Random Superman Thoughts

06.28.06 (9:51 am)   [edit]

I just saw Superman Returns last night and here are some thoughts:

The pace of Superman is slooooooow, like X-men and X-men 2 (both also by Singer), but with more of an emphasis on personal issues a la Spiderman 2.

The reviews I read complained about the unneccessary origin flashbacks Superman has.  I don't know where this is coming from; it's only one scene where he reminisces about his past life on the farm, and it fits well in my opinion.

Kevin Spacey was also criticized. Why?His performance is excellent and even though Lex is funny oftentimes, there is never any question of his evil.

The humor is far better than that in Batman Begins, which I found to be too obvious and feel-good.

There's no appearance by Metallo; the only true villain here is Lex.  I read in the official game you fight Metallo, so I just assumed...oh well.

Lois doesn't seem worthy of Clark/Superman's love.  This is a problem I've noticed in superhero movies, with Spiderman's Mary Jane another good example.  The X-men have the right idea falling in love with each other.

More on comparisons, the DC movies (batman and superman) have seemed more real than the Marvel ones, with Spiderman seeming the fakest of all.

The reviewers I read also got tired of the sameness of SR to the previous Superman movies while at the same time praising it's consistency...whatever.  I for one have not seen the older ones but I would think consistency is a good thing...

What got me was that I'm used to watching Smallville.  It's odd that such a huge movie does not grandly usurp a simple tv series....Only Lex is better in the movie than in Smallville.  I'm not used to a klutzy Clark; Tom Welling's version only slips up around kryptonite.  In addition, Welling is more muscular than Routh, and I think I am drawn more to Smallville Superman's need to conceal not just his identity, but his role in good deeds as well...Lois is a much more interesting character in Smallville.  Hell, all the Smallville girls trump SR's Lois...

And, of course, Lois's new love is played by Cyclops from X-men.  For once, he doesn't get the short end of things...

Once I did stop thinking about Smallville, I found SR very enjoyable.  Just go in expecting the slow pace and not too much action.

-Revan

 

Global Warming

06.25.06 (1:08 pm)   [edit]

Could GLOBAL WARMING be affecting YOU?!?!?!?

Do you ever feel HOT?!?!?

Or--heaven forbid--TIRED?!?!?

Does ice melt after being taken out of your freezer?!?!?

Does it even melt when it is
INSIDE YOUR REFRIGERATOR?!?!?!

Have you noticed a distinct lack of polar bears in your area?!?!?

If so, Global WARMING is DESTROYING YOUR LIFE!!!!!

But what can YOU do ABOUT IT?????

Buying a hybrid is NOT ENOUGH!

Speaking in capital letters is NOT ENOUGH!

No, the only thing YOU can DO is...Hey! Who are....? Global Warming??? In my own House!!!!!

NoooooooooooOOOOOOooooooo o! AIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Ack!


 

Global Warming does not exist.

Thank you.

-Revan

Pac-man Vs.

06.24.06 (10:57 am)   [edit]

Pac-man Vs. can be summed up in six words: you get to be the ghosts. If that didn't cause you to short-circuit your keyboard with drool I suggest you check for a pulse, because this is one of the best game ideas of all time.

You start out with two to four players (four is the best). Each player is assigned a color ghost. The game will then choose one player to start out as Pac-man. This player plays on a Game Boy Advance, which displays a traditional view of a Pac-man game. The other three play on the tv screen, but each ghost can only see a short radius around them. They must work together via dialogue and/or looking at each other's position in order to catch Pac-man. Whoever catches Pac-man becomes him in the next round. If no one catches him, that player remains as Pac-man.

At the end of each round points are tallied. When one initially becomes Pac-man, one loses points, and in order to "profit" from being him, the player has to eat enough pellets/fruit/ghosts. The ghosts earn points by eating Pac-man and eating fruit. In an interesting twist, when ghosts eat the fruit their radius of vision increases dramatically for a short time.

There are a total of six mazes in Pac-man Vs. Pac-man is faster in tunnels and turning, but the ghosts are faster on straightaways, just like the original. In addition, ghosts can hide out in their little starting base to avoid getting eaten. In the even that you cannot find four players, another element is added to the game. In place of the missing players will be a grey ghost. This ghost wonders around aimlessly and can't kill Pac-man. However, the other ghosts can touch a grey ghost to make it an ally, and it will then take on a more aggressive AI.

-Revan

Who Is The Greatest?

06.20.06 (11:58 am)   [edit]

The results of some recent blogthings.com quizzes:

Quiz  RevanAxiom 
 Muppet Fozzie Bear Fozzie Bear 
 X-men Storm Mystique 
 Meat Beef Beef
 Conservative/Libera l 100%/0% 60%/40%
 Puppy Chihuahua Dalmation
 Ice Cream Strawberry Chocolate Chip
 Soda Coke Root Beer
 Evil 24% 16%
 Donut Boston Creme Glazed
 Pie Lemon Meringue Apple
 Movie Genre Indie Flick Indie Flick
 Pizza Cheese Cheese
 Sell-out Price $1,123,950 $1,101,708
 Last Words "So, you're a cannibal."  "Nice doggy."
 How Ladylike? 24% 24% 
 How Gentlemanly? 64% 76%
 Power Level 90% 88%
 How American? 78% 78%
 IQ 125 100

Who is the greatest of the two of us?

Seriously, who is the greatest, do you think, based on the results of these nineteen quizzes?

Some explanations:
For anything odd like meat, pie, etc. the quiz didn't determine our favorite, it determined to which we were most similar.
Neither of us knows why I, Revan, came out to be more evil.
The pizza test is apparently flawed, since I said the most important thing about a pizza is the meat and it told me I was cheese.
Sell-out price is the price at which you would to "sell-out", i.e. eat spiders for a million dollars. Oddly enough the price in the quiz was always $10,000,000, and despite refusing to sell out at all, I somehow got a lesser dollar value. Axiom's price is even less, because he would cheat on his sweetheart in certain situations albeit he would give all parties a cut of the money.
Power level concerns a lot of things, like how often one does athletics, keeping up with current events, and whether you believe success comes from hard work or luck.
How American are you was actually pretty tough in some cases. For instance you had to know the number of states that start with a "W". It turns out there are four. Axiom forgot Wyoming; I forgot Washington (the other two are Wisconsin and West Virginia).
The IQ test was called "quick and dirty" because it was quick and dirty. Both our real IQs are about 25 points higher.

So, who is the best, tbloggers? Axiom or Revan?

-Revan and Axiom

Last Comic Standing

06.20.06 (10:04 am)   [edit]

The Diversity Police have struck again, this time targeting Last Comic Standing, the reality show where viewers choose the best up-and-coming stand-up comedian. Before the viewers can vote, however, auditions and semifinals are held, the winners being determined by judges. Anyone who watched the two semifinals episodes knows the women absolutely sucked this year, and yet, half the winners who went on turned out to be women. They even added two spots to make it an even 6-6 guys to girls.

The only women with any merit are Kristen Keys and perhaps the older one, whose name escapes me. The rest are shameless clichés, with punchlines ranging from 1) guys suck, to 2) guys suck at sex. This included some truly malinformed digs at uncircumcised guys.

So what we have is four positions in the house that could have gone to more worthy comics. Most of the other non-white males were okay though. Gabriel Iglesias easily made the cut, but then again he already has his own half-hour special on Comedy Central (so does Bill Dwyer, by the way). The black guy--these shows were all at least a week ago, remember--was pretty good and even made a cut at Social Security. Unless that was the other one. Man, that sounded bad. The guy with cerebral palsy could draw the laughs, but didn't have any material not about his condition, even in three different performances. By comparison, the girl with the lisp branched out in her semi-finals performance, but used the three minutes to make a fool of herself (she didn't make it).

Basically, it was just the four women that were wrongly appointed, with maybe a slight misjudgement on the cerebral palsy guy. On the plus side, this makes it a lot easier to decide who to root for.

My picks for the overall winner this year are Gabriel Iglesias, Joey Gay, or that curly-haired guy from the first semi-finals.

-Revan

The saddest thing

06.19.06 (9:17 am)   [edit]

I saw the saddest thing yesterday, when my family was visiting the cemetery for Father's Day. You can buy these marble benches in addition to the traditional graves, and there were two of them belonging to one family. Here is what was engraved on them (names changed because I don't remember them):

To our loving mother...from Bob, Dave, and Jeff

and the other one:

To our loving brother Bob...from Dave and Jeff

They were right next to each other. It was so sad. You just know there's going to be a third bench someday.

-Revan

Top Eleven Worst Foods

06.18.06 (12:45 pm)   [edit]

Top Eleven Worst Foods

11. PETA bread
10. Rats-In-A-Bag
9. Mayonnaise (seriously)
8. V-chips and dip
7. Lice cream
6. Pulled orc
5. [insert name of your dog here]
4. Reclaimed toast
3. Chocolate-covered bunnies (not chocolate; chocolate-covered)
2. Honey Bunches of Goats
1. I Can't Believe It's Not Cyanide

Honorable mentions: Go-gurt, Ted Kennedy

Now, I could have easily ripped off a past Get Fuzzy strip and gone with "Geeses Pieces" and "I Can't Believe It's Not Otter," but we here--or at least I--at Casual Harangues have more class than that.  Thusly, these are all original!  Hopefull top eleven lists will become a regular feature ("regular" meaning "whenever I feel like it").  Feel free to request a topic.

-Revan

Running

06.17.06 (5:23 pm)   [edit]
Revan, shut up. You don't know a damn thing about running.

If you had killed yourself over four years by pouring your blood sweat and tears into running like I have, you would understand what I am talking about. You don't have a clue.

It doesn't matter if there are differences about what you think the sayings say. Every saying can be interpreted differently. The competition cannot directly affect a runner. BUT it can motivate them to put that much more effort into it, if they have it. My comment of man vs man can mean against himself and against competition.

And there's more. Bowerman isn't being "mean". You better be sarcastic when you say the other guy is making conversation. the other guy would be trying to show off. 1oo in a week is rediculousy hard, but it's irrelavent. What it comes to in a race is what the man can do with himself. not just because of 100 miles he's logged in a week. You think running is based purely on the practice that is done. Wrong. Granted of course, lots of effort is neccessary. Running is something that's all in your head. It's about the mind working the body. The effort comes more from the mind than the body. If you can lift 300 pounds, but your mind says "no, no i can't" the you can't. The mind can restric the body from performing at its best.

"Scientific testing can't determine how the mind will tolerate pain in a race. Sometimes, I say, 'Today I can die.'" Gelindo Bordin

Bowerman coach america's running ledgend, Steve Prefontaine. He created Nike. Something tells me he knows a little about running....

About he limits of the human body. No limit has ever been discovered for running. About 50 years ago doctors believed that if anyone ran a mile in under four minutes, the would die because their heart would explode. Roger Bannister proved that wrong. He was the first man to break that time. After him more and more people showed it wasn't true. Now, sub-four miles are expected for professionals and even colleges. There in no limit to the human body. Why? Cause no one is the same as the next person. But try and tell me where the limit is.

Whatever Oprah says about something else doesn't matter. Take the saying at its own value without throwing any bull into it.

Now about your week legs comment. And there is no guarentee they will injure themselves. Lets see.. the first day I started running we were doing a mile split routine. Sprint one mile, rest, and do it for a total of four miles. I did every single one of them, all out. I never injured myself, and I never have in running. My legs were in the worst shape you could imagine. Yeah you can injure yourself. But guess what? if you are in perfect shape you can still injure yourself. It's not about strength. The stongest bodies CANNOT PREVENT IT. Injury is a part of running. You take the risk to get what you want out of it. If you can risk anything, then you might as well sit in a couch for the rest of your life.

You think that physics directly applies to running. It does not. It can't. Physics can't tell you what one body can do and can't do. No one is the same. I'll tell you what has limits. Things that don't change. parts of computers will get to a point that they cannot be any smaller, for example. They human body has no stopping point.

Running is something that is sacred for me. It's part of my life and always will be. If only you ever had the experiences we've had, you would know what I am talking about. I hope you never do something and say to yourself, "I am going to do this but it's impossible to do it any better." If you think you can't improve then you might as well quit. -(a slightly irked) Axiom

Knights of the Old Republic

06.17.06 (10:42 am)   [edit]

For years I had been looking for a game that let me be a jedi.  A couple years ago I found that game: it was Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic.  Set 4,000 years before A New Hope, KOTOR illustrates a galaxy at war.  After two of the Republic's greatest jedi, Malak and Revan (sound familiar?), returned from fighting Mandalorians, something had changed in them and they became sith lords.  They appear to have unlimited resources, and the only success the Republic has had against them comes in the form of the young jedi Bastila and her battle meditation skills.  At the onset of the game, you--as either a soldier, scout, or scoundrel--have been tasked to protect Bastila as her ship goes down in flames.

KOTOR is an RPG--a role-playing game--meaning the rules are lifted directly from Dungeons and Dragons, but thankfully all the dice rolls and such take place out of sight.  You start off relatively unskilled, but you level up and eventually learn of your Force potential.

KOTOR is technically turned based, but the turns occur in real time.  During battles, you can queue up actions for your party members (you have three or less at all times) or simply watch the action unfold and intercede where neccessary.  Everything is your choice.  You can choose who to be in your party from eleven or so characters, you can choose to upgrade or buy weapons, you can choose to take part in optional character-specific quests that flesh out back stories, you can choose how deeply you explore the seven worlds in the game.  But the most important choice is dark side or light?  Your morality isn't a box you check off at the beginning, it's something that comes about based on all your decisions in the game.  For instance, do you give the cure to a raging epidemic to the good doctor or sell it on the black market? Do you deal with the Tusken Raiders by buying a translator droid and negotiating or do you rush in and kill them all?  In typical RPG fare you can simply walk into peoples' dwellings and steal their stuff with no consequence to your morality (don't try it with the Tuskens though).  Your decisions ultimately lead you to one of two corresponding endings (no separate fate for you wishy-washy jedi).

KOTOR feels as epic as any movie in the original trilogy and could occupy you for upwards of fourty hours.  In the thick of that fourty hours is a plot twist that has become legendary among people who keep track of these things.  If you're looking for your Star Wars gaming fix, this is it.

-Revan 

Running is the purest sport

06.15.06 (1:37 pm)   [edit]
Distance running is the purest sport

There are many great sports in the world. Soccer, football, baseball, hockey, tennis, you name it. But running the purest sport. It's simple for to give my explanations.

There are sports that look really good to viewers and players. Soccer is know as the beautiful sport. Football, baseball, all of them are regarded as sports that are umm attractive (?) I believe.

Running is the purest sport. It is man against man. No balls. No nets. No bats. No raquetts. No gloves. No time outs. No time limits. No helmets. No padding. It is nothing but one persons body against another's.

I agree, there is no beauty in running. Unless you understand it. The only competition in running is your opponents. Not the clock and not a number of points you score.

Running is all about what pain you are willing to put on your body. The human body truely has no limits. The only thing that can hold you back as a runner is your own mind. Your mind controlls how hard you will work yourself, how dedicated you are, and what you are willing to give for what you want.

There. I hope I've given a good, simpe explanation for all that.

-Axiom

"You don't run against a bloody stopwatch, do you hear? A runner runs against himself, against the best that's in him.... Against all the rottenness in the world. Against God, if you're good enough."

"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift." - Steve Prefontaine

"A lot of people run a race to see who's the fastest. I run to see who has the most guts." - Steve Prefontaine

"You have to wonder at times what you are doing out there. Over the years I've given myself a thousand reasons to keep running, but it always comes back to where it started. It comes down to self-satisfaction and a sense of achievement." - Steve Prefontaine

"It's about morale. With weak legs and a good head, you can go a long way. With good legs and a weak head you go nowhere." - Paul Kimmage

"Running is the greatest metaphor for life, becasue you get out of it what you put into it." - Oprah Winfrey

"If someone says, 'Hey, I ran 100 miles this week. How far did you run?' ignore him. What the hell difference does it make? the magic is in the man, not the 100 miles." - Bill Bowerman

"Bid me run, and I will strive with things impossible." - Shakespeare (Julius Caeser)

Metroid Prime!

06.14.06 (11:40 am)   [edit]

For game 2 of "game week", I'd like to introduce Metroid Prime, an adventure game for the gamecube. Sporting an FPS-like presentation, beautiful graphics, and an atmospheric soundtrack. It's one of my favorite experiences in gaming and a good example of the type of game that illustrates what I call The Journey. The Journey is when you play as a single character, and the environments and story start off relatively innocently, in this case exploring the lush world of Tallon IV and the Chozo Ruins. You fight enemies--even bosses--now and then, but it's nothing too dramatic. But at then there is the Turning Point, and the Journey becomes more difficult, with the player now being hunted. The player is no longer as confident, cautiously and carefully scoping out new areas before entering them. It becomes more a game of survival and trying to hang on until the next save point. In Prime, this turning point was when you first encounter a metroid. In a space-pirate lab, a metroid broke free of its glass cage, the power shorted out, and the music took a turn for the eery. From that point on, even the previously explored areas I had already cleared out were seeded with stronger enemies. Later in the Journey mastery is attained and all that stands between the player and total victory is the Final Showdown--with Metroid Prime itself.

One place where MP shines brighter than any other game is in level design. The whole world is a giant puzzle, challenging you to open up the doorways facing you. For example, you know you need something inside room D, but to get to it, you'll need to enter room A, where you find an item that lets you jump higher. This gives you access to room B, where you find a special gun that allows you to open door C, where you find a suit that lets you survive submersion in the toxic waste back in room A, where you gain the ability to roll into a morph ball. With the ball you can roll under a barrier in room E, where you find a heat visor that can locate the infrared switch to unlock door D...and on and on...

There's no voice acting in MP, which isn't a hinderance because no one says anything anyway. The story is revealed entirely through writings on ancient artifacts and in research logs left behind by the space pirates.

I have just one complaint about this game, and that is in one area is a jumping puzzle where you are not on level platforms. It's difficult to tell which way gravity is pulling you, and consequently I spent an hour trying to navigate no more than a hundred meters.

-Revan

Jealousy is Powerfull

06.13.06 (11:28 am)   [edit]
Jealousy is powerfull...

Jealousy is a twisted source of inspiration. You may work towards something only because you want it, and it seems you can't have it. It's a source of dark power, if you ask me. But it doesn't neccessarilly work for bad reasons, as long as you can actually control it. As long as you work towards something in a right and just way, jealousy should not be a problem. If you work towards something in a disgracefull way that can tear apart people's lives, you are being overtaken by your own greed. The line between good and evil in this situation is blurred.. there is no concrete description. I am fighting jealousy with myself right now, and luckily I believe i am fully in control. I never let anything push me beyond what I should do. I just felt like making this post to help myself solid on my decisions. -Axiom

F-zero GX: best racing game ever!

06.11.06 (5:13 pm)   [edit]

I stare forward attentively as I lead my machine out of a 16 kilometer death trap.  My hands are verifiably grafted to the controls, and I dare not take them away to quench my slaking thirst or maybe turn on the a/c.  I dare not take them away, because doing so would mean certain death for me and my bleleaguered passenger, who I am attempting to save from this soon-to-explode power plant.  I have fourty seconds to get out, and I need every one of them.  I know this, because I have been in this situation before, albeit with either five or ten more precious seconds.  And if you've noticed, 16 km in 40 seconds means I'm traveling at about .4 km/sec or 1440 km/hr.  This means if I so much as nick the walls that close in periodically, Jody and I are toast.  But this time is different from all those other times. This time I am not incinerated.  This time I am launched along with my machine out of the tiny exit of the power plant, with less than 3/10 of a second to spare.  I let out a huge sigh of relief.  The impossible has been done.  Mission 4 on "very hard" has been completed!

The game is F-zero GX, a (duh) racer for the Nintendo Gamecube and doubtless my favorite ever in the racing genre.  In it machines--every one unique in looks and handling--are raced at speeds averaging about 1000 km/hr around twisting, challenging tracks.  Each machine has energy simultaneously used to protect and/or boost it.

When I first read about GX, there didn't seem like much to do in it.  Three grand prixs of five tracks each and nine story mode missions?  I would be finished with the game in five hours and never again touch it, I thought.  Then I read the reviews, which complained about the blistering difficulty (I know now the reviewers were just pansies).  Years passed.  A couple months ago, I found myself in front of a rack of used games in Electronic Boutique, face to face with F-zero GX for just seven dollars.  Seven dollars.  Less than I paid for Minority Report (the game (don't ask)).  I went ahead and bought it.  Best investment ever.

The game asks a lot of you.  It has a steep learning curve, yes, but also a fast one.  I went from novice to standard to expert to master in about a month, and trust me, those are accurate descriptors.  The story mode is an equally meaty challenge.  When all's said and done, your completed mission times will total less than 30 minutes, but I guarantee you your attempts could take well over thirty hours, especially if you go after the hard and very hard settings.

Your labor doesn't go unrewarded either:  there's a wealth of unlockables that I'm still working on to this day.  You start out with just the four machines pictured on the game's cover, but eventually you will have fourty.  An additional eleven tracks are also available, if you have the skill and the drive.  Did I mention you can also purchase parts to build your own original custom machine?  Topping out the list of goodies, a short 30-second CG movie for each pilot is yours if you can beat any of the cups on Master (with the respective pilot).

F-zero doesn't lack in atmosphere either, with a soundtrack worthy of independent listen, and colorful characters abound.  How many other racing games interview you after you've won the championship? 

Interviewer:  Is being an octopus inconvenient?

Octoman:  Oh, yes.  Some people want to eat me!

Great game!

-Revan 

Just....stuff?

06.10.06 (11:10 pm)   [edit]
Well, I have not made a post in a while... sorry about that, I'm back.

So I have some general things that I feel like listing, so it might be interesting for some of you and not for others.

So just a few days ago I was talking with a good friend of mine, and throughout the conversation things grew into us talking about our relationships with ppl. I said something along the lines of: "I've been plutonically interested in a lot of gals at school, but I've never really made an attempt. A lot of times I'm not interested enough, but often I can tell that I don't have a chance with any." She responded "oh, you had chances with a lot, trust me." Well that's unintentionally a backhanded compliment. I had no idea anyone was ever interested in me, 'cause no one has ever hinted it to me or just told. So it kinda feels like a stab to the heart to know that kind of stuff. But it's ok, I guess. At least I was wrong.

And another thing. Several times (and when I say several I mean around 4 or 5) a girl has said to me, "oh Rob, you're so nice/cute/funny/perfect that some girl will be so lucky to find you." Now the first time I heard it I was pretty happy. Everytime after that, I was glad they told me that, but bitter that they told me that. I know they mean what they say, but they clearly never felt the way they said some girl would feel, so it does nothing but confuse me. This is another example of a backhanded compliment.

I know, I know. I'm pretty pathetic for those issues but that's just how I'm feeling at the moment, so there it is.

Continuing with some more stuff: Two years ago I met the most beautiful girl I have ever seen. We met 'cause we are both skim boarders. She lives about an hour away from me, so that is kind of a problem. She didn't have a boyfriend for the first two years that I knew her, and we had met up at the beach several times. I loved doing that. I started to get the idea that she may be a lil interested in me. Maybe not as much as I was in her, but enough to make me happy. I figured I may have a chance. I took her to this year's Home Coming dance with me, and she said that she had a really good time. Well not too long after that, we kind of stopped talking. Not for any reason, we just faded some. Mostly we talked online. IMs was my best way of talking. Never over the phone. Maybe I should have done that... Well now she's had a boyfriend for about half a year. He's about a foot taller than me, stronger than me, and if you ask me he looks better than me. That pisses me off. I'm not mad at her or him, I'm angry at myself. What if I really did have a chance? If I did I blew it. Screwed myself over. It wouldn't of been the first time, I'm sure. I don't know, I'd like to just get back to being good friends with her, but it seems kind of hard to do. It's hard to get talking started I guess, but I know it's a lot easier once it has started. Sadly I will be going to college this year, which will meen that we are 4 hours away. About 200 miles. That'll be great. I could see her over breaks and summer, but not much during the school year. THat's another reason I want to get back into a friend-style relationship with her. I'd love to just talk or e-mail or IM her once in a while. I'd love to keep her as a friend. No matter how jealous I may be of her boyfriend. We'll see. Maybe I'll keep you in touch of more information.

Lastly, my friends got me this really cool shirt from an island in the Bahamas. It's the kind of shirt that has no sleeves so it shows off your arms (if you have muscles there...) Before that, I'd been working to build my strength and muscle looks. Now I'm working harder 'cause I want to look good in that shirt. That shirt has set a goal for me. I need that. I've had it for a week, and in this past week I have doubled the strength and looks of me arm and chest muschles. So I am working hard. And there is a great advantage to being 18. You can build strength much faster at ages around now than you can as you get older. I'm making the best of it that I can. Also as you get older your muscles tone out naturally, so I'm looking forward to that as well. Once I'm ripped I'll leave a post with a picture, Ha!

Well that's about all I have for you right now!

-Axiom

Conceived out of what?

06.10.06 (10:37 am)   [edit]

My second post today stems from another article printed much earlier. It was a sentimental piece about a mother and daughter who strip together at a strip club. Now, I am not going to go into a lengthy discussion about what this says about society that editors would print this in the paper or that this occupation (stripper) even exists, suffice it to say that it is not good. Anyway, I was gladdened when several people wrote in to denounce the poor taste in publishing the article. What this post is really about is something said in one of the responses to one of the responses.

The response said many things, like that the original respondents were complaining that "sex exists" ( All together now: *SIGH*). What I want to address is his statement that everyone "was conceived out of lust." Frankly this is a big, poorly thought-out slap in the face to those of us whose parents actually intended for us to exist. And this is my point: despite what pop culture would have you believe, sex can have real meaning and for some people (you should sit down for this) it actually DOES.

When does it have meaning? In marriage. Without contraceptives. Time for some quotes!

The difference between "I want to have sex with you" and "I want to have a baby with you" is profound. "I want to have sex with you" is on par with "I want to have dinner with you" or "I want to play tennis with you." No big deal.

"I want to have a baby with you" means "I want to be with you from now till forever. I want to bring another one of you into the world, an immortal soul that resembles you. I want all of you, and I want to give you all of me."

Also,

We don't reserve any part of ourselves from the other.

And...

Sometimes people say,"Come on, isn't sex really for pleasure?" Sex is certainly pleasurable, but pleasure isn't the purpose of sex any more than pleasure is the purpose of eating or sleeping.

Even Freud says,

It is a characteristic common to all the perversions that in them reproduction as an aim is put aside.

So there you have it. All quotes are from Al Kresta's Why Do Catholics Genuflect? And Answers to Other Puzzling Questions About the Catholic Church.

 Oh yeah. Here's the link to that article mentioned earlier.

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/06/01/Floridian/ Mama_s_girl.shtml" title="http://www.sptimes.com/2006/06/01/Floridian/ Mama_s_girl.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.sptimes.com/2006/0...

-Revan

How it's done

06.10.06 (10:07 am)   [edit]

I was prompted to write again today when I fell from a great distance and hit my head. But seriously, it was something I read in the paper, as usual. It was an attack on Ann Coulter's new book, Godless, and it went something like this:

"How low can political discourse sink? Conservative commentator Ann Coulter writes in her new book about four New Jersey widows whose husbands were killed on 9/11, leaving them with seven children. The women pushed for the creation of the 9/11 commission. Coulter calls them "the Witches of East Brunswick.''

The Attack

Coulter: "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much. ... These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. ...''

The Response

Sen. Hillary Clinton, Democrat: "Perhaps her book should have been called Heartless. I know a lot of the widows and family members who lost loved ones on 9/11. They never wanted to be a member of a group that is defined by the tragedy of what happened.''

New York Gov. George Pataki, Republican: "The hurt is real, the pain is real, the suffering 4½ years later has not lessened to any appreciable degree.''

Widows Kristen Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza: "... There was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day.'' "

See, this is how it's done. In an effort to prevent the St. Petersburg Time's readers from ever hearing what Coulter has to say, they attempt to debunk it while showing as little of it as possible.

Note how Coulter's "attack" is limited to a total of two sentences. Note how "the response" is delegated three times as much space. Note how there is even a response to begin with, instead of letting readers decide for themselves what to think, hard as that may be given the teeny sample from the book. Note how the Times does not allow any of Coulter's elaboration on the topic to reach print. They allow a thesis and an accusation, but forbid you from seeing the evidence, the information that would prove her point. You can't see it if you don't have the paper yourself, but trust me when I say none of the editorials on the same page were reduced to two sentences. I guarantee you the sample was part of a much larger essay on the topic or perhaps even a whole chapter. We know for a fact that there is more on the subject because the "witches of East Brunswick" phrase does not appear in the sample, and there is commentary skipped between the two sentences you get, highlighted by the use of "..."

Let's examine the response. Now Hillary's is just too easy; her first statement is ironically correct. "Heartless" would have been a good title. Of course, anyone who has read the book or even glanced at the cover knows the title describes liberalism. This leads to the obvious question, namely: did she even read the book? My guess is no. Her second statement does not apply to the widows in question; she doesn't know them or claim to know them and thinks they must be exactly the same as all the other widows. And one should question how much she really knows those widows.

Pataki's statements have nothing to do with the sample. This isn't about whether or not they were saddened by their husbands' deaths or how sad they were. It is about selfishly taking advantage of a situation, turning it to their own ends, and what that ensued.

The widows only state that they are/were sad. I don't know if the Times expected them to just up and say,"You got me!" but I certainly didn't. They're not going to incriminate themselves. We have to look at the evidence, and to do that, we are going to have to buy and read the book, because the Times is not helping here.

In conclusion, this was a low political discourse indeed, but not by Coulter. By the Times.

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/06/09/Opinion/Ca n_you_question_grief.shtml" title="http://www.sptimes.com/2006/06/09/Opinion/Ca n_you_question_grief.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.sptimes.com/2006/0...

-Revan

Omen of Naiveté

06.06.06 (8:47 am)   [edit]

Today marks the opening of the Omen, a movie about the antichrist. As you might notice this opening date is 6/06/06, trying as they were to get you to notice a "666" there. Tried and failed, I might add. Because the mathematical value of 6/06/06 is really 1/6 or .1666....Or if you're one of those weird people that write dates as 6-06-06 then in that case it turns out as -6.

Fuzzy math aside, this movie has serious issues, which I was able to glean just from seeing the trailer before X3.  The main one being in common with a lot of films:  it flat out ignores most of what the Bible says on a particular topic.  The plot--and I may be wrong here, but this is what the trailer implied--is that an innocent couple have a baby  boy, and he turns out to be the "son of the devil."  After seeing what goes on around him, they decide he must be stopped.  I believe at one point someone actually said,"This is the only way he can be stopped."  The problem here is that the Antichrist cannot be "stopped," not be ordinary humans anyway.  He is going to go about and do what he does, and there is not a thing anyone can do about that except temporarily assassinate the guy (of course, this only leads to people thinking he--the antichrist--is a deity).

Mistake no.2 is this: everyone hates the kid.  He inspires people to kill themselves, monkeys scream at him at the zoo, and so on.  Now, granted, if "Damian"  (that kills me) wasn't surrounded by death and despair, they wouldn't have much of a movie.  But when the antichrist comes, people will love him, except for those who see through the lies.  He certainly won't fall prey to the stupid gimmick of "dogs bark when he's near, so you know something's off with him."

So that's about it.  Hey, I'm not gonna see the movie, so maybe it turns out he's not really the antichrist or anything.  I'm just saying, looking at the trailer the only ounce of truth is that there is going to be an antichrist, never mind that they get everything else about him wrong.

-Revan

How to win a war

06.05.06 (11:57 am)   [edit]

First off, let's start off with how not to win a war, eh? And that is: appease the media + remove troops from the field.

This has happened before-- it was called Vietnam. There was no reason the US could not win that war; nay, the reason it was lost was the media clamored for defeat.  Instead of actually supporting their own country, they decided it was best for everyone to just vacate the premises, and so that is what happened.  There are two things ignored in both Vietnam and Iraq: One, the people of the respective countries and two, the good accomplished by staying there and starting the whole thing to begin with. I could elaborate on these, but... I don't want to.  Suffice it to say the media clearly does not care about the Iraqis themselves; if they did I believe much of the protest would not be.

So how to win? Answer: more troops.  When the "public" wants out--and you have made the blunder of pandering to them--you don't have to lose.  Instead of going home with our tails between our legs, we should up the ante, raise the number of troops there. After all, that (not enough troops) is the problem to begin with, is it not?  Doing so will avoid any "decades-long quagmire," which would be the result of prolonged but still shorthanded military presence.  Part of this problem is that one creates the other.  It's been on for a while, so nobody wants to add more troops, but at the same time, it's only been so long because there weren't enough to begin with.

-Revan