A Dark Night for the Dark Knight

   Just when you thought humanity couldn't get any more pathetic, some schmuck decided it would be a good idea to arm himself to the teeth and shoot up a movie theater.  Talk about fish in a barrel... I can think of no worse place to be when a nutcase starts firing than in a damn movie theater.  The story from the scene is disturbing, the death toll and number of people shot is alarming, and there are a lot of questions that still need to be answered.  How did this guy manage to get all of this ordinance into a movie theater?  Who is he and why did he do this?  And perhaps most importantly, is now the time to re-examine America's gun laws?

   The gun law debate is something I have struggled with for a long time.  Personally, I can't stand guns.  I think any instrument that has a one-button kill mechanism is entirely too dangerous to be put in the hands of the average human being.  Mistakes will be made, emotions will run high, there will be moments that will be regretted forever... but it will be too late.  And for every one person out there who is highly trained and trustworthy with a gun, there are thousands who should by no means be allowed to carry one.

   But it says right there in the constitution that we Americans have the right to bear arms.  It was written in, and as part of the freedom that we enjoy in this country, we should by law have the right to defend ourselves with the weapons of our choice.  To deny someone that right would be like saying that you cannot get behind the wheel of a car or you cannot openly worship your God.

   But the constitution was written hundreds of years ago... back when "arms" were muskets that barely fired, not the hyper-precise killing machines that are pumped out of factories today.  And defending yourself could be from a redcoat, or an indian, or a bear.  America is a very different place than it was back then, and I think we can all agree that just because something was once considered perfectly normal and "the law," doesn't mean it should stay that way (slavery anyone?)

   The bottom line is that statistically speaking, outlawing guns would reduce the number of murders, shootings, and incidents like this one.  This was an educated, intelligent man.  He had no criminal record or past that we know of yet, so of course he's going to have no trouble buying weapons.  Then something clicks and the next thing you know he's emptying clip after clip into innocent moviegoers on a Thursday night.  It's sick, and it shouldn't have happened.  If guns were outlawed, it would be much harder for someone like this to get his hands on weapons in the first place.  I look at it like the pitbull situation.  You can love pitbulls all you want.  You can claim that it's the owners, not the dogs, that make some of them vicious.  But in the end, if pitbulls were outlawed, there would be far fewer attacks around the country.  You can't argue statistics.

   And so it is my opinion that it should be the same way with guns.  Look you know that I am all about our personal freedoms.  And for just about any other scenario, I will fight tooth and nail for you to have the right to do whatever you want.  But most of those rights involve you harming yourself, NOT others.  And this is one instance where, even if it's by accident, you could instantly end someone ELSE's life.  That's not cool, and it shouldn't be so easy to do in this country.  Of course if guns were suddenly outlawed, it would open another Pandora's box.  Good luck getting those guns from the people who love them oh so dearly.

Politricks

   Have you ever met a politician you could trust?  Have you ever known anyone who thought THEY knew a politician they could trust?  If so, did you slap them upside their head?  You should have.  I don't care how young, smart, open, admirable, well-spoken, charming, whatever, your favorite candidate is... I guarantee you he or she cannot be trusted.  That's not to say they aren't good people, but being false is just part of the game they have to play in order to get to the top.

   "Why would anyone want to be president of this country?"  My uncle asked me that once.  He believed, and probably still does believe, that every president is crazy because only a crazy person would go through the Hell that is the presidential race to get there.  I think there's some sense to that.  Sure you might go into the race with lofty, "I'm going to make a difference!" type goals, but by the time they've gotten through the speeches, the debates, and the press, I'd be surprised if there's a shred of sanity left.

   Take for example this most recent race.  President Obama gave a speech in which he said "If you got a business, you didn't build that.  Somebody else made that happen."  Now it's obvious that he didn't mean to imply that entrepreneurs were incapable or unable to create and manage their own businesses.  He knows better than that.  You can tell by his mannerisms that he was just blowin' and goin,' and it came out wrong.  He even covered for himself later in the speech, clarifying what he meant.

   Mitt Romney jumped all over that, as any good politician would.  He used that as ammunition in one of his recent speeches, attacking Obama and actually quoting the words he used in that speech.  Now while that could be called "good politics," I want you to step back and really think about this for a minute.  Like I said it's pretty obvious that Obama didn't mean it like that... and yet here is Romney jumping all over him for it.  The people at that campaign probably didn't see the Obama speech, so for all they know he said it in his usual monotone intelligent voice.  That's not true, and it's not honest, and if you ask me it's shady.

   But wait, it gets worse.  If you think THAT'S shady, just wait until you see what the Obama folks came up with next!  This article was brought to my attention by my friend Jay Pennison (thank you sir), and I think it really does a nice job of showing you how both sides and ALL candidates play this game.  The Obama folks released an ad saying that Mitt Romney launched a "false attack" and "misquoted" President Obama.  They then play the Romney speech, followed by a different clip from the same Obama speech.  Anyone who sees this ad will now think that Romney is a dirty politician, when in reality, he was simply playing the game that we all play.  Do you think for one second if Romney screwed up like that, Obama wouldn't be all over it?  Or the media?  Or Letterman (what an ass)?  It's how the game is played, people.

   I don't care how well you think you know Mitt, or Barack, they are both dirty.  All politicians are.  It's just the way the system is built.  And anyone who thinks otherwise is a complete moron.  I don't care how pure a person you are, or how honest, if you keep those high morals and standards you will never make it to the presidency.  It's sad, but it's true.  And so, I implore you once again, to please keep your head on a swivel during these months leading up to the election.  Don't listen to soundbites, don't trust everything you hear, and don't follow any one candidate blindly, or because your friends like him, or because your race or religion likes him.  Keep your ear to the ground, keep your eyes open, and PLEASE make an educated decision in November.

21 Jump Street

   From Netflix:  In this action-comedy based on the 1980s-debuted TV show, Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum play youthful undercover cops who work the local high school. There to investigate a drug ring, the guys find that much has changed since their own school days.

   My Take:  I never saw the original "21 Jump Street," though I hear Johnny Depp was pretty dreamy in it.  As dreamy as Channing Tatum?  No idea.  But I'll bet you he was a better actor.  Anyway I can't say this was a good remake since I never saw the original, but I can tell you that it was an "alright" movie overall.

   There were some truly funny moments.  Glorifying drug use is nothing new in movies like this, even when they act like they're trying to stop drug users.  It's all treated like a game.  Whatever.  In this movie at least the drug use parts were sort of funny.  They showed the characters making complete asses of themselves, but they did it in a very realistic way.  Well, minus the teachers having them arrested.  There were also some really great lines and exchanges between the actors that made it all work pretty well, considering.  

   However, when the credits rolled, the best I could come up with was "eh, it was alright."  There just wasn't anything great about this movie.  It wasn't bad, but it also didn't stand out in any way.  It was just sort of, there.  I guess I had high expectations because it had the "Superbad" guy, though really he doesn't look well now that he's lost all that weight.  There's a difference between thin and sickly, and I think he's leaning toward the latter.  He was funnier fat... I dunno, maybe he should consider staying that way.  I was impressed with Tatum overall, though I think that's just because I had ZERO expectations for him going in.  Turns out he can actually be kind of funny.  Good for him.

   Ultimately I would say this movie is probably not worth watching.  I mean if you're bored, or your Netflix queue is looking a little drab, sure give it a shot.  Don't watch it with kids, and don't watch it with people who are sensitive to bad language.  Or just don't watch it at all.

Goon

   From Netflix:  When he's seen dispatching a rude opposing hockey player in the stands, Doug Glatt is hired by a rival team ... for his fighting skills. It seems the new team's star is gun-shy after being hit by a puck, and Glatt's job is to be his on-ice bodyguard.

   My Take:  Now here's a movie that took me completely by surprise.  When I saw the preview for this movie, which is basically a bunch of shots of Stiffler beating the ever-living-shit out of fellow hockey players, I thought "hell yeah I'm down."  But I was surprised to see that underneath all that awesome fighting, there's an actual movie hiding.

   What makes this movie work for me is that it takes something as inconsequential as minor league hockey and makes it exciting.  It doesn't make it overly-pathetic (like, say, "The Foot-Fist Way" did), and it doesn't make it overly glorious either.  It just is what it is, a good time for small towns in a country where hockey still rules.  But there's also a sense of honor in the game that I had never considered.  For all I know it's completely fake.  But the way it was portrayed in this movie, it makes me wish it was real.

   The story is also surprisingly good.  I like that the main character isn't some sort of hero.  He's just a side-guy in the main act, and yet he still has a very interesting story that he lives through and experiences.  And in the end, wouldn't ya know it, he actually makes a difference.  Impressive, impressive stuff.

   Oh, and let's not forget the fighting.  Some of the best punches and hits I've ever seen.  Not overly done like "The Replacements," and just funny enough without being hokey.  Hockey.  Anyway it was fun to watch and I couldn't help but laugh every time Stifler beath the ever-living-shit out of someone, as the preview would suggest.

    This one surprised me, and because of that I'm going to recommend you watch it.  It's got something for everyone.  Love (kind of), family (sort of), and lots and lots of ass kicking.  Enjoy.

   Hey I don't know if I've mentioned this here, but some friends and I got together and participated in the 48-Hour Film Festival.  We didn't win anything, but it was a great experience and one I will definitely try to do again.  You can check out our film here:  http://youtu.be/Gar-nmNtHX0

Extremely Silly

   In case you missed the hundreds of thousands of pictures everyone has been posting on facebook of their car thermometers, it's hot.  It's like, really hot.  Well, it's not that hot in Houston (I think we're in the 70s right now, actually), but if you live anywhere in the rest of the country, chances are you're feeling it pretty strong.  Except for those of you in San Francisco and Seattle.  Bastards
   Naturally, with the hot weather comes a slew of "news" reports about how mankind is actually the culprit behind global... er... climate change, as well as a bunch of "news" reports that say the exact opposite is true.  I swear it's like these columnists are kept tucked away in a cubicle in some dank, dark corner of these news outlets, only to be let out whenever the climate starts to become a talker.
   And it's silly.  There is compelling proof on both sides of the issue.  We are now producing  unbelievable amounts of CO2 and other contaminates that are destroying our atmosphere.  It was hotter back in medieval times than it is now.  You've shown me study after study that prove you are both right and the other is wrong.  The question is, who cares?
   Who cares whether or not we are in fact to blame for the warmer climate?  Who cares if it's actually just a natural event or cycle that the planet goes through?  Is that really the debate we should be having right now?  Don't answer, I'll do it for you.  No.  WHO or WHAT is causing the climate to change is not important.  What's important is that for the first time in the history of mankind, we are at a point where we can actually make a difference and do something about it.
   Yet we are not.
   Why do we still have cars that run on oil?  Why do we still prefer coal power over wind or solar?  Why do we still throw our bottles and wrappers in the trash instead of sending them to the recycling center?  I'll tell you why: because it's not cool to do any of those things yet.
   You could probably have asked this same question about our health back in the 80s or 90s.  Why is no one jogging three miles every day?  Why are people stuffing their faces with McDonald's instead of smoothies?  Why don't we take better care of ourselves?  That was then, this is now.  Just look around you.  You can't go for a walk without seeing three or four "spas."  Everything you buy at the grocery store has some sort of note on it now... Gluten free!  Sugar free!  Flavor free!  Screw french fries, McDonald's is now trying to hand out fresh fruit.  It's a complete flip from what we saw just 15 or 20 years ago.  But now it's cool to be in shape.  It's cool to eat bland soy protein bars and post updates of your totally rad workout routine.
   The problem is, it's too late.  While yes, it may be cool to be thin and in shape now, there are many many people who didn't get on board soon enough or were already too far gone by the time the trend kicked in.  We've got a lot of fatties running around, is what I'm getting at.  But fatties will grow old, weak, and dead.  A new generation of Earthicans will pop up and we will all be healthier from here on out, because of the framework we have laid in place.
   We don't get that opportunity with the environment.  "Too late" is too late, and that's it.  We don't get another chance.  Unless we leave Earth, which would be awesome.  But we probably won't be doing that, Titan A.E. style.  Instead we're going to have to figure this one out, and hopefully before it's too late.
   I come back to my original question: who gives a shit whether or not we are responsible for global warming?  The bottom line is, we're capable of making real, effective changes right now, and we're not doing it.  Oil is easy, but it is not the right answer.  Coal is cheap and plentiful right now, but it's not the right answer.  Plastic containers that take a thousand years to biodegrade (if at all) are convenient, but they are not the right answer.  This is all stuff that we have the answers to right now, but we are too afraid to move on any of them.  Things are being set in motion.  Even though the Prius is a hideous car, it is gaining in popularity.  Hybrids are actually okay for most people now, and some of them aren't too shitty.  I still think Hydrogen is the way to go, but that's another argument for another time.  The boulder has started rolling, but it is rolling WAY too slow.
   Will moving forward with cleaner energy and waste be the answer to solving global warming?  Maybe, maybe not.  But who cares?  It needs to happen regardless.  We have the technology.  We can rebuild it.

Romney's Race Card

   The NAACP are having a convention in Houston right now.  They were kind enough to invite Mitt Romney to speak, as well as President Obama.  Obama declined, which is understandable.  He does have a country to run, after all.  But Romney accepted, which I have to say surprised me.  "Why would he go into such hostile territory?" I asked myself.  "Why would he even bother trying to gain African American votes?" I wondered.  "Why even bother?"
   And of course, the media so far has agreed with me.  All I heard about yesterday was "Mitt Romney trying to steal black votes."  And today, after the speech, headlines are reading "Mitt Romney booed at NAACP convention."  He was.  Incidentally, he was also applauded on a couple of points.
   This is  all sad.  I'm ashamed to admit that I thought those things.  That's stereotyping, and it's wrong.  It's also sad that the media would try to turn something like this into a race play.  Mitt Romney trying to "steal" black votes?  Why would he have to steal anything?  Are African Americans not intelligent enough to make up their own minds?  Just what is the media suggesting?
   Media, of course, is just after ratings.  Can you blame them?  That's how they make their bread and butter.  It's like telling a dog not to fetch.  Sure it can get annoying, but it's what they do.  At least it's what mine does.  It's ALL mine does.  Anyway, I think we can call say that we fully expect this type of behavior from media.  But what has disappointed me is something that I will probably catch a lot of flack for.  What has disappointed me is that I have seen people who are proving the media right.
   If you want to vote for President Obama in November, fine, go right ahead.  I won't try to stop you.  He is an intelligent, well-spoken guy with a clear and defined plan for this country.  I may not agree with that plan, but I can see that he has one and he does have a way of carrying it out.  Mitt Romney is also a smart man, and he also has a plan for this country.  And I would never ask any of you to agree with his plan or my support of it.  But what I will ask you is that you base your voting decision on THESE topics, NOT race.
   In other words, vote for Obama because he is smart.  Vote for him because you like his character, you believe in him, you think he is honest, you agree with his plans for this country, you think he is a good leader, etc.  NOT because he is black.  And don't vote AGAINST him because he is black, either.
   Do we seriously not recognize that we are all falling into the exact trap that Martin Luther King begged us NOT to fall into?  We are judging the president of our country on the color of his skin.  Not the quality of his character.  Not because of what he is or what he stands for, but because of what he LOOKS like.  Pathetic.
   So if you are planning on voting for Obama, or voting against him for that matter, all I ask is that you please think long and hard about WHY you are making the decision you are making.  Do you know what the issues are?  Do you know what his stand is on those issues?  Do you know how either of these candidates' plans would affect you moving forward?  Or are you just voting for someone because of his race?  It's a tough question to ask, and for some it will be an even tougher question to answer... but until we can get past these types of issues, our country will remain divided on race.
   I for one think it's fantastic that Romney went to speak at the NAACP.  Why wouldn't he?  It'd be like him not speaking at a church or a school or a car dealership.  It's another convention, another podium for him to use to get his message out.  Why wouldn't he use it?  And I'm also glad to hear that he got some applause and even a standing ovation when he left.  That tells me that the majority of people who attended that convention are intelligent, equality-loving people who may not agree with what Romney is saying, but will agree that he is still a human being and deserves to be treated like one.  Let's do the same for Obama, and then we'll have ourselves a nice little election here in a few months.  Deal?

Jeff, Who Lives At Home

   From Netflix: Siblings Jay and Mark Duplass direct this comedy focusing on two brothers -- one a moderate success, the other still living with Mom. A trip to the store for glue, however, turns into an encounter with destiny for the stay-at-home slacker.
   My take: so "Marshal" from "How I Met Your Mother," and "Andy" from "The Office," are in a movie together.  Sounds good.  Sounds funny.  Sounds worth a try.  Well, after watching it, I can say "meh, I guess."  I don't know what it was about this movie, but it just wasn't quite there.  Maybe it was the timing of everything... like the humor was a little off.  Maybe these two actors just don't meld together... I mean they don't look very much alike, yet they are supposed to be brothers.  Or maybe it was the roles they played... Marshal was good, but Andy being a dick?  Kind of weird.  Or maybe it was all the fucking snap-zooms that happen in every fucking shot and ruined the entire fucking movie.  Yeah it was probably that.
   This movie committed the cardinal sin for me: it tried to be quirky and funny and weird, when it had no need to be.  It reminded me of "Garden State."  There's one scene in that movie where Natalie Portman suddenly throws her arms up in the air and starts squealing like a little piglet.  It only goes on for a second, but in that second I (a) almost vomited, and (b) almost turned off the movie.  It's because that movie was trying to make some grand statement, but it was completely unfounded, completely out of place, and completely forced.  "Garden State" was not a good movie, and if you think it was then you are not my friend.
   But "Jeff" COULD have been a good movie.  It HAD the powerful story.  It HAD a great idea, and great characters, and great emotion, and a nice twist.  It had all the pieces, but it was executed so poorly that it ruined the entire experience.  Why shoehorn in all this snap-zoom lesbian screwy marriage quirkiness that doesn't need to be there?  Just let the story breathe and be its own thing.  Let it all play out the way it looked on paper, and you've got yourself something great.  Something along the lines of "Stranger Than Fiction."  Instead you force all this shit and ruin the thing with your poor taste and even poorer camera skills.
   "Jeff Who Lives At Home" is a pretty decent movie.  I made it all the way through, and I have no regrets.  But it's frustrating to see something that could have been great, and yet all it does is "good" and roll credits.  Too bad.


WHO WANTS CHOWDA?