Helpful hints for Super Hero Movies

The following five items are intended to help film makers not make crappy super hero movies anymore. All film makers should review these five points and commit them to memory.

1. Stop trying to recreate particular drawings.
Yes, the cover of issue #147 was great, possibly the single most iconic drawing of the character ever made. You know why it’s on the cover though? Because they couldn’t think of anyway to shoe-horn that particular pose into the book itself. Trying to figure out a way to get that into the movie rarely serves the story. More often it just serves the ego of the artist who drew it to know that people loved it that much.

2. Try actually reading the comic book.
Lots of these comics have some really good story lines. A lot of them aren’t really viable for cinematic transformation, but you would be surprised how many of them are. Why not lift a classic story from the character’s past and use that as your plot instead of grabbing Random Adventure Plot #23?

3. Pick a story.
Okay, you selected a couple of story lines that are really great, but how to choose. Flip a coin or ask some geeks which is their favorite or sacrifice a chicken to Cthulu but for the love of Fancy DO NOT COMBINE THEM! Don’t pick scenes from this story and scenes from that story and try to mix them up, it almost never works. More often than not, far more often, what you get is a bunch of barely connected scenes strung together that lead to a confused and disjointed mess.

4. Don’t go all black for the costume.
I know, you think that colorful spandex makes the heroes look silly. Well… so does a padded black leather jumpsuit or some kind of pleather/latex nightmare that restricts movement and is so delicate that it can only be touched with gloves. Sure, you can’t do the spandex thing because humans don’t look like comic book drawings. The problem with an all black leather/latex nightmare suit is that it means everyone sort of looks the same in the end, which is what the whole colorful spandex thing was designed to avoid. This goes double for any team of heroes movies. When you make a uniform, it makes everyone look… uniform.

5. Never EVER(!) have your hero revel their secret identity to ANYONE!
It’s a bad idea! Don’t have them take their mask off, don’t have them say something that tips someone off, don’t have them identified at all! NO! Not the love interest, not the enemy who is going to die anyway, not a bus full of senior citizens who will keep it secret because the hero saved them, no one! EVER! Even if the identity is a known fact in the comics, make it a secret and keep it! If one more hero pulls off their mask at the slightest provocation (I’m looking at you Batman (Returns)!), or says something to the vapid love interest that the vapid love interest has said 86 times so she’ll know it’s him (Still looking at you Batman (Begins)!) or just revels the secret to the nearest chick as an aphrodisiac (Batman Forever), or even has his side kick do the reveling for him (BATMAN!) then I am going to get a gun and will no longer be responsible for my actions. Burning the mask or having it come off during a fight is not acceptable either.

Suggestion

If you want to go see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and you want it to be good by comparison, may I suggest the Indiana Jones Omnibus Vol 1? Anything would seem like the pinnacle of awesomeness by comparison. I could only get through the first story, and it took me about three days to slog through it. Lousy doesn't begin to describe it. After trying to reads this I picked up a box of Chex and read the back. As a result I came to believe for three days that the back of the Chex box was the greatest literary orgasm that had ever existed.

I still don't know how bad Crystal Skull is, but it would likely feel like bukkake from the gods by comparison to how bad this book is.

Things I want

I want a big budget movie that doesn’t treat me like an idiot.

I want an action movie that understands at least the basic fundementals of physics.

I want to know and care about a character before I try and watch them escape from the clutches of the villains.

I want a thriller that doesn’t require a lot of logical hoop jumping, particularly when half the hoops are false. When explaining how the heroes get out of a narrow scrape, the excuse should at least be researched enough to know if it’s even vaguely plausible.

I want the suspension of my disbelief to need no more effort than a feather resting on the surface of a pond. It should not require a pool of mercury to float the lead bar of the plot.

I want shocking surprises to be at least something of a surprise. I shouldn’t be able to quote exactly what other movie the big surprise was stolen from and how I would need distances only the Hubble Telescope can comprehend to explain how far away I spotted it.

If I can’t have those things, then I want a 100 million dollar NC-17 rated version of Bunnicula.

Not a horrible list

I got a link to 100 Must-Read Books: The Essential Man’s Library and I didn't hate it. I expected to, because the first page is pretty heavily weighted with things I would tell you to ignore if you came and asked my recommendations of the list. Also, I hate it when people try to be gender specific. Women should read a lot of these books too, but that's neither here nor there really.

While I disagree with some (No one should ever have to read Moby Dick*... EVER) and I felt a few things were missing from the list, it's actually pretty well balanced. If you go through all 4 pages you'll probably find that the list is okay. Not great, because anyone who fails to include at least one comic book (Okay... fine Graphic Novel! Happy now?) is going to get dismissed as incomplete. It doesn't even have to be an adventure book, Maus would have done if you wanted to keep up the tone of that piece.

The list reads like one person put it together, which is fine but leave you wondering what others would have put on the list. It actually reminds of the conversation I had with someone that I should make a list of 100 movies that a person should watch for Retroflix**. That list hasn't been made yet though, probably because I keep thinking that you can't focus all that a person needs to read, see, or experience into 100 bullet pointable items. Someday though, I'll probably make that list.






*Some day we need to have a long conversation about books that are so far up their own ass that they can see their own tonsils and how many of them destroyed the career of their creators. Moby Dick would be prime example number one.


**(another Live Journal, not the website).

Summer Movie Troubles

I read the first three real reviews of Indiana Jones and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Idea last night. They were not promising. The scores on the first three were a 3, a 4.5 and a 6.5 out of 10. One statement sort of summed up what all the reviews I’ve read have said “If it had starred Brendan Fraser and was directed by Stephen Sommers, it would be the best of the Mummy movies. But it’s not that. It stars Harrison Ford, was directed by Steven Spielberg and is the worst of the Indiana Jones movies.” I’m paraphrasing because I can’t be arsed to go look through all three reviews again to see what they actually said.

The problem is that some of the reviews got people complaining because they didn’t claim the movie shat rainbows and cured cancer at 40 yards. They made a claim that these people just had it out for the movie, George Lucas, and fun in general. The idea being that they’ve been waiting to piss all over this movie since it was first announced last year. If I read a really positive review, I expect that person will also get claims that they wrote it months ago and are now filling in the blanks to say what’s awesome about it.

This is one of the major problems with summer movies and anticipated entertainment as a whole. Too many reviews seem to have been written without actually having seen the product and then just have bits filled in that justify whatever axe the writer was trying to grind. I’m willing to bet that a few reviews for The Dark Knight have already been started with people talking about how great Heath Ledger’s last performance is and isn’t a shame what we’ve lost and so on. Since he died, a lot of people are going to be afraid to be seen as taking on a corpse if they refer to his roll in anything but returned savior like terms.

It’s a bigger problem than that though, Batman Begins has become fairly popular since it was in theaters, so the sequel is a pretty highly anticipated movie. When something gets this highly anticipated, people will claim they liked it despite how they actually feel about it. If it was disappointing, they’ll cover that up and just let enthusiasm take over. “I’ve been waiting for this for two years, the ad blitz was huge, I MUST love this movie.” Some of those people will come back later and claim they never said that, some people will never admit they were wrong, and some people will come back and find that actually they did love it all along.

It works in the other direction too. I’ve been reading all sorts of comments along the lines of “Episode One wasn’t that bad really. When you compare it to Revenge of the Sith, it’s practically Ben-Hur.” What once was hated, now is seen in a more positive light. I pick on Star Wars, but there are a lot of previously hated or at least not loved films that people have come back to later and decided were actually pretty good.

A movie really has to be genuinely bad for people to just simply step away during the summer hype season. I mean, you’d have to make a Superman movie where he spends most his time stalking Lois Lane, rarely puts on the tights, doesn’t stop any crimes and discovers his super sperm can knock up a lady for it to be bad enough that people will just walk away. Fortunately, no one would be so stupid as to make a Superman movie with that was as boring as what I’ve just described. Hmm? What’s that? Superman Returns? Never heard of it, when does it come out?

With things like Indy, we’ve been waiting 20 years for this, so anticipation is hardly the word for this movie. My word was fear actually. The problem was that I was ready for this movie in 1992, and I was ready in 1996, but by 2008 I’m thinking they missed the freshness window. Too many of us have rethought the idea of another Indy and found that it probably isn’t a good idea now. As a result, a lot of people will be going in with their knives sharpened, looking for any vulnerable spot on the once mighty franchise.

A lot of people will get mad at any negative review though, because they’ve been waiting most of their lives for this. As a result, only the top reviews will do, and anyone who claims that the old crew ain’t what it used to be will be attacked left and right. Take some of the responses to this review which got a little nasty in places. You can also see the fun of watching an idiot try and back peddle away from some of his nastier statements (I use he universally) when called to account for them. The thing is that I’ve seen this event happen in other places lately.

Halo 3, Twilight Princess and GTA4 have all gained a fair amount of 10 out of 10 scores upon release. I’m always suspicious of 10 of 10 scores, because when you read the review the game in question often doesn’t deserve them. 9.899 maybe, but rarely a perfect 10.

You’ll very often get “This is a perfect, flawless game! Nothing wrong at all… except for this, this, this, the second half of the game, the cut scenes and the camera is wonky.” That always leaves me staring at my screen muttering “Then it’s not perfect or flawless is it?” I mean they will list off a bunch of things that are wrong, and still claim it’s perfect and flawless, which either speaks of their strong enthusiasm or their weak vocabulary.

That’s probably my biggest problem with trying to hack through reviews of highly anticipated products. I’ve got a lot of people on either side of the coin with a strong inclination to judge one way or the other despite the actual quality of the product in question.

Things not to know

Every time I see a list like this 75 Skills Every Man Should Master I end up rolling my eyes.

Two Reasons: One, if a man should know how to do it then so should a woman. Two, about half of these leave me with the firm belief that the writer is an idiot.

I'll admit that points 3, 9, 12, 14, 20, 23, 34, 35, 44, 61, and 72 aren't entirely stupid. They are sometimes worded clumsily or their extra written bits over do it, but they contain some bits that I would suggest an adult know how to do. There is that feeling of "I can see you're trying to help" but it gets buried in bullshit. I'm not going to pick the list apart point by point, but I'll go for the worst in the bunch.

My problems started with the second item.
2. Tell if someone is lying.
Yeah, you can't. Nope, unless you already know that they are lying (and even then most people get the wrong answer) you really can't tell. If someone is even halfway good at it, you need about a year of training to figure out when a person is being dishonest and it comes down to what they call micro-expressions that most people can't even begin to recognize. Cops, lawyers, judges, used car salesmen, none of them ever judge any higher than chance when tested on who is or isn't lying. Even when people are trained to spot them, they only break around 80%.

And then at the fourth suggestion is useless
4. Score a baseball game.
Why? I will never ever need that. Learning anything sports related is entirely useless to me. No, really. The only situation that I would ever need to know how to score a Baseball game would rely on someone having a gun to my head, and then my thoughts are going to be far more on taking the gun away so I can kill the person, who won't be paying attention because they're watching a baseball game. By the way, always grab the wrist (pushing away from you) and hit them in the mid-section at the same time. When you double strike like this they never pay attention to their hand. Some might argue the point, but it has worked in the past. If you're lucky, they'll have given you a pen or pencil to score with, that's a lethal weapon right there, use it!

The thirteenth is dangerous
13. Throw a punch.
No, no, NO! Punching is a pointless pursuit, particularly in hand to hand fighting. You won't do much harm to them and you could break the bones in your hand. Unless you really know how, you will telegraph the hell out of your punches anyway. Don't learn to throw a punch, learn how to take a punch. Better yet learn how dodge a punch! Then, learn how to grab the wrist of the puncher, twist their arm behind them, and tell them in a calm and level voice that if they don't stop being a jerk you'll break their arm in six places. You'd be surprised how a calm and level voice can catch a person's attention when you're causing them agony. This is not theory, I'm speaking from the authority of experience here. No one ever picked on me more than twice in high school. I prefer approaching fighting like Archimedes. All levers and fulcrums and not just smacking things until they fall over.
Let's match this up with number 53. Sometimes, kick some ass.
No. That isn't a skill. I'm far more interested in the person who knows that the best way is to not have to kick ass anyway. Again, if I'm holding someone's hand so that they can scratch the back of their head, or I'm pressing on the pressure points on their neck, I don't need to kick their ass. Fighting is costly in energy, it's time consuming, and the longer it goes on the more likely someone will get a lucky (or unlucky as the case maybe) shot and cripple the other person for life. You can more easily win by letting the other person know quickly and relatively painlessly how far you're willing to take it. If they know they've got to fight you until one of you is dead, 98% of all people will back the fuck down. Granted, you do have to hold the other 2% down until help arrives or you're forced to kill them, but that was going to happen anyway with that 2%.

60 is genuinely stupid
60. Be brand loyal to at least one product.
Yes... because that's what you want to be, the sort of person that can be pointed to as a brand whore. Being a brand whore means you never look for anything better, and will always excuse the product even if it goes to shit. No company should ever get a free pass, you should always look for the best products you can afford and you should always test around to make sure that you are getting the best. If you need the cultural awareness of where you can from, try looking in the mirror. If you start to think you are your brand, then you will become your khakis. And then... I have to kill you for making me quote Fight Club.

Point five (5. Name a book that matters. The Catcher in the Rye does not matter. Not really. You gotta read.) looses points for saying that Catcher in the Rye doesn't matter. Anytime someone says "Book X is pointless and not worth discussion" I invariably look at that person as a twat. You have no idea what matters to whom and for what reason. Catcher in the Rye certainly matters if you're discussing the end of John Lennon's life. There you go, I mention John Lennon and all the sudden... it matters. I'll agree that a person should be educated, but I stop short of saying you need to be able to name drop. Hell, I can name drop... Moby Dick, Crime & Punishment, Emma and Farewell to Arms. Never read any of them, but I can name them and know more or less what they're about. For the most part though, they don't matter to the people I know and talk to about books.

I will agree with number 7 (Cook meat somewhere other than the grill.) If I can take the word meat out of that sentence. Learn how to cook, and it helps if you can do it beyond the grill.

Most of these are so incredibly pointless that they don't even deserve being refuted. I don't need to know how to make 3 bets at a crap table, I know that playing craps is for suckers. I don't need to know anything about gambling in fact, I have better things to blow my money on. I don't drink, so knowing my brand and being able to mix lots of cocktails are also useless. If I needed to know these things, I'll be in a social situation and thus... I can get someone else to do it.

With reservation on a few points I'm far more likely to point you to this quote by Robert Heinlein in his book Time Enough for Love. (Exact wording thanks to this site here)

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

I've had to do most things an adult can reasonably be expected to do in life. You can probably skip the manure, the ship, and the hog. I'm willing to admit that the situation could come up when I might need to know those things some day, but it's never come up once far and I'm guessing it probably won't. I can do all the others (though you'd probably want someone better for the accounts, the bone, and the computer) with varying levels of success.

I doubt the veracity of their claims!

Another sight full of "insert your name and I'll tell you all about yourself" another fistful of snark from me as a result




My comments are in italics.

You entered: Brett Nathan Lashuay
There are 18 letters in your name.
Those 18 letters total to 66
There are 6 vowels and 12 consonants in your name.

What your first name means:
French Female Brit. A native of England: (Britain) or France: (Brittany). In literature Lady Brett Ashley was the heroine in Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises.
English Male A native of Brittany: (France) or Britain: (England). Derived from the surname Breton or Briton, Brett and Bret became popular first names after 19th-century US writer Bret Harte. Brett became very popular in Australia in the mid-20th century.
English Female Brit. A native of England: (Britain) or France: (Brittany). In literature Lady Brett Ashley was the heroine in Hemingway's 'The Sun Also Rises'.
Celtic Male A Breton.

Okay, so far so good. However, my first name and its meaning can be found in ANY baby book.

Your number is: 3

The characteristics of #3 are: Expression, verbalization, socialization, the arts, the joy of living.

The expression or destiny for #3:
An Expression of 3 produces a quest for destiny with words along a variety of lines that may include writing, speaking, singing, acting or teaching; our entertainers, writers, litigators, teachers, salesmen, and composers. You also have the destiny to sell yourself or sell just about any product that comes along. You are imaginative in your presentation, and you may have creative talents in the arts, although these are more likely to be latent. You are an optimistic person that seems ever enthusiastic about life and living. You are friendly, loving and social, and people like you because you are charming and such a good conversationalist. Your ability to communicate may often inspire others. It is your role in life to inspire and motivate; to raise the spirits of those around you.

The negative side of number 3 Expression is superficiality. You may tend to scatter your forces and simply be too easygoing. It is advisable for the negative 3 to avoid dwelling on trivial matters, especially gossip.

As anyone who has tried to get me to send my writing or other work to any company of any kind can attest, I'm really terrible about selling myself. And I doubt someone who honestly believes that if there are gods, they only created us so they could put a galactic magnifying glass over us could be called optimistic. And as for enthusiasm... I can't be bothered to finish this sentence.

Your Soul Urge number is: 3
What the fuck is a "Soul Urge" number? What kind of gibberish is that?

A Soul Urge number of 3 means:
With the Soul Urge number 3 your desire in life is personal expression, and generally enjoying life to its fullest. You want to participate in an active social life and enjoy a large circle of friends. You want to be in the limelight, expressing your artistic or intellectual talents. Word skills may be your thing; speaking, writing, acting, singing. In a positive sense, the 3 energy is friendly, outgoing and always very social.
Are they talking about someone else here? Is there another Brett Nathan Lashuay wondering why he got "You sure are a cranky mother fucker" as his result?

You have a decidedly upbeat attitude that is rarely discouraged; a good mental and emotional balance.
Um... yeah I doubt it.

The 3 Soul Urge gives intuitive insight, thus, very high creative and inspirational tendencies. The truly outstanding trait shown by the 3 Soul Urge is that of self-expression, regardless of the field of endeavor.

On the negative side, you may at times become too easygoing and too optimistic, tending to scatter forces and accomplish very little. Often, the excessive 3 energy produces non-stop talkers. Everyone has faults, but the 3 soul urge doesn't appreciate having these pointed out.
Too optimistic? Seriously!

Your Inner Dream number is: 9

An Inner Dream number of 9 means:
You dream of being creative, intellectual, and universal; the selfless humanitarian. You understand the needy and what to help them. You would love to be a person people count on for support and advice.

I honestly don't know what the fuck their talking about here.

Let's try again leaving out the middle name...

You entered: Brett Lashuay

There are 12 letters in your name.
Those 12 letters total to 44
There are 4 vowels and 8 consonants in your name.

What your first name means:
French Female Brit. A native of England: (Britain) or France: (Brittany). In literature Lady Brett Ashley was the heroine in Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises.
English Male A native of Brittany: (France) or Britain: (England). Derived from the surname Breton or Briton, Brett and Bret became popular first names after 19th-century US writer Bret Harte. Brett became very popular in Australia in the mid-20th century.
English Female Brit. A native of England: (Britain) or France: (Brittany). In literature Lady Brett Ashley was the heroine in Hemingway's 'The Sun Also Rises'.
Celtic Male A Breton.

Your number is: 8

The characteristics of #8 are: Practical endeavors, status oriented, power-seeking, high-material goals.
So... I've gone from an artsy fartsy flower child to Cobra Commander. Just by removing my middle name. NEAT!

The expression or destiny for #8:
Your Expression is represented by the number 8. The 8 Expression is well-equipped in a managerial sense. You have outstanding organizational and administrative capabilities. You have the potential for considerable achievement in business or other powerful positions. You can expect to receive the financial and material rewards. You have the skill and abilities to establish or operate a business with great efficiency. You have good judgment when it comes to money and commercial matters, and you understand how to build and accumulate material wealth. Much of your success (or lack of it) may come due to your ability (or inability) to judge character. With the number 8 Expression, you exercise sound judgment in most of your affairs; you are realistic and practical in your approach to business matters.
Yeah... no

The positive 8 Expression produces individuals that are very ambitious and goal-oriented. If the 8 energy is not in excess in your makeup, you will no doubt express these traits to some extent. No one has any more energy that a person with the 8 Expression who has a plan laid and is starting to work. No one has any more self-confidence, either. If you are expressing the positive qualities of 8, you are an outstanding manager because you can plan, initiate, and complete projects; you are very dependable and determined.
And as A Leo I'm also quite the leader!

As it always happens, there can be too much of a good thing. If you have too much of the 8 energy in your makeup, you may express some of the negative attitudes. A negative 8 can be very rigid and stubborn. Ambition sometimes has a way of becoming over-ambition, and you may express an unreasonable impatience with the lack of progress. If your negative side is showing, you may be too exacting, both of yourself and of others. Sometimes this can even becomes a case of intolerance.

The number 8 is very materialistic and also very desirous of status and power. Neither of these drives are inherently negative unless they are taken to an extreme. You must avoid the tendency to strain after money, material matters, status, or power, to the detriment of the other important factors in your life.
Status and power don't really hold a lot of interest for me. No really, I just want enough power to run my computer, and enough status to rule the world and keep all of mankind under my thumb.

Your Soul Urge number is: 1
Still not clear on what a "Soul Urge" number is.

A Soul Urge number of 1 means:
Your Soul Urge is the number 1. With a Soul Urge number of 1, you want to lead and direct, to work independent of supervision, by yourself or with subordinates. You take pride in your abilities and want to be recognized for them. You may seek opportunities to display your strength and usefulness, wanting to create and originate. In your desire to manage the big picture and the main issues, you may often leave the details to others.
You notice they tell me three times there that I have a Soul Urge number of 1 but never what a Soul Urge number actually is?

The positive 1 Soul Urge is Ambitious and determined, a leader seeking opportunities. There is a great deal of honesty and loyalty in this character. If you possess positive 1 Soul Urge qualities, you are very attainment oriented and driven to success. You are a loyal friend and strictly fair in your business dealings.

The negative side of the 1 Soul Urge must be avoided. A negative 1 is apt to dominate situations and people; the home, the spouse, the family and the business. Emotions aren't strong in this nature. If you possess an excess of 1 energy, you may, at times, be boastful and egotistic. You must avoid being too critical and impatient of trifles. The great need of the 1 Soul Urge is the development of friendliness, and a sincere interest in people.

Your Inner Dream number is: 7
Well, at least we changed the dream number. Still don't know what the hell it's supposed to mean.

An Inner Dream number of 7 means:
You dream of having the opportunity to read, study, and shut yourself off from worldly distractions. You can see yourself as a teacher, mystic, or ecclesiastic, spending your life in the pursuit of knowledge and learning.
At this point, I'm beginning to doubt their madskilz at telling me all about myself.

OOOO, and I can find out about myself through my birthday!

15 August 1976

Your date of conception was on or about 23 November 1975 which was a Sunday.

You were born on a Sunday
under the astrological sign Leo.
Your Life path number is 1.
I can't be bothered to read all the gibberish in the linked page, so I don't know what a "Life Path" number is.

Your fortune cookie reads:
As the purse is emptied the heart is filled.

Life Path Compatibility:
You are most compatible with those with the Life Path numbers 1, 5 & 7.
You should get along well with those with the Life Path numbers 3 & 9.
You may or may not get along well with those with the Life Path number 8.
You are least compatible with those with the Life Path numbers 2, 4, 6, 11 & 22.
Oh crap! I better go find out what those numbers mean, otherwise I might be friends with people who have the wrong numbers!


The Julian calendar date of your birth is 2443005.5.
The golden number for 1976 is 1.
The epact number for 1976 is -1.
The year 1976 was a leap year.

Your birthday falls into the Chinese year beginning 1/31/1976 and ending 2/17/1977.
You were born in the Chinese year of the Dragon.

Your Native American Zodiac sign is Salmon; your plant is Raspberry.
Unless we believe what other people have told me, then it's the Wolf! Wolf is sexier than salmon, but less tasty when grilled. Of course since most this shit is made up anyway (I mean which native American group has zodiac as salmon? No proper information!) I might as well call myself a badger, lock myself up in a walnut and declare myself the king of infinite space.

You were born in the Egyptian month of Paopy, the second month of the season of Poret (Emergence - Fertile soil).
Yeah, okay.

Your date of birth on the Hebrew calendar is 19 Av 5736.
Or if you were born after sundown then the date is 20 Av 5736.
Morning. So 19 Av 5736 it is!

The Mayan Calendar long count date of your birthday is 12.18.3.2.1 which is
12 baktun 18 katun 3 tun 2 uinal 1 kin
Good to know. I'm sure that information will prove to be vital later.

The Hijra (Islamic Calendar) date of your birth is Sunday, 19 Sha'ban 1396 (1396-8-19).

The date of Easter on your birth year was Sunday, 18 April 1976.
The date of Orthodox Easter on your birth year was Sunday, 25 April 1976.
The date of Ash Wednesday (the first day of Lent) on your birth year was Wednesday 3 March 1976.
The date of Whitsun (Pentecost Sunday) in the year of your birth was Sunday 6 June 1976.
The date of Whisuntide in the year of your birth was Sunday 13 June 1976.
The date of Rosh Hashanah in the year of your birth was Saturday, 25 September 1976.
The date of Passover in the year of your birth was Thursday, 15 April 1976.
The date of Mardi Gras on your birth year was Tuesday 2 March 1976.
You know, since I admitted I was born in 1976, there isn't much of a trick you telling me how all these things happened on those dates in 1976.


As of 5/14/2008 2:40:05 PM EDT
You are 31 years old.
You are 381 months old.
You are 1,656 weeks old.
You are 11,595 days old.
You are 278,294 hours old.
You are 16,697,680 minutes old.
You are 1,001,860,805 seconds old.
Well good, you have a computer program that calculates silly shit for you. Your mother must be so proud.


Celebrities who share your birthday:
Ben Affleck (1972)
Jimmy Webb (1946)
Linda Ellerbee (1944)
Mike Connors (1925)
Rose Marie (1925)
Phyllis Schlafly (1924)
Huntz Hall (1919)
Julia Child (1912)
Ethel Barrymore (1879)
Napoleon Bonaparte (1769)
Me and Napoleon, hanging with Julia Child on our birthday!


Top songs of 1976
Tonight's the Night by Rod Stewart
Silly Love Songs by Wings
Don't Go Breaking My Heart by Elton John & Kiki Dee
Disco Lady by Johnnie Taylor
Play The Funky Music by Wild Cherry
December, 1963 (Oh What a Night) by Four Seasons
50 Ways to Leave Your Lover by Paul Simon
Kiss and Say Goodbye by Manhattans
If You Leave Me Now by Chicago
Love Hangover by Diana Ross


Your age is the equivalent of a dog that is 4.53816046966732 years old. (You're still chasing cats!)

Your lucky day is Sunday.
Your lucky number is 1 & 4.
Your ruling planet(s) is Sun.
Your lucky dates are 1st, 10th, 19th, 28th.
Your opposition sign is Aquarious.
Your opposition number(s) is 8.

Today is not one of your lucky days!
Shit! And I felt so lucky today too!

There are 93 days till your next birthday
on which your cake will have 32 candles.
Doubt it, I don't usually have cake on my birthday.

Those 32 candles produce 32 BTUs,
or 8,064 calories of heat (that's only 8.0640 food Calories!) .
You can boil 3.66 US ounces of water with that many candles.
NO CANDLES! BECAUSE NO CAKE!

In 1976 there were approximately 3.1 million births in the US.
In 1976 the US population was approximately 203,302,031 people, 57.4 persons per square mile.
In 1976 in the US there were approximately 2,152,662 marriages (10.1%) and 1,036,000 divorces (4.9%)
In 1976 in the US there were approximately 1,921,000 deaths (9.5 per 1000)
In the US a new person is born approximately every 8 seconds.
In the US one person dies approximately every 12 seconds.
How are those last two facts individual to me at all? How can I believe that this is REALLY my individual information with crap like that being tossed about?

In 1976 the population of Australia was approximately 14,110,107.
In 1976 there were approximately 227,810 births in Australia.
In 1976 in Australia there were approximately 109,973 marriages and 63,230 divorces.
In 1976 in Australia there were approximately 112,662 deaths.
Um... Not Australian. Okay, interesting facts... but still it's hardly relevant to me.

Your birthstone is Peridot

The Mystical properties of Peridot

Peridot is used to help dreams become a reality.

Some lists consider these stones to be your birthstone. (Birthstone lists come from Jewelers, Tibet, Ayurvedic Indian medicine, and other sources)

Sardonyx, Diamond, Jade


Your birth tree is WAIT, I have a birth tree? When did this shit start?

Cedar, the Confidence

Of rare beauty, knows how to adapt, likes luxury, of good health not in the least shy, tends to look down on others, self-confident, determined, impatient, wants to impress others, many talents, industrious, healthy, optimism, waiting for the one true love, able to make quick decisions.


There are 225 days till Christmas 2008!
There are 238 days till Orthodox Christmas!
Again, this is hardly individual to me. I think their just tossing random shit in at this point.

The moon's phase on the day you were
born was waning gibbous.
Well... okay then

Prime Time!

All the best TV shows in the 80s had openers, you ever notice that? A little bit just before the theme song that let you know what the whole show was about in a few sentences.

Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of Dr. Samuel Becket. Convicted of a crime he didn't commit, he stepped into the Quantum Leap Accelerator and vanished into the LA Underground. His five year mission, to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to put right the things that once went wrong. If no one else can help you. If there is no one you can turn to, and if Al can find him, maybe you can hire The S-Team!

Cue music!

You know... for kids

I've been working on a list for Holly, or rather for her sister and nephew. Her nephew is supposed to be quite bright, but is bored in school. Had she not told me this while I was driving it would have lead me to running around with my arms flailing screaming "Danger Will Robinson! DANGER!" because I happen to know how it feels to be bored in class and hate school as a result. Most my problems in school revolved around the glacial pace that classes were required to go so that we didn’t loose the kid who could be outsmarted by Skippy the Wonder Hamster.

So I said I would suggest some documentaries that might brighten the kid up a bit to the idea that learning doesn’t actually have to suck. Now I've got to convince her to go directly to her sister because she had a conversation with her mother and her mother said that they'd thought of a couple things but thought it might be too advanced for him. Again, if I hadn't been driving, I would have tested the structural integrity of the nearest solid object with my forehead while screaming "Grandparents are all fucking STUPID! They don't remember anything about having a child that age!"* However, as I was driving, I had to settle for merely berating her parents to her without the therapeutic head smacking.

Suggesting that something, anything, might be too advanced for any kind of kid is the kiss of death. Once you’ve decided that it’s too advanced without trying it out on the kid first, you’re already giving up on expanding their horizons. Some of it should be too advanced and there should be stuff they don’t understand. Not understanding is how we’re encouraged to learn.

I decided to write the following list, based mostly on things I enjoyed as a kid and the sorts of things I'm thinking a kid who is bored at school is likely to enjoy. The only reason I threw a few things away was that I figured the doco in question might be a little too slow for them. I know that I personally struggled to keep my eyes open when I watched Stephen Hawking's Universe, so that had to go.

But then I thought of you out there. Some of you have children who need a little more speed and agility in their education, so I decided to publish my list publicly. You'll notice a theme with my suggestions. Lots of subject movement, and nothing too terribly deep. You can get a kid excited about something, give them a wide range of ideas, and then take them to the library to learn more. Or, you can get them more documentaries. (I'm ADD, dyslexic and I've got a dodgy right eye, reading is very VERY hard for me)

If you can’t afford to buy all of these, you can go to your library and ask them if they can get the videos. Or you can track things down online on bit-torrent sights or you tube. Yes, yes, bit-torrent is very naughty and copyright is the word of all mighty Ceiling Cat and those who disobey shall be cast into the pits blah, blah, blah, but fuck that noise we’re talking about getting kids to learn here! Besides, you’d be amazed how many documentaries are out there that are perfectly legal to torrent. Anyway here is my list…

My List of Documentaries That Won’t Bore the Shit Out of Children.

Connections 1, 2 &3 – by James Burke A good run of science history lessons. The format of the show means that things keep moving and you never really get a chance to get bored. Having it on DVD means you can go back and re-watch something if you missed it.

Cosmos – by Carl Sagan More general science, but packaged in a very nice way. Still 98% up to date too.

A History of Britain – by Simon Schama English history on a rocket sled. Again, the emphasis here is on speedy explanations and then getting on with things. Avoid boredom while actually teaching something.

BBC Shows
Any of the “Walking With” Prehistory Shows - Because Prehistoric animals are F'ing cool damnit! The complete Walking With Collection, doesn't actually have Walking with Monsters in it, but that's only because of when it came out. Chased By Dinosaurs is really cool too.

Planet Earth & Blue Planet - Animals! Fairly fast paced, but slightly tilted towards images. Good stuff to get a kid going though and if it’s new to them there will be a wealth of information.

Rome: Power & Glory - Roman history is cool. This goes from rise to fall, it doesn't get boring, and there are probably some things mother wouldn't approve of but are really quite harmless in it. Perfect for a 10 year old on all counts, because you need to learn some things mother wouldn't approve of when you're ten.

BBC's History of World War II Set - I'm slightly hesitant on this one because there are some bits that could bore a kid. It's a collection of docos, so you can pick and choose. Maybe The History Channel's version, being slight more light weight and a little faster in places, might be a better choice. The point is, get the kids some stuff about war. War is good because wars move history along at a fast pace. I've suggested in the past that wars are mostly there so that kids can go manage to get through all the philosophers and stuff, with the promise that there will be blood to come. When I was a kid, I could listen to a teacher talk about Abolitionism all day if I know the battle of Gettysburg was coming as my reward. That's the best thing about History Class! Eventually... there WILL be blood!


*My apologies to any of you who either are or have grandparents, but it's true. I spent most my childhood having my father tell people to shut the fuck up and let me read/watch what I wanted because if I was enjoying it then I probably understood it. I was very fortunate that my parents shielded me from people telling me that the books I was reading or the movies I was watching were too advanced for me.


And yes, all the profanity is totally necessary.

Open Letter

Dear Senator Clinton,

Let me tell you a little something about my family.

My mother’s maiden name is Collier, and that’s a Welsh word for Coal Miner. Yeah, guess what that side of the family did before coming to America to be farmers. My mother’s side is mostly your average Dutch-Irish collection with some Welsh and English thrown in for good measure. Mostly hard working people who lived honestly, until the 1880s when a bunch of Collier boys were hung for horse thievery out west. Still, basically honest, hard working, white Americans.

My father’s name is Lashuay, as is mine (duh) which is derived from a French name I can’t spell. I’ve been told that it translates to something like “The Game player” or “The Gambler” or something like that. We come from Lyon. It’s hard to track anyway because as I understand it my ancestor left France under something of a cloud. It seems he ran to America because he’d run out of places to run away to in France, along with the daughter and the silverware if you catch my drift. From there he went to Canada (back when French Canada went further south) and eventually settled in. The Lashuay’s then started experimenting in spelling their names six different ways (Ways, the Aways, and the Uays… along with others) and spreading like a virus across the land.

While we were here, the country actually became a country, since when we showed up it was a collection of colonies. Then while Colliers and Lashuays were hanging out in the Ohio Valley, they Civil War broke out and three Lashuay Boys fought under a Collier Colonel*. After that, they all settled down to be farmers and factory workers.
*Unless I’ve got the rank wrong.

So, what I’m saying here is that my family has been here a long time. We were here before it was America, we were here before immigrants became a bad thing, we were here before a lot of things. The only people who have been here longer are religious lunatics and the indigenous population. The indigenous population, who we helped kill… sorry about that guys. We’ve been hard working Americans for the time we’ve been here (when we weren’t stealing stuff) and to an extent, we have prospered. White collars, blue collars we’ve even been known to have green collars when the nation needed it. As far as I know, mine if the first in four generations not to have anyone wear a uniform. We represent a cross section of the Middle Class American strata really.

I come from thieves and honest, hard workers. So basically I’m a hard working thief, and a damn charming one when I need to be. Also, I never went to college, I barely got a GED. So, you’ve got a hard working, white American who doesn’t have a college education who still ain’t gonna vote for your sniper dodging, 3am phone call making, constantly “misspeaking” ass! If I am a bit lefty, I came by it honestly by meeting people and learning about things on my own. I consider myself more a centrist, its just the last 10 years or so has been to such an insane extreme that it makes people who look central seem like a lefty by comparison.

I did a little run down of the group. We’re a family of working Americans. A family of hard working Americans. In fact a family of hard working WHITE Americans… and most of us in my little informal poll are more likely to support Obama right now. Those that aren’t thinking of supporting Obama, are going to vote for McCain because they want to vote for a Republican or they like his style or whatever.

I’ll be honest, it wasn’t you saying that white folk weren’t going to support a black man that did it, but that sure didn’t help. It made you go from someone we didn’t agree with, to someone we find truly distasteful. That sort of statement tilted you into a light that you really can’t recover from I’m afraid. It’s got too much of the “A drunk man’s words are a sober man’s thoughts” feeling about it. Sorry, but I don’t want that, and neither does my hard working white American family.

We want someone who won’t think they’re coming under sniper fire just because it’s 11 at night and doesn’t “misspeak” every time they open their damn mouth. We’ve had 8 years of an idiot shooting his mouth off without thinking, we don’t need more. If you’re trying to be president, you need to think about what you say and not just yell “Bring it on” because those phrases will come back to haunt you.

I still don’t fully support Obama, which I know causes some consternation for a few people, but it’s how I feel. I’m not behind him yet, not enough to say that I’m with him. I think I probably could support him if he’s the final candidate, because he’d likely be a better choice than the other two. Got nothing to do with his color, or mine. It's got to do with him as a candidate.

EDIT: I put the town of Lashuay origin as Leon when it should be Lyon. I thought we were from the south east part of the country. Trust the fucking French to actually have a town that makes me think my typos are the correct spelling.

This is not the greatest spoon in the world

First I want to show you something fugly. I mean, wow! It's so ugly it's almost beautiful.

Next I want to talk about cereal premuims.

Loot what I got in my cereal.
My first piece of Indiana Jones merch for this cycle!


Even says "Indiana Jones" in case you get confused.


And of course, it lights up!


Now I know what you're thinking. You're thinking did he take 6 pictures or only 5?
Actually you're thinking "Didn't something like this come around at the last Star Wars?"
Yes, yes it did.



Actually it makes the new spoon seem like trying to shoe horn Indy into an old idea.
These aren't the best spoons I own though, this is.


My Quick Bunny spoon!

He rocks the block. Also, he can actually be used. Those plastic spoons are terrible, even for cereal.

Group shot!


And then there is the Tomato Salad that I made last night. wanted a shot because she said it looked so pretty.


And another go at the grifon because it's so damn cool

Star Trekin'

I may have mentioned that I watched the third season of Star Trek this week and then having actually finished watching the show bought the movies. I noticed something about Star Trek while watching. Fully half the women in the federation are either doctors or have important jobs. The other half are relegated to the “Lieutenant Upskirt” position, but then NBC had executives and guys in suits can only understand things on so many levels. It was 1968 after all and if they didn’t get to look up girl’s skirts the guys in suits got terribly depressed and threatened to cancel the show, which they did anyway.

My point was though that there are a lot of women who were intelligent on that show. Not only were they smart, but they had short skirts to show of their simply smashing legs. Hot babes with brains! The Avengers was quite popular when Mrs. Peel was around too for some strange reason that I can’t manage to put my finger on at the moment. Something about brains and boots I think.

I also noticed that Star Trek had a boat load of women writers. This even included Sheri Lewis, yes that Sheri Lewis of Lamb Chop fame. As a side note the episode she wrote is where I actually coined “Lieutenant Upskirt” comment while trying to explain to Holly what had happened in the first 40 minutes and why the camera seemed to be aimed directly up her skirt (she was laying on a sickbay bed). Phrases like “Well, Lieutenant Upskirt here is beset by the naughty photo element of the week” came all too easily. Despite the unfortunate camera angles, it’s actually a pretty good episode.

I don’t have enough TV shows from the sixties to compare, but it seems like there were a lot of women working on Star Trek. Since the rest of entertainment was pretty dominated by men I assume that writing generally was as well. It does make me wonder about how other shows, more modern shows to be precise, compare in terms of their writing staff. Highlander had a few women writing, but it’s really hard to get numbers down because of how credited writing works within a TV show.

20 simple rules for writing my mystery.

Every once in a while I go back and check on S.S. Van Dine’s 20 rules for writing detective stories, just to see if I can get away with breaking any. At the time he wrote these rules, they were good rules, and as I understand it stemmed from his frustration with many bad stories. Most of the rules are still useful, for the most part anyway. The problem is that some of them have become cliché and trying to hold to them can be damaging for a good story.

Let's see how I feel about them, shall we?

1. The reader must have equal opportunity with the detective for solving the mystery. All clues must be plainly stated and described.
I sort of agree. I like the idea of the detective not really solving the case though. I like the idea of having the solution fall in his lap because he didn't really solve it. As a writer, I’m perverse in that way. I like things that work out while the main character doesn’t really understand why or how they worked out.

2. No willful tricks or deceptions may be placed on the reader other than those played legitimately by the criminal on the detective himself.
I’ll grant this one for the most part. You’ve got to give the reader at least the appearance of a chance.

3. There must be no love interest. The business in hand is to bring a criminal to the bar of justice, not to bring a lovelorn couple to the hymeneal altar.
Blah! I like a love story now and then. With some of my favorite mystery books, the use of a love interest as a distraction or a foil elevates the story greatly.

4. The detective himself, or one of the official investigators, should never turn out to be the culprit. This is bald trickery, on a par with offering some one a bright penny for a five-dollar gold piece. It's false pretenses.
I’m on the fence about this one. I’ve seen it done well, and I’ve seen it done VERY badly. Probably, on balance, I would say you should stick to this one. The only way you can manage is if none of the main investigators for your story are the culprit. A cop, or fellow detective can do it, but they should be more on the sidelines. Even then, a good portion of the story should really be dedicated to proving it and the unmasking should come early.

5. The culprit must be determined by logical deductions — not by accident or coincidence or unmotivated confession. To solve a criminal problem in this latter fashion is like sending the reader on a deliberate wild-goose chase, and then telling him, after he has failed, that you had the object of his search up your sleeve all the time. Such an author is no better than a practical joker.
It depends on how real you want to be. In real life, murderers are often caught by accident and happenstance. People do confess at odd times, when they think they’re more trapped than they really are or because they aren’t thinking about what they’re saying. You can do it, but you need skill.


6. The detective novel must have a detective in it; and a detective is not a detective unless he detects. His function is to gather clues that will eventually lead to the person who did the dirty work in the first chapter; and if the detective does not reach his conclusions through an analysis of those clues, he has no more solved his problem than the schoolboy who gets his answer out of the back of the arithmetic.
I’m going to give this one two thumbs and one big toe up. While I believe in accidents (see above) I also believe that a lot of work still needs to be done after that.


7. There simply must be a corpse in a detective novel, and the deader the corpse the better. No lesser crime than murder will suffice. Three hundred pages is far too much pother for a crime other than murder. After all, the reader's trouble and expenditure of energy must be rewarded.
To be honest, murders are cliché. If one looks at Agatha Christie’s work, it’s amazing there are any occupants of country manor homes left for Bertie Wooster to go visit. The constant deaths get boring after a while and just every once in a while I like an investigation over a stolen necklace or something.

8. The problem of the crime must he solved by strictly naturalistic means. Such methods for learning the truth as slate-writing, ouija-boards, mind-reading, spiritualistic se'ances, crystal-gazing, and the like, are taboo. A reader has a chance when matching his wits with a rationalistic detective, but if he must compete with the world of spirits and go chasing about the fourth dimension of metaphysics, he is defeated ab initio.
I am in agreement! Unless you’re going to base the entire story around magic, which brings everyone back to a level playing field and still requires the reader to put information into a cogent collection or something. But then what you’ve got is more a fantasy than a full blow mystery story.

9. There must be but one detective — that is, but one protagonist of deduction — one deus ex machina. To bring the minds of three or four, or sometimes a gang of detectives to bear on a problem, is not only to disperse the interest and break the direct thread of logic, but to take an unfair advantage of the reader. If there is more than one detective the reader doesn't know who his codeductor is. It's like making the reader run a race with a relay team.
I like Nero Wolfe’s team of guys actually. While those stories are told first person by Archie, they still have a team feel and I like that. You should be careful, but you can do it.

10. The culprit must turn out to be a person who has played a more or less prominent part in the story — that is, a person with whom the reader is familiar and in whom he takes an interest.
I agree here too. You need time to get to know the culprit, if only a little bit.

11. A servant must not be chosen by the author as the culprit. This is begging a noble question. It is a too easy solution. The culprit must be a decidedly worth-while person — one that wouldn't ordinarily come under suspicion.
Oh screw this! What is this – 1842? Let the butler do it once in a while! Stop claiming that just because someone works for their money that they aren’t a worth-while person.

12. There must be but one culprit, no matter how many murders are committed. The culprit may, of course, have a minor helper or co-plotter; but the entire onus must rest on one pair of shoulders: the entire indignation of the reader must be permitted to concentrate on a single black nature.
If you’re doing a simple story, maybe. Me? I like things to get a little more complex once in a while. It can lead to a more interesting story.


13. Secret societies, camorras, mafias, et al., have no place in a detective story. A fascinating and truly beautiful murder is irremediably spoiled by any such wholesale culpability. To be sure, the murderer in a detective novel should be given a sporting chance; but it is going too far to grant him a secret society to fall back on. No high-class, self-respecting murderer would want such odds.
While I don’t disagree 100%, I do disagree a little. I’ve seen the secret cabal things work a few times, and I’ve seen it fail a few times.


14. The method of murder, and the means of detecting it, must be be rational and scientific. That is to say, pseudo-science and purely imaginative and speculative devices are not to be tolerated in the roman policier. Once an author soars into the realm of fantasy, in the Jules Verne manner, he is outside the bounds of detective fiction, cavorting in the uncharted reaches of adventure.
I see no problem with a Fantasy mystery story, so long as everyone is more or less equally fantastic. See my answer for 8.

15. The truth of the problem must at all times be apparent — provided the reader is shrewd enough to see it. By this I mean that if the reader, after learning the explanation for the crime, should reread the book, he would see that the solution had, in a sense, been staring him in the face-that all the clues really pointed to the culprit — and that, if he had been as clever as the detective, he could have solved the mystery himself without going on to the final chapter. That the clever reader does often thus solve the problem goes without saying.
I’ll go with this one.


16. A detective novel should contain no long descriptive passages, no literary dallying with side-issues, no subtly worked-out character analyses, no "atmospheric" preoccupations. Such matters have no vital place in a record of crime and deduction. They hold up the action and introduce issues irrelevant to the main purpose, which is to state a problem, analyze it, and bring it to a successful conclusion. To be sure, there must be a sufficient descriptiveness and character delineation to give the novel verisimilitude.
Oh I don’t know, Raymond Chandler thinks he did quite well with all that flowery talk. Robert B. Parker seems to not be going broke with his descriptive passages.

17. A professional criminal must never be shouldered with the guilt of a crime in a detective story. Crimes by housebreakers and bandits are the province of the police departments — not of authors and brilliant amateur detectives. A really fascinating crime is one committed by a pillar of a church, or a spinster noted for her charities.
Actually, by now it’s fairly interesting and may I say unexpected if the killer ISN’T a church pillar or something. That’s my problem, these rules have become the cliché in many ways.

18. A crime in a detective story must never turn out to be an accident or a suicide. To end an odyssey of sleuthing with such an anti-climax is to hoodwink the trusting and kind-hearted reader.
Oh go on! Just once, for a novelty. No one will EVER see it coming.

19. The motives for all crimes in detective stories should be personal. International plottings and war politics belong in a different category of fiction — in secret-service tales, for instance. But a murder story must be kept gemütlich, so to speak. It must reflect the reader's everyday experiences, and give him a certain outlet for his own repressed desires and emotions.
I see no reason why a person can’t kill for political reasons. Once could argue that the idea of person is different for each person.

20. And (to give my Credo an even score of items) I herewith list a few of the devices which no self-respecting detective story writer will now avail himself of. They have been employed too often, and are familiar to all true lovers of literary crime. To use them is a confession of the author's ineptitude and lack of originality. (a) Determining the identity of the culprit by comparing the butt of a cigarette left at the scene of the crime with the brand smoked by a suspect. (b) The bogus spiritualistic se'ance to frighten the culprit into giving himself away. (c) Forged fingerprints. (d) The dummy-figure alibi. (e) The dog that does not bark and thereby reveals the fact that the intruder is familiar. (f)The final pinning of the crime on a twin, or a relative who looks exactly like the suspected, but innocent, person. (g) The hypodermic syringe and the knockout drops. (h) The commission of the murder in a locked room after the police have actually broken in. (i) The word association test for guilt. (j) The cipher, or code letter, which is eventually unraveled by the sleuth.
Kind of hedging to make a list of 20 here aren’t we? I’ll grant most of these are cheats, but any of them could be suggested as a bit of business for the hero to work through. The red herring possibilities are great fun.

Cornhole an Ewok's Mullet (Can't wait to see what kind of search results I get for that one)

While it’s not entirely true, I do like certain lists of “Oh we ALL did that, quit pretending.”

You might know what I mean, like how people who are in their early to mid 30s like to pretend that they always hated the Ewoks, despite the fact that everyone loved the Ewoks back when they were 6. I mean c’mon, I still love them. Consider how awesome they really are. “Yeah, that’s right Empire. You’ve got a big metal ball of death, we’ve got fighting midgets in teddy bear costumes. Where’s your Force now?” Only now, when they’ve grown up do they want to pretend they never liked them in the first place despite still having that stuffed plush Ewok in a place of honor on their bed.

The first time I ever heard it was when someone was talking shit about bell bottoms in some 80s show and the other character mentioned that everyone wore nothing but bell bottoms only a few years ago and the first character damn well knew it.

Also the mullet. People talk shit about the mullet now, but have you ever checked how many people used to have them? It only became a thing a few years ago, long after the mullet went out of fashion. Lots of people still have them actually, what with 70s hair being “in” again for the last few years it’ll likely come back any minute now. I mean if polo shirts are acceptable (in 2008! For fucks sake what the hell is wrong with us?) then can the mullet be far behind?

I know people who didn’t have a mullet, never wore bell bottoms and hated the Ewoks from the word go. It seems though, that too many people try to pretend that they always were against what looks like dumb fashions now. I can dig that people thought the mullet looked dumb in the 80s, but I have a problem believing it when I can look up old photos and prove that they had one. I also have trouble buying their foresight when I’ve watched them pick up every other stupid fashion that’s come and gone since then.

I always want to invent things, just to see if anyone will call me on how popular they used to be. This of course does lead to the looks I get for saying things like “Oh quit pretending. We were all into cornholing in the 90s, stop acting like you never did it!” but frankly, that’s just part of the fun.

Mostly this whole post was me trying to figure out a good reason to use cornholing, because I agree with George Carlin that it doesn’t get said enough anymore.

A type of stereo

So I’m reading the f-list right? And I come across this bit written by a buddy in which he laments some of the stereotypes that the gay community has to put up with. The constant orgies, the drug use, so on. My impression is that he’s looking more in at the gay community than looking out at the rest of the wide world in his complaint.

While there is drug use and some orginess* among gays, there is drug use and orginess amongst straight people too. I suspect that humans just occasionally use drugs and have group gropes. In fact, I know that humans just have group sex sometimes. It’s a thing we do.

So why all the stereotypes? Well I have an idea that I’ve heard mentioned a few other places and I’m going to tell you about it here. The problem is that straight people hear sex and we stop thinking. We hear “Homosexual” and at the “sex” part of that word the straight brain just sort of shuts down. Now, the only thing a straight person can think of when thinking about a gay person is their sexuality, and thus the only activity they can picture them doing is sexual.

When the only activities someone can picture a person doing are sexual activities, they usually imagine that person must spend all day dedicated to that. It makes a bit of sense, they’ve all got to fill the same 24 hours and if they don’t go shopping or play squash, they must be having sex.

When you’ve already got people who have it in their heads that gay people are either having sex or on their way to have sex, you can see how the rest of it falls into line. In their tiny little minds they must see how people can get worn out rather quickly, so gays must be trying to get fresh recruits for their constant sex all the time. When a person of limited realistic thinking capabilities starts on that line, they sort of allow any hedonistic activities to the list. Drug use, sex bars, musical theater, all the little evils that the straight mind can produce come flowing out.

Now add to this dilemma the fact that the first experience most straight people have with gay people is when they’re all kids and you really have a problem. Since most straight people meet gay folk when they’re young and just learning about this whole sex thing. While many gay people report that they always knew something was different, I’ve talked to enough people who only really thought about sex when they hit puberty to think that a good number of gay folk must have run along the same track. The problem is that a gay person has society telling them to run one way and their feelings telling them to run the other. This regularly means a goodly amount of trying to run the proper way, getting tired, running the other way when no one is looking, and a metaphor that really doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

When you throw in the bisexuals who during those years sometimes aggressively run both ways and normal teenage/young adult experimentation into the mix, you can see how gay people get dismissed so much. Here is a little secret that no one else will tell you. Lots of people went through a “why don’t I touch a member of the same sex to see what it’s like” stage in their sexual development. While some of those people evolve into bisexuals and some of those people turn out to be homosexuals, for a lot of people it turns out to have been a phase they went through. People dismiss sexual deviance (as in a deviance from the heterosexual so-called norm) as a phase because lots and lots of people went through a similar period as a phase. As a result, any slightly straight behavior from a homosexual will be pointed to as signs that they are coming out of their phase, which is rather silly when someone points to an 87 year old queen kissing his sister on the cheek, but they do it anyway.

When a person’s mind already has a few stereotyped images in their head, they will ignore anything that doesn’t fit the stereotype. Often, if they’ve got a really narrow mind, they will ignore things that don’t fit quite actively. Often screaming and shouting at a person and demanding that they do the stereotypical things in secret if they’re not seen doing it in public. They will rant and rave about how they must be doing Activity X because and I quote “They all do it! Look at them! You know they’re up to something!**” even when the person in question is quietly sitting in the corner trying to read a news paper. The need for someone to fit a rigidly defined set of characteristics is so strong for some people that their tiny little minds can’t handle anything outside of those characteristics. The problem is that there is a limited amount of things the people being stereotyped can do to change those perceptions, beyond getting to know as many people as possible so that more straight people will smack the one bigot and tell them not to be an asshole.

Sadly, that’s really how change comes. Not from presenting a better front as a community, but by getting to know people in the other community who will then deal with their own. When the two camps sit across from each other, it doesn’t matter how good they look across the field, because we’re all sure the nice business like demeanor is just a front and all the debauchery is in the back.

Yeah, basically we all think society is just a mullet. Business in the front, party at the back, and a pretty nasty party it is too. So I guess I’m looking at a tangled mullet that hasn’t been washed in some time and probably has remnants of the time they tried to dye half their head red that one time still left over.





*Totally a real word, don’t care what spellcheck says. Spellcheck doesn’t even recognize itself as a word so who can trust it?

**Now I come to think of it, the person I’m quoting also said that about Blacks, Jews, Latinos and The Irish.