Micro changes in air density, my ass.

Ridley Scott has one of the most impressive Science Fiction pedigrees of any living director.  Blade Runner and Alien are absolute gems and seminal works of the genre.  When I learned that he was returning to the Alien universe with a prequel, I was extremely conflicted.  While I have incredible faith in his ability to provide me with exciting and inspiring visuals, I've been burned so hard by other directors I once had faith in returning to their science fiction franchises I couldn't shake a lingering feeling of dread.

But with every teaser and trailer I saw I grew more hopeful.  It looked beautiful.  It looked scary.  It looked interesting.  Prometheus was easily one of my most anticipated films of 2012, and there was no way to temper my expectations.  And then I watched it, and I once again felt the sting of disappointment and the fall of an icon.

Explanation and analysis of Prometheus to follow.  *Massive* spoilers ahead (seriously I will ruin this movie for you if you haven't seen it.)

First things first, don't think I'm legitimately comparing this film to the Star Wars prequels, or the 4th Indiana Jones movie (that doesn't exist...) Prometheus is not the same epic failure on all levels that those movies were, but the fact that it had moments of true greatness make many of its epic shortcomings all the more difficult to accept.

The film starts out BEAUTIFULLY.  We get some sweeping vistas, and are treated to a scene with a totally ripped albino alien looking man doing something that will not make sense until later in the movie, but sets up an interesting stage.  Then we get my absolute favorite moments of the entire movie.  A slow, steady, cerebral, and classic Science Fiction scene where a man (who we can pretty easily guess is an android) is shuffling about a ship full of people in some kind of suspended animation.  He plays basketball, rides a bike, watches Lawrence of Arabia, and imitates Peter O'Toole.  It's a wonderful set of scenes that got me really into the feeling of the universe.  And then the crew wakes up, and the film quickly begins to stumble and eventually falls on its face.

We are introduced to our intrepid crew in a mission description carried out by main scientist woman A and main scientist man B.  I use letters because I honestly can't recall their names, and don't feel a strong compulsion to look it up.  This introduction tells us that the mission they're on was kept a secret from most of the crew.  Why was it kept a secret?  We don't really know, and there is never a compelling reason provided, but lets just say it's because this mission was funded by a mega-zillionaire who believes everything should be kept secret for no good reason (more on that later.)

We also learn that different cultures of humans all have cave paintings that point to a giant race of humanoids (who A&B like to call The Engineers) pointing them towards a set of 5 stars, and this clearly means they want us to come and visit, and these giant humanoids are the beings that created us!

At this point, one of the crew members who currently seems reasonable asks them what evidence they have for their conclusions and the response is essentially "because?"  And now they've started to lose me. Somehow these two scientists convince a bazillionaire to spend a trillion dollars on a mission that spans multiple years and trillions of miles, and they don't have a single convincing argument for why this mission is more than a waste of time and money.  This scene actually gives us a glimpse into just how little the screenwriter actually respects/understands scientists, and ends up undermining a movie predicated around a science mission to an alien planet.  Any mediocre scientist could go on for HOURS about something they were passionate about, but all these two can drum up is "Well, I mean, look at these pictures, right?"

Moving forward, we land on the alien planet (or moon? I wasn't entirely clear on that point) which they told us was capable of supporting life, to discover it is mostly inhospitable to human life (and from what we see while trekking around the surface...inhospitable to any life.) And now the movie really loses me.  They find what they're looking for.  A dead Engineer that was apparently decapitated by a door that had poor safety features.  At this point, one of the characters (who I had previously assumed was some manner of security personnel based on his behavior leading up to this point) begins screaming about how he's a geologist who loves rocks and didn't sign up to deal with dead things.  And then the biologist also decides that he's horrified of dealing with a dead alien species, and they're both going to run away.  So once again, we're able to conclude that this trillion dollar mission also hired the ABSOLUTE WORST SCIENTISTS ON THE ENTIRE PLANET EARTH.  We've got a geologist who has shown zero interest in geological features of an alien world, and a biologist who is terrified at the thought of interacting with a deceased alien life-form.

The geologist (who was acting as the team tracker using his "pups" previously) manages to get them hopelessly lost in the tunnels so that they get left behind. (How does a guy in radio contact w/ the ship that has a 3D map and constant updates on their positions get lost?)  And while they're lost and running away from basically anything that might be a dead body or a creepy sound they end up in the room from before, and they encounter a creepy alien cobra (slash penis vagina snake).  And the biologist who previously shit his pants at the mere sight of a clearly dead alien, suddenly decides that this creature is beautiful and friendly and he wants to touch it.  You can pretty easily guess how that ends for him, and I just have to wonder if this movie was written by a series of different people who didn't read what the others had written.  His behavior in that scene is the complete antithesis of everything he has done previously in this movie.  It happened PURELY as a means to move the plot forward, because obviously the audience wants to see some monsters killing people.

And that's just par for the course.  Nobody acts in a manner that makes any sense, characters are not characters, they're shells that move around and give a reason to show off another beautiful set piece.  Scientist B goes from starry-eyed hopeful scientist to alcoholic cry-baby within a few hours of arriving on an alien planet and discovering an alien species that may have been responsible for the creation of life on Earth. He is inconsolably sad and only wants to drink because the ones they found were dead and now he can't ask them to tell him the meaning of life (or whatever his burning questions for them were.)  As a scientist who had spent his life learning things about ancient human civilizations who were all long dead you'd think he would have understood that you can still learn things from the dead (especially ultra advanced civilizations that he knows had holographic recording devices because he SAW A HOLOGRAM RECORDING.)  David the android could have easily been the best part of the entire movie (thanks in part to a PHENOMENAL performance from Michael Fassbender) but his actions don't make any sense.  He infects scientist B with some black goop that turns him into...something, and also causes him to impregnate scientist A with a squid monster, but David also seems interested in helping, but he's also maybe interested in everyone getting killed, but he'd like to help scientist A at the end of the movie.

And speaking of being impregnated by a squid monster, after finding out she has a squid monster inside of her, David and the other scientists try to sedate her and put her back in cryo sleep, but she hits them in the face with something heavy, runs away, tricks the surgery machine into thinking she's a dude so it will essentially give her a C-section...and then NOBODY EVER SPEAKS OF IT AGAIN.  Nobody wants to know why she's limping around with surgical staples in her stomach, or why she's covered in blood, or why she hit them in the face earlier, and she doesn't think it's relevant to tell anyone that there's a squid monster she cut out of herself in the escape pod.

No, we are moving on from that, to the exciting new reveal that eccentric bazillionaire has secretly been on the ship the WHOLE TIME.  Why was this kept a secret?  Why does it matter?  Would anyone on the ship have been upset to find out that the dude who paid for the journey tagged along for the ride?  It was honestly somewhat satisfying when they woke up the still living Engineer and he just killed everyone, because it signaled that the movie must be ending soon.

In the end, I'm left feeling as empty as the characters in this movie, and Ridley Scott has made it clear to me that while he has great skill with visual style (seriously, this movie is AWESOME to look at.) he is incapable of overcoming, and possibly even incapable of recognizing a poorly written movie.  Nobody behaves in a way that makes sense, characters frequently behave in ways completely opposite to how they had previously, and many of the scenes feel like they've been played out of order, or belonged to a different version of the film (it was like reading a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book straight through.)  I can forgive some of the bad science in the film, but if you're going to have bad science, at least have some internal consistency.  The very premise of the movie is that humanity was led to this planet because The Engineers left our ancient civilizations those maps.  But then we learn that this planet (moon?) is some kind of weapons depot where they created black goop that makes heads explode/squid vagina monsters/chestbursters/whatever the fuck else.  So...why were they leaving humans a map to this place?

I think the most disappointing part is they had a chance to delve into some REALLY interesting territory with the whole creator/createe relationship.  We get a small taste of it when David is first introduced, and his "father" talks about how he doesn't have a soul, and then they touch on it once more when David is chatting with scientist B who says humans created David "Because they could".  They could have really gotten into the parallels between the relationship between the humans and David and the relationship between the humans and The Engineers, but they just threw it away on those two scenes and never came back to it.  Instead it seemed more interesting in tackling every deep question it could think of, but handles them all clumsily and halfheartedly.  They tried to say something about faith with Scientist A's religion, but again it was handled so poorly as to be more of a distraction than of any aid to the film.  There was opportunity here, by having Scientist A go through a crisis of faith after discovering the Engineers they could have said something about faith, and how it affects us on personal levels and what it takes to maintain it in light of things that can shatter it (and not just religious faith either, it could have touched on the very roots of humanities' need to believe in things and how we respond when that belief is shaken.)  But they don't, they just have a woman who believes in the Christian God, continues to do so after learning humanity may have been created by an advanced alien race, and essentially never even wavers in the face of learning that their creators intended to wipe them out via giant vagina squid monsters. 

Prometheus showed promise, and had some themes that could have really been great with some proper handling and expansion, but empty characters and undeveloped ideas brought it down to a level that I simply could not enjoy.  I don't know if I'll be able to keep myself from watching Ridley Scott's new Blade Runner project, but my expectations have been dropped incredibly low after Prometheus.

I've been looking forward to this for a long time

And I'm back, after a very brief (almost 3 year) hiatus. I'd like to say I've spent the time off doing something meaningful and interesting with my life, but the reality is that I was just too lazy to actually take the time to drum up enough motivation to articulate my feelings on any specific subject.

But the wait is over, my (2? 3?) loyal readers! Something has happened that I am passionate enough about to bring me out of my blogging lapse. Star Wars! As some of you are certainly aware, The Phantom Menace has been re-released upon the hapless masses (now in the THIRD DIMENSION). This event has given George Lucas another opportunity to say stupid shit in interviews, and his latest gem is that he never intended Han Solo to shoot first. This is troublesome (extreme rage and aneurysm inducing) to me for multiple reasons, which I am more than happy to elaborate on.

The most obvious qualm I have is that this is almost assuredly bullshit. In the original cantina scene there is only one gunshot, one explosion as the shot blasts through the table, and one dead bounty hunter. If it was always intended that Han shot first, then the editors, sound engineers, and special effects people all fucked up (and if that was what happened, shouldn't the director be able to step in and fix it)? Of course, if it was intended that Han shoot first, I'm sure the script would reflect that. Let's see what it has to say.

HAN: Even I get boarded sometimes. Do you think I had a choice?

Han Solo slowly reaches for his gun under the table.

GREEDO: You can tell that to Jabba. He may only take your ship.

HAN: Over my dead body.

GREEDO: That's the idea. I've been looking forward to killing you for a long time.

HAN: Yes, I'll bet you have.

Suddenly the slimy alien disappears in a blinding flash of light. Han pulls his smoking gun from beneath the table as the other patron look on in bemused amazement. Han gets up and starts out of the cantina, flipping the bartender some coins as he leaves.

HAN: Sorry about the mess.

Looks pretty cut and dried to me. If the intention was that Han Solo shoots first in this scene, then that portion of the script is not well written, and Lucas must have done a TERRIBLE job directing the scene. (I will admit, I cannot verify the accuracy of that script, but it's been on the internet long enough I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt).

Another reason this is a (mind-numbingly) stupid alteration (or original intent if you don't think George Lucas is full of shit) is you are forced to believe that either Han Solo has such super-human speed and reflexes that he can dodge a blaster from 3 feet away while seated in a booth, or that Greedo is such an epically poor shot that he could actually MISS a stationary human-sized target from 3 feet away (a target that he had been pointing his gun at for an entire conversation no less). Neither of these are actually plausible, and it is difficult for an audience to make that kind of suspension of disbelief (even in a movie with laser swords and space ships). You can try this one out for yourself. Sit across the table from someone with a laser pointer, point it at their chest, and then randomly turn it on and off. You wouldn't miss from that range (with a laser pointer that is probably harder to aim than a handgun), and your job description very probably does not include killing people and bringing their corpses to crime lords! (and if it does, I find your interest in my blog surprising/terrifying).

However, far and away the worst part of this change is the impact is has on the character of Han Solo. The characters in this movie are what made Star Wars the lasting iconic movie that it is (was?). We loved and love those movies because we cared about the inhabitants of the galaxy (far far away) they had created, and we were invested in their adventures. But we grew attached to them not because they were space rebels, but because each of them had depth and a meaningful character arc that we cared about. If you don't provide interesting character development then you don't create a connection that lasts for generations and create fans who are devoted enough to convince themselves that the Star Wars Prequels weren't some of the worst movies ever made. With his assertion that Greedo was always supposed to shoot first, George Lucas is admitting to us that he has absolutely no comprehension of character development, and he never did. While I have already stated that I'm convinced this assertion of his is an outright lie (or potentially insanity...I won't rule that out either) I do think his grasp of characters and dialogue has always been tenuous (Harrison Ford's famous "You can write this stuff George, but you can't make me say it" line comes to mind).

It may seem like I am overreacting to a change as small as Greedo firing his blaster a fraction of a second before Han Solo does, but that change actually does have a very significant effect on how the audience perceives him as a character. (Over/under on me using the word "character" in the rest of this paragraph?) Our first introduction to Han Solo sets the tone for what we understand of who he is as a person. We can deduce he cares about himself, his ship, and money (in that order). He has no qualms about killing someone who is in a position to do him harm, and he feels no remorse for doing so. This sets the tone for the rest of the movie. When he gets his reward money and leaves Luke and Leia on the Yavin moon base we all believe that he's the kind of person who would do that, and it makes his sudden appearance during the Death Star attack all the more surprising and exciting, because this is character growth and depth, and definitely not something we would have expected from the Han Solo we met in the cantina.

If you change the events in our introduction to Han Solo, however, then we are forced to draw different conclusions about him. If we are now to believe that Han Solo is the kind of person who, when confronted by a bounty hunter who is pointing a gun at him and has literally just told him he is about to shoot him, waits until said bounty hunter takes the first shot before retaliating then our perception of Han Solo is not the same. He's clearly not just in this for himself and money if he puts enough of a value on the lives of random bounty hunters out to kill him that he would put himself in mortal danger by giving them the first shot. He shows less growth and development in returning to save Luke in the Death Star attack because that kind of character was there from the beginning.

Yes, this is kind of nit-picky, but I really think it's important. George Lucas is taking art that has been a part of the collective public consciousness for over four decades and altering it. This is not different from a resurrected Leonardo da Vinci touching up the Mona Lisa because he really didn't give her as much cleavage as he had originally intended. Is it within his right to do so as the original artist? Yes. Is it the right thing to do? No. I'll close this with a quote from George Lucas himself, spoken in front of members of the United States Senate in 1988:

"My name is George Lucas. I am a writer, director, and producer of motion pictures and Chairman of the Board of Lucasfilm Ltd., a multi-faceted entertainment corporation.

I am not here today as a writer-director, or as a producer, or as the chairman of a corporation. I've come as a citizen of what I believe to be a great society that is in need of a moral anchor to help define and protect its intellectual and cultural heritage. It is not being protected. The destruction of our film heritage, which is the focus of concern today, is only the tip of the iceberg.

American law does not protect our painters, sculptors, recording artists, authors, or filmmakers from having their lifework distorted, and their reputation ruined. If something is not done now to clearly state the moral rights of artists, current and future technologies will alter, mutilate, and destroy for future generations the subtle human truths and highest human feeling that talented individuals within our society have created.

A copyright is held in trust by its owner until it ultimately reverts to public domain. American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history. People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians, and if the laws of the United States continue to condone this behavior, history will surely classify us as a barbaric society. The preservation of our cultural heritage may not seem to be as politically sensitive an issue as "when life begins" or "when it should be appropriately terminated," but it is important because it goes to the heart of what sets mankind apart.

Creative expression is at the core of our humanness. Art is a distinctly human endeavor. We must have respect for it if we are to have any respect for the human race. These current defacements are just the beginning. Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tomorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with "fresher faces," or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor's lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new "original" negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.

In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten. There is nothing to stop American films, records, books, and paintings from being sold to a foreign entity or egotistical gangsters and having them change our cultural heritage to suit their personal taste. I accuse the companies and groups, who say that American law is sufficient, of misleading the Congress and the People for their own economic self-interest. I accuse the corporations, who oppose the moral rights of the artist, of being dishonest and insensitive to American cultural heritage and of being interested only in their quarterly bottom line, and not in the long-term interest of the Nation. The public's interest is ultimately dominant over all other interests. And the proof of that is that even a copyright law only permits the creators and their estate a limited amount of time to enjoy the economic fruits of that work.

There are those who say American law is sufficient. That's an outrage! It's not sufficient! If it were sufficient, why would I be here? Why would John Houston have been so studiously ignored when he protested the colorization of "The Maltese Falcon?" Why are films cut up and butchered? Attention should be paid to this question of our soul, and not simply to accounting procedures. Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself. I hope you have the courage to lead America in acknowledging the importance of American art to the human race, and accord the proper protection for the creators of that art--as it is accorded them in much of the rest of the world communities."

There are three flowers in a vase...

I know this news will come as a shock to anyone reading this blog, but I am something of a Joss Whedon fanboy. Anyone who interacted with me last summer assuredly dealt with my incessant ramblings about Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog in my own personal attempt to aid Joss Whedon's project.

I do so again.

This time I am not shilling for Dr. Horrible or Captain Hammer, but for Echo, Topher, Boyd, Ballard, and even Miss DeWitt. I am attempting to rally everyone I can around Dollhouse, another brilliant Whedon creation that Fox is poised and ready to terminate before it's time.

Those following me on Twitter have seen my nonstop series of tweets about Dollhouse, and will continue to see them for the rest of this week, because the Internet has unofficially declared this week Watch Dollhouse Week. I know all of my attempts are likely futile and have almost no hope of actually swaying the Fox executives one way or the other, but I will continue to try my best and utilize what is available to me to at least try to help.

So help me in the fight. Watch Dollhouse, preorder the first season DVDs, tell your friends, loved ones, neighbors, strangers on the bus to do the same. The rallying cry of the faithful was enough to resurrect the Firefly 'verse in movie form, perhaps we can save Dollhouse.

If I wanted schooling, I'd-a gone to school

It's over. It's finally over.

After 20 years, my scholastic career is finally at an end. No longer, when asked what I am doing with my evening will I respond "homework", and I am sure all of my friends are particularly glad to never have to hear me respond "thesis" (or listen to my incessant whining about said thesis).

I would like to thank every single person who ever offered me words of encouragement this semester. I am honestly not certain if I would have been able to finish my thesis without all of your support, and I know that I was constantly grateful that I've managed to surround myself with such wonderfully badass peoples.

I would also like to congratulate my good friend James, who has also achieved this auspicious milestone.

While I know it may sound somewhat out of character for me to say nice things (especially about people I actually do like), I realize that it is on occasion important for me to remind everyone I care about that I really do care, and I really do value your friendships. Without you I would both literally and figuratively not be where I am today, and I can never truly thank you all enough.

(I know it is unlikely that anyone much cares, but I will likely be posting up my entire thesis sometime soon, so if it strikes your fancy you too can learn about Ambient Environments and Agile Software Metrics)

My food is problematic

Sure has been awhile since I've done one of these...

So it's been over three months since my transition into the pescetarian lifestyle, and I have some updates and confessions to make.

About a month or so ago I had terriyaki chicken from Kyoto Terriyaki in Boulder, then the next day I had a hamburger from Thunderbird Burgers, and the day after that I had steak in my Pho.  These slips in my moral fiber have actually been quite beneficial.  I have discovered that I've lost my taste for chicken enough that it no longer outweighs the feeling of guilt I have over eating it.  I felt terrible after dinner at Kyoto.

I have also learned that red meat is TOTALLY FUCKING WORTH THE GUILT.  I can't help it, and maybe it speaks poorly to my moral constitution, but hamburgers and steak are seriously so damned good I can barely stand it.  I have therefore somewhat revised my dietary description.  While I suppose it is still somewhat valid to call myself pescetarian, I just don't think I can fully eliminate red meat from my diet for the time being, and will thusly be occassionally indulging in a steak or a hamburger, though only once or twice a month at most.

I also recently discovered the amazingness that is Morningstar Farms.  While there are a lot of meat replacements that are worse than not eating meat, Morningstar Farms so far has failed to let me down.  Their Corndogs, veggie dogs, and buffalo chik'n are what I've tried so far, and they're all amazing.  Honestly, I recommend all of you give them a try and see how you feel about em.

My spoon is too big

The end is in sight!

Today marks my successful completion of my project for my Animation course this semester, which is the last thing I needed to complete to have no more work until next semester starts.  This news isFREAKING AWESOME if I do say so myself.  

I am now one semester away from recieving my Master of Science Degree in Computer Science, with my entire next semester devoted to work on my thesis.  

Here is my animation for anyone interested, youtube compressed the hell out of it so it doesn't look as good as it does on my computer but I still think it is pretty ok.  

I am a nice shark, not a mindless eating machine.

I feel that an apology is necessary.

To anyone I have ever known who is or was a vegetarian, and who I may have mocked, derided, or belittled, I am sorry.  It was a mockery born of ignorance and intolerance, and one which I am genuinely remorseful for.  This apology has been a long time coming, it has been years since I recognized the error of my ways and determined that not only were the dietary habits of others something that was none of my business, but the choice to intentionally reduce the amount of death and suffering you levy against other living creatures is an admirable trait.  So again, I am sorry.

I was reminded of this long overdue apology because I have recently made the decision to alter my diet in the direction of vegetarianism.  First stop: Pescetarian.

The transition has not been easy.  It hasn't even been two full weeks and there are times when I see someone else eating some chicken or beef and it's all I can do not to snatch it from their plate and devour it in one giant carnivorous bite.  I imagine (hope hope hope) I will eventually get to the point where that is no longer a major issue because I don't know if I have enough will power to resist that kind of impulse for the rest of my life.

The first question anyone asks when learning of my new eating habits is "why?" so I may as well try to get it in writing.  I find that I can no longer morally justify the death of other living creatures in order to satiate my personal dietary whims.  I am of the opine that if I can find the appropriate sustenance from plants that have no capacity for pain or suffering then that is preferable to sustaining myself with the death of creatures that can suffer.

The question that follows is generally why I will still eat the fishies.  As I mentioned early in the blog I do have an end-goal of vegetarianism in mind, so I hope to eventually exempt fish from my plates.  I am keeping fish because the last few times I tried to go vegetarian and eliminated all meat straight away it didn't last, and I think it was partly just too big a transition.  Being a pescetarian will allow me to ease my way into the lifestyle, and get my digestive system more accustomed to the reduced meat and increased plant life it is seeing.  Additionally, fish are less cognitively capable of experiencing pain and suffering, which is my primary guidance in the switch to vegetarianism.  (Were scientists able to reach a consensus and determine that fish do not experience pain in any negative way other than 'pressure there probably means I'm getting eaten by a bigger fish...swim awayyyyy' I could conceivably stick with pescetarianism forever).  There obviously has to be some manner of cutoff where I decide it is acceptable for something to die for me to live, so I believe it is something of a moral balancing act.

I've also faced the "Will you ever go vegan?" question a few times, and I cannot answer that one, because I really don't know.  I can, however, answer that if I ever (seriously) declare moral superiority over those who have chosen to continue eating meat I would like someone to punch me.  Maybe kick me a little as well.  I think vegetarianism is a gray moral area, and therefore cannot assume that my personal interpretation of the situation is intrinsically more valid than anyone else, but I would be more than glad to have a discussion about it with others.  (I have discovered it is somewhat difficult to properly express via text conversations, so an in person conversation would probably be easier...but I'll gladly discuss over IM too).

To being an "Us" for once, instead of a "Them." La vie Boheme.

Fucking Californians.

I have long felt that California was a bastion of liberal and progressive thought in a morally stagnant country.  It's more than just the shining beacon of Blue lining the west coast I see every election period (although that helps), but also the fact that California exudes such an air of progressive thought that my own family doesn't want me to live there for fear I'll forever be one of those bleeding heart liberals (I seriously wish that I was joking about that...).  I was not surprised when California decided to join a very small subset of states in the 21st century by affording marital rights to all citizens, and stop discriminating against their fellow humans based on outdated and immoral beliefs about sexual orientation.

And then they passed Proposition 8 with a 52% majority.  This means that 52% of voting Californians are small minded bigots.  They have chosen to use their civil right to vote to attempt to stifle the rights of their fellow (wo)man just because what those people choose to do in the privacy of their home grosses them out.  That's all there is to it, because there are no logical or moral reasons that can be used to justify their decision.  There are a lot of bullshit excuses that people will respond with because they don't want to believe that they are bigots, but their reasons will not stand up to any scrutiny, because bigots they are.

The most often repeated claim is that gay marriage is going to destroy the sanctity of marriage.  Never mind the fact that 50% of all heterosexual marriages in the United States end in divorce (quite the sanctimonious institution...), there is no reason to believe that a homosexual couple's marriage would be any less important to those involved than a heterosexual one.  Because honestly, a marriage does not affect anyone outside of the immediate family of those involved.  If the two gay men who have lived down the street from you for the last three years are suddenly husband and husband your life does not change.  And if you are married then your marriage is no less significant, because there is no intrinsic significance to marriage.  I personally think marriage is an outdated institution that only exists because people are slaves to tradition, but that doesn't mean that other people can't find meaning and hope in their marriages.  It means what you want it to mean, and if you think it means less because 'those queers' are doing it too then you're ignorant and hateful.  (People who opposed interracial marriages 60s thought they were preserving the sanctity of marriage too).

Religion is the next recourse of the intolerant.  The Bible says no homo, therefore if we allow it we are going down the path of moral bankruptcy and soon God will smite our country for our heathen ways.  And you know what, if you really want to cling to your bigotry because a two thousand year old book tells you to, I guess that's all well and good, but it's about time you stopped with the double standards.  The Bible wants you to keep slaves, murder your adulterous wife, murder people of other religions, not eat pork, and I'm sure with a few more minutes research I could find a half dozen more 'moral guidelines' from the Bible that nobody actually follows anymore because they recognize that they are immoral.  So if you want to discriminate against homosexuals because your god(s) told you so, I expect I will be reading about your arrest in the news after your killing spree (and that your last meal won't be pork chops).

After being backed into a corner on the two primary points the next recourse is an appeal to naturalism.  Homosexuality is not natural, so we should not be supporting it!  Unfortunately, this argument is a fallacy.  Not only is an appeal to nature fallacious, homosexuality is a natural occurring behavior.  We see it throughout the animal kingdom.  

So please stop the ignorance.  Stop imposing your beliefs on other people just because you're disgusted by the way that they get down, as it has no impact on you.  Because you don't like it is not a valid reason to violate another person's rights.  I personally don't like cilantro.  In fact I absolutely hate the taste of it.  Yet people would think me daft if I made a serious effort to forbid cilantro eaters from getting married, or outlaw eating it period!  What right would I have to impose such a ridiculous belief on other people?  It's none of my business if people are putting cilantro in their salsa in the privacy of their homes.  

Which is exactly my point.  A person's sexual preferences are no more your business than their dietary habits, and until the majority of Americans can understand this simple concept we will continue to vote in favor of hatred and intolerance.

Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. Good night, and good luck.

President Barack Obama.

I still get excited just thinking about it.  However, as with any election, there are people whose enthusiasm for the new leader is not quite as high as mine.  In fact, based on the facebook statuses and blog comments and stories I've heard, there are actually some people who are genuinely upset about the Tuesdays results.  (Nearly incomprehensible I know, but bear with me).

Because very few of those who have such feelings of animosity and outrage at our soon to be Commander in Chief will read this (I'm guessing...0 people), I instead write this blog as a service to those of you who will almost certainly be faced with awkward interactions that involve all the reasons why they are certain the United States is well and truly fucked.  

First of all, I think it is relevant to remind them of what John McCain himself said:

I urge all Americans ... I urge all Americans who supported me to join me in not just congratulating him, but offering our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together to find the necessary compromises to bridge our differences and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited.

Now is not the time for extreme partisanship.  Now is not the time for nay saying.  Now is not the time to despair.  We need to let everyone know that now is the time to stand together as Americans, as humans, as living beings.  Now is the time for unity.  

As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, we are not enemies but friends. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.
And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your president, too.

It is also important to point out that America is not doomed.  We survived eight years of George Bush, we can survive four years of anything (except maybe four years of a Vice President who doesn't know that Africa is a continent...).  Inform them that you understand how they're feeling, that you felt it four years ago, and four years before that.  Remind them that every election there is the feeling that if your candidate did not win then the United States is going to fall (to communism,  socialism, hedonism, terrorism, or some other 'ism), and so far we still seem to be here.

Then will very likely come the (bat shit fucking insane) accusations about Obama and his character, here are a few of the ones you're more likely to come across

1. Barack Obama is a socialist, and this country is not about socialism dammit!
2. He is a terrorist and a lover of terrorists and he wants the terrorists to win. (terrorz!)
3. He is going to take my money and give it to people who don't even work. (Same as #1, but likely brought up as a different point)
4. He is going to socialize healthcare! (Same as #1, but likely brought up as a different point)
5. He will raise my taxes and ruin the economy. (Same as #1...starting to sense a pattern...)

There might be some other primary ones that I am forgetting, and I'm sure there are some creative ones that I still haven't heard.  If you hear any of these accusations, there are calm and clear responses that would, in a perfect world, placate the person you are discussing this with.  (Of course, life experience has shown me that people are anything but rational when it comes to actually discussing politics (and religion)).

First and foremost, Barack Obama is not a socialist.  He's not even close to actually being a socialist.  Canadians and Europeans are all probably having a good laugh at our ignorance, since they actually know what socialism is.  Feel free to explain to the person you're talking to that countries who embrace a higher level of socialism almost all enjoy a higher standard of living than Americans.  They have better education and healthcare.  They have not been conquered by horrible dictators.  The only reason their economies are currently having trouble is because our economy is so fucking terrible right now.  

But that is neither here nor there, Obama is not a socialist. Period.  End of Story.  And if the person you're talking to hates socialism so much, perhaps you could also point out they should stop taking advantage of road service, public schools, police, fire departments, sanitation control, and any other slew of industries that we pay for with our tax dollars (SOCIALIST ORGANIZATIONS!!!!).

The terrorist argument is hard to diffuse, because it is born of intentional ignorance.  Despite there being no evidence that Obama has anything but contempt for those who would use acts of terror against innocent people, despite his condemnations of all acts of terrorism, this rumor persists.  You can try to explain this, but some people just want to cling to their lies.

The last three reasons I had were somewhat of a joke, but it is surprising how many people argue these points after the socialism argument (probably because those same people have no idea what the fuck socialism is, they just assume it is something terrible).

I think the key to all of these responses is to stay calm.  Be the bigger person in the debate, and don't get mad, even if they're being ignorant and intolerant.  If they want to start yelling, or make wild accusations, I find an appropriate first response is nothing.  Let them finish, and then just stare for a second.  Then very calmly refute their points.  Shouting matches will accomplish nothing and only vindicates their viewpoint in their minds (and does not help us bridge the gaps that we must in order to fix our country).

We need cool heads and calm minds in the months ahead.  We face many problems, and there are obstacles in our way.  It will not be easy, but it is necessary, and we cannot do it divided.  So I urge you to reach out.  Take the time and engage in rational discourse with those who you know disagree.  Do what you can to assure the depressed McCain supporter that we are on the road to the America of legend.  You will not always succeed, but if you can change even one mind, then you have taken a great step towards rebuilding our great nation.

Truly, it is an auspicious day

He says it all, in ways I never could.  I myself am without words, and have never in all of my life been more proud to be an American.  

We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Today is election day.  

This is, without doubt, the most important election that has happened in my lifetime.  I have spent the last eight years of my life watching my country slowly erode.  George W. Bush has tarnished the name of the United States of America in the world community to the point where we have to pretend to be Canadian if we travel abroad.  He has led us into a war that we don't belong in, fighting for a cause that cannot be won, and providing us no end in sight, but providing incalculable death and misery for Americans and Iraqis alike.  We have engaged in the despicable act of torturing our enemies and denying them basic human rights.  Our own civil liberties have been infringed upon in the name of security, but we are no safer than we were seven years ago.  Our economy is trashed, but I somehow doubt oil companies will see much loss of profit.  George W. Bush has been a blight on this fair nation, and I absolutely cannot wait to see him go.

Things need to change  (see what I did there?) .  We simply cannot afford another four years of having a president who does not differ with George Bush on any major decision that will affect our country.  A man whose response to the question "How will you be different from George Bush" is "well at least I'm not  inexperienced/a terrorist/a socialist/a communist/a robot sent from the future".  We cannot elect a man whose judgement has gotten bad enough that he was willing to choose Sarah Palin as a running mate.  Even if that decision came from the campaign manager he needed to be a real Maverick and say no.  It is beyond lunacy to imagine having a Vice President who believes humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs, or whose idea of foreign policy experience is the ability to see a foreign land mass.  We cannot elect a man who once garnered the respect of Republicans and Democrats alike, and threw it all away during this campaign.

So please go out and vote today.  If you've already voted, then ask everyone you talk to today if they have voted.  And when you're voting, take a minute and think of where our country is at right now.  Barack Obama will restore our name in the world community.  Barack Obama will stop the senseless death and destruction in Iraq and refocus our attention on the people who actually perpetrated 9/11.  Barack Obama will put us on a track towards renewable energy independence.  Barack Obama will provide affordable and accessible health care to those who need it most.  Barack Obama will help us restore the middle class that drives this country.

I implore you all to get out there today and do what you can to make sure that Barack Hussein Obama is the next president of the United States of America. 

Hate is baggage. Life's too short to be pissed off all the time.

Fucking people, man.

I don't understand it.  I honestly cannot twist any of my internal logic or put myself in a place where that kind of pointless, baseless hate makes any sense.  While I'm admittedly more of a pacifist than many, I can at least understand the point of view of non-pacifists.  Actual unabashed hatred of anyone for reasons no better than skin color is beyond my comprehension.

How is it at all possible to rationalize that murdering people you don't know who have in no way wronged you or anyone you know is going to improve the world?  Who will benefit from this?  What the fuck is the point?  

It is the twenty-first century goddammit, humanity is supposed to be past this shit (and don't even get me started on the lack of flying cars).  In the age of the Internet and near instant communication it is unacceptable for people to still be so ignorant and hateful.  It seems like it should be obvious to people who preach and act out their intolerance and hate that every other person on the planet just thinks they're being a total asshat.  Seriously, just read the Youtube comments on your stupid hate speech.

Life is too short to spend it worrying about how those guys over there don't look like you, or don't believe in the same god(s) that you do, or have different politics than you.  Who cares?  What is the point?  Spending your time hating is only going to take years off of your life, and the years you do get are spent on nothing of substance.  Even if you believe in some manner of afterlife how does that excuse being a bastard during this one?  I believe the appropriate answer is that it doesn't.  Even if you had the misfortune of an upbringing that indoctrinated you with  the superiority of your race/religion why do you need to do anything more than sit at home and bask in your glow?  Go to your meetings where you can tell each other how right you are and how great it is to be you, and leave everyone else the fuck alone.

Fortunately the two fucktards in the article I linked didn't have enough brainpower to light up an ant city that just passed a series of stringent energy conservation laws, let alone succeed in their reprehensible plot, but there very probably are people who wouldn't be classified as mentally retarded who share their (lack of) morals.  In a day and age when we, as a species, have the capacity for destruction on a global scale we cannot survive with such primitive 'us' and 'them' mentalities.  We are all humans, and we are all in this together.  Fate has left us out here on this tiny chunk of rock in the middle of nowhere, and we need to learn to celebrate our similarities or we risk eliminating our entire species.  In the words of Bill Maher, "Grow up, or die".

I will leave my closing thoughts to a man much more eloquent than I (and it nicely closes off my American History X quote I opened with): 'We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.' 

-Abraham Lincoln

We are Samurai...the Keyboard Cowboys

I am a computer programmer.

Admittedly, I think most (everyone) who reads this blog knows me, and therefore already knows that particular fact about me.  However I don't necessarily know how many people are aware of just how much I actually love programming.  It isn't something that I just want to do 9-5 5 days a week for the rest of my life, but something that I do in my spare time just because I actually find it highly enjoyable.  

I have (somewhat) recently discovered Project Euler as an exciting (super nerdy) way for me to spend my time.  In addition to providing programming practice, the problems on Project Euler also require some critical thought and promote different methods of problem solving, which I actually really enjoy.  The problem solving aspect of Computer Science is one of the things that keeps me happy.

If anyone reading this is interested in getting better at programming, or wants to learn a new language and needs some practice with it, I would highly recommend giving Project Euler a look see.

I am aware that this blog will be relevant to very few (0%) of the people reading it, but I wanted to anway, so die in a hole.

Hail to the chief, if you don't, I'll have to kill you. I am the chief, so you better watch your step, you bastards.

John McCain is kind of a dick (I mean...maverick).

I will ignore (for now) the vast number of very negative ads that have already run.  Both parties are guilty of running negative ads at some time or other (although a decent number of polls would indicate McCain's was in general felt to be more negative, and non-partisan fact checkers tend to find his ads the least correct).  But John McCain's most recent use of robo-calls is crossing the line from standard negative politics to outright ass-hattery.  

This is the same shit that he condemned in 2000 when George W. Bush used it against him, and now he's even hired the same people the Geedub did to do the same fucking thing to Barack Obama.  (Irony for making Bush comparisons more valid, lulz).  And he is completely unashamed to admit to it, and even defend it.

I am mildly amused (enraged and on the verge of an aneurysm) at the way he tries to paint Obama as the negative asshole, by talking about the money Obama has spent on negative ads (which skews the facts since Obama has spent crazy amounts of funding on all kinds of ads the percentage of negativity may or may not be at record numbers), but 66% of Americans think McCain is running a mostly negative campaign compared to 33% who think that of Obama so if he is spending record amounts at negativity he fails at it.

He also continues to cry foul on the fact that Obama hasn't denounced John Lewis' claims that the McCain/Palin campaign is sowing the seeds of hatred that brings up memories of the George Wallace Rallies back in the 60's.  The FactCheck Wire has something to say about that.

John McCain began this campaign calling for honor and dignity, and has rescinded on that promise while still trying to hold Obama to those standards and bemoaning any instance where he doesn't.  Well your hypocrisy has been noted senator McCain, and I hope very much it costs you dearly come November 4th.

More on the Robo Calls:

Part I
Part II

Save the Cheerleader, Save the World.

If you owned a Television set two years ago that was a phrase you undoubtedly heard.  Probably a lot.  Probably so much you wanted to throw the TV out the window.  And if you didn't watch Heroes, you probably didn't feel compelled to start if it was going to be that annoying.  If you have never heard the phrase then you are quite likely from some other planet (and may I be the first to say I welcome our new alien overlords).  I was actually determined not to watch Heroes until quite a few people assured me that it was an amazing show, so I decided to give it a shot.  A warning to all, this blog will spoil the entirety of Heroes, so if you have not seen it and plan on doing so, close this window at once. 

I was hooked almost instantly.  The concept is phenomenal, the characters were engaging, and the storyline was stellar.  It was somewhat like the X-men, but the X-men never seemed like normal people trying to cope with superpowers so much as super people trying to be like normal people.  Watching these everyday average people dealing with these new powers that they don't understand and can hardly control really taps into the dream of having such powers yourself.  And what person can honestly say they never spent a large portion of their childhood imagining what it would be like to have some superpower or other?  (And most of you will probably admit you still do it.  Frequently.)

One of the most powerful aspects of that glorious first season was the way that all of the different paths intersected, but it never felt contrived or forced.  It seemed like crazy random happenstance that brought their stories into the overall arc and eventually to the amazing finale.  Needless to say, I was very excited for the second season.

And then it happened, and things quickly went awry.  We have a new villain now that Sylar has been stabbed and is currently out of the picture.  Bob, the boring accountant.   I don't have much to say about Bob, but he is a completely unconvincing and uninteresting villain.  They have also added some new characters, Maya and Alejandro, and nobody gives a shit about them.  And if you do give a shit about them, I would love to hear why that is.  Hiro (my absolute favorite character from season 1) is trapped in Feudal Japan for more than half of the season on an incredibly slow paced and boring adventure, and then the writers strike hit and we have a ridiculously fast paced wrap up of the mediocre threat.

Now, while season 2 was incredibly disappointing, I was able to forgive it.  There was a strike after all, and I have no way of knowing how things would have turned out with an extra ten episodes worth of storytelling.  So while I wasn't very excited about season 3 starting, I also wasn't dreading it, and I truly hoped they could write themselves out of the hole created by season 2.  Two episodes into the new season and I am very unconvinced.  Season 2 involved a lot of the characters acting very much not like what we had come to expect from that first glorious season, and that still seems to be the case.  

One of my main problems is that none of these characters have progressed in any meaningful way. Peter is the face of the show, and apparently is setup to be the most heroic of them all (They even feel the need to directly point this out to us in season 3 "Now I know you're lying, nobody is that heroic") but he's still a whiny, neurotic, angsty, and generally useless person.  (And if future Peter is any indication, the angst just keeps on comin).  Claire has potential with a pretty cool power, but they are going absolutely nowhere with the character, so I'm pretty sure everyone has completely lost interest.  

And then we have Hiro.  As I mentioned, my personal favorite from season 1 is now one of the characters I hate the most.  Our introduction to him this season is him whining about having no great destiny to fill (apparently he doesn't even think saving the world twice is good enough) so he disobeys direct orders from his father, intentionally putting the world at risk, and then repeatedly fucking up every single opportunity he has to put it right.  What the hell?  He's able to basically single-handedly save the world but can't manage to get anything right?  And his whole "I don't trust you Ando because I saw you in the future killing me even though we've already proven a thousand times in this show that the future is always changing" is beyond irritating.

One possible reason why they're having issues actually progressing the characters is because there's so goddamn many of them, and the writers are keen on getting everyone into every episode so we get at most a few minutes on one of the many plot lines before we're unceremoniously transitioned into the middle of another.  

My final major issue I'd like to discuss is villains.  Early in the life of Heroes I thought the writers had a firm grasp of cool villains.  We had Horn Rimmed Glasses man, and Sylar.  Both were mysterious, though only Sylar was obviously evil.  HRG was pretty ambiguous, but that made him really freakin' cool.  They have ruined them both.  Now HRG doesn't have anything mysterious to him, and Sylar has been given a back story that makes him a crybaby with mommy issues.  They introduced four new villains so far this season, and it took all of three episodes to kill half of them (in really lame ways too).  

I have a suspicion that I will continue to watch Heroes, if only because I can see what it could be, although maybe that's why it's so hard for me to accept what it is.  

I may not be a man of God, Reverend, but I know right and I know wrong and I have the good grace to know which is which

I don't know if any of you were aware, but there is some kind of election coming up.  And as such, in addition to the excitement of potentially pissing off anyone around you just by bringing up the wrong candidate (seriously, some people look like they're ready to throw down if you even think about voting for the wrong guy), but we get the pleasure of a nearly nonstop stream of political ads, billboards, phone calls, emails, and who knows what other methods will be employed (I myself am following Obama on Twitter).

While the ads themselves are fairly annoying simply due to sheer volume, the worst part is that it can be rather difficult to determine whether what they say is the truth, a stretching of facts, or an outright fabrication.  It would be nice if they would tell us at the end of the ad (by the way, all of that was total bullshit) but I think that could undermine what they are trying to accomplish.

Fortunately for all of us, there are people who have decided it is a worthy cause to separate the wheat from the chaff and provide it to the masses via the interwebs.  FactCheck.org

Completely non partisan, they do fact checking on statements from ads, interviews, debates, speeches, and pretty much any other venue.  Now when different commercials say different things you can determine which (if any) are correct.  Hopefully it will help all of us survive the next two months, and prevent us from perpetuating any untruths that we may have seen on the TeeVee.

I have heard the voice of the voters and the voters said...Holy Shit!

I don't understand people.

This statement holds true a great majority of the time, but my confusion tends to grow at a geometric rate (!) when it comes to politics. If you happen to live under a rock, it is possible that you missed the nomination of Sarah Palin as John McCain's Vice President. If you're like most people your response to hearing about her nomination was probably "who?". Don't worry, it doesn't mean you're uninformed in this election, it just means you don't need to know who is governing a state with a population smaller than any given major US city. (It's barely 6 times the population of Boulder). Of course being unknown and inexperienced doesn't necessarily make her entirely unqualified (despite what the McCain campaign would have had you believe before they picked her for VP) so I was interested in learning more about who she is and what kind of candidate she would make.

I decided to check out her speech from the Republican National Convention as a starting point, to hear what she had to say with no preconceived notions. And shortly into the speech the confusion began to set in. When Hilary Clinton talks tough and has snippy comebacks she is "a bitch", but when Sarah Palin does it she "has spunk". Of course, if we want to call it having spunk, then the only things I learned from her RNC speech was that she

A)Is spunky.
B)Likes drilling. (For oil)

Her first opportunity to really address the nation, and all she has is a bunch of snide remarks belittling community organizers and people who actually care about human rights. I realize that she was probably not the one who wrote that speech, but it seems like as some point when she was practicing it she could have asked if it was necessary for her to sound like a high school girl who didn't get asked to the prom. She was unable to assuage any doubts people might have about her ability to lead, she told us almost nothing about how she feels about ANY of the issues surrounding this election, and she made no mention of the current administration's success/failures.

The other thing that she failed to address was the hypocrisy of her selection as McCain's VP, and if hypocrisy can help you win an election, then we've got another four years of Republicans in the White House coming. It starts with picking a VP who is extremely inexperienced, and seems to be more of a celebrity than politician. (I don't think Obama was ever in a beauty pageant...). How do you explain this move when your entire campaign against Obama was "Don't vote for him, he's inexperienced! He's more a celebrity than he is a Senator!"? The current strategy seems to be never mention that they said that, and don't show those commercials anymore. We also have all of the republican pundits showing nothing but sympathy and respect for her pregnant 17 year old daughter, and demanding the same of the rest of us, despite having spent all of their careers up until this point condemning teens for having sex and blaming it all on poor parenting. Sarah Palin asks us to respect her family privacy in this matter and respect her daughter's decision to keep the child when she intends to remove the right to privacy and decisions for all women and families. The Republican party claims to be concerned about the people (They're going to give us tax cuts!) but they still find time to mock community organizers. (You know, the people who help those who the government has left behind)

In addition to the raging hypocrisy (any wagers on how many times I'm going to use that word in this blog?) I have taken some time to investigate more about Sarah Palin, and what kind of Veep she would make.

Sarah Palin does not believe that humans are at all responsible for global warming, and she does not believe polar bears should be on the endangered species list. I don't think she has any scientific backing for either of these opinions, simply that they both have the potential to interfere in her love of drilling. If she does have backing she hasn't informed anybody of it. Perhaps it's hypocrisy a secret.

Sarah Palin wanted to ban certain books from her town library back when she was mayor, simply because she didn't like the ideas expressed within. If the thought of that kind of government censorship doesn't upset you then you and I will probably not agree on very many things in life.

The one that made me laugh out loud (right before I started weeping in terror): Sarah Palin never left the country before July of 2007. I cant' even comment on that. Seriously.

I think Matt Damon says it well:

"It's like a really bad Disney movie, 'The Hockey Mom.' Oh, I'm just a hockey mom from Alaska, and she's president. She's facing down Vladimir Putin and using the folksy stuff she learned at the hockey rink. It's hypocr absurd."

The prospect of Sarah Palin being our VP, and being a heart attack or a cancer relapse away from being the Commander in Chief of the United States of America is absolutely terrifying. This cannot come to pass. I urge each and every one of you do your part to save our country and vote Barack Obama in 2008.

Matt Damon on Youtube

Can a man change the stars?

A question that has occupied a large amount of my thinkum time, and was recently brought up again by Stacey, and I feel it warrants some lengthy discussion. The question that Stacey posed to me was "what would you do about it". An inauspicious question on the surface, but it has no simple answer in many cases. There are of course some instances where the answer doesn't take much thought. For example, were I to say I was hungry, the answer to what I am going to do about it likely would be 'I'm going to eat some food. Durrr'.

With serious topics I see no obvious answer. For example, in the case of my earlier blog discussing the continued erosion of our basic rights and freedoms in exchange for the promise of security, what can a person do? There are a wide array of reactions and responses, and I should like to examine some of them in detail.

First and foremost a person can do nothing. This is by far the easiest reaction. There are things that are simply not worth the exertion of thinking about, let alone actually acting on. For example, I find that I am unable to care about Pluto's reclassification from planet to dwarf planet. I know some people who feel as though it is some great travesty of our generation, but I don't understand getting worked up over a hunk of rock 39 AU from Earth, and I therefore put forth no thoughts or actions in that regard.

Another reaction is to devote mental processes to a problem, but avoid any other investment. This of course cannot provide much in the way of real world results, but can do a lot to provide relief (or stress) to the individual. This is tantamount to simply wishing for things to change, and you know what they say, if wishes were horses then there'd be horses all over the goddamn place and SOMEBODY has to clean up after them.

Clearly the only way to actually accomplish anything significant is to take some kind of action. Of course this is where the real crux of the matter lies, what kind of action can a single person take, and will it actually change anything? I think there are plenty of things that a person can do that will actually have a negative impact on the cause. The anti-abortion campaigners I see every semester on CU's campus come to mind. Being an asshole and calling the people whose minds you are trying to change 'murderers' and 'infanticidal maniacs' is not a very good way to sway opinion. Sure, you're campaigning for something you believe in, but all you're accomplishing this way is pissing people off and increasing the probability of your face being punched.

Some people just stand next to a busy street holding a sign. This is more effective than the asshole route, but I think it loses some efficacy due to the limited volume of information that can be relayed by a sign you expect someone to read while they drive by at 30-50 mph. Even if you manage to pique interest in the subject, I know that there is a very low probability that I will remember what it was I saw on the sign by the time I arrive at my destination. Additionally, you're doing something that can be done by a stick, perhaps you should just hang the sign and go do something else with your time?

I think for an individual to actually effect any change requires that person be an exceptional individual. There are enough examples of people throughout history who have been the beacon of change to show that it is entirely possible, but not everyone can be a Bad Horse (I meant Ghandi).

I am personally a very strong believer in the power of the written word. I am not the kind of individual who has the personality, charisma, or drive to make a notable difference, but I also don't feel content quietly accepting things that I see as wrong. So I write about it. I know that I occupy a tiny insignificant portion of the blogosphere inside the vastness of the interwebs, and my readership is not vast. (I imagine it may, in fact, be quite small). But if I can reach even just one person, then perhaps they will relate the information they have gained to other people, and maybe eventually help influence the opinion of someone who IS the kind of person who can effect real change. I know it's a somewhat romanticized notion, but I also know that my life, ideas, and opinions are constantly informed and changed by the things I read from others, so I don't find it utterly unreasonable to think that I might be able to have a (somewhat) similar effect on others.

I am very much interested in knowing how others feel about this subject, feel free to chime in with some comments =)

You failed, Jedi

He's done it. It has finally happened. George Lucas has destroyed any last remnants of faith that I may have had lingering in him, and in no subtle fashion I might add. Star Wars: The Clone was is, without doubt, the most horrendous piece of 'cinema' I have ever intentionally subjected myself to. Before I get into the specifics of my claim, I will provide a little of my history with Star Wars to help drive home just how betrayed I felt last night.

Among my earliest memories are of watching a poorly recorded version of A New Hope with my dad. I loved it from the beginning. There was something absolutely magical about the Original Trilogy. Star Wars completely changed my life (For better or worse). I own two Star Wars T-shirts, a Star Wars hat, a (bad ass) Jedi Costume, my car had a star wars bumper sticker, Yoda hangs from my rear view mirror, I own and have read well over 50 star wars books, and I have watched the Original Trilogy more times than I can recall. I have never once in my entire life been ashamed to admit my devotion to Star Wars, even after the disappointment that was the prequels (and the special edition, the special special edition, and the future super special deluxe mega 3D editions).

So understand the full weight of my meaning when I say that I am extremely embarrassed that Star Wars: The Clone Wars even exists. There was not one single redeeming quality that can be gleaned from that movie. Ty, Michelle and James can all attest, the evening ended with me curled up in the fetal position in the movie theater. Be warned, ye faint of heart: Spoilers and heartache are to follow.

The movie starts with a gut-wrenching and disgusting rendition of the Star Wars main theme, followed by a Starship Troopers-esque voice over explaining the thin and contrived plot that the rest of the movie will be centered on. (Have you always wondered just how it was during the Clone Wars that the Galactic Republic planned to gain control of vital shipping lanes? STAY TUNED!) And then it went downhill from there. The primary focus of the movie is on Anakin and his new padawan Ahsoka. Anakin is every bit as annoying as he was in the prequels, but he can't even compare to how annoying Ahsoka is. Everything from her nickname for Anakin (Skyguy. Seriously, die.) to her ridiculous 'I act arrogant but I'm really insecure' demeanor, everything is painful to watch. Of course, when they're not center stage, the movie likes to jump to the battle droids, who were apparently programmed to be completely retarded (I'm talking JarJar Binks stupid), which could have been a key factor in the downfall of the separatists. (omg I leaned forward and fell off a cliff. Noooooo)

The movie could have at least salvaged some watchability with exciting action sequences. This should have been easy to deliver on, but apparently not. I found this particularly mind boggling, how is it possible for all six live action star wars movies to have VASTLY more entertaining and energetic lightsaber fights than one that was animated? It's an ANIMATED MOVIE! YOU CAN DO WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU WANT TO. I have only scratched the surface of the terrors that were unleashed upon the masses in The Clone Wars, but I can't really talk about them without blood shooting out of my ears.

Of course, I recognize that this movie was intended primarily for children, but that still is no excuse. It is possible to create a movie that is primarily for children that adults will still love (Pixar, anyone?). And if the two kids who looked bored out of their skulls last night were any indication...They failed in that regard as well.

Don't watch this movie unless you actually hate yourself.

Stop Breaking the Law, Asshole!

Fuck. Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck.

There are some things that I am unable to properly quantify my feelings about. This is one of them. I know it makes me angry, but it also makes me sad, confused, and an entire array of other negative emotions.

You know, I cannot wait until next year. I can think of very few people who could possibly run this country any worse than George W. Bush. If Hitler's Ghost were running against Geedub I'd honestly have to think about it for a bit.

Seriously? I ought to THANK someone for violating the constitution and my own personal rights? I should be GLAD that things like due process are no longer a necessity for the government? I just need to take their word for it, accept their hand waving, and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain? I don't know if there are appropriate ways for me to express my absolute disgust at that notion.

Let us, for a moment, allow ourselves to be deluded into believing that giving up our civil liberties will increase our safety from terrorists. At what point do we draw the line? Is it wrong for the government to be able to enter our homes whenever they want to look for potential terrorist infestations? Maybe not physically enter but just have a nice camera system set up so they can keep good tabs on us, make sure we aren't a threat to national security. That would keep us safe, wouldn't it?

Geh, should a company that has violated law and infringed on the rights of its customers and fellow citizens have to go to the courthouse to defend itself? YES! Why is that even a question?