An Unexpected Ramble

            So it’s been a week since I saw “The Hobbit” and I’ve finally muddled it around in my brain enough to cobble together a few definite opinions and establish a solid review, in order to answer that most terrifying of questions: “What do you think of it?”  My answer is as follows:

            It is.

            That’s all I can come up with.  There’s too much going against this movie to make it good, yet on the other hand there are too many good elements and nothing actively wrong with it to make me say it’s bad.  I did enjoy watching it, but like so many fantasies it isn’t until after the fireworks have died down that one realizes the inherent flaws, which no amount of candy-coating can completely obscure.  The fundamental problem with “The Hobbit” lies at its heart—specifically, the fact that it doesn’t seem to have one.  As I had almost pessimistically expected, this movie suffers from the same complaint as so many other franchises; it has become too successful.

            A spoiled child, if left unchecked, will eventually reach the point where parents have no choice but to give in to any and all demands; the child has lost all sense of humanity and no longer listens to reason or even passionate request.  In the same way, a successful franchise can often reach the point where outside influences no longer dare criticize the material for fear of killing the golden goose.  Two examples:

·               Harry Potter.  When ‘Goblet of Fire’ premiered, publishers were wary of its tremendous length, but the audience seemed eager to absorb as much story as possible and, to be fair, ‘Goblet’ did not disappoint.  It’s the only one I’ve actually read twice.  Having thus proved that children would read her work no matter the size, however, the author followed up with the Tolstoy-shaming ‘Order of the Phoenix’, the longest entry in the series—in which nothing of interest happens.  Seriously, was there even a story?  I remember a creaky old house, teenage awkwardness, Harry’s father is a dick and the best character dies in a confusing way.  That’s it.  By the next entry she’d begun to trim again, but the damage was already done.  If her publisher had had the cojones to say “simmer down, you’ve got way too many words there; cut it in half or we won’t print it”, we could have been spared massive disappointment.  And speaking of disappointment...

·               Everything George Lucas has done since I was born.  Everyone wondered how he would top the phenomenon of ‘Star Wars’, and somehow he did it with ‘Empire Strikes Back’.  Then the world waited eagerly for the next film that would trump this masterpiece.  It’s been over thirty years, and we’re still waiting.  Even ‘Return of the Jedi’ has faltered under critical revision, as have the Indiana Jones sequels.  I’m even lumping the beloved ‘Willow’ in here because, let’s face it, the story (Lucas’ contribution) is the weakest part.  The characters, action and visuals carry that movie.  The problem is, Star Wars was such a massive success that it made its creator rich and powerful, to the point where producers and executives would no longer question anything he did.  I’m all for creativity, but moviemaking is not a solitary art.  It requires a team working in collaboration, and sometimes the bravest of them all is the little boy who forces us to realize the Emperor is naked.  Or at least badly-written.

Ironically, Tolkein himself was forced to edit his work by a forward-thinking publisher who realized people would rather get on with the adventure than read four chapters on hobbit ancestry; that’s where the appendices came from. Peter Jackson, on the other hand, seems to be following in Lucas’ wake.  There’s absolutely nothing wrong with “The Hobbit” movie that a merciless edit couldn’t fix.  All the necessary elements are there, and they’re done rather well.  The problem is that they’re drowned in a sea of scenery and CGI.  Where ‘Lord of the Rings’ was brilliant because it created a completely believable backdrop to an engaging story, the story for ‘The Hobbit’ seems to have been strung out just so the director could film the backdrop.  That’s not just putting the cart before the horse; that’s putting the horse IN the cart and wondering why it doesn’t go anywhere.  Wait...why does that horse look confused?

Problem #1: Characters

After seeing a movie once, an important test is how many characters I remember.  I hadn’t read ‘Lord of the Rings’ before seeing it, but by the end of ‘Fellowship’ I knew there were four hobbits (Frodo had the ring, Sam was his loyal friend, and there were two interchangeable comic idiots), two humans (one was Aragon or something, and he was an unwilling king; one was Sean Bean, and he died because Sean Bean dies in everything), the wizard Magneto, an elf, a dwarf, the evil wizard Dracula, a few more elves, and a creeping shadow that they promised would be important later.

The point is, I knew these characters by sight or description.  They were all distinctive, or at least had the advantage of being played by distinctive actors.  When they all showed up again in the next film I not only recognized them, I was able to incorporate the new characters into the story.  And because I knew who they were, I cared about them and got emotionally involved in the story.

“The Hobbit”, by contrast, has pretty much no character development whatsoever, which is an impressive feat for a three-hour film.  Yes, I know that there are thirteen dwarves rather than multiple distinctive races this time, but damn it that’s the point of having a writer and a director!  It’s their JOB to iron all this out for us in a way that’s both clear and yet exciting.  It’s the reason we have awards, to honour those who do this best.  Peter Jackson already proved he COULD keep a hundred different characters and story threads straight in the last trilogy, which leads me to conclude either a) he forgot how to do it, or b) he just didn’t care enough this time around to do it right.

How many dwarves do you really remember?  There’s Thorin, the leader; that’s an easy one, he has most of the lines in the film (more on that later).  There’s Balin, his advisor—and I only noted that name because he’s the one whose skeleton they find in Fellowship (gasp!  Decade-old spoiler!).  I caught a few other names but absolutely could not associate them with any faces now.  There’s one with a slingshot, one with weird earrings, one who looks more like a guy than a dwarf...and eight others.  The introductory scenes in Bilbo’s dining room sum up the movie; so packed full of characters you can’t tell where one ends and another begins!

The returning characters (or will-be-returning in the older, yet-to-take-place movies) are of course instantly spotted, mostly because they’re gratuitously inserted in a tedious boardroom scene that makes little sense to those who haven’t read the book and none at all if you haven’t seen the ‘Rings’ trilogy.  Case in point: SARUMAN IS NEVER MENTIONED BY NAME TO HIS FACE.  We’re told about him earlier, then he shows up and (of course) we all recognize him from the previous trilogy and “oh, neat, he’s a good guy here because he hasn’t betrayed them yet”, but this novelty wears off fast and we’re left with ambiguous dialogue delivered in perfect elvish monotone about some ghostly necromancer who’s reportedly haunting an empty fortress.

A “menacing phantom”, if you will.

We also set up this “mystery blade” of some “Witch King” and by this point even I, a guy who loves movie in-jokes and ret-conned foreshadowing, am thinking enough already.  We get the point, bad things are coming in the future.  In the novel, all these scenes take place in the appendices and we hear about them second-hand.  By all reports they were only added to THIS film to pad out the running time.

Which leads to problem #2: Length.

There was absolutely no need for this story to be cut into three movies, and even less need for them to be three hours each.  I happily accepted Return of the King (with all of its endings) because there was a lot of story to tell, and frankly I wanted closure on the various characters.  When I first heard the Hobbit would be two films, I accepted it because it would allow more detail than cramming everything into one.  But ‘An Unexpected Journey’ just feels bloated; scenes run too long, and at the same time nothing significant happens in most of them.

The opening is great, hearkening back to ‘Fellowship’; we set up Middle-Earth, the conflict, the heroes and the central enemy.  This is narrated by Bilbo Baggins, who is just starting to write the book of his adventures that he’ll finish in ‘Rings’ as Frodo goes to wait for Gandalf, an unnecessary but cute tie-in to the start of ‘Fellowship’.  Then we jump back via smoke-ring-cut (original, I admit) to Bilbo’s first meeting with Gandalf and the dwarves.  Again, I’m not sure how they accomplish this, but they drag this out for over half an hour and yet never tell us anything relevant.

Why exactly IS Gandalf making Bilbo join the dwarves?  He put the mark on Bilbo’s door, but how did they all know to look there for it?  Many of them haven’t seen each other in years, if ever, so how did the message get out for them to congregate there?  Then Gandalf explains the plot a second time (remember, the one that was just explained at the opening, except instead of action we now get to look at a map.).  Then Bilbo decides not to join.  Then he wakes up the next morning, they’re all gone—and he runs off to join them! 

And yes, thanks to the actor, I understand he wanted excitement and new things...but couldn’t we have spent a bit more time on that? The dwarves spend five minutes singing to a fire, while Bilbo takes five seconds to do a complete one-eighty and decide that perilous adventure IS what he wants to do.  Anyone else see a confusion of priorities here?  The song is lovely, but character development is more important.  By Tolkein’s own admission, “Hobbit” was a much simpler story for a younger audience than the later “Rings” tome, so drawing it out to three 3-hour movies only emphasizes the plot holes.

And while we’re on the topic, let’s hit problem #3: The Hobbit.

That’s the title of the movie and, presumably, its focus.  As ‘Lord of the Rings’ was about a powerful magic ring for which people would fight and die, so ‘The Hobbit’ should be about...a Hobbit.  At the risk of repeating myself, the novel strictly follows Bilbo’s journey and everything else is told via anecdote or appendix.  Although not a warrior, we could at least hope the movie would treat Bilbo as a common-man POV character, through whom we experience the fantastic surroundings (like Frodo and Sam in the previous films).  Instead, the focus flops—unevenly—between Gandalf, Thorin, and Bilbo, with no warning as to when one story will take over.  ‘Two Towers’ seamlessly mixed three different journeys into a climactic whole, but ‘Unexpected Journey’ is all over the place.

We follow Bilbo until he joins the dwarves on the road, then he’s just comic relief as we move to Thorin.  Thorin is central until they reach the trolls, when suddenly Bilbo becomes prominent again.  At one point he asks Gandalf about wizards, and Gandalf mentions Radagast the Brown.  We know absolutely nothing about this character, yet we immediately watch him give CPR to a hedgehog, fend off giant spiders, and enter a creepy castle.  Then we’re back to the dwarves.  Wait...that was ten minutes of Radagast.  Who is he?  What was the point?

They escape the trolls and meet Radagast, who shows Gandalf a sword and mentions a necromancer and again says nothing about himself.  Then he offers to lead pursuing orcs on a roundabout chase while the dwarves escape.  This is clearly a duplicate of Arwen’s escape in Fellowship, but we don’t care as much because he’s just some guy on a bunny-driven Santa-sled (I cannot make this up) and not Liv Tyler.  Worse, both he and the pursuing orcs are so clearly CGI it’s almost insulting.  Wait...when did orcs chasing them become the focus of the story?  I thought they were after a dragon.  Who’s this Captain Hook-orc guy?

So they get to Rivendell, where the DWARVES now become comic relief and Gandalf’s little enclave is the focus.  The ‘Rings’ characters show up to wave and wink at the camera, and then we’re back on the road with the dwarves.  The ‘tall persons’ (for lack of a better term) just spent ten minutes talking about a necromancer who we’re supposed to assume is Sauron (though they never say so) and look at the evil blade Radagast found...and again, in all this, no salient plot points emerge.  And none of it matters anyway, because we’re soon back on the road, leaving Rivendell for a totally unnecessary scene of giant fighting rock-monsters.

I think the moment is ripe for problem #4: Middle-Earth

For whatever reason, I could not connect with this world the way I did ten years ago.  Middle-Earth no longer looks as real as it once did.  The Shire is too quiet; where are the bustling hobbits that made the opening of “Fellowship” come alive?  It doesn’t take long to show, just a few seconds of rural life to show what Bilbo’s leaving behind.  Rivendell looks like a matte painting, the goblin mine is a blur, and every CGI creature (except one) looks unfinished.  The orcs don’t look real, the goblin king doesn’t look real, the rock monsters don’t look real...half the time even the HEROES don’t look real, because they too have been digitally inserted into an unfilmable scene.

“Lord of the Rings” was popular because (unlike the concurrent Star Wars films) it used live actors and real sets, or at least real miniatures, whenever possible.  “The Hobbit” is a computer-generated free-for-all, and for the life of me I can’t understand why.  Did they throw out all the set pieces from the previous movies?  When the fellowship climbed the mountain, Saruman caused avalanches and they had to leave before they froze.  That was a real situation that centered on the characters.  Now, they’re just bystanders in an unrelated fight between rock monsters.  Sure they almost die, but no one cares because we don’t really know who they are in the first place.

This leads to problem #5: Repetition.

Trolls.  Orcs on wargs.  Rock monsters.  Goblins.  The orcs again.  These crises come in rapid succession (the last two LITERALLY one after the other), and each time it leads to a much-too-fast, much-too-animated, much-too-long fight-slash-escape scene.  When they got out of the mountain and had that moment of reunion I thought “OK, we’re at the end”.  Then the orcs attack and I thought “Oh, okay, we’re going to end with them being chased by orcs and pick up next film with their escape.”  They LITERALLY hang off the edge of a cliff, but that’s not the end...there’s a tree...and then there’s some flaming pinecones...then Thorin fights the boss orc...and fails...and Bilbo saves him...

And then comes problem #6: THE DAMN EAGLES AGAIN

I loved “Lord of the Rings”, but I really got tired of justifying the eagles.  It’s a sadly obvious and very reasonable question... why don’t we save everyone a lot of trouble and just FLY to Mount Doom?  I know all the defenses...the air was unbreathable, the ring-wraiths would have caught them on their flying dragons, eagles are just as susceptible to the Ring as any other creature, they aren’t taxis, they only come when they feel like it...the problem is, no one should HAVE to defend it.

The fact is, Peter Jackson wanted to make the movies ‘realistic’.  That’s why the wizards’ duel in “Fellowship” is so kick-ass.  No fireworks or lightning, just two old guys beating the crap out of each other.  But the eagles completely destroy any ‘realism’ by their very presence.  There were other ways to get Frodo back from Mordor once the enemies were wiped out.  And don’t give me “that’s how it went in the book” because the writers had no problem changing dozens of other elements from the book that didn’t work in a film setting.  Again, that’s what made the movies so good.

Then the eagles show up again and it’s almost a slap in the face, because not ONLY do they save them from certain death for no reason, and not ONLY did they not show up sooner so the dwarves could bypass the damn mountains altogether, but they only take them partway to their destination and LEAVE THEM ON TOP OF A MOUNTAIN!!!  So the movie is basically saying, “Yes, the eagles could make everything a lot easier, but they aren’t going to and we aren’t even going to bother telling you why.”  One line from Gandalf would be enough.  The movie’s already three hours; would one line be padding it out too much?

“They owed me a favour.”

Done.  Is it perfect?  No.  But it’s better than nothing, which is what we get.  No explanation, no character development.  Just backgrounds and poorly-rendered CGI.

And finally problem #7: The End?

When all this orc-and-eagle nonsense takes place, keep in mind we JUST finished a long escape from the goblin mines, where they fought off a hundred goblins and killed the goblin king, then slid down a mountain on a broken bridge.  Keep in mind also that the director of this movie specifically said, when making the Helm’s Deep sequence in ‘Two Towers’, “We can’t overdo it; I don’t want the audience to get battle fatigue”.  News flash...when we get five seconds of breath before the next unrelated crisis rides down on our heroes, that’s EXACTLY what happens.

Meanwhile, please recall that the most important scene in ANYTHING MIDDLE-EARTH-RELATED has just taken place, between two characters in a dark cave...with no fancy backgrounds, no mind-numbing action, and the best use of CGI since the inception of the technology.  It is the best scene in the movie; this is not just my opinion, almost everyone is saying so.  The suspense is palpable, and I believe it’s because you can feel the dedication in this scene.  The actors know how important it is (it’s Any Serkis’ only part) so they put everything into it.  The director made “Hobbit” primarily so he could shoot THIS SCENE, and he does a phenomenal job.

This, in the end, is the most unforgivable thing.  The filmmakers have proved themselves able to take Tolkein’s work, slim it down without losing the substance, set up a world we feel could really exist, and take us on a journey both profound and complex without us ever getting lost.  They did it three times a decade ago and there’s enough good stuff here to show they still know how to do it.

Instead, we get a cluttered mess.  There’s no clear hero; three undeveloped characters spend equal time in the spotlight.  There’s no clear villain; it’s supposed to be a dragon, but we won’t see him until the next movie.  Instead we get a rehash of “Fellowship” (natural enemies and a tracking party of orcs).  Middle-Earth no longer looks ‘lived-in’; rather, it looks painted on.  It’s impossible to follow the subplots if you haven’t seen the “Rings” trilogy several times.  Put simply, it’s all shine and no substance—lots going on, but nothing of emotional interest.

            So why don’t I come out and say the movie was bad?  Because at the end of it all, what I wanted was something on par with “Lord of the Rings”, and I’m disappointed that this fell short.  But “Rings” was a masterpiece, so perhaps (right or wrong) my standards were set too high.  It’s a fun action movie aimed at younger audiences, just like the book...though in that case it should be shorter with all the subplots winnowed out (as kids wouldn’t understand them anyway).  The actors are excellent and make the most of their characters, doing with their faces what the director apparently refused to do with words or pacing.  The music is still epic and New Zealand is a beautiful country.

            But again, what ultimately makes this film not-bad?  Four words: “Riddles in the Dark”.  That one scene is worth admission.  It’s worth the two-and-a-half-hour wait.  Gollum is back just as we remember him; distinctive without being annoying, animated yet deeply human.  As he argues with himself, tries to play as a child while constantly tormented by an inner demon, ultimately breaks down at the loss of the one thing in the universe that mattered to him (evil or not), the emotion is as real as a movie about goblins and dragons could hope to get.  More so.  As that solitary tear ran down his cheek, I almost did the same...for the movie that could have been.

Both Sides Against the Middle

Here's why modern democratic politics scares me...it isn't what it should be.

Political elections, even if only between two major parties (and let's face it, most countries only HAVE two major parties...some of us occasionally pretend to pay attention to others, but it's usually just to teach the big kids a lesson in humility) should debate their issues as follows:


Candidate #1: I promise to increase funding for social programs, so that there is health care for your illnesses, school for your children, pension for your old age, and dignified hope for the less fortunate.

Me: That's a good policy.  As a Christian and a man who plans for the future, I see the benefits.

Candidate #2: I will reduce government spending in order to lower your taxes, leaving you with more money to support your family; if you choose to donate, that is your business, not the government's.

Me:  Hmm.  As a working man and a believer in self-sufficiency, this appeals to me as well.  Come election day, I will have to decide which policy I prefer when casting my vote.  Whoever wins, there will be both benefits and drawbacks.


See how reasonable that sounds?  Picking the candidate whose policies best match your personal views and opinions, then voting accordingly?  That is how it should be.

But for whatever reason, the process has devolved into a baser and frankly much more dangerous display of rhetoric.  See if you can spot the difference between the preceding debate and the following:


Candidate #1: My opponent will run the economy into the ground, everyone will lose their jobs except his rich friends, women and minority groups will lose all human rights, and wars will break out all over the world.

Candidate #2: My opponent will turn this country into the USSR because he is actually a Muslim Hitler and wants to burn down your house.

Candidate #1: My opponent worships Satan.

Candidate #2: My opponent is an evil alien.

Chuck Norris (ACTUAL QUOTE): If you vote for the wrong candidate, it will lead the world into a thousand years of darkness.


Yes, you read that correctly...a THOUSAND YEARS OF DARKNESS if you push the wrong button in the voting booth.  Apparently they're holding elections in missile silos now.

My problem isn't the foolish rhetoric, my problem is that we're whipping ourselves into this frenzy where we literally believe that the other guy will PHYSICALLY DESTROY THE WORLD.  It's not a question of fiscal policy, it's a question of Arma-fucking-geddon...which means not only does no one actually ADDRESS the very relevant needs of fiscal and social policy, but also that whoever wins, a substantial percentage of the population will then start barricading themselves into underground bunkers in preparation for the Apocalypse.

Because how can we move the country forward?  For weeks, months, even YEARS these people have been telling us that the "other guy" will rape and murder us.  Well, the other guy won...so what do we do now?  Sit down and work out logical compromises on critical issues in order to move the world forward, in spite of inevitable diversity?  How can we do that with a guy that OUR loser party told us would rape and murder us?

What scares me is that, looking at the situation, I only see two ways to end this cycle.  Number one, we all calm the fuck down and stop making every single issue a matter of life and death.  Neither candidate is a Commu-Nazi Terrorist, regardless of whether they supported a bank or closed a school.  Likewise, neither one is the reincarnation of Jesus/Ghandi/Buddha; they will inevitably do things we don't agree with.  That does not make them failures or liars; it makes them people, like the rest of us.

We need to calm down, because the second option is far worse.  The only other way I can think of to end this vicious Right-vs.-Left situation is to make this a world where everyone LITERALLY thinks exactly the same way...same opinions, same beliefs, same mentality.  Then they'll all vote for the same person, and there will be no need for mudslinging.  Or voting.  Or democracy.  Or people in general.

The scariest part of all is that, looking into some of these politicos' eyes, I get the disturbing feeling that they are actually looking forward to that day.

Psych Test

Picture if you will...

You're in the express line at the grocery store, three people ahead of you and maybe another three behind.  The next customer has a little personal buggy, covered in opaque canvas so the contents cannot be seen.  She begins to unload her selections onto the conveyor belt.

About ten items in, she looks up and sees the "1 to 8 items" sign.  She looks at the sign, looks at her buggy, looks at us, shrugs and continues to unload.  Items keep coming out of the buggy; 25 or 30 at least.  She is no longer making eye contact with anyone, including the cashier who is looking at the rest of us with a helplessly apologetic expression.

SO...

1. What should the cashier say/do, if anything?  Keep in mind her position, pay grade, and the constantly reinforced Western customer service mentality of "the asshole...sorry CUSTOMER is always right".

2. What should we, the other folks in line, say/do, if anything?  What are the boundaries of politeness?

3. Based on superficial observations, what do you think the woman in line is thinking?  She is not old, seems able-bodied, and is not dragging any children.  Should she have moved lines?  Would YOU, in the same situation?  Do you think she even cares?

4. When are we, as a society, going to stop thinking about ourselves all the time and start acting like decent human beings?  (Extra points if you can pinpoint this moment, give or take a century)

No Place Like Home

I love my apartment, I really do, but maintaining it isn't always easy.

No matter how hard I try, there will always be dust seeping through the cracks and a gradual buildup of waste that needs tending.  Regular maintenance is essential to keep it in pristine condition.

Otherwise I very much enjoy my apartment; I like spending time in it, playing games, watching movies, sleeping, eating, writing pointless nothings on the computer...all in all, we spend a lot of quality time together.  Even cleaning can be fun, if one is in the mood for it, play some music, get down to business...a real sense of accomplishment.

The key, as I have noted, is consistency.  The apartment must be cleaned on a REGULAR basis (capitals are mine).  It's amazing how fast something you love can fall apart without regular maintenance.

If I were only to work on it once a year, let's say on an 'anniversary' of cleaning, it would be a total disaster before I could even lift a broom.  Even if I doubled that amount and also made a point of caring on the recurrence of the day I moved in (the apartment's 'birthday', if you will), it would be an uphill battle.

Statutory holidays wouldn't be enough, either.  I also couldn't get away with 'only when there's company coming over'.  No, we're talking a daily basis here...every day I must do something to keep my apartment fresh and alive.

It doesn't always have to be huge; it can be little things like keeping the dishes from piling up or wiping down the sinks after use.  Closing the closet doors is a good habit, as it keeping junk off the floor (if it is, in fact, junk, it should be pitched; otherwise I must determine what the item is for and put it in the appropriate spot).

This is important.  I mean, it's not like I can just move somewhere else.  I've made a commitment; I have rent to pay and lots of furniture to sit on.  I can't just trash the place, get tired of it, and haul my stuff elsewhere because keeping the place clean is too much 'hassle'.  Like I said, I love the place.

Do you have an apartment?  Or a home (mobile or stationary)?  Do you take regular care of it, or do you just expect it to be clean when you get back without having to lift a finger?  Do you expect it to maintain itself?  Pardon me for saying, but that sounds a tad impractical...

Rainbow Connection

Seems it's been so long since I last wrote on here, they've completely changed the menu layout. Took way too long to find the "NEW POST" button...

Then again, haven't felt the rush of pithy venting for a while...

So it's pride week again, bang the drums and sound the trumpets, calling all fanatics its time to put your opinions on display for all the world to see! The more outlandish the better! Please, sign your name to something that will tarnish not only you and your own, but everyone who legitimately espouses the same dogma as you claim to!

This goes both ways, just so you know...each side of a debate has its share of people with high rage, low intellect, overdose of self-righteousness and 1 tbsp plus 1 tsp of free time. Of course, my response is: why can't I post my opinion, too? Isn't is as valid as everyone else's?

The answer is, it IS. To elaborate, my opinion should matter as much to you as everyone else's...that is, little to not-at-all. Make up your own damn mind.

But what really stimulated this upsurge is the recent furour over Oreo's decision to support the current festivities with a graphic depiction of an inappropriately multi-coloured cookie. It was a bold move, considering they've only just been forgiven their blatant attack on segregation. Even the so-called 'white' oreo was a thinly-veiled sham...I know there's still chocolate in there! YOU CAN'T FOOL ME, KRAFT!!!

What got my attention, though, is that it was the picture of the rainbow that really set people off. I personally don't know when the rainbow became a symbol of the equal-rights movement (I know it celebrates unity in diversity), but lest we forget, it has longer still had a much deeper root within the Christian faith itself.

Yes, the old boat-builder himself, Noah (of 's Ark fame) was promised by his (your, my, our) God that never again would a great disaster wipe out the world, in spite of whatever sins people might commit, and to solidify this pact a (you guessed it) rainbow was crafted in the sky...and in faith, the reason this same symbol appears after a rainstorm is as a reminder that the precipitation is only a temporary thing, never again rising to humanity-erasing levels (hey, optical physics, go straight to hell!)

Now let's examine this, shall we? Point one...God used a rainbow as a symbol. Thus, by railing against those who do the same (be they marchers or munchies) you are inadvertently railing against the same Almighty for whom you claim to be railing.

Point two...the promise. There will never be another disaster to wipe out sinners. Hear that? NEVER ANOTHER. Yeah, let's check it again, just to be sure. Oh, there it is, Genesis 9:11, NEVER ANOTHER. So please, stop wasting time and cyberspace with your prayers to 'rid the world of sinners'. Ain't gonna happen. You're stuck with the planet as is. Learn to deal.

Point three...the whole sinners thing in the first place. Let's look at Noah again. When God decided to rid the world of sinners (and right now you're thinking, great idea, all for it), he selected one good family to survive the storm. That's the carpenter himself, his wife, and three sons. (Side note: even THEY weren't all winners; one of Noah's sons was later condemned for staring at his father's boarding ramp while the old man was piss drunk. Also, Noah was apparently an alcoholic.)

So let's look at ourselves now. Ask yourself, am I that family? Am I Noah, or one of his sons? Notice Noah's parents didn't make the cut (though to be fair, they may not have been alive...the man himself was about 200). Nor is there mention of cousins, uncles, distant relations. Just the immediate family. No friends, neighbours, fellow church-goers. Five people. One family.

Out of the entire fucking world.

If there were to be another flood (impossible, of course...see point two), only five people in one family would survive. Hate to say it, but I'm pretty sure that's not me. Pretty sure it's not you, either. I can't imagine everyone in Noah's time was a murdering rapist. Might have been a few folks who just stole handkerchiefs or double-parked their donkeys. Didn't matter, though...if you weren't Mr. Perfect Noah, down the drain ye went.

Maybe, instead of condemning it, we should be extremely grateful for the rainbow. As far as I can tell of the world today, it's the only thing keeping us dry.

Grammar Lesson

WARNING! THIS POST CONTAINS EXPLICIT CONTENT!

As a devoted student of English and, at the same time, an unrepentant s***-disturber (I'm keeping the first paragraph clean in order to post a preview without offending any online censors) I'm sad that I never came up with this until now. This would have been a wonderful submission for a grade school vocabulary test.


The Parts of Speech:

For today's lesson we are going to examine the parts of speech in the English language and, to emphasize the lesson, we will take a single word and show how its context actually determines its role in the sentence. This word is "fucking".

VERB: A word describing an action. "They were fucking all night long."

NOUN: A person, place or thing. "The sound of fucking kept him up all night."

ADJECTIVE: Describes a noun. "He is a fucking maniac."

ADVERB: Describes a verb or an adjective. "They wouldn't fucking stop" or "That was fucking insane".

INTERJECTION: Expresses emotion. "Fucking jerks!"

ARTICLE: Specifies a noun. "The man who's noisy lovemaking kept me awake." = "Fucking guy!"

Does everybody understand? Excellent. You are now ready for adulthood.

Healthy Debate

So the Ontario government wants to make Physical Education mandatory until Grade 12. Let's not beat about the bush...here are a half a dozen reasons why this is a stupid idea:


1. Gym facilities in Ontario schools cannot accommodate every single enrolled student. Because phys. ed. has been, for most students, a drop-as-soon-as-possible course, tracks and pools and sports arenas have been constructed as needed and no more. To build adequate facilities to give every student in Ontario a PROPER (note the capitalization) exercise regimen would cost a great deal of money that I, frankly, do not want my taxes being wasted on.

2. We've already cut high school down to four years. That's barely enough time to complete required courses for any major university program (doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc.). If a largely unnecessary course became mandatory, any student who wanted to get a good university admission without completely burning out would probably have to take a fifth year, again costing the taxpayer more money. ADDENDUM: Universities tend to look down on people who take extra years of high school and/or have phys. ed. on their transcript (the stereotype is, of course, that they must not be that bright). Ontario students are therefore being handicapped in the race for admissions.

3. If you want to improve children's health, a standardized one-size-fits-all school program is possibly the worst way. Affordable, accessible, and above all ENJOYABLE after-school sports programs are a much better option. Forcing everyone to play basketball, even those who hate or aren't good at basketball, is beyond pointless. Allowing each child to choose a sport and/or activity that they're actually interested in...hmm, maybe they'd put more effort into that? Am I mistaken?

4. We are no longer allowed to fail students in public education. That's right, even if you're dumb, we don't want you to feel bad about it so we won't make you look foolish by being the only 15-year-old in grade seven. I'm not saying whether this is a bad thing or a good thing...but it should at least be consistent. I was an overweight, nonathletic high school student. If we can't embarrass the dumb kids, why must we force the fat kids to wear embarrassingly tight track shorts and jiggle sweatily around a track for forty minutes a day?

5. There's a reason that the antagonists in pretty much all high school movies are the gym teachers/coaches. I'm not saying they're all evil...but the 99% that are give the other 1% a bad name.

6. Phys. Ed. classes do not make you healthy, especially required ones. Everyone I know (myself included) who has lost a significant amount of weight has done so on a self-motivated basis. If you really want to get healthy, you will go out and do it yourself. Even military enrolment is voluntary. Good health cannot be forced.


Obviously I'm against this on a personal level because...well, because I hate phys. ed. But I think I've made some pretty reasonable arguments here. If you're the political type, and this actually does come on the table, please ask your MPP to at least think it through. Health is important, no question. Obesity and heart disease are serious problems in our society, no argument here. But there's a difference between ANY solution and the RIGHT solution. Mandatory gym classes may be the former, but they are most definitely not the latter.

A Short Post

Not usually one for this, today I found myself addicted to a rather lengthy online thread populated primarily by two repeated posters. One was a member of Occupy Canada, speaking out against fascism in all its forms. The other was an individual who disagreed with the first and his ideas, believing that Canada is nowhere near the level of a true fascist state and that the Occupy movement is an over-exaggerated waste of time.

The point, however, is not the arguments. The point is that the Occupy Canada representative made clear, well-reasoned arguments where premise led to conclusion, responded to each counter-argument succinctly and consecutively, and demonstrated a decent command of the English language. His opponent, on the other hand, peppered his comebacks with swear words, personal insults, and every fourth or fifth word of each paragraph was misspelled.

For Christmas, I received a book that transcribed the recent Toronto-based public debate between Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens on the subject of religion. I loved the present as it touched two of my deepest passions: 1. Theological Debate, and 2. Feeling smarter than people. This second one became more prevalent the further I read.

Granted, the time allotted for each argument was brief (first problem, right there...seriously, five thousand years of human development and we come to "tell me how religion has made the world better/worse in five minutes or less". You're basically inviting immature argument...or worse, snappy sound-bytes, but more on that later). Still, one would have hoped that two of the most advanced minds of our time could have come up with something even slightly orginal.

Blair: "Love"
Hitchens: "War"
Blair: "Aid in Africa"
Hitchens: "AIDS in Africa"
Blair: "Mother Teresa"
Hitchens: "Mother Teresa" (that one was at least slightly clever)

It went on as such for the duration. I lost count of how many times they brought up Israel and Ireland. It isn't that these aren't important points, to be sure, but they aren't particularly original. Worse, they aren't really points that can be argued with. No one is going to argue against Charity and in favour of Genocide. (Simpsons Season 4: "Amber, do you think the bill of rights is a good thing or a bad thing?" "Um......GOOD thing [bats eyelashes]"). The purpose of the debate was to argue the cause, not the effect. If they had really wanted to convince me, one or other of them should have been arguing that religion was what INSPIRED the things they were talking about (good or bad, depending on the viewpoint). But in the total of twenty minutes they each had, they barely even scratched the surface.

The fact is, argument is dead. It's been a moderately-paced process, confined largely to the latter half of the twentieth century. Can you imagine a time (and it did exist) when crowds gathered in town halls to watch a two-hour debate? In the nineteenth century, that was a "movie"! The advent of television brought the same info-tainment into the home, but the results were unexpected...suddenly the content of the argument mattered less than how the speaker looked on camera. 24-hour news reels (which I have previously lambasted) made it necessary to not only always have an off-the-cuff remark, but frequently to become mindlessly repetitive when original ideas ran dry. Human beings became broken records, even after they didn't use records anymore.

And now we have the internet. Unregulated, ungoverned. There are no rules, no guidelines. Anyone who wants to can splash their opinion out there for all to see (yes, I know, myself included). This is a wonderful thing; it means that debate is no longer confined to people with political power or money. If you have a good idea, there is an inexpensive way to make it public (i.e. beyond your drinking buddies). This is what enables the so-called 99% to be heard.

But there's a problem...there are no rules, no guidelines. Anyone who wants to can splash their opinion out there for all to see (yes, I know, myself included). And if you make an argument that I don't like, no matter how well-thought out or reasoned, I can come back with "Ya well u r a idiott" and post it at the same level, in the same font and style as whatever you have written. And if you're pure of heart, you will dismiss it and continue with your intellectual defence. Then again, after 1785 posts of the same derogatory slur (oh, forgot to mention, there are no time limits; you can post as often as you want, all that matters is your upload speed) you, too, might become worn out and drop down to my level.

Suddenly, "x+y=z" becomes "Your a f***ING idiot" (try getting away with that in a math class). It's retroactive, too...look at the Republican debates on television these days. What had once been a forum for educated discussion has degenerated to the same cynical mudslinging one would expect on a Facebook wall. Who can say the most pithy, memorable thing in the least amount of time? It's one of the worst fallacies in debate: attacking the debater instead of their argument. And it seems to be the order of the day.

There are reasons for this, of course, many reasons. It easier to curse at someone than to actually sit down and think out a reasonable statement. There are so many public forums nowadays that you almost HAVE to reduce your arguments to a single sentence; otherwise people will scroll down to the next item. No one bothers to read anything of length (frankly, I'm very impressed that you've gotten this far! Good for you, mate!). And, of course, the real bugbear of society...lack of proper education. No one argues properly because no one is taught how, and the standard is not maintained in the world at large.

Please, please, PLEASE make a counter-argument to anything I've said that you disagree with. And PLEASE make it even more long-winded than I am, full of big words that I need to look up in a dictionary...because debate is, at the end of the day, about learning things beyond what is contained in your own mind. You don't have to agree with your opponent...but just maybe the process will open you to new ideas that you otherwise would never have had.

And please, everybody, use the damn apostrophe key. It's getting lonely.

Real Live Monster

What's new with you? Nothing much? And me? Well, turns out I was traumatized as a kid and didn't even realize it!

I suppose some backstory is required. During one of my more recent bouts of nostalgia, I mentioned that I missed listening to some of the cassettes (anyone remember that great technology?) that I possessed as a child...in particular, Sesame Street's brilliant 'Born to Add' compilation. For those of you unfamiliar with this particular piece of genius, the album was an early-80s release combining parodies and sound-alikes of classic rock groups, songs and styles. Bruce Stringbean told his baby that they were 'Born to Add', Mick Swagger moaned that he could get no 'Co-operation', and so forth. The cleverly-altered lyrics were further complimented by fully mature instrumentals, as opposed to the pleasantly synthesized tones commonly associated with children's music.

Of course, it being the heyday of the show, the songs were also secretly educational. The Count and his bats helped us 'Count up to Nine', we learned about the circulatory system in 'Every Beat of My Heart', incredibly concise rules for healthy living are outlined in 'The Ten Commandments of Health' (too bad more kids didn't listen to that one; we may not have had all the problems we have today), and 'The Opposite Song' was about...well, you get the idea. Educational AND entertaining? What a concept!

So my wife, loving lady that she is, tracked down the most current CD release of this album and I found it neatly wrapped in my Christmas stocking. I promptly listened to the first track twice, admitting that this (in addition to the universally acclaimed 'Put Down the Duckie') was what first sparked my interest in the saxophone...there is a dynamite solo between the second and third verses. It was at track 2, however, that the surprises started.

The current cut contains fourteen tracks (the original had only thirteen) and four of them are new songs, written for the show after the original album had been released in 1983. Conversely, three of the originals had been removed. Two of them, I realized right away, were "Letter B" and "Hey Food", both Beatles parodies. While irritating, this isn't particularly surprising...given the legal controversies around anything Beatles-related, it only makes sense that the company would want to avoid unnecessary challenges by removing said sound-alikes (apparently there was some kerfuffle when the album was originally released, settled peaceably after MJ picked up the rights).

The third deletion, I admit, I honestly could not remember. It required judicious use of Google, at which point it all came back clear as day...second song from the end, where 'A Little Girl' (such creative nomenclature!) belts out Janis-Joplin style that "I Want a Monster to be my Friend". This isn't a particular parody of any song that I've ever heard, so why remove it? Again, thanks to Google and Wikipedia, the answer was quickly found:

If I make friends with a friendly monster
I'll let him bounce me on his knee
I'll let him do whatever he wants to
Especially if he's bigger than me!

In 1984, one year after the album's release, a protest was lodged with the producer's that this song, and these four lyrics in particular, encouraged child molestation. Yes, you read that correctly. A Sesame Street song about playing with a fictional friend might actually encourage children to (as the protest worded it) "give in to the inappropriate advances of adults".

As I mentioned, I grew up listening to this album. Throughout my childhood I was at no point placed in the above-mentioned scenario and I am thankful for that. Likewise, my heart goes out to any victims of abuse...it is absolutely unacceptable and I do not want to give the impression of downplaying in any way what a serious problem it is in our society. THAT BEING SAID, I really DO NOT THINK that (had the situation arisen for me) my first thought would have been "The puppet girl on Sesame Street said it was okay to play with big hairy monsters, so I guess I'll let this guy bounce me on his knee if he really wants to..."

This is always a difficult argument and it must be made carefully, not only because it involves such strong emotions but because there is such a delicate line to walk between over- and under-reacting. It goes without saying that the writers of this song never had this thought cross their minds for a moment (at least, I fervently hope not), and that as a result the song is innately harmless and should be left alone. That is followed by the rebuttal that, meant or not, it is better to be safe than sorry and as no one is really getting hurt by the deletion (except my aforementioned nostalgia) there is no reason NOT to remove it.

What it boils down to, for me, is the simple question: "Where does it end?" Anyone my age or older has seen the tepid pablum that passes for children's entertainment nowadays, Sesame Street included. That isn't even nostalgia talking; the 1980s featured Jim Henson, Fred Rogers, Fred Penner, Bob Homme (the Friendly Giant), Ernie Coombs (Mr. Dressup), to name a few...I could probably go on for paragraphs. The fundamental difference I see between then and now is the quantity of condescension, that is, the way that shows nowadays treat kids quite literally with 'kid-gloves', while the entertainers of the past spoke to kids on a simple yet respectful level. To quote Robin Williams, "You don't play DOWN to them, you just play TO them"

The sadly humorous part (and I know you're all thinking it on some level) is that a lot of the names I have mentioned or COULD mention would probably be accused of having similar tendencies to the monster song. Whether seriously or as a source of cynical comedy, our currently revisionist mindset is unforgivably harsh towards children's entertainment. Which, in turn, causes further restrictions on the part of producers and broadcasters, eventually reaching a point where every frame and every word is examined under a microscope for even the slightest hint of controversy. There are people out there with telephones and far too much time on their hands...that's all it really takes.

As I have said, this is a difficult and emotional debate and I do not claim to be absolutely right one way or the other. Yes, there are certain things that children should not see. But that is the responsibility of parents, not television screens. Do our children know the difference between right and wrong, fantasy and reality? If they don't, it isn't Cookie Monster's fault. Concerns about programming content should not be cause for complaint; rather, they should be looked at as "teachable moments", a chance to educate and inform rather than blindfold and shield. To tell the honest truth, I'm rather looking forward to having my own opportunity in years to come...

By the way, another track on the 'Born to Add' album is about a party where a group of monsters "Honk around the Clock". What do you think THAT encourages?