abuses of power because it benefits us short term. I don't think we can let that stand. We need to keep pointing out abuses of power, no matter where they come from. We have already let it slip a long way and are facing the consequences of our apathy. We are finally becoming aware that Presidential power can realistically topple our economy and take away our freedoms. It's not as simple as voting a power hungry President out of office. During elections, we are forced to choose between two candidates that want to expand that power. We may eventually be able to turn it around. We can start with the abolition of special benefits to Republicans and Democrats. It would be a great benefit to the people's voice. Placing more power in the individual states would also help reduce expansion and abuse of federal power. I don't think increasing state power is ideal, but it's better than life under a King.

Rights of the Living and the Unliving

2010-10-12T13:04:00.000-05:00

Abortion is a sticky topic. Major groups opposing abortion consider fetuses alive from the moment of conception. To them, abortion at any stage of pregnancy is tantamount to murder. Those in favor of abortion are probably more numerous because of the varying stages of abortion they individually accept. Many of the pro-abortion (renaming themselves the family friendly "pro-choice") don't believe this is a political issue. They believe it is a personal choice. However, determining whether something qualifies as murder is certainly a legal and political issue.

Bringing the argument to a different issue reveals some of our collective ethics about protecting life. We have obligations to lives that aren't human. Most people agree that being cruel to animals is wrong. In fact, torturing and killing them is illegal in most states. Even though it is not "murder" to kill an animal, it's punishable. Even if many of us aren't willing to claim abortion is "murder," we can at least admit that it is possible under our current legal system to make ending a non-human life illegal.

Compromise is key to the longevity of the United States and vital to avoiding violence. Pro-choicers need to appreciate that compromising views on murder is difficult for the anti-abortionists (renaming themselves the family friendly "pro-life"). First of all, we need a legal definition of life. This will not be the same as the biological definition, because the biological definition requires an entity to be self-sustaining. I find this a tricky definition to begin with, because kids aren't self-sustaining until they're able to walk around and scrounge for food. I know, I know; that's not exactly what "self-sustaining" really means. It means something that is capable of self-sustenance without additional biological support. In that sense, some people believe that fetuses don't meet the definition. I would disagree. Some babies are capable of sustaining life in as little as 22 weeks of pregnancy. I would say an abortion after that point, called "partial-birth" abortion, is undisputedly wrong, whether or not the baby meets the standard definition of "alive."

We should all agree that terminating a pregnancy after 22-24 weeks is despicable (unless the mother's life is endangered). In the United States, we can keep a baby alive after it has been prematurely born at 22 weeks. Most die, but it is no longer a fetus, it's a baby, a functioning human. To perform an abortion this late into the pregnancy, a doctor must perform a "partial-birth abortion." It is basically a technical term to escape the questions of murder. They don't pull the fetus all the way out of the womb. They pull everything out except for the head and neck. They reach with scissor-snips and sever the baby's spine directly under the brain stem. This process kills a human that conceivably could survive with aid. After 26 weeks, I would consider it first degree murder and the perpetrators should be considered for life imprisonment. Yes, even if the mother has been raped. It's disgusting.

Other people have different views on when an abortion is ok to perform. Fundamentalist Christians obviously believe that at the moment of conception indicates a soul is placed within the womb. This always struck me as odd because they have no way of knowing. They frequently state they cannot know Gods will and they chalk up tragedy as "everything happens for a reason" or "God works in mysterious ways"--other than a few exceptions, it seems. With issues such as abortion, they have no problem reading God's mind. They're just guessing the intentions of their God, who hasn't said anything to them in about 2000 years. I just ignore them. At the moment of conception, a sperm and an egg are just biological materials that have clashed. They are items that have no life force. In fact, nothing even resembling the form of a baby is present until about two months, and then in form only. Based on what I've read, I can't consider a mass of tissue comparable to a "baby." I don't consider a fetus to be anything other than biological material for the first trimester. After twelve weeks, I don't think we should allow abortion. But this is all debated.

It's an issue that needs to be decided by courts and legislatures. I think we should start with some common ground and prohibit partial-birth abortion. We must also fervently ignore religious arguments. They are based on nothing more than feelings and hunches. They have no idea what their god's will is, which has no place in our laws anyway, so we must ignore their opinions. Laws based on religious views are unconstitutional. If we research, we may be able to determine up to what point it is acceptable to terminate.

New Safety Procedures for Oil Rigs

2010-09-08T17:58:00.002-05:00

With today's release of BP's explanation for the oil rig disaster, a lot of finger pointing is going on. This isn't a shock by any stretch of the imagination. We all expected as much. BP says the tragedy was the result of many mistakes by several companies. Of course, they blame themselves the least. This actually isn't the reason I'm posting. I'm not outraged by BP's press release. I expected them to say something along those lines.

I'm more interested in the new safety procedures that will come from the investigations on whose fault the disaster was. President Obama has his own commission that will investigate the causes of the explosion, fire and pollution. The commission will then recommend safety products that will prevent this from ever happening again. This got me thinking about what the new procedures would be. The first thing to come to my mind was nuclear reactors. They have safety protocols on top of safety protocols. They have a button that anyone in the facility can anonymously press at anytime they feel that proper procedures aren't being followed. The EPA then shows up lickety-split

After all, with all of the problems that oil rigs have, and the fact that they can incinerate 11 people in an instant goes to show how much they need something like that. I'm pretty sure that if I could be vaporized at my job, I would demand a way to tattle to a government agency so they could swoop in and save my life.

More American Hubris

2010-09-01T12:59:00.003-05:00

There's really no way around it at this point. Anyone who doesn't believe in biological evolution is stupid. We've all had plenty of time to read up on the evidence, and really, only a cursory investigation is required to determine the truth of evolutionary theory. Despite its acceptance throughout the scientific community, it is still widely rejected in the United States. But it is so obviously true, proven beyond the point of contention, that even disagreeing with it proves stupidity, or at the least, proves an unreasonable desire to be willfully delusional. In Europe there is no grand debate over the legitimacy of something that has been proven. So why here, in America?

I posted a blog about the American Ego when speaking about philanthropy. Other countries are quick to point out our hubris at any convenience. There is no point in denying our ego. We have one. I'm guilty of showing too much pride from time to time. I still maintain that our egos have nothing on the French, but we do have an ingrained superiority complex. I first noticed it as a real problem when Oxford put out their yearly study on quality of life around the world. America was listed first above England for the last 100 years. In 2008, for the first time in a century, England topped America after our financial meltdown. Then, with ferocious rapidity, Americans simultaneously decried the study as farcical, nonsense, fraudulent, inaccurate and bullshit, a study that we were perfectly content believing for more than a century...as long as we were winning. For the first time I considered Americans as petty whiners. Bad sports. Jerks.

Americans seem incapable of humility in the face of superiority. Sometimes this comes through in the most delightful ways as we truly do have contempt for the odds. Sometimes carelessly, but with bravado. You can see how that could be good or bad.

This superiority that is ingrained in us does not just apply to nationality. It occurs in political parties, as with the Democrats in the 2000 Presidential election. Democrats knew how the election worked, but never threw a hissy fit until their guy lost the election while winning the popular vote. All of the sudden, Bush "stole" the election. Which is not true.

Apparently it applies to species as well. Americans are incapable of being brought down to an animal level. We're not monkeys! so It must be a flawed theory, Americans cry. On the whole, we cannot bring ourselves to believe that we were not always BADASSES at the top of the food chain. Or moreover, that at some point, the world existed perfectly well without us.

That's my theory anyway, and unlike the theory of evolution, you can disagree with it without being a total moron.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Diversity in Narrative Media

2010-07-13T09:53:00.000-05:00

I haven't posted a blog in a bit because, (1) I've been drawing and (2) I've been working on THIS. It's a website dedicated to exploring the differences between storytelling media such as video games, movies, books and comic books. I plan on adding some more to it later on. I will surely focus on the ever-developing Video Game. There is a lot of room for exploration on how video games tell stories, how the player affects the story, how the story can evolve due to interactivity. The storytelling language of video games has not been extensively studied and I look forward to delving into it further.

Antipathy for Illegals

2010-07-06T16:06:00.002-05:00

I never had a problem with illegal immigrants until 2006. I understood anyone who wanted to come to America. We have lots of money here. Our crap jobs pay more than any other country's crap jobs. People can come here and support their entire families with two minimum wage jobs.

Then came the rallies. In April of 2006, illegal immigrants from all over the country demanded to have the same rights as me. I immediately wanted to deport all the ungrateful bastards. I wanted to build a wall across the Mexican border and tell the whole Latin-American region to go to hell. Then I thought about some of the laws I skirt because they are stupid. A few laws have too much red tape, unnecessary policies, confusing wording and obfuscation to be properly obeyed (Tax laws came to mind. Some tax evaders have my sympathies. The government shouldn't have the power to tax the same dollar from a rich person six or seven times and then tax them after they die. It's absurd). I thought that maybe the immigration test might have the same absurdity to it. Maybe there was a reason so many immigrants avoided it. I looked it up. I read the material. I took the test. It's fine! The test aims to ensure immigrants know the responsibilities of being American and that they know the language of the law, English. It's the language that our public documents, laws, and street signs are written in. It's fair that people who immigrate here should have a working knowledge of the language. For the Americans who are illiterate, well, it was their good fortune and privilege to be born here.

Hundreds of thousands of people file for citizenship every year and 92% of applicants pass the citizenship test. It's a fair test with fair requirements, something rare in the federal government. It is unfair to those people who waited their turn, took the time to learn what it means to be a citizen of the United States, learned the language, paid a fee, passed the test and became Americans. Illegal immigration is unfair to the people who just want to work here, as well. They get a work visa, pay taxes, and in return, they are rewarded with the same rights that I have: freedom of speech, religion, attorney, and the pursuit of happiness. On the whole, Americans welcome legal immigrants. We like them. My Egyptian friend got his citizenship a few years ago and just recently saved enough money to bring his family here. I couldn't be happier for him. It's great to live here and I know what it will mean for them.

Illegals, on the other hand, skip all the proper steps to become citizens. They don't pay the taxes that I do and they expect the same rights that I have. They don't want to pledge allegiance to the United States, they just want our benefits. After realizing that going through the proper steps of becoming a citizen isn't unfair, every bit of empathy I had for illegals disappeared. What they are doing is tantamount to cutting in line at the bakery and demanding the fresh donuts, which everyone knows is just fucking rude. Dick move, illegals.

The Glorious Oil Spill

2010-06-17T12:15:00.003-05:00

A hardcore capitalist tried to convince me of the power the free market has on the oil industry. When we had this conversation, there were only gasoline powered vehicles. Electric cars were an impractical novelty. Car companies competed with each other. Oil companies competed with each other. Tire companies, engine manufacturers, and vehicle design teams all competed against their respective opposition. However, there was no viable alternative vehicle to a gasoline powered car. Trains, subways and planes take people to approximate locations near where we want to go. Gasoline powered cars were the only thing that got us to our final destination and their dominance was unopposed. Oil and car companies, with big money, power and expensive lobbyists made sure that innovations opposing their dominance were crushed. This didn't seem very "free market" to me.

I told the capitalist this. He just said that if people wanted alternatives, they would stop buying gasoline. Considering the circumstances, the public had no choice but to buy gas unless they couldn't afford it. We were in the snare of an international conspiracy, forced to buy something we didn't particularly want. We weren't just convinced it was a good idea by brilliant marketing; we were prevented from buying anything that would compete against it.

I began to root for the price of oil to rise nearly high enough to topple our economy, but didn't see how it could be achieved. Enter China. They began buying mass amounts of oil from the Middle East, thus increasing demand and driving up the price. Americans were outraged at gas prices that rose well above $3.50 and sometimes $4.00. We protested, carpooled, took trains and subways, rode bikes and even walked to work. The big, bad and completely unnecessary 4x4 Hemis were no longer selling well. Gas guzzlers stayed on car lots for months and years. Car companies faced serious trouble.

We saw a change. Manufacturers mass-produced Smartcars. Hybrids were ushered to the mainstream. Marketers began focusing on gas-mileage. Car dealers had limited time promotions for "free gas." Game shows started awarding "free gas for a year." Gas consumption took precedence and at long last, we were provided some alternative. It wasn't enough. The United States began drilling within its borders again and the gas prices fell. The collapse of the house market caused people to pay attention to gas mileage, but not as fervently as they did before. Due to the recession, people stopped buying cars altogether. I was elated. If the current car companies that shoved gas-guzzlers down our throats for the last 40 years went out of business, more responsible businesses would take their places. Then we bailed them out. The recession lifted and Dodge is still slapping Hemis into their ridiculous road monsters. They have a few more restrictions now, after accepting government money, but they are still the same guys that had us under their thumb for decades.

I have no problem with cars running on gasoline. I have a problem with ALL cars running on gasoline. Which is what the oil companies have coerced/convinced car companies into providing. Americans became more skeptical of oil companies when President Bush was repeatedly attacked for his "shady" ties to the oil industry. It was in the news daily. It was still not enough to make the American public hate, truly hate, the oil industry. With high, fluctuating gasoline prices, an already notorious reputation, a media-induced association with war and the most hated president of all time, all it should take to unburden ourselves of their evil presence is a slight nudge, a negative event caused by an oil company, perhaps. Something awful and close to home. Something that devastates American businesses, damages the environment, and raises the cost of many products across the nation.

BP, you glorious bastards, thanks for the most tremendous fuck up in oil industry history. Not only has your rig's explosion stalled the southern fishing industry, killed universally-adored dolphins and cute animals on international television, polluted Louisiana marshes, destroyed western Floridian tourism, it also killed eleven blue collar Americans. You united Americans in common hatred not seen since 9/11.

The President has finally chosen to manipulate a situation in a way I completely endorse. He is using the oil rig explosion to cast a shadow of menace upon the entire oil industry. He's calling for a new clean energy policy that could end U.S. dependence on fossil fuels, which is exactly what we need.

What will be the lasting effect of the oil spill in the coast? Probably not too much. In WWII, from late 1942 to early 1944, more than 60 oil tankers were torpedoed off the United States East Coast leaking millions of gallons of oil into the sea with each torpedo strike. For a time, New York State's tide was black with oil. If this current oil catastrophe leaks steadily for the next 400 days, it have about the same ecological effect as the torpedoed tankers. In other words, massive amounts of oil in the ocean is not a unique event in history, but I completely agree with the politicians that are painting it so.

To me, the tragedy came with the explosion on the oil rig. We lost 11 non-combatant human beings. Everything after that could be considered a lucky break. If we manage to stop the leak in the next few months, recover most of the oil and clean up most of the damage all by billing BP, we will still have short term problems to keep us busy. That being said, if that is all it costs for ending our dependence on the Middle East, pulling out our troops without detrimental side effects, and developing more efficient alternative energy, we will make out like bandits.

To Protect and Serve Illusions

2010-05-14T20:48:00.002-05:00

Since I graduated high school, I have slowly become disenchanted with the police "good guy" image that my parents instilled in me. In the last year, their actions have been so irresponsible that they've left me without any remaining confidence in them. I now loathe them. The final straw came on heels of the most recent arrest of a "Person of Interest" in the recent Waldo Rape cases, which is an example of police ineptitude and abuse, but not in the way you might think.

In my home town of Lee's Summit, a suburb of Kansas City, I was always aware that the police were more interested in harassing teenagers and giving tickets than they were of catching criminals and thieves. Late at night however, when I was a night stock manager at Hy-Vee, the police would stop in from time to time and were mostly helpful. I occasionally saw true compassion and a willingness to help.

In 2004, I landed a job that exposed me to the everyday operations of the Kansas City police. I was shocked to see a general lack of interest in helping people. These were jaded cops, annoyed with the day-to-day barrage of stupid people. They would help people if they had to, but mostly avoided paperwork. By 2006, I left to attend college in Columbia, MO and promptly forgot about the KCPD.

I returned to the same job after I graduated in 2008 and was immediately reminded of the Police's lackluster interest in protecting and serving. For a time, I gave them the benefit of the doubt. Assuming that they would do their job, if a little disgruntled about it. A lady called me and told me that a business had stolen her ski-boat. This lady took the boat to a repair shop to have the motor fixed. The company fixed the motor and then put the boat up for sale. I was shocked. I had never heard of such a thing. I told her to go to the police and file a report. She said ok. I received a call from her about two hours later. She said that the police refused to take the report, claiming that it was a civil matter.

Earlier this year, a woman called a check-cashing establishment to ask their hours. She was unaware that her call had been routed to the St. Louis headquarters location of the business. They said they would be open at 8:00 AM. The lady showed up at the check-cashing business at just past 8:00 and found the doors locked. Thinking that she had just spoken with someone that was inside, she knocked on the door and tried the handle again. She cupped her hands over her eyes and looked in through the glass. When she leaned back from the door, she found that a man behind her was pointing a gun at her. He said, "Get the fuck back." She raised her hands and backed up, thinking she was being robbed. The man unlocked the door, walked into the check-cashing business and locked the door behind him, pointing the gun at her the whole time. The woman was severely rattled and drove straight to the police. The police told her they do not handle problems with businesses. She called me and explained what had happened. I verified with my friend who works for the St. Louis Police Department that the police take reports on the flourishing of a firearm. They do. I urged her to talk to the police again and at least file a report, whether they wanted her to or not. She called me back later and informed that the police were adamant in their decision not to do anything.

An elderly man took his antique music box to a clock repair shop. The clock was an anniversary present that his deceased wife gave him 60 years before. The clock repair shop stole the music box and tried to sell it. The store repeatedly told the elderly man that the clock was irreparable and they threw it out. The elderly man kept his receipts and went to the police. They said that they do not handle business matters. I personally intervened to try to get the music box back. Miraculously, the music box was found and returned. The police never took a report.

I have investigated criminals, compiled reports and offered them to the Kansas City Police Fraud Department. They have never called me back. Some of the people I offered up are still ripping people off.

The above examples only laid the 'seeds' of doubt. I regularly hear similar stories. These types of stories are disheartening, but there's a part of me that held back from full-force condemnation. I know that there are bigger issues than theft. Theft is usually isolated and though deplorable, isn't threatening public safety. I learned not to trust police, learned that calling them for fraud or theft is a waste of time. What really made me hate Kansas City cops resulted from the Waldo Rape case.

The Kansas City police identified a man named Bernard Jackson as a "person of interest" in the recent rapes that have sent fear into the women in the Waldo area of Kansas city. Jackson is a registered sex offender who was released from prison after serving more than 20 years for a rape in the 1980s. He was released in 2008, prior to five rapes in the Waldo (from Sept 2009-Feb 2010). He matched the psych profile of the rapist and was justly investigated. During the investigation and through DNA evidence, he was linked to four Waldo rapes in the 1980s. He was followed for a week before the police lost him.

Jackson was dating a woman and helping to support her and her children at the time of this investigation. After they lost him, and a warrant for his arrest was secured, they also searched his girlfriend's house in hopes of finding him or other evidence. They detained the woman around noon on May 5, 2010 at her place of work and took her to the police station where they proceeded to interrogate her. She was aware that Jackson had a past that involved incarceration, but she didn't know the details. She explained to the police over and over. She believed what the police told her and didn't attempt to defend him. It didn't matter. The police interrogated her about his whereabouts and even threatened to take her children away from her. She cooperated as best she could, but she truly didn't know his whereabouts. About four hours into her interrogation, the police apprehended Jackson after a short foot chase.

By this time, Jackson's girlfriend's children arrived home to find squad cars surrounding it. One of the children had her backpack searched and was then let go. The police did not tell the children what was going on, did not take them to a police station, and did not tell them that their mother was being detained, or even that she was alive and safe. The kids arrived home, one by one, and were ignored. They took shelter at a neighbor's house and frantically tried to contact their mother, who had her cell phone confiscated. They would learn nothing of their mother's whereabouts until she was released at 4:00AM the next morning, 16 hours after she had been taken from her job.

All this time, Jackson's girlfriend was pleading with the police to contact her children and make arrangements for their well-being. Her requests were ignored and so were her children. They managed to get a hold of their eldest sister who could take them in until they found out what was going on. Jackson's girlfriend arrived home to find many of her things destroyed, including her stove. She will have to pay for damages out of pocket. Her children are now confused as to why the bad guy was nice to them and the good guys were not only mean, but destroyed their home and threatened their mother, who is already emotionally devastated.

The police released a composite sketch of the suspect earlier this year. The sketch, based on the victim descriptions of the rapist was of a clean shaven bald man with mid complexion, weighing about 250 lbs. The police called a press conference about their capture of Jackson. The full length press conference has been removed from the internet, or I would have linked it. At the conference Police Chief Corwin talked about the hard work they put in catching Jackson. They showed a map of the location of the current Waldo rapes. They displayed the composite sketch of the Waldo rapist adjacent to Bernard Jackson's mugshot. Chief Corwin announced that the police were charging Jackson with four rapes from the 1980s. He then refused to answer questions about the current investigation. Jackson committed, and will certainly be found guilty of, all the rapes from the 80s. He is even linked to several in California. He will surely spend the rest of his life behind bars. But what about the current menace to society, the guy who has Waldo residents jumpy and afraid?

It turns out that Jackson weighs about 180lbs, not 250lbs like the suspect. That discrepancy is very difficult to reconcile. As far as I know, the victims haven't come forward to identify Jackson and probably weren't even asked to. Despite DNA evidence from the scenes and with Jackson in custody, the police have not charged him with the current rapes. The police also forced Jackson to shave his beard before the mugshot, a very odd demand. Jackson has apparently had the beard for the last several years. In other words, he's not the right guy for the recent attacks.

That means the police concocted a press conference to make it look like they caught the guy causing havoc in Waldo. They are leading residents into a false sense of security and leading the press to believe they caught the guy who will be charged any time now. I've asked myself why more than a few times. I've wondered if it is a tactic to keep the amount of tips down or to limit racial profiling. Maybe it's to lull the real Waldo rapist into letting down his guard. In the end, it doesn't matter; they are deliberately misleading us. And after careful consideration, I hate them for it.

Christianity in Science Class

2010-05-12T15:55:00.002-05:00

I wouldn't normally redress a single religion, but other religions have not tenaciously battled to implant their faiths into a discipline that requires the exact opposite of faith. Scientific conclusions are based on research and evidence. Experiments are administered and results are published. If the outcomes of experiment after experiment support a theory, stacking evidence upon evidence in favor of the theory, then and only then is the theory eligible to be taught in science class.

Allowing faith in science class sets precedent for kids to supplant mysticism and superstition for rational thought and evidence, two vital ingredients in the solid foundation of all scientific disciplines. Science teachers do not just fill in blanks with whatever religion conveniently gives explanations based on assumptions and a complete absence of research. What happens when two religions give equally logical explanations of the same event? What makes us choose one over the other? Faith? What if subscribers to various faiths were in a science classroom and being taught Christian Creation? That is not "teaching". It is indoctrination and it transforms the classroom into a mission.

The argument is caused by fundamentalist Christians' assertions that the theory of biological evolution is false because the Bible already has a story for the creation of humans (as we currently are), and the theory of evolution is incompatible with it. Well, evolution happens. It's true and it's been proven again and again. It's the Fundamentalists' responsibility to reconcile their beliefs with the truth, not the other way around.

In America, science and Christianity are estranged. In 2005, fifty-one percent (51%) of Americans did not believe in Evolution. These people believe that God created humans in their current form, as written in Genesis, and they want to teach not only their own children this, but ours, yours, his, hers, and everyone else's kids. Bill O'Reilly gave pretty much the worst reason ever for wanting schools to teach the Christian version of creation. He said that Christianity had answers that science couldn't provide, such as how the world began. Apparently, it doesn't matter how one arrives at the answers, just as long as the teacher has answers handy. Following that logic, we could allow teachers to make things up, as long as they have answers to questions. If science can't provide the answers then why would we bring something that is not science into science class? If science doesn't have the answers to a question, that is exactly what the science teacher should say. If the student wants answers that science cannot provide, then the student needs to search elsewhere. It belongs in a class where unproven speculations are welcomed...whatever class that might be.

In Europe, there's really no debate about evolution. Nearly everyone accepts the truth of evolution, including Christians. In one of the most poetic statements committed to words, Cardinal Ratzinger says the following in his commentary on Genesis:

"We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary -- rather than mutually exclusive -- realities."

Because Genesis is a Jewish text, I also consulted Jewish opinion on the matter. According to the Rabbinical Council of America, "Evolutionary theory, properly understood, is not incompatible with belief in a Divine Creator or with the first 2 chapters of Genesis." So, really, why is there even a debate? Science teachers are teaching the SCIENCE behind whatever the "Divine Creator" may have created. They are not telling children not to believe in God. That doesn't belong in science class either.

Some Christians issue arguments from more solid ground and only claim that we should teach Intelligent Design in science classes. I don't really have anything against Intelligent Design. It can be defended just as easily as non-design, in my opinion. I can very effectively refute any argument that claims "Intelligent Design is false". God/Divine Creator has the most powerful trump cards imaginable: he is omniscient and omnipotent. With those two attributes, literally nothing is impossible, so defending him as the creator of the universe is not challenging. But, virtually all supporting evidence for Intelligent Design has been thoroughly researched and the results invariably suggests logical explanations concurrent with scientific theories. This, by no means, invalidates the concept of Intelligent Design, it just makes the reasons for teaching it superfluous. A grand designer may have set evolution into motion, but in order to debate the existence of a designer, no matter what stance is argued, we would have to speculate with no way of verifying our speculations. If a student asks if Intelligent Design is true, the correct answer is "maybe" or "I don't know." There's nothing else to say about it.

Two Headed Beast: The American Two-Party System

2010-04-15T15:07:00.003-05:00

America, according to Democrats and Republicans alike, is doomed. Other countries believe so too, but I suspect wishful thinking on their parts. Republicans believe that the Democrats are demolishing what makes our country great, removing individual rights in favor of government control that will drive us into financial ruin. Democrats believe the Republicans are keeping the U.S. in an archaic state of apathy and greed, perpetuating an already failed financial system that funnels money to the top at the expense of the working class. Ask card carriers from either major party for a prediction of American prosperity and they will try to convince you, with the utmost certainty, that the other party will ruin your life and their way is the only way to save the country.

Both parties are correct and both are incorrect. Republicans and Democrats are certainly damaging the country and neither party is willing to explore non-partisan solutions. And here is the American public in the middle of an entrenched, self-perpetuating system, which forbids a viable third option, and instead we are forced to pick between two gnawing cancers.

The two major parties have devolved into opposition parties, allowing no room for good ideas from the major opposing camp simply because they are the enemy. Enemies can't have good ideas, see, because they are the bad guys. There is an inherent distrust on both sides of anything the other party says because they despise each other. They would rather poke holes in an idea from the opposition, condemning it as a failed attempt to harm the public good, than to even try and improve it and recognize its merits. The two heads of the beast would rather annihilate each other than protect the public or acknowledge the damage their war is causing it.

When voting to fill a government office, lest one of the candidates be the rare independent, we must choose between two preset ideologies, uniform among party members, that regulates a candidate's reasoning, restricting it from operating outside party lines. The individual candidate that has been elected to office, entrusted with the power to make consequential decisions, will, when beckoned, vote along party lines with Pavlovian expediency. When we vote for a candidate, whether for state representative, congressman or President, we are not voting for a man or woman that can get the job done, who can adapt to situations as they arise and solve problems, we are voting for a tool of the party, a bullhorn used to broadcast an ubiquitous political agenda. Candidates frequently have no opinion of their own. Opinions jeopardize candidates' positions within the party. They must vote with the party or risk losing their support. That is why you will see so many politicians voting against their own inclinations. If an unforeseen danger pops into American view, the U.S. is incapable of proper and quick response because our representatives must filter their opinions through the party, making sure their proposed solutions do not conflict with party ideals*. If freed from party affiliated candidates, we would be freed from policies that have been passed through the biased filters of several party leaders, irrevocably binding those policies to the archaic or naive ideals that impair their ability to adapt to elastic and elusive issues.

The average but loyal party subscriber, Joe Democrat or Joe Republican, doesn't help matters. The major political parties rely on our unflinching obedience and loyalty. Over sixty percent of the population gives exactly that to one party or another. Party subscribers tend to sanitize their candidates of any wrong-doing, exonerating or ignoring conspicuous errors in judgment, frequently forgiving them for blatantly lying to the public or straying from the political ideals their constituents expect them to champion. On the other hand, the opposition blindly focuses on innocuous indiscretions.

No candidate is inexorably clean. I'm sure we can all agree that even the most revered of us are imperfect. For example, George Washington was a hesitant leader that frequently let things spiral out of control before confronting a situation. Thomas Jefferson struck personal low blows against his political rivals, likely slept with his slave(s), and condoned the reprehensible slaughter of innocents in the latter period of the 1789 French Revolution. Abraham Lincoln was probably Bi-polar, which dipped him into deep despair without a moment's notice, and suspended Habeas Corpus in the raucous Union states during the Civil War. Franklin Roosevelt authorized the concentrated imprisonment of Japanese Americans during WWII and bullied unconstitutional legislation through Congress, a branch of government he should have had no direct influence over. And these were the "Greats."

None of us should expect or even accept that a candidate is flawless. A voter must weigh a candidate's flaws against his attributes or accept that the voter himself is but a mindless tool to be used in political scheming. Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt all deserve their esteemed position in American History, but one must consider their whole reputations, their bad decisions along with their good. Glossing over their mistakes denigrates the difficulty of their position and the efficacy of their tenures of office. In the majority of elections, we have both parties claiming perfect candidates. Without party affiliation, candidates would have to rely on their merits and individual worth and not their political propaganda machine. We should use our reason and education to select a candidate that best fits views arrived at with individual critical thinking, not views that have been thrust upon us by others. Unfortunately, this is nearly impossible in a two party system, because both candidates in any race are cookie cutter replicas of their party confederates.

A side-effect of the two party system may be the most problematic to our government. The U.S. was built upon separation of power and checks and balances. Those two concepts are the first things we learn about government while in grade school. The Executive branch and the Legislative branch are separate in order to keep the president from forcing his agenda into law. The president is supposed to have nothing to do with the legislative branch. His domestic role is to protect the people and enforce the law. He is not supposed to have a role in a law's creation other than signing it. Thanks to the two-party system, the president becomes the leader of the party and forces his soldiers to back his play. They do, of course, because the President himself is a product of the party, endorsing his party's plans for the country. That's how he got the nomination in the first place. Men and women are not running the country; we are ruled by the checklist-agenda of the party in power.

There doesn't seem to be much desire for reform, no matter how needed. Most people are unaware that other possibilities exist because of the stranglehold the Republicans and Democrats have on the American political process. We still have a two-party ballot, for one thing. We must 'write in' other options in most races. Funding laws also heavily favor the two parties. It's difficult for a third party to gain any ground without the generous benefits given to Democrats and Republicans. Because all other parties are at the mercy of the lawmakers who are 99% Democrat and Republican, we may never see any legislation favoring small parties. Indeed, we may never even be aware of reasonable smaller parties. The only way to gain favor for a third option is to create something akin to the 19th century Whig party, a hodgepodge of all the non-partisans wishing to oust the current powers. This too will create problems, but at least we could drive a wedge into the power of the great two.

Sadly, all options outside the two-party system are unlikely, because it would face too much opposition. Somehow, along the way, these parties convinced us that, not only is the two-party system harmless, it's a good idea. That is, unless the opponent wins the election. Then it's dumb.

--------------------------------------------------------

* On those rare occasions we see a Congressman vote against his party, it is not a crisis of conscience or a moral statement, it's just bribery. Politicians refer to bribes as "contributions," in exchange for "earmarks," or "pork-barrel spending." Let me simplify: they're bribes. This practice is impossible to eradicate without passing some laws. Who passes laws? Congress. Who takes bribes? Click the following links for the answer. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.

Jenny McCarthy Gets Her Money's Worth From Free Speech

2010-03-13T22:29:00.000-06:00

At what point does a person take the freedom of speech too far? Most people cite the example of shouting "fire" or "bomb" in a crowded theater, which could cause extreme physical injuries including trampling deaths. Most of us recognize the prudence of safeguards against such actions. We accept certain limitations on speech when it comes to probable public endangerment. Other people cite the Presidential Death Threat as an example. We're not allowed to proclaim, "I will kill the President of the United States," unless we want the Secret Service kicking down our door. That too, most of us understand. But what about the murky areas between obvious extremes? What if endangerment is subtle and erosive rather than overt and explosive?

At what point does someone incite a riot rather than passionately express her views to the public? At what point does condemnation of a nation's administration turn into aid and comfort to the enemy? When is art too obscene to display? The answers to these questions are constantly negotiated, decisions are renewed or overturned with each new court battle, regulation, or arrest. Each nation's enforcement of these issues differs. Any criticism of Chinese government will get you imprisoned. Not here in the U.S. Chuck Norris can say states are on the road to secession, which he will support, and he is free to go about his business. That may or may not be because he is Chuck Norris. The Japanese, who are apparently allowed to inflict psychological trauma as a television prank, will censor mild gore--which seems to be the complete opposite of here.

America has more freedom of speech than any other nation. We can say or create just about anything without fear of being arrested for it. We no longer ban books as even the United Kingdom, our English-speaking cousins, still do. The only films denied American distribution are those whose content supposedly break laws; and then we have the court system to challenge unjust enforcement. Unfettered freedom of speech, more than any other reason, is why I love America. The law of the land protects us from unreasonable government interference in our daily lives. We are not only able to say what we think, we are encouraged to do so. Our founding fathers made federal laws to ensure no one could take away our right to open dissent.

There comes a price with such freedom. For instance, we have to put up with the KKK and Neo-Nazis and worse. Then there is that subtle, erosive danger I talked about. In the cloudy, less fanatical area between activism and public endangerment exists Jenny McCarthy, a woman hellbent on spreading a contradictory message of support and encouragement that undoubtedly causes harm. Her mission is to spread the word that vaccinations cause autism. She has hit the talk show circuits, public speaking events, published articles, and visited families to get the word out. She also does all that after she's been proven wrong.

Time Magazine explained why Jenny McCarthy is wrong and even considered a national health risk. Jenny McCarthy fired back with an article that accuses 22 studies, Time Magazine, research experts, the CDC, and all pediatricians of not only being wrong, but operating in lock-step to a diabolical money-making conspiracy. No matter how much evidence is stacked in front of her, not even when she's been presented with the evidence that she is helping cause a resurgence in horrible diseases once controlled by vaccinations, she will not back down. She has invested her reputation and so much of her time and effort into this crusade that she can't turn back, not even when confronted with proof of her folly.

She's not alone in this crusade, of course. Otherwise, she'd just be a lunatic howling at the moon. She has support from parents of autistic children, suffering from heartbreak and searching for a tangible target, who want nothing more than to blame someone for the horrible affliction. Parents got their first opportunity to blame someone when a preliminary study was released in Britain linking Autism to an MMR Vaccine with mercury in it (since abandoned). Britain halted MMR vaccines and measles came back. The study was contradicted by more thorough research and the original findings were retracted. But it was too late. Mania had gripped too many celebrities, who then proceeded to accuse the American government of administering unsafe vaccinations. It's comical, but true: Americans listen to celebrities more than scientists. Now, after billions of dollars in research revealing definitive proof that vaccines don't cause autism, celebrities like Jenny McCarthy still won't shut up.

What may actually be worse, Jenny McCarthy encourages parents to seek out untested alternative treatment. These parents dish out several thousands of dollars to quacks and gurus based on a false hope of their children recovering from an (as yet) irreversible disease. Now, she's not only helping expose the nation to previously contained diseases, she's also helping put parents into financial trouble during a recession.

This situation causes me to ask myself, when does campaigning for a cause turn into child endangerment? Jenny McCarthy has become a health risk. Unless she refuses to save the life of her child by getting immunizations, I don't think the government should restrain her from saying what she feels, but nor is this a situation where the rest of us can "agree to disagree." Her opinion should not be respected. She should be booed from her soapbox. Objections should be raised every time she utters a word about vaccination. Fighting someone like Jenny McCarthy is difficult because she appeals to people's emotions. Emotions are easily manipulated and often override intellect. Just ask Nikola Tesla. What McCarthy is saying is perfectly false, but it isn't stopping people from listening. Maybe a more direct emotional appeal will help the truth sink into the unconvinced minds: Jenny McCarthy will kill your children.

Founding Fathers and Religion

2010-02-27T08:55:00.021-06:00

Fascination with the founders of our nation is a unique attribute of Americans. We not only study them, we seek their counsel and pillage their opinions for insight into modern problems, hoping to find shortcuts to solutions.

Gordon S. Wood, in his Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different, explains it so:

-"The identities of the other nations, say, French or German, are lost in the mists of time and usually taken for granted...But Americans became a nation in 1776, and thus, in order to know how we are, we need to know who our founders are. The United States was founded on a set of beliefs and not, as were other nations, on a common ethnicity, language, or religion. Since we are not a nation in any traditional sense of the term, in order to establish our nationhood, we have to reaffirm and reinforce periodically the values of the men who declared independence from Great Britain and framed the Constitution."

The Founders were amazing thinkers who wrote so voluminously on such a variety of subjects that we still find in their writings valuable and applicable ideas for our modern world. We should seek their counsel. Unfortunately, though perhaps not uniquely, certainly prevalently, Americans tend to treat the Founders' aggregate ideals as dictums from a hive mind. Many of us behave as if the Founders sallied forth in unwavering solidarity with prescient foresight of the world superpower we would become.

no.

They recognized that being hanged for treason in 1776 was an all too possible fate. Beyond that, many delegates to the Constitutional Convention believed the Constitution would fail within twenty years. Even Washington referred to it as the "great experiment." Some delegates refused to even sign the final document. It was, and is, the result of endless compromises that, by the end of its creation, almost everyone involved was displeased with.

After the Revolutionary War, there was very little solidarity among the Founders. They hurled vitriolic attacks at one another that would shrivel the most vicious of today's political ad campaigns. John Adams hated Alexander Hamilton, famously calling him the "bastard brat of a Scotch peddler." Adams liked then hated then liked Thomas Jefferson, whose backstabbing intrigue caused Adams to lose the 1800 Presidential election. By the end of his second term as President, George Washington had washed his hands of his fellow Virginian Founders Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Patrick Henry, George Mason and Edmond Randolph. The author of Common Sense, Thomas Paine, finished off his miserable life hating Washington and just about everyone else. Unable to withstand the constant insults (deserved as they may have been), Vice President Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton to death in a duel.

Just as with any collection of people, we can't narrow the Founders' views into a consensus. On some issues they did generally agree. The Bill of Rights is a list of individual rights that nearly all of them endorsed. Virtually all the founders agreed on what role religion should play in government policies. None. This is the one thing that far too many Christians deny in the face of common knowledge. No matter how much Bill O'Reilly, John McCain, and fundamentalists say the United States was founded on Judeo-Christian ideals, it is still not true.

I watched the O'Reilly factor when he discussed a school principal who removed Christmas decorations from the school. O'Reilly said several times throughout the program that our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian ideals, as if to reinforce by repetition. Worse still, every day, I am flooded with emails from Christians who want to teach divine intervention in science class because we were "founded on Christianity." Nevermind the lack of scientific evidence for miracles.

The most incredible assertion of ignorance came when Virginia Congressman Randy Forbes spoke to congress about the Christian character of our government. He actually brought some evidence, though his conclusions are warped by Christian zealotry. He brings up several instances of religious associations with government made over the course of over two hundred years. I'll speak of his comments relating only to the foundation of our country and the Founders. Forbes said:

-"When the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783, it ended the revolutionary war and birthed this nation. The signers of that document made clear that it began with this phrase, "in the name of the most holy and undivided trinity."

-"When our constitution was signed, the signers made sure that they punctuated the end of it by saying, "in the year of our lord, 1787."

-"President George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson...indicated how the bible and Judeo-Christian principles were so important to this nation."

Even though his argument hinged on the idea that our nation originated as a Christian one, those comments were the only attention he gave the Founders in his speech. That one line in the Treaty of Paris is an odd choice of evidence and I will start with that. First off, it was written in 1783. Our constitution wasn't written until 1787, so it doesn't really have much to do with the foundation of our current government, but, because it was signed by three of our founders, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay, we'll take a closer look.

"In the name of the most holy and undivided trinity" is an opening or closing line, a courtesy. It is a statement that really has nothing to do with the body of the document. Even I say "Thank God," but I am not literally thanking a deity. We all know what "thank God" means. It's a common phrase, just as signing a document with the blessing of God was common practice then. That being said, John Jay and John Adams were extremely devout Christians who both could have wanted that line added for personal reasons. Let's take a look at these three men, their roles in the government's foundation and what their views were on Christianity in government.

I'll start with Adams because he is the most complex. He was absent from the Constitutional Convention, being in Europe at the time, but he was an influential voice of the generation. His Thoughts on Government was widely read and the final draft of the U.S. Constitution reflected many of his views. Similarly, he had no direct effect on the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1790, which, of course, secures religious freedom for all. Adams believed whole-heartedly in equal Constitutional protection for all religions, but he wasn't a protector of atheism. He used religion as a political weapon in the 1800 election, claiming that Jefferson would favor atheistic laws. However, his views on religious freedom of all creeds was pretty clear. He wished reason was the guiding force of Christians and despised the concept of "miracles." He believed religious fundamentalists and zealots were more dangerous than any other faction. Even though there are occasional inconsistencies, Adams' writings reveal a strong desire for church and state separation. I will only include his comments in direct reference to the United States and religion. Here's what he had to say on religious freedoms in the United States:

-"Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without the pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind." A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America

-"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this as an era in their history."

-"We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions...shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power...we expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society."

Benjamin Franklin was the only one of the group that actually attended the Constitutional Convention. He was not Christian in the modern fundamentalist definition. He doubted Christ's divinity and thought the Bible and the worship of it were corrupted by time and the diabolical nature of priests. At one point during the Convention, he asked that the delegates say prayer. His motion was denied. Hamilton warned that it's commencement might lead the public to form "unpleasant animadversions." However, when it came to the intermingling of government policy and established religion, his views were clearly stated throughout his life.

-"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." Poor Richard's Almanac, 1754

-"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies." Toward the Mystery

Franklin was religious. He believed that "God governs in the affairs of men," but he certainly didn't think of him in a Judeo-Christian way.

John Jay was a dissenter from the common fold. He believed we were a Christian nation, but he was intolerant of Catholicism. He wished to pass laws preventing Catholics from holding office in New York, even though he was the governor of a state that expressly forbade the favor of any religion. New York Law stated "the free exercise and employment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall for ever hereafter be allowed within this State to all mankind." Nonetheless, Jay said this: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." It is important to note two things about Jay, (1) he was not at the Constitutional Convention but (2) he provided a minor contribution the Federalist, probably the most influential political text in history and directly responsible for the ratification of the Constitution. In his contribution to the Federalist, he made no mention of religion. In essence, his religious views were uninfluential on the foundation of the country.

Because Forbes thought it prudent to include the courtesies in a treaty as sufficient evidence of our Christian foundation, I'll finish off this section with a quote from the body of another treaty. Section eleven of the Treaty of Tripoli, written in 1796, during George Washington's second term as president, and ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1797 and signed by President John Adams reads thus:

-"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as said States have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

There was no public outcry about the treaty. No congressmen like Forbes complained to the Speaker of the House about it. It was routine--commonly accepted. It was also not that big of a deal in religious circles, just like the treaty of Paris was not that big of a deal. Treaties shouldn't really be considered evidence, but tit-for-tat, Mr. Forbes.

The second example from Forbes about "in the year of our Lord" is a silly, silly point. A.D. stands for 'Anno Domini,' translated from Latin to mean "in the year of our Lord." The Founders did not yet have our now commonly accepted BCE and CE year designations ("Before Common Era" and "Common Era.") I personally still use BC and AD because that's what I grew up with. It is in no way an endorsement of Christianity on my part.

The final quote from Forbes is by far the most befuddling. He says George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams indicated the importance of Judeo-Christian values to this nation. Because I've already quoted Adams, I'll provide quotes from the other two.

George Washington wrote: "If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitutional Convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any religious society, certainly I would have never placed my signature to it. And if I could now conceive that the general government might ever be administered as to render liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded that no one will be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny and every species of religious persecution."

Thomas Jefferson wrote: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that the act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. (Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect)."

Those two quotes, from the most influential Founders, somehow, did not already put a definitive end to this ridiculous debate. Jefferson and Madison made it their mission to include religious freedom for all religions and especially the non-religious. Speaking of which, what did Madison, "Father of the Constitution," who had more influence over the content in the first amendment than any other man, have to say about its meaning? A lot.

-"An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against...Every new and successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance...religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government. Letter to Livingston.

-"What influences, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishment had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people."

At this point, I'm not sure any more quotes are necessary to definitively put an end to the nonsense brought forth in congress, but I can't resist quoting the one thing that fundamentalists Christians usually forget:

-"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances." First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Movie Review: Born of Hope

2010-02-17T23:54:00.009-06:00

Born of Hope is a fan film prequel to Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy, but it quickly transcends past amateur filmfare. After all, this movie cost as much as Clerks, The Blair Witch Project or El Mariachi. Writer/editor/director/etc. Kate Madison dumped her life savings into the film and managed to scrounge the remaining funds from donations.

The film takes place before the birth of Aragorn (played by Viggo Mortenson in the canonized trilogy) and during his young life. Instead of focusing on his youthful exploits, the film follows his parents, Arathorn and Gilraen, climaxing in a showdown with orcs.

Madison takes painstaking steps to tie this movie to Jackson's trilogy. The moods are similar. The script is painstakingly consistent, and though the story is by-the-numbers, it's well-written. We are introduced to the movie with a title card that flickers into view and a detached voiceover explaining the history of Middle Earth, just as in the original films. The costumes are consistent with the originals. The Orcs are especially effective. Diffused maps glide across the background during time jumps. The film enters slow-motion during times of bravery and sacrifice. Unfortunately, Slo-mo can be expensive to film. Instead, in Born of Hope, normal speed film is slowed down, which creates a choppy effect called 'fast-motion.' I despise fast-motion unless it's used for a very deliberate reason (the beginning of Reservoir Dogs).

Born of Hope has a few more technical problems that are usually remedied with money and equipment. We sometimes can't hear characters who speak away from the microphone because Additional Voice Recordings (AVR) weren't done. Those lines are lost. The acting varies, but the two leads, Christopher Dane (Arathorn) and Kate Madison (Elgarain), are both very good. Of course, there is a conspicuous lack of crane and helicopter shots, digital color manipulation, and New Zealand locales that gave the original trilogy its epic feel. Nonetheless, Madison's efforts do much to place the film in the same world as Jackson's films.

The film actually improves on the original in one area. Orcs. Because the big bad Uruk-hai don't exist in the timeline of this film, the villains are your garden variety orc, shown as cowardly cockroaches in the original trilogy. Here, they are murderous, persistent, threatening and menacing--not to be trifled with. The film length is perfect. Because of the small budget, we aren't subjected to twenty minute action sequences that are usually used to fill the running time. The battles get to the point quickly.

I enjoyed it. It was a nice, new taste of Middle Earth that fits in a realized universe without creating waves or contradictions. That is no easy feat.

Here is the full movie:

What is Census Advertising Worth?

2010-02-11T10:51:00.008-06:00

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) seems to share some of my views on misappropriation of government funds. They attack government officials for frivolous spending and improper distribution of tax money. I love the idea. I wholeheartedly endorse organizations that wish to limit government waste. I am all about efficiency.

CAGW, however, seems to have disregarded a fundamental attempt to identify the truth (i.e. they didn't do any research). The president of CAGW, Dan Williams, openly bashed the Census Bureau's Superbowl ad as a "colossal waste of money." The advertisement cost nearly $3 million, a drop in the bucket compared to the $133 million the Census Bureau plans to spend on advertising between now and May. In the same Fox News Article, Williams says, "That's a lot of money to spend on a glorified public service announcement. While they're counting people, we're going to be counting the dollars that they're spending." Further support of their argument was proclaimed by an outraged John McCain on his Twitter page: "While the census is very important to AZ, we shouldn't be wasting $2.5 million taxpayer dollars to compete with ads for Doritos!"

The Fox article (supposedly "news"--fair and balanced, of course) makes no effort to convey the Census Bureau's reasons for spending the money on the Superbowl ad. Apparently, the CAGW made no effort to ascertain the reasons either. The organization just attacked the Census Bureau for wasting our money. To level the playing field against the willful ignorance (or laziness), I'll provide you with the reasons and "let you be the judge," as O'Reilly likes to say.

The Census Bureau is charged with counting all the people in our country as dictated by the Constitution of the United States of America. To do so, they rely greatly on our voluntary cooperation. It's important that we participate. The Census determines how many members of the House of Representative are issued to each state. It is the primary source for figuring out where aid and grant money is sent. It also serves to paint a portrait of our economy, diversity, and progress, or lack thereof, in many social areas. To do this, the Census Bureau mails out a mandatory ten question form. If we do not fill out the form, the Census Bureau is forced to send temporary employees to our homes, knock on our doors and make us fill out the form. It is quite the process, let me assure you. Census Bureau employees must figure out which households have not filled out the form, track the residents down and get their answers. It costs the American taxpayer $85 million for every one percent of mailers not returned.

To reach a wider audience, the Census Bureau has partnered with over 170,000 business and organizations to help raise awareness about the importance of filling out the census form. They have dumped millions into advertising and nationwide tours trying to get people to mail back the forms. If all of the Census Bureau's efforts convince only two percent more people to mail back the forms, then we save money. According to an article from the political website The Hill, the Superbowl ad likely saved us $30 million.

If it makes a noticeable difference, I'm all for advertising the hell out of the census. If next year reveals that all their efforts made little difference, I'm against it. To provide some recent perspective, in the 90's, the Census Bureau spent $167 million in advertising and the participation increased by six percent. If that is any indicator of today's efforts, this year's census advertising could save us about $377 million.

So, that's the argument for the Superbowl ad. Is it a good idea? You be the judge!

The American Ego

2010-02-08T12:30:00.009-06:00

Americans have a compulsive need to defend themselves in the eyes of the world. Now that the world is more globalized, most of realize the world hates us. Instead of taking it in stride, like the leaders we claim to be should, we throw fits. It's a bit embarrassing. An article from the UK Guardian shows the American Government pledged to donate more money to Haiti than any other government--$450 million. The amount will cost the American taxpayer about $2.50. That's fine. Canada, making the second highest pledge, said its government would donate $130 million, costing their taxpayer quite a bit more considering their population (man, woman and child) is about 33 million--approximately 1/9th the U.S. Population. We must keep in mind that other countries are also generous and consider population. While I'm happy the American Government hasn't become so jaded by every other country's opinion and ceased charitable donations altogether, we cannot lose sight of the reason we give relief funds and aid.

In the Guardian article's online comments, most non-American comments bashed the United States for... well, what seemed to be just about anything. Some said we were only donating to Haiti because it is close to us. Some people argued that we are responsible for their horrible state in the first place (this is kinda-sorta true, but not really. Click Here for additional info). Some say it is only in our military interest, otherwise we'd do nothing. I hate these comments as much as the next American, but it comes with the territory of being a powerful nation. Deal with it.

Instead, what do the American commenters do? They boast about how generous we are. They boast about how much money we always give and without us, the world would collapse. It aggravates me when Americans turn national wealth and worth into a competition. Those who say Americans only donate when it is in our interest don't pay attention and know little about us. However, in reading the comments from my American contemporaries, I can see how our image is tarnished. There are enough Americans out there, damaging our reputation, spreading the word that we should be thanked, that we should be appreciated, that we should be recognized as oh-so-totally-awesome, and it's sanctimonious autofellatio.

We should be doing the right thing only because it is the right thing to do and for no other reason. If people need our help, we help without expectation of reward or appreciation. Someone expecting gratitude is making humanitarian gestures for the wrong reasons. I believe that most Americans understand this, even the simplest of us. Or, perhaps, especially simple Americans, unclouded by political complications and outside influence, they know that Good is Good and that's all they need. Everyone likes to be appreciated, but expecting praise for good deeds is egocentric and sad.

I truly believe Americans want to help because they can. We have our financial struggles, but in dire circumstances, we have the funds to lend a hand. So we do. In addition to the pledged $450 million from our government, private U.S. organizations have donated an additional $700 million. I'm very happy that the American public was motivated to donate such a large sum. I'm glad we donated more than any other country. Honestly, though, if we didn't, I'd be ashamed of us. We should help because Haiti needs it and we can do it. People who take those numbers and boast about our superior generosity are missing the point and do not properly represent what America is about. It's not about bragging rights. We should be content to live in a country that can make a difference.

Occasionally, I've run across Americans who think we should donate nothing because we've got our own problems. We've got homeless people and poverty stricken communities, we should focus on them, they say. True we have our own problems and should address them, but our homeless aren't eating dirt to survive as they are in Haiti. Our poor population didn't just have their buildings crash in on families. Our government was not demolished in a few minutes. Most of us have no problem with our government giving aid. Again, most of us think it's a good thing. The rare (and unfortunately loud) Americans who compare our problems to Haiti should find a cliff and make like lemmings. They don't represent us.

For those Americans who throw a royal fit about being verbally attacked when we don't deserve it, I understand your frustration, but do try to practice magnanimity. We can be hateful and petty with one another, boast and sing our praises at home, but please, keep it off the international stage. Because if I were from another country and read the crap you said, I'd kick you the fuck off that high horse too.

Avatar to the Rescue! Maybe.

2010-02-04T14:30:00.016-06:00

Some of you are aware that movie theaters lost much of their relevance when Big Screen met DVD. Moviegoers began to forgo opening weekends of blockbusters and opted to wait for DVD releases. Girlfriends had a tougher time convincing their boyfriends that romantic comedies were worth seeing on a fifty foot projection. Boys taking girls on dates no longer needed to pay forty dollars for a movie, candy, drinks and popcorn. If they watched a movie at home it would cost fifteen bucks, tops. Parents no longer wanted to quiet their crying kids without the ability to pause movies. Crusty old curmudgeons could watch movies at home without the nuisance of noisy whippersnappers and cell phones. None of us have to sit in a jam packed theater, wondering why, oh God why, was the only open seat next to the fat, sweaty dude who steals armrests.

I came around to team DVD a little later than some. I couldn't immediately take the plunge because I still remembered getting vertigo in the opening scenes of Mission Impossible 2 and feeling the ground-shaking roar of the T-Rex in Jurassic Park. I remembered the chills creeping up my neck upon seeing the Star Wars: the Phantom Menace trailer for the first time on the big screen and having the same feeling when watching Keanu Reeves dodge gunfire in "bullet time." I didn't think it was possible to appreciate that type of movie magic from home. In 2004, I was forced to surrender my obstinate position and admit that movie theaters kind of sucked. One movie experience after another for every year since has reinforced my opposition.

Here are just a few experiences that nudged me away from theaters. I could not stand being subjected to commercials after the movie was supposed to have started, especially after paying $8-10 per movie. I got pissed off when they wouldn't let me bring bottled water in, because they sold bottled water for $4.50. The seats are never particularly comfortable and in some of the less popular theaters, they aren't too clean. If you ever wondered why seats in some theaters fold up, it's to make the greasy popcorn crumbs fall through to the floor. I got sick of dim projection. I could hardly see Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon because the theater owners reduced the intensity of projector bulbs in hopes of either reducing their power bill or to make the bulb last longer (which doesn't work). I watched three movies at my local theater that were shaking so badly, I had to take off my glasses (making everything blurry) to make it possible to tolerate. The theater did not replace the shaky projector for two years. When I watched Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, the projectionist forgot to change the fucking reel. I've never even heard of that happening. During a screening of K-Pax, eight fifteen year old girls talked, giggled, answered loudly ringing cell phones and eventually, after I asked them nicely to be quiet, started throwing popcorn over their shoulders at me and my friend. Never one to take the high road, I pelted one of them squarely in the back of the head with an ice cube, which won me a smattering of applause from other patrons. That was the worst of many giggly-girl encounters. If the giggly-girl was on a date with dumbass-boy, rest assured, red laser lights were zinging across the screen. (I must admit, laser lights were more popular about five years ago. The last I saw of them in a theater was during a viewing of 300 in 2006.)

I'm aware that businesses can't fully control the behavior of their patrons, and I rarely blame a theater for rowdy kids or talkative people. I hate some theater crowds, sure, but that's not the biggest reason I hate theaters. It is how they are run. Charging 400% retail for snacks is unacceptable. That sort of gouging should only happen at ballgames, which are once in a lifetime experiences. The greatest play in the history of the sport may happen on any given night. Concerts are the same way. Bands never play the same way twice. Movies cannot boast that sort of uniqueness. The movie will not change from one viewing to the next. To ensure that we buy their drinks and snacks they refuse to let us bring our own. They do this in because they make most of their money off snacks. When a business can't make money from its primary reason for existence, without extorting its patrons, it's time to update the business model. I'm most shocked by the cost of tickets. Kansas City has about the least expensive movie ticket prices in the nation, and ours cost about ten dollars. I can rent newer movies for $3-6 depending on its DVD release date. I can own most movies for $20, and DVD sales have an astronomical markup. I don't care where money goes, what the cost is, or why movie tickets cost $10-15. It's not cost effective for the consumer and should be abandoned.

For more than five years I've wanted theaters to crumple under the pressure from their unsustainable business model. I was awaiting the day that they folded into oblivion, leaving room for only a few of the best, consumer friendly theaters and well-maintained IMAXes. And I still believe that to an extent, but damned if James Cameron's 3D Avatar didn't shake my faith to the foundation. All of the sudden, this movie marvel created a need for theaters.

I've listened to nonsense hype about 3D for over a decade. To me, 3D always looked like one cardboard cutout set a little closer to me than the background. I hated the effect. It was unnatural to my sense of depth perception, doing more to distract me than it did to enhance the experience. Many critics complain about the dimness of 3D. I only remember its annoyance. Even Superman Returns' 3D on the IMAX was jumpy and blurry. Avatar gave me depth. Long corridors and rounded objects stretched into the distance, each line of trees in the forest was distinguishable from the next. The effect makes Science Fiction seem more science-fictiony.

I get depressed when I think of watching Avatar on a home TV, no matter the size (with the possible exception of my friend's 65-inch monster HDTV). Only a handful of movies in the past few years were worth seeing in theaters. Fewer are released with each passing year. If we suddenly saw a surge of films taking full advantage of Real 3D, creating wondrous worlds and mystifying spectacles with epic storytelling and fearlessly pursuing the story to a logical conclusion, regardless of running time, I would go to more movies.

For the first time in years I can at least see a beneficial function of movie theaters. I hope new filmmakers will take advantage of the 3D big screen experience, otherwise movie theaters are expendable. Pixar is planning on releasing Toy Story 3 in 3D. If it too is as an impressive technical achievement as Avatar, I might forgive past transgressions and once again look forward to opening days at the movies.

Stephenie Meyer Sucks. And How?

2010-01-28T12:57:00.039-06:00

We all have our guilty pleasures. I loved Hudson Hawk, the 1991 musical comedy starring Bruce Willis. That's right, loved it. This is the same movie Rolling Stone critic Peter Travers called "unspeakably awful." Not to stop there he says, "You want to throw things, yell at the actors, beg them to stop. But the film drags on, digging horrible memories into the brain." And yet, to me, that movie rules. It has characters inexplicably survive tremendous falls from buildings and cliffs. It has Sandra Bernhard in it (shudder). It makes cartoon slapstick sounds like those in Batman & Robin. The villains are named after candy bars. And, as if that wasn't enough, David Caruso as a mime!

Awesome.

I get it. I understand liking something fun and familiar and just a little bit awful. Stephenie Meyer books appeal to adolescent girls, and the occasional misdirected boy, because they are high-school-age fantasies in which new readers don't know the outcome. I can even get behind the idea of people liking them for the same reason chicks like romantic comedies and guys like watching stuff get blown the hell up. Unfortunately, people are defending this woman's writing, and that, my friends, is horseshit. When Stephen King trashed her, some fans shouted "sour grapes!" claiming he was jealous of her popularity. I've even heard from her fans who J.K Rowling is a bad writer compared to her. That statement did not come from the mentally handicapped or insane (maybe a little insane). It came from her common, normal fans. I don't believe all of her fans are stupid enough to say something like that, but I've met plenty who are.

Most readers who have a basic knowledge of English will know something is not quite right with her writing, but won't be able to point at what it is and say, "here's why." I can.

Let's start with punctuation, the simplest fundamental in language. It signals when thoughts change topics, when those topics are related, and when they are not. Glancing at the first chapter of Twilight tells me that she has no idea how punctuation works. She uses dashes instead of using the various punctuation marks that differentiate meanings. In my years at college, my hatred for dashes softened. At times I even employ them. They can be useful. They set apart extra details that would alter the narrative course. They are not supposed to relate to any other sentence or paragraph outside of the sentence that contains them. Some people use parentheses to the same effect. Meyer, on the other hand, throws dashes into anything and everything, for any reason, on almost every single page. Do you want to see examples of Meyer's use of dashes? I thought so.

Page 4 (which is actually the second page of the story): "Bella," my mom said to me--the last of a thousand times--before I got on the plane. "You don't have to do this."

This sentence sucks for several reasons. I know we're trying to focus on dashes, but that's not the only problem. First of all, she split the sentence in two. The mother's line of dialogue is one sentence ("Bella, you don't have to do this"); therefore the writer should not break apart the dialogue with a period. By writing it the way she did, she is effectively saying that "Bella" is a sentence in itself. It is not. Back to the main point: dashes. Instead of dashes, you may be asking yourself, what is she supposed to put? Nothing. Those dashes aren't in place of anything, they're just stuck in for no reason. The sentence would read fine as: "Bella," my mom said to me the last of a thousand times before I got on the plane, "you don't have to do this." You could argue those dashes replace commas, but to place commas in the sentence disrupts the flow with wasted excess, neither adding nor detracting meaning. You know, the same thing her dashes do.

Page 5: I didn't see it as an omen--just unavoidable. It should be a comma. I didn't see it as an omen, just unavoidable.

Page 7: The thing, I thought to myself...it had possibilities--as a nickname, at the very least. I nominate this for the worst published sentence ever. For whatever reason, some of Bella's thoughts are in italics and others are not. Unless, of course, emphasis is supposed to be placed on "the thing." If that is the case, Meyer shouldn't be putting emphasis on "the" as well as "thing." Ellipses (...) are normally used to show an omission of words. Recently, in dialogue, they've been used to show hesitation or the trailing off at the end of a sentence, leaving the line unfinished. It does none of those here (I suppose Meyer could have used "that" originally then omitted it and put ellipses in its place, but doing that would imply her blunder is due to overthought. I have serious doubts about that). She is using it to replace a comma. The dash, again, serves no purpose. It is just shoved into a sentence that doesn't need punctuation there. The comma after "nickname" is also pointless. I know why she added all this punctuation, though. The sentence has two qualifying statements at the end. By adding the qualifiers, Meyer's sentence developed a roller-coaster effect. Just when you think you've reached a logical stopping point, there's another hill. This is what the sentence would look like with correct punctuation: The thing, I thought to myself, it had possibilities as a nickname at the very best. The real problem is that the sentence sucks and instead of changing it, she punctuated it. Here's a good way to write that sentence: The thing, I thought to myself, at best had possibilities as a nickname.

Page 8: It was too green--an alien planet. By the way, this sentence is also a paragraph. Besides rewording and fleshing out, this "paragraph" needs a comma, not a dash. It was too green, an alien planet.

Page 9: All of the kids here had grown up together--their grandparents had been toddlers together. There it is! The cardinal sin of dash use. Meyer combined two complete sentences with a dash. It's the same as a comma splice. The only way to combine two sentences is with a semi-colon. In that regard, you may want to follow Kurt Vonnegut's advice, "Never use semi-colons."

I left out any criticism of dashes in dialogue because dialogue always breaks rules, in real life as well as in fiction. That, and, there are so many dashes and ellipses in her dialogue that it looks like Morse code. I could probably show examples of poor punctuation on every page for the rest of the chapter but I would likely kill myself before the end. Let's move on to another part of language.

Word choice is my favorite aspect of linguistics and communication. It is difficult and rewarding to make every word in an article or story the most correct, accurate and functional. Every word in every language carries its own stigma, nuance and connotation. Every word has history and social value. Constructing a most perfect sentence out of the most perfect words is the job of every novelist. Meyer constantly fails to get the correct meaning or feeling across to the reader because of her inability to recognize nuance. Most readers blow over these errors in judgment quickly because her writing is comprised almost entirely of common words and clichéd phrases. The words just wash past the reader in a blur. Using common, accurate words can be wonderful. As shown by: Ernest Hemingway, Elmore Leonard, Stephen King, W. Somerset Maugham, J. M. Coatzee, and Cormac McCarthy. Using slightly inaccurate words and clichés is not. Shown by Dan Brown, many unpublished authors and most bloggers. Meyer is in the latter group.

In my college writing classes I met several students that tried too hard to use poetic descriptors (like 'beautification,' 'gargantuan,' or 'sanguine' when 'improvement,' 'big' or 'happy' would work better) . The words were usually long and sounded good when sitting by themselves, outside contact with any other words. These students would add these words to otherwise normal and simple sentences. It was beyond their ability to write anything more complex. Instead of improving their skills by rigorously studying sentence structure or even accepting their weaknesses and playing to their strengths, they would cram these flowery, overly descriptive, slightly inaccurate words into their sentences. Not surprisingly, most of these students would write about vampires. These writing students gave me a lifelong aversion to the word "crimson." In their stories, crimson liquid was always running down some one's chin, down walls, down windowpanes, splashing across the floor, flowing from fresh gashes and cuts and puncture wounds. I would write on their papers, "it's fucking red!" Stephenie Meyer is the same way they were. She is the same type of writer I took care to help out of thesaurus-stage of writing. Either no one helped Meyer in workshops or she ignored the help. For proof, I'll copy a section from the early pages of Twilight. As I think of better words, I will put them in parentheses after the words that suck.

It was to Forks that I now exiled myself (traveled)--an action that I took with great horror (nervousness, trepidation, regret). I detested Forks.
I loved Phoenix. I loved the sun and the blistering (enveloping, dry, extreme) heat. I loved the vigorous (vibrant), sprawling (omit) city.

(Before I get to vocabulary, I wanted to point out that the first sentence is in passive voice, a high school sophomore no-no) Here are the reasons for my edits. By using the already awkward phrase "exiled myself," she adds more description to the action than needed. How she "exiled" herself is explained throughout the chapter. She doesn't need to burden the sentence with this extraneous idea. "Horror" is an awfully strong word to describe something she's gone through before, traveling to a town she knows. How will her feelings be described when when she's truly terrified? Perturbed? Miffed? "Blistering" is the idiotic word choice that first drew my attention to this section. "Blistering" is an inflated description of the discomfort heat causes. It is a complaint about heat, not to be misused as a compliment. Unless Bella is a sadist, she doesn't "love" anything that is uncomfortable. She can love heat; that's fine. It has to be for positive reasons, though. Some people like saunas for their extreme heat, but they don't describe the comforting envelopment of warmth as "blistering." "Vigorous" implies a massive effort showing someone to be full of life. A city is full of life or it is not. There is no attempt. Finally, what city isn't "sprawling?" This adds nothing but flowery nonsense. Cut it.

In other sections of the book, it seems as if Meyer lost her thesaurus and had to rely only on her ingrained vocabulary. Which, apparently, doesn't exist. Check out how she describes Edward when Bella first gets a chance to examine him up close.

I couldn't help myself from peeking occasionally through the screen of my hair at the strange boy next to me. During the whole class, he never relaxed his stiff position on the edge of this chair, sitting as far from me as possible. I could see his hand on his left leg was clenched into a fist, tendons standing out under the pale skin. This too he never relaxed. He had the long sleeves of his white shirt pushed up to his elbows, and his forearm was surprisingly hard and muscular beneath his light skin. He wasn't nearly as slight as he'd looked next to his burly brother.

"Through the screen of my hair" is terrible. Hair doesn't have or resemble a screen. Why not use the most obvious choice 'veil?' Less good, but still not as bad, would be "through the woven threads of my hair." "Stiff position" makes sense and is difficult to mistake her meaning, but it's boring. I would have chosen 'imperial posture.' "Hard" is a textural description. Unless Bella reached out and stroked Edward's forearm, she would have no idea if it was hard or not. It can look hard. It can seem hard. Unless she touches it, it cannot be hard. "Hard" is a boring word choice anyway. Solid, taut, toned or sinewy would all be better. Just to put my money where my mouth is, I'll rewrite the paragraph so you may compare the two.

I couldn't help peering through my veil of hair at the strange boy next to me. During class, he never relaxed his imperial posture. He sat rigid on the edge of his chair, as far from me as possible, his left hand clenched into a fist, tendons straining under the pale skin. He had the long sleeves of his white shirt pushed up to his elbows. His forearm was surprisingly taught and muscular. He wasn't nearly as slight as he'd looked beside his burly brother.

I don't have much to say about the overall story because someone, somewhere, can make just about any story entertaining, no matter how vapid. The only problem with the story I have is that Stephenie Meyer seems to be so devoid of ideas that she can't even form a basic plot structure without stealing from famous literary works. It's kind of like rappers sampling famous seventies funk songs and overlaying them with new lyrics. It's lazy and defiling. For Twilight, Meyer raped Pride and Prejudice’s plot; for New Moon, she rips off the most overused story in all history, Romeo & Juliet; and Eclipse steals the plot from Wuthering Heights. I'm guessing the only reason people like her books is because they were originally someone else's.

One more thing. I riddled this blog entry with exceptions to rules just to show that if you know what you're doing, exceptions are acceptable. There are so many rules that if you followed every bit of writing advice about what pitfalls to avoid, you'd have a stack of blank pages. However, if you don't know what you're doing and you still try to write a novel, you will probably write like Stephenie Meyer.

P.S. Most people don't become millionaires by writing trash. She's lucky and I hope she knows it.

Death Sentence?

2010-01-25T18:00:00.004-06:00

I've struggled to reconcile my conflicting views on the death penalty. I wish for people to die. I would lie if I said otherwise. Some people are so wretched and warped that I know the world would be a better place without them. I'm speaking of serial killers and rapist/murderers not Greg, the guy who stole $90 from me in high school, or the guy who stole my stereo last year (these guys deserve to be kneecapped with a sledgehammer, not lethally injected).

I want serial killers dead. I don't just want them off the street, sucking at our tax money; I want them euthanized. I want to give Louisville Sluggers to the victims' families and let them beat murderers until their arms are too weak to inflict any more damage. They deserve it. I believe in vengeance. Those goodie two-shoes in movies that chastise a father that wants to kill his child's killer by saying, "Don't do it! You'll be no better than them!" don't know what the hell they're talking about (plus they're fake people in fake situations). Of course the father is better than the murderer. The father didn't indiscriminately murder some person he's never met for reasons he doesn't fully understand. He wants a person dead for a very specific reason: the murderer deserves it. I say, go get 'em, dad! I hope the police don't catch you.

That being said, if this father character gets caught, I may feel bad for him and relate to his situation with heartfelt empathy, but I believe he should be tried for murder. We can't let our citizens run around undermining the justice system. We can't let them take the law into their own hands. That's anarchy. This world has no place for that.

I want the justice system to handle the punishment of criminals, even if the system has serious flaws. I trust the government to a point. For a successful civilization, we have to believe in our leaders and elected representatives to do the right thing. I'm not stupid, though. Our government isn't perfect, nor impartial. It has its share of corruption and any government can be warped to fit the needs of corrupt leaders. Despotisms form. Aristocracies bloom. The masses are silenced. I doubt this will happen in my lifetime, if it ever does, but I want a few assurances against it. This is one of the reasons I'm against Capitol Punishment. I don't believe a government should have the power to extinguish the lives of its citizens. It is a power too great to be wielded against subjects.

Also, juries make mistakes. Innocent people go to jail from time to time. This could happen in a case in which the death penalty is handed down. There are no take-backs. I'm against the government killing any citizen, but to kill an innocent person is beyond my tolerance. We try to safeguard against this by allowing several appeals and governorial pardons. Still, that's no guarantee. By striking capitol punishment from the table, we do not have to worry about the government accidentally killing innocents.

I'm not sure if our taxes would go down or up because of the abolition of the death penalty. On the one hand, we would have to feed, clothe and detain those people for the rest of their lives. On the other hand, we wouldn't have so many tooth-and-nail appeal battles. This is an odd circumstance for me. Even if our taxes are raised, I'm willing to take a financial hit to save the lives of people I want dead.

Best Films of the Decade

2010-01-22T13:30:00.010-06:00

I was looking over the hundreds of comments on Roger Ebert's blog about his picks for the best films of the decade. Most people offered their own opinions about the best films, many of which disagreed with Ebert's. I found that my top picks were mostly different, as well. I was most surprised by some of the people's...disappointment? anger? about his choice for the best film of the decade, Synecdoche, NY. I do not consider it a masterpiece, but it didn't cross my mind to attack Roger for it. This inspired a great explanation from him about the purpose of his "best films" lists. To paraphrase: they are not intended to be predictions of widespread appeal, they are movies that "got to him" personally. Those films evoked an emotional response that elevated him from the audience and into a state of quasi-euphoria. I will work from this template when constructing my list. The following movies "got to me." They reached in me and tugged on all the right cords at all the right times.

On another point, Ebert and I differ. Mr. Ebert insists that ranking movies--one better than another--is silly. Movies are vastly different from one another and it's impossible to appreciate one miraculous film over another. In a sense, I understand what he's saying, and even agree with it. I don't think enumerating the films helps readers decide what is better. On the other hand, I believe it forces me to choose which emotions, messages, ideas and philosophies displayed in films are the most important to me. If two films are equally well-made, competently constructed, enjoyable and meaningful, which one did I like better? This usually doesn't speak to the film's quality, because I couldn't tell you which film Casablanca or Godfather was better made. I decided somewhere along the line that I liked Casablanca better. The decision speaks of me, my values and my tastes. I assign the rankings for me and no one else. Well, perhaps to squabble with my friends over which films are better. I once read an article about Shakespeare that says something like: we know so little about Shakespeare that biographies about him tell more about the biographer than they do of him. Lists of movies are the same. They tell more of the author than of the movies. So if you're looking for great movies, ignore the numbers. If you want to know more about me, take the rankings into account.

20. Million Dollar Baby (2004)

19. Thirteen Days (2000)

18. Mystic River (2003)

17. Kate & Leopold (2001)

16. Syriana (2005)

15. Pirates of the Caribbean (2003)

14. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)

13. Blood Diamond (2006)

12. Finding Nemo (2003)

11. Musa (2001)

10. The Departed (2006) On occasion, remakes are better than their formidable foreign inspirations. Such is the case with the Departed. Based on a series of Hong Kong flicks, the story is transported to Boston and given a gritty down to earth realism that trumps the original's stylistic melodrama. The story involves two moles. One who infiltrates the Massachusetts state police and the other who infiltrates the Irish Boston mob. The Departed has rigid Shakespearian symmetry rarely seen off the stage. The story is constantly balancing itself out with each new development.

Going in, I was pretty confident it was going to be a good movie based on the talent it drew. The cast is full of star superpower: Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, Martin Sheen, Alec Baldwin, Mark Wahlberg, Vera Farmiga (likely Oscar nominee this year for Up in the Air) and Ray Winstone (you know...Beowulf. That guy). And it's directed by king of crime movies, Martin Scorsese. It's better than I thought it would be.

09. Spider-Man 2 (2004) Because Spider-Man 2 was bookended by two barely passable action movies, this gem may be lost to movie obscurity--a flash in the pan franchise that petered out. Peter Parker is probably the most beloved comic character in history. The nice-guy geek that just wants to do the right thing and sacrifices his wants (and sometimes his needs) for the good of others. It took inspired casting to get the correct Peter Parker. Here, inspired casting strikes the perfect chord again with Alfred Molina as Otto Octavius. I always thought Doc Ock was a lame villain. Not his movie counterpart. He's brilliant and powerful, likable and menacing in the same breath.

Peter is out of high school now, broke, lovelorn, and exhausted from his nights as Spider-Man, two jobs and college. The love of his life, Mary Jane, is dating someone new. She's now famous and her face is on billboards and posters in Peter's path wherever he goes. When he drops his books, they are stepped upon. His powers are lapsing due to stress. His. Life. Sucks. But, no matter what, he has the compulsive need to do the right thing.

The first film's fight scenes were unimpressive and lacked the freedom of movement they needed. Too often, it was easy to tell that the characters were on wires. Spider-Man 2 makes the most of CGI. This time, we get fights on the sides of buildings and trains and much more webslinging--something sorely lacking in the first film. It really captures the feel of a Spider-Man comic. The world is exaggerated. It's a world where Melodrama is status quo. Buildings are taller. Action is bigger. Misery is worse. Color is brighter. Responsibility is heavier. Sacrifice cuts deeper. It's the perfect realization of Marvel Comics morals on the silver screen.

08. The Dark Knight (2009) Intense. Director Christopher Nolan doesn't half-ass anything when it comes to the most popular comic book characters in the world. This is one of those pure adrenaline pumping action movies the advertisements make every other movie out to be. This one's the real thing. It achieves what comic books no longer seem to be able to do: it creates concern for the safety of the main characters. Anymore in comics, characters can be dismembered and burned to ashes, but writers will find some way to pull the character back to life. In this Gotham City, there are no guarantees.

I'm not a fan of the original Batman movies starting with Tim Burton's 1989 blockbuster. They were corny and played loose with characters. Jack Nicholson's Joker was a goofy, pathetic caricature of the one I knew from comics. By the time Jim Carrey joined the ranks of villains, the series lost all sense of suspense.

With the godsend relaunch of the Batman franchise, we are introduced to a Batman that has presence for the first time, a Bruce Wayne with the charm he needs, and villains with presence and threat. Heath Leger's Joker (instead of the stupid, floppy-hatted Jack Nicholson) is brutal, intriguing, sadistic and, most importantly, pitch-black funny. Aaron Eckhart joins the cast in this installment as the incorruptible District Attorney Harvey Dent. Gary Oldman as Commissioner Gordan has a bigger role to play. Michael Caine is back as Alfred, the sage advisor and moral center of both films. Rachel Dawes, Batman's one time squeeze, is no longer played by Katie Holmes--whose flat performance in Batman Begins revealed weaknesses in the script. She's replaced by the more reliable Maggie Gyllenhall. The cast is a who's who of awesome.

Dark Knight works as a crime thriller and a faithful comic book adaptation. It's not faithful in the sense that it follows a comic book script, but remains faithful to the characters. In Harvey Dent's and the Joker's case, seeing them played seriously adds new dimensions to their characters. I didn't think I wanted them changed, but all the changes were improvements. It was the decade that comic book fans have been waiting for and Dark Knight provided the perfect capstone.

07. Lost in Translation (2003) I can only get completely lost within a few movies, letting the experience take me where it wants. This is one. I've seen my share of action films from Tokyo. I've seen the occasional drama from Tokyo. Never have I loved Tokyo until I watched this movie, made by an American. As I understand it, making the viewer fall in love with Tokyo was director Sophia Coppola's secondary objective. She visited Tokyo and fell in love with it, so she wanted to share the experience. I am glad she did because Tokyo is beautiful and I'm not sure if I'll ever see it in person.

The story involves two characters trapped in their lonely minds, surrounded by people who don't understand them, verbally or philosophically. They find each other in an unfamiliar city and enjoy each other's company. It is an event for both of them. A lovely, wonderful, once in a lifetime experience and they both know it. Even though they only know each other for a few days in their long lives, it's easy to tell they form a lifelong bond and friendship.

Lost in Translation gave me the opportunity to hang out with two fantastic, funny, interesting people in a beautiful city. This is one of those rare movies that gave me the warm fuzzies.

06. Hotel Rwanda (2004) It's a movie so well made, with such a miraculous story, that it's pretty tough not to love. What makes it better than other true stories is that the film walks us through each step of the event so we understand what is happening and how. Other films are more exploitative, relying on the emotion that genocide evokes, showing brutal images, knowing we will react with compassion. The film brings light to: the impotence of UN soldiers, Rwandan background, American News presence, Red Cross involvement and how all those threads weave into Paul Rusesabagina's life and actions. Not often do I find "inspirational true stories" great , but this one had a story worth more respect than ten sports films combined.

05. No Country for Old Men (2007) The Coen brothers usually add comedy or phantasm to otherwise cold and unforgiving worlds. They don't bother this time. It's all unforgiving. The only funny moments are when characters deliver lines that sound surreal in our comfy environments.

The movie ratchets up intensity by placing characters in situations where they must race against time in a series of events no longer than a few seconds each. The characters have such short term goals, a scene's payoff may just be a character living from one end of a hallway to the other. Then, without warning, the movie stands still. No music, not much sound to speak of. Maybe the wind or the rustle of cloth. The characters wait and so do we. The camera subtly inches forward to reveal the importance of a moment. Of course, the waiting wouldn't be intense without the lurking presence of Javier Bardem's villain, Anton Chigurh.

Chigurh is not a man. He is a force of nature, unstoppable, undiscerning, always moving, circling in on his prey. The capable protagonists recognise him as an incredible force. The difference in how they approach him reveals the movie's purpose. It is an altogether different movie experience from anything in recent memory.

I loved how the movie didn't add any bright red to the blood and didn't add heart-pounding music or a contemporary soundtrack. I loved that characters figure things out without being told what's going on. It's not the most satisfying movie, but it is so expertly made, intriguing and unpredictable that I had one of the most enthralling experiences of my life at the movies.

04. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005) Some movies just aim to be fun. They have no other purpose than to entertain. On occasion, these types of movies achieve near-perfection, such as The Princess Bride and Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl. The crime genre has some worthy submissions: Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrells, Zero Effect, and Kill Bill: Vol 1. None have come close to the non-stop riotous fun in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. Most of the credit must go to the performers Robert Downy, Jr., Val Kilmer and Michelle Monaghan. They form believable characters I cared about in a zany crime-ridden cinematic world. Don't let me mislead you; the creators are in top form. Screenwriter Shane Black (Lethal Weapon, The Last Boyscout, The Long Kiss Goodnight), who usually keeps his tongue firmly in cheek, takes his first stab at directing. The film combines aspects from hard-boiled fifties detective movies, modern Charlie Kauffman-esque narration, out-and-out comedy, and pop-culture references. A few moments in the film were completely unexpected. It deviated from so many norms that I found myself not even trying to figure out the next twist. It's a rarity to catch me off-guard. It's even rarer to get me to stop guessing.

03. Memento (2000) Before The Prestige and the Batman movies, Christopher Nolan took a story I believed impossible to film and made it a masterpiece. It's about a man who lost his short term memory who is trying to solve his wife's murder. Someone who loses his short term memory can only remember what's going on for a few minutes at a time. Things that are happening around them are never committed to permanent memory. They just dissolve in the past. When first hearing about Memento, I couldn't figure out how the audience wouldn't become aggravated with a character who didn't know what was happening. I thought I would dislike him and get sick of repetitive behavior. I was surprised when the story unfolded in a way in which we didn't know any more than the hero, Leonard (Guy Pearce). Equally surprising, I quite liked Leonard. His way of dealing with his "condition" is at times painful and other times funny--Memento makes great use of comedic reprieves.

Memento introduced a new way of telling a story that was appropriate to the material. Most films follow a template so ingrained into our psyche that we can scarcely see a way to avoid it. We have great stories told within the confines of formulas and pre-conceived structure, but it is refreshing to view things in a different way.

02. Solaris (2002) The original Solyaris (1972) focused on ideas and philosophy within its epic running time. This Solaris carries the same themes and story, but could be considered the original's poetic equivalent. Solaris (2002) focuses on mood, emotion, and acting rather than dialogue and meditation. Director Steven Soderbergh doesn't pause long enough to let ideas sink in like Tarkovsky did in the orginal. Soderbergh relentlessly moves the story along, forcing us to let the movie wash over us instead of interpreting scenes' meanings. To fight the mood is to destroy the experience. Several viewings are recommended.

Psychologist Chris Kelvin (George Clooney in his best performance) is transported to a space station that orbits the mysterious planet Solaris to investigate the odd behavior of the crew. Once there, he finds his long dead wife has been resurrected (Natasha McElhone). Events leading up to Kelvin's space Odyssey are shown in masterful flashbacks with sparse dialogue. They convey emotion better than any exchange of words. We see Kelvin's deceased wife in most of them. It's interesting to compare Kelvin's real wife in the flashbacks with the doppelganger on the space station. There are several differences. Kelvin accepts some differences and rejects others, ultimately choosing to view the resurrection of his wife as a gift.

Even though it doesn't delve deeply into philosophy, the movie is inundated with questions about existence, creation, God and life. Repeat viewings prompted me to question things I accepted as truth. Solaris is more (or less) than a series of poorly explored ideas. It's a story about two characters, in love, who are given a supernatural second chance. This is my favorite love story of the decade, full of heartache, failure and redemption.

01. Closer (2004) Consider this the ultimate anti-romantic comedy. None of the whimsical feel-good BS that accompanies comedic love triangles will be found here. You will see the visceral human instinct that makes us petty, vengeful, deceitful, desperate and manipulative. While showing us all those things, the film manages not to undermine Love. Some of the characters truly feel for each other. The film does not dwell on the shiny, happy side of love. It shows us what love, most often represented as a pure and virtuous emotion, can turn us into.

The film centers on four 30-40 something individuals and the romances of their lives that briefly entangle. All four main characters are basically normal. They're liars or cheaters absorbed so deeply by their own importance they don't notice the feelings and needs of others. The film displays but doesn't doesn't explore the psychological effects sex and cheating have on people. Instead, it shows how sex and cheating, mixed with the right words and timing, can be wielded as powerful weapons.

Two out of the four lead performances were nominated for Oscars--Clive Owen and Natalie Portman, both deserved. And even though Jude Law wasn't nominated, he should have been. The audience identifies with Clive Owen's and Natalie Portman's characters as the "wronged" individuals (though, no one in this film is pure), but we all probably have more in common with Jude Law's character than we'd like to admit. He's a wimp. He's wishy-washy. He's a cheat. He's a jerk with calculated manners. He does not notice his flaws. In every situation, he believes himself wronged. It's a realistic portrayal of common self-deception.

This film, more than any other from the 2000s, resonated with me. I know these people. I was these people. This movie is more intense than any crime thriller or horror movie. The things in this movie can and have happen to me. And it's scary.

Honorable Mentions: All of these films barely missed being in the top 20. That may sound strange, but it's true. The above movies were very difficult to sift out of these. Everyone owes it to themselves to watch these too. Avatar, Up in the Air, The Hurt Locker, Wall-E, Frost/Nixon, Eastern Promises, There Will Be Blood, Juno, The Queen, The Fountain, Flags of Our Fathers, Letter from Iwo Jima, Pan's Labyrinth, Children of Men, Casino Royale, Tsotsi, Good Night and Good Luck, The Bourne Supremacy, Shaun of the Dead, The Incredibles, Spartan, Millions, Master & Commander, Secondhand Lions, City of God, Ripley's Game, Hero, The Pianist, Minority Report, About a Boy, 25th Hour, Shrek, A.I. Artificial Intelligence, LOTR: Fellowship of the Ring, The Way of the Gun, Requiem for a Dream, Amores Perros, Almost Famous, Traffic.

Gender Neutrality in English

2010-01-21T11:42:00.004-06:00

If you're not an English nerd, you may not have noticed that English does not have a gender neutral third person singular. In other words, we have "he" and "she," but no hermaphroditic third option. This makes it difficult to explain hypothetical situations. For instance: When the owner of this car gets here, I'm going to give him or her a piece of my mind. See what I mean?

Since the beginning of the English Language, the rule was thus: If you don't know, use the masculine (he). Feminists weren't fans of automatically deferring to the masculine for reasons I will let you figure out. Some people (mostly men) wondered why the womenists got their plain comfortable white panties in a twist over this and decided it was easier to say he. This usage was eventually labeled sexist by women and marketers.

The politically correct pundits fired back with their gender-neutral usage: they or them. When the owner of this car gets here, I'm going to give them a piece of my mind. Well there's only one owner so some of you might be yelling at the top of your English nerd lungs, "Hey! That's plural, not singular!" Right you are, grammar Nazi. They is an incorrect substitution for he or she. Somewhere along the line, grammar watchdogs tried to rid the world of the incorrect use of they by using the clunky and awkward he/she, (s)he, or the more common word-count-inflating he or she. This seemed to solve the logistic problems but destroyed any sense of flow or poetry.

This would not do. Some sensitive soul wearing a beret and sporting a goatee couldn't have his words polluted by slashes and parentheses. And that extra 'or' really screws up his rhythm. He decided to use one. As in, One walked to the store. This chin-haired hipcat almost solved the problem, but didn't notice how confusing it could become. For example: If one were to walk over to the store and speak to the gender-neutral clerk, one would find that one dollar was not enough for more than one soda. There are much worse sentences out there, but you get the idea.

Enter me. Because I am a ridiculous English Nerd, Grammar Nazi, a Feminist, and an occasional creative writer complete with goatee, I believe that I, in my comprehensive awesomeness, should designate the ultimate third person singular. We should use 'e. Example: The anonymous complainer wrote that 'e will soon file charges. It may look like I'm writing he with a Cockney dialect, but I can overlook it if you can. By using an apostrophe-e, we follow all proper rules of English while remaining gender neutral. The apostrophe replaces the "sh" or the "h" from she and he, or both. It doesn't have the jarring effect that slashes or parentheses within a word have on a reader. It's not grammatically incorrect or stupid like using "they." (For the record, if you use 'they' for third person singular, follow this link).

Some of you may be asking yourselves, what about the third person singular possessive? Well, actually, you're probably not (for non-English nerds, I'm talking about him and her). Why don't we just do what we always do with possessives? Put an apostrophe-s at the end. 'e's. Granted, it's not as pretty, but it's better than what we have, which is nothing.

Another problem, another problem solved. Go me.

Certainty

2010-01-02T15:19:00.002-06:00

I've long been impassioned about politics, law, and belief. It's normal, I suppose. I have read countless blogs and seen countless videos from people talking about what they believe is right, just, correct, virtuous, and of course, what is wrong with the world. Some people are confident enough to offer up their versions of solutions. Most of these people speak or write with certainty--a notion I have always found somewhat disconcerting. I believe people model themselves after leaders, and leaders can't let their subordinates see uncertainty. Leaders, and bloggers, and "news commentators" such as Bill O'Reilly must speak with such force to allay any doubt that what they are saying isn't pure, incorruptible righteous truth, even though their ideas could be untried and counter-intuitive. Most of the time, political ideas are based on logic and idealism, neither of which infallibly produce solutions to problems.

One of my favorite issues being tugged about by multi-sided logical arguments is gun control. Proponents of gun control state with all certainty that less guns means less shootings. It is a logical argument, but one with no evidence to support the claim. Opponents of gun control say that taking away guns will make it so that law abiding citizens can no longer defend themselves against the criminals who will still acquire guns. In reality, no one knows what would happen if the government took away the right to own weaponry. I suspect it would result in vast American terrorism against the government, but I don't say that with any certainty.

I prefer suggestions and ideas over certainty and ideals. I have an ideal world in my mind, as I'm sure many others do, but I will never live in it because my ideal world differs from everyone else's, just as everyone else's differs from one another. People should probably not demand their version of justice, because it may not work or it may disagree with everyone else's version.

I suggest that everyone question their certainty a bit and be tolerant and patient with others' ideas. If they have no supporting evidence, we don't have to accept them.

AP Defends Photograph

2009-12-08T12:21:00.001-06:00

Nearly everyone is familiar with Obama's Hope poster. It was on TV when he spoke, hanging out in the background or on signs in the crowd. Now, it is disappearing from the public eye because of an ongoing lawsuit between Shepard Fairey, the poster's artist, and the Associated Press (AP), whose photographer snapped the picture on which the painting was based (yes, it could also have something to do with the President's dwindling approval rating). As the case itself began to fade into obscurity, it got a fresh stoking from Fairey's idiocy. He admitted to lying about which photograph he used as a reference for the painting. He did so because he believed his case would be won more easily if it appeared that he used a wide shot photo refererence, with other people in it, that he cropped down to leave only Obama's face. His chances of winning the case would have been even better if he'd just told the truth.

Im an artist. I appreciate the defense of intellectual property. I also revere the Associated Press. They provide the bulk of information from the journalistic frontlines. To me, they're heroes. But here, in this instance, they are being silly.

Fairey is defending his painting by claiming he altered the painting enough from the source material that he doesn't have to honor the original intellectual property rights. The fair use act makes it possible to borrow certain aspects from other art without the artist being legally penalized. Thank goodness for it too, otherwise we'd never have another action movie or pop song.

The lawsuit comes from the Associated Press's belief that Fairey did not alter his painting from the original photo ENOUGH to qualify under the fair use act.

This left me wondering what they are actually defending. Fairey obviously changed the color. He also tweaked proportions here and there. He completely removed the background of the painting and replaced it with balancing colors. So the AP must be defending the composition of the photograph--they believe that the photographer took a unique photo, worthy of royalties, based on the way the photograph was framed.

I truly understand the frustration when someone rips off your work. I can imagine the frustration the photographer felt knowing that he took the photo that was the basis for the most recognized painting in the world. However, if the only thing he can possibly defend as his own intellectual property is the composition, then he needs to examine his own ethics. The only thing that distinguishes his photo from every other politician's portrait is that it has Obama's face on it. And for permission to use that in artwork, one should ask him. He granted permission.

Does this Picture of JFK look a bit familiar?

This is one of the most taken pictures in politics. Who gives the Associated Press the right to call dibs on that composition when it's been done thousands of times before? For those of you who don't know, it is the Superman portrait--the upward angle; showing off the jaw, eyes angled slightly over the viewer's head. It is the same angle from which the Greeks viewed the statues of their Gods. Of course that angle is going to be popular and the Associated Press has no right to claim it as their own.

Video Games and Storytelling

2009-12-03T12:08:00.001-06:00

This entry won't attempt to provide answers to anything in the video game world. It's really just a list of observations presented to evoke further ideas and observations.

I wrote my undergrad capstone paper on the narration of several storytelling media. Because film and prose have longstanding and ingrained systems for storytelling, video games are currently the most exciting medium to study. You will notice a lack of any discussion about turn-based games. Turn-based combat was created because of board games, with no better way to show combat. It translated to early video games well-enough, but there's hardly and excuse for it now besides nostalgia. Some of the more recent RPG developers have noticed this are revamping the turn based system. I'm excited about this because RPGs have, until recently, held the lead in the storytelling department for twenty solid years. Shooters used to have a concept that let you blow things up. Alien invasion: kill aliens. Hell breaks out on earth: kill demons. WWII: kill Nazis (this one hasn't gotten old). As time went on, we were gifted with Deus Ex: The Conspiracy, Halo 2, Max Payne and others. All of the sudden, shooters began developing linear storylines, albeit in a mission-style format.

The actual mode of storytelling is still evolving. The narration is controlled by the player. In 2009 we saw the release of the most anticipated game in history, Modern Warfare 2. It set the new standard for video game storytelling even though it wasn't a particularly original story. We also got the superbly penned Batman: Arkham Asylum, written by longtime Batman scribe Paul Dini (the guy who created Harley Quinn). From a storytelling standpoint, the highly anticipated Left 4 Dead 2 brought surprisingly little to the table. The first Left 4 Dead, though lacking a cohesive narrative, revolutionized video game storytelling with its 'director'. Valve created an Artificial Intelligence Director to adapt to the players' "stress levels." If your team is steamrolling through the zombies, which makes for pretty boring conflict, the 'director' will start throwing obstacles your way. It makes for a much more entertaining narrative. Bungie took Halo 3: ODST in a more innovative storytelling direction than its by-the-numbers-predecessor by creating trigger points that spawn playable flashbacks told from different points of view. The story takes place in the somewhat open New Mombasa, where the player can take different routes to the trigger points, and finally, the finale.

Infinity Ward, creators of Modern Warfare 2, take themselves too seriously to allow control of their story to be handed over to a player. You are in their reins from start to finish, being tightly guided from plot point to plot point. If you go the wrong direction, you will have to turn around. If you shoot the wrong guy, you will have to start over. Enemies are essentially in the same places, but have individual combat AI that lets them grab cover and maneuver according to their survival needs. However, there's not too much different in what enemies do between play-throughs. Don't get me wrong, that doesn't make it a bad game. You couldn't be in more adept hands.

The game borrows heavily from cinema for its effects, but employs a plot that could be taken right from TV's "24." I guess, technically, it is the plot from Red Dawn with introductory story development. It's preposterous, sometimes fun, sometimes disturbing, and all masterfully told.

MW2 borrows from a peck of action movies. Chances are, you will immediately recognize action scenes from the afore mentioned Red Dawn as well as The Rock, Black Hawk Down, The Matrix (with an assist from Point Break), and a plethora of James Bond films. You will also spot the more common plot developments coming a mile away: betrayals, prominent character deaths, character returns, and so forth. Some moments were truly surprising, but if you watch enough 24, you'll easily identify the formula and those "shocking" moments come few and far between. It doesn't matter too much in the end. The action scenes are expertly utilized.

A standout difference between most shooters and Modern Warfare 2 is that it lets you play through plot developments. The narration isn't ripped from the player's control. It doesn't jump to cut scenes with extensive exposition. You are allowed to walk around , interact with the environment while NPCs give assignments and exposition. The only time control is taken from the player is during voice-over briefings given on load screens.

The tactic isn't exactly new, it was used in some of the Medal of Honor games, but it is rarely used as extensively as in MW2. In the opening moments of the game, the playable character, Roach, nearly falls to his death while climbing a mountain. This scene takes place entirely in first person even though Roach is rescued and cannot do much to save himself. All the player can really do is turn roach's head. In other words, events happen to the player; the player cannot avoid them.