Catching Fire (Movie Review)

 So in keeping with my unofficial and spontaneous tradition, on Thursday I saw the new Hunger Games movie on opening night. As with before, Catching Fire was played to a packed house... and didn't disappoint.

In the time since Katniss and Peeta (Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutchinson) won the last Hunger Games, they've had to live in isolation as a fake couple. Their contrived romance from the first movie -- done solely to keep each other alive -- as well as their open defiance to the government, has inspired outbreaks of dissent across Panem; so much so that open revolt is all but inevitable. President Snow (Donald Sutherland) has threatened to wipe out Katniss and Peeta's hometown if they do not subdue this with their "Victors' Tour", but when their appearances only inspire more defiance, and with it more brutality, Snow concocts a new tournament: Katniss and Peeta are forced to compete with past competitors from the last 25 years of the games, and if they survive their district will be wiped off the map.

While the storyline is relatively thin, there was a lot going on in this movie, in terms of subtext and commentary. One of the things I loved about the previous film was its jab at reality TV. In this one, it's dialed up to 11; not only are Katniss and Peeta basically doomed to live a false romance for the rest of their conceivable lives -- even having to fake a marriage -- solely to placate the masses, but every last victor we have ever seen from these games has serious mental damage. Unlike the previous story, Suzanne Collins' inspiration of a clash between Survivor and Iraq War coverage actually makes a sick amount of sense, as these "best of" games are effectively forcing badly wounded war veterans to back into another battle, and the whole thing is treated as a game show.

So, long story short, I loved how the characters' actions throughout the story are basically designed to be a giant middle finger to Snow and the society he nutures.

There really isn't much more that I can say, to praise the movie. The story is very tight (if a bit rushed), the action scenes better, THEY GOT RID OF THE DAMN SHAKY CAM FROM THE FIRST MOVIE, and the characters have visibly evolved from the previous movie. This is particularly evident with Effie (Elizabeth Banks), who gradually acts like... well, a real and thoughtful person... as it really sinks in what these games are making people do (by the way I also like that they didn't really preach about this to the audience). Even Peeta, who came off as a bit of a wimp in the first one, shows some steel and smarts the sequel.

There are really only two criticisms that I can make. First, I don't particularly care for Liam Hemsworth as an actor. It's not like his readings are inhuman or anything, but they aren't particularly engaging, either (not helping is that he's never had anything to do in either of the movies released so far). The other is one that was suggested to me by Andrew Carter; the movie has PTSD as an element among the survivors -- Woody Harleson's Haymitch is an alcoholic, some of the other victors are said to be substance abusers, others still are visibly traumatized or psychopathic, and even Katniss is shown to have flashbacks in the first three minutes of the movie -- yet they really could have done more with it. One of the few things that the first movie did better than this one, was that the final minutes before the games actually start are REALLY suspenseful, and you can see the plain terror among everyone as it becomes all too real what they are about to do. This movie -- despite having a cast of competitors that has been through it all, with scars to prove it -- just seems to brush it off as if it's... well, a Bond movie.

But those gripes don't take away from a pointed and thrilling movie, with fantastic twists and a shocking ending. Don't miss it.

(Now) Admitted Crackhead Rob Ford Refuses to Resign

Those of you who were on Twitter today, probably noticed that not only was #TOPoli trending, but it was absolutely EXPLODING. All over the news -- around the world -- was that Toronto's far-right mayor Rob Ford admitted to having used crack cocaine on at least one occasion.

This is on the heels of a week that has shadowed his office -- and by extension, his family, given his brother Doug is a councillor -- with arrests made in relation to a videotape showing him smoking from a crackpipe, in the company of known drug dealers. A video that, for a long time, Ford insisted didn't exist. A video that publicized frame grabs clearly shows Rob Ford himself. A video that has been so damaging to his image, that some of his associates -- people whom he has described as "good guys" -- have been arrrested on charges of assault and extortion, in connection to efforts to find and suppress it.

A video that it has now been alleged, Ford's Press Secretary hired a hacker to try to destroy. A video that the Fords have insisted Police Chief Bill Blair resign for investigating.

Oh, and this is on the heels of it being revealed that Rob Ford has given glowing reference letters to friends of his who are convicted murderers. On top of the very real possibility that he arranged the murder of at least one of the people he was seen partying with, in the original video.

At around 4:20 this afternoon -- no, I'm serious, that really was the time -- Rob Ford came out to a scripted press conference, to follow up on his admission that he not only lied SEVERAL times to the city he claims to love and represent, but that he committed a fairly serious crime. Everyone outside of Ford Nation (ie. everyone with basic moral and ethical standards) hoped he would resign. Instead, he simply apologized, and had the gall to announce HE IS RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION.

Allow me to give my thoughtful response: Mr. Ford, you piece of shit!

I don't want to attack the man just for his addictions -- they are a genuine illness, and to give Ford SOME credit, he looked genuinely mortified during the press conference. However, that doesn't change the fact that he not only broke the very same laws that he has PUBLICLY championed throwing the book at common folk over, but that on MANY OCCASIONS this past year, he flatly denied that he even had a problem in the first place! In fact, even this morning, when he finally admitted to having smoked crack, he claims that he said otherwise up to this point because not one person in the media or public "asked him the right question".

Are you fucking KIDDING me? If any of us working-class slobs that Ford claims to be one of -- even though he isn't -- pulled any of this, they would not only be FIRED IMMEDIATELY, but they would be arrested. Especially when there's a lot of evidence that he tried to block the police from ever finding out about it, AND YOU FLAT OUT ADMITTED IT TO THE MEDIA, IN THE FREAKING INTERNET AGE! You can't take this stuff back, Rob!

Oh and you had the cojones to DEMAND (through your big brother Doug), that Chief Bill Blair resign for doing his job. The very same job you encouraged him to do, when running for office. You fucking cockshit, you have NO place to call for anyone's resignation, after what you have pulled! You, who demanded that city workers be fired for having their heads on their desks (allegedly sleeping on the job -- which you've been caught doing, yourself), have NO INTEGRITY WHATSOEVER.

It's already appalling that Ford has gotten away with this much. If he makes it to next year's election, and SOMEHOW gets re-elected -- this guy who was already awful at the job he supposedly loves so much -- then Toronto 100% deserves what happens. This is the SINGLE WORST CANADIAN POLITICAL SCANDAL -- at least in local politics -- that has happened in my lifetime. Even if they don't normally vote, THE PEOPLE MUST VOTE NEXT YEAR. Put a stop to this -- stand up for yourselves, and your city. Rob Ford has personally made it into a terrible joke, and right now you are letting him get away with it.

No more!

Shutdown Stupidity

If you pay any attention at all to the news, I'm sure you already know: the Republican Tea Party, shut the US government last night. All because they want to gut or defundaffordable health care. Which has already been elected law, ratified by the Supreme Court, and endorsed by Obama's landslide re-election. Which NEARLY ALL AMERICANS WANT THEM TO LEAVE ALONE. Which they have failed to do, FORTY-TWO TIMES ALREADY.

And what's more, Obama and the Democrats tried to cut costs in other areas, to satisfy budget needs -- but the Teahadists would have none of this. For some reason, these people -- who only work a hundred or so days a year, and whose health care is 100% covered by the taxpayer -- are VERY livid at the idea of common people NOT having to pay through the nose for a trip to the hospital. So much so that they have single-handedly brought public services -- and that's not an oxymoron -- to a grinding halt. They have even threatened to SHUT DOWN THE MILITARY, DURING A WAR to do this (something that was only avoided because Obama made an executive order).

This is not taking a principled stand. This is treason -- and just to be an evil fucking asshole. And despite what some Tea Party mouthpieces claim, PEOPLE ARE NOT BUYING THIS -- the Tea Party's only friends here, are their own echoes.

And in case I actually need to explain what is wrong with the far-right's constant time wasting and dickery, I'm going to try -- no doubt in vain -- to explain this. Say that I'm married to someone who is constantly picking fights, emotionally abusive, and domineering overall. Say that I managed to come into money, or otherwise raised enough on my own, and wanted to donate it to... oh, a hospital, a shelter, something worthwhile. And before you bring it up, yes we can afford to do it, because we've got debt well under control, or something. What the Tea Party is doing, is basically akin to changing my house locks and locking me out of my own bank account, because I wasn't going to instead buy her an outdoor pool.

Frankly, if this ever actually happens to me, I will INSTANTLY divorce the bitch, and press all possible criminal charges. If there is anything Obama can possibly do, to punish these Tea Party TERRORISTS, then he should do so as soon as possible. They do not know the meaning of reasonable opposition, anymore. They simply want to run over Americans with a steamroller.

Dune: The Alternative Edition -- Redux (Fan-Edit Review)

After many ill-fated attempts in the 1970s, a feature film of Frank Herbert's sci-fi classic Dune hit the theatres in 1984. The most expensive movie of its day, and intended to be the first in a trilogy, the David Lynch/Dino De Laurentiis production instead bombed at the box office, mutually alienating casual viewers and fans of the novel. Today, it stands as a cult classic; more of a cerebral guilty pleasure, than an overlooked masterpiece. This is especially so, given the infamous extended television cut, disowned by Lynch, and long lost until finally released on DVD a few years ago.

Sure enough, the fan-edit community took it upon themselves to attempt to salvage the troubled and haphazard production. One of the best-received ones, comes from Spicediver, whose "Alternative Edition -- Redux" is his final word on the subject. For the sake of fairness, I will review the film itself, and his cut, as separately as possible.

Some ten thousand years in the future, humanity has spread across the galaxy, ruled by the paranoid Emperor Shaddam IV (a horribly miscast Jose Ferrer). Behind the scenes, mystics and corporate interests pull various strings, all dependent on the mind-expanding Spice -- a substance that is found only on the desert planet of Arrakis. Shaddam, threatened by the rising popularity of Duke Leto Atreides (Jurgen Prochnow), sets a trap for him on Arrakis, by sending him there to supposedly take over Spice production. In reality, the Duke's mortal enemy, Baron Harkonnen (the freaking absurd Kenneth McMillan) ambush and murder him, driving into exile the Duke's son Paul (Kyle MacLachlin) and concubine Jessica (Francesca Annis). They are left to join the desert nomads, the Fremen, and exploit their messiah legends to seek revenge against the whole Imperium.

Frankly, reviewing this movie is a lot like trying to solve a Rubik's Cube, but I will do my best. When I first saw this movie, ten years ago, I really hated it. Not only were many performances from somewhere beyond Mars, but the special effects looked like something out of an old Thunderbirds episode, and someone decided that EVERY -- SINGLE -- THOUGHT needed to be narrated to the audience. I've watched movies with blind people, who didn't have this much of the movie described to them. Additionally, I first saw the theatrical cut; whether or not it's even possible to tell the Dune story in just two hours, is debatable, but this attempt tried to do so at the expense of the key Fremen people. In the book (and later miniseries), the Fremen are a fairly complex and highly spiritual culture, yet the theatrical version presents them as little more than cavemen with mild technological awareness.

There was also the utter pillaging of some of my favourite elements of the books -- a unique martial arts fighting style, called The Weirding Way, is inexplicably turned into people firing ray guns, by shouting certain words into a microphone... or something. Then there's the ending -- this ridiculous, emotionally unjustified, and narratively sacreligious denouement, where Paul not only becomes Space Jesus (when the novels depict him as something closer to Osama Bin Laden), but somehow makes it rain all over Arrakis. This is not only never set up, or particularly well explained, but the novels make it explicitly clear that this would actually HARM Arrakis, rather than help it. Suffice it to say, it was one of the few things that Herbert utterly loathed, about the movie.

Yet, there were still elements of the movie that I liked; the art direction had its moments, it's quite beautifully photographed, I think that Paul's own spiritual journey was presented reasonably well (including MacLachlan's performance), a lot of the dialogue is surprisingly pretty, the action scenes were fairly good, and despite occasionally dating itself, the score by Toto and Brian Eno works quite well. When I later rented the Extended Edition, it went on to remedy the issues with the Fremen, and as much as I still disliked the movie overall, I was willing to concede that it was a fair adaptation of Frank Herbert's novel.

Then, along my web surfing, I'd heard about this fan-edit, and decided to give it a look. It takes various scenes from the theatrical cut, extended edition, and deleted scenes, and basically does its best to make them play nice with each other. Effect scenes are completed, where needed, scenes are shuffled into a new structure (including a clever use of the infamous animated opening, that made Lynch take his name off the Extended Edition), the ending is now much closer to the novel... and THE VOICE-OVER WAS GONE!!! (well, about half of it, but Boy Howdy did they axe the worst of it!)

Honestly, that simple deletion alone, did a surprisingly large amount to improve my opinion of this film. Without every single nuance constantly interrupting the movie, I can finally digest and appreciate the performances, and actually reflect on what's going on. WhileDune is a challenging story, at the best of times, at least the novel and miniseries generally acted as if the audience had an average IQ. Now, the film does as well. Unfortunately, while some of the deleted scenes needed to be restored, for the sake of the narrative, it's also quite obvious when the viewer is watching them -- the normally pristine picture quality, suddenly drops like a stone, and it feels like you're suddenly watching a Quicktime video instead of a movie. I also think that some more of the voice-over could have been removed, without damaging the storytelling, and I think that some odd or pathetic moments concerning The Baron should have been cut out as well; namely, the completely out of place doctor character, his increasingly random and annoying cackling, and this butt-f*ck-out-of-nowhere fixation he has with Duke Leto's ring.

I know that last part seems random, but it just really irks me in general, how the Harkonnens were turned from clever sadists, to erratic-as-hell Looney Tunes characters. Kenneth McMillian's performance already comes off as this cross between a stereotypical Texas oil tycoon and John Wayne Gacy, but this contrived and quickly abandoned obsession with the ring TURNS HIM INTO FREAKING GOLLUM. This would have been VERY easy to remove, and frankly I don't get why Spicediver didn't do so.

Then there are things that, to be fair, would have been impossible to fix with a fan edit -- the visual effects that would embarrass Asylum Pictures, the aforementioned Harkonnen Clowns (and no, this isn't made any better with Paul Smith or Sting, though the latter has a couple of moments), many of the supporting actors in general just being way too over the top, and Alicia Witt's REALLY distracting dub job (honestly, if it wasn't for the deleted scenes I would never have been convinced that that was her own voice we hear). That's not Spicedriver's fault, but anyone thinking of watching this for the first time should be warned about that.

So, my final verdict on The Alternative Edition: Redux... If we're honest, this was an exercise in turd polishing. However, it did work. While this version of David Lynch's Dune is by no means a sudden masterpiece, but it does make this an average movie. In a lot of ways, it's still trash cinema, but the soul and intelligence beneath it can actually come through, now. If this had been commercially released by Universal, I would have gladly bought it -- I think that's the best compliment you can give a fan-edit.

Sick of Die-Hard Fanboys

Lately, I've really been having it up to my saggital suture, with the nerdiest of the sci-fi nerds. Namely, the guys and gals who are so entrenched in their personal interpretations of their favourite movies/TV shows/sub-genres, that anyone coming in with a different view can meet the business end of the Martian Death Ray. To a certain extent, I saw a lot of this when Pacific Rim came out (shortly before it became obvious that only ten people in the US saw it). Not only did I see the fanboys pile on anyone who said they simply weren't blown away by it, even when said reviewers said beforehand that giant robot movies aren't their thing... but when I simply said that I disliked the filmmakers, on an article about their premium ticket packages, I was accused of calling Guillermo Del Toro a sell-out just for making a big robot movie in the first place.

At which point I firmly explained to this person, that if he had any grasp whatsoever of English, he would have been able to tell that I was referring to Del Toro continuing the trend of charging people $60 just to go to a freaking movie theatre. Because that was the entire focus of the article being commented on.

More recently, the build-up to the upcoming Star Wars sequel trilogy has attracted no shortage of JJ Abrams bashers. You know, the guy who has produced and written some of the hottest TV series in recent memory? The guy who actually made Star Trek successful again, cool, and maybe more popular than ever? (more on that, in a minute) Yeah, for some reason, this guy is getting more fan hate, than the borderline sell-out of a creator who has made nothing but boring and ugly schlock for the last decade and a half (some would say more), and has personally insulted the very fans who gave him the freedom to do this, for not wanting him to constantly tamper with the few good movies he's been associated with.

Just to be clear, even though I don't have a clue why anyone would find the prequel trilogies awesome across the board, I'm not trying to attack them for having these views. To be fair, I can find the prequels tolerable... when I'm watching at home and can hit the mute button. And skip the scenes that just look like a cheap video game. More to the point, I find the prequels to be more a source of unintended humour, than truly awful films. If you think they are the best things since sliced bread, I reserve the right to ask you why this is (I'll do my best to be tactful about it), but I certainly will not call for a Butlerian Jihad.

To get back on topic, seemingly just because Abrams is directing these new movies -- with scripts written by established and very accomplished other writers, I might add -- the die-hards are just being vicious towards him about any rumours whatsoever associated with the film. Big names in the cast, the return of certain characters, the return to physical effects as much as possible, you name it. I mean, heaven forbid that Abrams actually try to make a movie THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL WANT TO SEE!

Unfortunately, I'm not sure if my earlier courtesy applies to the current branch of die-hard Star Trek fans. To the confusion and embarrassment of many, a poll at a big Trek convention in Las Vegas last week, revealed that the currently decided Worst Trek Movie Ever is this year's Star Trek: Into Darkness. That's right, worse than The Motion Picture, worse than The Final Frontier, worse than Insurrection, and worse than... Galaxy Quest?? (seriously how did that even get on the list?)

Clearly I've been aiming this article at nerdy people, but for once I'll try to explain this to the uninitiated. The Motion Picture was as slow as continental drift, and ultimately didn't go anywhere. The Final Frontier was a visually hideous egotrip that made very little sense.Insurrection was a morally questionable lark that tried to make people care more about 600 lazy cowards, than about billions of people dying in a major war that is conveniently left off-screen. I don't pretend for a second that Into Darkness was a masterpiece, but the worst that I can say about it off the top of my head was that it was overly repetitive of The Wrath of Khan, they wasted some serious opportunities with the villain, and that the so-called stumbling blocks for Kirk got undone in about five minutes.

Yet to hear the die-hard Trekkies bitch and whine about it, you'd think that JJ Abrams had turned the thing into Hostel-like torture porn. I'm dead serious, they are THAT mad about it. To date, when I've confronted them about it, the fans have never explained what he did that was so horrible. The most coherent explanation I can get is something about action over ideas. Okay, fair enough, there is more that can be done with Trek than simply being a shoot-em-up. But first of all, there were ideas in Into Darkness -- much of it was very obvious commentary on the War on Terror, specifically the trend towards drone warfare. Second of all, the TOP RATED movies on this list -- The Wrath of Khan and First Contact -- were very much action films, themselves. First Contact in particular, barely bothered with ideas at all, and spent much of the time being a knock off of Aliens. There is simply no logical reason why mindless action should be praised in one movie, and eviscerated in another.

If you're going to get on an ideological high-horse, at least be consistent about your principles, or you stop being a fan, and become a fanatic. And then no one will want to see those movies you love so much, and no more will ever be made. Much like Anakin Skywalker, you will turn into your own worst enemy.

Man of Steel (review)

I was very reluctant, to see this latest reboot of the Superman character. Not only was the reception mixed at best, from critics and fans alike, but frankly... I'm not that big on the character. Leaving aside that compared to other superheroes, his motivations are rather bland and simplistic (some would even say naive), the way much of media has protrayed him as virtually invulnerable, make it rather hard to feel tension. I'll elaborate on this, later, but suffice it to say I really only saw this movie, as a night out with my friends.

I'm glad that I did, though.

There's not a lot I can say about the story, because about half of it is just yet another origin story for Kal-El/Clark Kent/Superman, the last son of Krypton. In this version, his parents (including the stoic Russell Crowe, as Jor-El) take it upon themselves to have a natural childbirth, when Krypton has been mined into oblivion. This is considered heresy, so when General Zod (Michael Shannon) attempts to take over the planet, this earns his ire -- even though this allows for the survival of the Kryptonian people.

When Kal-El reaches Earth, he is adopted by the Kents, learns he has powers, wants desperately to help others, etc. etc. We see takes on Clark growing up, that we've never seen before, but the overall story is very familiar. Crap starts to hit the fan, when Zod and his followers have managed to find Earth, and realize that Kal-El is there. They are desperate to re-create Krypton, and they will kill Superman and everyone on Earth, in order to do it.

The performances all around are very good -- Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Laurence Fishburne, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, and especially Henry Cavill, to name many others -- knock it out of the park. I was worried, from the trailers, that much of this would either be scenery chewing or overly sentimental pap. However, the actual film does an excellent job at keeping things dramatic yet grounded. The story was a mixed bag, for me. I loved -- LOVED -- that they didn't make Superman all-powerful and seemingly indestructible, for a change... meaning that there was some legitimate danger to him, for the first time I've seen in a movie. However, I couldn't wrap my head around why in the world Jor-El infused his son, with the DNA of all Kryptonians -- what exactly was supposed to be done with that? Was Jor-El planning on having Supes revive his species, by shedding skin cells?

The movie has been accused of being a bit too dark, given the character, but I'm not totally sure that's the case. Then again, I was one of the few people who seemed to find any humour in the Dark Knight trilogy, so it might just be my idea of comedy. They certainly make the flying scenes a lot more fun, than I've seen in a long time. However, I am one of those who finds it a bit peculiar that Superman would be trusted, after seemingly letting two fairly big American cities get demolished by Zod's forces. However, the action scenes are all very exciting, and surprisingly easy to follow -- despite the constant shaky cam, and many of the players looking the same.

If you're a die-hard Superman fan... I'm really not sure if you would like this or not. However, as a popcorn movie, it's hard to go wrong. Though to be honest, the 3D isn't strong enough to be worth the extra money.

Controversies in STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS

Okay, now that some other dust has settled, it's past time for me to comment on some contentious issues, regarding Star Trek: Into Darkness -- some of which have been widely talked about, some of which haven't. In no particular order...

Space Babes In Underwear

Okay, I'll admit it, when I first saw the completely random trailer image of Alice Eve's Dr. Carol Marcus standing inside a shuttlecraft, wearing only a bra and panties for no apparent reason, I had to suppress a cynical chuckle. Yes, it's cheap. It's gratuitous (especially out of context). Frankly, I thought that even an amped-up version of Trek could do better, to sell the movie to mass audiences. But the words "sexist" and "misogynistic" never crossed my mind.

For one thing, the only way this even REMOTELY qualifies as "nudity", is if you're so ashamed of your own body that you don't have a bathroom mirror because you're disgusted to glimpse yourself coming out of the shower. Seeing a woman's cleavage, stomach, and thighs, is not on the same level as seeing her nipples, buttocks, or vagina. There's a reason why nude and non-nude beaches are considered separate things.

For another... have the complainers even SEEN the original Star Trek? Here's some of the more... notable... female guest costumes.

As you can see, the original series -- made in a time so conservative that an INTERRACIAL CREW was considered to be edgy -- was no stranger to copious female flesh, including coming very close to side boob and side butt. Furthermore, at least the new movie provides SOME explanation, for Marcus being seen in her skivvies -- she's changing uniforms, right before a mission -- which is more than we usually got for these outfits on the show. Furthermore, the show really WAS misogynistic, in terms of how it actually REFERRED to women, at times. Several episodes claimed that women were weaker and more easily scared, you can certainly argue that Uhura was little more than eye candy and a glorified phone operator, and there was even an occasion where Spock explained that the reason why a probe detected "chaotic thoughts and impulses" from her WAS BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN.

Besides, I don't recall seeing a WORD of outrage, over this...

Same sub-series of the franchise, essentially the same "outfit"... no complaints of woman hating. Maybe some people are just racist against green women.

Copying The End of WRATH OF KHAN

This one, I can kinda agree with. The Enterprise gets badly damaged, and is going to be destroyed unless the engines can be repaired/restarted RIGHT NOW. Being the only one available and willing to do it, Spock/Kirk knock out McCoy/Scotty, and do the job, even though there is a massive radiation leak that will certainly kill them. And it does. However, it does so only after Kirk/Spock rushes down from the bridge for a tearful farewell, assuring the hero that his sacrifice was worth it, and that the surviving bromancer doesn't need to grieve. Our hero passes on, moments after these friends "touch" each others' hand through a pane of glass, forming the Vulcan hand greeting for "Live Long and Prosper".

In Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, this was a VERY moving scene -- easily the saddest moment in all of Trek, and possibly all of sci-fi cinema. So sure enough, Trek itself has tried to ape this on several occasions since then. Generations did it with Shatner's Kirk. Nemesis did it for Data. There was even a Voyager episode, where an alternate timeline had Tuvok dying, completely out of nowhere, in a scene THAT USED THE SAME FREAKING LINES. And this movie DID THE SAME THING!

For me, this scene crossed the line from paying homage, to just blatant copying-and-pasting. When my dad and I saw this, I literally muttered "Oh for crying out loud..." and got a chuckle out of him. I don't mind that they replayed the overall premise and reversed the roles -- in fact, I completely agree with Chuck from SFDebris, that this could have worked masterfully, if done right. The problem is that they basically just read from the 1982 Nicholas Meyer script, minus the 15 years of time spent with these characters, and plus the obvious fact that we weren't going to leave Kirk dead for very long... meaning I was more bored by it, than anything else.

Though to give credit where it's due, this is by no means the fault of Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto. This is a problem with the writing, not the acting.

Whitewashing

Yep, I'm going there. 

As had been speculated, from the moment this movie was announced, it turns out that the annoyingly mysterious villain, played by Benedict Cumberbatch... is Khan. Khan is THE top villain, in Star Trek. A former warlord, consigned to cryogenic exile, he is a genetically engineered superman -- extremely intelligent, much stronger and faster than a normal human, and with a ruthless ambition to match. Simply put, THIS IS NOT A MAN TO BE FUCKED WITH. He's the reason why Spock died, in the movie I just mentioned. The problem is that his full name, is Khan Noonien Singh. While it was never verified (in canon), it was speculated that he is a Sikh -- certainly it sounds like he should be from the Far East.  Yet in this new movie... he's played by a rather pale Londoner.

Okay, granted, Ricardo Montalban was a Mexican... though at least his complexion was SOMEWHAT right (and to be fair, as I'd already inferred, the show wasn't made in a time known for being racially sensitive).

Bob Orci, one of this movie's writers and producers, did bring up a great reason for doing this (in general):

"Basically, as we went through the casting process and we began honing in on the themes of the movie, it became uncomfortable for me to support demonizing anyone of color, particularly any one of Middle Eastern descent or anyone evoking that. One of the points of the movie is that we must be careful about the villain within US, not some other race."

I absolutely agree... though it begs the question, why bother making Khan the villain, in the first place? And this question extends way beyond having a white -- though VERY skilled actor -- playing the part. We know Khan's story... and frankly, there's not much to be told. Aside from his charisma, intelligence, and brutality, there is NOTHING to the guy. His motivation, quite simply, is to take over the galaxy.

In contrast, while Cumberbatch's character was billed as "John Harrison" -- an irritatingly obvious alias, if ever there was one -- the speeches he'd made in the trailers were genuinely unnerving AND INTERESTING. He was described as a top Starfleet officer, who had gone rogue after some kind of ideological break. Between that and his Hannibal Lecter-like knack for reading our heroes like books, I was hoping this was going to be a much more psychological villain.

Then it turns out to be just another comic book villain, though thankfully played to curdle blood, rather than chew scenery. I would have much rather seen an ORIGINAL villain, in this supposedly revitalized version of the series, than just go down the beaten path again.

Comments? Observations? Complaints? Leave them below.

Reflections on Boston

I've been abnormally silent about last month's bombing at the Boston Marathon. I apologize for that, and can't even excuse it with being tied up by school (I worked on some music and other projects, after all). Now that the dust has settled a bit, here are some of my thoughts.

1) It goes without saying that the bombing itself was horrible, and my heartfelt condolences go to the families of all of the victims, whether they survived or not. It was nothing short of a miracle that it wasn't worse than it was.

Incidentally, if you can spare it, please make a donation to The One Fund, for the survivors and families. Thank you.

2) My first thought was that the bombing was done by one or two lone psychos, but sadly that's not looking completely like the case. Then again...

3) Let's address the first elephant: the media's reporting on this has just sucked. HARD. It's not surprising that The New York Post and the right-wing blogosphere wrongly accused every brown man in Massachusetts of doing this, I expected better from CNN -- and every last one of those agencies should be apologizing LOUDLY for their screw-ups. Especially since at least one of the people they wrongly accused, was found dead in a river, last week -- possibly by suicide.

4) The same goes for the FBI, for apparently missing the obvious warning signs that the real bombers weren't exactly upstanding members of society.

5) But those of you who insist that this was a False Flag Attack (tm) just because you saw someone on a roof at a public event or you personally didn't see the severed limbs of the hundreds of victims... I have some great land in Antarctica for sale, if you are interested in buying some.

Now onto the really thorny one... the lockdown and raids. I'm bound to get some hate mail over this one... but to a point I can accept it. I am not a fan of withholding the reading of Miranda Rights (and those who say the suspects don't deserve them at all, should be careful what they wish for), and I openly acknowledge that ultimately the suspects were found by old-fashioned police work and tips. HOWEVER, it's probably safe to say that the lockdown did slow down the surviving bomber's movements. Furthermore, I wonder how some people would suggest the FBI and Boston PD should have dealt with people who were known to be heavily armed, multiple murderers. I hate to sound like the kind of asshole who would refer to civil rights fans as "bleeding heart liberals" (especially since I loathe that phrase), but REALLY?

Besides, we all know that if there WAS no lockdown, Obama et. al. would be getting a lot of shit for supposedly being soft on terrorism.

Would I be happy if a SWAT team stormed my house, out of the blue? Of course not. But with at least one known terrorist apparently in my neighbourhood, I would understand.

I'm not putting my foot down on this -- especially with more information still coming in -- but that is how I feel about it at this time. Please understand that, if and when you decide to give feedback.

Conservative Michael Sona charged in Robocall Scandal

So the man who once boasted on Facebook about trying to steal a ballot box, for the Conservative Party, has been criminally charged in relation with his party's apparent sabotage of the 2011 election. He had been a major focus of the investigation for some time, due to a huge chunk of the misleading robocalls (falsely claiming polling stations had been moved) coming from the Guelph campaign office where he'd worked. Suffice it to say hardly anyone believes that he acted alone, but at least someone has actually been arrested over this -- FINALLY.

Of course, more needs to be done. Emperor Harper -- if he has any of the moral and ethical integrity that he claims to -- should immediately apologize and resign for the serious transgressions of his party. The Governor General should give some serious thought to suspending Parliament until it has been ascertained that the government is legitimate. At the VERY least, Sona himself should tell Elections Canada and the RCMP EVERYTHING that happened -- given his history and previous statements, he has no credibility from simply denying he did anything wrong.

Will it actually happen? Personally I doubt it, but then again I'm a bit surprised that we've even gotten this far.

News Flash: Steubenville Rapists ARE NOT Heroes. Got It?

Do I seriously need to explain to people, what the fuck is wrong with the Steubenville rape case? Are we really so irredeemable as a species, that an entire town in Ohio TO THIS DAY shrugs off a 16 year old girl being gangraped while drunk and unconscious? Are the morals of the so-called Heartland of America so bankrupt that it's considered acceptable for the local high school football coach to NOT report this happening, when he knew full well about it? (something that is a FELONY in every civilized part of the world)

Don't even get me started on so-called journalist Michael Crook, who actually has written an article claiming that -- wait for it -- rape doesn't exist. That is not a misprint. He has actually written a book, about that subject.

I refuse to go on any further about this, because in my opinion -- having, you know, a moral compass and a working brain -- is that high school sports should NEVER take precedence over someone's basic right to have their physical space respected. Instead of teaching girls not to get drunk, or to -- for fuck's sake -- to carry A GUN to avoid getting raped, how about these chauvinistic cockscabs teach their sons TO NOT RAPE ANYONE. You know, TO BE A MAN!

And should Mr. Crook or anyone on his side STILL claim there's no such thing as rape... I personally know several people who were in this girl's position. Some were even younger, when they were raped. For that matter, American prisons ALONE have had countless PROVEN instances of rape. I fucking dare Crook and his supporters to claim to EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE VICTIMS, IN PERSON, that their attacks never happened.

Or is it a lot more manly and decent for you to just keep the wool over your eyes?

Conservative Loves Child Porn

So if you haven't heard, a prominent Canadian conservative named Tom Flanagan, has been in some major shit lately. The University of Calgary professor, mentor of Stephen Harper and Danielle Smith, and once described "most prominent member of the Reform Party", wasvideotaped at a Q&A session, re-affirming an allegedly old position of his that people shouldn't be going to jail "for their taste in pictures"... referring to child porn.

Immediately after this went viral, even though some right-wing pundits (ie. Jonathan Kay of the National Post) and apparently deranged academics have been defending him, he did get ditched by Wildrose Leader Smith, the CBC (where he was a panelist on "Power & Politics"), and disavowed by Emperor Harper.* To those still stupid enough to defend him, I'd like to point out that not only has Flanagan stated that he himself has viewed such images, not only has he defended images that don't exactly depict children in happy times, but he has also said that he's on a mailing list for NAMBLA -- an organization that promotes sex between grown men and little boys. No, I'm serious, that really is what they do.

* (incidently, Harper being caught associated with multiple frauds, a spousal abuser/alleged rapist, and now self-admitted pedophile, probably shouldn't be referred to anymore as a political or moral genius)

BUT WAIT! It gets better. Today, this scumbag has actually whined on TV, that the real blame for this mess belongs to -- wait for it -- someone asking him a "curveball question" during the Q&A, and supposedly taping it in secret.

First Question: what kind of a professor isn't prepared for unusual questions, when speaking in public?

Second Question: what kind of high-profile figure, doesn't just automatically assume that he is being videotaped at public events?

Third Question: WHERE THE FUCK IS YOUR HEAD AT, WHEN YOU DEFEND SEX ABUSE AND FEDERAL CRIMES, IN A BRAIN FART?

Honestly, I'm not sure it's possible to sink any lower, on the Piece of Shit Scale -- and I'm currently seeing millionaires who work part-time, blame the poor for needing welfare. This is absolutely indefensible, and frankly anyone who says otherwise, should probably have their computers checked by the RCMP. As long as the right-wing says or defends this kind of bullshit, they have no right to complain about the supposedly loose morals of liberals and the general gay community. By their own standards, Tom Flanagan should be on trial right now, facing a life sentence or worse.

Ted Nugent to "counter" the State of the Union

Okay, WHAT?

So, the Republican/Tea Party's rebuttal to the State of the Union address, will be delivered this year, by Ted Nugent.

A burnt-out rocker, who shit his pants to get out of the draft, who is an admitted pedophile, who can't open his mouth anymore without making the kinds of remarks that only get applause from the KKK, who brandished two MACHINE GUNS on stage at a concert, and who has personally threatened to kill the president.

In a little over a decade, the GOP has gone from George W. Bush, to Sarah Palin, to Mitt Romney, and now this? I know that conservatives don't believe in evolution, but this is nuts!

Idle No More

Despite (once again) crowning Stephen Harper the Douchebag of the Year, there was something I couldn't mention in the video, simply because of lack of time. It's not much of a secret that -- like most countries with an aboriginal population -- Canada treats its native peoples like third-class citizens. This is by no means unique to Harper; possibly the most shameful chapter in our history, involves the federal government pretty much abducting Indian children, from 1884 to 1948, and abusing them in boarding schools to try to wipe out their heritage. It's as close as we've ever come to ethnic cleansing -- and ironically, something that Harper once apologized for.

Beyond that, Harper's attitude towards the First Nations peoples of Canada has been.... to do pretty much nothing. At all. One of his first acts as prime minister, was scrapping a treaty that (theoretically anyway) would have done something to improve the Third World conditions of native reservations (including an almost total lack of education, infrastructure, clean water, adequate shelter, job opportunities, etc.). The only other thing that I can think of, that he's done, was effectively take over the administration of the Attawapiskat reserve... and charging the DIRT POOR VILLAGE thousands of dollars for that privilege.

Because of this -- among other things that I'm not qualified to comment on -- the reserve's Chief, Theresa Spence, has gone on a hunger strike. She's demanding a meeting with Harper, as well as Governor General David Johnson, to get to the bottom of the issues there. This has sparked SEVERAL protests nationwide, considerable media coverage, and INTERNATIONAL CONDEMNATION. So typically, Harper's response has been absolutely nothing.

Some Conservative lackies -- when they haven't been racist as hell -- have mocked Spence and asked that she stop the hunger strike. As many right-wingers do, they completely miss the point. This is on Harper and Johnson's heads, because they are effectively the leaders of this country -- and especially because the federal government has pretty much annexed Spence's village. Leaving aside the piss poor optics of REFUSING TO MEET WITH A LEADER ON A HUNGER STRIKE, this whole issue is Ottawa's responsibility (and these people say that liberals and natives are lazy -- pot calling kettle, anyone?), and it's not like Harper's got much going on during the holidays -- ONE MEETING is all that Spence is asking for. At this point, she might be happy with dropping in to wish her a happy new year.

It's a shame that Stephen Harper would never read this article, or personally respond to it, because here's a question I'd love to ask him, point blank: it's no secret that most Canadians hate your guts, and regardless of your rhetoric, Canada's reputation abroad is getting WORSE because of you. How do you think Canada and the world would react, if you become the only First World leader in ages -- if not EVER -- to be PERSONALLY responsible for the death of a peaceful protester?  And an Indian protester, to boot!

Probably the only thing that worries me at all, about the New Year, is how this might unfold, if Chief Spence starves to death, all because Harper can't be bothered to act like a human being. The people are angry right now, and the world is watching. You would think someone as power-hungry and politically savvy as Harper, would understand the dangers of creating a martyr -- if she dies, Harper may come to wish that he'd resigned a long time ago.

2012 Douchebag of the Year

THX-1138 (review)

What the heck is THX-1138, you might be asking? It's the feature directorial debut of one George Walton Lucas Jr., expanding on an avart-garde short film that he did in film school. It was produced by Francis Ford Coppola, as the first feature from their American Zoetrope independent studio... and pretty much buried it, just as fast. Warner Bros., the distributors and financiers, hated the finished movie so much that they re-cut it, gutted the marketing budget, and demanded back the money they'd given to Zoetrope for future projects.

What's it about? Well... that's a harder question, in a way. It's presented in a rather obtuse way, but the short version is that sometime in the future, society has become so sterile and commercialized, that pretty much all we live for is to buy things and do what authorities tell us to do. People are drugged into feeling no emotions whatsoever, religion only tells them to show up for work and keep buying things, and no one even has proper names; THX 1138 is the main character's name. His roommate/love interest is named LUH, and a foil for them is named SEN. Every one is shaved bald, and wearing what is basically a pair of white pajamas, there's almost no colour or detail in anything... pretty much the only good thing you can say about this society, is that there's no crime as we know it.

But it is a crime to have feelings. Or to have sex -- you're supposed to get it off with holograms and mechanical pumps (it's rather sad that THAT might have come true, more than anything else in the movie). THX and LUH do both, after she talks him into skipping their drugs, and when it causes accidents at THX's robot assembly job, they quickly find themselves in prison. They then decide they have to leave, once and for all.

I'm not sure how much that synopsis just made this thing sound like a thriller, but to be honest it's not a particularly exciting or intense movie. It's very much an expensive art movie -- in the sense that it is very cerebral, discusses intellectual issues in abstract ways, and makes very little literal sense. This is especially so during the middle section, addressing THX and LUH in prison. There's a semi-comical sequence where unseen doctors manage to make THX go into convulsions by pushing buttons... it's only when you see the movie again, that it would probably dawn on you that some device was presumably inserted into him, during a medical test preceding this. Just plain laughable, is how THX "escapes" from the prison itself -- HE JUST WALKS OUT THE FREAKING DOOR. There are guards everywhere, fully capable of subduing him, not to mention a total lack of architectural landmarks, and HE JUST WALKS AWAY! Accompanied by a a HOLOGRAM WHO'S BECOME REAL... yet we never find out HOW. Thematically, it works just fine, but if we're meant as an audience to believe that this is really happening, I'm sorry but my bullshit meter breaks really damn fast.

All of that being said, it is a rather unnerving movie overall, and it's actually quite well acted (with Robert Duvall and Donald Pleasance carrying much of the picture). The dialogue... well, good luck making sense of it. You see, the single-biggest problem with THX-1138 is that there is no proxy for the audience -- every single person is firmly a part of this future world, so there's no reason to explain anything (which Lucas is historically reluctant to do, anyway). I understand that the point was to be disorienting, and artistically they were running with the concept of this being "a movie shot on location in the future", but realistically that only works so well. To give Lucas some credit, he seemed to have learned his lesson by the time he did Star Wars, as that movie featured characters far enough out of the loop that there was excuse for a bit of exposition to help the audience get by. Hell, even the prequels had enough sense to do that!

With this being a George Lucas picture, it probably wouldn't surprise you to learn that he changed the thing at least twice, since it was originally released. The home video releases restored scenes that were cut by Warners' (the theatrical cut hasn't been seen since the early 70s), and more recently the DVD version used CGI to expand the locations and fill in some gaps in the story. Unlike the infamous Special Edition changes to the Star Wars movies, these were generally well received, and I don't have any huge problem with them (apart from the CGI sometimes drawing too much attention to itself). In fact, on occasion they help make certain scenes more clear. However, I do think that making every establishing shot look ten times bigger, was a thematic mistake -- we're meant to believe that this society is oppressive as hell (and in fact, it turns out that this whole civilization is underground), and personally I think that was more effectively conveyed with the more confined shots in the earlier releases.

(if you're wondering, the non-altered version isn't on DVD, but someone has digitized the VHS versions of those scenes and put up comparison videos on YouTube)

This movie is rather hard to find, even now, but if you can find a copy of this cheapy (or if you can find it online) I suggest giving it a look, if you like intellectual sci-fi movies. Just keep in mind that besides Lucas' handicaps with dialogue and discomfort with actors, maybe his biggest failing as a filmmaker is that he's a little too smart for his own good.

So Obama's Won Again...

I'm going to do my best to NOT make this a "bad winner" rant, but I already know that the Tea Party is throwing conniptions over Barack Obama winning re-election, so I'm going to try to spell this out in as non-partisan a way as possible.

Formally, America has been around for 236 years. In that time, it has survived a full-blown revolution, harsh weathers and hard summers, smallpox, polio, cholera, bird flu, e coli. and AIDS. It has survived the Civil War, the War of 1812, the Spanish-American War, and countless battles with Indian tribes (which I'll refrain from elaborating on, for these purposes). It has survived two World Wars (one of which nearly wiped out everyone outside of Germany), the Cold War, and various other conflicts of varying and debatable importance.

It has survived the Great Depression, and several other recessions that rivaled it. It has survived the 92 percent tax rate on the rich, it has survived Reagonomics, it has survived various labour crises and it has survived spikes in oil prices. It has survived 9/11, Pearl Harbour, Waco, Columbine, Virginia Tech, the Atlanta Olympic bombing, abortion clinic bombings, and more acts of domestic terrorism than I care to count. It has survived the divisions of the Vietnam War, talk radio, Fox News, and the sabotage of the economy for petty reasons.

It has survived Watergate, Zippergate, and multiple assassinations (don't get any ideas, though). It has survived the draft, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, Gitmo, and the TSA. It has survived the red and brown scares. It has survived Prohibition, legalized divorce, interracial marriage, interfaith marriage, and the War on Drugs. It has survived McCarthyism and the Monkey Trial. And it has survived the civil rights movement, the suffragette movement, the gay rights movement, and the so-called "Moral Majority".

Yet you guys are worried about one community organizer? Whose only "crime" is that he seems to genuinely care about everyone in America? And on top of that, it just seems to be because he's black, and his father was Arabic?
Are you serious?

America has already survived four years of Barack Obama, and will probably weather another four years just fine -- just because it's already survived MUCH worse. You don't have to agree with the guy, or like him personally, but if you honestly think that he's going to destroy the country, you REALLY need to see a psychiatrist -- and hey, it's more affordable now.

All sarcasm aside, the best advice I can give to the far-right is this: shut off the hateboxes, and step outside of your little corner of the country. See other points of view, and listen to the people around you, even if you'd otherwise disagree with them. Liberalism may not be the answer to all problems, but it's hardly the mental illness or capital crime that some of you think it is. At the very least, the more you learn to tolerate others' views, the better off you're going to be. Making the country -- or world -- a nicer place to live in, won't be easy work, but it's DEFINITELY something worth trying.

Do you have the nerve to?

Anti-Obama Paranoia Leads Man to Kill His Family

I'd like to start this, by expressing my very sincere condolences to the friends and family of the slain. This was a terrible tragedy, no matter your politics or creed.
It should also never have happened.

As it says in this article, a Virginia man named Albert Peterson -- a defense contractor with a history of mental illness -- was so paranoid about the prospect of Barack Obama winning the November election, that he not only killed himself, but his wife and two sons. I'm prepared to be wrong about this, but I can't recall ever hearing about this happening before, at least in North America.

Clearly the man was already unstable, but I can't help but wonder if his paranoia was fed to an extreme degree, by the sort of insane rhetoric that we see from Fox News, right-wing talk radio, and the Tea Party. On Blogspot ALONE there are bloggers who blather about Obama being a scary Muslim socialist, out to kill grandma and retarded babies, who has already driven people to suicide over the economy, and who will "rightly" be kicked out in the election -- despite not a single one of those statements being true to date (and HIGHLY unlikely to ever be true). It is also why I find it galling, that Google has been slow to take down an anti-Muslim hate film that played a direct part in a global crisis that has killed 50 people to date, why it took the FBI several weeks to arrest any of the people responsible, that various blog moderators refuse to penalize users that post inflammatory material, and that the Tea Party is almost never held accountable for its long history of violent threats.

How many people have to die? When is enough, enough?

If you're not a liberal, fine. If you would never vote Democrat, fine. But remember, when someone says "I'd rather die, than see _____ in the Oval Office!" it's not supposed to be taken literally. As much as I loathe Mitt Romney, Stephen Harper, Tim Hudak, etc. it would take a lot more than their usual antics, for me to consider killing myself over them. I'd much rather try to vote them out.

And please, to anyone reading this, who knows someone THIS upset over the election, GET THEM TO A HOSPITAL RIGHT NOW. I don't care if they rave about "socialized health care", or if you normally don't trust it yourself -- it's either that, or more of THIS bullshit happens.

It's LONG past time, America, for you to get your act together. Your people's lives are now quite literally depending on it. Enough said.

Conservative Standards

I can't help but notice, lately, just how low conservatives like to set the bar for themselves -- and their peers. In Canada, the Conservative Party is just fine with having its move to strike hate speech laws, applauded by skinheads. The Republican Party -- with some exceptions -- has been perfectly fine with being taken over by incompetent wingnuts who are so livid with a black man being the President of the United States, that they have flat out stated that their first priority is not fix America's sagging economy, but to get rid of him at all costs.

For that matter, they have little apparent problem with hitching their economic hopes to a presidential team that was respectively near-to-dead-last in job creation, and whose only economic idea is to raise taxes on the middle class while cutting upper-class taxes even more. This goes against any kind of financial sense, never mind the overwhelming view of the people the Republicans are trying to convince to vote for them.

For that matter, Republicans -- by and large -- seem to have no problem with being associated with people who wear their utter hatred of blacks, gays, and women on their sleeves... and yet are so stupid and juvenile that they will still insist they aren't bigots. This is despite campaigning on voter suppression that targets blacks, revoking most gay rights, banning women from military service, and forcing impregnated rape victims to carry the offspring of their attackers (and probably give them visitation rights, as is already the case in many states).

This is the company that conservatives today keep -- either by their direct support, or by their compliance. It's true that not all conservatives are like this... but it begs the question of where they were, when the extremists were given the keys to the car. It also begs the question of why so many of them are still counting themselves among the number of these people who are not just offensive and inept, but borderline terrorists. Was there truly nothing you could do to stop it? Is there nothing you can do now?

If I were a member of any political group that engineered or condoned open bigotry, sabotage of the country for no good reason, election tampering, violence against people who simply want to help others, or even assassination of an elected leader... not only would I be putting as much distance as possible between myself and them, but I would be publicly speaking out about it. It's admirable that there are groups calling themselves "Republicans for Obama" -- but if it were me I wouldn't even want to call myself a Republican.
I would be far too ashamed.

Chick fil-A =/= Free Speech

To the Christian Right and Teabaggers... Let me explain something.

Criticizing a little-known fast-food chain, because they decided to publicly smear gay Americans for wanting to be treated like human beings, is not attacking their free speech. Besides, it didn't stop your camp from attacking JC Penny, The Muppets, Ellen Degeneres, EA Games, etc. for being PRO-gay rights.

What the Chick-Fil-A CEO and Republicans are doing, is absolutely no different from what bigots in the 1960s and 70s were doing, to protest the end of segregation, and then interracial marriage. It's also no less wrong.

This isn't a free speech issue, this is a human rights issue. Especially since this is a company that has a history of endorsing laws that seek to murder homosexuals. It also has a long history of sexist and racist behaviour towards its own staff.

That is not right, no matter how you try to sweep it under the rug. America is supposed to stand for EVERYONE'S freedom. That's the very point of the Constitution. As soon as you start saying that only the "right" people deserve to be considered human beings, you're exactly the same as slave owners, religious fanatics, and the worst mass murderers in human history.

All that you have done, is show the world just how bigoted you really are. And maybe you haven't noticed, but it's not being accepted, as much as you think it is.

Tea Party Reformers Self-Destruct

This has been an awesome week, for those who actually want some sanity and decency in the world. As I said yesterday, Tea Party rabble-rouser Rush Limbaugh is getting globally laughed at, for his ridiculous claim that The Dark Knight Rises is a Democrat propaganda piece, because the villain is named Bane (nevermind that the character was created almost 20 years ago, and put into the movie long before Romney's business history became an issue). Today, there were even more setbacks for the far-right of North America.

In my home and native land, the Harper Conservatives have lost a Federal Court case, to stop some of last year's election results from being overturned. The government tried to say that -- despite several close ridings, which the Cons won, being targeted by illegal and deceptive robocalls on Election Day -- the case had no merit, just because it was brought about by a left-wing lobby group called the Council of Canadians. As usual, the far-right loves to think that just because it's being severely criticized by somebody, it means that their critics have some sort of bias. No, nevermind all of the evidence tying the Conservatives to these calls, like the cell phones bought by their staffers, the cheques that went to robocall companies, and simply their obnoxious attitude towards the idea of a stolen election, NOOOOO the Council of Canadians is just a bunch of blithering sore losers with nothing better to do than stop Harper's Holy Crusade to "save" Canada.

Further south, former Tea Party presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann recently set off a firestorm, when she claimed that the Muslim Brotherhood has somehow infiltrated the State Department, up to the highest levels (and apparently endangered the life of Secretary Hilary Clinton, when she visited Egypt soon afterwards). Leaving aside that a statement like this, is almost like saying that a Klansman can blend into Nigeria, this gross act of slander and borderline treason has actually earned the ire of other Republicans. Even John McCain and Chris Christie -- two staunch conservatives, these days -- are saying that she's basically lost her mind.

You know it's funny, this time last year I almost took up drinking, because I thought that North America was really going to be destroyed by these lunatics and psychopaths, but every time I turn around it looks like they're just imploding.

THERE IS A GOD!