wonderland of awesome

Go To Comeuppance Reviews!

2010-10-16T11:31:00.000-07:00

I probably won't be writing in this blog anymore, but the good news is that I am now pouring all my energies into Comeuppance Reviews! It's a great site devoted to action movies, so please check it out:

comeuppancereviews.com

Thanks!

Originality Is Overrated

2010-01-05T10:23:00.000-08:00

As someone with an extensive background in listening to, and playing, music, I would just like to give my opinion on the concept of originality in the music world.

To my way of thinking, originality doesn't rank very high on things that I look for in my enjoyment of music. I wouldn't want to hear something that is totally original, if such a thing is possible. It would probably sound like some abstract noise with some bleeps and bloops or something like that. To me, that is very boring although I guess some people like it. It probably wouldn't be melodic in a classic way, which is an interesting concept - why couldn't so-called "futuristic" or radically original music be melodic, like in a powerpop vein? Maybe it's because there are only so many notes to work with, and arranging them in a melodic way would be considered "old fashioned"? Who knows...

It's all about taking the elements of the past, and doing it well. Taking guitars, vocals, bass, drums and keyboards, among other possible instruments, that we've all heard countless times before, and recycling it in a way that is good, competent, energetic, and to go the extra mile, fresh or even witty.

Take a band like the Datsuns. There is nothing "original" about them, but so what? Who cares? They are a great band! Not striving to be original shouldn't automatically exclude you from being great. Anyone who writes off the Datsuns as being "derivative" and moves on with their life is totally missing the point, not to mention being a big jerk. Other great bands I can think of offhand that fit the template of being great, but not original include Kula Shaker, The Darkness, or perhaps Mando Diao. Interestingly enough, none of the bands I mentioned are American.
Europeans seem to have a unique way of taking something American, even something we sort of lost interest in, and making it seem new and fresh again.

The Datsuns

Kula Shaker

Let me just say that not being original isn't some ticket to greatness. Simply copying the cliches of the past in an unengaging way won't buy you any points. Actually a vast majority of bands do this I think. Simply copying is no good. It's all in HOW you do it. Just blindly striving for some vague notion of "originality" is the wrong approach, and seeking to be original just for its own sake will inevitably lead you down the wrong road, into boredom and cliches, exactly the place you supposedly were running from.

So, in conclusion...I guess it's all in the execution.

On the Pointlessness of Professional Sports

2009-11-13T09:50:00.000-08:00

So a team with a green uniform plays a game against a team with a blue uniform. Surely fans of watching professional sporting events know that sometimes teams win, and sometimes teams lose. They must know this going in. But they act so surprised and devastated when "their" team loses. They act like it is an impossibility that they did not previously consider possible.

So a bunch of grown men throw a ball around for a period of time and are lauded as heroes. So much so that these intellectual titans are simply given millions and millions of dollars a year. To PLAY A GAME. They make millions of dollars A YEAR, not a one-shot deal, A YEAR - to play a game. Why?

Perhaps it is because sports fans project their hopes and dreams on to these men as they play their sport. Perhaps they subconsciously imagine it is THEM playing the game, thus temporarily taking them on a fantasy that takes them away from their dreary, depressing existence while the game is going on. Inevitably, this becomes addictive because naturally they don't want to go back to their pathetic life, so they stay invested in a team of lunkheaded criminals as a spoonful of sugar to help the unabashed bitterness of their life go down.

And that is how our vaunted, neo-Olympian Gods can get away with running people over with their cars, carrying guns in public places, and torturing animals, among other crimes. Because they help people escape how much life sucks. Never mind that they have never created anything of value, i.e. a product or service which we might find valuable, never mind they have never created anything of artistic value, such as a painting, novel or film, never mind they have never contributed to the betterment of life as we know it in any tangible form, still they get paid millions of dollars and get free passes for their transgressions to play a game that makes the people that watch the game feel better about life, acting as a sort of crutch.

From the college level, on through to their professional "career", these idiotic sportsmen get a myriad of privileges, breaks, shortcuts and bonuses that the average person does not get. Their lives, as a result, are easier and more lavish than the average fan. From the fact that they don't have to do their own schoolwork, to the endless supply of groupies and everything in between, it's good to be a moron if you can throw a ball.

So what we have is a sort of symbiotic relationship between the fan, who roots for the blue team though they cannot explain why, and the high-paid, idiotic criminal who plays a game for a living and expects to be treated like King Menelaus.

So fans will paint their bodies and stand in freezing cold weather, and dress up in ridiculous costumes and riot in the streets when "their team" loses, because due to some mental lack, they have invested their hopes and dreams into a bunch of belligerent, inarticulate goons who couldn't care less about them.

Musicians, artists, teachers, painters, filmmakers, scientists, AIDS researchers, mathematicians, professors, novelists, poets, historians, archivists, astronauts, and all your kith and kin shut up and please stop endeavoring to touch some part of the human condition, there's a game on tonight.

Watch Red Eye on Fox News!

2009-09-24T09:13:00.000-07:00

"Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld" is a brilliant, original, funny and informative show that airs on Fox News at 3 AM Eastern time. (5 PM in Jakarta - one of their in-jokes...the good thing about the show is that if you watch regularly, you are in on the in-jokes so not only do you not feel left out, you feel included as a friend).

They tackle the news stories of the day, both serious and wacky, in a panel discussion format. Greg leads the discussion, the much-maligned, possibly with good cause, Bill Schultz sits at the table and provides a liberal standpoint and comments in questionable taste and of questionable wit, and Andy Levy is the glue that holds it all together with his pre-game, halftime report, and postgame wrap-up segments.

Also along for the ride are 3-4 rotating regular guests as well as newcomers, favoring different attractive women, politicians, comedians, musicians and other friends. What other show could give you a split-screen with Andrew W.K. and Gwar's Oderus Urungus (not to mention Michigan Congressman Thaddeus McCotter, who I think, besides his droll demeanor, they only have on the show because of his amazing name), discussing the news issues of the day? For the juxtaposition of guests alone, Red Eye should be recognized.

However, it's not all candy and unicorns. There is a bad segment where viewers leave voicemail messages for Greg. ALL of them start like this: (read in a zonked out, stoned voice): "Gre-e-e-e-e-e-ggggggggg...." The problem with this segment is, I don't want content powered by viewers, I want show content provided by Greg, Bill and Andy. Or at least Greg and Andy. I think when the host literally begs them to "say something intelligent this time", it might be time to put the segment to bed.

On the bright side, they concoct segments like "Ab news" and "Yoga news". This is a segment where The camera lingers longingly on lovely ladies as they exercise while Greg reads news in a facetious manner. I congratulate them for putting something on the air which is by far the closest thing to pornography ever seen on a news channel. These segments first starred Courtney Friel, a woman so incredibly beautiful, she almost comes back around the other side to being ugly, and later added other regulars like Shira Lazar, Diana Falzone and Lauren Sivan. Impressive.

Greg's roommate Scott, Fluffy McNutter, Unicorn Jones, Greg's stunted half brother Gunnar and a naturally shirtless "Matthew McConaghey correspondaghey" are thrown in the mix along with Greg's mom, Mike Huckabee, and Father Jonathan Morris and this seeming dichotomy equals fascinating viewing. Add to that one of Greg's Greg-a-logues and you have a show like no other on television.

Someone once said that the show resembles some good friends at a bar good-naturedly chatting about the issues of the day. That infectious feel does come across. They recently celebrated their 600 show anniversary, and I congratulate the higher-ups at Fox News not just for taking a chance on the show in the beginning (in a pre-natal stage as "Wasteland"), but for letting it grow and thrive. Long live Red Eye!

What's So Great About Sand?

2009-08-13T10:24:00.000-07:00

Seeing as it's summer, I thought I would tackle something that has always been a mystery to me, that raises its head during the summer months.
People like to go to the beach when it's hot. But I've always failed to see the attraction of sand. Why intentionally go where sand is? The human need to go out of their way to seek out sand, I will never understand. Hm, that rhymes.

Okay, what is sand? It is little granules of rocks, a first cousin to dirt. Explain to me why this is an attraction. People take time out of their life, drive to the beach, and sand gets in your shoes, in your socks (if you wear socks to the beach), and everywhere, all over your clothes and beach towel. If you want to clear the sand off the bottom of your feet, your natural first impulse is to stick your feet in the ocean. But then you can't get out of the ocean without putting the sand back on your feet. Your best option is to try and put flip-flops on in the water. Not only is this awkward and challenging, but then you have wet flip flops.

Then the sand that is on your clothes and person gets in the car on the way home, and in your house. You have to take a shower to clean it all off. Then you spend the rest of your natural life finding and cleaning the sand that came back from the beach attached to your clothes. Why people intentionally seek out this experience I will never know.

Fascinating isn't it?

Inevitably, people figured out a way to use sand to torture people. Burying people in the sand except for their heads and letting the sun burn them to death. It's hard to see sand as anything BUT a way to torture people. When you're under the sand like that and you can't move your arms and legs at all, it's easy to think "this is fun". You are totally at the mercy of the sand and the sand-torturer.

But sand isn't all nuisance and torture device. Great innovations have been made of sand, such as hourglasses and glass. Where would we be without those inventors who made something out of nothing? I congratulate them. I say, put sand to work for us, not against us.

So while everyone is out there at the beach this summer getting tiny granules of dirt-like particles all over their clothes and body, I say have fun and godspeed. At least no one is forcing me to do it.

The last political blog

2009-07-01T10:13:00.000-07:00

The last blog posting, "The Antisemite", will be the last post of a political nature here on this blog.
From now on, all my political blogging will be at www.thewonderland.blogtownhall.com.
I don't want this blog to be clogged up with all my political thoughts, because there may be a lot more of them in the months and years to come, what with the incompetent fraud now calling the shots. So in an effort to keep this blog somewhat light, I thought it best to separate the political from the nonpolitical. Thank you for your understanding.

The Antisemite

2009-06-18T08:41:00.000-07:00

I hate to break it to anyone who may be reading this, but our all-wise, all-seeing, all-knowing messiah, our golden boy who can do no wrong, Barack Hussein Obama, is an anti-semite.
I don't mean to say he is a proactively violent man, but his entire life since he was a child, he has been stewing in anti-white, anti-Israel, antisemitic rhetoric vis-a-vis his nonstop associations with radicals since his childhood. He has soaked up their views like a sponge, and he almost can't HELP be victim to their left-wing lies and harbor their views as well.

Start with his overly vehement denial that he is a Muslim, until it became politically expedient to do so. Not that there is anything wrong with being Muslim, millions of people are. But not so to B. Hussein Obama. I think that is because HIS vision of being Muslim, the way HE knows it to be, is automatically anti-Israel, and he just assumed other people would think that too, and he must have worried it would jeopardize the Jewish vote, or other votes. Never mind that his assumptions are largely false, but the left-wing anti-Israel sentiment was ingrained too deep in his personal upbringing to see that.

Going along in the mode of "now that I've been elected it's okay to discuss my Muslim roots and middle name", his speech in Cairo was a template of classic liberal moral equivalency. What he basically said was "Hamas SHOULD stop using violence against Israelis (and undoubtedly will listen to me, the wise one), but those naughty Israelis should also stop trying to live their lives."

Writer Ben Shapiro, who recognized Obama's antisemitism during the presidential campaign, writes, in reference to Obama and his handlers allowing Iran free reign with their nuclear program, "America's interest in the Iranian nuclear program has nothing to do with the Israeli-Arab conflict. The Obama administration knows this. They simply don't care. Their position is clear: America's ally, Israel, is no longer valuable. Sacrificing it in order to win Obama global popularity points is a worthwhile pursuit. The Obama administration offers Israel a choice between being a victim of suicide via territorial concessions to the Palestinian Arabs, or a victim of homicide via Iran. And the Obama administration forces that choice so that Obama can smile and wave at cheering throngs of Jew-hating maniacs who populate the Muslim world"*

Shapiro continues: "Yet Obama advocates for territorial concessions by Jews to radical Muslims. He presses Jews to hand over territory not 100 miles from the capital, but constituting half the capital itself. He knows that each time Israel has made territorial concessions, Muslim terrorists have upped the ante - most recently in both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. And he knows that the Palestinian Arabs have never and will never lay down their arms. Yet he threatens Israel with allowing its nuclear annihilation if Israel refuses to authorize euthanasia"**

Imagine one of those Marxist, Socialist, Communist, tenured college professors that spew left-wingery at impressionable college students and call it an "education" elected to the highest office in the land. Well, that's exactly what happened. Obama served on a board with Rashid Khalidi, a confessed terrorist who has made many anti-Israel statements, including calling its creation a "catastrophe". He is a professor at Columbia University.***
According to militantislammonitor.org, "Barack Obama's connection to radical Islamists such as Rashid Khalidi and Ali Abunimah have received scant media attention. Ali Abunimah, who runs the electronic Intifada website said that he met Obama at many pro-Palestinian events in Chicago. In 1998 Obama and his wife attended a banquet at which the virulently anti-Israel professor Edward Said was the keynote speaker."**** These men also claim, from talking to him personally, that Obama supports and shares their views.

Michelle and Barack supporting and talking with "plagiarist, fabricator, and prominent PLO/Arafat advisor"***** Edward Said.

And then there's Reverend "them Jews won't let me talk to him" Wright. The man who said Louis Farrakhan "epitomized greatness", and traveled together to Libya to meet Qaddafi. The man who put Obama, Farrakhan, and himself on his own "Trumpet" publication. And we're supposed to believe there is absolutely NO ideological synchronicity WHATSOEVER? He sat in those pews for 20 years and forged a close personal relationship with this hatemonger but it was all an innocent accident?
Why did Obama help organize Farrakhan's million man march if he disagrees with him so strongly? Why put forth time and effort to help him? Dare I even mention father Pfleger?

There is more information out there, and more quotes to be repeated emphasizing Obama's anti-Israel, anti-Jewish stance, but this is running a bit long, so I will end by saying SHAME on anyone who purports to call themself Jewish and voted for Obama, a man who is clearly at odds with the ideals of the Jews, who chooses to clearly sympathize with enemies of Jews who would love nothing more than a second holocaust.

*Ben Shapiro, "Barack Obama proves his Anti-Semitism", Townhall.com.
**ibid.
***militantislammonitor.org
****ibid.
*****debbieschlussel.com

"Stuckey"

2009-05-12T08:57:00.000-07:00

Those of you who watch the show "Law and Order: SVU" know it is a show that can get pretty dark at times. It deals with serious, sensitive, and timely subject matter about the most "heinous" crimes perpetrated by the most twisted criminals out there.

However, the show wasn't totally devoid of humor, as Richard Belzer provided some comic relief, and even Ice-T and some of the other characters would let loose with some funny lines to break the tension and overall somber mood of the show.

The show premiered in 1999. Enter, in 2009, the character of "Stuckey", his very name denoting a highly inappropriate cartoonish buffoonery entirely out of place on SVU. Why a respected drama like SVU, which has won many awards, and whose lessons are taught in schools, would introduce an INTENTIONALLY ANNOYING character like Stuckey, is perplexing in the extreme.

For decades, the sitcom has introduced the "Intentionally Annoying" character for some cheap yuks. Notables include "Mama" from Mama's Family, "Schneider" from One Day at a Time, "Newman" from Seinfeld, and, perhaps most notably, "Urkel" from Family Matters. The idea being, when this character shows up, the other characters roll their eyes, shake their fist in the air, and comically rue the day they ever crossed paths with such an irritating personality. Comedy, of course, ensues.

Why this strategy has been employed for a dramatic show such as SVU is bizarre, puzzling, and perhaps desperate. There is no need for this. Stuckey even has his own catch phrase, like Urkel's classic "Did I do that?" I won't degrade this fine blog by repeating it here. But let me just say, it's superfluousness befits its source character.
Stuckey, a techie, has the intended effect on his co-workers. They find him annoying. So does the audience. So what's the point? Yet, true to form for a SITCOM, when someone yells at Stuckey, you kind of feel bad for him, and you, by Pavlovian instinct, think you are going to hear a heartfelt "Awwwww" on the soundtrack from the live studio audience.

Also, the SVU writers are employing yet another hackneyed sitcom trick that is beneath their normally excellent abilities. The concept of "addakid", which, when the kids on a sitcom grow up and aren't cute anymore, they simply add a kid. This has been done on almost every show with kids, but famously with the Cosby Show, Growing Pains, Family Matters (of course)...but why is SVU taking its lead from Family Matters? Why are they adding Stuckey? Why I ask you! What's going on here? Who has gotten to them?

The first time Stuckey reared his pasty head earlier this season, I didn't think much about it. Then he came back. Then he came back AGAIN. Are people out there really, truly clamoring for MORE Stuckey? I find this hard to believe. I know the public loves mediocrity, but why drag down a fine show like SVU with his chicanery, and, dare I say, tomfoolery? Making Stuckey the sole source of "comic relief", and downgrading Belzer and Ice-T is a giant mistake.

Just wait and see, one day it's not going to be "Benson and Stabler", it's going to be "Benson and Stuckey". We all lived through "Urkelmania", what with the cereal, talking doll, board game, etc. Why do it again? We all survived Martin Short as "Ed Grimley", why, oh why must we not learn the lessons of history?

The one saving grace here might be that the writers are throwing us for a loop. They are intentionally getting us to notice the inanity and unnecessary presence of Stuckey, getting us to dislike him, and then he gets killed off or severely injured, and then we all feel silly. If this happens, I will wipe the slate clean and applaud the writers on a job well done. They manipulated us properly, and I have no problem at all with that. But is it really worth the price? Is it really worth all the Stuckey? Only time will tell. But, barring that from happening, Stuckey has proved to be a head-scratching addition to the SVU cast.

I support Carrie Prejean

2009-05-05T11:56:00.000-07:00

We all know the story in the news right now that Miss California, Carrie Prejean, said she supports marriage between a man and a woman. The problem is the fact that it is a news story at all.

You mean she actually supports a MAN and a WOMAN getting....(gasp)...MARRIED?!!!???!! How shocking! How horrifying! STOP THE PRESSES!!!!!!

I suppose 2009 marked the year that going along with a tradition that has existed for thousands of years, and actually predates beauty pageants, as far as we know, makes you worthy of vicious scorn and ridicule. A tradition that exists because a man and a woman are the tools needed technically to make a family, which, in its ideal form, is a societal pillar where norms are established. But Noooooooo..... Now this view is considered "politically incorrect". Which just goes to show AGAIN how counterintuitive liberalism and political correctness actually is. Liberals look for any excuse at all to raise their mock bile and their faux-outrage. Now they have such a hair-trigger, just saying you support men and women getting married unleashes the hissyfits.

Never mind that our liberal messiah, Obama has the same exact view.(Although why do I get the idea he would support gay marriage wholeheartedly if research hadn't shown the majority of people in the U.S. support traditional marriage, including the majority of Californians, who Carrie is supposed to represent...but then again I think the Koran says gays should be beheaded or something, so maybe he IS following his beliefs) He didn't get hard questions like this when he ran for Prez. Beauty pageant contestants get more hardball questions than our own president. But that's another matter for another day. No one excoriated our Overlord like they did to Carrie Prejean. What is it about attractive, traditional women that liberals see as such a threat? First they opened fire (despite the fact that they want to ban guns) on Sarah Palin, now this. My theory is they don't actually KNOW any conservative women, so when they see one it's like they don't know how to react. It's like a form of kneejerk xenophobia. "What? A...CONSERVATIVE...WOMAN??? Can't be! Aren't they all like US?" The fact that liberals assume all women think alike, and that they are all the same, and that they all are either A. liberal like them or B. Worthy of scorn, shows their...wait for it...SEXISM! That's right, being called a racist, sexist or homophobe isn't the exclusive province of the left! So where are the women's groups? Where are the feminists? Oh that's right...according to them, if you're not a LIBERAL woman, you're not worthy of their support. They should rename their groups LIBERAL women groups, because that's what they are.

Imagine supporting something so radical, so extreme, so hate-filled as...marriage between a man and a woman. I mean it's not like she was hanging around with terrorists, getting crooked land deals and sitting in the church of a true anti-white, anti-American, Antisemitic hatemonger for 20 years...right? What has happened to our society?

Analysis of 2 famous 80's songs

2009-04-20T08:59:00.000-07:00

Today I thought I would talk about two famous songs of the 80's. Both of the following songs have been written and talked about a lot, but that's not going to stop me. Until they invent a time machine that can go back to the 80's, I will continue to extol the virtues of this amazing decade. The music, fashion, politics, toys, movies, inventions, TV shows, and any and all culture, pop or otherwise, that flowered then can never be repeated.

1. FRANKIE GOES TO HOLLYWOOD - relax

This song is truly amazing for many reasons. I'm not really sure where to start. The Trevor Horn production is HUGE - big, booming, bombastic, bodacious, and of course the awesome bass. Trevor Horn is a production genius (known primarily for The Buggles and Art of Noise among other projects, my personal favorite that I have heard/that I own is his production work on ABC's "the Lexicon of Love", which is a triumph on behalf of everyone involved) that realized bigger IS better - an arena is too hopelessly puny to contain this sound. It makes so-called "arena rock" sound like bar-band stuff. Horn must have realized in order to make an impact, you have to rise above the pack in a shameless fashion. You only live once, let's go full throttle, to the max and not look back. And clearly it worked, because the song is a legendary number one hit that we're still talking about today. With inferior or substandard production, this would not be the case.

Now, putting aside the marketing campaign and "Frankie Says" T-shirts, just think about the song itself. There are many great and mind-boggling things about this song: 1. That it was made at all. 2. That it was dreamed up in the fevered minds of Horn and Holly Johnson and the whole crew - it is said many did not even play their instruments on the record 3. That a song so raunchy (I suppose in a typically British "naughty" way) could be a huge hit at that time 4. That it could be so raunchy and be a hit with Americans and others not knowing what they were talking about 5. The open gayness of it all (Although Holly looks so cool in the second video for the song, it must have opened the minds of many people, and of course the 80's was a very gay-friendly time for pop music, what with Wham!, Culture Club, Dead or Alive, Frankie, etc.)6. That all these factors could come together, in a somewhat unlikely manner and create a timeless moment in pop culture history.

A-HA - take on me

This truly is a thrilling and exhilarating song - you actually feel like you're moving when you're listening to it, perhaps speeding along the Autobahn (yes, I know they are from Norway and not Germany, but still the raging EUROPEAN-NESS permeates the whole thing).

Brilliant melodies never die - and this is pop music genius if there ever was such a thing. 99% of so-called "indie" bands WISH they could pull off something so masterful. Add to it a sense of drama, and your cup runneth over with greatness!!! After some dramatic highs and lows in the song which are pulled off so skilfully you barely notice them on a conscious level, a stroke of genius occurs: the tempo slowdown during the chorus. What I mean by this is, the song is moving along at it's brisk and sprightly pace, until Morten sings the line "I'll...be...gone..." during which the drums switch to a breakdown-like tempo, just for that one line. This practically makes the song a legend right there, and is an obvious genius that underlines some of the more moving emotions attached to the song. Not to mention, on the perfect album closer "Here I Stand and Face the Rain", the same technique is employed, but in a slower, more somber context, thereby wonderfully bookending the album. I have no idea if this was intentional or not, but it works.
Much has been made over the fact that this is a "one-hit wonder", however the A-ha boys have had a long career in Europe and in other territories. Perhaps it speaks to them more than it speaks to us on that level, and who could forget the amazing video? While the same techniques were used for the video for "hunting high and low" for whatever reason MTV didn't deem it as worthy. The whole album has that sort of "overcast" feeling...despite the brightness of the song in question, the full album makes for great rainy-day listening.

Both songs and videos spoken of here today scream "80's!" and I say so what! That makes it all the better! I'll take then over now anyday! What makes today's "music" so much better? It's godawful! I wish I was a pencil drawing in a comic book...

The Punk Scene

2009-03-25T10:58:00.000-07:00

What's interesting about the world of punk is that the very thing that makes it good is the thing that makes it bad. It's very Shakespearean in that way. I'm fascinated by the fact that it's greatest strength and it's worst weakness are the exact same thing. And that is, that anyone can do it.

The fact that anyone can do it, and there are no prerequisites whatsoever to starting a punk band, not least of which ever included possessing any musical ability, was good, in a way, because it leveled the playing field. Now all you needed were some friends willing to give it a try.

Unfortunately, this bred far too much mediocrity and just plain awful music. This is only natural, because, strictly speaking in odds, if something is turned loose on the general public, it will become mediocre and watered-down. That's just what happens. Think back to anything in the past to see an example.

Thankfully, the punk movement produced The Ramones. The Ramones have always been an extraordinary band, and a very special one at that. If the punk movement had not produced this flagship band, I think a lot of people would be scratching their heads, thinking, "what was it all about?"

However, I submit to you that the Ramones are the first and LAST true punk band. They are the only real punk band to ever have existed. Everything else is just a bunch of lies. Importantly, the Ramones were unpretentious in the extreme, almost to the point of parody, and had no image to live up to, at least at first, and no standards to live up to. They just looked at all the popular musical trends that came before them in the sixties and attempted in their own inimitable way to do what they did. And thank goodness for everyone, they were wildly successful.

All the post-Ramones bands that call themselves punk are not so. Utter, unmitigated crap like The Casualties, Aus-Rotten, Crass and all the "spikey-haired" crew may be something, but in my view it's not PUNK. It's a distortion of the original meaning. What the spikey-haired crew is -- and here's a cold, hard fact for them -- are hippies wearing different clothes. But they are hippies 2.0, because they've added (faux) anger to their noxious stew.

I know of what I speak, because I was involved in the punk world for many years. I came to realize it is NOT a good or kind world. It is a selfish, dumb, spoiled, talentless, repetitive, redundant, boring, abject, gutter-level group that self-oppresses. They choose to stay in the basement when they could live in the penthouse. This is contrary to all logic. But most importantly, they are a CLOSED-MINDED group. This is important because they pride themselves on being open minded. They never, ever stop beating that drum of "open minded". I see now that is because they are severely insecure of their own closed-mindedness.

Here's a quick example. If you were to show up to a punk show wearing a Kiss T-shirt, you would be openly mocked and ridiculed, and probably even confronted by total strangers. And this is just a T-shirt. That is not the open-mindedness I've heard them talk so much about. Just the contrary, they only want you listening to punk rock. If you dare listen to all the myriad other types of music in this world, you're not "true" , you're not "punk", you're not "core" or whatever the terminology of the minute is. You're just a worthless traitor in their eyes. They WANT you to stay in the "basement" I spoke of earlier. They WANT you stuck on an endless hit parade of songs about how life sucks, beer, and "police brutality" (a popular punk subject that the "songwriters" have absolutely zero experience with.)They don't want anyone to excel in life. Probably because none of THEM has excelled in life. That's not just ignorant and lazy, it's actually unhealthy. That's one form of the self-oppression I spoke of earlier. (many punk songs are about how they are VICTIMS of oppression). They prefer to stay in the dark when there's a lightswitch right there. How could I continue to be involved in such a group?

The bottom line is, you mustn't break the orthodoxy. What's fascinating about punk rockers (and liberals, which is really what punks are), is that they have a hatred for religion (and this is exemplified in countless songs on punk albums and in any punk literature, if that isn't an oxymoron). (Side note, Oxymoron is the name of a punk band)....So despite their avowed hatred for religion, what they don't realize, because they're blinded by their own hypocrisy, is that liberalism/punk IS a religion, with its own dogmas, orthodoxies and rules. So once again, there is a set of rules for them, and a set of rules for everyone else.

Once that hypocrisy dawned on me, and saw that the punk rockers were not kind, they were self-absorbed, suddenly those repetitive same chords endlessly repeated on the guitar seemed boring and empty. Their philosophies, such as they were, were all lies and hypocrisy. And these are the ones that had no interest in just drinking beer and fighting. I'm talking about the pseudo-intellectual contingent of the scene. But you can be pretty dumb and still be an intellectual in the punk scene. Talk about a big fish in a small pond. And I've been selling my punk records ever since. If you are after any, feel free to contact me!

DVD Review I Wrote For the Hartford Examiner

2009-03-13T10:15:00.001-07:00

Here is an review I just wrote for the Hartford Examiner. I am "simulcasting" it if you will, here on my blog. I may start doing that periodically. Here it is:

Exodus is a band from the Bay Area of California. They formed in the early eighties, and by the time of the mid-eighties, a new subgenre of heavy metal was born: it was called thrash. A scene sprang up in the Bay Area (among other places), and with bands such as Exodus, Testament, Forbidden, Vio-lence, Death Angel, and yes, even Metallica, who claims they were "kicked out of L.A." and found their spiritual home in San Francisco.

In 1985, Exodus released their debut album on Torrid records, entitled "Bonded by Blood". Taking all the pre-existing elements of the heavy metal genre, and amping them up to the next level, the album featured fast, pounding drums, lightning fast guitar riffs, and the maniacal screams of the legendary (and now sadly deceased) Paul Baloff. This was an exciting time for the metal genre as fans and critics alike flocked to this new sound.

With the current resurgence of interest in the thrash metal of days past, enter the new DVD released by Zaentz records, "Exodus: Double Live Dynamo". While the title and font recall Ted Nugent, this is somewhat puzzling because the Motor City Madman is nowhere to be found. The DVD is set up as two concerts: the first in 1985 at the Dynamo club, and the second from 1997 at the Dynamo open air festival, both in Eindhoven, Holland. This is identical in structure to fellow metallers Toxik's DVD "Dynamo open air 1988" (and who doesn't have that one? Just kidding).

The first concert, the club date, is excellent. While not TOO dissimilar to what, in years past, would have passed as a bootleg, the mid-eighties camcorder footage, rather than decrease enjoyment, adds that dewy layer of nostalgia and charm. The crowd is going crazy (European fans tend to appreciate American metal bands visiting their countries), and the band performs a tight, energetic and highly entertaining set. Also of interest are the performance of two songs not released on any album, "Hell's Breath" and "Deathrow", making, by default, this DVD an essential purchase for completists due to that alone. Add to that some pre-show soundcheck footage and a great time is had by all.

Sadly, the second concert doesn't quite live up to the first. From 1997, a low year for metal generally speaking, I applaud Exodus for soldiering on and keeping the flame alive. But on that big stage there is no immediate connection to the audience like in the club gig. Plus its hard to tell if the fans are truly appreciating them or on an "ironic" level only. Additionally, the sound is a bit weird. We cannot hear Rick Hunolt's guitar at all. We see he is playing but we hear no sound. Maybe the live audience did, but the home audience cannot. Add to that his receding hairline and bad, super-baggy 90's pants, and a pretty picture is not painted. While we can hear Gary Holt's guitar loud and clear, unfortunately, the signature Exodus "crunch" is SO low and distorted it just sounds squelchy and is hard to listen to at times. Plus his short, California-dude hair is more suited to pop-punk than pure Metal. But I will give them the benefit of the doubt because it is said they had just returned to the stage with this lineup after just practicing with it. And it's not terrible, but in comparison with the previous concert, it's just somewhat sad to see how times have changed.

In conclusion, first concert = awesome. second concert = pass. But with the new interest in all things 80's and all things metal, I'm sure we can expect to see more DVD's like this in the future. Besides the fact that my wallet will take a beating, I say, go forth and thrash!

As you can see, I wrote the above article for those who know little to nothing about the band Exodus or Metal in general, especially thrash. I kept it pretty simple. I'm not sure the audience of the Examiner so I just assumed their knowledge base about Bay Area Thrash was minimal. This is at the risk of insulting their intelligence and seeming like a knowitall. We shall see?

A Partial List of Obama's Lies and Hypocrisy

2009-03-08T08:53:00.000-07:00

-- It all started during the campaign when he vowed not to take public financing. He then went back on that promise.

-- He vowed in all earnestness that he would reject all earmarks. There are about 9000 earmarks in the current trillion-dollar projects going on right now.

-- He said there would be "transparency" in his administration. Anyone who dares to ask questions about the validity of some of the things he is doing, especially in reference to his "stimulus" bills, is shouted down in favor of the utter speed in which this must be passed NOW.

-- He said he would cut the deficit. He's doubled the deficit.

-- He promised "bipartisanship" - Most republicans are against his socialistic policies but he doesn't seem to care. He'd rather focus on demonizing Rush Limbaugh, who he must have just heard of even though he's been on the radio for 20+ years. How bipartisan.

-- He admonished America to "wear a sweater" when it gets cold to save on energy costs. According to reports, he cranks the heat in the oval office. When asked about it, a spokesman said "He's from Hawaii". Never mind he spent most of his adult life in New York and Chicago.

-- He claims to be "for the people". Meanwhile he's eating $100 a pound imported steak from Japan and Iranian caviar, and inviting Stevie Wonder and Earth Wind and Fire to play at the White House for his Wednesday parties. He also lives in a million-dollar house gotten in a crooked land deal with Tony Rezko.
Way to stay in touch with the "little people". The people he claims to be in favor of. I guess we see now where he really feels comfortable.

-- He vowed lobbyists "won't find a job in my white house"...well...at least some people in America have steady jobs now.

-- As far as gun control goes, he said he would "uphold the second amendment", but even in his first 50 days as president, with all the other problems at hand, he has made various gun bans a priority.

-- He chided John McCain when McCain said the economy might not be as bad as Obama is making it seem. Once the polling numbers came in, he then changed his tune to "the economy is not as bad as it seems".

-- He said now is "an end to childish things" - yet he and his snarky Clintonites are calling Republicans a bunch of "Limbaugh-lovers" like kids at differing lunchtables in elementary school.

-- He never stops talking about the value of public education and how teachers and schools need (of course) more money! Yet he sends his daughters to a private school.

-- His intended aim is to raise taxes to create some kind of utopia, but everyone in his cabinet is a tax cheat. But they are the almighty politicians, our great and wise leaders. They don't have to pay taxes. Only we do. But I guess now it seems we're picking up their slack. There's nothing so sublime as getting a lecture on how important it is to pay taxes by people who don't pay theirs. My question is, if these people weren't nominated to be in Obama's cabinet, how would we know about their tax problems? Perhaps every American, one after the other, could be "vetted" for his cabinet, thereby getting all the unpaid taxes, and that would stimulate the economy. But then again most Americans actually pay their taxes, something the Obama team finds confusing.

-- His big catchphrase was "hope and change". His version of this phrase apparently means hiring all the old Clintonite hacks. But more importantly, with the way the economy is right now, people are increasingly hopeless and all they're left with is a few cents in change.

His condescending, pedantic and unbelievably arrogant tone apparently doesn't bother most people. They just accept it because he is our messiah. His word is the law. Literally! He knows how to spend our money better than we do. Just HOW he knows this is not clear. Unmindful of the political cesspools in which he was politically reared, mainly due to a sympathetic media (whose "fair and balanced" approach venerated our golden god and savaged Sarah Palin at every possible chance), He was elected into office and now leads our country and our world.

Forget the fact that there literally isn't enough money in the world to support his pie-in-the-sky liberal dream projects. HE doesn't suffer through recessions. He only suffers when he can't get his liberal policies passed. The so-called "evil rich people"(i.e. Hollywood celebrities and others that helped get him elected) that create jobs and make 250,000 or more will now, out of fear of paying even MORE taxes under Obama, will try to spend 249,000 or less, thereby reducing productivity and jobs. This stunts the economy. But our almighty messiah is always right and he knows what will and what won't stimulate our economy. Spending money was the problem, so, frighteningly true to his diehard liberal beliefs, obviously throwing more money at it will solve the problem.

I know I'm leaving out a lot of contradictions, hypocrisies and outright lies, so feel free to write in if you think of any others. Also, even though liberals claim to be for free speech, they only like it when it supports their cause. They support the so-called "fairness" doctrine because they cannot compete in the marketplace of talk radio, so, naturally, they whine to their mommy, the government, "That's not fair!!!" (hence the name of their beloved doctrine). So even thought the people and the market has decided, they reject that view and think there should be government-mandated "fairness". So do write in if you have any other suggestions for the above list, before this blog magically disappears.

List of reasons why I am not a drug user

2009-03-01T12:29:00.000-08:00

I don't do drugs. I never have. There are several reasons for this. One is, I never had any positive drug role models. What I mean by this is, I've never known anyone really cool, who I really respect, who is a regular drug user. If I ever did know anyone like that throughout the course of my life, who knows, I might be some sort of druggie now. But, perhaps luckily, I never met that person. But it seems some people choose drug taking as a worthwhile activity to the exclusion of all other things. You know this already, so I'll move on.

The second reason is I don't make enough money to be a drug taker. From what I'm told it gets pretty expensive. Plus I'd much rather buy something like a CD or DVD, which, if I'm lucky will last forever, rather than a temporary drugs experience. That is also the reason why I don't drink that much either. Disregarding any health risks for the moment, drinking and drugs are temporary, intangible diversions that you cannot keep. They disappear forever after it's over. That's not good value for money. Additionally there are sickening after effects to watch out for. Which brings me to reason number three...

Scare tactics! In generations past, such as pre-60's, there was no institutionalized way of scaring students against drugs. There was no need for that then, it wasn't a problem or even a thought. But as those baby boomers grew up and the revolutions of the 60's happened, a big curiosity was there and the drug/hippie culture blossomed for a while. It was only natural that this would occur. But, inevitably, a "bad trip" followed and we saw all the negative after-effects of drug taking. We've all seen the footage of scrawny, bedraggled, unshaven hippies lying in the gutters of San Francisco. How horrible. To think these are the children of The Greatest Generation. It boggles (or should I say "expands") the mind.
So by the time my generation came around and was going to school in the 80's and 90's, big programs were put in schools to have teachers recount horrifying stories, and show equally horrifying films with the whole end result being "just say no". In the 80's, Nancy Reagan pushed this theme strongly, appearing on the most powerful program in media, Diff'rent Strokes, to promote her message.
So, naturally, we were used as guinea pigs to see who could be SCARED out of taking drugs. Sure, it didn't work in all cases, but it did in many and I'm sure it was worth the millions of dollars spent. The same with sex ed, another 60's by-product. Thanks to "free love", we all had to see hideous close ups of the advanced stages of syphilis and gonnorhea in health class. You gotta give it to the teachers of America: no one does a ham-fisted scare tactic like 'em. Except perhaps the Government. So while people inexplicably seem to still be procreating, that apparently failed, but their drug equivalent might have swayed a few impressionable minds besides me.

Fourth reason: Have you ever met a person who used to take drugs "back in the day", and you can't talk to them because they are operating on some strange wavelength that most humans are not tuned in to? Communication is impossible with them because their brains are fried because of their past activities. They may not still be doing drugs (maybe they can't remember how?) but the effects are certainly there today to annoy, baffle, confuse and irritate us all here in the present day. These people are mocked and ridiculed behind their backs and seen as huge, annoying losers. I don't want that to ever be me. I don't want to be in my fifties and have the younger generation see me as the joke of the previous generation.

The fifth reason is surely genetic and environmental. No one in my family is an addict so it's not in my DNA. And my life is good so I don't have to hide from it. So these are the reasons I am not a drug user. And I don't smoke pot because I am already lazy enough. If I started doing that I might become crippled. And I don't need "the munchies." So that's pretty insidious: it seems harmless but it makes you fat and lazy. Clearly that was the Japanese plan when they invented video games: make Americans fat and lazy so they can take over the world economy. But that's another story for another day.

WPLR and "rock radio"

2009-01-13T09:26:00.000-08:00

Wherever you live, there is a big "rock" radio station. You know what I'm talking about, the big, boring behemoth that only plays about 35 songs. They play those songs in an infinite, maddening repetition. Playing the same songs over and over is actually a torture tactic. It is used to get information by breaking the subject's will and making their grasp of sanity a little looser. Keeping that in mind, many of the same DJ's and on-air personalities have worked at WPLR, my local "rock" station for years, many of them well over ten. I would go out of my mind. But somehow they don't mind hearing the same songs over and over and over again, and saying the same things to their loyal listeners over and over and over again. Maybe it seemed like a fun job when it started, and now they are complacent and can't leave. But how do you explain the audience? I find it fascinating that a large section of the populace has no problem whatsoever being stuck in a rut. They don't mind -- nay, they even enjoy letting the same tired cliches and old chestnuts of songs wash over them. Perhaps they find the utter, stubborn lack of change and difference comforting in some lifeless way.

Let me just say that 90% of the music played on WPLR I have no problem with. Much of it is classic rock and will always be great. I don't want you to think I'm here to go after the actual MUSIC. That's far from the case. It's not the music's fault this and other stations play the bejesus out of them. Queen, the Who, The Cars, Kiss, Aerosmith, The Beatles, AC/DC, and Cheap Trick are some of my favorites that WPLR plays. Honorable mentions go to Pat Benatar and Billy Squier. Now, probably the top act that is overplayed on WPLR is the band The Doors. I have nothing against the Doors whatsoever. I don't have any of their albums, but I don't take issue with them in any way.
Sometime around 1991, when Oliver Stone's film The Doors came out, WPLR went into Doors overdrive syndrome and has not let up since. Perhaps it was some kind of marketing tie-in at the beginning, you know, "Play a lot of Doors music and that will be like covert marketing to sell tickets" or some such corporate conspiracy theory. But, somehow, even at the time of writing in 2009 and surely long after, the memo has been lost to take the Doors playlist down a notch or two.

The hacks that program WPLR (although surely now it's a computer -- a computer that doesn't need much space at all) don't seem to care whether you're a fan or not. They seem insistent on cramming Doors music down all of our throats. Who is commandeering this mission? And why? I mean, if you take away the DJ's talking (invariably about how they played "Break On Through" for the 9 trillionth time), commercials and Doors songs, you literally get about three extra seconds of something else. Probably dead air. Or the second most-played band, Lynrd Skynyrd. If they cared about the music of any of the bands they play, they could play more than just one or two of their most well-known and well-worn hits. Many of the artists have long careers and have many more songs they could use, but no. In some corporate boardroom somewhere, a room full of guys in suits decided amongst their charts and graphs that playing the same songs over and over makes a certain profit margin for the company and that's that. It has nothing whatsoever to do with music or talent or artistry. I believe the phrase "familiarity breeds contempt" DOES NOT apply for the zombie-like fanbase of 'PLR.

Here's a transcribed commercial (please read in stereotypical "rock radio announcer voice"): "WPL-DOORS!!!! Nothing but Doors, every hour! Not ON the hour, for the FULL hour, EVERY hour! If we play ANY song by ANY other band, YOU win a cash prize! Hell, we'll just give you the damn radio station - 'cause it'll NEVER happen! And even if it did, we only have ONE CD! The greatest hits of.... THE DOOOOOOOORS!!!!!!!"

Okay, that was not a real commercial. But it very well could be. I mean, is Ray Manzarek at the console with a shiv, threatening the DJ's at shiv-point, saying "Play our stuff, we're not big enough yet, we need the constant publicity"?

It's just somewhat depressing that their view of the rock music world is so incredibly limited. There have been thousands upon thousands of bands since the 60's yet PLR and their ilk choose to only play a tiny, almost insignificant fraction of that. It's so narrow minded it beggars belief. New bands have no chance on stations such as this, and the WPLR model stifles creativity and cuts off lifeblood to struggling artists, many of which deserve a place on their roster. Consequently, concert attendance is down, CD sales are down, and "the scene", such as it is, suffers. Imagine if PLR put its weight behind emerging acts and "supporting the scene"...the difference would be huge because they reach so many more people than college radio. But thanks to the internet, stations like WPLR are becoming increasingly more irrelevant. And I say that's a good thing, because their outmoded, insensitive, unbelievably boring and creativity-deadening model should be shown the door. Or possibly, in a bigger building, "The Doors". Heh. That'll show 'em.

Revenge of the Left

2008-11-10T13:41:00.000-08:00

Okay, so Barack "Barry" "Saddam" Hussein "Osama" Obama has somehow become the president. In all fairness to John McCain, he was up against huge odds vying to be another Republican commander-in-chief after eight years of that evil, evil despot George W. Bush. All the Democratic opponent had to do was just what Barry (what I call Obama) did. He won the election on ONE WORD: Change (of course). His version of "change" was hiring that breath of new, fresh air Joe Biden.

It's the revenge of the liberals from the Vietnam era. There are two schools of thought at odds here. One is the Barry school, which finds value in bombers like Bill Ayers who protested the Vietnam war by violently destroying property and endangering human lives. The other school is that of John McCain and his brethren: American heroes that suffered immeasurably for our country. As Arnold Schwarzenegger said recently "John McCain spent more time being tortured at the Hanoi Hilton than Barack Obama has spent in the U.S. Senate." I'm sad to report that the first school of thought won the day last tuesday.

Was there voter fraud from Barry's buddies ACORN in this close election? Will the media investigate that? I think we all know the answer. Now, in America today it's somehow acceptable to have Black Panthers outside voting places with nightsticks? There's video of this should you wish to see it. Barry hasn't spoken out against it. Then again, that Black Panther could just be making sure enough people vote for John McCain. But Barry's friends Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn and the so-called "weather underground" bombed a judge's house in the middle of the night as he presided over a Black Panthers trial. So Barry gets yet another pass. That's going to be one of the hardest things about the next four years (at least) -- the media will cover for, and spin his every mistake. Not simply because they love him and helped get him elected, but because, since they did that, THEY don't want to look stupid if the guy's a dud. So they will use the full force of the media to whitewash, or, should I say "half-whitewash" the truth.

How far we have come since 9/11. Perhaps we should be proud. Islamic terrorists committed this atrocity, and shortly thereafter we went into Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein. Seven short years later, we elect as our president a "former" Muslim whose middle name is Hussein. The world is upside down. I don't understand anything anymore.

Entire books have been written about why you shouldn't vote for Barry, so I won't get into a long diatribe here. Politics seem to be like a pendulum: a swing towards Bush, then a huge swing back towards a radical leftist. I just wish the pendulum hadn't swung so wildly back the other way. It's not just the media lies and deceit that are troubling, but it's Barry's relative-unknown status, until very recently, that is also concerning. Also his inexperience, seemingly endless parade of radical associations (His gargantuan arrogance and ego - the same beast which spawned his new version of the presidential seal - has led him to the attitude that the American people are stupid and are just going to forget Ayers, Dohrn, Wright, Pfleger, Farrakhan, Rezko, ACORN, Khalidi and all the others(it's impossible to keep track of them all) that got him to where he is today; that he just, on a dime is going to turn centrist out of nowhere, with no evidence whatsoever to support that...why do you think liberals are so happy he won? Is that just a coincidence? Or do they know the truth, that he is just another left winger like them), his socialist policies that have never worked anywhere in the world before (but he's smarter than you; he can decide what to do with your money better than you can), and his smug arrogance...it's that this young punk sees more value in people like Ayers than in people like John McCain, who is as close to an American hero as we have right now. And it is always sad when the hero loses.

NES games I have been playing

2008-10-27T12:51:00.000-07:00

Most good NES games center around one memorable character and their journey. Nintendo wouldn't have achieved the success it has if it weren't for identifiable characters such as Mario and Link. It seems game developers knew that audience identification with a character - no matter how tenuous - could make or break a game. Is it any wonder that Ultra's Silent Service (1989) sucks so much? Just a fleeting glimpse of a guy in a beard is not enough. Sure, the controls seem dated today, but on the positive side, they could be considered a pre"cursor" (no pun intended) to the controls we are so used to today with DVD's. But that does not a good game make. Same with Acclaim's Star Voyager (1987). No central character = boring, stultifying tedium. So with that in mind I'm just going to give you a short sampling of some games I have been playing recently. Note they all have the central character thing in common.

1. KID NIKI (1987, Data East)

Bright colors, catchy, memorable music, silly and nonsensical enemies and just a general sprightly, upbeat tone make this Data East entry a winner. Data East was on quite a creative tear at this time, also rolling out the memorable items Karnov, Ring King and Breakthru, as well as Kid Niki, among others, all in 1987-88. Also noteworthy is Robocop from 1989. But memorable baddies such as Death Breath, who, rather futuristically, actually says "ki-yah" when attacking, an enemy that looks like Cookie Monster in a plastic bag, Horned Witch, and Mad Monk keep you engaged in the lightweight fun. And isn't that what it's all about?

2. THE ADVENTURES OF DINO RIKI (1989, Hudson)

Don't get confused by the similarly named hero from the above. This has some of the Hudson trademarks we all know and love: the title involves the word "adventure (s)" as in "Island", it takes a cute central character and drops them in a bucolic environment, and, most obviously, it's really freakin' HARD! As far as I know, this is a vertical scrolling game, I say that because level 2 could be horizontal scrolling, but I haven't gotten that far! Much like Hudson's Starship Hector (1990), level 1 is vertical, and level 2 is horizontal, but level 1 of Starship Hector is so incredibly, unbelievably hard, it is a miracle to get to level TWO, much less beat the game! So there could be more variation to Dino Riki than I am aware of right now.
Dino Riki is a caveman that can get progressively more impressive weaponry, all of the "caveman" variety (rocks, hammers, boomerangs, and fire). You jump on lilypads that disappear. It's fun and addictive, but very hard. But so are most NES games.

3. Whomp 'Em (Jaleco, 1991)

Yet another thing that is great about NES is that it is before political correctness. Characters in Contra (1988), Commando (1986), and Jackal (1988) and others smoke cigarettes and cigars, and ethnic stereotypes and broken english run rampant. This could NEVER happen today. Right along in this tradition is Whomp 'Em, the tale of a young Indian brave that fights the baddies with his magical pole. It's truly a beautiful thing. Of course it's not demeaning or insulting in any way. The Indian is the fearless hero. But still, fun and entertaining games like this would be censored and there would be lawsuits if it was released today. Like the great other Jaleco game, Shatterhand (also 1991), you can pick the levels and and do them in any order you choose, after completing level 1. Great graphics, imaginative levels, an original hero, great music, a taste of a bygone era and even a small dash of the forbidden, add to the fun of this great and worthy game.

4. Jackie Chan's Action Kung Fu (1990, Hudson)

Perhaps I have saved the best for last today? Hudson strikes gold once again, proving you cannot go wrong with big, bright characters and backgrounds combined with excellent music. This game takes the "central character you care about" idea I've been talking about to it's logical conclusion - make the central character an actual person. Take a person that truly exists in this world, and who you most likely have rooted for in the movies, and make him the main character in the game. I can only imagine releasing a Jackie Chan game at this point in time in America was something of a gamble, as he was not as well known then. But the game most likely featured him because he was, and continues to be, one of the most, if not THE most, famous person in the world. But that aside, this game definitely lives up to the bigness of Jackie's stature - Hudson pulled out all the stops on this one. I'm sure Jackie himself would approve of the color, the gameplay, the CHINESE-NESS of the game, and, perhaps most memorably, the MUSIC, which is among the best I have heard in all NES's history. A must-have game, Jackie Chan's Action Kung Fu may have paved the way from the gritty earlier Chan (Police Story, Crime Story) to the goofy, fun Chan (Mostly everything well-known in the U.S.), but it is a testament that that transition comes in the form of a little-known NES title. Great and recommended stuff.

My records WILL be in heaven, stop arguing with me!

2008-10-15T14:27:00.000-07:00

There was a metal band in the 80's and early 90's called VIKING. They released two albums on the Metal Blade label. However, before their second and final album, entitled "Man of Straw" was completed, at least one member of the band went Christian and decided to change the lyrics to some of the songs because he (or they, I'm not really sure) felt that they did not fit with the Christian image he was now pursuing.
I once read an article with the main guy behind this decision. It was a while ago as you can tell from my lack of remembering the details, but that's just the point: something he said really stuck with me, and not in a good way.
I believe he works in a church now, and that is all well and good, but he said something to the interviewer to the effect of: "In heaven, your record collection won't be there. Heaven is much deeper than your record collection". First off, anyone reading this article is a fan of heavy metal music...EIGHTIES heavy metal music, so they're obviously not going to heaven. Secondly, this really offended my delicate sensibilities. My first question after reading that statement was, "What's the point of heaven if my record collection isn't there?"
The way I see it, if my record collection is not there, it's not heaven. Period, end of sentence. Why be good and follow all of God's laws here on earth if I won't even be reunited with the one thing that made living worthwhile in the first place?

I would also like to add that in my vision of Heaven, not only will my entire record collection be there, but also ALL the rare, hard to find CD's LP's, Cassettes, Cassingles, CD5's and anything else that I wasn't able to track down during my earthly existence or was too expensive or too out of reach, will be there as well. That gives me an incentive to follow those commandments, however many of them there are.
I know, this God guy was trying to make a point about how material possessions have no place in the Kingdom of the Lord. I'm not blind to that. But I'm just being realistic. Why would God take away happiness once I get to heaven? That's not fair, it doesn't make any sense, and, frankly, it's not very heavenly. Because if I'm supposed to go all eternity floating around in the sky without ANYthing involving Dee Snider, why bother?
I suppose I can gather from what the man said, that if your record collection is not waiting for you in heaven, the only way to be reunited with it in the afterlife is to go to hell. Now is that very Christian? Or should I say SISTER Christian? Hm.

Food, part 1 (AKA: I Like Ice Cream)

2008-08-21T12:04:00.000-07:00

PIZZA:
I don't consider myself a snob in any way, shape or form, and snobbishness in others is one of the qualities I hate most when I come across it. However, I reserve the right to be a snob about ONE thing: Pizza. Growing up in this area, I really had no choice. New Haven is known for two things only: Yale and Pizza. Because of the Wooster street area, and the large influx of Italians into the country in the olden days, the food known as "pizza" became prevalent. In Hamden alone, new pizza places continue to open. Clearly the market is not flooded and the demand for this wonder food is higher than ever. It was in this pizza-soaked environment that I have grown up and I know no other way of life. I have had every type of pizza and have spent, if you were to total it all up, probably months of my life eating pizza.

So with this in mind I will tell you some personal preferences. I believe pizza should have a thin crust. I think Chicago-style "deep dish" so-called "Pizza" is a corruption. Pizza is not made by putting a bunch of mushrooms in a ceramic bowl, covering it with dough, then sauce, then serving it. That is NOT pizza. Just call it something else. Chicago-style deep dish "pizza" should simply be renamed. It's a different food from what the rest of the world knows and recognizes as pizza.

Personally, I prefer pizza should have some kind of toppings. I'm not all that fond of just plain cheese pizza. I think it's boring. When I get sausage or pepperoni, I like to add onion. I think a sausage and onion or pepperoni and onion pizza gives the overall experience a contrast. The onion gives it a sweetness that works well with the meat and cheese. This simple addition gives it all another dimension and enhances the pizza-eating experience. If I think of more to say about pizza, I will add it later.

ICE CREAM:
In the interest of being edgy and having an in-your-face, extreme, awesomely outrageous, mountain-dew drinking attitude, I will say something so controversial, you might want to turn off your computer right now. I like ice cream. Yes, I went there. In these troubled times, I believe it takes a man of principle to say what he really believes. But in all seriousness, I think that ice cream is one of the greatest gifts of life and we should all be very happy and grateful it was invented in our lifetime.

Have you ever met anyone that has said they don't like ice cream? I feel like I have and it was a very troubling and confusing experience. You just want to shake them and scream "what is WRONG with you?" Disliking ice cream should be labeled a type of mental disorder and should be an internationally recognized defect of the human mind.

Now, there are many things you can put ON ice cream. In my opinion, most ice cream is fine on its own with no frills. But whipped cream is the most obvious choice for a topping and does enhance the whole experience. What onions are to pizza, whipped cream is to ice cream. Depending on where you live, you may prefer what are alternately known as shots, sprinkles or jimmies. Most people in Connecticut say "sprinkles", but it varies state to state. Just like hoagies, grinders or subs, or even the storied difference between soda and "pop", it is a regional thing. If you live in a place where soda is known as "pop" please just stop now. I would be remiss if I left out hot fudge. Words can't describe the beauty of hot fudge. You take FUDGE, which everybody knows and loves, and liquefy it. You think that would be good enough. But to heat it up is the stroke of genius and to add it to ice cream and whipped cream is almost too much of a good thing.

I have given you an example of a great meal: pizza and ice cream. Stay tuned for future entries about Mexican food, Indian food, soda, various meats and cheeses, and maybe a few surprises!

Snap Bracelets

2008-08-12T09:17:00.000-07:00

I originally planned to call this blog entry "A Snap Bracelet Gallery", but I couldn't collect enough material online to make that happen the way I envisioned. I thought there would be a wealth of information on the snap bracelet (alternatively labeled the "slap bracelet" -- it must be a regional thing, like the way certain foods have different names in different places -- see the above blog "Food Part 1 (AKA I Like Ice Cream) for further details on this).

So despite the dearth of information on the snap (or slap, I prefer snap) bracelets, I will soldier on. They were a trend in the early 90's of a piece of thin plastic that you would "snap" on your wrist and it would curl into a bracelet. That's it. This trend caught on like wildfire, and why not? It's utter brilliance lies in its simplicity. Whoever invented these things is laughing all the way to the bank. I guess all it takes is one tiny little bolt of inspiration to come up with a trend that all the kids want. It doesn't matter if people call it "stupid" or "frivolous", it just has to have an addictive quality that easily influenced children want to be a part of. Woe be to you if you do not have a snap bracelet or think it is a dumb idea. You will be ostracized, at least until the trend inevitably dies, then you will be thought a hero for resisting the trend and it will look like you had a lot of foresight. Just kidding.

You know the world is going to hell when snap bracelets start becoming banned, and hated by teachers and parents because kids are cutting their wrists with them. That was the absolute end. Not just of this trend, but of everything in society. With political correctness on the rise at the time, and maybe a few kids scratching their wrists with them, these two things combined to create a furor and an outright BAN on snap bracelets. To my mind, that symbolizes the absolute end, the total weakness of the culture. When you can't even snap a bracelet on your wrist for God's sake, what else is there? What else to we have to cling to? Even the most inane and harmless trend for kids was banned. Unbelievable. It's all over, I tell ya. All over.

Perhaps there is a chance we could someday see the return of the snap bracelet. But kids today fancy themselves more sophisticated. They have their myspace and their facebook and their blackberry and their blackface and their bookface and whatever else in the world, and, sadly...VERY sadly, a cheap piece of plastic you snap on your wrist no longer has a chance.

Climbing Mountains and Rocks: A Very Selfish Impulse

2008-07-21T11:03:00.000-07:00

I'm all for human achievement. Personally, I'm a huge fan of it. But I believe there is a pivot point where some misguided people confuse "human achievement" with "arrogant showoff". And that pivot point is the inexplicable desire some people apparently have to climb rocks and mountains.

First, there are rock climbers. These are the people that believe dressing up in spandex and tying themselves to a harness is the same thing as achieving something. If they are so obsessed with "risk" why do they have a harness at all? Why not put their money where their mouth is an climb rocks without a harness? Rather than do volunteer work or help the elderly, some mountain-dew drinking jackasses believe they are honestly accomplishing something worthwhile as they do something vertically instead of horizontally. They look at a rock that just happens to be there, that has been there since time immemorial, and they think of their OWN recognition. They want accolades for putting forth the time and the effort to scale a rock. I believe this is a nonsensical, selfish impulse and perhaps it is because they didn't receive enough attention from their parents when they were children. So the only way to make up for lost time is to get an attention grabber that is BIG - as big as a giant rock. Because actually talking to their parents or developing meaningful relationships with people is actually hard, and inanimate rocks don't have feelings and emotions. So, there is LESS risk, not more. It is a way of hiding, yet they want recognition from the world for their "achievements". I say they can't have it both ways.

So, inevitably, those "rock-climbing stations" sprung up - those places indoors where people climb faux-rocks and are harnessed from here to next tuesday. I say "inevitably" because they found something they already find safe, even safer. It proves they are obsessed with safety, not risk. They still won't leave their comfort zone, even if their comfort zone seems a little strange to some of us. Yet they want to be seen as daredevils and wild, crazy risk-takers. I believe that's what you call "hypocrisy".

As for mountain climbers, everything said above applies, but this time there are many, many cases of people self-centeredly trying to climb a snowy mountain, and getting trapped and dying. Is knowing a behavior is risky and doing it anyway a reason for a pat on the back? If that is the case, why don't I celebrate the behavior of drug users? Is getting your name in a newspaper reason enough to attempt something so "daring"? What's so great about your name anyway, that you feel the world needs to know it? And simply because you just HAD to climb a mountain? I guess it's not so much the desire to climb mountains and rocks that I find puzzling, it's that prideful, arrogant, conceited, self-centered, smug, boastful rock/mountain climbers honestly believe this is somehow an achievement. The only "achievement" they want is to have people know who they are and congratulate them for all their hard work. But they do nothing that benefits society. Neither do I, but I never sought the desperate attention of my fellow man for a phony achievement.

I Love Garbage Pail Kids

2008-07-15T11:56:00.000-07:00

Another great piece of creativity and brilliance in the golden 80's came in the form of Garbage Pail Kids. For those who don't know, they were trading cards manufactured by Topps that were a reaction to the then-current trend of Cabbage Patch Kids. If there was going to be an annoyingly saccharine moneymaking phenomenon such as Cabbage Patch Kids, GPK were going to come in and rain on their parade. Parents weren't trampling themselves in stores to get those moon-faced Cabbage Patch Kids before long.

I was very into GPK as a kid. Something about the artwork was fascinating. There was, and is, a strange dichotomy between something that obviously took a lot of work to plan and execute, and putting that level of effort into something so juvenile and disgusting. Who created this? Where did they come from? Why did they care so much about grossing out kids and offending parents?

Now it is easy, in our internet age, to find the answers to these gnawing questions, and to more richly appreciate the genius of a man like John Pound. However, this is more a personal reminiscence. For example, I remember they were very popular, and only this one particular store, which was really like a candy, gum and cigarette store, not even a convenience store, ever had them in stock. It was about 15-20 minutes away from my house. We would drive there and it would be extremely exciting. Just the smell of a new, freshly sealed pack - the only way I can describe it is sweet and thinly plasticky - chiefly due to the rock-hard rectangle of gum enclosed within - would be enough to send your imagination reeling. How would I be grossed-out today? What irreverent sight would I see? How many puns can they use involving peoples' names? It was all a mystery. They often had cartoons and puzzles on the backs of the cards to further enhance the experience.

Could it be that GPK appealed to a certain side of all of us...a neglected side, where we felt like an outcast or unwanted? Could we relate on some level to these kids no one wanted, and no one wanted to pay attention to, these "Garbage Pail Kids", and we felt a kinship with them, and an empathy? Or we just like to see kids throwing up garbage? Nevertheless, the series had to keep outdoing itself, and they got grosser and grosser as they went along, in my opinion. For example, did we really need to see "rat sucker Randall" licking a dead rat on a stick like an ice cream cone? Inevitably, a movie was made to further enhance the name of GPK. It didn't work. The movie is a disappointment, but, like so many 80's movies, it has an awesome theme song. The end of the trend had sadly arrived, and a planned 16th series was never issued.

GPK were so popular, there were knockoffs such as "trash can tots" and "garage pale kids". Also, they were popular all over the world. For example, in Germany they were known as "Die Total Kaputten Kids", In Australia as "the Garbage Gang", in Brazil as "Gang do Lixo", in Italy as "Sgorbions", and on and on. In the 2000's, there was a new version of GPK, just like the new versions of He-Man and Transformers, but by now it isn't the same for me. Maybe a kid or two will see the new ones and be interested in the original series. For me, it was the closest thing I had experienced to the "Pokemon" phenomenon, because I wanted to "catch them all". I still look at the ones I still have. But never fear, because as long as there are collectors, websites devoted to them, and a faithful global following, and as long as the cards still exist in one form or another...remember..."YOU can be a Garbage Pail Kid!"

People With Girlfriends (Or Wives)

2008-07-02T09:34:00.000-07:00

Comedian Amanda Melson has said that the fact that OJ Simpson has a girlfriend "Is an affront to single people everywhere". As a single person myself (Shock of the century!) I would like to add to what Melson has said. I'm not complaining - just making some observations for entertainment or maybe informational purposes.

It has been said that "Even Hitler had a girlfriend". It's even the title of a movie. I think there's a song by that name as well. This has to top the list.

After seeing the Dr. Phil-like relationship success OJ had with Nicole Brown Simpson, the woman pictured above, Christine Prody, came running into OJ's murderin' arms. I guess it has never dawned on her that she looks a lot like Nicole. I guess OJ is killing her with kindness.

John Mark Karr, the inexplicable weirdo that claimed to be involved with the JonBenet Ramsey case, but actually was exonerated of any and all charges, used his powerful masculinity to lasso this quite attractive lass. Did I mention she has a daughter around the same age as JonBenet? She does.

John Hinckley, the man who tried to assassinate Ronald Reagan and ended up shooting him once, in a foolproof endeavor to impress Jodie Foster, is now in a mental asylum. But that hasn't stopped him from "getting his groove back". According to some reports, one is not enough, and he has 3-5 girlfriends. One of which supposedly killed her 10 year old daughter. How did he ever impress them without assassination attempts on great men?

This silver-tongued devil who clearly woos the ladies with his smooth words had plenty of "girlfriends" in jail - and many who aspired to be but had to be content writing him letters professing their love and devotion.

I'm sure all of Verne Troyer's model and actress girlfriends would be with him if he was a janitor in an elementary school and not in movies.

John Wayne Bobbitt Vs. Joey Buttafuoco: these incorrigible ladies men not only hooked in Lorena and Amy Fisher respectively, but are both remarried. This split-screen comes from their proposed bout of "Celebrity Boxing". And like the above Verne Troyer, both have sex tapes - Joey's amateur, John Wayne's as part of his post-castration porn career. A serial woman abuser with a reattached penis and a career in "adult films"? Where do I sign up?" ...."Your last name is 'Buttafuoco'? Where do I sign up?"

Lorena Bobbitt is also remarried. I'm sure her new beau isn't worried at all.

SPECIAL POLITICAL PORTION! -----------------------------

Speaking of pornography, we'll start the political section of this article with this picture that looks like a still from a 70's porn film. That was the start of an America-destroying relationship that is still thriving today. Note there is a second woman on Bill's arm. I believe that's what you call "foreshadowing".

That's Silda Wall Spitzer with the diabolically attractive Elliot Spitzer. I guess she is standing by him.

Senator Vitter and his wife Wendy. I suppose she is standing by him as well.

Larry and Suzanne Craig. I guess she is stan...well, you get the idea.

Dina Matos McGreevey. Apparently he came out as a "gay American."

I hope all these people enjoy their relationships. It is hard to find the right person, and they are all very lucky.

Hall and Oates: Out of Touch

2008-07-01T12:50:00.001-07:00

Everything about this is so great! One of the catchiest songs ever!

Hamden: A Town In Which For People To Live

2008-07-01T09:50:00.000-07:00

Incorporated in 1786, I am just one of the 58,180 people that live in the town of Hamden, CT. I have grown up here, and today we are going on a "virtual tour" of the town. According to Wikipedia (where all factual information for this piece was taken, so make of that what you will), "In 2008, Fortune Magazine and CNN Money picked Hamden as #33 on their 'Best Place to Live and Launch' list, citing Hamden's great blend of urban and suburban lifestyles. The article also pointed out Hamden's exceptional education system as well as its 'New England Charm'". All pictures included herein were taken by yours truly, except one.

View of the Hamden sign and fountain in the center of town.

Also according to Wikipedia, the first truss bridge in the U.S. was erected in Hamden in 1823. It has since been replaced. But far more important and interesting is that this is the birthplace of the great Ernest Borgnine! He is a graduate of Hamden High like myself.

Here is the sign for the "park" named in his honor. Observe the second view:

It is simply a patch of grass in front of a depressing brown wall in a busy section of town. I believe Mr. Borgnine deserves better. Actually, this picture makes it look a lot nicer than it actually is. Elsewhere in town, there was a driveway to a golf course named "Ernest Borgnine Way", but that has since been taken down to make way for a sign that says "please clean up after your dog". Shame shame shame, Hamden! Borgnine deserves better. That's my motto. However, I suppose we should be grateful for what we have.

Center of town with the town hall in the background. The town hall is now vacant and all municipal offices have been moved to a more modern complex. Other notable Hamdeners (Hamdenites?) include Paul Fusco, the creator of ALF (see the February blog post), Thornton Wilder, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson (for a short time anyway), and, of course, the great Eli Whitney.

This is the toughest, most badass piece of graffiti in town.

"But Officer, I was just following the sign! The sign, I tell you! The sign!!!!!"

Hard to argue.

Guys, I know you want to be first in the phone book, but this is going a bit overboard with the "A's", isn't it? It's not even realistic anymore. I think they need to have a little more faith in the phone-book-using public, that they won't just pick the first one they see, if such people exist anymore.

Arguably one of the better shoppees in town. Of all the shoppees, and there are many shoppees, this is said to be the best shoppee. I've never actually been inside this shoppee, but a lot of shoppeers that have shoppeed here have told me that as far as shoppees go, this is a great shoppee.

They put two "N's" in the word "Kryptonnite" to avoid that lawsuit with Superman.

HONORABLE MENTION: GHOST PARKING LOT R.I.P.

Despite being in over 100 art books, and featured on that show hosted by Leonard Nimoy, this art installation in the Hamden plaza was torn down in 2003. Rather than just be a place where people shopped, the Hamden plaza had other weird art things as well, such as a "crying rock" - a stone that appeared to weep (???)and a bunch of cones attached to some metal rods on a very high pole. Sure, everyone that ever looked at the cars described it as an "eyesore", but is that any reason to get rid of a classic, distinguishing feature of a town? Just to take away its uniqueness and make it more bland and mediocre, indistinguishable from other towns in the USA and elsewhere? I grew up with those tar-covered hulks, and every time I would go to Child World or anyplace else, they would be there, presumably hoping someone would appreciate them. That day never came. Sorry tarry (if that is a word) cars, you will live on in all of our hearts.

Well, I hope you enjoyed this little trip through Hamden. I guess we can thank its "Exceptional education system" for giving me the ability to write and photograph this article. Hamden really is one of the better towns in Connecticut. Granted, I haven't been to them all, but Hamden is definitely in the top ten. Maybe the top fifteen. I am thankful not to live in Moodus, Moosup or Mianus, CT. Or even "Voluntown" (what a cop-out name for a town...As if a bunch of volunteers got together and founded a town: "I know! Voluntown!" I guess "Volunteertown" was too long. That's just lame, Voluntown. Just lame).
On that note, it's time to wrap it up. I need to go watch Scott Burrell demonstrate the Cotton Gin on the History Channel. This presentation brought to you by the Ill Bros. and Pablo.

The Suburban White Rapper Fantasy

2008-06-03T08:23:00.000-07:00

If you grew up in the suburbs during the 80's and/or the early 90's, and are male, you pretty much HAVE to like heavy metal and/or rap music. That is pretty unavoidable. MTV catered to these two fancies with two shows: The Headbangers Ball for metal, and Yo! MTV Raps for rap. Around the time both of these shows went off the air, rap-metal hybrid bands such as Limp Bizkit and Korn appeared. Coincidence? I think not. The two MTV shows proved their usefulness, then became obsolete once these new bands ruled the roost. Never mind that the bands themselves were embarassingly awful and truly cringe-inducingly bad. I think you see my point.

I personally have never even attempted, not even once, to try and rap. I feel I would just embarass myself. Just to be safe, I try not to ever say any rhyming words. But who hasn't dreamed of being on that stage, with unchallenged skills, the crowd following your every word? It is my belief that boys (men?) growing up in the allotted timeframe have fantasized about being a famous, successful rapper. Every single one of them has. Perhaps some more than others. Some have actually succeeded in making their dreams come true, but I am speaking more of a widespread fantasy than a career goal. They've daydreamed during school or work, or at home while watching TV of being like those rappers they have seen. There is something attractive about wanting to put yourself in the shoes of an alpha-male like LL Cool J or have your cake and eat it too and hang out with Aerosmith like Run DMC.

It all seemed very glamorous and also tantalizing because it also seemed very PLAUSIBLE. You didn't have to do anything HARD like learn an instrument or try and have a good singing voice. At least that's how it appeared. Rapping is a very specific skill and talent, but the ones on TV made it seem so easy. But so do great musicians.

All the major (perhaps all?) the white rap groups that "made it" were all good: The Beastie Boys, House of Pain, and 3rd Bass. No one would dispute the relevance and importance of these groups. I think that's because they all had to work harder to be respected with their peers. So they had to be better. 3rd Bass deserves special mention because they were smart, funny, way ahead of their time, had great criticisms of the industry, and MC Serch is as good as anyone in the game. Anyone reading this should go out and get their two albums, if you don't already have them.

Keep in mind I'm mainly speaking of what might be now called "old school", when rap was much, much, much better and also very different. With the advent of so-called "gangsta rap", a lot changed and a lot of the innocence went away and so did the emphasis on good lyricism and positivity. However, these aspects began to come back and can still be found nowadays.

Advertisers took notice, and hence the "free credit report dot com" commercials we all love so dearly came along. If advertisers have learned one thing, a surefire way to get people to buy your product is to have a white guy rapping.
In case my tone is not coming across, I'm kidding! I'm being sarcastic. Sometimes I do that.

With Yo! MTV raps now a thing of the past, and kids today with a myriad of other ways to hear and discover music, it is likely the Suburban White Rapper Fantasy will live on in the minds of adolescent boys everywhere around the world. As long as there is a suburb, a white kid, and a way for that kid to discover rap music, the daydreams will thrive. While maybe 4% will actually ACT on his fantasy and try to make it in the industry, that is really irrelevant to the phenomenon I am speaking about. Keep on dreaming, America!

V.egetarians' E.nvy G.oes A.nother N.otch

2008-05-23T07:56:00.000-07:00

I have absolutely nothing against vegetarians. If that's what you want to do with your life, I say good luck and Godspeed. The following is NOT meant to be a rant against vegetarians. If anything, what I'm about to say helps them assert their identity even more.

Food: Real

Well, that being said, let me get one quick complaint out of the way first. Whenever you eat with vegetarians, you always have to go their way. You have to get the vegetarian appetizer, the vegetarian pizza, whatever. You always have to bend to THEIR ideas about food and right and wrong, even in the most casual situation. Plus, there's nothing worse than a lecture about why YOU should be a vegetarian. Could there be another situation that more makes you want to kill yourself? As if, after hearing their self-righeous drivel, you will say "You're right! I've been wrong all along! Bacon really tastes BAD!" I hope, for their sake, no well-meaning vegetarian proselytizes to a group of animals. It will be the worst animal slaughter in history.

What I want to say concerns the "imitation real food" trend of late. Fake bacon, fake turkey, fake burgers, etc. This proves that vegetarians want to be like the mainstream of society, i.e., omnivores. On some level, besides jealousy, they know what they are doing puts them in sort of a kooky box. They don't want to be seen as "those nutty vegetarians", despite the fact that the choice is solely theirs. That's why their "bacon" assumes the form of real bacon, their "burgers" look like real burgers, and every other fake food they have churned out of their fraud factories resembles - physically resembles - food made from animals.

I can't help but wonder why they choose to do it this way. They could obviously make the food look like anything. If, hypothetically, hamburger patties were blue and star-shaped, fake vegetarian burgers would be blue and star-shaped. If bacon, in the real world, was yellow and square, fake bacon would be yellow and square. The meat versions are the originals. They came first. The manufactured vegetarian versions are the imitations. They came second.

Food: ????

The fact that the makers of the fake versions of the food chose to put their twisted mockeries of bacon and hamburgers into the same size and shape as the originals shows that they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be vegetarians and hold on to their moral superiority, and also eat "bacon", "turkey", "hamburgers", etc.

The consumers of this fraudulent material also seem to have no problem with the resemblance to the foods they are copying. They want to say "hey look! I'm eating a hamburger!" It's not a hamburger. It's a LIE!!!!

My question is, if they have the power to make their imitations look any way they want - which they clearly do - why not make the food look DIFFERENT from the originals? Why not show a little creativity? You want to be a vegetarian, you want to have your own little niche, you want to be original, different, your own sector of life just for you, you want to be in control when vegetarians and non-vegetarians eat out together in a mixed setting...well then prove it. Stop aping the food styles of those who you deem to be morally below you.
Aren't I right? Why go down in the moral sewer with us meateaters in any way, shape or form?
But, at any cost, you must have your "hamburgers" and "hot dogs" made out of God-knows-what.

I say, vegetarians, assert your independence. Don't be like meateaters at all. Stop imitating what we eat. This may sound a bit silly, but...make up your own food! Stop using ours, that WE invented, as your template. All the while scolding us with your other hand.

I believe God made us meateaters because meat tastes good, it doesn't make us sick to eat, it has proteins and other benefits, and we have incisors and other sharp teeth to handle it. The DAY meat stops tasting good, I will stop eating it. Or, if it converts to fake meat.

Media Arrogance and Childishness is Actually Dangerous!

2008-05-05T09:18:00.000-07:00

The arrogance of the democrats and liberals is actually dangerous to us all. They are INVESTED in defeat in Iraq. Because even though they voted to send our troops there, they are now saying the war is lost. After they sent them there, they are bleeding away all their resources. THAT should be a crime. Not all of course, I'm specifically talking about scumbags like John Murtha and Harry Reid, and their mouthpieces like the repellant Keith Olbermann (more on him later). They had all the same information as President Bush about the reasons for the war, and now they call HIM a "liar". And they've been pounding this drum of "defeat, defeat" for so long, they will look like fools if (or should I say WHEN) we succeed. Thusly, their own conceited, vain, elite arrogance is more important to them than the lives of our brave soldiers and the success of the mission. Just disgusting. If it was in a novel or movie, you'd never believe it, thinking it too impossible that they could be so self-centered and blind. Their selfish attitudes do nothing except give aid and comfort to the enemy (I'm pretty sure that IS a crime - yet they somehow believe BUSH is the bad guy, some nuts even believing that he should be impeached!), thinking that if they just hold out for ONE MORE DAY, they may be able to carry on, possibly even succeed (I'm just telling you what they must be thinking). I mean, it saves them time, money and effort when our side is the one that is not all together, and even within the USA, certain factions are undermining the troops.

The media is the same way. They are invested in defeat as well, for no other reason than, should defeat occur (God forbid), that will simply reinforce what they've been pushing for years (interesting how it hasn't happened yet.) -- Once-great papers like the New York Times are now nothing more than a bunch of second-graders burning to say "I told you so". If it were socially acceptable, The headline would read "Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah". Instead of being fair and balanced, the Times is just a liberal mouthpiece, whose stories in every section only reinforce the liberal attitudes of its owners and operators. That's not a NEWS paper. That's just a one-sided rag.Yes, you've made it perfectly clear that you want Obama to win. So much so, you've minimized his flaws and scandals, and when there are none about John McCain, you've MADE THEM UP! That is boldfaced one-sidedness. They're not even TRYING to hide it anymore. I'm pretty sure that's not the job of an institution that claims to be fair. I guess the WHOLE truth isn't "fit to print". No wonder it has lost all that money and its stock price has plummeted. I guess preaching to the converted only gives you half an audience.

On TV, if you classify MSNBC as "TV", you've got Keith Olbermann, a one-note, humorless dispenser of snarky Bush-bashing (big surprise) comments. He always has this annoying little smirk on his face, like he is so much better and wiser than his material. That is clearly not the case. For some strange reason, I'm guessing just to be different, the camera always seems a bit too close to his face. That may be different, but it's certainly not better. I mean, I don't know whose decision it was that we should all be CLOSER to Keith Olbermann's face, but the cameraman might want to think about dialing it back a few notches. He is quite the hunk, but still...
And what gives HIM the right to deem who is the "worst person in the world"? Who is HE exactly, anyway? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! (he apparently believes this is such a witty concept, it is also the name of his book.) Funny how the people he deems to be the "worst in the world" are always either Republicans or somehow involved with Fox News. (Disgustingly, even the promos for the show are laughably pathetic: "We're going to make fun of Bill O'Reilly, Coming up next!"...O'Reilly has NEVER ONCE mentioned Olbermann on his show. EVER! Yet Olbermann's entire career is predicated on O'Reilly-bashing. I believe that's what you call "sour grapes".)
My explanation here is purely psychological. He, and the rest of MSNBC, are angry, and, dare I say, bitter, that Fox News is successful and they aren't. So this childish vitriol comes out. We mustn't be jealous when our fellow networks become successful. This is a hallmark of a desperate, lesser mind. So...I see a theme developing. Those in the media are AGAIN overgrown children, forever stuck in the schoolyard: "Billy got an A on his test and I got a D. I hate Billy!" seems to be the working credo of MSNBC. (And what a success it is! Most people don't know the network exists.)

I would also submit that all this hatred of President Bush and his constant bashing is media-driven. Those "elites" in the media hate Bush, so, in their insecure, short-sighted arrogance, they want everyone else in the world to hate him too. Think about it. If you have control of all the media outlets, you can present the notion that Bush is bad. If that's what you choose to put out there, it is hard to escape, because there is a lot of media and a lot of demand for it. If it is what you are constantly fed, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, and somewhere along the line it becomes "truth".
Think of it this way: take away all the media in the world and their constant drumbeat of Bush-bashing. Would there be such a negative public outlook of him? I think not. I'm not saying he's perfect -- far from it -- but I doubt we'd be surrounded by this insane, baseless HATRED of the man. I suppose after the Times gave away those CIA secrets, they weren't satisfied, so they must fan the flames of what they themselves started.

I wonder if the weasels at the Times and MSNBC and all the other corrupt media outlets have ever THOUGHT OF, much less personally thanked, even one of the brave soldiers who are sacrificing everything for our freedom. Even the media's freedom to bash Bush and the war! Somehow, I doubt it.

We Live in a Looksist Society

2008-04-23T09:59:00.000-07:00

While people in society are concerning themselves with racism and sexism and other "ism"s, I submit to you there is another "ism" that deserves attention and outrage as well. That is what I have dubbed "Looksism".

People that are not good looking, such as myself, have noticed a peculiar trend in society. We are uniquely positioned, as outsiders looking in, to notice this trend. Women and Men alike get all sorts of little breaks in life, and are given slack in every area imaginable, simply because, as Dennis Miller puts it, they "hit the genetic 'pick six'".

Good-looking people are treated as royalty in our society. Because they are celebrated in every venue imaginable, from billboards to magazines to TV to movies and beyond, every place that humans go, they see good-looking people and cannot avoid it, so we are FORCED to have a reverence for them, we are subtly brainwashed into it from an early age so we don't notice any bias at all. All this because people in suits realized they can make money selling their products because a good-looking person hawking the product will result in more sales. That's how much power they have. We will buy something with our hard-earned money just because a good-looking person says we should. Really they are just a front for a company saying we should, but no one digs deeper than the surface.

And the surface is important, isn't it? As the saying goes, "beauty is just skin deep". Skin is thin, so that's not very deep at all. If you took a beautiful person and ripped their skin off, they would look really gross and their so-called "beauty", which rests solely on that gossamer surface, would disappear rather quickly. So their skin IS important, very much so.

People with no talent, skills or abilities can make millions of dollars and have great, glamorous lives simply because of the way they popped out of the womb. It is wrong of society to reward this on the level that it does.
People just treat good-looking people better, on every level you can imagine. Clerks at stores are just nicer to them, potential mates bend over backwards for them, parents dote on them, in no area are they EVER exposed to the way normal, or ugly people are treated. Because, from birth, they know no other way, they develop this bubble of false self-importance. That's the best way I can describe it. I'm not talking about arrogance and conceit, although many have these qualities, but not all. I'm talking about a certain unconscious misunderstanding of life and interpersonal relationships that is warped from day one because they are one of society's chosen darlings.
Imagine a lifetime of getting to slide when the cops pull you over, at late fees at the video store, overly attentive service at stores, etc., (there are many other instances like this, these are just some that I can think of right now), plus a constant barrage of compliments and people going out of their way just for you. If that's ALL you knew your whole life, your outlook would be skewed, to say the least. You'd be in that bubble I spoke of earlier. I suppose it only ends if they live long enough to get old, then beauty fades and so do all the breaks. But they've had so many their whole lives, it doesn't really matter at that point.

I hope all this doesn't sound like whining, because that's not my intention. I would just like for someone of beauty to live as one of us "normals" for a year, and see what their formerly-charmed lives would be like without all the breaks that they get that they have come to take for granted. Ideally, we should be living in a meritocracy, not a "beautocracy". Because of they way they happen to have been born, the lucky ones, the beautiful people, can call the shots. They can live the way they want to live and even bend people to their will. All this without any actual worthwhile skills or talents. But no one ever said life was fair, and the way society bows down to, and revolves around, the people they deem beautiful at that moment, proves this beyond doubt.

TV shows currently on the air that I like, Part 2

2008-04-21T11:51:00.000-07:00

CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM

Larry David is a genius and one of my personal heroes. His comedic brilliance shines through every episode. His ability to take the minutia of life and spin it into plots is brilliant enough, but when events that happen at the beginning of the episode tie into and dovetail with things that happen at the end, and all the while the performances, without scripted dialogue, are chock full of great lines, you realize you are in the presence of true greatness. I've laughed so hard and so long at episodes of this show, that I've started sweating, like I was getting a workout, and I had to go take a shower afterwards. David's sensibility clearly hasn't changed since Seinfeld, but if anything it has improved, and the fact that the show is on HBO means he has even greater freedom. God Bless Curb Your Enthusiasm!

THE SOUP

The E! Network stays afloat with this silly, cynical and hilarious pop culture commentary show. Joel McHale is very funny and likable, and the format is easy to like and understand. It really is the only show of its kind that I know of that is truly unafraid to go hard on the celebrities, yet is still funny and has a brightness that never feels TOO mean-spirited. Chock full of biting sarcasm aimed at today's stupid, vapid celebrity culture, what's not to love?

DEXTER

Original, intriguing and creepy, Showtime, and now CBS' DEXTER is another must-see drama. It seems like only on the pay channels can truly worthwhile, challenging content flower into existence. The show is moody, even philosophical, and Dexter's ruminations on life give it that extra, intelligent dimension. Since Dexter has no emotions, he must fake his way through life. I can relate to that aspect of him. I especially appreciate Dexter's relationship to his sister. I wish I had a relationship with my sister that Dexter does with his. Sure, she may be a bit too good-looking to be on the police force (not that there aren't pretty cops, but come on, in real life she would be modeling, not busting bad guys.) But hey, it's TV and she is a great actress, so all is well. It also combines some of the best aspects of horror movies (there have been outright references to George Romero's MARTIN, as well as THE LAST HOUSE ON DEAD END STREET and the GUINEA PIG series, among others.), and one of my favorite sub-genres, the revenge thriller. Because Dexter is a killer, that, only after careful checking, kills the bad guys, these two things can come together. I guess CBS is trying to shake its image of a network that only the elderly can appreciate, but with this and CRIMINAL MINDS (which I'll discuss later), it's now the serial killer channel. That's quite a turn. I wonder what Andy Rooney thinks?

PENN AND TELLER'S B.S.

Speaking of Showtime, here's their other great show. I've been a fan of Penn and Teller since I was a kid in the 80's. But I prefer this angry, sarcastic and highly enjoyable show better than their magic. When Penn goes off on one of his angry rants about some ridiculous subject or other, the show is at its best. But then sometimes Penn will go into his "soft voice" when talking about something sad, and that really shows his range. I am a huge fan of societal criticism, and this show is one of the best at doing that. I don't agree with 100% of Penn's points, but you don't have to in order to enjoy this hilarious, and pointed, show.

CRIMINAL MINDS

We'll finish this installment with another CBS show. I've only seen the Mandy Patinkin shows, so I can only comment on those. He is quiet and intense, and, if nothing else, the strength of this show is its ensemble cast. Each has their own likable attributes. Hotch is the no-nonsense Joe Friday of the modern era. Reid has an undeniable quirky charm, and I especially liked the plot arc in season 2 where he develops something of a drug problem. JJ is the good-looking girl, Shemar Moore is the good-looking guy, and Garcia is the brains behind the operation (her quirkiness leads me to believe a romance could develop between her and Reid. Wouldn't we all like to see that?) The diverse ensemble cast, mixed with what can be extremely brutal and disturbing subject matter, and the way the team comes together to solve the problem, makes for compelling viewing.

STAY TUNED FOR PART THREE OF THIS ONGOING SERIES!

TV shows currently on the air that I like, part 1

2008-04-17T09:40:00.000-07:00

THE SIMPSONS

It is impossible to estimate, much less overestimate, the impact The Simpsons has had on my life. In society, it has changed the way people think about comedy, and for me it has subtly influenced the way I act, talk, even think. Let's not forget I have been watching the show -- without ever stopping -- since 1989, when it debuted, and even before that when they were the little vignettes on the Tracey Ullman show. Some people stop watching shows, take breaks from them and come back to them, etc...I have NEVER stopped watching the show since I was nine years old. I taped them on VHS tapes before the DVD's came out, and always watch the repeats on syndication when I can. I could go on talking about the show forever...It has provided so many laughs, tears, thoughts, social criticism, feelings...but mainly LAUGHS over the years, it is a part of my life that would be unthinkable to separate from me.

FAMILY GUY

On the commentary to one of the seasons of The Simpsons, the writers and producers mentioned how Fox wanted more and more Simpsons episodes per year, and more clip shows. The talent involved with the show couldn't meet Fox's demands. I believe Family Guy is how Fox was able to get the amount of "Simpsons" episodes they wanted, but under a different name. I mean, how big is the difference between "Homer Simpson" and "Peter Griffin"? Besides the soundalike name, they are both overweight oafs that are none too intelligent, and have a wife with a somewhat scratchy voice that acts as a stabilizing influence on the family, a son, a daughter, a baby, and a dog. Sure, the dog and the baby talk. That's about the only difference. Since The Simpsons have gone in every possible direction with the show except outright mean-spiritedness and total raunch, inevitably, that's the only choice Family Guy had to go in a different direction than The Simpsons, so, of course, they took it. I believe it weakens the show and makes the characters, especially Peter, less sympathetic. The writers don't seem to care.
But all that being said, I still have seen every episode of the show, and I watch the repeats, because it can be a very funny show and I like the references. Because of the randomness of the humor (which, unlike South Park, I have no problem with), I just take each joke on its own individual merits. I don't watch the show for its plots. In summary: You can't possibly deny the show is a complete and total Simpsons knockoff, but it has its own individual virtues that must be taken on a joke-by-joke basis.

ALL THREE LAW AND ORDER FRANCHISES

Not much I can say here except that the shows, especially the original, have a certain addictive quality. The plots are always intriguing and I believe the show has lasted as long as it has because of the "ripped from the headlines" aspect. This ensures, as long as there are news stories and people are commiting crimes and/or doing stupid things, the show will survive.
As far as Criminal Intent, it is much more character-driven and both D'Onofrio and Noth have their own styles and differences and that keeps the show interesting. D'Onofrio's outrageously brilliant acting carries many of his episodes and his complex, sensitive character transcends the traditional "cop show" idea. Noth is more a straightforward jaded tough guy, but he also has a hidden sensitivity and a complex past. They are like two sides of a coin. Incidentally, I can also say my favorite episode of the show is the one where Goren goes undercover in the mental institution. The fact that an episode of this magnitude came so far in the run of the series, gives hope for the future of the show. The episode is absolutely brilliant, and should have 30 more minutes added to it and released as a movie. This also furthers my theory that in this day and age, TV is better than movies.
SVU is the darkest and most brutal of the shows. It appeals to me on that level. I love the character of Stabler, I wish I could be more like him personally, but the rest of the cast is great too, and runner-up high marks go to Ice-T whose street curtness is always welcome.

SOUTH PARK

When South Park first came on the air, I watched it and enjoyed it, and appreciated it as an animated show that The Simpsons paved the way for, but was very different and not a knockoff like Family Guy. After the first season, I felt, unfairly, that it was coasting on a one-joke premise. I eventually came back to the show and discovered how great it is. Despite it being hilariously funny, it also has an underlying moral sense, which it desperately needs, because if it didn't have that, all the raunch would seem aimless and rudderless. But despite some dirtiness, the show really has a heart of gold and even a very winning sweet side. This mixture of moral, humor, social comment, sweetness and raunch is a totally winning combination. It's a lot like an underground comic that made it to the mainstream. But better. My favorite episode is the "Batdad" one. I feel all the best attributes of the show come together in this episode in a brilliant way.

STAY TUNED FOR PART TWO OF THIS GREAT SERIES!

A Continuing obsession with 80's toys

2008-04-14T10:36:00.000-07:00

When I was a kid, I had a large toy collection. I was very lucky. I don't have any of the toys any more. Despite all warnings that I might regret it, I insisted that I sell them all at one or possibly more tag sales. I stupidly and childishly thought I would rather get rid of them to get the money for something else, which, somewhat ironically, is long forgotten. I honestly don't remember what it was that I so desperately needed the money for, but, looking back, it certainly wasn't worth it to get rid of all my toys. At the beginning of the last post, I mentioned some of the heavy-hitters of the 80's toy world:

Transformers:

G.I. Joe, He-Man (see top of blog), and a constant obsession, NES. But what about some of the other contenders for your parents' hard-earned money?

First I will mention Madballs.

Madballs came in two forms that I can remember. First was ball form, obviously. Those were just little balls you could, I guess, throw, but fashioned in the grotesque manner as was somewhat popular at the time, lead in this area by the immortal Garbage Pail Kids. (Even though GPK was a reaction to the trend of Cabbage Patch Kids and their omnipresent cuteness, they spawned their own rip-offs, such as, if you can believe it, "Trash Can Tots.")
Madballs offered the luxury of not just having a Garbage Pail Kid in 3-D that you could touch and hold, and, of course, THROW, but...they were BALLS! They are spherical objects! How great!
After the romance wore off with "Fist Face" and "Aargh" in their Ball form, Madballs were retooled into a more sensical action figure form. They were short, squat plastic action figures, with good detail as I recall, and as an added bonus, you could pop the heads off the figure. At least you could with the Oculus Orbus figure, which was the coolest in my opinion. Why don't the toys of today have detailed veins that that toy did? It must be the PC takeover that was a reaction to things like Madballs and GPK. First came the watering down: My Pet Monster - then the total eradication of gross toys. Sad, sad, sad.

That brings us to another aberration: Food Fighters. I love the creativity that went into the manufacturing of toys for children back then. How did anyone come up with this? Apparently the higher-ups at Mattel agreed that giving food items Military stature was the surefire blockbuster they've been waiting for. Because that is the concept in full:

I don't know about you, but I have always dreamed of seeing a chicken leg fight a highly decorated hot dog.
Now you can. Genius. I'm NOT being sarcastic. That is pure genius I tell you. I would also like to add that it was really ahead of its time: it predates the band "Foo Fighters". In fact, when that band came on the scene, I thought it took its name from the toys, but for some inexplicable reason (perhaps legal), they left off the "D".

Another toy (?) (at least they were made of plastic) that was ahead of its time, was M.U.S.C.L.E. (Millions of Unusual Small Creatures Lurking Everywhere).

They were little, 2 inch pink men, ostensibly wrestlers that you could pit against each other. They did eventually come in other colors, such as blue or red, but these tiny little figures only ever came in one color at a time. They couldn't really DO anything, meaning their little arms and legs couldn't move, and they weren't amenable to accessories, but they predated Pokemon in the "gotta catch 'em all" category. (The origins of the toy are, unsurprisingly, Japanese.) The idea was to collect 'em all. Not a new concept by any stretch, but with Muscle, they really hammered it home with posters, checklists and many pictures of all the wrestlers, which inevitably led the kid to dwell on the ones he didn't have. One of the ways they were packaged was stuffed into a little plastic garbage can. Once again, the theme of grossness and garbage rears its ugly head. I wonder how Julia Kristeva could apply her theory of Abjection on 80's children's toys?
Muscle men were charming despite (or perhaps because of?) their limitations, and, inevitably, they were made into an NES game in October 1986.

We'll end today with another tiny toy. But these li'l guys could do much more than Muscle and were a lot cooler in their design, painting and overall execution. These guys you WANTED to collect and didn't need to be cajoled into it. They even had tiny weapons. I'm talking about Battle Beasts. They had little holograms on their chests that you had to rub with your thumb to see if they had a logo of fire, wood, or water. Sure, it was just a dressed-up version of rock, paper, scissors, but so what? The dressing was cool.
Again, further showing evidence of the Japanese obsession with tiny things, this toy also has its origins in the land of the rising sun.

If you made it through this whole post, thank you very much. If you have any suggestions for further obscure toys that warrant highlighting, feel free to contact me. Thanks again for reading.

The greatness of VHS

2008-04-09T09:32:00.000-07:00

Growing up in the 80's was, looking back, a really incredible time. I could talk endlessly about the toys, such as G.I. Joe, Transformers, He-Man, Thundercats, Go-Bots (we mustn't forget the knock-offs, and the knock-offs of knock offs, such as the Rock Lords)...and those are just some of the more well-known. Perhaps we'll get to Silverhawks another day. Actually I'll probably do blog posts about all these toys at some point in the future. Just the idea that you'd be GOING to Child World would send one into a passionate delirium. (Or Toys "R" Us, which in my case was in a different town, but as I recall, had a better selection of NES games, not that I had that many back then. I guess that makes it a rarer, and thus more precious treat, right?)

But, saving toys for another day, there was another exciting place that was colorful and fun and exciting to go to in the Eighties. That, of course, is the video store. To see all those bright, colorful boxes next to each other on the shelves, each inviting you to explore what may or may not be worth your (or your parents') money. That was all part of the fun. It was a gamble. When video stores hit their stride in the 80's, before the age of soulless Blockbusters and Hollywoods came and destroyed them, Mom and Pop video stores appeared. Demand to fill shelves was paramount. So videos of wildly varying quality appeared on a dizzying variety of video labels, both good and bad. CT's own Vestron, Lightning, Gorgon, Mogul, King of Video, and of course, the mighty Media label, among many, many others, ruled the video roost. Their wares were EXCITING. In the age before the internet, no one really knew what these movies were or where they came from. This blend of excitement, lurid box cover art, unknown quantities, the gamble of good and bad, gory or not, all put together in one place for your browsing enjoyment was INTOXICATING. But that's all gone now.

Big-box, clamshell, standard slip case -- they came in many forms. Interestingly, at the end of VHS, the only two people still using big-boxes were porn movies and children's movies...something to think about. Perhaps one causes the other? (Speaking of porn, they led the way with the VHS revolution. The major studios felt it was stupid and a money loser. It wasn't until VCX and others started releasing movies successfully on VHS that the majors caught on and followed THEIR lead. I bet you didn't know that. The VHS revolution, which changed the world, is largely because of them. So from now on, I know a technological innovation is valid if the porn industry is behind it.)

There is a great website - critcononline.com -- which talks about this in much greater detail, but basically he says VHS is only going to go up in value -- if not monetary value, sentimental value. The following is a random selection of some lesser-known titles.

This is a typical example of a video on the great, and highly collectible Paragon label. They always had a ton of their trailers before the movie, and a recognizable graphic of the Paragon logo floating through space at the beginning. I absolutely love ARTWORK on video boxes. Today, it's all boring photographic close-ups of the stars' faces. Back in "the day", there was a skilful artistic dimension to marketing the movies. This one is great because not only is it a Paragon, but the artwork is amusing and reminiscent of one of my other great loves, Garbage Pail Kids. Another note: The movie, as I remember it, is fairly mediocre, and Lee Van Cleef never spins his arms around in a circle killing people. But wouldn't that be the best movie ever? What COULD live up to that promise?

Chock full of funny and memorable lines, Elves features Dan Haggerty at his best.

Now on DVD, the puzzlingly, yet oddly poetically titled "Neon Maniacs". The title and box, as was often the case, is better than the film.

Also known as NeCRAPolis, this terrible outing has tantalizing box art as well.

It's strange what happened to Beta. In the 80's, the trend was for things to go smaller. Beta supposedly had higher resolution, and was smaller in size, yet it bit the dust. I think it was a corporate thing though, not a consumer decision.

The end of the trend: Artwork ceased, towards the end of the 80's and into the 90's, and photos of 1. Guys in funny windbreakers on snowboards 2. Guys lifting their legs comically and 3. Joe Buff, replaced paintings. Now look at society. Do you like where it has gone from there?

Yes, I know I could have picked much better examples of VHS boxes and films, and perhaps I will in the future, but this is just to show that even THESE films are worthy of mention in this context. And we haven't even scratched the surface. Sure, I love the DVD format a lot...perhaps too much. But, how quickly we forget. We should always remember the greatness of VHS.

Modern-day germophobe trend

2008-04-02T10:17:00.000-07:00

It seems lately you see more and more people pretending to be germophobic and afraid to touch things. There are also increasing amounts of commercials for products such as Purell and more and more and different types of disenfectant products and wipes, each tailored to a different room, such as the kitchen or bathroom. This raises the visibility of this perceived brand new ailment. Each commercial ups the ante to pressure you into thinking if you don't coat your hands in this new product, you are a slovenly cloud of filth like Charlie Brown's "Pigpen". Then people fall for it at work or other acquaintances, and that ups the ante further, adding the element of peer pressure. The whole thing snowballs until you are painted into a corner...an undisenfected corner.

But somehow...SOMEHOW...I'm not exactly sure how, but the human race has survived quite well for the past several thousand years or so without disenfectant wipes and Purell. We as humans are thriving, even in third-world countries! We might even be OVERpopulated, can you imagine? And this is WITHOUT Purell, how did it ever happen?

I submit to you that people need to be tough, not coddled and afraid of a few germs. You must be exposed to germs in order to build up a strong immune system and fight sickness and disease. The more people psychotically "protect" their hands from human evils such as doorknobs and desks, the weaker they eventually become and should a sickness eventually get through that impenetrable wall of disenfectant wipes (which seems an inevitability...we all have to die someday, and thus the obsession with these new products represents an extension of the fear of death, and thus, the unknown.), you will be weaker and unable to deal with it properly, like the human body is fully prepared to. Don't misunderstand: I'm not saying people should be DIRTY - far from it - but I believe people's suddenly newfound "dependence" on these products such as Purell is strange and these companies have instilled a fear that did not previously exist, in order to sell products and make money.

We were fine before. To instill this fear is morally wrong. I hope the heads of these companies feel good about trading on this "OCD chic". It's like a bunch of guys in suits watched an episode of the awful show "Monk" and got together in a boardroom and realized if more people could be like that, that represents a business opportunity and a means to sell more of their product.
Quick sidenote: I HATE the show "Monk". Is the show supposed to be funny? Are we meant to laugh at Monk's "disease"? Or are we supposed to feel bad for him? It's a one-note "idea": put a guy with OCD in a bunch of different situations and watch him have the same reaction: "Oh no they didn't! Monk's in a BOWLING ALLEY????!!!! Uh oh! He doesn't want to touch the bowling balls! Wait, look, he's making a funny face! I bet he's pretty uncomfortable now!.........and so it goes, for like twelve seasons.
Way to laugh, and encourage people to laugh, at a man with a "disease". I hope you feel good about yourselves, creators of Monk. For shame. What's next, a comedy about someone else with a so-called behavioral "disease" like an alcoholic or child molester? I'm so disgusted right now. I'm going to fill my bathtub with Purell and just soak in it for the rest of the day. Are you happy now, SC Johnson Wax? I know you're all in cahoots -- the USA network, the creators of Monk, the creators of unnecessary disenfectants...it's all a conspiracy...maybe the creators of Monk ARE executives at SC Johnson Wax! They want everyone to be hip and cool and have OCD!

It seems people are vastly inflating the numbers here. Now, because of what I have just detailed above, everyone you meet has "a little bit of OCD". Either that or they're "bipolar", or their kids have "ADD" or "ADHD" -- this is all a scam, it's all fake. How come you never heard this in the 80's, or even really in the 90's? Much less in the pre-80's world. You NEVER heard anyone say they were bipolar then. Now it's all you hear. Why? These companies introduce these ideas into the national bloodstream and then it's hard to shake. Besides the many hypochondriacs out there, I believe the reason for this is twofold, strictly speaking what the "sufferer" thinks. In THEIR mind, either A. It highlights them - it separates them from the pack without having to be burdened with anything like a talent. You just say "I'm bipolar" or whatever the perceived disease du jour is, and they get instant attention and sympathy, at least in a perfect world to them. or B. It excuses behavior. Rather than take responsibility for your own actions, it was the alcoholism, the pedophilia, the bipolar, the OCD. They always want something to blame besides themselves, not realizing it IS themselves. They can't have it both ways. It can't be a part of them worthy of attention AND this separate "Other" that should shoulder all the blame for their actions.

It is because of these things that we as a society are becoming weak, whining babies. Only now in history, in 2008, could we consider washing your hands a lot a "disease". We are in the middle of a war now. I wonder if the terrorists know that a growing segment of America is so deathly afraid of catching a cold, they'll follow any trend of product buying put in front of their faces by advertising agencies. Our enemies live in CAVES for godsakes! Can you imagine Osama bin Laden pumping Purell on his hands after entering his cave? I think you get my point...we as humans have survived some pretty awful things and continued to thrive....why now start being afraid of....nothing....?

Old Vs. New Hollywood

2008-03-31T09:16:00.000-07:00

If you read this blog on a regular basis, if such a person exists, thank you for reading, but one will notice a theme. I didn't start out to make this blog with any persistent themes, but I myself have noticed one emerging. Maybe this happens to everyone once they start getting old, but it seems impossible not to notice that the past was better. Sure, it wasn't perfect, and I don't mean to whitewash everything, but you must admit it was just BETTER. Today's topic is about something way before my time, but seems worth noting because I don't know how much people are talking about this.

I submit to you that the Hollywood of "yesterday", or, the classic Hollywood, is much better and more interesting of the Hollywood of today. Not to say there weren't scandals, because there were as many controversies and scandals back then as there are today, but the actresses had a certain beauty, talent, class and glamor that is largely missing today. Perhaps it is a certain intangible quality. They supported the war effort and many of them visited the troops in World War II on USO tours.

I figured the above could prove my point far better than words. They being: Veronica Lake, Jane Russell, Linda Darnell, Rita Hayworth, Ella Raines, Lana Turner, Julie Adams, Gloria Grahame, and Gene Tierney, from top to bottom. These are only a few examples and a few pictures. There were many more. But a lot of these were "femme fatales" from the film noir era. In those movies, life was tough and these women had to survive. They had to be tough too, just as tough as the city and the men in the city, but they always retained their vast feminine side as well.
I didn't include Marilyn Monroe (or any that followed in her wake such as Mamie Van Doren, Diana Dors or the underrated Jayne Mansfield) because I feel she already represents a popular idea of the women of Hollywood past. I felt I should concentrate elsewhere.
Male actors didn't have to, for the most part, have the model-perfect good looks of Brad Pitt or Johnny Depp, they just had to have the talent or fit a certain character perfectly. Take Edward G. Robinson with his ubiquitous cigar, forever cast in gangster roles, or Vincent Price, who played many types of roles but is primarily known for his horror interpretations. It is doubtful the sole criteria for these men becoming movie stars were their looks. I know the movie industry has always been superficial -- in many ways it HAS to be, because it is trading in images, after all -- but it has never seemed as soullessly so as it is today, compared with yesterday.
So while today we have actors and actresses bashing Bush and the war, and promoting the liberal views they have the time and money to pursue, all the while adopting a cadre of multi-racial children from other countries while spurning their own, not to mention Angelina Jolie making out with her brother or whatever, and the rehab sagas of the starlets, and Paris Hilton and her pornography...just think about the way it used to be for a second...or do you honestly prefer THIS...?

Election Coverage, Part 2

2008-03-28T09:47:00.000-07:00

I know what I'm about to write isn't very new or original, but in the interest of keeping up with the times and creating new blog posts, I have decided to weigh in on the democratic "issues" going on right now.

Hillary Clinton and the claim of "sniper fire": Wait...A Clinton is LYING? Stop the presses! No one should be at all surprised about this. Except maybe the fact that she's still doing it all these years and hasn't learned her lesson. That's pretty surprising. Especially when there is VIDEO to prove her false statements. That, and Sinbad. God bless Sinbad. Just when the world is drowning in uncertainty, Sinbad comes along to show us all the way. Supposedly, when Sinbad refuted Hillary's claims of Sniper Fire, she said derisively, "he's just a comedian". This is so insulting and angering. Not only was he good enough to go with her to Bosnia in 1996 being "just a comedian" (unless she planned to use him as a human shield in case things got rough, I wouldn't put it past her), but that's assuming, because he is a comedian, he is incapable of telling the truth...he must be JOKING!!!!! He does nothing but joke (i.e. LIE) only when it comes to HER of course...well, when he has the sheer audacity to tell the truth, backed up by videotape, every single soldier involved, and all other witnesses...but he's "just a comedian", so, listen to me and not him...or anyone else. Arggghhh! Where are the snipers when you REALLY need them? Also, it is insulting to the American soldiers involved that worked so hard to make sure everything went off without a hitch and was safe for her and Chelsea (another sure sign of danger: throw my daughter and the comedian into the line of fire!). But since when has she cared about the troops except when it has been politically expedient? (that goes for all liberals by the way).But it's not the first time she used Chelsea in a lie: she said she was jogging around the World Trade Center on 9/11 and ducked into a coffee shop and was saved...that was a lie, Chelsea said herself she was in bed and saw it on TV, she said she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, but her date of birth and his accomplishments do not match...and let's not forget about all the scandals, especially the ones involving releasing her records...I could go on all day, the point is, the Clintons LIE and MAKE THINGS UP! When are more people going to see this? How many lies do they have to tell?

And this claim of "misspeaking" is so bogus..."misspeaking" is saying "thee" instead of "the". Hillary was CAUGHT IN A LIE. That's not what misspeaking is. That's just not the definition of the word. She's hoping she can fool us by repeating the same thing over and over again. As Hitler said, "if you repeat a lie enough times, people will eventually believe it." Since when has saying "I misspoke" been an out for simply lying? And how do you explain her "misspeaking" not once, not twice, but THREE times? She said she'd "told the story so many times", you'd think she'd have the truthful version by now. Telling a story many times is also not an out for a lie. Neither is saying you're "tired". A. You're running for president. You should be tired. B. If you are shot at by snipers, I don't care how tired you are, you will remember the truth and C. If she is ever tired if, god help us all, she is elected president, like, say, in the middle of the night, is there no accountability for her lies? Just a lack of sleep will now suffice? That's just the thing about Hillary. It is insulting to the intelligence of the American people the way she just makes stuff up and expects us all to swallow her lies, and when she inevitably gets caught, her lame excuses.
We can all see what's going on here. She has claimed to have "experience". Since she doesn't, she thinks she can manufacture some. She is trying to compete with John McCain's ACTUAL experience. This is a pathetic display of desperation. She lied about having experience, now has to lie to try in vain to prove it. What a tangled web we weave. This is just typical Clinton: lies on top of lies.

Obama's "pastor disaster": for a "post-racial" candidate, maybe the best idea is not to have a black racist as your "spiritual advisor". So for the past 20 plus years, in a very close relationship with Pastor Wright, he had no idea of his fanatical racist and anti-American ravings. Either he's lying, or not very perceptive. Either way, he's not fit to be president. We are judged by the company we keep. Put this together with his "rite of passage" to visit with William Ayers, the domestic terrorist who bombed, or attempted to bomb several government buildings including the pentagon and recently said "I wish I had done more", his wife's claim that she is proud of her country for the first time now, and his refusal to wear an American flag pin, as well as his willingness to bomb our allies, and grossly inflating death tolls that he got from far left smear sites, what we have is the picture of an ultra-liberal neophyte who is trying to hide this fact from the American people because if his true colors show, he won't be elected. He has accepted no hard-news interviews as of yet. He just says "change" over and over again and dances on "Ellen". We can't be THAT stupid to elect him...can we?
And then there's that NAME again...

The Oscars

2008-03-25T09:44:00.000-07:00

You won't find a bigger movie fan than me. I love movies so much it's scary. I worked in a video store for nine years and took full advantage of it. Watching and reading about movies has probably consumed about half my life at this point. I've seen thousands, and am clearly obsessed. However, keeping that in mind, I have absolutely no interest in the Oscars. I never watch the broadcast. Besides being a banal display of emptiness, fit only for vapid entertainment news programs, that is completely at odds with the supposed "foreign", pseudo-intellectual bent of whoever decides who is nominated.
It is really now simply a display of snobbish, elitist liberalism (is there any other kind?), because 99 percent of Hollywood is liberal, and those who aren't are scorned and not showered with awards. If you don't toe the party line, your artistic endeavor suddenly isn't worth awarding.

This is evidenced by the fact that many foreigners win the awards and films with an anti-American tendency always seem to win. It could be just that those films are better. I don't know, you be the judge, I haven't seen any of them.

But I have a theory about how the movies are chosen to be nominees. Haven't you ever noticed that ONLY movies that come out right before the awards show, say about three months or less before the telecast, seem to be the ones nominated? Apparently the crusty old dinosaurs that are the great arbiters of taste can't remember back much farther. If you were to release an awesome, Oscar-worthy film in the months following the awards, woe be to you. You won't be nominated. But if Michael Moore vomits forth another propaganda piece a month before the awards, he is an artistic genius. They should either have two or more Academy awards shows per year, and make them much less showy and long, so EVERYONE gets a chance, or they should try their best to remember the films that are released during other times of the year besides RIGHT before the Oscars.

Gay Marriage rights for "Rock and Roll" hall of fame inductee deciders

2008-03-24T08:29:00.000-07:00

I have been told Madonna was inducted into the "Rock and roll" hall of fame. This didn't seem to get as much attention as past inductees, either because they are ashamed, or the powers that be snidely knew that it would upset fans of music such as myself. I'd rather not play right into their hands, if that indeed is their strategy, but there are thousands of bands that deserve to be there more than her, and inducting her is simply not fair to them. BANDS that worked hard to learn their instruments, write songs, and play thousands of thankless gigs for little to no money. The induction of Madonna is a slap in the face to those hardworking people. I don't know if you've ever been in a band, but I have. It's fun, but there is a lot of work and many expenses involved. And mine never even went anywhere. So to take a mediocre disco singer like Madonna and put her in the company of the greats and legends of the genre such as Elvis, Chuck Berry, Black Sabbath, AC/DC, the Beatles, Beach Boys and Byrds is simply vomit-inducing. (More like vomit inducting, if you know what I mean, he he).
Madonna is nothing more than a mediocre disco singer that was propped up by the awful network MTV. I suppose she is ALRIGHT if that is your kind of thing, but without MTV, she'd be waiting tables somewhere. I suppose you could say that about a lot of terrible performers, but with her it's especially true, because MTV emphasized the visual over the substance of the material. Hence the rise of glam-pop-metal like Poison. (Quick sidenote: in the late 80's, the critics thought Poison was the worst thing going, with headlines such as "there's no cure for Poison", etc., but compared to what's on MTV NOW, Poison seem like the Rolling Stones. Just to put it in perspective. Something to think about...) This environment of style over substance, with an emphasis on mediocre at best, sickeningly awful at worst music, with an audience that craved the lowest common denominator that was and is MTV, was the perfect storm that created Madonna.
I simply will never understand just WHY this MDS (mediocre disco singer) is considered talented, much less a "cultural force" of some kind. I've asked several girls, and gotten no satisfactory responses. They've grown up with her and are so brainwashed they can't remember a pre-Madonna time. They're hopeless. If I knew any of her remaining audience, gay men, I would ask them.
Naturally, the financial success of Madonna spurned record companies to find imitators. This is perhaps the one and only case where all the imitators are equal to, and in most cases, SURPASS the original. Firstly I'd like to mention ALISHA.

Her catchy and enjoyable "too turned on" is AT LEAST the equal, if not the better of anything Madonna did in her career. But no one knows Alisha. I hope that changes.

Next we have Taylor Dane. I don't sincerely think of her as an "imitator" -- she's not -- but I believe in the eyes of the music industry, she is. I believe she was marketed as a Madonna clone. But Taylor is a powerful singer with a richer voice. She was in a rock band, Felony, at first, and "tell it to my heart" was co-written by Seth Swirsky, a man known in powerpop circles as a talented guy and solo artist in his own right.

Every Country had its own Madonna -- Japan had Rebecca, England had Samantha Fox:

And I'm sure every other country had one or two...If you know of any, contact me and I'll add them. But I've saved my personal favorite for last. Martika, who is best known for the song "toy soldiers" and being on the show "Kids Incorporated" early in her career, is VASTLY more talented than Madonna. There is more heart and soul and emotion in the JAPANESE version of "toy soldiers" that she recorded than anything in Madonna's catalogue. She is another talented performer with her own style and merits that was seen by the industry as just another clone. This is a travesty and a shame.

So in the end, the music industry and Madonna created a monster -- many monsters -- but the disciples bested the teacher. However, this trend seems to have ended with the new generation of the cookie-cutter, MTV-sanctioned Madonna clone army like Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera and Jessica Simpson. Their intolerable ear poison is right back to where we started - bad music - so I suppose we've come full circle in the Madonna chain.
I don't know who decides who gets into the "Rock and Roll" hall of fame - after today I'll forever write it in quotes - but this shameful display has discredited them forever. It is clearly a corrupt organization who does not have a clear sense of who belongs there. Unfortunately that is the ONLY job of these deciders. Their poor judgement in this matter has shown they deserve to be fired. But perhaps they can console themselves the way they always do in times of trouble - by getting together in a big bed, listening to Madonna's "papa don't preach", breaking out the haagen-dazs and watching "sex in the city."

RECENTLY FOUND! Check out this guy's youtube video, he seems to have the same idea:

My Movies #6: The Most Worshipful Grand Master and Me

2008-02-28T10:14:00.000-08:00

Random Thoughts

2008-02-28T09:04:00.000-08:00

Spam has a monopoly on the market. Have they ever had to deal with an antitrust lawsuit? They've cornered it. Are there very many Spam competitors? How low do you have to be to be a Spam competitor? What decrepit, depressing convenience stores must you be sold in? Is the market very big for Spam knockoff product? Who is buying you? When it comes to your choice of...whatever Spam is...is there really a lot of variety and choice?

How come the only types of sprees are shopping and shooting? That's it, just those two. No one ever goes on a loving spree.

One time, my friend and I went to the movies, and one of the trailers was for the movie Mission Impossible 1. This really dates the story. I don't know if you remember this, but in the trailer, Tom Cruise is simply rock climbing. He is climbing up this rock for about three minutes, with no other scenes, no narration, no music, nothing. At the end, he finally reaches the top, and the screen goes black for a moment. At that moment, my friend yells out: "What is this, Zyrtec: The Movie?"
(Zyrtec was running almost identical ads on TV at this time, and we'd always make fun of them because they never said what the product actually DOES, it simply showed someone rock climbing, both the ads and the movie trailer were remarkably similar).
He got some laughs, but I can't help but wonder - what would Zyrtec: The Movie be about, would it be very different from Mission Impossible, and how long until Hollywood actually does it?

Barack Hussein Obama has a terrible name. It's certainly not presidential. Firstly, no one knows what a "Barack" is. The closest available thing in our minds is a place where soldiers live. Which is ironic because he wants to cut and run. (also, in college, he apparently was known as "Barry".) Next we have "Hussein", which, despite its negative connotations, is EXTREMELY ironic, because supposedly we went in to Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein, which was a major factor in the Iraq war - certainly Saddam Hussein was a central figure in this conflict - and it is in the NAME of the person who might be President. (The one who wants to cut and run.) No one could have imagined this at the beginning of the war. The most anti-war person on the planet is named Hussein. The irony is just astounding. Truth really is stranger than fiction. Finally, we have "Obama". This is only one letter off from public enemy #1: Osama Bin Laden. Many people have already called him "Osama" by accident by a slip of the tongue. When you put it all together, "Barack Hussein Obama" is far from a presidential name. It is just scary.

During the summer, in news reports about heat, they always say "check on your pets and the elderly." So in their minds, they equate DOGS with human beings...? Also on the news they say "honor student died" or "honor student was kidnapped". Why does this validate them as a human being? Should I be less sad or upset about their plight if their grades weren't as good? You never hear "C student found dead...public fairly indifferent."
Speaking of the news, what is the deal with "Weather on the 3's"? Why is this so important to people? What is so great about the 3's? Why so specific? Who needs this? Who requested this? Who has all his watches and clocks perfectly synchronized with the weather people? I imagine a guy, drenched in sweat, hair dishevelled, with bags under his eyes, feverishly checking his watch: "It's almost 11:03!!!! Here comes THE WEATHER!!!" And how come some are on the 8's? Why the competition? Some are on the 1's, others 2's, 3's, 4's, 5's, etc., etc., Why don't all the stations pick one number and go with it? This proves it's meaningless! Much like trying to follow weather that closely - there's nothing you can do to change it, so it makes all this Storm Team 8, Doppler 3000 radar, Satellite Laser Nuclear Green Screen whatever seem very, very silly. I hate all the fearmongering. It does nothing but make them look stupid, because they must get their kicks inspiring terror in old people. (presumably these are the same old people that you should watch carefully on hot summer days, along with your cockatiel.) Because there's no other reason for the inflated hoopla. Mark Twain once said "If you don't like the weather in New England, wait five minutes." This is far more wise than Doppler 3000.

My Movies #5: The Aztec Dance

2008-02-22T10:08:00.000-08:00

NES Review #4: Chubby Cherub

2008-02-22T09:43:00.000-08:00

Chubby Cherub, published in October 1986 by Bandai, is a very fun game of the "cute" variety, in the spirit of Rainbow Islands, Balloon Fight, Clu Clu Land, Mappy Land, Adventure Island, etc. In the game you play a naked, pleasantly plump angel that goes through and eats floating treats in the sky. Once you get the hang of flying, the crazy concept, incredibly catchy music and the overwhelmingly bright, cute colors soon win you over to its nutty, childish charm. Imagine if the newspaper comic strip "love is..." became an NES game.

Bandai probably went into the trend of "fitness games" and power pad games after this as penance for glamorizing being chubby and eating cakes and candy with no ill consequences. Actually, you continue to be lighter than air no matter how many sugar-based treats you eat. You must avoid barking dogs, who when they bark, flying letter "B"'s come out of their mouths and in your direction. Don't get caught inbetween a telephone pole and an angry barking dog! The dogs seem to get more angry and vicious as you go along...when the game starts out you face up against a hyperactive puppy, and as the game progresses, you face a large pit bull with a spiked collar. However, your first line of defense is to shoot hearts at them. Makes sense I suppose. Instead of falling in love, they die. How apt, yet perverse. Before I dive into the freudian mythos behind Chubby Cherub, and its basis in Greek mythology, I should say that he is simply a cherub, not cupid. But he looks like he might know cupid. The second line of defense is to turn momentarily invisible (or blinkingly transparent, as the case may be.)

Not to be confused in any way with Kid Icarus, this lighthearted, sugary game is fun for all ages and represents NES fun at, if not its BEST, close to its best. Regardless of anything else, you've got to appreciate a game that has a screenshot of itself on the cartridge, and has an inexplicable Asian mascot (?) besides Chubby. He appears at the level screens and at the end of each level. Are we to assume Chubby is doing these perilous missions for him? And why? Does he work for him? Maybe it's explained in the instruction book, which I don't have. I strongly recommend Chubby Cherub. It helps if you are already have a proclivity towards the "cute" genre, but it's hard not to "love" this pre-PC, pre-'super-size me' hero and his whimsical, candy-filled adventures.

I love Jamaica

2008-02-20T10:18:00.000-08:00

About a year ago, I went to Ocho Rios, Jamaica. I always think about what a great place it is. One of the main things that makes the place interesting is it is a mixture of warm sunny weather, green mountains in the distance, and beautiful foliage everywhere, with poverty and very aggressive beggars that aren't afraid to let you know that they want money from you. This underlines one of the contrasts of this sweet yet troubled place. The spirit of not worrying and being mellow infuses the actions of the populace and is intrinsic to the behavior of everyone there. Everyone is very chilled out, and the American idea of a breakneck pace and ambition at all costs is just not known there. That concept would be totally alien to them. Yet their beggars are far, far more aggressive than American ones. I guess they are more mellow once they have harrassed and cajoled tourists out of their money. I forgive the country for this one lapse, and, if anything, it adds to the many colors and flavors of this wonderful place.
Locals sit outside their shacks and make their arts and crafts, carved wood statues and such, hoping tourists will buy them. Even in the non-touristy areas, there are two very prevalent things wherever you go: Red Stripe beer and Bob Marley. Either they genuinely like these things, or they realize this is what tourists like, or both, but they are everywhere in the form of ads and T-shirts.

I also love Reggae music. Mainly the golden age of the 70's. If you read one of my previous posts, you know how much I love music of the 70's, and Jamaica produced some of the most innovative, brilliant and compelling music of that decade. Just that classic Reggae beat conveys the warmth and mellowness of Jamaica that translates all over the world, even to the coldest climates. Perhaps that is what makes it so attractive: It shows the world a sunny, carefree side to life - not all of it, of course, much of reggae tells of the poverty and hardship they have to endure, and also the concept of being slaves brought there from Africa infuses the genre as well, but that's what makes it great. It is diverse, I don't know if people realize that. On that small Island, in the 70's alone we heard the toasting of Big Youth and I Roy, the consciousness of Burning Spear, the dub of Lee "Scratch" Perry, the harmony of the Heptones and Abyssinians, the "lovers rock" of Gregory Isaacs, and the international success of Desmond Dekker to name but a scant few. For all this great music to come from one small space in one time reminds one of the Renaissance. (Interestingly enough, Italy experienced a similar renaissance yet again in the 1970's with their progressive rock, maybe I will do a blog post about that someday.)
Jamaica represents escape. Escape from the rat race and relentless consumerism, competition and blind ambition to an island paradise of warmth and greenery where troubles don't exist. This is extremely attractive, maybe not entirely true, but, who cares? Just thinking about this wonderful place puts me in a different mood, one of relaxation to the best of my ability. The locals would choke on their jerk chicken laughing if they saw how intensely some Americans rush through life in some mad rush. Towards what?
To see the Jamaican schoolchildren in their all-brown uniforms, the hand-painted signs, the old architecture existing amongst smaller shacks and roadside stands for food and crafts searching for shade from the hot sun under big green trees, surrounded by colorful foliage, in the tourist areas, the jewelry stores and souvenir shops, and of course the beggars, you see the brilliance of this unassumingly great place that swears by the phrase "don't worry!"...However well or poorly I have conveyed the spirit of Jamaica, it isn't a description. Words have nothing to do with it. It is a FEELING. When you are there you sense the feeling. The feeling of a slowed down pace that comes from a troubled paradise. I would go back in a heartbeat! Long live this beautiful land.

Marriage

2008-02-15T13:38:00.000-08:00

One of the things I don't understand about the concept and the tradition of marriage is the contradiction between "til death do us part" and divorce. The fact that there is a built-in out signifies a flaw in the structure, a contradiction from the get-go that implicitly assumes it won't work because humans are weak, faithless and forever changing. Note that it's not "til death do us part, or, until I just don't feel like it anymore." Building this institution on this ground is a bit like building a house in the sky, or perhaps more accurately, the San Andreas fault. But then again, to not have divorce would be somewhat unfair - like it was when Henry the VIII or whoever it was, invented it. People locked into marriages they could never escape were happy back then, right? So it's a tricky thing. A thing so incredibly faulty, flawed and contrary to human nature, why do we bother with this tradition as a species? Here is why:
Another thing I've noticed is that getting married is for girls. It's a totally feminine conceit that is drilled into them from a diabolically young age. Adults project their unconscious, unfulfilled wishes onto their children their "dream marriage", their "dream man", their "special day." It's relentlessly beaten into them like a pizza chef pounding dough. It's unfair to the children, and to the human race, to fill their heads so mercilessly with fantastical lies that, in the end, merely equate to how much the families involved have to SPEND in a financial way to make this absurd "dream" come true. Is it any wonder people are either single and upset, or unhappy with their marriage? How can ANYTHING in this earthly existence compete with what they've been promised?

I can tell you straight men don't sit around drinking beer, smoking cigars, playing poker and excitedly discussing their wedding day. They only do it because they are strongarmed into it by a woman vainly pursuing the dream that they had no hope of escaping, and it doesn't matter what the consequences are, and how much money must be spent to construct the whole illusion. And to just get divorced in the end adds yet another layer of insult to what is, on many levels already, quite injurious.

If gay people want this, it is somewhat puzzling, but what they really want is the financial benefits that come with it. As always, it always comes back to money. Marriage is a money deal because the state wants it that way to maintain the status quo. What this has to do with "love" is anybody's guess. But the DJ, the tuxedo rental and dress rental people, the people that host the wedding/reception, catering etc., etc., love money. And married people love the benefits it provides. I've heard the arguments that "it doesn't matter what gender you are, it's hard enough to find someone at all, they deserve everything straight people get, etc., etc.," and I TOTALLY get it. I just have two questions. One is, why do they want to be like us? Why do they emulate the traditions of straight people? Why don't they have their own thing? I thought they were happy in the niche they created for themselves in society, which took a lot of work, over many years, to carve out. Now they want to come over to the "dark side" of heterosexual rituals after all the strides they've made for their own culture? This is much like the makers of vegetarian burgers, hot dogs, turkeys and chicken. By putting it in the very form of REAL food, rather than coming up with their own shapes and designs, whether they know it or not, they are acknowledging the true original as just that, and doing a disservice to their cause and constituents.
The second thing is, when Rome fell, it was after all structures and traditions had gone out the window. This left them weak and vulnerable, and was the first crack in the armor. It opened the floodgates to the fall of their society. Now what I'm about to say might shock you, based on what you've read so far: As much as I despise the concept of marriage, and feel it deserves all the ridicule in the world for its hypocrisy, stupidity, absurdity, and its ridiculously old-fashioned, pie in the sky idealism rooted in the belief that 2 human beings of opposite genders belong to be together for their whole lives, when it is acknowledged that the sole purpose of males is to fertilize and impregnate as many females as he possibly can, dating back to caveman times and before, and that humans are slightly evolved animals - I believe it has worth as a pillar of society, the structure of which keeps humanity, or at least American society, relatively on track. Humans crave structure and tradition, and this is exactly what marriage provides. It gives humans something to aspire to: Get a job, get married, have kids and then properly die and have a nice funeral now that you've done all you're good for because you propagated the species in the correct form as the law allows. The gay marriage agenda puts a crack in THIS armor. We should learn from the past.

You might say I have contradicted myself by professing to believe in two opposing points of view. Perhaps I have. What can I say, I'm a complex guy with a lot of conflicting beliefs. Life isn't always cut and dried and simple. I believe there is room for both viewpoints. One can love and hate something (or someone) in equal measure.
I'm not married, and perhaps this whole thing is a bit naive, but it is from the perspective of someone who is completely unmarryable, so I have a unique perspective on the matter - an outsider perspective. And the REALLY crazy part is, if the tradition was such that the female asked the male to marry them, and a really great girl asked me to marry her, I would probably accept! (but not before signing an ironclad prenup which enforces the fact that I don't have to give her half, or all, of my stuff or money that I've built up throughout my entire life. The idea that someone would have to do that EVER, under ANY circumstance, is disgusting and downright criminal. It's what criminals do with murder and torture, and what women do by saying "I do" and temporarily seeming to love you. There is parity there. If you think that is extreme, that's because IT IS, and has nothing to do with me.)

My Movies #4: Extreme Walking

2008-02-14T09:42:00.001-08:00

NES Review #3: Abadox

2008-02-14T09:08:00.000-08:00

Personally, I'm a sucker for any game that's a made up word. This new vocabulary unintentionally created by NES that promises great game playing adventures because you have no frame of reference for what the heck they mean. For example: Gyruss, Zanac, Gradius, Xexyx, Klax, Sqoon, Faxanadu, Hydlide, Trog, Gyromite, Xevious, Qix, etc., etc. I believe it takes a lot of creativity to not just make the game, but make up a WORD that goes with it. This type of unbridled, total creativity is largely missing today. It is very appealing because a made up word as a title commits to nothing. You take your chances with it, because there has never been anything like it. The results might be great, like Zanac, or, they might be a frustrating Life Force knockoff that is SO incredibly hard it takes all the fun out of the game. As you might have guessed, I'm referring to the word that NEVER should have been made up: ABADOX.

The subtitle of the game is "the deadly inner war", and the sub-sub title should have been "just go and play Life Force instead". Not that Life Force is SUCH a great game (I prefer Gradius, which is a similar but superior Konami title.) But why would you knock off a less-than-excellent game like Life Force anyway? That's such a strange choice. Abadox has many of the same ideas and even some of the same villains, bosses and obstacles. (note the big teeth that go up and down in level 1 and the boss of level 1) I don't have a huge frame of reference beyond level 2, because I've never gotten past it, nor has any other human being on this planet. The main flaw of the game is that it is JUST TOO HARD. It's good to have challenge in a game, but it shouldn't be impossible. I realize it must have been hard to strike that balance as a game developer, but this just errs far too far on the side of "let's drive the kid that just paid however much for the game completely insane." Nice motivation.

Released in the U.S. in March 1990 by the Milton Bradley Company - "Milton Bradley Presents" on the title screen not usually heralding a GREAT video gaming experience (i.e. Cabal) - these guys should stick to board games. The plot consists of a little space man in "the belly of the beast" - you shoot what are supposedly things inside the stomach of a large being, like flying eyeballs, pterodactyls and the skeletons of cows. Practically the only enjoyable thing about this game, and it's a cold comfort, is just how WEIRD and demented the baddies are. This NES surrealism that I really like tends to be overshadowed by the fact that you can't touch the walls or floors without dying, the obstacles are too busy and difficult to navigate, and the bosses take far too many hits.

However, this game ALWAYS works in my player (not all games always do) and once you hear that familiar roaring/rumbling sound on the title screen, the bile begins to rise in your throat simply in ANTICIPATION of the frustration and annoyance you know you are going to feel, based on past experience. I rarely play the game, and there are many other space shooters I would recommend before this one (see titles mentioned previously in this article)...maybe they figured by 1990 kids were getting "too good" at video games and Natsume and MB felt they should knock kids down a few pegs because they were getting too arrogant. On a system practically built upon hard, hard games, along with the infamously difficult Ghosts N' Goblins, I would say Abadox is the hardest. I would say buy this game only if you have to box or fight someone later that day and you want to get all fired up and angry. You will surely win the fight, and perhaps punch their entire head off.

Strange Things

2008-02-12T09:15:00.000-08:00

There are a lot of strange things in life. More than that, I believe there is a lot of undiagnosed mental illness out there. As well as diagnosed. It seems no matter where you turn, something weird, strange and even surreal is happening. Just go to any city, or anyplace at all that people are congregated together, and bizarre behavior will follow. Now, in the age of the internet, craziness can also thrive when people are alone in front of their computers. Sure, it's not out in the open, and it might even be better this way, as long as nuts that are alone (as opposed to lone nuts, which seems to have a connotation of assassin, based on past experience) don't harm anybody or put out illegal material such as child pornography.

Sometimes it may be entertaining and even funny to watch, but in moderation. How long can you observe craziness without going crazy yourself? When does the line get crossed? Take the homeless. Are you suggesting that this guy couldn't get a job SOMEWHERE doing SOMETHING:

OK, yes, it was tragic when those ninjas killed his family. But just begging for change on the street simply plays into the hands of the ninjas, who obviously want you to be unsuccessful. You should show those ninjas who is boss by picking yourself up and getting a job and moving on with your life.
Now, the fact that I analyzed that in a serious way blurs the boundary. Maybe I'm crazy myself for honestly believing that guy. Where is the line I ask you, where? But at least THAT homeless had more creativity (or something) than this one:

Now, while www.sparechange.com I'm sure is a very reputable website (I've never actually been there), wouldn't it be easier to just hand him the change? I know a lot of homeless go to the library for warmth and shelter. Since they have computers there with the internet, maybe the entreprenurial spirit hit this one?
Here's the thing. If things were just a little bit different, if circumstances were arranged just slightly in the scheme and organization of life, it could be me that is homeless. But seeing that I'm not, and just GIVING them money sends a message that begging is OK and yields results, I believe giving the homeless money just enables them. Not to mention addictions to drugs and alcohol.

But, for whatever reason, I am attracted to strangeness in life. It represents a change from the monotony of everyday life. For that reason, it can even be refreshing. People that are living "outside the box" are attractive and interesting because they represent the subconscious wish to have freedom from the constraints of normalcy in life.
Difference and variety are obviously important. You get to see how the "other half" lives. It is a window into a fascinating world simply because it is different. Another reason why freakishness is interesting to me is because freaks on the outside are physical, outward manifestations of FEELING freakish on the inside. I may not have any deformities (unless you count curly hair), but I feel that I will never fit into society in any comfortable, "normal" way. Society as I see it is stupid, crass, commercial, hypocritical, greedy and corrupt. I don't want to be part of that world. I could pretend well to "fit in", but on the inside I have an inner loathing for it and all it stands for. So I laugh at pictures like this:

Michael Moore

2008-02-11T08:11:00.000-08:00

I'm not a fan of Michael Moore. However, that wasn't always the case. I enjoyed his first movie "Roger and Me" well enough, and "The Big One" was even better in my opinion. I also liked his show "TV Nation". It had its moments, was funny, and had guests like Steven Wright and covered some interesting topics. But that was when the focus seemed to be on humor, not as much on bashing America.

I used to see Moore primarily as a comedian, who happened to have some social criticisms, which is always welcome. But something happened. He turned mean-spirited, His "humor" was always at the expense of something (America) or someone (the troops) who have much more value than he does. He doesn't have the right to go after actually important institutions - he's way out of his depth - he's simply a ham-fisted (please excuse the expression) commentator, and who really cares about what this "hefty haranguer" has to say anyway? Who IS he? What makes him qualified to make these lie-filled judgments in the first place?

Moore continued his anti-corporate rants with books by major publishers such as the ironically titled "Stupid White Men" (What is Moore exactly?) -- the very title of which gets under my skin because it is socially acceptable and NOT edgy to make fun of white men. It is the last acceptable race that is totally OK to make fun of. If Moore had titled his book "Stupid Black Men", he likely would have been run out of town on a big fat rail. Or at least not taken seriously, which he really shouldn't be anyway and people need to realize that. This credentials-less hack enjoys preaching to the converted about how America is bad bad bad and the healthcare system of Cuba is really wonderful. This is probably the most popular baldfaced wish by the liberals that America will go commie. Usually they put it in coded speech, but because Moore wins awards from other liberals such as the Oscar, he has the gall (or lack of talent) to drop the pretense.

I guess the thing that annoys me most about Moore is that he humorlessly criticizes the very institutions that allow him to become a millionaire doing what he does. He gets awards, accolades, is lauded around the world, and gets to travel the globe preaching his anti-America diatribes, and most importantly makes millions. He stumbled onto the idea that he could make quite a nice living bashing the USA. Remember he didn't start out that way. He found his niche and his rhythm doing this midway through his "career".

Of course, no one really knows about answer films "Celsius 41.11" and
"FahrenHYPE 911" that refute Moore's lies and inaccuracies because they don't have the liberal Hollywood machine powering them.

It's obviously because of the troops and the veterans of America that have ensured Moore's freedom to bash, slander and smear. Rather than be grateful to live in a nation that allows you totally free reign to say as you please (not to mention a sweet profit - remember that capitalism that you hate so much, Michael? I guess you OFFICIALLY are a "Stupid White Man" now.), he takes this great freedom completely for granted, like a lot of people do. The very fact that I can voice my opinion now about HIS opinion, and not be thrown in jail, punished or stoned to death, I greatly appreciate. We didn't get here as a society through people like Michael Moore. We got here through actually BRAVE people and smart people like General Petraeus. Don't get me wrong, I'm completely and totally for criticism, protest, dissent and an opposing point of view. It's through this conflict that ideas are raised and some progress is made. But I feel Moore is a cheap hack who has exploited the "hate America, hate Bush" endless drumbeat of the left as a underhanded way to make millions of dollars and actually BECOME part of the institutions he claims to hate - criticizing it all the while, and the mechanism that allows it to happen. This is LOW. We as a nation should totally ignore Moore. Hey, that rhymes!

I love ALF

2008-02-07T09:29:00.000-08:00

As we all know, "ALF" stands for a lot more than just "Alien Life Form". It stands for nostalgic, 80's hilarity and originality at its best! Created by Paul Fusco, who is from my hometown of Hamden, and originally performed at small rock clubs, ALF's ridiculously sarcastic charm wormed its way into the nation's heart in the 80's. First premiering in 1986, he's from the planet Melmac, he eats cats, and lint is more valuable than gold on his planet. His planet blew up after everyone on Melmac plugged in their hair dryers at once. He ended up in the home of Willie Tanner, with his wife, son and daughter. Hilarity ensues when there is a culture clash of milquetoast human and party animal alien.

Now that we've gotten the facts out of the way, I would like to say that ALF has a huge nostalgic value for me. I used to tape the show on Beta (competitor to VHS, smaller, high-quality) tapes. It is the first show I remember ever taping because I liked it so much. I may still have the tapes somewhere, I'm not sure. As a child of the 80's, there was something immensely appealing about this concept of a wise-cracking alien in a family home. He could be as snarky as he wanted to be and the parents couldn't punish him. He just had to hide from the neighbors, the Ochmoneks (I had to do some research on the spelling), the wife, Raquel, was played by the actress that played Jerry Seinfeld's mom on Seinfeld, Liz Sheridan.
ALF was truly a show of the 80's, and on top of the concept and the writing, there was something visually appealing, probably because of its uniqueness, about the way ALF looked, especially in that suburban setting. It was a contrast no other show had. It was just fun to watch. I know I've spoken to at least one other person who used to tape the show (although he was much older and his dad probably didn't have to help him, it shows the trans-generational appeal of the show).

Final notes: I remember there was a question on the show "Fun House" with J.D. Roth where the question was "what does ALF stand for?" I rolled my eyes just at the question, but it was multiple choice (!) and the only other one I remember was "astronaut's little friend". Now, that's just insulting.
Also: Al Jean and Mike Reiss, writers of The Simpsons wrote some episodes of the show (Mike Reiss is from Bristol and I met him and saw him speak, he is smart and hilarious) ALF made a splash in the 80's, and despite some inexplicably unpopular ideas, such as his short-lived talk show, he seems to be making a comeback, what with his recent appearance on The O'Reilly Factor, which generated a high amount of viewer mail. ALF Lives!

Music of the 70's

2008-02-06T10:27:00.001-08:00

It is my belief that the 70's were the best decade so far for popular music. Bands of just about every genre built upon the freedoms started in the 60's and built upon them in heretofore unheard of ways and explored musical freedoms and ideas as far as they could possibly go, until the 80's arrived. While the 80's offered some great music as well, the facts that they couldn't go any farther than their forebears, and a tendency towards glossier and glossier production styles becoming the norm, the fruits this decade bore were not quite the same as the one before.

70's PROGRESSIVE (PROG)ROCK - this genre, derided as overly virtuosic and bombastic (a trait never denied by its makers; in fact it is part and parcel of the genre)is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Taking what happened in the sixties and vastly improving upon it musically and idea-wise, leaders of the genre like Genesis, Yes and ELP filled stadiums in the 70's, because clearly the public had an appetite for this type of material.

Khan

PUNK ROCK - A reaction to prog, this simple, angry genre was born in the 70's, and, for all intents and purposes, died there too. All the best punk bands are 70's bands: The Ramones, The Dictators, The Dead Boys, The New York Dolls, The Stooges. Once again, they took what came before and made it new and fresh. Unfortunately, this genre went quite downhill after this with the advent of all sorts of infighting subgenres such as skinheads, hardcore, punk/metal hybrids, etc., however, being a
"77" punk band is a proud title for many bands today.

SOUL/R&B/FUNK/REGGAE - Even the "urban" genres of the day experienced huge growth and creativity spurts. People like Marvin Gaye and Barry White introduced orchestras in a very creative way, female artists like Minnie Riperton and Thelma Houston (not to mention Aretha Franklin, of course) released genre-defying, even mind-bending albums not possible to record the decade earlier. It was also here that musical geniuses like Roger Troutman appeared. Bootsy Collins and George Clinton took to very funky excesses started by James Brown and took them to great extremes. In the reggae world, albums like Culture's two sevens clash and others showed the 70's had its own identity and creativity.

RAP/HIP HOP - this genre began in the 70's and, though it has changed a lot, can truthfully be called a "70's genre". All its major hallmarks and archetypes began in the 70's.

Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five

DISCO - While the 70's are known as the "disco decade" by uninformed people, I submit to you that disco was not that bad. It was simply soul music with a slighly different beat. It was the idiots who WENT to discos who gave it a bad name. I call this the "Led Zeppelin" phenomenon. Just because their fans are largely idiots, don't take that out on the band, it's not their fault.

Gloria Gaynor

POWERPOP - A 70's genre through and through, a miracle occured when this genre was born. Prizing hooks, melodies and short songs that are pleasant to the ear, and giving them a little "Oomph" (but not so much that it became "punk", although some bands did do that), and taking the reins from the Beatles and Beach Boys, more "B" bands emerged such as Big Star and Badfinger who made great, great music. It was a pretty big phenomenon then, and still continues today. See also: The Raspberries

Badfinger

HARD ROCK/HEAVY METAL - BLACK SABBATH! That's all I have to say. Black Sabbath. Working on the theory that Black Sabbath IS metal, and they released their first album in 1970, the stage was set for a tidal wave of "heavy" bands that followed. Early Heavy bands like Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, and here in the US, Blue Cheer and Iron Butterfly (these are just the most prominent examples, not necessarily the best)initiated a worldwide movement still strong today of heaviness. Don't forget, this was born in the 70's too!

Black Sabbath

Deep Purple

COUNTRY - the decade "outlaw country" was born, as examplified best by David Allan Coe, as well as Willie Nelson and Waylon Jennings, expanded what the genre could do, as did artists like Mickey Newbury. This brought new facets, ideas, thoughts and instrumentation to country. It says a lot when country, primarily thought of as a "traditional" genre, could even be susceptible to the changes brought by the 70's like everyone else.

David Allan Coe

This was just a brief, brief overview in an attempt to make my point. I could probably write a book on this subject. So anyone that says "The seventies sucked" or "it was the worst decade for music", do politely tell them they are mistaken (I was going to say "shoot them" but I decided to go the more gentlemanly route.)

My Movies #3: Monster Truck

2008-02-05T10:46:00.000-08:00

Excuses

2008-02-05T09:59:00.000-08:00

My other job is working as a poller in an institute where we call people and ask them surveys that take about 3-5 minutes. All they have to do is give simple opinions, there are no hard questions. A surprising amount of people, no matter where you call, or what time of day it is, say "I'm just walking out the door." It is truly amazing just how many people are "just walking out the door" at any given time (read: when they could be giving a short survey.)Alternatively, some say "I just walked IN the door." Besides the common classics "I'm on the other line" and "We have company over", and of course "We're in the middle of dinner" (It's always "the middle" -- sometimes people say they are making/preparing dinner, etc.) here are some other actual excuses that have been said by actual humans (keep in mind, they could simply just decline, no details are needed):
"I don't watch the paper"
"I can't, I'm breastfeeding"
"I just got out of the bath"
"My husband is in a backbrace"
"I'm going to a basketball game"
"I'm playing basketball with my son in the living room"
"I'm taking my son to basketball practice"
"I'm watching hockey"
"I'm doing my taxes"
"I have the flu"
"I have a migraine"
"I'm asleep"
"I'm feeding triplets"
"I'm nursing my one month old son"
"I'm getting ready to go to a funeral"
"we're watching a family movie"
"We're painting today"
"It's TRICK OR TREAT, I have to give out candy"
"I'm a Roman Catholic Nun, a Sister"
"We have to go to a graduation"
"My husband just got out of hospice and he has terminal cancer"
"We're packing for vacation"
"We're going to a banquet"
"I'm in the midst of cooking"
"I'm baking cookies"
"I just got back from a 100 mile trip: 100 miles there and 100 miles back"
"I'm eating an ice cream cone, if I take the survey, it will melt"
"I'm in labor" (I got this one on two separate occasions)
"If you call again, I'm gonna call the deputy sheriff"
"We're getting ready to eat lunch"
"I'm putting together a swingset"
"My son has autism and he spilled milk all over the house"
"I have to go to my wedding in two hours"
"I'm a 96 year old woman!!!!!"
"I'm taking my granddaughter to football practice and they're (?) waiting in the car"
"I'm having a pizza delivered"
"I'm painting my living room - if I take the survey the paint will dry - it's a big living room and right now we're working on the molding"
"I don't play survey games"
I just got out of the hospital from a heart attack"
"I don't have any opinions"
"I'm waiting for a repairman to call, and if we miss the call, he won't come"
"The only survey I have is God. Ain't no survey gonna make me no richer or no deader"

There are others, believe me. Many people offer their dogs to take it, saying "he can bark". Presumably these are the same people that put their dogs' names on their answering machines. That's almost as bad as when people put their little kids' names on their machines. "You've reached Bob, Joan, rover and rex", "You've reached Dave, Sue, and little Timmy" -- no one's calling for little Timmy, trust me. He doesn't know what an answering machine IS. If someone does call for little Timmy, be alarmed.

There are a lot of old people still out there surviving, and good for them. Many times you can hear things going on in the background, i.e. barking dogs, screaming kids, people yelling, and, of course, the TV: "WHEEL! OF! FORTUNE!", The Entertainment Tonight theme song, etc.

I had no idea before I worked there that people saw their answering machines as some sort of platform for their religious views - all Christian. Many people, in different states, who obviously don't know each other, do this. How did this catch on? Are they hoping someone will accidentally call, hear their machine, and then be convinced by it and convert to Christianity? Who knew? Who will be converted by this? It's quite selfish. For example, one person said "You've reached the home of (such and such). Please leave a message. But first, I've got a message for YOU. In Galatians 3:16...." And then they proceeded on a fifteen minute tirade about how "Jesus rocks" or something like that. But that's an extreme case. MANY people end their messages with "Have a blessed day." or "Be blessed." I don't get this. Am I , as a mere mortal, in control of this somehow? I thought only God could determine if I am blessed or not. Can I bless myself? I mean, if it was up to me, I would have a blessed day every day. So then is God out of the picture?

But, through excuses, you see the stages of life play out: "I just had a baby", "I'm putting my kids to bed", "(such and such) is having a birthday", "My father just died", -- you see the full spectrum of life playing out in real time, for no other reason that you call hundreds (thousands?) of people at home, at random, over a period of months and years. It's a unique position to be in, so you get a unique perspective. You see birth and life and death unfolding in front of you through the magic of people's excuses and their unwillingness to take a short survey.

Election Coverage, Part 1

2008-02-04T10:38:00.000-08:00

OK, we all know that making fun of President Bush is a national sport, and, granted, he doesn't speak in public very well and this leads to some hilarious moments regardless of your political position. But is the answer to this electing Hillary Clinton to the most powerful position we have?
Hillary Clinton is a lying, cheating, deceitful, insincere, cackling two-faced harridan whose Machiavellian grab for power is based more on a compulsion TO WIN and to have power than an altruistic desire to help America. Like a junkie who builds up a tolerance and needs more and more just to achieve an effect, Hillary cannot, and will not be satisfied until she grabs the ultimate prize - the presidency - and to her it is completely irrelevant HOW she does it, as long as she does it.
Even though Democrats and liberals claim to abhor racial attacks and are "above" race, surprise of all surprises, the Clintons (it is a two-headed hydra, after all) launch several attacks against their opponent Barack Hussein Obama of a race-baiting nature. I would say that is the very definition of hypocrisy, but then the Clintons are so far gone and just so used to deceits and hypocrisy, I doubt they even notice little blips on their radar like this, and besides, to them, dragging your opponent in the mud in a desperate joust to win trumps any supposed "ideals" that supposedly define their life's philosophies and life's fights and struggles.
Despite a history of rape charges, cover-ups, lies, deceits, corruptions, impeachments, Hugh Rodhams, Roger Clintons, and at least one murder that we know of (Vince Foster), why would Americans CHOOSE to go back to this? Bill Clinton COULD have been more aggressive on terror, after all, he was aware of Bin Laden, but he chose to do nothing. Is this passive non-strategy on terror the Clinton plan? Because I would rather not be just another person to perish at the hands of the Clinton machine.
Do we REALLY want to go back to this? Is this what America REALLY wants? Since it is highly doubtful that Hillary would be in this position if she didn't happen to be Bill's wife, do we want to keep close tabs on this administration...what I mean is, what with the sneakiness and philandering going on, we would have to check on them every two seconds, like a baby, instead of trusting them to do their jobs. "Trust" and the Clintons don't exactly go together, if you know what I mean.
Since she probably figured she could just walk in and become president, she's probably not happy about the strong presence of Hussein Obama (Barack better watch his back), and in one debate, she was haranguing him in her classic, girlish fashion, and the next, they were all "Buddy-buddy". This blatant, pathetically phony display is only rivalled in plastic soullessness by John Edwards. (It looks like BOTH Americas made their feelings known about this political absurdity.)
Hussein has one thing that Hillary doesn't. He has likability, and isn't boldfacedly powermad. he should really change his middle name from "Hussein" to "Fluff", because no living human knows any of his platforms, plans, or strategies, but they enjoy his dancing on "Ellen" and his appearances on "Tyra", and I believe he has mentioned the word "change" one or two times (but then again, all of them have, Republicans included), and also speaks about "hope", "the future"and uh..."change", that's the ticket. I believe people are bamboozled by his fluffiness and lack of appearance on any hard news TV shows. Either that, or they find Hillary so distasteful and they must pick a Democrat, so they will go with him, policies sight unseen.
I'm not asking for perfection, but the standards of the Democrats must be pretty low to even allow Hillary to get as far as she has. Even I would prefer Hussein over her, if a Democrat MUST be elected. That's saying something!

To believe in alien life does not make you a nut

2008-02-01T09:27:00.000-08:00

It seems that if you say you believe that aliens exist, or at least have a strong suspicion, you are branded as a nut or some kind of kook by all the people that don't happen to believe. I think it is time for this "aliens definitely don't exist fascism" to end.
We know for a fact that UFO's exist. By this I simply mean things flying around in the sky, that we don't know what they are. Using the strict definition "Unidentified Flying Object." There is plenty of video and eyewitness footage testifying to this. When you couple that with the thousands upon thousands of people that claim to have had encounters, that seems fairly compelling. Now, let's assume most of the people that claim to have seen alien life in person are wrong in some way. It was a hoax (there would be no reason to start a hoax to say you have seen aliens because most people that come out as having had that experience lose jobs, friends, family and the media brands them as a nut and their life is, for all intents and purposes, ruined), they were dreaming (How this could be explained when more than one person is involved, you tell me. Thousands of group hallucinations?), or let's just say most were wrong for the sake of argument. Is it possible that ALL of the people are mistaken? EVERY last one of them? It is rare in life when 100% of something is true. Could this be the only thing? Let's just say that only 1% actually saw alien life. Is that a reason to discount everything we have learned about alien life so far?
You know the popular conception of an alien?
Pretty much this:
Did you ever ask yourself HOW exactly this image got to be known as the famous "alien" that we all know today? Long before this was known or popular, before the internet, people from totally different parts of the world that did not know each other, when asked to describe the alien in their encounter, all pretty much described the above alien. None of these people in these different countries around the world knew each other or had any contact with one another. Don't you think it is interesting that they all described the same thing?

Humans are still evolving. Did you ever notice that people, even from the 30's and 40's look a little bit different than people do today? And there is a theory that people's pinky fingers are getting smaller and smaller and eventually we as humans will not have a pinky finger. Our features are becoming more and more streamlined as we evolve and adapt to our environment. Now, if Erich Von Daniken is to be believed, Aliens came here in ancient times, and "planted" us. We, as humans, are just aliens that have not fully evolved to their level yet. We will eventually look like that picture above. What we call "aliens" are just humans, evolved millions of years.

The idea that they only visit "backwoods" areas is false and a lie perpetrated by the alien haters. UFO's have been seen in major cities such as New York, Hollywood, St. Louis, Chicago, near Galveston, Texas, Dusseldorf, Germany and most famously, Mexico City. And, I'm sure, many others. I just wish that people would embrace the idea of possible alien life more openly, instead of close-mindedly dismissing it out of hand. Just because the haters cannot conceive of a universe that is unimaginably vast, and, incredibly self- centeredly, simply assuming that humans are the ONLY beings in this unimaginably vast universe, frankly is more mind-blowing than the fact that there probably are aliens. In other words, that there more than likely ARE aliens out there is more plausible to me than assuming humans are the only intelligent beings in the universe. I would just like to say that I'm not a nut, and the time for people that think there probably are aliens that exist to be THOUGHT of as nuts, is long past. That is primitive, bully thinking. Unless you happen to be a nut ANYWAY, independently of believing in aliens. That is another matter entirely, and there are a lot of nuts in the alien game, because of the haters, they have been ghettoized and stigmatized. Now that it is 2008, I think the haters should be thought of as crazy and unrealistic.

NES Review #2: Bad Street Brawler

2008-01-31T11:03:00.000-08:00

They got the "bad" part right! "Bad Street Brawler", (Not to be confused with "Bradstreet Brawler", the game where female writer and poet Anne Bradstreet ((1612-1672))got her revenge) produced by Mattel in September 1989, is a limp-wristed rehash and very, very silly. Taking the mindless, repetitive beat-em-up style of Renegade, crossing it with River City Ransom without any of the wit, style or playability, and taking the retro-50's rock n' roll soundtrack from both games, "BSB" as I like to call it, is a ridiculous exercise in futility.
Seemingly thinking the kids of 1989 would truly get behind a hero in late middle age dressed in yellow lederhosen but without pants, this inexplicably effeminate and puzzling main hero is truly strange choice for an action protagonist. Every level you get 2 different moves - variations on punch and kick, which breaks up the redundancy somewhat - but you don't get to keep the moves you've earned or come to know. (Not that you'd want to keep the kick move you are given for level one. It is an effeminate slide that I dubbed "jazzercise".To see an underwear-clad man do this to a dog is quite a sight.) They simply change every level. You gain nothing, unlike the excellent Mighty Final Fight, a top-notch NES title I am a huge fan of.

The "bad streets" consist of pleasant parks at night, and you are "brawling" with dogs and apes. Later on, there is a baddie that resembles Michael Richards' Kramer from Seinfeld. It is possible all this is done in a spirit of fun, but that is unclear. A further example of the supposed potential humor of the game comes in the form of the pre-level screen, which always contain some kind of saying. My personal favorite is "Never trouble trouble till trouble troubles you" --that's the BEST one. Truer words were never spoken. Why this game needs maxims, epigrams, sayings, poems, sonnets or anything like that is yet another confusing layer to this game which obscures any potential humor value.

You may notice he is a "thug-thrashing defender of freedom." Indeed.

Now that I've trashed the game somewhat, I'd like to say that this game is so bad, to many players, it becomes somewhat fun. Not GOOD, mind you, but, perhaps if you are in the right mood, fun. Kind of like the infamous "Yo! Noid", but not as controller-smashingly annoying. Yes, the controls are erratic and unresponsive (that's bad in a beat-em-up, especially one with a bunch of strikes already against it.) But, mind you, it was part of the "Power Glove series". It is impossible to imagine playing this game with the Power Glove. It is hard enough with your bare hands. Or fingerless gloves. I had a Power Glove. It didn't work. That's all. However, the Power Glove did have something of a post-NES life. In the short-lived TV show of "The Flash", the bad guy in one episode wore the Power Glove as part of his outfit. It's weird to be watching TV and then yell out "hey! that guy is wearing the Power Glove! Who are they trying to fool?", but, even more uninterestingly, the poor, misunderstood Glove appeared, on the box art at least, of the Jenna Jameson/Nikki Tyler porn film, "Virtual Reality 69". (I tried to find a picture of this for you, but I couldn't.) I doubt they have ever played "Bad Street Brawler". How far you have fallen, Power Glove. We hardly knew ye. Oh, and Bad Street Brawler could be considered a masochistic guilty pleasure if you can find it. I apologize for being so hard on it.

I am against illegal immigration

2008-01-30T10:11:00.000-08:00

My first question when it comes to the subject of "illegal immigration" is: why are we even debating this? Why is it even on the national/international radar of something that people are now arguing about? It has the word "ILLEGAL" IN the thing you are arguing about! This must be a debate all-time first. No one usually debates "illegal murder" or "illegal robbery" -- this has not yet come up, though thanks to political correctness, it may one day. That may sound crazy, but I bet we'd never see the day that we'd be debating "Illegal immigration", that there would be people that are FOR something with the word ILLEGAL in the very thing they are debating for. That would seem too crazy. But apparently it is true. These people believe our country would be better off if the rule of law was thrown out the window, despite the fact that it has served us pretty well the past couple of hundred years.
I would like to make it clear that I am all for foreigners coming here, but you have to follow a couple of simple rules: Do it legally, get a job, don't commit any crimes, and learn English. (I'm not saying you have to forget your other language, just know English as well. Even if I were to go to a foreign country for a short visit, I would try to learn some of the words and phrases. If you want to LIVE here for the rest of your life, there's really no excuse). If you follow these basic rules, I welcome you with open arms. Apparently this is asking way too much and certain rich white liberals would find that statement offensive.
If foreigners come here illegally, it is a slap in the face to all the ones who patiently waited in line and took the test and did it legally. It is an insult to all the other foreigners, or former foreigners, that respect this country enough to do it right.
I guess the thing that offends me the most about illegal immigration (despite the fact that it is illegal, let's not lose sight of that), is that: They want to come here because this country is a great place to live and much better than the country they are fleeing. But yet they do not respect our laws, which is how this country GOT to be the country they want to come to in the first place.

What makes a country a country are rules and laws and, of course, its borders. If America never had any laws or borders, it wouldn't be such a hot place to live and the illegals would not want to come here as badly, if at all, for the opportunities they see here. They can't have it both ways. They can't want to live here and keep this country great, and work here, much less get government money, yet come here illegally. They can't have their cake and eat it too.
More than that, the ones that come here illegally and then proceed to commit crimes, clog up the legal system, and then the jails which we pay for. And the welfare and handouts which we pay for. People that should not be here in the first place. And liberals defend this despite the fact that they've never spoken to an illegal or met one in person, except maybe their gardener.
I know this is "a country of immigrants" and "we are all immigrants" and all that, and that's fine, I know that already. But generations ago, when our forefathers came here, they came through Ellis Island and "Signed the Book". They did not sneak in, with a total disrespect for our laws and all that makes this country great, yet demanding all the perks that America has to offer. At least mine didn't.
It is that duplicitous, two-faced, ungrateful nature of illegal immigration I hate so much. I don't feel I am going out on a limb here, taking the wild, crazy stance of being AGAINST something Illegal. WOW! Imagine that! What a wacky point of view! "are you sure he said AGAINST illegals? What a nutjob! Where'd he get those crazy notions?"

Andy Gibb on Punky Brewster

2008-01-29T20:08:00.000-08:00

This is from when Andy Gibb was on the show Punky Brewster...It is one of the most beautiful songs I have ever heard...and I have heard many songs in my time...this is an extremely sweet moment...Please enjoy this slice of pure heaven

A Tribute To Greatness In Entertainment

2008-01-29T09:01:00.000-08:00

The temptation here at this blog is to get too negative about life. Well, that would be unfair. From what I've been able to gather, life is generally mediocre or bad, with scattered moments of greatness, like a a desert with a few scattered grains of emerald sand.
Since everyone turns to TV, movies, music, sports and such for entertainment to dilute the awfulness of life, I find it disappointing who is held up as role models and the quality of "stars" out there today. I'm not going to go further into it, or name any names, you fill in the blanks. So today I hope to show, once again, how much better the past was than the present is. You may notice that is a theme with me. Expect many blog posts about this in the future. Almost all of them deal with that in one way or another. So, in that spirit, I present to you: A Tribute to Greatness In Entertainment!

MUSIC

Liberace has sold millions of albums, I think. It's hard not to love this picture, as well as this man's lust for... "life". Millions of blue-haired ladies who are unaware of the concept of "gay" were, and, I'm sure, still are huge fans. He made millions of dollars, has a museum and got to live life to the max his way. You gotta love that. I mean, I'm not totally convinced he was gay.

BASEBALL

I know nothing about Rollie Fingers, or about baseball in general, but two things: he has a great name, and even without the mustache, he would be a legend just with that name alone, but couple that together with that 'stache, this man is a God. NO ONE could come out like him today. Now baseball is all about scandals, juicing and guys with giant heads. The world needs another Rollie Fingers.

GAME SHOWS

In the 70's Richard Dawson would kiss all the female contestants because it was the 70's - their spirits were free and there was a harmless, freewheeling sense, if they thought about it at all, that it was OK to kiss and love in an overriding spirit of friendship and good will, it was all part of the zeitgeist. Now, we live in an age where that is frowned upon and it's all about lawsuits, sexual harrassment and STD's and that's why I'm angry and disappointed and life sucks and I hate everyone.

NO, not you! You're everywhere! Get out of here! Can't I mention the words "game show" without you magically appearing?

WRESTLING

Back when the WWE was the WWF, and before those selfish and pesky annoyances at the World Wildlife Fund had their way, and before the term "sports entertainment" was ever coined, there was a warrior. An ULTIMATE warrior. Not to be confused with the Yul Brynner film of the same name, I feel that this picture says it all. Mainly because I don't know anything about the Mr. Warrior. Was he the guy that demanded we "Snap into a Slim Jim"? Because I doubt he would have that muscular physique if he snapped into a bunch of Slim Jims. Why wouldn't he hawk something healthier? NO ONE knows what are in Slim Jims. NO ONE! Not even Jim himself!!! But I digress.

TALK SHOWS/EXCERCISE & FITNESS

Sweatin' To The Oldies and Deal a Meal rebelled against the previous generation, defiantly declaring "we don't want to do things your way!" Looking at it in today's perspective, they were clearly more cultural statements than anything else. Expect to see this graphic many more times in the future. I mean, I'm still not totally convinced he is gay.

TELEVISION

Who didn't love this man's double takes and reactions? Not to mention his physical movements and voice? Today's TV stars could learn a lot. Learn from the past. Shame on everyone. I mean, I'm still not totally convinced...ah, never mind.

MOVIES

I LOVE Ernest Borgnine. If you don't love him, I hate you. His Oscar-winning movie career (Marty, a great movie) is absolutely stellar, with many, many classics, and his TV work such as McHale's navy has gone down in history as classic. The icing on the cake is he is from HAMDEN! He is a Hamden High graduate, and there is an Ernest Borgnine park in Hamden (actually a small bit of excess grass in front of a brown wall, he deserves better) and an Ernest Borgnine Way (actually the driveway leading up to a golf course, he deserves better) -- You HAVE to love him. He is still going today, with his TV movies and traveling the country in his bus. He is like everyone's Grandpa. God bless this great man.

BASKETBALL/RAP/VIDEO GAMES

It takes one many years of training to learn Shaq Fu, and should one be lucky enough to be able to execute the infamous Shaq Attaq -- notice that's spelled with a Q (interesting, seeing some of the other people on this list). Apparently Hawking Icy Hot Medicated Pads hasn't slowed down this scary giant. If anything, it has increased his already huge powers. Was he the first guy to be successful at basketball, thus thinking he could rap well? Or were people just too scared to tell him "No"? Nevertheless, he is a true trailblazer. A big, scary, possibly insane trailblazer.

EVERYTHING ELSE (MASTER OF ALL MEDIA)

What can I say that hasn't already been said? I'm NOT going to make fun of him. (Or, in other terms, "hassle the Hoff") I wouldn't dream of hasslin' the Hoff. Or Wrasslin' the Hoff.

If you liked this more visual piece, do let me know. I enjoyed presenting it to you.

HONORABLE TV MENTION

They could never do this show today due to political correctness. Those PC snobs won't rest until all great stuff is gone. Who knows what other classic material fell under their blade? It's just a shame. Now I'm mad. Well, I'm really OK now. I'll save an anti-PC rant for another day. I want to go out on a positive note. Good night and Godspeed!

It's not worth it

2008-01-28T10:13:00.000-08:00

Technically, I have two jobs. One is at a certain polling institute, and we'll get to that job at a later time, because my desire to write about it is not that strong because the job is not that bad. A much more pressing problem is my supposed "other" job, and I shudder now as I write this and reveal this to the world, a...(sigh)...substitute in a high school. A sure sign that your life is not exactly on the right track, or at least that it's not going in the direction you imagined it would, is if you are currently a sub. It takes no skills, interview or qualifications - if you managed to graduate college, you're in. They're so desperate to find people to be subs, beggars can't be choosers. The fact that you need to be a college graduate to do this job is laughable. A kindergarden graduate is overqualified to be a sub and they would no doubt find the cursed position insulting to their intelligence.
I certainly would never be so pompous as to call myself a substitute "teacher" - absolutely nothing even remotely resembling actual teaching goes on. If I MUST mention it, I take the most inoffensive and barely noticeable term there is, merely a "sub", and that could be ANYTHING!
Unfortunately though, it's not just anything. It's a horrid tunnel-of-love through the bowels and intestinal tract of a disciplineless, anarchic society at its utter worst.
You first enter the yawning (and I DO mean yawning!) mouth of hell when the unforgiving, merciless phone rings at 5:30 AM. No matter when you go to bed, this brutal noise is like being awakened by someone viciously slapping your face. It breaks a sleep cycle, so even if I went to bed at 7 PM, I would still be disgustingly awakened by it. Besides, I want, and need, to have some time to myself and to actually live. I don't want to just work and sleep, and feel lucky that I have some spare time to eat and go to the bathroom. I at least need some time to figure out how to get OUT of this awful situation as soon as possible. Additionally, I read lack of sleep reduces the number of white blood cells in your body, making you less healthy and less able to fight sickness and disease. There are probably whole books on the benefits of sleep and the bad things that come from lack of it. But then again I suppose it's worth it if I can babysit a bunch of disrespectful and loud, vulgar animals, and get paid almost nothing to do so.
It does seem that the kids are louder than they were when I went to school. They are constantly yelling, screaming and laughing absurdly loudly ALL the time. You can't walk down the dark, overcrowded halls, clogged with nonmoving, uncaring students without someone literally yelling in your ear. Most of the students have to be yelled at by teachers just to get to class, because none want to go and it is very hard to make them do anything they don't want to do. And if a sub happens to have some stupid busywork "ditto" to hand out, by the time they all shuffle and shamble out of class, most are on the floor with dusty, dirty footprints on them. They line up at the door before the end of class because they can't wait to get out, and kids ask they entire period to go to the bathroom. I know that's mostly not where they're going, but I don't care, because the less students in the class, the less noisy and chaotic it is. And if you think they would actually listen to my vain pleas for them not to act this way, you are naive and clearly have never done this job.
They keep all the bathroom doors locked, except for when class is going on, so If I have to actually go to the bathroom, I have to luck into someone with a key, or go all the way to the main office, where the woman with the keys seems annoyed when I ask and always rolls her eyes. Like I'm one of the students, who, like me, float through the day and learn nothing. The only difference is they actively fight AGAINST learning anything. But the fight is not too hard because the wall of noise does most of the work for them, shielding them against almost any educational content.
Trying to leave at the blessed, merciful end of the day is a struggle because all the kids are coming out, all the buses are leaving, and all the other faculty and staff is also trying to high-tail it out of that hellhole as well. By the time I fight my way out of the parking lot, it's almost time for my other job.
So, after taxes, you get about sixty dollars for the day. That barely covers the gas it takes to get there. I'm at the point where I'd gladly pay the sixty dollars just to sleep another few hours. If that is the cost, it's well worth it. So let's recap: Horribly early wake-up call, loud, annoying students, locked bathrooms, rock-bottom pay. WHAT is the incentive? What? Nothing about this so-called "job" is worth it. My utter indifference when I am there is all over my face. They don't pay nearly enough for me to even attempt to feign like I want to be there. I submit to you that this is not a job, it's an ABUSE. An actual abuse that is detrimental to my psychological, emotional, mental, spiritual and physical well-being. But that's worth sixty dollars a day, right?

NES: gray box of wonderment and joy

2008-01-25T11:00:00.000-08:00

Anyone who knows me knows I love NES. I prefer the term "NES" over "Nintendo" because "Nintendo" could refer to the company, or any of the newer systems, like Super Nintendo, N64 or even Wii. There is only one NES.
Sure, the video games of today have "better" graphics and lifelike cinemas, but are overly complex and lack the overall sense of pure fun you get with an NES game. These new controllers have several hundred buttons and are space age and wireless. All I need is a small,square controller and TWO buttons: A and B!
Plus, the concept of cinema sequences between levels was developed during the NES days. One only need look at Ninja Gaiden and its sequels to appreciate this idea in its infancy. That whole idea was cutting edge and there are many games today that are being remade (of course) such as Ninja Gaiden for PS3. I have no interest in this however, and it shows a complete lack of creativity, and even a certain dishonesty. What I mean is, much like the movie industry as it stands today, with its endless barrage of sequels and remakes, is incredibly lazy and takes for granted the ingenuity and brilliance of the past.
For example, what if the filmmakers of the past decided to just thoughtlessly remake what came before, rather that create new ideas? Then what would the lazy filmmakers of today have to remake? They are utterly dependent on the fact that the idea men of the past were original. Similarly, cover bands are dependent on the fact that the bands of the past were original. If THOSE bands of the past chose to be lazy and uncreative, there would be nothing for these modern day bands to cover. See what I mean? It's just irresponsible to take and take from the past - what if the people back then had done that?
OK, enough about that. I think you get my point. Nintendo came in at a low point for video games in the 80's. They marketed it more like a VCR for the whole family (hence the Japanese name, Famicom, or , Family Computer), and, compared to its ancestors, was a quantum leap forward: Bright colors, fun gameplay, 8 bits (all you really need!), and games with plots and recognizable characters. Some, like Mario and Donkey Kong became legends in their own right, whose worldwide popularity still continues to this day. (somehow, lesser characters and knockoffs like Kid Kool languish in obscurity.)

Of course, pure absurdity and even surrealism played a huge part in the appeal of the NES: It must have been a huge gamble for a fledgling (in the U.S.) company to bet the farm on a video game about two Italian plumbers that fight goombas and ride down flagpoles at the end of levels, and games like Stinger (see previous review), Gun Nac, Monster Party, and Little Nemo the Dream Master amply provide evidence for this. Almost every NES game had some kind of absurd element, from the strange enemy here to the endearing "Engrish" mistranslation there (see pretty much any game with text, but the most famous examples are Zelda 2 and Metal Gear).
At its peak, NES was so popular, many things became games that probably shouldn't. What would Robert Lous Stevenson have made of the game "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde"? and what about "Yo! Noid", a game featuring that li'l sprite that ruins pizzas? (any game that features the credit "Domino's Pizza Presents" on the title screen should be some cause for concern.) And many movie adaptations have been made as well: everything from Nightmare on Elm Street to Wayne's World to Hudson Hawk have received the 8 bit treatment - all this simply in attempt to ride the coattails of the NES' popularity.
The bottom line is, for kids of my generation, children of the 80's, especially boys, are inextricably linked to this machine. If you could condense my childhood into one single material object, the NES would certainly be it. It truly changed the world - and to be there at the outset of this revolution was quite a thing. Kids in my elementary school constantly talked about it: I remember a kid on my bus had just gotten it and had the poster that came with it advertising all the games with little screenshots, and many other kids crowded around to look at this poster and marvel at all the colorful secrets and potential hours of fun it promised.
One of the fondest moments of my young life, perhaps the most fond, is when my Mom pulled me out of school on a normal day - not a holiday or birthday, nothing - to go buy the NES. I still regard that as a special moment in time. And that's just it: NES simply represents nostalgia as well as fun games. Could there be a better invention?

Children are NOT our future

2008-01-24T10:30:00.000-08:00

I'm just so tired of people using their kids as an excuse as to why the rest of us cannot do things. You can't call after a certain hour because "I'm putting my kids to bed" (apparently this is a long, complicated process of James Bondian circuitousness). There can't be certain types of entertainment because "what about the children??!!!??" will be shrieked in hysterical tones. In fact, if lazy parents don't want to do something, or deem something is inappropriate - because, after all, they have appointed themselves moral guardians now that they have KIDS - they can just trot out that old canard "WHAT ABOUT MY KIDS?"
Well, kids are not a shield for your newfound puritanical views. Not EVERYTHING in this world needs to be for kids. How did adults get strongarmed out of certain things in life by nonliterate, diaper-wearing overgrown sperm cells?
Also, you're not going to be rewarded for your kid-having ways (except, perhaps, by the government). As a society, we should stop giving latitude to people because they squeezed out a kid or two. That's NOT, I repeat, NOT a talent and should not be treated as such. It has been done by literally billions of people over the years, and the urge to procreate is ingrained in humans to keep the species going. That's all it is. It's not an open license to turn the world into a sickening Disney channel of spoiled tots and their simpering, pathetic parents.
As we all know, an intelligence test is not required to start the breeding process. The world is upside down: instead of rewarding the breeders, we should reward the brave, intelligent, strong souls who have had the forsight and will and sympathy NOT to have bring yet more people into this world. Where's our reward? Where's our recognition? Where's our accolades?
The solution to all this world's problems is certainly not MORE people. So in response to all the parents of the world's lily-livered whining about their "kids", I say, we shouldn't feel bad for you, feel sad for you, feel sympathy or empathy for you, or, most importantly, in any way be manipulated by you simply because you weakly chose to have a kid, or, worse, more than one.
If you love them so much, as the accepted default cliche goes, STOP using them as an excuse, or as an OUT for something you don't want to see or do. To have kids can't simultaneously be a blessing and a handicap, depending on which way the wind blows that day. You CHOSE to have kids. No more sympathy.

NES review #1: STINGER

2008-01-23T10:02:00.000-08:00

Stinger is a great, and extremely fun game released on the Konami label in September 1987. This was sandwiched inbetween the releases of Gradius in December 1986 and Contra in February 1988, signaling quite a creative tear for the label. Gradius and Contra of course became classics, even archetypes of their respective subgenres (those being space shooter and run n' gun, respectively). This of course to say nothing of further winners such as Life Force, Double Dribble, and the hilariously titled Rush N Attack (let's not forget this was the time of Reagan and the cold war), and misses, however noble the intention, like The Adventures of Bayou Billy.
Somehow, though, the greatness of Stinger fell through the cracks. Much like the lesser known artists during the renaissance, when even being a great artist was not enough in the boom time of Leonardo and Michaelangelo, and later on, when even being a great band in the late 60's was not quite enough, when the public was spoilt for choice with bands like the Beatles, Rolling Stones and the Who and countless others. Inevitably, material that deserved notice, and would have gotten it under any normal circumstances, had to be in the shadows.

Such is life, and seemingly also the fate of Stinger. I remember playing the game as a child in the late 80's, and being struck by the originality of the game, as well as the attractive bright colors and music - of course a must for any NES game.
In the game, you fly through various worlds and shoot at various household objects: hangers, popsicles, jelly rolls, records and the like. All the while, you shoot at bells that fall from clouds. If you shoot the bells enough times, you can get improved weaponry and power-ups, but you can't spend too much time doing this, or you will lose focus and the baddies will get you. Addiction and constant continues ensue.
The first level is horizontal, and the second vertical, and so on. This breaks up monotony and was a common feature of Konami games (i.e. Contra, Super C, etc.) The bells are in the sky, the baddies come at you fast and furious in various formations in the middle of the screen, and there are secrets and extra points at the bottom of the screen as well. This keeps the game interesting and exciting and constantly replayable. It is also 2-player simultaneous (a feature disappointingly absent from the first Double Dragon, obviously I'm still a bit bitter about that), so to play with someone else makes it easier and fun to find all the secrets and combat the onslaught of evil objects.
The bosses are great: Evil watermelon, Evil hot dog, Evil faucet (which attacks with evil bubbles - a perplexing constant in NES games - expect more on this later) - Evil VCR, only in a later level does a more traditional evil demon appear as a boss. The programmers' ability to turn mundane objects we see every day into aggressive enemies that kidnap your grandfather, is a stroke of genius that would not be equaled until September 1991 when ASCII released the awesome GUN NAC, the semi-sequel to the also excellent ZANAC, when evil carrots and bunnies assailed you.
Just a quick word about the music: it is always bright and upbeat and infectious, just like the game itself. I especially like the music during "Let's Go Bonus Game" - it will surely put a smile on your face. And isn't that what it's all about, people?

In conclusion, Stinger represents a golden time when NES games were pure fun - an enjoyable experience in the halcyon times before Joe Lieberman droned on about how Mortal Kombat corrupts absolutely. If you have an NES, please pick up Stinger on Amazon or Ebay if you haven't already. You will be happy you did.

A Boy Named Guy

2008-01-22T10:53:00.000-08:00

Have you ever known anyone named "Guy"?
How uncreative of a parent are you to settle for this?
I just imagine two parents lovingly standing over their newborn baby...
Father: I love this little guy.
Mother: Me too.
Father: But what should we name him?
Then they slowly turn their heads and look at each other in a moment of realization.
Both in unison: I know! Guy!
Then they both laugh, high-five and there is a freeze frame and credits roll.

There was a kid in my elementary school named Guy, and I can only imagine the above scenario is a verbatim recreation of an actual event. He wasn't French, and it wasn't pronounced "Gee" -- As much as I'd love to imagine so, I somehow doubt Guy De Maupassant's parents went throught the above play that inevitably, all Guy-Naming Parents (or GNP's, as I like to call them) go through.
So parents of the world, if you MUST have children, and the MUST be male, get some creativity! Don't settle for the first generic appellation that comes into your head! Don't you realize you're condemning your child, who you presumably love, to a life of "who was that guy?" "Oh, that guy", "I hate that guy", "who's that guy standing over there", "that's the guy, officer", etc., etc., until your little guy dies, and on his grave it simply reads "here lies Guy", and the people of the future scratch their heads in confusion.

My Movies #2: In a World

2008-01-22T10:47:00.000-08:00

...In the spirit of the last post, where rival factions come together to overcome their differences...democrats and republicans, tastes great and less filling, toffifay and faygo...I present the second installment of my movie series, "In a world", the heartwarming tale of two movie trailer voice over artists that realize they have more in common than they realize. My friends Brendan ("In a world" guy) and Anthony ("Just when you thought it was safe" guy) star in this movie that should make some kind of sense to anyone that has seen a movie trailer.

Grocery Store Horror

2008-01-22T10:14:00.000-08:00

When you're young, going to the grocery store is a wondrous, magical experience. You see all the food, the products, and the shoppers all in an overwhelming and bewildering array of colors and smells. The world seems filled with endless possibilities and it is quite exciting.
I don't know how it is in your town, but at one of the Stop and Shops in Hamden (I don't mean to get too deeply into semantics here, but if I've stopped, how can I possibly shop?), they've certainly seemed to put the kibosh on any of that "childhood wonder" crap. It's almost as if they had a meeting and then came out against it. Their "solution"? Make it as depressing a place as possible.
When you first get there, you can't help but notice the ground and parking lot is muddy and trash-strewn. The guy assigned to collect the carts (apparently they don't fire these people easily) talks and yells to himself and is clearly homeless. I guess if he is going to be outside all day anyway, it is a good thing that S&S has employed him.
As you try to walk in the front door, you are accosted and harrassed by every one from black beggars to the KKK. Not to mention girl scouts, and school sports teams and their diabolical pyramid money making scheme of selling candy bars. I'm sure the profit there is through the roof.
If you can make it inside past this rabble, you are greeted with giant placards and posters hanging from the ceiling of pale, bald children with leukemia and cancer. This macabre decor officially turns the place into a house of horror, and whoever thought this would make sense in a place where you shop for food is beyond me. When the dying children's faces, names, and simulated signatures are blown up 1000 times, it really drills in an unnecessarily poignant and funereal feeling that, in my opinion, has no place in Stop and Shop. It is insulting that the decision was made to force people to confront this kind of thing in a grocery store, knowing that human beings need food and they have no choice. That right there is a tacit admission that those huge placards do not belong there.
On the wall next to all the shambling, pathetic schlubs waiting in an eternal line at the bank, are many more little pieces of paper taped to the wall with people's names on them, indicating they gave money to help yet more sick and dying people. Not only does this perfect the uncalled-for somber nature of the place, it tries to make you feel guilty for not joining in. Guilt is not an emotion going to the grocery store should bring on.
Enough already! They might as well have a giant sign that says "Everything you see around you will eventually be waste! We're all gonna die! AAAAAAHHHH!!!!!" hanging from the ceiling as well.
I'm sympathetic to the plight of suffering children. But I think it is inappropriate of Stop and Shop to shove this sad aspect of life in people's faces. My gripe is obviously with that company and no one else.
On a lighter note, since I try to include related pictures with my posts, here are pictures of two real, and hilariously named food products:

This is a great combination for breakfast, lunch, or dinner...
I mean, Toffifay just seems like a convoluted way to just say "toffee", and Faygo seems like a vague slur (why don't they just add a "silent" T to the end of the word and let that be the end of it?) I leave you with just one question... at this point in history, can TOFFIFAYGO be very far behind??????

Tattoos

2008-01-21T11:57:00.000-08:00

Have you ever seen somebody with a tattoo (or, worse, a lot of tattoos) that just look like dirt? The impulse is there to ask them, "Ugh! Why are your arms so dirty?" But then you do a double take and say to yourself, "Oh, it's just a tattoo".

Personally, there has never been an image or phrase that I have deemed so special or incredibly important that I want it on myself forever. I have to ask myself what the audience for my tattoos would be. I would only be getting the tattoo to impress others, or out of a sense of peer pressure because it is a trend (among people my age anyway. I'm fully aware that the practice of tatooing, like the brewing and drinking of beer and other alcohol, whose popularity is still hanging on quite well, has been around since the dawn of time.)

For example, can you imagine loving the awful band The Deftones THIS much:

I wish I loved ANYTHING as much as this guy loves The Deftones. I am jealous of this man's Joie d' vivre. The lord bless and keep him. And I doubt this man's arms:

...has anything at all to do with the great Lee Van Cleef film of the same name? Here's a picture unrelated to the movie:

To quote Mr. Van Cleef, "See you in hell, kid!"
*NOTE: this piece is not meant in any way to be a condemnation of people with tattoos. It is simply a personal view. However, it is a condemnation of people with bad tattoos.

My Movies #1: The Leonard Cohen Fly Girls

2008-01-21T09:41:00.001-08:00

From the years 1997-2007, My friends and I made little comedy sketches. There was no writer or director per se, we all collaborated on the idea. Here is the first installment of this series of movies I will be presenting on this blog, THE LEONARD COHEN FLY GIRLS.

Wonderland Of Awesome

2008-01-21T09:41:00.000-08:00

Threejay welcomes you to the new blog, "Wonderland of Awesome". Herein you will see my thoughts and feelings about things I like, such as NES games, movies, music, books, pop culture, especially of the 70's and 80's, as well as things I don't like, such as pretty much everything else, as well as some surprises along the way!