Oh, Gay Irony

There has been some small conflict between a group calling themselves "Protect Marriage" and a group dubbed the "Courage Campaign". They hate each other. "Protect Marriage" is focused on keeping the word "marriage" defined as a sexual-legal relationship between a man and a woman exclusively. Whereas the "Courage Campaign" finds this to be derogatory against homosexuals. So they bicker and squabble over this issue every time they get the chance.

One of those chance, that became a rather humourous debacle, is as follows:

In order to combat Protect Marriage and their "Yes on 8" campaign, the Courage Campaign created a logo for "Tracking the Progress" of Proposition 8 in California. The Courage Campaign's logo is a very obvious parody of Protect Marriage's. So obvious, in fact, that Protect Marriage thought they might have a case against them for plagiarism. It does seem, speaking very objectively, like the Courage Campaign did nothing more than simply deface Protect Marriage's logo. Physically, there is very little difference.

So Protect marriage took the Courage Campaign to court, demanding that they change the logo. They claiming that the logo is too similar to their own logo to not be an infringement of copyright. The Courage Campaign declared that it was parody and thus protected as free speech.

Protect Marriage may have had a case, really, looking at it objectively. But the reality is, this is dealing with a rather subjective, relative, and emotional issue. True, the logos are very (very, very) similar, but if you are a group that is insisting that gay marriage is an abomination and should not be supported but the law; that it is very, very different than marriage between a man and a woman; then there is a very substantial difference between the two logos: one is a man and a woman, one is two women.

On the other hand, if you are a group that insists that marriage between two women is just as legitimate as marriage between a man and a woman; and there isn't a substantial difference; then you should admit that the logo isn't substantially different and really borders on plagiarism. Perhaps crosses over into plagiarism.

Ironic.

If you are like me, you say that yes, it is really quite the plagiarism. There is very little difference between the two. But it is also a parody, and a funny parody, and thus trumps plagiarism. Because I like comedy.
As is this entire scenario.

Barring the central issue: the ban on gay marriage. That's just prejudicial and bigoted. If you don't like gay marriage, then don't get one and shut up.

Greenfingers (movie)

"Greenfingers" is a pretty fun little movie. It's probably the least depressing movie about a prison you are likely to see.

It's all up beat and stuff, for the most part. It's about a more "restorative justice"-like prison system than your usual barred window variety. Though all the characters have committed atrocious crimes (or have been accused of committing atrocious crimes), they are being given a chance to rehabilitate, not just be incarcerated. What a nice, novel idea.

There are some really interesting characters and some fun interactions between these people who thought their entire lives were over after being introduced to prison. Some characters are not quite so explored as I would like and some plot strands are simply left hanging. This is another movie I feel is hampered by the usual requirement that a movie be about 1.5 hours long. It could be longer. However, the film is based on a true story, so I have to wonder: perhaps there isn't much known about those hanging plots.

Then again, it is just a movie based on facts. There is undoubtedly a lot of fiction in there as well. Unknown plots can be filled in if the authors so choose.

Anyway, it's interesting and "fun" and has a little empathy; I enjoyed it.

The Pebble and the Penguin (movie)

"The Pebble and the Penguin" is... um, about what I expected, looking at the picture for it--which is to say I didn't like it. It is not what I expected going into a Don Bluth film. It doesn't look like it (quite), it's not so dark, and Dom DeLuise isn't in it. Which is a pity for ol' Dom because the character he plays in most of Bluth's films was finally the main show, not a supporting role. It makes "The Secret of NIMH" look like an extravagant and flawless production. I was disappointed. The Odyssian plot is less back-and-forth with pointless quests, but I wouldn't actually say that it is better.

This movie reminded me of what little I saw of "Happy Feet". Not only are there penguins, but it's a 'Beauty-and-the-Beast story' with penguins. In both cases, the protagonist is some sort of doofus who doesn't have what he needs to go courting, and then gets knocked adrift in the antarctic.

I don't really know much more about "Happy Feet".

I suppose I shouldn't be so shallow as to say the character designs were laughable, but that is the first thing about this movie which turned me off. I was excited by how much the makers liked music, they opened with characters dancing on sheets of staff music!, but the actual songs were really rather bad. Only good when remembering that Tim Curry sang as the Transsexual Transvestite from Transylvania. It lends to his character, Drake, in this movie.

I'd found the movie to be "lackluster" and can't recommend anyone to see it. Try something else of Bluth's because he is usually far better than this.

Communist Capitalism

A popular theory of economics is that, in any transaction, both parties gain. Everyone benefits! Some people take this to mean that everyone is forever becoming better off, and everyone always will be; and this is why economies need to forever grow. Unfortunately, this equation is missing a few little variables. Like time. Nothing may last forever, but everything else doesn't so everyone is constantly replacing their decayed things and repairing their broken things. Time is a very hungry beast.

This is also assuming that every purchase is actually made freely and voluntarily. Which isn't necessarily true. Sometimes, a person can be forced to buy something, against their will, at gun-point or litigation-point. If every choice was voluntary, then people wouldn't grumble for months after being ripped off by the used car salesman. They might not have needed the car, and they did make the transaction without being forced to, but the illusion of being forced is really the same thing when considering a third assumption:

Everyone knows all about whatever market they are dealing in and know what something is really worth. If "negative reciprocity" wasn't a real thing, then we wouldn't have some people worth a billion times more than others. A billion is a very, very big number. People are getting exploited all the time, to insist that they aren't because every transaction is voluntary is as idealistic and naive as saying we could stop mining tomorrow because we have all the resources we need. Both are possible in theory, I would like them both to be true, but since I'm not God, they aren't. Life continues to be hard.

The free-market can't regulate itself. That's the same thing as government regulating itself if it was free. Then you get a million little kingdoms constantly battling each other until one conquered all the others and there was one nation. After that, how do you escape what that nation tells you to do? They have the supreme power of a dictatorship.

In America, the founding fathers came up with a great idea: "checks and balances". No one part of the government can become too powerful and all of it is, supposed, to remain in the control of the people who elect representatives. It was a great idea.

But now the "nation-state" is not the most powerful group. The most powerful group is in the "private" sector. Businesses are battling each other until one reins supreme and can then control all the peons under them. Many can already do it: they can demand that you buy from them even if you do not want to because there is no competition or alternative. If you want to live in our society, you simply have to give them your money. See Microsoft, the Oil and Gas industry, the Housing Market, cellular phones. Insurance, which may, shortly, be legislated mandatory.

I believed, for a long time, that I could simply boycott them all. But it's not really possible in America. You can't function as a normal person; it's hard to get a job, you can't even vote if you try to be address-less. I still succeed in not supporting many of these, but I can realize how improbable it is to expect anyone else to even try. Especially since most people don't have the means I had to try. To think that anyone could just escape the system shows that this thinker never had it that hard themselves. Some people do, even in America.

Where would you go, anyway. Even the bushmen have been globalized. It's not a question of "is it worth it to buy this thing?" it is a question of "what will happen if I don't give this company $3000?"

Our founding fathers have a good solution again. There should be imposed checks and balances, under control of the proletariat (to use a good "communist" term) to limit the free market. Freedom is fine, but anarchy is not. Our "free market" is really more of the latter and just approaching "communism" from the other direction.

Sherlock Holms (movie, barely read)

Eh, I thought it was "Okay". Nothing great, but better than most modern dramatically action-oriented adaptions.

Sherlock Holmes was, at least, an interesting character full of flaws and not the Perfect Creature that he has been made out to be. He is intelligent, but such a drug addict that unless he has a good crime to put his mind to, he goes pretty batty.

That is the primary source of humor in the movie.

The fight predictions were an interesting touch, too.

Watson was also a better character than he often is and a more major part of the story. Really, it is more about their partnership and the duo than just ol' Holmes.

Other than that, it was fireballs and major city destruction to industrial-age England. Meh. I'm kinda bored of fire on a screen. I'd rather go camping.

If you are a avid (rabid) fan of Sherlock Holmes, it might be important to you to know that the chronology is highly manipulated. That's the only detail that I know is screwy. I haven't read much of Sherlock Holmes and my information comes from friends.

Otherwise, it's good. Better (read: smarter) than most action movies. But not something I would normally spend money on.

Paradise Chicken Strips (food)

The Following is a review, not by me, but by Ellie:

The chicken strips I ate at Paradise today tasted a little funny: there was too much batter and breading so now my mouth feels funny. Somehow, those chicken strips beat the shit out of my mouth. I will not order then again.

Their cheeseburgers are good, though.

The end.

The Hobbit (movie, post read)

This movie reminded me, in some ways, of "Watership Down" because it was an "Inexpert Abridgement". It is a movie that is meant as a companion to the book and is pretty incomplete without a reading. First. I urge you to read it first. You might not want the images that this movie provides for some of the characters.

I'm really familiar with this movie from childhood so I'm fine with the images it provides me. I'm happy with the movie even though "The Hobbit" is one of my favorite stories. That's the good thing about such abridgements, they can't really be awful, because no one took the time to write it for the change in format.

But that also means it can't really be good. It's not. And would be worthless without background familiarity with the story.

I still like the music, though. Especially the goblin's songs.

The Secret of NIMH (movie, pre-read)

Ah, a Don Bluth film. You can really tell a Bluth film from any other animation. He has a very signature look, more identifiable than Disney. Something about how his females look, their expressions and movements; the villains, too; and every single one seems to have Dom DeLuise in it. Also, Bluth isn't afraid to be dark and serous, unlike Disney. There can be blood, and there is in this one.

The Secret of NIMH is very epic and emotional. It seems so grand and great, like a Greek myth. There's mysticism and magic, especially in the beginning to set the stage for this Odyssey of a mother mouse who has to save her child. It stands out in my memory as a great movie, but I couldn't really remember why. Now that I've seen it again, I'm not as impressed. There's a lot of journeying about and adventure, but not for much purpose... Mrs. Brisby, the mother, actually seems to do more harm than good to her family as she attempts to avoid some unpleasantness or other. I suppose in the end she does do more than her Legendary late husband, though. In the end, it's not really as grand as it sound with "The" starting the title and "Secret" being prominent. It is not my favorite Bluth film, and in fact, isn't as good as any others of his that I can recall seeing.

This movie tries to strike a very weird balance between science fiction and mystic fantasy. Where the magical powers of Nicodemus came from is never really explained. The scientific explanation for the rats is interesting, though absolutely impossible and there is no mechanism explained so it seems mostly mystic as well.

It's still "Decent Entertainment and I'd still like to read the book. Perhaps it's good; maybe it's better.

Good Omens by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett

The one thing you really can't deny about "Good Omens" is that it is really, really "Funny". Unless, of course, you are a very devout fundamentalist Christian. Then you could, possibly, get offended. It does make light of the religion, after all, and makes fun of it. Really great fun, but fun nonetheless. I will still recommend the story... unless you are looking for a Christianity-basing extravaganza. Then you might want to look for something else, because that is not what this book is. I, not being christian, found it to actually lend legitimate interpretations to the faith and don't feel that it is very offensive, if at all.

I do find it to be interesting, entertaining, and wise. And bloody funny. I read the first section to just about everyone I know. One can really tell that the writers loved the writing of the book, which makes it a joy to read. It could be that I overestimate their wisdom just because they make me laugh and I, apparently, find laughter logical. Now I haven't read more than one of Gaiman's books (though I have seen some of his movies), but if you are a fan of Terry Pratchett, you'll probably like this book.

Similar to Gaiman's "American Gods", "Good Omens" seems to have a somewhat lengthy ending. It wasn't so long that I was too tired of this book, however, and I miss the story and would like more. Alas, no more is forthcoming as Pratchett is starting to suffer from the awful Alzheimer's (NOOO!). I suppose I'll have to pick up another Discworld book, eventually.

The plot is very well tied up. There aren't any real loose threads to speak of. But it bounces around a lot and can be pretty hard to follow by the end. It's complicated and there's a massive collection of characters, none of which you could really call "The Main Character". So I was thankful for the character list (actually, I didn't read it until I had finished because I didn't want it to spoil anything! But it was a thoughtful inclusion).

I don' know. Can't complain, can praise. Read it if you want something enjoyable.

Abundance is Natural?

Hello. My name is Ed and I am a "hippy". Or something of one. I am about to alienate some of my fellow idealists. I apologize in advance. I'm sorry.

Many idealists, by their very nature, aren't very practical. This should not be an excuse for some of the gibber I have heard come out of my corner and I'm not set out to defend some of the remarks my friends have made (you know what they are). Some of them are so bad they make me want to hide and say I don't know these people! I'm not with them! except no one would ever buy it.

Here's my example of the day. Believe it or not, this is an actual argument someone made:

The universe is full of abundance: trillions (or more) galaxies full of trillions (or more!) stars. There's over six billion people on the planet. Obviously, with so much abundance, there is no shortage of anything, it's the nature of life and existence to have abundance. So why is there poverty.

Well, it's probably because those starving, ungrateful African's wont eat stars. Don't look at me, I think they're delicious, if a little hot.

There is a limit to how much one can ignore the world at large and still affect it. A common thing to ignore is the over-population plague that has infected the entire epidermis of this poor planet. Probably because its so big it's gotten hard to see, like trying to see the forest through the leaf jammed in your eye. It's too painful to look at and there is no good solution for this huge problem. The easiest way to stay sane is to ignore it by claiming it doesn't exist.

Without offending too much, let me say I see some of the truth in the philosophy that "abundance is natural"; sometimes it is. Maybe. However, telling the average human that a resource is abundant is akin to saying: "Look! It's a pit of infinite gold! Go nuts and start printing money 'cuz you'll never run out!" The end is too far off for most people to care very much. Insisting that a resource is scarce, on the other hand, promotes responsible planing and thought.

"Abundance is Natural" philosophy also gently assures people that their level of consumption isn't the problem. Instead, poverty is because of money or greed or a poor wealth redistribution system. It would be more acurate to say that there is poverty because of the "Abundance is Natural" philosophy. Only nothing is infinite.

Starvation is sad and stuff. No one likes it. But it has been happening since the Paleozoic. A species will uncontrollably grow past its resource availability, then it will die off. The sad thing about people is that we should be able to do better. We should be able to say, "you know what... we're, um, a little low on food. Perhaps we should stop reproducing, huh?" and then hold off a little while.

We do insist that we are real smart so often, after all.

The Marine (movie)

This movie is God Awful. Hulk Cry. Instead of watching it, make a fire-pit and roast a hot dog: it's almost all pyrotechnics and explosions and stupid hack-work fight scenes (with John Cena jumping through the air like Superman).

But hey, if that's what you're into.

"The Marine" is "A Meathead", which, really would have been a better title for this movie. He looks a little like Arnold Schwarzenegger when he wasn't 50 and he doesn't talk because he knows he's as bad an actor as Arnold before he could speak English.

The good part of this movie is how easy it is to make fun of. Just sit back and make noises as "Meathead" runs through the swamp after the most stereotyped villains ever thought of. There are little plot twists which, apparently, the writers thought were clever, but really aren't. At all. None of the actors actually seem to be speaking to each other, but rather to the camera, and every single one of their lines are more cliche then the actual word "cliche".

Road to Bali (movie)

Road to Bali is one of the most "Sketchy" movies I have ever seen. Up there with anything Monty Python has done. And just as funny.

There's not a lot to say about it, though. It is obvious that they had a lot of fun making it. It's full of jokes, most of them small, and has a very good singer (Bing Crosby) who likes to show off his talent. Bob Hope can sing pretty good too. It is irreverent humor at its best, mostly plotless, but that doesn't hardly matter.

Ok, it doesn't matter at all. That's not the point. The plot arcs are barely connected threads of thought. If that bothers you, then you will miss out.

Watch the movie if you like to laugh.

Wall-E (Disney-Pixar movie)

I find Wall-E to be a very "Disappointing" film. Not because it's bad. It's not. It is a good movie. A very good movie, really. But it is still disappointing because if it continued as it did in the beginning all the way through the movie, it would be Great! Spectacular! And Instant Classic and one of my very favorite movies, I think.

I like dialog. I really do. But the beginning of Wall-E, even though it has no dialog, is amazing to me. Perhaps because it manages to be at once artistic and entertaining and thoughtful without it. What more could you want?

Dialog. Okay, fine. It comes later. It's slowly introduced. As slowly as the movie declines. I didn't really notice when the movie lost its luster, but by the end, it definitely wasn't what it could have been. And, of course, has to have the perfect ending. Everything is hunky-dory. Uh huh. Right.

That's the biggest problem. It is not a nice situation. It cannot have a perfect ending. Happy, perhaps, but only in a way.

Perhaps there shouldn't have ever been people in the movie. It could have been all about robots. But I do kinda like the fat worthless people. It's a pretty realistic, don't you think, of what people would be like without gravity or excessive and instead coddling technology. Maybe not. They'd probably be dead. In any case, it is just absurd that they have any part in 'saving the day'.

Besides that, he is an abridged list of plot holes (Spoiler Alert!) that could have been avoided:
Where do they get all that trash from anyway? How would they not repeat their failures and blast back off into space after a few years if they are still generating that level of trash? How do you suppose the world is sustainable after one tiny plant sprouted after 700 years? And where did it come from? How's the cockroach survive?

See, none of this would have been a problem if the movie progressed differently. If the ship was run differently. If the Eve probes weren't revealed as having traveled to earth often.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (movie, rewatched)

I've always like the Turtles. And I've always liked this movie. But it is not meant to be viewed critically. (Caution: might be spoilers for the people who haven't seen this movie:) Like, how can the cops not find these kids at all? There are thousands of them. If it's that easy to join, it'd be pretty easy to find. Right?

But that's OK. It's not a serious movie. If is fun for me, still, even if there isn't much substance to the movie. Jim Henson puppets are always awesome. My rating for this movie: "huh! hy-yah huff huh wahh yooo ya ka!"

A Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled Hosseini

A Thousand Splendid Suns is, um, unique. I haven't read The Kite Runner, his debut book, and don't intend to for a little while (I'd like a rest from the depressing subject; I know about it, I don't need to lose hope, ya know...) It's design is quite effective, but there are times when it almost seems as though Khaled Hosseini is just trying to describe the most horrible things you could possibly imagine.

But I guess that's the way it is.

Though the book is fiction, it is intended to give us in the United States an idea of what it is like in Afghanistan. The author can establish his credibility because he has worked with for UN in Refugee camps around the world. So I believe it. It feels realistic, though I have never experienced life in that part of the world myself.

However, I am skeptical about how distraught so many characters would get after one death. Maybe I'm wrong to be so callous about human emotions, but when the death rate is as high as it is in Afghanistan, I wouldn't think it would quite derail your own life. You have to keep living, and helping the other survivors continue. Not dwell on deaths in the past. I would think it necessarily. But I sure hope I never have to find out. I'd much rather read this emotional train-wreck of a book.

But, before I mislead: the book is very good. "Somber and Mournful", but good. There are times when the book kept me up at night; times I put it down not because I was falling asleep, but because I didn't want it to be the last thing in my mind before slumber. I recommended it, actually urge people to read it, but I don't like it. I find it a bit weird that there is anyone who says they "like" the book. That's a little sadistic.

The book does not set out to offend, nor to depress, nor to coddle. It very patiently, dryly, very straight-forwardly describes the world, the characters, and the plot. It is forgiving writing of an unforgiving world; not embellishing atrocities for dramatic purposes, but rather softening the gaze so the reader doesn't have to see it quite so harshly as they know it is. But the writing style is a little off for me. If I read it out loud, I would not end up saying, verbatim, what is written but would, instead, move periods around and add connecting words. Also, there are changes in character that I didn't expect; especially with Mariam in the beginning.

Read the book. You might regret it, but you will be glad you did.

American Gods by Neil Gaiman

American Gods made me want to be able to read faster because I was impatient to find out what happens! I couldn't wait. I suppose that is a good sign that the book is pretty good. It's also a good sign if you anticipate the book to be one of those that you are really sorry to finish because you'll be sad to leave the characters and the world behind to start reading some inferior story.

Both these were true reading American Gods However, I anticipated incorrectly: American Gods ends a little like The Lord of the Rings about 15 times before there are no more words. Even though I didn't read the author's preferred text version (with 12000 more words) I was pretty ready for the end by the time it really came. Wither this was good or not, I can't decide: it was drawn out and annoying, but at least I was spared the separation anxiety from finishing a great book.

A brilliant book in so many ways. I haven't referenced a novel so much in conversation, or outright read quotes to people because it was applicable to the conversation, since I read Thomas Hardy's Jude the Obscure. The difference between this book and that 'classic' being I actually enjoyed reading Gaiman's work. Though philosophical in nature, I never found it preachy. It has an intricate and well-woven plot skillfully told and unafraid or anything it may encounter. But didn't seem to seek offense. It is a pretty long book, but doesn't take long to read.

It seems apparent that Gaiman knows a lot about gods from a lot of different pantheons, whether he actually does or not. There were a lot of them in this text. But it also appears that he has twisted who they were (are) a little to fit his story and to fit our land, rather than their world of origin. He also put in a lot of his own gods, which I find amusing.

The work is highly "Charismatic"; as much as Mr. Wednesday. For a more full knowledge of what I mean by that, look up the etymology (Hey, it's a little clever. Maybe...) Though it is not a 'character driven' book, I found the characters believable; they didn't change dramatically or unbelievably to fit the plot. I highly recommend it and will be reading more Gaiman in the future.