:: Captain's Personal Blog ::

Stardate: Monday, November 22, 2004

RANT NUMBER 2

OK, so I finished reading BIRTHRIGHT, and read the presentation which MARK WAID made to DC COMICS regarding the project. I can’t even put into words how distressing I found it, probably because it cuts to the very heart of what I disagree with when it comes to that huge SUPERMAN site (for further details, see my last post.)

One of the things which Waid cites as being fundamental about the character is that he is constantly asking himself “am I a human or a Kryptonian?” In addition, he constantly makes allusions to the Kryptonian flag (in this case the red and yellow S on the blue banner) to be as if Kal-El is wearing tribal colors.

This kinda urks me. The simple fact of the matter is that SUPERMAN fans have long felt that he should represent the ideal. The one thing that we should all strive for. In this case, I feel like we’ve SORELY missed the boat on that one.

The all-important question of “am I human or am I Kryptonian” should be moot. The simple fact of the matter is that he is neither. What he is is a MAN.

Let’s be clear on a bit of history here. I don’t care who you are. If you are 24 years old, and for those 24 years you were raised as CLARK KENT, you’re not going to be all that willing and ready to dump all that so you can be KAL-EL. Sure, you will learn all that you can about who KAL-EL was and what his culture was like, but odds are you’re going to still think of yourself as Clark. “Clark Kent” is not his ‘slave name’ or anything. It’s simply who he was raised to be. In Waid’s version of the origin, Kal-El was not old enough to really know what it meant to be Kryptonian. If he did, he’d remember a lot more than Clark seems to about it.

I see no problem is wanting to pay tribute to your heritage. My real qualm with the “tribal colors” issue can be found in my previous post regarding the reduced significance of the S. And just because Waid takes two sentences at the end of BIRTHRIGHT to say that the S will have all sorts of symbolic meaning, doesn’t make it so to everyone. Besides, didn’t it have a meaning of terror through a lot of that story? For a lot of people, it would be like asking them to change, in their minds, the significance of the swastika to a meaning of hope. Some things can not be erased, no matter how hard you try. And for every person who realizes that the Kryptonian invasion was all concocted by Lex Luthor, there are at least as many who say, ‘well, that may be the case now, but how do we know it still won’t happen?’

Back to the issue at hand, though. The ideal is not to constantly find ways to categorize eachother that make us different from other people. The simple fact of the matter is that we are all living things, and that is the most important fact of all. An ideal SUPERMAN would not say, “I am a Kryptonian, earth man!” He would say, “I am a man, just like you.” He would not attempt tirelessly to find a place to fit in, simply because he DOES fit it. He is a person, like any one of us. If he feels the need to recognize that he is indeed Kryptonian, fine. If he feels the need to explore that part of his culture, fine. He should NEVER allow that to define who he is. He can use the teachings of Krypton to inform who he is, but never decide who he is.

To me, the only reason why Clark would want to abandon thinking as a human was if he was dissatisfied with what that has meant to him. If you’d like to cite that he is unhappy because he has had to hide his powers and that he wouldn’t have to if he was surrounded by Kryptonians, you’d be mistaken. Under those circumstances, he would be as a human among humans. Placed in the same circumstances, they might be no less understanding or fearful.

Let’s not forget that Kryptonian society wasn’t quite idyllic either. Lest we forget the Phantom Zone? And what of the arrogance of the council which decided that the planet wasn’t going to be destroyed. This was not an idyllic society. Possibly by human standards it was close, but again, it looks, at first glance, to have the same frailties and problems that our society has. So to embrace that one over ours, seems to be a bit of faulty thinking.

The fact of the matter is that not being RAISED as a Kryptonian, he can never truly be Kryptonian. And not actually being a human, he can’t actually be one of us either (unless you want to get wacky and count Gold Kryptonite.) Simply, he can never be either, and is therefore what we all want to be. A man. Simply a man, who lives his life as the best of any of us. Better than any Kryptonian, better than any human. He has these great gifts that no Kryptonian has had, and he uses them for the betterment of humanity.

He was raised with HUMAN morals, by HUMAN parents, and ultimately has the knowledge of KRYPTONIAN society. He is the best melding of the two. He is a hero. He does not ask “am I Kryptonian or am I human?” because he knows in his heart that he is one of us. He is a man. A living being like any of us, who is just trying to do his best for everyone else. He has his home. He has his parents. He has his friends.

FOOTNOTE: Let me say this again – It is very important where you came from, and to never forget it. But you should never let it rule who you are, only inform you who are. You are ultimately left to make the choice of how you lead your life based on that. If you came from a long line of tyrannical kings, you should not automatically decide that that is what you want to be. You should look at that rich history and lineage and decide what you want to do from there. Let that information inform who you are going to be, without being the only factor. If you come from a long line of wealthy philanthropists, it does not stand that you will automatically be one, no matter what environment you grow up in. If you come from a poor family, it does not follow that you will automatically either be poor, or wise with money. However, every decision that you make going forward will be made with some small consideration to your past. It is inevitable.

:: J 11:32 AM [+] ::
...

Tearing down all my heroes

I'm pissed. I mean REALLY pissed. Not quite sure why, so let me attempt to articulate this.

For some reason, it seems to be a growing trend in all my favorite franchises to re-write history and make all the central heroes, well, less heroic.

In the grand scheme of things, there are more important things to be angry about, but this is my current soapbox.

My first example is SUPERMAN. Yes, he is a favorite subject of mine, and he fits this situation better than any other franchise I can think of.

The biggest criminal in this farce would have to be none other than Elliot S! Maggin. Let me be clear on something here: I like the guy. His stories in SUPERMAN #400 were among my favorite from the Pre-Crisis SUPERMAN. One of the premiere SUPERMAN sites on the Internet lays great praise on him and his works. A great site. Very informative. But you do get the occasional feeling that there are those there who look upon him as the SUPERMAN MESSIAH.

The fact of the matter is, while he may have a great respect for the character, he has conspired to tear down the very fiber of what makes SUPERMAN heroic, and the people at this site seem to cheer him on, not realizing it for what it is.

After all that, it's time to get specific. I have been reading the trade paperback collection of MARK WAID's SUPERMAN: BIRTHRIGHT. For those who are unaware, this is the 12-part maxi-series that WAID wrote for DC Comics, that they have taken as the NEW ORIGIN of SUPERMAN, and official canon.

In it, CLARK KENT writes the following to his mother in an e-mail:

"The animals here... I wish you could see them through my eyes._ We've talked about this before. Living things have a kind of glow around them. They're surrounded in a halo of colors I'd invent names for if I weren't the only one who could make them out._ I'm not sure if that halo is a soul or an aura or what. I do know that at the end of the life cycle, it fades pretty quickly, and what's left behind is... hard to look at. Empty in a way that leaves me empty too. But when it's there... my God, how it shines. (I know that information's not very helpful when you're trying to explain to cattle farmer Grandpa why your son's a vegetarian, but...)_"

Now later, he befriends a man, and watches him die. Through his eyes, we see the glow die out, and the body go dark. We see Clark cry......

Is all this bad? Sort of. It's a great read. It's a nice concept. But it removes the nobility of the character. Why?

This "special sight" is, most probably, the PREDOMINANT reason why SUPERMAN saves people's lives. This special light/glow/aura, it's beautiful, and with all beautiful things, it is heartbreaking to see them end. So he is motivated because he can literally see the beauty in life.

The (just for example) JOHN BYRNE era SUPERMAN (who I only speak of because I can speak in definites here, and for NO OTHER REASON of preference) saved people because he knew it was the right thing to do. No, he didn't LITERALLY see the beauty of life, he KNEW the beauty of life and the sanctity of it and protected it because it was what he FELT was the right thing to do. He was left with the same information that the rest of us have, and STILL made the decision to lay down his life in the preservation of others. To me, there is no more nobler sacrifice. That is an ideal that we can aspire to.

In the comic book version of SUPERMAN IV, SUPERMAN remarks about how he wishes we could see the world as he sees it, because in the end, it's just one world. He also makes this remark in the film, but what we see in the comic is that he takes a young boy named Jeremy into space with him (in a space suit) and flies him in orbit around the world. Jeremy sees that there are no borders, and that we are indeed one world. He DOES see the world the way SUPERMAN sees it. Astronauts have likened seeing the Earth from space to a religious experience. I believe that. In the end, to see the world that way is to see it as a whole.

But more importantly, we have the opportunity to see it that way more than you realize. When you are flying up in a plane, there is no greater proof of how small we truly are then to look out the window and see the (not even) specks below that are "us." To see that traveling from one state/country to the next, there are very few ACTUAL borders. There are very few (if any) actual lines in the sand which show that this is one country and this is the other (with the exception, of course, of continents.) We all live here together. As one people. This world is our home.

Now all that may not inspire everyone to make the choice to preserve lives, but (among other reasons) this was one thing that SUPERMAN believed in. He had that and the morals instilled in him by his parents. Armed with all this, and perhaps more, he made his decision. At the end of the day, all he had extra were his powers....his physicality. His mentality was the same as our own, and that is what makes him noble. Changing his perceptions, in my opinion, not only tears away his nobility, but also our ability to achieve the same, because no matter what happens, we just won't see things the way he does. We can't. It's figurative as much as it is literal.

Now, so you don't think I'm being unfair, just what does this have to do with Elliot S! Maggin? Good question. After doing some reading on that other website, I discovered that the idea of this special sight was not founded by Waid, but was first postulated by Maggin in a story that he had written. Waid, who dedicates BIRTHRIGHT to Maggin, among others, borrowed the idea. But Maggin is not the only one who has done this. Back to Waid.

Waid, who is one of the two creative geniuses behind my all-time favorite comic book story, KINGDOM COME, really dropped the ball in my opinion, as far as protecting the SUPERMAN heritage went. Not only did he take away the nobility of the character, but he COMPLETELY changed the significance of the "S" shield.

Now, let's be clear on this. It was first put forth in SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE, that the S was the El family crest. THE ADVENTURES OF SUPERBOY continued this trend, as did LOIS & CLARK: THE NEW ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN. More recently, DC COMICS has created a KRYPTONIAN language which includes a character that looks suspiciously like the S, but is an 8 instead of an "s" in the diamond, although it translates to the ENGLISH letter "s." Now, finally, Waid has decided to show that the S has had important signficance throughout the history of KRYPTON. Now, again, it was first postualted by LOIS & CLARK: THE NEW ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN, that the S was actually included in the rocket with the baby Kal-El, although we were led to believe that it was still probably the family crest. In Waid's version, however, it is included on a banner that Jor-El and Lara send in the rocket with Kal-El. A BIG BLUE banner, in fact.

Now, why did I not have a problem with it being the family crest, but I have a problem with it being a Kryptonian symbol of some sort? GOOD QUESTION. Here's the answer:

As the family crest, it is simply that. A family crest. That is it. For him, and the people of the Earth, it will come to mean more. And those who learn of the symbol will know that it stands for truth and justice because they know the man behind it. It is HIS symbol. Others will strive to live up to HIS ideals.

Making it a Kryptonian symbol changes all that. As we all know, aliens have visited Krypton before it was destroyed. They will, undoubtedly, recognize HIS symbol, but not as his. They will recognize it as Kryptonian. They may recognize it as truth and justice, but KRYPTONIAN truth and justice. Will they fear it? No, because Krypton is dead. Will he change their minds? Probably, but they will not see it as his symbol. They will see him for what he is, not who he is. To them, he is a Kryptonian. Before, they would see him as a man. A Superman.

FOOTNOTE: I doubt that a number of people who spent any sort of time on Krypton would have had the opportunity to study ALL the family crests, including that of the House of El. So, the odds of it being recognized would have been MUCH smaller.

For now, however, let me get off this and make my initial point. SUPERMAN is not alone in this quagmire. Next up is the dreaded franchise STAR TREK.

Let me first point out the following: Long ago, I stopped being able to watch STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION without cringing. Not sure I can pin down why, let's call it a knee-jerk reaction. In it's history, I only TRULY enjoyed a handful of STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE NINE episodes. STAR TREK: VOYAGER fared even worse on that score, as things just got to be too cookie cutter. Finally, I had to kiss off STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE after its second season, as that it just couldn't thrill me in ANY way. So, right now to me, the only STAR TREK I can stomach is The Original Series.

A friend of mine was telling me today about all the things the producers want to do to spruce up STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE to make it better. Let me just say that not only am I not impressed, but I am now scared.

It seems that the illustrious writing staff of ENTERPRISE, who have gone out of their way to say that while they do hold TOS in high regard, they see no need to build their show as a prequel to THAT set of stories, but to the TNG era instead, have decided to tackle the ROMULAN-EARTH war. How many ways could this possibly be wrong? The same number of ways I can say STAR WARS: EPISODE III is wrong, (coincidently).

The ROMULANS first appeared in the first season of TOS in an episode called BALANCE OF TERROR. Now we all know that TOS canon is a little fluid since the show did contradict itself from time to time. However, for the most part, the continuity in this episode stood up. Until someone decided to intentionally contradict it.

STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE has shown very little regard for TOS. In it's first season, the new ENTERPRISE, crewed by people who are just beginning to master faster-than-light travel encounter an alien ship far advanced of their own. And wouldn't you know, the ENTERPRISE cheif engineer went on board the alien ship and fixed their engine for them!!!! What the heck is that all about? How did that happen?

So, with a writing staff this senseless, let's tackle the facts from BALANCE OF TERROR. In the episode, Spock states that no Romulan nor Human had seen the other before, even during the aforementioned war, because ship-to-ship visual communication was not possible yet. Now, they're rewriting the story so that it's not that it was impossible, but that the Romulans simply didn't want to be seen. Why? Because their code of conduct wouldn't allow it. ARE YOU CRAZY?! Since when! Why is this necessary? It wouldn't be necessary if the show had been constructed to fit into the facts that were presented to the staff to begin with! Ship-to-ship visual communication doesn't HAVE to be possible with all races because the technology isn't advanced enough to decipher all alien transmission protocols. Or we just weren't that advanced. WHY DO WE HAVE TO BE TREATED TO THIS REALLY LAME EXCUSE?!?!?!

With all this in mind, let's get to the real guts shall we? I mentioned that characters are being stripped of their nobility. Where is that happening here? Good question. My friend also said that the following bit of continuity was tweaked:

SURAK, the father of Vulcan logic (which eventually led to the separation of the Romulans from the Vulcans) was not, in fact, a Vulcan, but was an exile from the Q Continuum. He was a freakin' Q!!!! WHY!!! Isn't it possible for a mere mortal to have a peaceful thought and be revolutionary enough to bring about peace? Do all peaceful people have to be that way because they're omnipotent? Even if you're going to say that he got stripped of his powers or something (which I can't say for sure because I don't know the details) it doesn't change the fact that he knows the importance of peace because his perceptions (like SUPERMAN'S ABOVE) are different from us mere mortals. Again, I think the original concept of SURAK as a Vulcan who came upon the idea of peace and knowledge through logic is much more nobler as it being the result of some God-like exile. And supposedly the war between the ROMULANS and the VULCANS was STARTED by a Q as well? Supposedly there was no space travel back then for Vulcans? WHAT THE HECK IS THAT CRAP ALL ABOUT?!?!?!? WHO SAYS THEY DIDN'T HAVE SPACE TRAVEL!

Let me get one thing straight right now. I am aware that everything I am complaining about in this entry is ficticious, and that no one should really take any of it particularly seriously. As isolated incidents, I don't. I just want to know why writers are finding it necessary to take naturaly altruism away from characters and, in the process, take away their nobility. The lessons of both SURAK and SUPERMAN are that one man can make a difference [Michael Knight too, for that matter ;-)] But in these revisionist stories one divinely perceptive man can make a difference.

This all hits me because I believe in the inherent good of humanity. I believe that we can overcome all our differences and bigotries and that we will strive to better ourselves. I believe that one day we may live together in peace. I believe that we will live long enough to stop ourselves from destroying eachother for once and for all. These stories, among others, fueled and, in some ways, were the foundations of these beliefs in me. And now, there are writers that are slowly tearing down the nobility of these stories. I doubt that they are doing it on purpose, or with malice. In each case, they are simply trying to help run a business. I am also aware that by the very nature of a franchise, the writers are not really in charge. So the faults lie in both the writers and the franchise owners.

I know that they have to tell stories. I just don't think they have to disregard what has come before in order to build what is to come. Especially since sometimes you wind up hurting more than just continuity. Sometimes, you cut these characters from the core, and are left with a flashy shell, with no real depth.

:: J 7:09 PM [+] ::
...

Soul Searching Ahead

I have never spent as much time in the past as I have recently thinking about my elligibility for dating material. I swear to God, it's like the circumstances have just been presenting themselves recently as if there were no tomorrow.

A few weeks ago, I attended a wedding. It was a wonderful affair which again, mercifully, also gave me a small group of people that I knew to hang out with. There was a girl who was there, a very nice, sweet, wonderful girl who is full of pep. I know her. We are friends. We don't hang out much, but we do talk a lot. I deliberately went stag to this event, because I am aware of my overall unsuitability as a dating candidate. The problem with knowing this s that you know that you are going to disappoint whoever you wind up going with, whethe they know that about you or not. It is inevitable. Well, half way through this gala event, I think I may have given off the "date vibe" or something. The next thing I know, she's trying to get me to open up, and "have more fun." Now, I was having fun, no question. I just didn't care to indulge in some of the things that people do, such as dancing. Well, as dates are known to do, she tried to get me to dance and loosen up. I didn't want to, and bowed out. Up to this point, you could say that I am being egotistical thinking that she thought we might be on a date or something, but the fact that she chose to bow out as well (against her desire to dance and 'have fun') was a bit of a clue. Had we not been 'together' I'm sure she would have gone out and had all the fun that she truly wanted to have.

Over the course of the following weeks, we've had one "mini-date" which I kinda thought wasn't, but was getting the impression was afterwards, and we've spent a lot of time talking. She is an incredibly wonderful person, but I would like to leave it at that. I would hate to have all the emotional baggage that I have come in and totally destroy what is a very NICE budding friendship. Alas, this has been the running preoccupation of my mind for the past few weeks.
Now, today, another moment has reared its head. The worst part about this situation is that it, too, is borne out of people who are just being nice to me. As it turns out, today a few people decided that they wanted to set me up with a girl. On the surface, the question is "SO WHAT THE BLOODY HELL IS WRONG WITH THAT?!?! Like you ever get a chance to meet girls anyway?" This was probably one of the sweetest things that someone(s) have done for me in quite awhile. At first, I actually entertained the idea of actually going ahead with this and seeing where it went. I mean, she was here, and she was sitting right next to me. It's not like I had to be a particular go-getter to at least start a conversation.

And so, I did. And after the first few moments, I had that feeling. You know which one I'm talking about. The one that says, 'not for me.' And so, we did a little bit of talking, and that was it.

When asked by the outside parties what was happening and why I wasn't trying, I politely thanked, and had to explain that this just wasn't going to work. It touched me deeply that they even tried. They were so disappointed that nothing happened.

But more importantly, I'm right back where I started......alone.

To qualify, I have a great group of friends. Near and far. But the solitude that I refer to is with regard to companionship.

I'm reminded once again of The Beatles' "THAT MEANS A LOT." To quote Paul McCartney:

"A touch can mean so much, when it's all you've got. But when she says she loves you, that means a lot."

This was my anthem in College. Back when I had a girlfriend, this was my justification for how much I loved her. The fact of the matter is, the most important thing that I miss about having a girlfriend is the meaningful hugs. The ones that comfort when you feel bad, or can just inject you with the sense of wellbeing. Sometimes, I feel it more than others, but I do miss it.

Despite all that, I know why I don't pursue this. I have my reasons. And to me, that's enough. One day, I will find someone. My strongest virtue has always been patience. And the greatest proof of that, is the fact that I am still alone..............

:: J 5:40 PM [+] ::
...

Christopher Reeve

I know it has been over a week, but I have not yet taken the time to express my feelings on the loss of Christopher Reeve. I know I am one of a million who feel this way, and this should by no means trivialize his other tremendous works, but he will always be SUPERMAN to me. I doubt that anyone will ever again be able to truly bring the sense of power and wonder to the character that he did. I did expound my full believes on the SUPERMAN THROUGH THE AGES forum, so I have provided the link to that, here.

In addition, being a fan of SMALLVILLE, I also wrote what, in my opinion, would be a fitting end to the character of Dr. Virgil Swann. You can read it here.

:: J 10:41 AM [+] ::
...

All you need is........?

Ok, I first refer you the THE GUARDIAN

This was a story that I saw reported a lot yesteday, and one which I really am not all that sure I understand. I mean, I do understand it in a fundamental kind of way, but it just never ceases to amaze me how incredibly hypocritical people can be.

Yoko's feelings aside, John was a peace-loving man. Sure, he didn't take guff from anyone, but didn't he spend a great deal of time doing all sorts of crazy things to show that peace was the way to go and to be good to your fellow man?

Now, I'm sure that DOESN'T mean that we should forgive MARK DAVID CHAPMAN for what he did, and we will certainly never forget. But to think that the people who loved JOHN and his music so much are threatening to kill someone is just insane to me. It's almost the same sort of insanity that was displayed by CHAPMAN, except he was insane enough to go through with it. I can only hope that if he is released, no one takes it upon themselves to inflict some sort of vigilante justice on him. Believe me, when re-introduced to the general populace (should it happen), his life will certainly be nowhere near normal. And I'm sure it will be a much harder life, frought with lessons that he certainly wouldn't learn in death.

His life would be hell enough.

:: J 10:54 AM [+] ::
...

Another Political Debate

Does being anti-Bush make you a liberal? Does being anti-Kerry make you conservative?

Many weeks ago I wrote a post here outlining my feelings on this issue. I constantly marvel at how closed-minded some people can be to believe that this HAS to be the case.

I'd get into a larger rant here, but I think my original rant speaks clearly enough.

:: J 1:38 PM [+] ::
...

Stealing Memories

Alas, there is an item in today's USA TODAY regarding the upcoming release of the original STAR WARS films on DVD. This brings to mind the fantastic crime that George Lucas is committing on the helpless public.

With all due respect to the talent that Mr. Lucas has exhibited and his fine business acumen, I tend to wonder if he has forgotten why he got into movies in the first place, and more specifically, the magic that he tried to infuse into the STAR WARS films.

As originally conceived, the films invoked the nostalgia of the original Saturday morning matinee serials of the 30's and 40's. The key word in that sentence is NOSTALGIA. It is this one idea which is the cornerstone of the popularity of STAR WARS.

If there is any doubt to that, look back at the ad campaign for the SPECIAL EDITION release of STAR WARS. What you will see is an attempt to remind the audience how cool it was to see the film on the 'big screen' and how much the younger generation missed by not seeing it on the 'big screen.' What is missing, however, is the movie that we all remember seeing.

Hardcore fans knew that Greedo didn't shoot first, and their memories of that film were ever so slightly tarnished by that. It's in this vein that I believe Mr. Lucas is doing a tremendous disservice. He is taking away the films that we all fell in love with. Yes, he's 'improving on them,' but just because you can do that, it does not necessarily follow that you must.

After all, who wouldn't pay just a little extra to be able to see the films as they were originally shot, on a digital transfer with 5.1 surround sound?

Personally, I would prefer that to the SPECIAL EDITIONS, or any new versions. A smart man would take the ALIEN QUADRILOGY route and include both the originals and the spiffy new versions. Why snub a public who has been more than willing to laud you as a genius and forget your rather incredible dreck! (Howard the Duck, anyone?)

It's the same lack of respect that the people at Paramount have shown with Star Trek. By allowing people to come in and re-write history, you aren't adding to the glorious tapestry of the story, but rather tearing the original away, piece by piece. Change can be a good thing, but only if done with respect to what came before. Change for the sake of not having anything better to do? That's just disrespectful.

:: J 10:15 AM [+] ::
...

SUPERMAN (again)

Well, it's that time again. Time for me to rant and rave about Superman again. So for those of you who are sick of hearing me expound on the subject, cover your eyes, look away or just wait for the next post, cause I'm talking about one of my favorite subjects again.

Earlier today I read an article in which people are talking about the astounding rumor that Jim Caviezel is being considered for the part of Superman. This has gotten everyone thinking again about the tremendous parallels that exist between the characters of SUPERMAN and JESUS CHRIST.

Yes, I am aware that I just referred to JESUS CHRIST as a character. As that I do not necessarily consider the Bible a strict historical document, I therefore refer to him as a character. This does not mean that I do not believe that he existed, simply that for the purposes of this essay, he is a character in the Bible. If you're offended, I'm sorry, but everyone's entitled to their opinions.

SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE went quite out of its way to depict the similarities between the two stories, even taking certain liberties to create an even stronger bond (some, in ways which have been picked up by future incarnations of the character.) For lack of a better description, Superman is a Christ figure to be sure. He is the ideal that we all would try to aspire to. Okay, so not everyone wants to wear their underwear on the outside, but I'm pretty sure that some day this will be a fashion trend. After all, who would have thought that bell-bottoms would have caught on?

He is the God(-like) figure who lives like a man, but who is filled with compassion and understanding. The most incredible part of all this, however, is that if he were truly a real person, he would be more of a Christ-like figure than he already is.

Why? Not because people would see him as an angel, but the people would reject him. For all the good that he does, it is clear that he couldn't be everywhere all the time. As such, he would be (figuratively) crucified every time he failed to save a person. Imagine, for one moment, that he had been around on September 11. The timeline, if you can believe it, wouldn't have changed all that much.

This is how I see it happening

A bit much? Perhaps. A bit naive? Maybe. But, do you know what? I never said I had it 100% right. But I'd say I'm pretty damned close. And that's pretty much just the national opinion of him. I didn't even begin to talk about what the world would think of him. Anyhoo, back to the point, he is a true Christ figure. However, he should NOT be portrayed as god-like. He is a man who just so happens to have these abilities. He is humble, and he does not see himself as the inspiration that he is. To him, he is just a man who is trying to make a difference with the abilities that he has.

That's all. I'm going to step down now. Thanks for coming.

:: J 8:17 PM [+] ::
...

Lighten Up!

You know what I've discovered? There are people out there who say that in order to get ahead in business, you can't be a nice person. Now, I just have to ask "WHAT KIND OF SCREWED-UP PHILOSOPHY IS THAT?!?"

We've all heard that old saying that "Nice Guys Finish Last." I have NEVER bought into that. I assume there is an analogous statement regarding 'Nice Girls,' although I haven't heard it. Whoever subscribes to these philosophies need to have their heads examined.

For the most part, I've been a big believer in the whole "do unto others...." philosophy. As such, I can't fathom anyone who wants to be treated like dirt.

But that aside, since most people don't actually THINK that way on a daily basis, what makes anyone think that being anything but nice to someone is going to get you what you want?

Now, to be fair, you shouldn't be so nice as to be a pushover. Stand your ground, but don't do it in such a way that you don't care if you offend someone else. Why would you do that? What sense could it possibly make? It's like saying 'might is right,' and we all know that isn't quite right. That's the very definition of being a bully.

Regardless, some people see being nice as a sign of weakness. That to forgive is to forget. These things are not true.

Ultimately, what all this boils down to, however, is my distaste for self-help gurus. For the most part, they have no idea what really works for people. They only know what works for them. Anyone who takes their word as gospel is engaging in a crap shoot. The fact that there is someone out there who is saying that to be nice is a mistake, is painful to me.

Readers of this blog know that I have always wanted to know why we can't all just get along, and these purveyors of poison (I am not longer talking about self-help gurus in general, but those who say that you shouldn't be nice) are right up there on the list.

Look at existence as a whole. We are all on this planet. No matter how you cut it, we have to co-exist here. You can't co-exist with people without being nice to them, no matter how you cut it. You just wind up creating a time-bomb that will one day explode in a brilliant flash of light. So the best thing is to try and make the best of it. Being mean will only waste your time and ultimately leave you unsatisfied. After all, friendship and camaraderie are some of the very cornerstones of sustenance.

:: J 2:52 PM [+] ::
...

KIDS!!!

You know what?  I've got a bit of a problem here and I just need to get it off my chest.  I HATE getting political, but this is just a bit of nonsense that has been bothering me.

Last night, Bill O'Reilly did an interview with Michael Moore.  Now these are two gentlemen that I can't bring myself to agree with one way or the other, but I watched the interview just to see what they would finally have to say to eachother.

On the whole, I liked the interview.  It was good television.  On the flipside, however, I found myself disagreeing fundamentally with a question that Mr. Moore asked Mr. O'Reilly.

The question, roughly, was "would you send your children to die to retake Fallujah?"

Personally, I can't say that Mr. Moore would be making his point if Mr. O'Reilly answered "no."

Why?  Because, in my experience, NO PARENT would answer 'yes' to any question which started "would you send your child to die..."  Most parents would gladly sacrifice themselves before their children, regardless of the reason.  A parent can be proud of what their child accomplishes in the military, but knowing that their child would die the next day would prevent most parents from letting their children enroll.

At least, that is how I think of parents.  They want to protect their children.  Therefore, I find that the question was unfair to begin with.  Mr. O'Reilly's response that he would sacrifice himself would be the logical answer from anyone who supports the war.  I just don't feel that good parents would sacrifice their children over themselves, no matter the cost.

As for Mr. Moore's assertion that President Bush is sending the children over to Iraq, this is also a flawed statement for two reasons:  1) No CHILDREN in the literal sense are being sent to Iraq.  These are grown men and women who have chosen to devote a portion of their lives to the armed services.  And 2) It is President Bush's heavy job to send people to what could very well be their deaths.  While the merits of this war may be sketchy at best, war demands casualties.  It's one of the worst things about war.  People die.  The fact of the matter is that right or wrong President Bush sent people to fight this war.  Some of them were going to die.  The President believes that the cause was just.  In a sense, I suppose it may have been.  A dictator was removed from control.  As Mr. Moore points out, that wasn't the reason they were given for going, and whether it was President Bush who lied or was merely mis-informed has become a debate for the academics.

The point is that people die during war.  By that token war is bad.  But it is the President's responsibility to make that decision.  Other presidents have sent 'children' to die.  That should not be the issue.  The issue should remain whether or not the war is justified (or at least as justified as war can ever be.)

This argument comes from a man who loves humanity as a whole.  Someone who will not take a side in the argument between Mr. Moore and his kind and Mr. O'Reilly and his kind, because neither side is entirely correct.

To quote Dennis Miller, "that's just my opinion.  I could be wrong."


:: J 12:45 PM [+] ::
...

Another AMAZING Birthday

Well, just when I thought that last year's birthday was one of the best ever, this one really kicks my butt!

So, I come into work today.  When there is a birthday in the office, someone always springs for bagels or some other such birthday surprise for the group.  This morning was no different, there were bagels for all!  Yippee.  Cards were delivered, bagels were eaten.  All was well.  Had it ended there, I would have been content.  Things were about to get a whole lot better.

A wonderful colleague of mine would like to take me out to lunch.  My boss is amenable, so out I go for a wonderful lunch.  It was quite tasty.  I had a turkey club sandwich, fried calamari, and, to top it off, a bowl of chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream.

Upon my return, I get a frantic call to meet a friend in another department.  When I get there, I find that she has baked me a cake for my birthday, which I promptly bring back to my desk and share with my co-workers.  Now, if you think that's as good as it gets, wait until you hear what happened next!

I finally get back to my desk, only to hear that another colleague in another department needs my help.  I ask permission, which is quickly granted, and go join the work in progress.  At first, it's business as usual.  All of a sudden, I am dragged over to a nearby desk to find a BEN & JERRY'S Ice Cream cake waiting for me!!!  It was incredible.  Chocolate ice cream with cookie dough ice cream on top, chocolate crunchies at the bottom and vanilla icing!!!  It was too cool for words and one of the best presents I've ever gotten.

Finally, with all this food swimming in my belly, I still have to go home and go out to dinner with the family!!!!  What more could anyone ask then a good birthday with family and friends?

:: J 3:48 PM [+] ::
...

BREATHE........BREATHE.........Breathe...........breathe....... *phew*

OK, so why the hyperventilation?  Good question.  Here's the answer:

I was just looking through the product news at StarTrek.com, and I came across the DVD release information for TREKKIES 2.  What is TREKKIES 2?  Good question again (you're full of them today.)  TREKKIES, aside from being the plural form of the proper title for STAR TREK fans, was also a film made a few years ago by former STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION star DENISE CROSBY.  It was a film/documentary which looked into the STAR TREK fan culture, and among other things also made me VERY insecure about being a STAR TREK fan.

Being a STAR TREK fan is hard enough without having to showcase those of us who go overboard and can not tell fact from fiction.  Now, to be fair, I don't exactly believe that.  Unfortunately, it is not so much what I believe as it is what everyone else in the world seems to believe.  It is hard being taken seriously when someone realizes that I am a STAR TREK fan because they automatically assume that I run around in my spare time wearing weird costumes, putting on strange make-up, pretending I am from another planet, am hormonally challenged and have never kissed a girl.  That's a lot of baggage to come with a simple word, don't you think?

Now, not to get off on a bit of a rant here, but dressing up in the silly clothing has never, in my mind, been a particularly good reason to get on someone's case.  After all, have you looked at what passes itself off for high fashion nowadays?  It can sometimes be quite scary.  But, more to the point, I have found at a local Wal-Mart quite a few shirts which emulate STARFLEET uniform tunics.  Whether this is intentional or not is not known to me, but what I do know is that they sell.

If someone is walking down the streets wearing something that looks like an article of clothing worn by Sarah Jessica Parker on SEX & THE CITY or James Gandolfini on THE SOPRANOS, no one would say a word.  However, just because it happens to be what someone wore on STAR TREK, people make a fuss.  Again, I guess this kind of needs a qualifier.  Wearing Klingon battle armor in public is a bit different.  That can fall into the 'strangeness category' just as it would if someone wore a Knight's armor in public.  It's all in grades, I suppose.

The make-up/prosthetics is yet another thing that can be taken in grades.  Something as subtle as pointed eyebrows (ala Vulcans) is so acceptable that you see many women wearing them on television today (or something akin to it.)  Worn by men, however doesn't work quite as well.  Ears, ridges, etc... opens one up to criticism, but in my opinion these things are not too different from getting your hair dyed blue or violet, or wearing visible tattoos.

In a nutshell, I have no problem encountering people wearing the uniforms, etc.  It's the attitude.  Role playing is generally good when shared with others who wish to play.  When you bring in people who would rather live in the real world, that's when you get into trouble.  I.E., if a group of 'Klingons' is walking down the street speaking to eachother in Klingon, that's not a problem.  When they start scowling at 'outsiders' and acting very aggressive to them in order to stay in character, that's when you get a problem.

Mine, however, is not to judge.  To each his own I say.  Just out to give advice where I can.

Back to the original subject of TREKKIES 2.  Watching the first one in the theaters made me uncomfortable to be a STAR TREK fan.  Most of those PROFILED in the film, (not the people who only appeared for 6 seconds, but those who were actually PROFILED, also not those who appear on any of the actual series) were portrayed as social misfits.  Whether this was by design or by the simple fact that they may be seems inconsequential.  Take the example of the man who is a die-hard STAR TREK fan (there are a few, but unfortunately the specific one escapes me.  I want to say the dentist, but am not sure.)  His wife sits there during his interview.  She is next to him, and yet facing him.  I'm no expert in body language, but her very posture almost screams "I'm not like him!! I promise.  I'm normal!  And if he gets out of line, I have my lawyer on speed dial!"  Listen to her and watch her during the interview.  It gets to be pretty obvious, at least to me.

Then, take the kid (I believe he's in his late teens) who is a diehard fan.  He just had a costume made up and everything.  He has quite a vocabulary and seems to be quite intelligent.  However, his mannerisms bely a certain amount of social ineptitude.  It's nice that he knows the word plethora.  It would be better if he could pronounce it properly.

Again, this is not to be a major criticsm, just the observation that I walk away with.  And let's not forget, I'm a FAN!  I'm on their side!  What do you think a non-fan is going to walk away with?

Now, after all this humiliation, there's a sequel!  I just watched the trailer, and I think we're in for a little more of the same.  It's a shame really.  Back in the seventies, while it was never quite cool to be a Trekkie, it was at least somewhat understandable since the subject material was pretty good, considering.

Now, all these years later, STAR TREK is in the midst of its death throes.  EVERYONE knows it.  And as much as it pains me to say it, it may be time for STAR TREK to be put down like the rabid dog it has slowly become.  A shame really.  I once believed that there may have been salvation for this once prospering franchise.  Now, my hopes have been dashed.  Don't even get me started on my reactions to the news that BRENT SPINER and WILLIAM SHATNER have been considered for guest spots in the next season of STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE (they finally added the "STAR TREK."  Too little, too late.)

And, in a lot of ways, I think the fans are the problems.  I still read, with decreasing interest, STAR TREK: The Official Fan Club magazine.  The letters column has become an increasing source of frustration with me.  It used to be that television was about telling stories.  Now, it appears to me over the most inane of subjects that it can't even be quantified by sanest of individuals!!!

One person writes in asking why there are zippers on Starfleet uniforms.  Specifically, zippers in the back of the NEXT GENERATION uniforms.  The author of this letter rightly points out that no military organization that he knows of has zippers on the back of their uniforms.  So, to his mind, this does not make sense.  WHO CARES?!?!?!?  The real source of that zipper was not a quartermaster at STARFLEET HEADQUARTERS, but a wardrobe person on the PARAMOUNT PICTURES STUDIO LOT!!!  Fact vs. Fiction.

There was also the running debate over whether or not STARFLEET is a military organization.  To wit, the most recent author of this letter writes chapter and verse from the STARFLEET TECHNICAL MANUAL, written by Franz Joseph in the 1970s.  He quotes passages which refer to STARFLEET as a military organization.  The editor of the column rebuffs this argument by pointing out that GENE RODDENBERRY, the man who created STAR TREK said that STARFLEET is not a military organization, and that his word, as creator, should be the end of it.

There are numerous ways to tackle this debate, but I won't get into them.  Why?  BECAUSE I DON'T CARE!  What does it matter if STARFLEET is a military organization.  Think of it however you wish.  The simple fact of the matter is that with a ranking system, court martials, orders, and so forth, you create the illusion of a military organization.  But whether it is or is not a military organization should not be the founding stone of ones gripes about a three-year long television show that aired over 35 years ago.  What happened to the simple importance of telling a good story within the maleable confines of a fictional universe?

It is fans like these who make films like TREKKIES so hard to watch. 

Some would call me a self-hating Trekkie.  Am I?  Perhaps.  Or perhaps I am one of those people who simply regrets being a social misfit by association.

STAR TREK, in its purest form, is about hope for the future.  Not so much that we will live in some idyllic society -- STAR TREK was never about that.  It was simply hope that we will live through whatever happens today.  That with all the war and strife, we will come out the other side alive and, hopefullly, a little better as a society.  Despite what some people believe, there was conflict in STAR TREK.  People fought, had differences of opinion, and sometimes did not get along.   The status quo had to be resolved at the end because it was episodic television.  That's it.  The show did not have such a following at the time that you could have conceivably changed things that radically.  Simple as that.  So let all the nay-sayers quite their griping, and just try to enjoy the show for simple escapism, and well thought out stories (ok, they weren't ALL that great, but there were some great ones.)

At the end of the day, STAR TREK was a television show that aired from 1966-1969.  That's it.  STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION aired from 1987-1994, STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE NINE, etc....  That's it.  If you can take away life lessons from these shows and live you life by them, good for you.  Part of good storytelling is educating where possible.  If you want to live your life like these people, that can be good to.  A catharsis from your life and a way to relax.  Just try not to forget that life down here can be just as compelling as life......out there..........thataway!

:: J 2:10 PM [+] ::
...

Open Letter To Amy Acker:

As that our other blog, Jossolalia has been out of publication since the end of last year, I am posting this here. While I'm sure that this message will probably not be read my Amy herself, it will contain points which I would like to share with all. I would also like to post about the series finale of ANGEL, but that will wait for another time.

Of all the actors on ANGEL, and there was some phenomenal acting on display on that show, AMY ACKER stands as the greatest of them all. Now, with any critique of an actor's work, you have to take into account the work of the writers. I have done that. The writers on ANGEL are also excellent, but again, there are some things that just aren't written and these are the things that are attributable to AMY.

Examining the character of FRED over time, she started out as a true acting exercise. Compressing manic fear and paranoia with humor and a serious sense of intelligence, cunning and even a bit of self-control into one personality is hard. Especially when you have to maintain such a delicate balance. Over the slow process of FRED's growing into a more 'normal' person (the trademark 'take-your-time' growing process we have come to know and love in all of JOSS WHEDON'S shows) this cacophony of mixed emotions and desires began to become tempered by a sense of security and belonging.

FRED'S relationship with GUNN was a pivotal part of this 'coming-of-age' and was again played with execptional attention to these layers. J. August Richards was certainly good in providing his share of emotional angst, but AMY still had to keep up a small mix of that 'earlier FRED' which made it all the more challenging.

AMY kept her acting skills sharp during the continuing run of ANGEL, and then truly began to shine in this, their last season.

Being thrust into a position of greater responsibility was a little awkward for FRED, but she slowly grew into the position, even winning the favor of the new kid on the block, SPIKE. AMY again balanced the shyness of FRED with a sense of growing responsibility to stunning effect. But even this was miniscule compared to what was to come next.

AMY had the opportunity to do something which has been a bit rare in the BUFFY-VERSE. She had a proper death scene. One in which her character could say good-bye (even if she didn't ACTUALLY say that.) In that final episode, AMY ran the emotional gambit, and brought us into the sadness of FRED'S final moments. To me, it ranks among the most emotional moments in the history of the BUFFY-VERSE. Again, kudos go to the writing staff, but it was AMY who brought those words to life and gave them their true emotional core.

Then came the coup de grace. ILLYRIA. In that one character, AMY was able to show us how she had us completely fooled. Most people believe that Sarah Michelle Gellar is a lot like Buffy. That Alyson Hannigan is a lot like Willow. That David Boreanaz is a lot like Angel (well, not so much with the biting, but that there are at least SOME similarities.)

AMY's performance of ILLYRIA was mesmorizing beyond compare. Granted, she looked great with the blue-ish hair, the outfit and those cool eyes. But just when you thought THAT was what made our FRED seem to be completely different, AMY shocked the truth into us. In "THE GIRL IN QUESTION," AMY returns to more familiar ground as FRED. Every once in a while, however, she reverts back to the ILLYRIA personality. For once, there is no CGI eye-changing or even a morph to give her head the blue hue. Nope, not for this girl.

Instead, with a cock of the head and a change of voice (and a myriad of other intricacies) AMY brings ILLYRIA across loud and clear. It was incredible. The performance was flawless, and kudos isn't even a remotely strong enough word to convey the praise that should be heaped upon our AMY ACKER. A credit to the profession, she has raised the bar of acting (in this genere in particular). I wish her well on all her future pursuits.

J

P.S. For some reason, this entry has taken 3 days to get together, if that should give you any indication of how busy I have been.

J
:: J 6:03 PM [+] ::
...

An Open Letter to the FCC

To whom it may concern:

There is a hope that this letter will be read and taken into consideration by someone in authority, but given the recent spate of e-mail being sent by zealots on either side of the indecency issue, I tend to doubt it. Regardless, I sent this e-mail as a plea from a concerned citizen.

I am about to mention two words which I believe will make you disregard this letter. I beg of you to give me a chance and read on. I hope you find what I have to say different from what you have undoubtedly read over and over again.

Those words are "Howard Stern." Let me give you some background on myself first. I have never met the man. I listened to him as a much younger child, and spent many years as an avid listener. When I went to college, I left the state of New York, and listening to Mr. Stern at the time became impossible. Not being too obsessive, I was forced to stop listening. Past that, I rarely took an opportunity to listen anymore. I had no desire to. The humor had become a bit to childish for me, and it just was not the same anymore.

I grew up in a reasonably moral household. Not particularly religious, and rather free in allowances. I was never truly protected from watching films which had profanity, or even a small amount of nudity in them. As it turned out, I knew what was bad and what was good and obstained accordingly. To date, I have never done drugs (nor do I have a desire to,) I am not a sex fiend, and I never use profanity (not because I find it offensive per se, but simply because I feel that when you use profanity, you use it because you can't think of anything more intelligent to say.)

I realize that it may just be that I am an anomaly. I accept that. Despite that, I still wonder about the recent backlash against what is deemed as "indecency." The Super Bowl stunt was wrong. It shouldn't have happened and those responsible should be held accountable. I don't dispute that.

What happened happened during what is accepted as a family show. It was not done for the sake of art, as much as it was for shock value. The validity of something as art, however should not be debated here as that it opens up another can of worms entirely which I feel that I am ill-equipped to tackle at this moment.

Howard Stern has been on the air for as long as I can remember. It has always been my understanding that his radio program has been on "the cutting edge" (if you'll pardon the cliche) of what is acceptable on air. For close to 20 years (give or take) the public has accepted what he has done. He has been consistently one of the highest rated programs in almost any market that he is in. This being the case, the issue should be reduced to simple democracy. The public has voted him number one, so he should stay. Simple as that.

The indeceny issue should be fought at home. If you want to trace the breakdown of the family, look back to when parents decided to let radio and television act as babysitters for their children. Those who do not have time for children should not choose to have children. I realize that that is a harsh choice to make, but truly it becomes the responsibility of the parent. If a parent leaves a child alone in a room and the child hurts himself/herself on a sharp object left in the room, the parent is responsible. It is called negligence. Why should the standard be any different for a radio or television?

The issue has been fought for as long as men have been self aware:

"A snake is lying on the ground, injured. An elephant walks by. 'Please, elephant. I need help crossing the river. Will you help me?'' asked the snake. The elephant agrees and carrys the snake to the other side. Upon reaching the other side, the snake bites the elephant. 'Why did you do that?'' asked the elephant. 'I can't help it. I am a snake. It is what I do.'"

Now, I know I didn't get the story quite right, but I am sure you've heard it. The same is true here. If you don't want to be bitten, the solution is to stay away from the snake. The solution is not to kill all the snakes. That would be A solution, but not the right one.

Howard Stern has been accepted by the masses. If he hadn't, he wouldn't have been 'The King of All Media.' Sure, he's crass and sometimes vulgar, but that is what we have come to expect. He is, in truth, no worse than Jerry Springer or half the other things on television, which are easily seen. He has become an artifact of popular culture. It is undeniable.

I ask you to set politics aside for a moment, because I don't believe that they should be the central idea behind what is happening here. Instead, go with what you know to be common sense. Personally, it doesn't matter to me if I turn on the radio and hear Howard Stern. What matters to me is that I live in a country that knows it's limitations and refuses to deny the liberties that have been set out for it's citizens.

Please take this under consideration before forcing Howard Stern off the air. Not because I want him on the air, but because you may soon have to decide how far you are willing to go, and just when you are going to stop.


:: J 5:22 PM [+] ::
...

THANK YOU

Thank you to the many concerned citizens (tee hee, I always wanted to say that) who wrote regarding my recent kidney episode.

Here's some info on my stone and what I plan to do about it:

The stone was what's known as a Calcium Oxalate stone. For some reason, this means that while I do not have an over abundance of Calcium, I do have an overabundance of oxalate in my diet. According to the doctors, though, this would suck because I would have to avoid many of the things that I eat on a regular basis.

Now, for those who do not know me very well, let me be clear on this one point. I have vowed from the beginning of time that I would not let any sort of "condition" prevent me from eating the things that I love. Is this stupid? Monumentally so. However, it is also a choice that I have made......for now. It is easy to have the strength of one's convictions when they are not writhing in the pain of pre-stone labor. However, I feel firm in my convictions now. People have lived for many a year, eating much worse than I have, and living much better. I do balance my unhealthy diet with healthy things, so I am already that much ahead of the game.

Don't laugh, all you people. I do eat apples and peppers and bananas and strawberries and other fuit/vegetable type stuff. It's true! Besides, would I lie about eating peppers? I like the yellow ones best.

I've never been a big fan of the medical profession. My grandmother's ill-fated bout with cancer is mostly the cause of that. As such, I have only put a passing amount of stock in what doctor's say. If they say 'don't stick your finger in the electrical socket' or 'don't jump out a window,' I say 'RIGHT-O, Doctor sir!' However, too much past that, and I have to wonder.

Bottom line, my body has enjoyed what I have been pumping into it for the past 27 years. As such, I have no reason to believe it would rebel now.

On the whole, I also stay away from many of the negatives to the body, for various reasons:

1) SMOKING - Can't stand it
2) COFFEE - Don't really like the taste and caffeine puts me to sleep
3) ALCOHOL - For the MOST part, can't find any I like the taste of
4) DRUGS - Never really had much of a desire in this area

So, again, I feel like I am ahead of the game on the health front. As such, I will go a *little* easier on my diet, but not by much. I refuse to give in to this thing. So, lots of candy, junk food and soda for me!!!!! And, every now and then, a little bit of water to keep things going :)
:: J 3:02 PM [+] ::
...

Rockin' the house

I meant to have this post up on Monday, but unfortunately, I had a medical condition prevent me from blogging. More on that later, but here's what I wanted to say:

Kudos to Chris Rock! Last week I made a post (see below) about the terms LIBERAL and CONSERVATIVE as they relate to DEMOCRAT and REPUBLICAN. I felt I made some fair points (who wouldn't feel they made fair points, really....I mean, who says, "man, did my points just suck!"?)

Well, earlier this week I watched Chris Rock's recent HBO special. Guess what he decides to bring up, right in the middle? The same thing. Kinda cool, huh? Now, it would have been decidedly cooler if he had read my blog, gotten the inspiration from it and then said so, but that never happens in real life. Odds are the man is just an intelligent individual who knows just how asinine the whole situation is.

That said, why couldn't I post this information when it was more relevant? That would be because on Sunday night I went into labor. Not in the traditional sense, of course, that would be biologically impossible (or something out of a bad Arnold Schwarzennegger/Danny Devito film.) No, I found out on Sunday night/Monday morning that I had a kidney stone!

WOO HOO!!!! Kidney stone! Hip hip....Hooray!!!........................................No, wait. That's not right. Kidney stones suck! They REALLY DO! It was once described in the medical profession by giving birth to twins at the same time. Luckily for me the pain wasn't quite THAT bad, as that I had a smaller stone. Also, lucky for me, I passed it withing 48 hours. My dad, who has had 11 stones in his lifetime, has been considerably less fortunate. So now, I'm on the high water diet, with no dairy for awhile.

But, of course, this led me to a bit of an oddity. Here we are.....The 21st century........ I can deal with the fact that we don't have flying cars, that we don't have robots and even that we haven't made it to Jupiter where a maniacal, yet talented, singing computer will kill all the inhabitants on the ship, save the man cunning enough to shut it down who then discovers the infinite. However, (BTW, I don't know if even I can follow that last sentence,) what I don't understand is, if you pass a stone, save it, bring it to the doctor, and he sends it to the lab, WHY DOES IT TAKE 3 WEEKS TO EXAMINE THE BLOODY THING? I mean, this isn't Stonehenge we're talking about! It's roughly the size of a tomato seed! We're also not asking for the atomic structure of it! Just what the thing is made of! You would think it would be easier than that, or at least be less than 3 weeks. 3 days, I can understand. Hell, I'd even settle for 1 week. But 3? How in the hell did that happen?

OK, venting complete. I now return you to your regularly scheduled web surfing.
:: J 10:56 AM [+] ::
...

Kindergarten Revisited

You know, with a title like that, you'd think I was here to talk about those fond memories I have from being a child, playing with the FLINTSTONES TELEPHONE or those non-descript wood cars with the moving wheels. But alas, this is not the case. While thinking of Kindergarten does bring back these memories, it also brings back a certain mentality. This mode of thinking stays with children from this moment, at least until the end of High School. Some finally forget this way of thinking in favor of its opposite, while others never escape. What is this way of thinking? Conformity. Now, before I rant my little brain out, let me be specific about what bee is in my bonnet. Honestly, conformity is a way of life which I have come to accept (*snicker*) Unfortunately, every once in a while, it tends to stick in my craw just how out there some people are.

Of what am I speaking? The terms LIBERAL and CONSERVATIVE, as defined by DEMOCRAT and REPUBLICAN. Unfortunately, I am inundated with these terms at work, as everything is turned into a discussion of some bi-partisan nonsense.

As with any argument, what I am about to say cannot be applied to everybody, but it can be applied to way too many people.

My first step in this argument is to go to DICTIONARY.COM and look up the terms LIBERAL and CONSERVATIVE.

They are listed as the following:
LIBERAL - a) Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

CONSERVATIVE - a) Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
b) Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
c) Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.

Now, before I go sticking by foot in my mouth (BTW, I have a size 9.5 mouth) I will cross reference with THESAURUS.COM and confirm that they are, in fact, antonyms. Yes. They are.

Now, I ask you: Who in their right mind would WANT to be called bigoted? Where do I get that? Remember that above it says that a liberal is "free of bigotry." As the exact opposite, a conservative is "bigoted." Even, if it doesn't say it outright. Now, one could make an argument that this is OBVIOUSLY a "liberal publication," but I am not here for that. I am just trying to make a point.

Continuing, I would like to think that there are more shades of grey than there are black and white. To wit, that the definitions given above are extreme situations, and that not everyone who is liberal is like that and not everyone who is conservative is like that.

As that I REFUSE to pigeonhole myself into either category, I like to think that I am conservative on some things and liberal on others. What does that make me? A bastard? I would hope not. Conservatives may say I am liberal (I get that a lot). Liberals may find me too conservative (I don't get that much. Maybe it's because they are all "broad-minded.") By strict CONSERVATIVE thinking, though, does that make me a LIBERAL? By definition, probably.

But again, to the broader sense of things.....If you are a liberal, does that mean that you have to tow the same line for everything? Does that mean that you can't have one conservative thought in your head or risk being thrown out of the club? Same goes the other way. Is that true? Again, liberals could argue that this is only the case on the conservative side of the fence, since liberals again are too "broad minded" to consider something like that.

Now, based on these definitions, it makes sense to me that the only ones who would feel the need to discriminate between liberals and conservatives are conservatives since they are so "bigoted" or "opposed to change." Liberals, on the other hand, should be too "open-minded" to care one way or the other.

Some could make the argument here that this could clearly define people as good or not. I choose to believe that that is not the case. I have met many people on either side, and many of them are good people at heart. I just have never understood the need to put themselves into either group. Why should it matter?

Most of the time, it doesn't. Not until you get grouped into one catergory or the other based on your opinion of one item. This happens more than anything else. "I feel this way on topic X." "You must be one of those 'bleeding-heart' liberals." "I feel this way on topic C." "You must be one of those staunch conservatives!"

NO! I just happen to feel this way about that. Why should that determine how I feel about everything? Why, again, should it even matter?

Everyone is surprised and jumps on the moment when a Democrat happens to side with the conservatives, or vice-versa. This is not a monumental occasion. This is simply one person voicing there opinion. This is not a fundamental shift in their personality, but simply where they stand on that particular issue.

Nothing has polarized our society quite like September 11, 2001. Since then, it seems like everything has become an issue of CONERVATIVES versus LIBERALS. Quite frankly, I don't give a damn. LIBERAL, CONSERVATIVE, INDEPENDENT, UNITARIAN, CATHOLIC, KLINGON, it really doesn't matter. These names should be meaningless except when applied to someone who is 100% one way or the other. For the most part, I refuse to believe that everyone who calls themself one or the other is 100% on EVERY issue. Maybe, but I doubt it. A great source of conservativism can come from Religion. A great source of liberalism can be friends. The simple nature of friendship lends itself to an unconstrained attitude. If not, you'd better reevaluate.

My point, the point I often make, is that we spend way too much time labeling ourselves as a society. Lighten up. Don't try to define yourself with one word. You'd be doing yourself a tremendous disservice. Anyone can be described with more than one adjective. And even if you want to choose only one, pick a better one.


:: J 1:41 PM [+] ::
...

Dear God, what has happened to me?

Well, in a nutshell, I have been so terribly busy that this little corner of my universe has been terribly neglected. Unfortunately, so have a great many of my personal relationships. Well, here's to reconciliation *clink*.

So, what's happened to me lately?

1) STAR WARS: The Last of the Mandalores, the Fan Film that I have been working on through PhoenixAsh Productions was finally released on Christmas Day, to quite a lot of critical fan acclaim. A shot in the arm, and now we are off in SERIOUS pre-production on the sequel STAR WARS: Mandalorian Legacy.

I have spent the past few weeks writing up the screenplay off of a story by my collaborator Mike Galbavy. We hope to star filming in the springtime with a possible Christmas release, but more likely the film will be released in the new year 2005. I guess that's the peril of having only a limited number of behind the scenes people.

2) WORK - Well, let me just say that I have been working really hard of late. It has occurred to me that in the 2+ years that I have been blogging, I have never mentioned where I work. Blogging has been quite the exposure of my innards, and as such I don't know how ready I am to expose this part of me yet. For now, I will just have to say that it has been very hectic, and left very little real time for much in my home/social life.

3) Lately, I have been in quite the introspective mood of late. It started a few days ago when the realization hit me that I was sitting at my desk at work. This is not to say that I was ever lost, but that I actually had a DESK in an OFFICE at WORK. It's one of those instances where I've wondered what the six-year-old version of me would make of the present day me. It's really amazing how your perception of your own surroundings can change in that kind of instant. Look at me. I was certainly the introvert as a kid. In a very LARGE way, I still am. Yet day after day I converse with my co-workers, swapping stories, and making deals with people for certain things that I need at work. It's incredible really. I think the younger me would be absolutely amazed at what I have accomplished, even if it isn't terribly incredible in the grander scheme of things.

Don't get me wrong, I know VERY WELL that I am lucky to be where I am. That things could have gone horribly wrong for me, and I am not one to look a gift horse in the mouth, no matter how hard I worked for it. It's just that there are others that I know who are much more successful than myself. I certainly don't begrudge them anything, it's just a statement of fact.

Back to the point, introspection. It's been chief on my mind lately. That and that I needed a catharsis. I realized that one in the middle of last week. It was one of those moments when you overreact to something in a VERY EMOTIONAL way because you've been keeping things pent up for so long. Fascinatingly this was one of those time when I was alone, so no one got to see. This is good, because sometimes I wind up looking crazy. The last time it happened, my father told a rather lame joke and I wound up laughing at it for so long that my entire face hurt, tears were running freeflow from my eyes and I had been rolling around on the floor.

So much for composure.

It didn't quite happen that way this time, but I was in need of a catharsis badly. I hadn't realized how badly until it came. One could make the clear argument that my refraining from writing in the blog may have contributed to the problem. I doubt it, but can't discount it either.

On that note, I have to say that the closest I can come to a New Year's resolution is to try to write more in the ol' blog. If not for the entertainment of others (as I have always strived to do) but for my own sanity at least.

TTFN
:: J 1:32 PM [+] ::
...