Back to the Ice

Patrick Roy, unfortunately, will not be joining the Colorado Avalanche this Fall when the NHL returns to the ice. The Owners and the NHLPA agreed to a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Owners got their salary cap, just as they had wanted all along, and the players get to play hockey in the NHL again. An intense amount of the media coverage of the agreement, including this piece from Fox Sports, paints the picture that hockey fans are angry.

As a fan of the NHL, in general, and the Colorado Avalanche, in particular, I can tell you that I am never thrilled when economics and greed force a sport to miss all or part of a season. Some blame the owners and some the players, but they're all greedy bastards doing exactly what you and I would be doing if we had millions of dollars at stake. Anyone who denies that is so completely full of shit, that I would request that they come roll around on my lawn to fertilize it.

True hockey fans may have been disappointed or frustrated, but if you're a true hockey fan, and not just some bitchboy who plays NHL '96 for the Sega with the offsides turned off, you've been too busy preparing for the upcoming season to be angry at all.

The same Fox Sports article that I cited above also talks about one of my favorite things that non-hockey fans love to complain about with every last breath they can muster: how complicated the rules of hockey are. The reality of the situation is, however, that hockey rules are no more or less complicated than Golf, Baseball, or Football. Not every sport can be as fiendishly simplistic as NASCAR, and some of the best sports have some incredibly complicated rules. If you don't understand them, maybe you should just stick with WWE.

Karl Rove is in Big BIG Trouble

With the revelation over the weekend that Karl Rove, one of President Bush's key advisors, was the government official that leaked to the media the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, the blogs are alive with the sound of music and people calling for Rove's head on a stick. I could join the fray, but I would really just be echoing the sentiments of those who have said it better. Check out America Blog or Daily Kos. Both offer particularly well-written accounts.

In the meantime, Move On PAC has yet another online petition to the Bush Administration, demanding that Rove be fired, if that's your opinion on the matter.

The situation with the Bush Administration gets more and more like Alice in Wonderland every day. The administration has someone publicly survived despite the realization that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, despite that assertion being the entire justification behind an immediate invasion of that country. They're managed to blur the line between the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, despite the fact that Osama Bin Laden is still at large and the fact that we've provided motivation for Al Quida by attacking and occupying a sovereign Arab nation.

Despite this most recent revelation that one of the President's top advisors was to blame for the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, Republicans are predictably blaming the Democrats for playing politics. Do these people understand what Rove did? He jeopardized the life of a CIA agent and potentially destroyed any leads in the war on terror that she may have been working on, simply because her husband was one of the first people to reveal publicly that despite Bush's statements in the 2003 State of the Union address, Iraq never attempted to purchase enriched Uranium from Niger.

If I found out tomorrow that President Bush invaded North Korea because of links with Al Quida, I can't say that I would be surprised. Or Syria. Or Iran. Or {insert name of country here}. I need a beer.

Great Article on the State of US Homeland Security

We've been discussing since the inception of this blog just before the 2004 Presidential Elections about how woefully inadequate and unresponsive US Homeland Security truly is. This article lays out how we can beef up our public transit systems to avoid an event like the one in London. It's a great article because it's offering solutions, rather than just bitching about the piss poor job the administration is doing with Homeland Secuirty.

Complaining about President Bush, as I have a tendency to do, does not make us safer against terrorist attacks. The sort of constructive dialogue presented in that article, on the other hand, absolutely does. Check it out, and then craft a letter to your Congressman to let him or her know that this is what we want, and that we shouldn't simply react to terrorist events as we have thus far.

If you're not interested in promoting actual Homeland Security, then perhaps this website is where you should be spending your time.

Terror in London

Terrorists struck again today, this time in London. Click here for the latest news. It's another sad day for the world, but the reaction to this really got me thinking. Bombings like this by insurgents against US troops and law-abiding Iraqi citizens has become commonplace, and yet we're ten times more horrified when it happens somewhere we don't expect, as if people in London's lives are somehow more valuable than those of our troops or the Iraqis.

The turn of events in London is beyond horrific. An interesting sidenote to the entire situation has been President Bush's statement. He's obviously remorseful and saddened, as we all are. Based on his statements, however, he obviously thinks that there is some aspect of homeland security that would prevent the same thing from happening in Miami or Houston or Los Angeles or Seattle. And in reality, there is not.

I challenge anyone to come up with a policy or mechanism currently in place or even theoretical that could be used to prevent this sort of thing from happening. I think it would make for an interesting discussion, since this whole issue of Homeland Security is once again being thrust to the forefront, as the President continues to contend that we are safe, when we are obviously not. Bush's hubris in his own policies will certainly guarantee that this sort of tragedy could happen in any American city with mass transit. I'd be interested to hear your comments on the state of "Homeland Security".

Interesting Comments

If you read the comments below the Letter to the Red States post below, you see an interesting example of why the Democrats are not the dominant political force that they once were. If you talk to Republicans, there exists a party loyalty that you just don't get from Democrats. You definitely don't get this "Puppy who lost his way" "Why did we put Dean in charge" "Woe is me" sort of response. Democrats are definitely in need of some direction, and this midget and his website accept no responsibility in giving the party that direction. The last time I led a group of people anywhere, we ended up at a Riverboat Casino in Iowa drinking Bud heavy and playing nickel slots.

When people ask what happened to the Democrats, I think the answer is that we were so sure of ourselves and our party going into the 2004 Elections that when we lost, we were dumbfounded. When you believe deeply that the majority of Americans are levelheaded and intelligent consumers of information, and then you have them turn out in record numbers to prove you wrong, it takes time to get your breath back.

Happy 4th of July, just by the way. It's always a little bittersweet for me on the 4th. I love my country, but I am disgusted with all these psuedo-patriotic numbnuts that sing along with Lee "I've never served a day in my life for this country" Greenwood every year. If raping your cousin were popular, Lee Greenwood would write a song "And I'd gladly put my dick in her mouth, and pee on her today. 'Cause there ain't no doubt, I love this bitch. God Bless my cousin Mae."

In order to really have pride in what it means to be American, you have to have a full understanding of the rights and wrongs of our country. We've said many times before that this child-like infantuation with our country is useless, and not really that patriotic. Patriotism is loving your country, while realizing that it ain't perfect. True patriots are people who question the governments actions, instead of blindly saluting every time someone stands in front of a flag.

A Message to the Red States

About 90% of the e-mail forwards that I receive are a complete waste of time. A good friend sent me this one, and it's definitely food for thought:

Dear Red States:

We're pissed off at the way you've treated California, and we've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.

To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay.
We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss.

We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue; you get to make the red states pay their fair share. Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.

Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home.

We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire. With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.

With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.

We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you. Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties.

By the way, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico.

Sincerely,

Author Unknown in New California.

My Favorite Terrorism Fallacies

Hello! I'm Still Alive.

While the Bush Administration is running around giving each other the Dirty Sanchez or a quick reacharound in celebration of the 1 year anniversary of the end of the transfer of "sovereignty" to the Iraqi people, I continue to tire of news analysts, conservative talkshow hosts, and the general public's lack of ability to think beyond the 1st grade level when it comes to terrorism. In recognition of the occasion and the President's inevitably boring and asinine public news address this evening, I wanted to share my favorite widely held fallacies about terrorism. Take notes as I'm sure the President will spend a good long while reinforcing some of these in his address.

1) The Iraq War is an effective campaign in the War on Terror! Wow. This is probably the most popular load of bullshit that's been heaped on the American public to date. The premise is that Saddam Hussein is somehow connected with the terrorists of Al Quida who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11/01. Despite empirical denial of this fact, Bush and his douche squad continue to promote the idea that the War in Iraq is another front in the war on terrorism. Saddam was a complete piece of shit, and his disregard for human rights DOES make him a terrorist in his own way, but not necessarily connected to THE terrorists we should be pursuing.

2) Reports and research that criticize the Bush Administration's terrorism policies give terrorists ideas on how to carry out further attacks. I was reminded of this today while I was reading this article about the research of two Stanford scientists who postulated the negative effects of terrorists putting botulinum toxin in the milk supply. Instead of sharing the concern of the researchers, Bush Administration and Homeland Security officials renounced the article, saying that it was giving terrorists ideas on US vulnerabilities. If we learned one thing and one thing only from 9/11, please let it be that terrorists are fully aware of our vulnerabilities and don't need the Proceedings of the American Academy of Sciences to give them ideas. Instead of recognizing the issue as a legitimate terrorism threat and handling it, the Administration would rather attempt to suppress the issue, and hope that terrorists read Teen People.

3) Steps taken by the Bush Administration have made us safer as a country. I saw a poll the other day that showed a trend in public opinion that this ridiculous idea was losing support. Of the three fallacies we have discussed, I think this is potentially the most harmful. Believing that we are safe, when in fact we are most definitely not, is incredibly dangerous. This attitude, combined with the suppression of public discussion of legitimate threats and falsely associating the War in Iraq with Al Quida, makes the actual terrorism more difficult to combat. We have failed to recognize a variety of threats including dams, oil supply lines, power plants, toxins in our food and water supply and numerous others. The only way to prevent another 9/11 is to encourage public discussion of our vulnerabilities and to address those issues, something the Bush Administration has largely avoided.

SHARK ATTACK!!!!

I'm hungry for a media feeding frenzy!

Those of us who watch the news on TV have been subjected to a prime example of media hype, with the death over the weekend of a Louisiana teenager and the subsequent attack on another teenager yesterday, both in Florida. As per usual, the television media is having a feeding frenzy of their own, making it seem as though we should be shocked and awed by the fact that sharks attack people who swim in their habitat.

I'm no marine biologist, and in fact, I've never even met a marine biologist, come to think of it. Despite that fact, it seems like common sense to me that if you swim in shark infested waters (or fish in the case of the second attack), you might expect to get attacked by a shark. I'm frankly surprised that this sort of thing doesn't happen more often. When did we forget that we're still part of the food chain?

The media apparently has. Check out this map, for example. Despite the fact that the caption of the map shows that Florida has only had one death from a shark attack since 2001 (4 years ago for you math majors out there), the seas of the Eastern coast run red with the blood of innocents. Do you know how red the map would be if we used the same coloring strategy for people killed by dogs? Or their husbands? Or their parents? Blood fucking red over the entire US.

And yet, here we are devoting hours of media coverage and at least a thousand words on this page to something tragic, yet not at all surprising. Forget the fact that crude oil prices have spiked the week before the biggest travel weekend of the summer. Ignore the actual problems in this country including a lack of health care, even for children. Sharks may have attacked two people in Florida, but the American people are the ones being eaten alive.

Bush is NOT Pro-Life and Neither Are You.

I may be short, but I'm not short enough on functioning brain cells to believe for a second that President Bush actually Pro-Life. Saying that Bush is Pro Life is like saying that Michael Jackson is trying to stop child sex abuse and that oil companies are trying to save the American people money on energy costs.

While in Wichita, Kansas this last weekend, I had a brief and rather intense discussion with a person who was wearing a Pro Bush/Pro Life t-shirt. I asked the lady if the shirt was supposed to be sarcastic, since Bush had executed more people while Governor of Texas than any other Governor in US history since the death penalty was re-legalized in 1977. She pointed out that President Bush is against abortion, which makes him Pro Life.

I asked her why he hadn't banned abortions, if he is against them, and she said that it was because the Democrats had wasted so much time blocking his Social Security reforms, that he didn't have time to ban abortion. I guess with all the war-mongering and uncontrolled spending, Bush hasn't exactly had time to address this critical issue. This is the kind of logic that people used to re-elect Bush as President. Sickening isn't it?

The truth is that President Bush is not Pro Life, and the woman I ran into in Wichita is not the only person that feels that because the President uses phrases like "sanctity of life" and "culture of life", we can all overlook his military decisions that have killed thousands of innocent people and his record on the death penalty as Governor of Texas. We all know that President Clinton was Pro Intern, Reagan was Pro Military Spending, and President Grover Cleveland was Pro All-you-can-eat Mongolian B-B-Q. Those are pretty obvious. How anyone can look at President Bush and say "This guy is all about saving lives." reaches far beyond the capability of my understanding.

Sarah Michelle Gellar Takes One Up the Ass

Don't get too excited, I'm just going to tell you about the worst movie I've ever seen, and not some sordid tale of Buffy following in Paris Hilton's or Pamela Anderson's home movie footsteps. If you haven't seen the movie The Grudge, I don't recommend that you do. It's honestly not an exaggeration for me to say that it's simply the worst movie I have ever seen. This piece of donkey crap makes a clunker like Titanic seem like The Usual Suspects.

Here's the premise: there have been a number of attempts lately (The Ring is another example) to remake Japanese Thriller/Horror films with American actors in English. The whole concept of adapting a foreign film or book for an American audience is fraught with problems. Vanilla Sky is another example of what complete shit can result from those attempts. We'll save the whole what happens when you try to adapt a book that is largely existential philosophy into a feature film for another day when I haven't been drinking for several hours already.

My point is that The Grudge is so full of recycled twists that it becomes completely predictable. And when you can predict how much a movie is going to keep on sucking, it takes the misery associated with viewing it to a whole new level. Takashi Shimizu is not one of the programmers whose name you get to see if you beat the Legend of Zelda on the good old Nintendo Entertainment System. He directed The Grudge and I bet people still haven't stopped kicking his ass since it came out.

So much of the "horror" in The Grudge is a copy of The Ring, which wasn't that great of a film to be copying in the first place, and Memento, as shimmies attempted to make the plot occur out of order so that you don't figure out too early that this movie is going to make you wish you were watching geriatric porn instead of suffering through 92 minutes of crap.

Terri Schaivo's Autopsy

Click on the link above to read the news piece about Schaivo's autopsy. Basically, I just wanted to make one point: Schaivo's brain weighed half as much as what a normal person's brain did and the medical examiner described extensive neuronal (brain) death. This is why 90% of Americans believe doctors over faith healers. There was no possible recovery for Schaivo. And more importantly, no evidence of malice on the part of her husband. Case closed.

What this means is that all those idiots protesting for Schaivo's life, while ignoring the massive loss of life occurring among our very young, very much fully-functioning, very much alive US soldiers, had the wool pulled over their eyes. They may as well have been protesting to save the life of a rack of pork spare ribs as I was drizzling it with B-B-Q sauce.

The saddest part for me is that these people who felt they knew better about Schaivo's condition than teams of neurologists and other professionals who were involved in making difficult medical decisions will not learn from this experience. They will continue to inhumanly extend the lives of other Americans, against their wishes in some cases, for their own political gains. The significance of an autopsy supporting the conclusion of irreversible brain death is lost on these poor souls.

Michael Jackson Supporters

The verdict in the Michael Jackson case is probably going to be announced before I can finish typing this posting, but as I was scanning through the coverage that is the media circus, I came across this link on MSNBC.com with a picture of Jackson's supporters forming a human chain along the road to the courthouse.

I'm not sure what this chain is supposed to symbolize, aside from the fact that these people obviously don't have real jobs, but it truly pisses me off that adult people behave in this way. Guilty of child molestation or not, Michael Jackson is one fucked up person. He's admitted sleeping with young kids who were not his own, and these people are out there on the highway, trying to show their appreciation? Get a life.

What sort of regard does this show for his victim? I don't care how much you liked the album Bad, or how good you can moonwalk. You're supporting a child molester. If you're standing by a road when most people would be working at their jobs or complaining about you on their blogs while they're supposed to be working at their jobs, what message are you trying to send?

A number of Jackson's supporters have pointed out that Jackson is being targeted because he's famous and African-American (although his ethnicity is debatable at this point in time). The irony of statements like that is that none of these freaks would go to the courthouse to defend any other black person accused of child molestation. Thousands of people each year are accused of sexual assault of some kind, and these people wouldn't bat an eye in protest for any of them.

Regardless of what you think about the 10 counts levied against Jackson, at least have the decency and respect for the alleged victims to honor judicial process and get back to your jobs where you can watch the verdict with the rest of us, who are too obsessed with the media coverage to leave our computers and/or TVs.

A Midget's Guide to Buying Real Estate (Why I Hate Realtors)

As some of you may have noticed, I haven't posted as much lately, and I'm sure the speculation as to the reasons for that is currently a hot topic of discussion on internet message boards in 40 languages. I want to clarify that it is not because of an extended drinking binge or a Dog the Bounty Hunter Marathon on A&E. The ladyfriend I often call my wife and I have been looking at buying a house, and as anyone who has gone through this process can tell you, it's not exactly conducive to having a life outside of looking for a house. It takes every moment of your life.

During this process, we eventually found a great realtor who is currently helping us through negotiations on what will hopefully be our house in a few short weeks. Much like girlfriends, however, you rarely meet the best realtor the first, second or forty-fifth time out. You must wade through a cess pool of greedy, fake assholes to find the right greedy, fake asshole.

Realtors, as a group, are on the same level as used car salesmen and subsequently only one level above those who sexually assault the elderly in my book. Here are some rules I learned from dealing with several different realtors:

1) Every Realtor is a "expert" at the neighborhood or part of the city you're interested in buying in. Even in cases where the realtor has never been in or heard of your neighborhood, expect them to tell you that they sold 50 houses in that zip code since January. It's only when they get lost trying to "lead" you to some potential homes in that neighborhood that you get the idea that maybe the guy was completely full of shit.

2) Realtors that work open houses are losers. This is even more true if the open house in question is for another agent's clients. Our agent that we ended up working with made a good point that if a realtor is worth their salt, particularly during peak sales months, they don't have time to spend a whole afternoon babysitting a house so the whole neighborhood can see the inside of their mysterious neighbors' house. Open houses are a great way to see a lot of houses without much at stake, but beware of the agents that lurk at these events.

3) Don't listen to a realtor's advice when making a bid. Make them show you a market analysis that will help to guide your offer. One agent we talked to said that you should never offer less than 10% of the asking price in an initial offer. Another said 6%. Our agent researched houses that had sold recently with similar square footage and amenities in that neighborhood in the past 6 months and determined that our offer should probably be in the neighborhood of 20% less than the asking price. Beware of agents who tell you to only bid a certain amount less than the asking price, since this strategy would have ended up costing us a lot more on the house we ended up with.

Or you could always sell everything you own and move to Costa Rica so you can live on the beach, get high, and play with spider monkeys all day long.

Wedding Anniversary

As difficult as it may be for some people, including my friends and relatives, to believe, my first wedding anniversary is coming up this weekend. I told you guys she wouldn't leave. Mister Bling even owes me $50.

In looking for a gift for my wife, I discovered that each subsequent anniversary has a THEME for the kind of gift you're supposed to get for each other. Who knew? Looking into this issue further, I discovered that the gift ideas were completely lame. No wonder the divorce rate is so damned high. You give me paper for my first anniversary, we're getting a divorce. I got a whole fucking pile of paper on my desk at work. How about these alternatives:

1st Anniversary: (Traditional - Paper): Nothing says I won't have sex with anyone else this year like a Plasma TV. Preferable something more than 42".

2nd Anniversary: (Traditional - Cotton): What, like Q-tips or a flannel bathing suit? Seriously. After two years of marriage, a Home Theatre set-up would go nicely with last year's plasma.

3rd: (Traditional - Leather): Unless you're into bondage or dressing like David Hassellhoff, the leather anniversary needs rethinking. Midgets love go-carts, and I am no exception. Nothing less than 40 horsepower, either.

4th: (Traditional -Fruit/Flowers): Does this seem out of place to anyone else? You manage to make it 4 years with the same vagina, day in and day out, and you get a fruit basket? I suppose you could always throw in a cantelope to have sex with, but I'm thinking 4 years should be the motorcycle anniversary.

5th: (Traditional - Wood): Wow! You beat out the statistical average for length of marriage and I purchased a nice box of toothpicks and a lumberjack costume. How about reinstating blow jobs? That's a gift of wood if I wouldn't mind giving repeatedly.

The list goes on, but let's face it, who really stays married for 5 years anyway? And if you do manage to keep it all together, who needs some Congress of rich assholes to tell you what kind of gift is appropriate? My advice for a happy marriage: avoid children, lots of drinking, and go carts. And you thought Dr. Phil was the relationship master.

Name my Dog Contest

My wife and I are getting another dog, probably in a few weeks. It's going to be a girl dog. I am having a hell of a time coming up with good names for girl dogs. My wife has already shot down Bozo (which would be a damn cool name for a girl dog) and Mayor McPoochy. So, I am looking for suggestions for a girl dog name. Post it under comments. If your name is chosen, I will give you a sporty Ryan the Angry Midget T-shirt. Make as many suggestions as you like to increase your chances of winning. A winner will be selected sometime in June, when we get the new puppy. Good luck.

Question of the Week

I'm staring a new feature to encourage people to post comments. As the site continues to grow, only a small number of people have elected to comment, so I am hoping this will encourage people to post their thoughts on particular issues. Look for this on Mondays.

Who is the best Presidential cadidate for the 2008 election for your political party?

Stem Cell Debate

Stem Cell research is not a foreign topic on this site or to many of our readers. The debate has come to the forefront again this week, as two bills in Congress circulate that would allow federal funding of stem cell research. President Bush has said that he will veto any efforts to allow federal funding for research involving stem cells.

As with many scientific issues that have become politicized for one reason or another, there is certainly room on either side of the debate for reasonable and educated people to disagree. A good source of information, if you're interested in learning more, is The National Institutes of Health (NIH) webpage on Stem Cell Research. It's important to have a solid understanding of what is involved in the process, particularly if a person is going to be opposed to said process.

Despite my pleas, President Bush and many opponents of stem cell research continue to spread half-truths and complete lies about how embryonic stem cells are acquired. The vast majority of embryonic stem cells in the existing lines that are available in the US to be used in research were obtained from left over embryos from the process of in vitro fertilization. If not used for stem cell research, these fertilized embryos are presently discarded after a set amount of time.

Opponents of stem cell research relate the process of developing embryonic stem cells to destroying the embryo and therefore, ending a potential human life. The problem with this logic, aside from the fact that it is not based in fact, is that these fertilized eggs would otherwise be thrown into the trash, if they weren't used for stem cell research. For some reason, we don't have a problem tossing these embryos in the trash, but we do have a problem utilizing their potential to treat serious diseases that kill thousands of people every year.

I think it's perfectly acceptable to have a moral objection to stem cell research, as long as you understand the process you're objecting to. For some reason, opponents of stem cell research have chosen not to object to in vitro fertilization or any of the other methods for creating pregnancies that fertilize multiple eggs in the hope that 1 might implant. There is no logic behind saying that you're saving a human life by opposing stem cell research, unless you also oppose in vitro fertilization for the same reason.

Worst Star Wars Review EVER!

For those of you living on the frozen planet of Hoth or the forest moon of Endor, Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith opened last night around the country. Of course, every film critic has to post their opinion, as if I really give a damn about the opinion of some pretentious bastard who was jerking off to Barbarella when the original Star Wars came out in 1977. Which brings me to the thesis of this post: I hate film critics.

Let me first say that a frequent reader of this blog, Mister Bling, is an excellent reviewer of films. He has written several stellar reviews for different websites, and could make his own blog (hint, hint) where he reviewed films, and it would be 1) entertaining and 2) not completely full of crap. Mister Bling loves movies, and it's that passion that is lacking from today's film critics.

Take John Hartl's review of Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith (I'm sorry for including a link here). Hartl does what many film reviewers try too hard to do, which is to imply way too many things about a movie that were never intended. Hartl expects us to believe that the political themes in the film are meant to be a political allegory (he actually uses that word in his review) to present times. To me, this is like saying that Chet from Weird Science is really supposed to represent Rush Limbaugh because they're both disgusting pieces of crap, when it actually doesn't have to be that complicated.

Hartl goes on to say that the film is "uneven" (without any explanation as to why) "increasingly tired" (again, without justification) and complains that the climax to this much anticipated film seems "predetermined". No shit. You mean to tell me that since we've all seen the original Star Wars and already know the outcome of this film that the movie is predetermined? This guy should run the President with that sort of logic. Yes, John it is the very definition of predetermined when you see part IV before you see part III. Very good. Nice work John.

Our friend John, who writes a lot of mediocre film reviews for the Seattle Times, has forgotten the entire point of a film like Star Wars: to be entertaining. Although I haven't seen the film myself, I know it will at least be entertaining. His review of Episode III is a classic example of a film critic taking himself way too seriously. Like I'm less likely to see this film because you think it has little artistic merit. If I wanted artistic, I'll rent The Piano or Spy Kids 3 or one of the other movies John Hartl would undoubtedly jerk off to at a 4 pm showing. People don't care if Star Wars or Billy Madison or Dude, Where's My Car wins critical acclaim or Oscars. Star Wars was already seen by more people in one night than Hartl's favorite "The Russian Ark" will ever have. Because no one cares what John Hartl thinks of the movie or any movie for that matter.

This is the sort of thing that's akin to criticizing the cinematography of Bowling for Columbine or the Paris Hilton Sex Video, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference. How would you like your job to be completely meaningless in the grand scheme of things? Like we need some blowhard to tell us the artistic value of Star Wars. Thanks for your opinion John, I'm going to see Star Wars.

Movie critics seem to me to be people that don't have enough creativity to write about their own opinions or ideas, they have to summarize and judge the artistic merit of other people's ideas without any skills aside from being able to summarize a plot. Do we truly need this sort of thing? I know I don't, unless Mister Bling is planning to start his own film review site, I'll stick to making up my own mind.

Readers, I'm concerned about your drinking....

We need to talk. I've known most of you for 6 months, some of you, I've known a little longer. Lately, I have been concerned that you've all been drinking too much alcohol. Don't deny it. What brings me to this conclusion? MSNBC.com posted a short survey entitled Do you have a drinking problem? I would encourage everyone to take this survey, because I'm concerned about the amount of alcohol you've all been consuming lately.

The questions on the survey are classic. Do you ever need a drink to get started in the morning, or to stop shaking? Yeah, so what? I'm sorry but if you need a drink to stop shaking, you don't need a survey to tell you that you have a drinking problem. You need a helmet, and an insurance company with excellent legal representation.

Do you have “blackouts”? All the time. Again, if you're blacking out, or what comedian Dave Attell refers to as "time travel", I think it's time to accept that you have a drinking problem. The shaking and blacking out are not ambiguous signs of a drinking problem. This is like asking a kid in the oncology ward of your local hospital to take a survey to see if they have a cancer problem. If you're to that point, it's already a little too late.

Furthermore, if a person has these issues and they don't already realize that all the wetting the bed (referred to in the survey as "trouble at home"), parking the car in the neighbor's bushes (also "trouble at home") and 12 weekends with consecutive DUIs (Have you had problems connected with drinking during the past year?) may be a sign of a problem, a survey on MSNBC.com is not about to make this more clear.

Most people with drug and alcohol problems know and understand that they have a problem. Some are even proud of this fact. Those that don't know they have a problem are in denial, and would answer no to Do you wish people would mind their own business about your drinking -- stop telling you what to do? A lot of alcoholics I know, my family is full of them, don't care what other people think of their drinking, even when they're passed out on the front lawn in their tighty-whiteys as people are arriving for Christmas dinner. You don't reach that point by caring about other people and what they think of your drinking. In fact, it's quite a selfish problem really.

Crime surveys are the same way. Asking people about drug use or other illegal things that they do, and then pretending that the information provided is valid is the very definition of delusional. People who are breaking the law aren't going to report it on a survey, even an anonymous one, and people who aren't breaking the law will either blow it off or lie to make the survey more interesting because they know they're innocent. It's a load of crap.

So, if you failed the survey, don't worry. It will either validate what you already know or provide information that you don't care about. That's what I call a great survey.

Quote of the Year

For the weekend, I thought I would leave you with something stellar that I read this week. The NY Times, every Tuesday, has their Science Times feature section. If you like science at all, it's worth picking it up, or dropping by their website, because it's well-written and informative, to say the least. About 90% of the assorted science trivia that I am aware of comes from this section of the NY Times.

This last Tuesday, May 10, the Science Times had a feature article with Dr. Michael Gazzaniga, a neuroscientist and bioethicist from Dartmouth. Dr. Gazzaniga is nationally renowned for his research, much of which is discussed in the article.

During the article, Dr. Gazzaniga provides of the best analogies for refuting abortion advocates and those who oppose stem cell research when they talk about destroying "potential" human beings:

"Dr. Gazzaniga argues that it is meaningless to call a fertilized egg a potential human being. "There's potential for 30 homes inside a Home Depot, but if the Home Depot burns down, the headline isn't '30 homes burn down.' It's 'Home Depot burns down.'

It's not a revolutionary concept we're dealing with here, but I know I have struggled with ways to counter the pervasive and emotional arguments of those who wish to limit stem cell research. When confronted by another researcher who was amazed by the way the cells replicate to create life, Gazzaniga responded that cancer has the same "beautiful replication" that the other researcher admonished so much. Should we not interfere with cancer's development, because we would be interfering with God's master plan for our liver?

It also relates to the discussion we had earlier in the week regarding science and religion. I think the comments under that post were incredible, if you haven't had time to check them out. Nothing inherent about religion or science requires there to be a conflict between the two. There are literally tons of people who are educated scientists who also consider themselves to be religious people.

Where the problems begin is when one group, typically the devoutly religious, oversteps its bounds and mischaracterizes the other. Organized religions and their followers tend to grossly pervert and misrepresent science, probably due mostly in part to ignorance. Scientists, on the other hand, tend to stay out of religious issues as much as possible.

The stem cell debate is another in a long history of examples of religious groups creating half-truths and in some cases, all out lies, about science. For example, stem cell research is not completed on cells that would ever be a human being on their own, despite the fact that you hear this from its detractors all the time.

Evolution is another excellent example. People who understand evolution know that Darwin, nor any of his scientific followers has ever suggested that we evolved from apes. Yet, this idea is constantly used by many who lack a complete understanding of the issue.

And there will be other issues in the future that are just like this. The best way to fight these sorts of issues is to be educated about science. It's not difficult to get information about science, even if you're not a scientist. Religious zealots are attempting to dictate every aspect of our lives from what we can see at the movie theatre to what our kids will be learning in public school science class. Information is the one tool that we have that they do not. We should use that to our advantage or prepare for the worst.