Symptoms of Rebellion

Mitchell Heisman's Wikipedic Deletion

2010-10-11T14:46:00.000-07:00

Well.... after a long debate, with plenty of clear reasoning and press articles to establish significance, They deleted my friend Mitchell Heisman's wikipedia page.

The discussion can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mitchell_Heisman

The decision seems to have been made by High priest Wifione

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wifione

This is some of his/her prodecdural notes and reasons for dimissing all of the 23 "Keep" votes and none of the 11 "Delete" votes. Most notably was the fact that many of the voters were new to wikipedia, so their logic should not even be considered.

Wifione speaks:

Of the other keep votes in the AfD, I saw around 15 contributors including a glut of ips (I've not counted precisely, but it's around that) who had only a handful of edits outside of the vote discussion, and in a few cases, only one or two edits. And none (I repeat, none) of the keep votes, including the votes of you both, quoted any policy/guideline or had any logic that would be pertinent to the consensus of the forum. Now go back and see how the delete voters had a massive glut of editors who are established editors, who were quoting policies/guidelines in their deletion vote support, and were not depending upon their personal opinion on this issue. I cannot close an AfD discussion based upon what I think of the article (that is, whether it can be kept or not), I have to go according to consensus, and I have theappropriate view to disregard votes that I consider are illogical, without policy basis and in utter bad faith. All of the keep votes, except two, qualified on either of the reasons of my disregarding the vote. So consensus as a closing admin was for deleting the article.
Now, what if you do not agree with the deletion. The process is pretty simple. Apply at WP:Deletion review and bring up the article's issue. In the review, kindly do quote any mistake in policy/procedure that you believe I have made, as also usingpolicies and guidelines to defend your case for undeletion. Write back to me for any help that you believe you might require for this, or in the future. I am sorry that the article got deleted. I cannot help it and would not have gone against my view of consensus. Best wishes. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 15:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

A rebuttal is given:

Even being conservative there's got to be at least six or seven keeps that should have been considered. It seems like a no-consensus, at least. I count 23-11 in favor of keeping, with the most recent 8 being keeps. To be sure, there's some oddball !votes to be ignored, but to ignore all keeps but two (which?) it seems like you're just deciding whether you agree with the argument, rather than gauging consensus. For example you mocked Ancient Infant in your closing rationale, but he or she actually offered a guideline-based reason (WP:PERP) after the statement which you mocked. That !vote should not have been discounted. Very hard to see how the consensus was to delete. Fletcher (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fletcher, good to see you here. Well, with respect to Ancient, yes, I clearly shouldn't have mocked him at all. Given the fact that I perceived the logic to be very faulty - especially the usage of WP:PERP - the statement flowed freely. My apologies for the indiscretion; I've struck out two words in the close, post your comment here. Ancient Infant, after quoting WP:PERP, commented that he himself didn't think that suicide is a crime; and then added to the statement that it was just an argument to save this article from deletion. For records, WP:PERP does mention that editors should not create an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured. Therefore, I found Ancient Infant's referral of/to policy extremely faulty. This is despite the fact that I did not consider it negatively that Ancient Infant had had only 3 edits outside his user space, and only one in the last six months, before voting in this article. I have to reiterate thatconsensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at the strength of the argument. I took an appropriate view to disregard votes that contradicted policy, were based on opinion than on fact and were utterly illogical - and Ancient Infant's vote qualified on all these points. Again, if you do believe that you should wish a deletion review, please use the appropriate link I've provided above. I have no issues in the deletion review deciding either way. But for a higher success rate in such reviews, like I mentioned to the two editors above, you should necessarily quote policy/procedural mistakes you believe I have made in closing the discussion. This might sound too altruistic, but I mean it; please do ask for my help in case you need any. My best regards.Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 10:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the following directly to citezen Wifione:

Dear Final Judge and Juror,

I find the clarity of your decision very telling, but not enlightening.

Unfortunately, wikipedia like all bureaucratic organizations seeks to bring out the best in man's logic but brings out the worst in man's isolated and rationalized reason. You decision to delete Mitchell's page like your decisions to keep pages on many seemingly meaningless slices of popular culture long forgotten, is a mystery. I does not hold up by any standard and you used certain impassioned pleas as examples to silence many logical and valid ones.

I will, given time, learn more about the politics of Wikipedia. This has been a good lesson to me. I once saw this site as a source of useful information, but the people who oversee it's digital workings are truly just like Mitch, lost the discursive details of their rules. Rules that frankly, seem to treasure popularity over significance. This is not a brain bank of just and honest adults trying to establish a library of common knowledge, its a forum of hooded bureaucrats warming themselves by their own cold and contextually bankrupt logic.

This makes me very sad, but I am glad that I have be set straight on the matter.

Thank you for my lesson,

I will be in touch in a more formal means, and more fitting to wikipedia's policies.

My best to you,

The G-word

2010-10-11T12:22:00.000-07:00

Just reading the CNN today and I found this interesting bit about word usage that many find tame, but others are offended by:

Universal pulls 'gay' quote from Vaughn trailer

A clip showing Vince Vaughn jokingly using the term "gay" is being removed from the trailer for his upcoming film, "The Dilemma."

On Friday, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) announced that Universal Pictures would be pulling the trailer's scene, in which Vaughn says "Electric cars are gay."

"Universal Pictures decided to open the trailer for their new Ron Howard-directed feature 'The Dilemma' with the phrase, 'Electric cars are gay' in an attempt at humor, but it’s hardly a joke for LGBT audiences growing increasingly frustrated by use of the word 'gay' as a pejorative," GLAAD said.

"GLAAD expressed these concerns directly to Universal Pictures prior to the trailer’s release, who have now assured us that the offensive joke will be removed from TV and Media campaigns promoting the film from this point forward, including the trailer currently playing in movie theaters," the organization said.

The decision came after both GLAAD and CNN anchor Anderson Coopercomplained that using the word was insensitive and harmful.

“The use of the word ‘gay’ in this trailer as a slur is unnecessary and does nothing more than send a message of intolerance about our community to viewers,” said GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios.

The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) has a "Think B4 You Speak" campaign aimed at combating the use of such language.

The truth? Calling something "gay," while abstracted from actual homosexuality, is still wrong. The use may have changed, from meaning homosexuality to lameness, but does that really excuse it?

It's like saying

"when I say something is 'Italian' I don't mean 'from Italy,' I mean it smells bad."

I call things gay and I shouldn't. I'm completely at comfort with gay people and yet I do say it.

Why? Because it is something I learned from childhood, it's natural and hard to quit.

I'm trying, I understand that it should be treated like the N word. But I think mainstream America is going to have a hard time giving it up.

Sometimes things become fashion and become abstracted from the original context, but it doesn't mean the original context isn't still some how involved.

If we used "Gay" to mean awesome instead of lame, I'm sure no one would mind!

"Wow is that a new sports car!! That is soo gay!!"

Unless it looks like this.... or well... maybe that's ok then.. Pretty gay car, but awesome too!

Reconsider Columbus Day?

2010-10-09T12:06:00.000-07:00

I just saw this on FB.

I agree with the sentiment and the idea of the new holiday, but I have a problem with the moralization of human history. Columbus was significant in the history of this country. I think we should tell the whole truth about him, but it doesn't take away from his historical significance. It does provide a more accurate story.

The entire modern history of this continent (and the world itself) shows oppression, especially to Indigenous Peoples and through slave labor. The history of pre-Eurpean Colonization of the Americas is also filled with much oppression slavery and genocide.

Europeans weren't more evil. Humans everywhere killed and enslaved. The Aztecs, the English, India, China, The USA.. everyone.

So we need to tell a complete story. Indeed. I don't celebrate Columbus day and I actually don't have the day off. It is a vestigial holiday that my Italian relations celebrate as a cultural moment of pride. They don't want to know the truth, they don't want their heroes tarnished.

But isn't that what these things are about? A holiday is a way to celebrate pride. Not one of our holidays isn't stained with compromise and blood. No people is without blood.

Miles Davis beat his wife. I cannot abide by that. But I can't stop listening to Sketches of Spain.

Jack Kerouac spent his later life involved with the KKK. Yet we celebrate him.

The human condition is not a moral one. We need to know the truth, but it doesn't mean we throw out anything.

What I fear is the idea of replacing one thing with another. I grew up on Zinn, I agree that morality (I prefer ethics) is important in judging and learning from history. History is pretty barbaric.

The reason I fear morality (but not ethics), is that it is a changing animal. 300 years ago compassion was considered weakness, a moral lapse by many. Morality is not something that I trust, since it seems to flip from side to side and embolden itself with entrenchment. No matter who holds it, it becomes powerful and dangerous and blind.

So on an ethical level, I think, were I to decide, Columbus day would become a day of remembrance of what happened. The truth. The whole story of his reasons, his goals, his worldview, his mindset, the historic beginning of oppression he released on a quarter of the world, the economic, political gears he put into play.

Columbus day would become a celebration of the complexity of our motives, what kind of humans we were, what we are capable of. How perhaps we have improved a bit, perhaps we take this day to embrace the evil we can commit and the rationalization which makes us blind to it. A realization that this country was created by exploitation and oppression, coated in righteous justified superiority and rationalization.

I think that is the more important lesson. Learn from Columbus day. To end it, is to sweep it under the rug. To push it so far away from us that we don't see our own actions in comparison. To me, the campaign to remove Columbus day is a feel good band aid that in the end, only helps mask humanities faults with a smile and redirection. We need to be reminded each year.

The (secret) Grand Internal Wiki-Trial

2010-09-25T19:48:00.000-07:00

Wikipedia is having a bizarre discussion on whether or not Mitch deserves to have a Wikipedia page.

The great tribunal is speaking, here's a sample:

Sad story. Otherwise unknown 35 year old shoots himself on the Harvard campus. He happens to leave a 1900 page suicide note. But Wikipedia is not a news organization so this article does not belong here. Pichpich (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete as Wikipedia is not the news or a memorial site (only notable for her death]]. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete non notable death—Chris!_c/t 04:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete. While it made blogs, Wikipedia is not governed by such gossip. It made news for two peculiarities, the length of the suicide note (or book, given its length) and for occurring at Harvard, but hardly encyclopedic. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete on the basis of the non-notability of one who is known for a single event of non-historic importance. In addition, it would be a terrible precedent to allow a Wikipedia memorial article to stand for someone who just killed themselves this month. We're not here to give the Wikipedia seal of approval to creative or stylish suicides. Dude wasn't notable and leaving the world's longest suicide note might get him into the Guinness Book of World Records (although I doubt they'd want to encourage that behavior either), but it most certainly should not get him in Wikipedia. —Carrite, Sept. 25, 2010.

Wikipedia article coverage is limited to topics that are notable, not topics that receive a seal of approval. Disapproval is not a valid reason for deleting an article. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep If it's notable enough for the New York Post and Huffington Post, it's notable enough for wikipedia. 24.18.46.29 (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

In general that is not the case — the Huffington Post reports frequently on daily trivia that are not notable in the long term, and the New York Post even more so — but it does represent some kind of evidence in that direction, because the event is clearly more notable than the vast majority of suicides. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Horrible car crashes in the New York area are typically reported on in each of the major NY papers. It's called daily news and it belongs at WikiNews. Pichpich (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Might deserve a footnote in the suicide note article for its exceptional length (that's how WP:ONEEVENT works).--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete. The individual is not notable. His suicide is temporarily newsworthy but not notable. Jimmy Pitt talk 19:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep It appears to be notable enough not to warrant deletion. As a student of philosophy, I suggest that it be reviewed to determine the exact nature of the suicide note so that it can be expanded upon in the article. The note is 1905 pages in length and over 500,000 words. 124.168.8.164 (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I of course, put my two cents in. I'm an ass.

I am amazed and truly entertained by the policies and procedures of this forum. I wonder if this cold calculating process isn't in some way similar to Mitch's process itself. Cold calculation, like that of a panicked bureaucrat, that brought him to his death.

He was my friend, and I am one of three primary sources for most of the articles sited, but I'm not here for that reason. I'm here to say that whether or not you do delete it doesn't matter. If Wikipedia was truly striving to present accurate information on unique events, I think this articles inclusion is a "no brainer." However, Wikipedia's purpose is to provide information on things that the public has interest in, with any controversy either expunged or in constant conflict.

Wikipedia is a positive force, I use it all the time and I thank you for your service. However it is limited by these factors. Why not unburden yourselves from this discussion and delete the article. Like your forefather, the Nelson television rating system, you can always reinstate the article at a future date when the real determining factor of popularity is more settled. After all, you do have a page for the Jonas Brothers don't you? Was that determined by merit or sheer popularity? I'm sure I wouldn't know.

You can commence with my expulsion now.
Cheers.

Passing of a Gentle Man.

2010-09-24T23:06:00.000-07:00

My friend Mitch died last Saturday. He killed himself in Harvard yard. After a week, the press has finally connected him to his internet published almost 2000 page book titled "Suicide Note." Now, he is on Huffington Post, and numerous news blogs and discussion boards. People are reading his book and calling him a nut or a genius. I just saw a Wikipedia page put up for him.

This is all so surreal and truly sad. I don't think anyone who knew Mitch knows how to process this. I can only say that the difference between reality and public judgment or perception has never been more clearly defined to me. He may end up a mythic hero or an exaggerated freak.

I can't tell you what was in his head. That is, I guess, best read within the pages of his document. I can only deal with the ghost, the gentle and pleasant man who I shared conversations with and who was very supportive to me in my venue of creative expression. I miss that guy, and even if it was only a facade, I hope some of it is absorbed into the myth that is now being created.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Heisman

Fellini meets Apocalypse Now, meets X-men

2009-03-12T20:10:00.000-07:00

God Bless Patton Oswalt.
David Hayter, Roger Ebert, I especially like Margaret Pomeranz (an Australian TV reviewer who hadn't read the book"

The problem is our lack of reference and our dulling numbness to anything but intense stimulus. This movie will do better outside the US. Surprise, we are idiots and arrogant snobs, mixed like a stripe soft serve cone.

I think this movie has taught me why Sci-Fi deserves to live in mediocrity.

TV shows like Battlestar Gallactica and movies like Watchmen are made because someone who cares and is a fan has gained a little power, when they fail, that voice is extinguished and replaced by another idiot Hollywood douche. I can find fault with this film in comparison with the masterpiece the book is, but not in comparison with other films.

Then again, I'm not obsessed or bothered by minor moments of blue nudity or soundtrack choices, two things that went beyond me, but are mentioned in almost every negative review.

In its imperfection it is Fellini meets Apocalypse Now, meets X-men. An entirely new movie, like we have never seen and I can't wait to view the director's cut.

We will never see Hollywood even try this again because its not mainstream enough for popcorn movie fans and "Arthouse Film" lovers are too snobby to watch a "supehero movie."

It is a hybrid and an original vision, no matter how much it owes to the book, it is flawed but brilliant and all the people who vehemently hate it will forget their arrogance as it follows "Blade Runner" and other "under appreciated in their own time" milestones into historical beloved status.

Those who call it "pseudo intellectual" are snobs in decline.

Those who tell you it's a comic and should not be made into a film, forget that it is indeed still a comic, and that 90% of all film, from the beginning of time is inspired from literature.

Those who take their children and then get angry that its an R rated movie, well...grow up...it's an R rated movie.

So I'm walking out after Watchmen. I peer out into the world seeing little connection to my peers. Like Silvia Plath during the Rosenberg trials, I have no idea who to relate to and where I'll find my bearings. A world so obviously lost to its own context. If I were to design a context to all the views and voices that have lashed out with arrogance and populism, it would be like this:

We live in a cultural mix of sophisticated infancy. On one hand, those striving to be considered as well thought and tasteful vacillate between two poles.

The scornful erudites; those who truly get the profundity of culture, art, science, craft and all refined achievements while often missing many of the shifting paradigms that break from their precious cannon of formerly rebellious and now commonly held conventions. Paradigms that often re-ignite the very lust to create that birthed the things they find precious in life.

The hollow but sly trend watchers, who possess uncanny but limited vision into the heart of practical one-upsmanship. Not spectacularly concerned or able to cope with profound and deeply unmanageable "big picture" bits of philosophical, theological or sociological systems, these bureaucratic chameleons study the guise and traits of the positions they find most fulfilling or personally aspiring and make their nest there, happy and content in the bitter, but structurally protective institutions of "after the risk" and "before the fall."

Neither are prepared or inspired to take chances. They have not witnessed the burden of those who do, but they have great appreciation for the calamity, the spectacle and the risk it will incur their nests and utopias.

On the other hand, somewhere off in a more definable realm, people want shit to do. They want to throw off their jobs and responsibilities, relax with a fucking beer, talk some shit with friends, fuck their chick or dude and make the time between 9 and 5 go as far away as it possibly can.

They don't connect with big brained bullshit, they don't question shit that makes them upset or gives them a fucking panic attack.

They don't aspire to luxury in the form of the profundity of the collective accomplishments of humanity.

They share the perspective of the social construct.

They know only short escapes.

They are bored with all but the most intoxicating thrills and numbing agents.

They are for the most part, unaware or excited by the heights of their visual sophistication and numb to modern communication methods that would keep their forefathers in their closets, bible in hand, wishing away hellspawn.

None of them, the snob, the hack nor the laymen appreciate the goods that have been put in front of them.

Many have written essays on why they won't be watching Watchmen. Alan Moore, the book's author complains that in hindsight Watchmen, meant to be a watershed book to birth a new force in groundbreaking comics, became instead intellectual license to gratuitously realize higher levels of violence and sexual content.

Moore is right, instead of inspiring us to break convention the film's impact is reflected through pompous bloggers, film critics and others who hug convention and use critique to soapbox their self oreinted "look at me" anger. For the most part the "Watchmen reaction" in its explosive nature and volume, is proof of it's impact.

I'm a bit sick with the loss of true film critique. The snobs deem it unworthy by genre, the simple ones think it's boring because it doesn't cater to their need for fast paced thrills, the fans deem it not the book... as if it could be.

The people who seem the most clear are the folks who never read the book, who, when they love it, recognize it as something entirely new to film.

Their honesty holds the keys to the kingdom.

Make Your Own Virtual Movie Theater

2009-01-10T07:04:00.001-08:00

The (Final) Dave Sim Gambit

2008-05-05T18:47:00.000-07:00

How do you free yourself from the label of Misogyny? Apparently, you gather supporters.. with ransom!

First, turning over a new leaf or at least trying:

Intellectually, I hate using "ist" terms of absolute definition like racist or sexist or misogynist. Although I have used them in the past, they only serve to further alienate and polarize. If we want to create a more complex conversation and actually reach across the isle at all, I think we need to separate actions from total character assassination. So Geraldine Ferraro isn't a racist, but she has made what I would call racist statements.

On to the show...

Dave Sim is a comic book creator who has written the comic book 'Cerebus' since 1977. 'Cerebus' is the story of a medieval aardvark who starts out as a Conan the Barbarian satire and becomes sophisticated, of sorts, achieves the position of Pope and I guess at the end of the series dies.

In between is, from what I've read of it, a large and evolving social satire of great wit and cruelty.

I liked what I read and I have always wanted to read more. However, whenever I mention Sim in most comic circles invariably I hear the term "misogynist" cascade through the conversation, mostly without real explanation or details. (It may be helpful to note that most comic circles are themselves 90% male populated. These are men who have super model in chain mail fantasies, and who would disagree with my post on the misogyny of 'Y The Last Man' conveniently available for free HERE!)

For proof of Sim's misogynism, the story arc called "Jaka's Story" is usually mentioned..... I haven't read anywhere near that far yet.

Douglas Wolk has, and he writes on Cerebus here:

Cerebus, the 6,000-plus-page comic-book epic............ an absolute masterpiece—one of the most ambitious and fully realized narratives of the past century. And its flaws are plentiful, wide, and maddening, and penetrate straight to its core.

...Oh right. About two-thirds of the way into Cerebus, something in its tone abruptly cracks, and the misogynist pus that bubbles up never fully abates after that. (Sim has insisted that he’s not a misogynist, just “not a feminist,” but he’s become rather a single-issue candidate about it; he also claims, for instance, that using s’s rather than s’ for the possessive form of names that end in s is a Marxist-feminist plot. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.) It becomes rather tough-going if you like your art to be compatible with your politics, unless you’re one of the eighty-five people on the planet whose gender politics are as far right as Sim’s.

This is why I haven't read more of it, I loved what I read, which mostly was the earlier, sillier stuff, although I loved how the series grows up with the writer and gets deeper and more satirical.

I also read some random issues further on, mostly a brutal rant on the surface of the moon, delivered to Pope Cerebus by a man in a suit with a mustache that I believe is supposed to be God. It's wonderful and demystifying. No real misogyny to mention here, but it is a conversation between a man with a mustache, who may be God and an aardvark who has ascended to Pope.

If you want to find proof of misogyny, you can look at Sim's own writing. It's obvious that this guy does not like 'feminism' and seems to look at it the way angry white men look at affirmative action.. a single-minded cohesive, philosophical institution that's primary purpose is the emasculation of all men and aardvark-centric comic creators.

From Sim's article labeled "Tangent" here:

In the arena of intellectual opinion, when it comes to these hard questions, asking Dave Sim, “Why do you hate women so much?” is irrelevant when my subject is feminism's lack of sound intellectual footing. It is irrelevant whether I hate women. It is irrelevant whether I love women. It is irrelevant whether I consider women in any emotional context whatsoever, just as – when my question is directed toward feminism's lack of sound intellectual footing – it is irrelevant whether I hate ice cream, whether I love ice cream or whether I consider ice cream in any emotional context whatsoever. All That Is Relevant, when the issue at hand is my contention that feminism lacks a sound intellectual foundation, All That Is Relevant, Germane and/or Pertinent is the intellectual foundation – or lack of same – upon which feminism rests.

This article really should be read. Although one could argue that it seems obvious, my first thought isn't really about misogyny. My first thought is that this man is in tremendous pain and in his mind, feminism is one of the causes of that pain.

In his mind, 'feminism' is probably on the periodic table of the chemical elements as a constant, dominant, subversive lie, that is assembled to destroy and falsify true human rights and roles, constructed and unchanging on the molecular level.

Unfortunately, that is how our minds calcify our hurt, defensiveness and entrenchment; in hollow, pompous, rhetorical judgments. If only we had the power to step out of ourselves and practice some humble self judgment, I have to think that an Ebinezer Scrooge moment might crumble away all but the original thoughts which could be the basis of a constructive discussion.

I wouldn't define myself as a feminist, but I would say that 'feminism' has had an influence on me. I think one could argue that feminism is less one ideology and more a collection of many (sometimes apposing) ideas that come from many different perspectives. I would also argue that feminist influences are a part of a larger cannon of philosophy and ethical theories and that they constantly evolve, adapt and inform that canon.

Boxing against a static definable opponent is easy. Easier still, is filtering your correspondence to protect yourself from opposing arguments. When it gets really weird though, is when the same act is used to garner support and build a defense through insincere coercion.

It is obvious, that Mr. Sim is trapped. This label of misogyny must travel with him everywhere he goes. It must make him very angry and jaded. I know it affects his sales as I have most definitely not purchased his books solely out of fear of ruining the enjoyment I gathered from his earlier work. What is he to do?

Apparently, Dave Sim has taken an unusual action to combat his tarnished image. Several blogs (like this one and this one) reported that Mr. Sim has been sending the following form letter in response to any and possibly all inquiries and correspondences, with instructions that responses will only be given to folks who feel like signing their names to a petition of sorts, which states that they do not believe him to be a misogynist.

(click letter to read)

This is weird, bordering on scary. I think Mr. Sim is about to pull a J. D. Salinger and disappear from Google Earth.

Mr. Sim, it's very hard to make it back from where you tread.

Bring a flashlight... you hit the darkside.

Blinded By The White: Slavery - The Game!

2008-04-09T12:46:00.000-07:00

Not all of us folks are stupid. Sometimes, I'm a bit embarrassed by how clueless we are to our own offensive behavior. We will practically bust in the door of the rest of the world and take a crap on their dinner table and the say "what's wrong?" with true puzzlement.

I'm not trying to be a killjoy, but sometimes the eyes of Caucasia are so blinded to there own offensive actions that I can't believe in evolution. I know I'm going to get the moaning and the groaning and the "white anger." I always get that from my peeps.

I did when in high school, a friend (let's call him Spence) told me he thought it would be really funny if he dressed up as an SS trooper for Halloween. Of course Spence also told me his Dad lost his job to a Jew. I was amazed his father took the time to find out the religious and cultural background of the man who was replacing him.

As it turns out though, after Spence regaled me with a good dose of his father's world philosophy, I had a good hunch that "the Jew" could do something Spence's dad couldn't, process thoughts in logical order, understand cause and effect or perhaps read above a fourth grade level.

Another example occurs in the Micheal Moore's 1980's hit documentary "Roger & Me," when the wealthy folks of Genesee County hold a ball in the brand new prison, the night before it opened up for business.

Turns out, the prison is needed to house the many ex-GM workers who had tried a hand at surviving by five finger discount, desperation and brutal force after their good jobs at GM disappeared. I remember the vision of rich, suburban folks, dressed up and playing "cops and robbers" in real prison cells, that would soon hold broken hopeless members of the post industrialist workforce .

No wonder the French Revolution had guillotines.

Here comes another great one for the list. It's a Facebook application called "Owned."

Here's the pitch: you buy , sell and possess other people, in a fun simulation of tongue and cheek slave commerce:"Own Your Friends! Give Human Gifts! Put yourself on the market and find out how much you're worth!"

"Give Human Gifts" - That is just dandy.

What a fun! An inoffensive game sensation.
I wonder if white folks will invite their black friends to play?

The mass of the clueless moves slowly towards the edge, dragging us all down with it.

Yeah sure the world hates us for our Freedom..

Obama Speech Reactions

2008-03-19T13:02:00.000-07:00

Reactions that I wanted to share...
From The Nation:

Blues For Obama
The Nation 2 hours, 5 minutes ago

The Nation -- Win or lose, whatever happens next, Barack Obama is now established as one of those rare, courageous teachers who leads the country onto new ground. He has given us a way to talk about race and our other differences with the clarity and honesty that politics does not normally tolerate. Whether this hurts or helps his presidential prospects is not yet clear, but he has done this for us and it will change the country, whatever the costs to him.

His words should discourage the media frenzy of fear-driven gotcha. His speech in Philadelphia on Tuesday may also make the Clintons re-think their unsubtle exploitation of racial tension. But nobody knows the depth or strength of the commonplace fears streaming through the underground of public feelings. No one can be sure of what people will hear in Obama's confident embrace, beckoning Americans in all their differences, leaving out no one, to a better understanding of themselves.
Read on...

From Blogging While Feminist / Plain(s)feminist:

The speech.

I do not remember, in my lifetime, anyone saying anything like this, in this way, to a national audience. Even though he is not saying anything new, because he is saying it publicly, because America is listening to him, I feel like it's the first time in my life that any of it is being said outside of communities of color. And because of that, I want to focus on what I think is the importance of what he said to White people.

Read on..

This is sad but true stuff..
From La Chola:

obama picks up the race discussion

Obama gave his speech on race.

It was a good speech, a stirring speech. But I can’t help it. I’m disgusted. Not at Obama, but at the world. I honestly think that Obama’s candidacy hangs on a thread at the moment. I am not sure if he’s going to be able to pull himself out of the mess he is in. Many people aren’t as doom and gloom as I am, but I also work and live in Midwest U.S.A. and I’ve not heard good things so far from *any* white person. Not one. Obama is suspect to them. His patriotism, his loyalty–they are all suspect, and they are all suspect because Obama KNOWS somebody who believes in racial justice. Obama has never ONCE been an overtly “demand accountability from white folks” sort of dude in his political career.

Read on..

And one comment on the Washington Post site said it well:

Obama's speech was so remarkable that I no longer care whether he wins the nomination or not. He won. Period. This country may not be ready but the fault is not his, it's ours.

Peace, Love and all that Hippie Shit!
-Stuff Daddy

The Speech We Will Remember Hearing.....

2008-03-18T20:17:00.000-07:00

Its almost 38 minutes, but its worth it.

In my opinion, without exaggeration, this is the most important, detailed, honest and accessible speech on the topic of race, given by a mainstream personality or politician in my lifetime.

You may want to watch it, I have a feeling our children will be studying it.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gGBbTW

Borack and "The Black Best Friend (BBF) Zone"

2008-03-18T10:19:00.000-07:00

Leave it to Plain(s)feminist to get me writing again.
Her post "On Rev. Jeremiah Wright."
Got me typing..

I've been thinking a lot about the fragile area of esteem that was first occupied by the great Joe Louis when he became the first modern, widely respected and openly admired Black American celebrity. Over the years the heavy weight was put upon the sturdy, humble backs of folks like Jackie Robinson, Nat King Cole, Sidney Poitier and Colin Powell.

In this very narrow area, even the most racist of folks will embrace a black pop star, actor or four star general as good enough to be given respect and admiration. This "Black Best Friend (BBF) Zone" has adapted over time, but it has a social trigger capable of snapping back at those who dare attempts to inhabit it.

In the 50's Nat King Cole was a thought of as a "gentlemen," good enough to be on TV, but only until his friendly embrace of a guest's hand, one that happened to be a white woman, stirred up the ever present fears of black sexuality and deeply offended the American public.

Despite Oprah's unquestionable success, she still exists within this zone. While cultivating an almost cult-like following among white women, she still caused a great rift with her supporters when she choose to support Borack Obama over Hillary Clinton. Perhaps her audience connected with her as a woman, but did not allow her to also inhabit a black identity.

In Spike Lee's "Do The Right Thing" John Turturro's character Pino explains both his love of black superstars and his acceptance based on the diminishment of their blackness:
"It's different. Magic, Eddie, Prince are not n*ggers, I mean, are not Black. I mean, they're Black, but not really Black. They're more than Black. It's different."

Now Borack Obama, has fallen into an almost inescapable whirlpool, stirred by the words of his long time adviser and church leader the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Whether or not his words have any truth to them, they are angry, loud and black and they are openly definable by white ears as more of that "black racism" that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hanity and the rest of angry white America defines whenever they start a sentence with the phrase: "the only problem I have with black people is.."

This is that same embrace of a white woman's arm, the same uproar when when Mohamed Ali had the gall to exhibit an ego, the same shock felt when Malcolm X stated that that yes, if attacked by an armed man, he would not hesitate to defend himself with arms. Had these actions or words been expressed by a white person, would they even be noticed much less trigger disfavor?

Those who embrace this reaction do so without recognition that they are judging differently based on racial preference using on a different scale, exercising a severe double standard. These voters are now seeing the dream of the "black, gentlemen candidate" as horribly tainted. Somewhere deep inside, they feel betrayed, "I thought he was a nice black man, is he just another one of those people?"

While the "crazy" and "angry" statements of Rev. Wright are played over and over again, cementing themselves in the voting publics' mind, many will never compare them to the similarly violent and angry daily rantings of conservative talk radio stars and religious leaders who hold similar posts of prominence and advisement to many current politicians who don't have to wear and weather rhetoric that doesn't come from their own mouths.

I think once the fragile area of esteem is tainted in the white publics eyes, it will take a miracle for Obama to survive these words that he did not say. I don't think Geraldine Ferraro understood that Black Americans only get one chance to fit the mold, to live up to impossible standards. It's really very easy to stir up a "fear of a black planet" in the mind of a white voter. For Obama, its going to be a very hard road from here on out.

So What if Obama and Clinton were both white guys..

2008-03-12T12:35:00.000-07:00

I agree that it's a given that being black or a woman adds a historic significance to to both candidates. However, just being "Black" sure didn't get Obama and his extremely effective campaign where it is now. Ferraro, basically cuts him down to color, says that he is there only because he's black, not because he's a great communicator, or extremely smart or someone who has a lot of experience connecting to the public on the activist level. She takes away from him all his accomplishments and says "All you are is a lucky, black man!"

The way I perceive it, Ferraro sees Clinton as the most qualified canidate and sees Obama as a man who is sliding past her because of sexism in the press and in the populace. So she sees it as acceptable to call him a lucky black man, who somehow just waltzed into the front runner position. The disdain that the Clinton campaign seems to have for Obama supporters also seems to run along these lines. Its all about demeaning and belittling him, "he's giving false hope," "he's only here because he's black," "he'd be a wonderful VP," can you imagine anyone having the nerve to say the seriously about a front runner, especially when they are also calling them unqualified?

I think the Clinton campaign has made a vital error in this approach, I don't think it's been calculated, perhaps it's reactionary, coming from an "old guard's" entitled sense of superiority. I fear for the Democratic party, because it's so close to splitting in two over the venom thrown around.

Taking the premise that Obama and Clinton are both white men, I think Obama would win hands down on his communication skills, broad reach and rallying power alone. Clinton is smart, but a very poor politician, with many legal and ethical skeletons.

Sadly, those who focus so much on the gender gap for Clinton may not realize that Obama has a much larger possibility of loss if you believe inherent racism runs much deeper and more violently in the white and Latino community then the inherent gender bias. I think people forget that the "acceptable black man myth" is a bit more of a fragile standard then the "acceptable, executive white woman." If you're Joe Louis, Nat King Cole or Sidney Poitier, whites will support you, but if Clinton's people can just taint that image a little, like others did last year against Harold Ford jr. in a commercial showing a topless white "Playmate" mouthing "Harold call me," or when Nat King Cole's groundbreaking TV show was taken off the air because he touched a white female guests arm, then Obama's campaign can and may be destroyed by playing on fears like spreading photos of Obama in African garments or belittling an intelligent, accomplished opponent as the result of tokenism.

Racism VS. Sexism.... is there a winner?

2008-02-27T11:30:00.001-08:00

I'm a fan of blogger Plain(s) Feminist. In my opinion, she is both a wonderfully, interesting and at times very funny writer and she tends to break through the ideological arguments that tend to cement around contentious issues, getting to the truer core arguments that are many times absent from the general public discourse.

She's been discussing the issues brought about by the collision of Clinton and Obama supporters that has created surprisingly emotionally violent arguments about who is more oppressed and/or more deserving of a historic milestone.

Her article is .... If Hillary Clinton were a White man.

My two cents (below) were posted on her comment page HERE.

I think it can easily be said that the tensions between allies can be as strained as those between enemies.

I have always thought of oppression as a grid in which each individual intersects in a different place, defined by gender, ethnicity, class, sexual preference, religion, education, and so on. So many people feel so "in touch" with the ways in which they are oppressed, but they rarely see themselves as part of the oppressive system.

I remember a party in Jamaica Plains where I had a long discussion with a gay, white man about homophobia in black culture. It took me a long time to explain to him that he was not necessarily the "oppressed" party in this situation, but instead there was a weird exchange between these two social groups. Both played a role in the oppression of the other.

As a gay man, he felt oppressed by the hatred, persecution and threats of violence by socially conservative community values that are shared in great numbers by Blacks, Whites, Latinos and many others and he felt especially threatened by negative gay stereotypes in black culture and music.

As a part of the gentrification of Jamaica Plains, he was part of the wealthy, predominantly white populace that bought up tenement houses, displacing predominantly, poor, black families.

In keeping with that, I think the subject that Plain Feminist is so cogently describing is something very real and very under the radar. The sad thing is, that while most people you talk to say they are voting for the best person gender and race aside, the numbers show such a huge race and gender divide, that it just can't be true.

I admit I would love for a woman or a person of color to be president. I think that a president can be a policy wonk and/or a great orator.

I do feel that the "False Hope", "Fairy Tale," and "Jesse Jackson did well too," arguments along with the frankly disgusting audacity to rate sexism against racism and pick a winner, is the most divisive BS I have ever heard. It saddens me to see the compromise of people who I had once deeply respected.

Michel Gondry on Michel Gondry!

2008-02-22T21:15:00.000-08:00

Michel Gondry has more heart, soul and creativity in his work than many folks who are sensitized to media can take. I don't think people really understand how much conditioning a viewer of a certain genre or era of media undergoes. We expect and want the sugar sweet roller coaster we are promised and we can't always taste the subtlety of daring artists.

People complain when comfortably "qwirky" becomes unclear, unexpected and avant-garde. They say the artist has lost his meaning or way. What they mean is, "This is not what I expected or wanted. I am lost. I am feeble. I'm a big douche."

Here's the trailer for Gondry's new film and his sweded trailer of his trailer. You'll understand after you see it in order

1)

2)

A Comment I Left In An Aintitcool.com "Talkback" Section:

2007-07-23T12:41:00.001-07:00

This place is the best. It's a strange, topically tangential linkage of the curious, the furious and the impotent. It's like you're talking to someone at a party and you think you're having a great conversation... then you realize the other person is just nodding at you while an ever expanding circle of pee floods out from between their toes and over their flip flops.

I'm Tagged!

2007-04-09T11:05:00.000-07:00

And because I'm tagged and by whom I'm tagged I will do this.
But only for you Plain(s) Feminist!

A- Available or Single
Not at all, although it crept up slowly and stealthily, it consumed me pretty completely recently and now I am her's alone.

B- Best Friend
Best friends are intense friendships and I have had many. I had one named Jackson, who stole away in the night with his mother, who was hiding from his father. I had one named Karlan who was lost to madness. I had one named Matt who betrayed me. I have one named Jole that used to be foolish but is now wise and generous. I have one named David who never could tell me the truth to my face. I have one named Seth that I must visit. I have one named Michelle that I have reunited with. I have one named Ted that found his home and love at the Opera. I have one named Boris who disappeared to Brazil. I have one named Bill, who is becoming stronger. I had one named Danyaal that cut off all contact. I have two named Wayne and Natasha that show me how strong real love can be. I now have another, she is my very best friend and she knows me better than anyone ever has, and I can fall asleep to her voice and be happy.

C- Cake or Pie
Strawberry Rhubarb Pie, Pecan Pie, Key lime Pie, those three, especially Pecan!!

D- Drink of Choice
Whiskey, Dr. Browns Black Cherry Soda, Orange Vitamin Water, Poland Springs, but my favorite of all time is Honest Tea's "Black Forest Berry". Actually, I really miss Strawberry Julius from Orange Julius, but where can you get one of those.

E- Essential Item
Cell Phone, but wouldn't it be cool if I said garrote?.

F- Favorite Color
I always said RED. But I don't wear RED or own anything RED. RED was just a flashy answer. Oh wait Spider-man... RED it is..

G- Gummi Bears or Worms
I'm going to be difficult and say Swedish Fish, because Swedish Fish kick the ever loving ass out of gummi crap!! Also because my sis and I on Lake George lived through summers with Swedish Fish, Ice Cream Sandwiches and Archie Comic Books!!

H- Hometown
Schenectady, New York.

I- Indulgence
Movies, Comics Books and Phone Calls to Canada.

J- January or February
February is Black History Month and I would be nowhere without Langston Hughes, Malcolm X, Roland Kirk and Nina Simone. Black America is our rich cultural heritage, even for this white boy.

K- Kids
I have a nephew and a lot of friends with babies. I think I relate well to kids, but only because I never grew up and love to play with action figures while watching cartoons. Maybe one day....

L- Life is incomplete without
Music, Movies, Conversation and my lady.

M- Marriage Date
Never been, don't miss it, but if i did it, it would be special. Not letting a bunch of doves free special, but real and sincere special.

N- Number of Siblings?
One who has my back whenever I need her.

O- Oranges or Apples?
Aaaaah!! I love sweet oranges and Delicious Apples. Can I cut them up and have them both in a salad?.

P- Phobias/Fears
Slasher films. The Lawrence Welk Show. Star Search. CSI Anything. Law& Order Anyone. Sometimes drinking out of a dark cup (I'm serious). The Bird Flu. Bad AM Radio. Religious Self Appointed Martyrs.

Q- Favorite Quote
"In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed - but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love, 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
- Harry Lime (Orson Welles), The Third Man

R- Reasons to smile
My dad singing "It's Time To Go To Sleep" a lullaby he wrote. My Nephew when he's shockingly cogent and cute. My mom when she's happy and calm. My sister when she's silly. My brother-in-law when he's witty. My love when she teases me. My dog Frodo when he used to park his butt under your hand or when he used to roll over paws up! I miss Frodo.

S- Season
Fall. I was born right before Halloween. I love the brisk air and the smell of leaves on the ground.

T- Tag Three People
Jim @ Hockey (and Donut) Blog, Wayne Flower, and Tommy O'Bloggy.

U- Unknown Fact About Me
My band "Grits" closed for "They Might Be Giants" for a crowd of 3000 in 1994.

W- Worst Habit
Postpone and sleep.

Y- Your Favorite Foods
Brunch Food. At Yassir's place "Sound Bites."

Z- Zodiac
Scorpio.

Drifting Into 30 Something

2007-03-27T00:26:00.000-07:00

When you reach the age of 34, you feel halfway between your potential and your actual achievement.

God help me if I'm that far away or that close.

I think the pull and push of this polar discussion, gives off the distinct feeling of drifting.
I'm too casual to be as brutally decisive as I was at 24 and I hope I'm still less settled than I will be at 44.

I'm just drifting... drifting.. drifting..

It's almost a relaxing way to watch your life float.
Maybe, since I'm so close to the middle of things, it's a moment before things mean a bit too much added to the melancholy of a young person's fully dissolved, lack of perspective.

Two things are for sure,
real love still hurts like it did when I was 16
and people who read this in their 40's will think I'm a whining asshole.

Which I am.

The Attack of The Entrenched: Can There Be A Childfree Dialogue?

2007-02-17T02:52:00.000-08:00

Preface:
One of my my favorite bloggers Plain(s) Feminist posted an interesting article about the "Childfree" movement. (Here) I found the article and the discussion that followed it into her comment area, fair and open and yours truly even tried to approach a level of articulation worthy of the conversation.

This was in January.

Apparently, the folks over at Childfree-EZ recently got a glance at her post and started responding rudely and (of course) anonymously, while bravely ripping her apart in the safe confines of their 'community' forum. (Here)

When I say safe I mean.. (their words not mine):

Help - FAQ: I'm a parent, but I agree with you. Can I post here?

No. This board is a safehaven for the Childfree where we do not justify ourselves, thoughts, decisions, or actions to any non-CFers. This is a companionship board, not a debate board, and posts questioning the Childfree or extolling the virtues of parenthood will not be tolerated. We've had parents posting here before. We've seen parents post at other childfree-only boards. What we have never seen is a parent who could carry on the sort of conversation we have here without getting offended sooner or later and pulling the "as a parent, I...whatever" out of their arsenal. This board is not the place to discuss regrets, if any, about having children, because this board is not the place to discuss child-rearing issues of individual posters AT ALL. The places on the internet where those conversations are available are legion. The places on the internet where the childfree are free of parents are about 6. Childfree stepparents are welcome to post. Just as the intro says we do not care to hear the virtues of parenthood extolled, neither do we wish to hear the regrets. You are to be commended for announcing yourself as a parent. Many people have tried to be a part of this community and lied about their childed status. Unfortunately, not one single parental poster on this board has ever managed to keep their kids out of their posts. We don't care. We really don't care. Every day in our jobs, in our families, we are inundated with people and their children. We come here to be free of that- childfree, in fact. Parents should not post here. We ask you to respect the intention of the board. Feel free to read.

So, to give you the context, this is my response on Plain(s) Feminist's post and I felt I should post it here too. I have no children, I'm an uncle to one nephew and I do think children can be annoying and parents can be poor at their job. I feel bad for those who feel oppressed by "Pro Family" forces, but I also feel their reaction is poorly planned and much more of a tantrum than a political movement. They are not entirely wrong, I don't think the whole world should be molded for children's eyes either, however they seem more interested in nursing their wounds in the shadows, then actually trying to come up with palatable solutions, that could be instituted by the greater public. If you come here from Childfree-EZ, by all means bring in the noise and the funk. I'll even give you a moment to let your eyes adjust to the bright light of free discussion.
Cheers- The Stuff Daddy

My Response:

Hey, I just wanted to shout hello to all the folks coming by the post from the "Childfree-EZ" forum. It must be a lovely thing to have a like-minded forum in a protected space where you can pursue the joys of argument and conversation, without the tiresome bother of having to have a cogent thesis that can stand up on it's own merit against an opposing view.

I wonder how many other great thinkers got there start in such a warm and friendly environment. I'm sure it cultivates, the humility and self reflection that we all need time to time, to check ourselves and especially our egos against logic and sense.

Bearing that in mind, I have a gift for you all. It's something that I hope you can take back with you to the comfort of your little corner of the net:

You are not in a war against "Pro Child People."

I'm sure there are some people who consider themselves to be vehemently against you, but most of the people who you are painting as your enemy are just not as extreme in their sense of self entitlement as you are. I have all the same experiences that you do. I hear the screaming children whose parents let them run wild through the supermarket, I go to my local bar/restaurant and develop a frown when a family birthday party is taking place. (shouldn't that be happening at a Chuck E. Cheese?)

I think many parents are terrible at their station and should be taken to task for it.

But I don't think I have the right to abstract myself from the annoyances of children any more than I think I have the right to do the same with panhandlers, or slow, elderly people. Whether, young, poor or old, they are facts of life.

I am not your enemy,

but you seem too entrenched in your own protective shells to build links with others and perhaps together, build some kind of social accountability for parents. Look at the name by which you identify yourselves. The "Childfree" movement has probably the worst PR strategy I have ever seen. Just the name, will seem to many people, an attack on children. Why not call yourselves "Kitten Killers?" Doesn't "Parental Responsibility Movement" sound more palatable and more accurate. Like a bunch of rich college activists who spend there time protesting with puppets instead of building ties with the working class, you trade away the most important part of activism, the ability to connect with allies, and you do it for nothing more than hollow, self righteous satisfaction.

To distill my earlier thoughts...It is true that many people who don't have children are unfairly judged by others. People with children do sometimes seem to think the world revolves around them and that is not a fair assessment. However, a 'childfree' life is merely a luxury of modern individualism. You live in a world community and whether or not you actually personally have children, your taxes, voting and other choices will raise generations of them and then, their choices will determine whether or not they drop you on an ice flow. The one freedom you don't have is to change reality.

While I understand the need for people to fight the right wing agenda that tries to ban everything that isn't child friendly and promotes a 'family first' focus, that does not mean we don't need to have an interest in more than our own personal, narrow lifespan. I don't begrudge anyone for wanting or not wanting to have children. I don't think anyone is telling you that you cannot live your life the way you please. However, if every time you see a child, you cringe and start to boil with anger, thinking that some annoying brat might bother your day, you have serious problem with excepting life as it is on this planet. Gathering in support groups isn't going to help.

We are more than just individuals who negotiate our freedom to value ourselves by changing standards or mores. We are billions of people, in towns, states, countries, a large social animal, which takes little thought to its purpose or progress on the planet it uses. I find the idea of wanting to abstract yourself from children entirely to be less than a valiant expression of individual freedom. It is the height of Western, white collar, sociopathic decadence.

When it comes down to it, I'm sure it's unnerving, when you feel secure in your self created image and individually secure life and then, all of a sudden, a child comes up to you and they don't see your impeccable business dress or other accoutrements. They don't care about what you do for a job unless you're a fireman or a superhero. They don't read your blog or care about how nicely you designed you condo. It's an "Emperor's New Clothes" moment and there you are, just another grownup person who thinks they are very important, but isn't. Don't you remember, it's exactly how you felt when you were that age.

- The Stuff Daddy

Updated!

I thought I'd respond to some of my new pals at Childfree-EZ who seem to have trouble using my comment link for this blog. Please guys, feel free to post here.

misopedist says- What's up with this asshole (links to this post)

SD -Hey misopedist , thanks for linking! I'm up with intelligent and unconventional discussion where people try to respect each other while allowing candid and hopefully productive breakthroughs and bridges between viewpoints, how about you?

Aurons Girl says- Hello, my name is StuffDaddy, and I enjoy fapping to the sound of my keyboard. Honestly, dude, say what you have to say without the pretentious bullshit and get on with it.

SD -Hey Aurons Girl, great imitation! Sorry about the pretentious bullshit, but it seems to be the only way to counterpoint venomous vulgarity from within a "protective" forum. My keyboard is more "clicky" then "fappy" but I do enjoy it! Thanks again.

tielmom67 says- He is a bit full of his 'superiority' isn't he?
As for wanting to stir shit with him over there, why bother?
He'll either snidely delete anything we say or cut dissenting opinions down to the applause of his fellow like-minds.
'No Win [or even Truce]' scenario with a person like him.

SD -Hey tielmom67, no fair! I don't think I'm superior to anyone. I just don't think you are either. Honestly if anyone really wants to talk about this issue, it's fine with me and to be completely serious and honest with you, if you can't find a common space with me, someone who shares a great deal of empathy for your ideology, then good luck finding any peace in this world except in tiny protective forums and caves. You guys really are fighting with people who aren't your enemies. In fact we probably share some of the same enemies, but "Childfree" needs a PR agent like Mike Tyson needs a sedative. Either hide in your safe haven or step up to the plate with some intelligent discussion. Cheers! -The Stuff Daddy

PS- If you guys decide not to converse but to just chat about me on your site, here are some fun facts to help you make fun of me.

-My other blog is a comic book movie site! (What a geek! He never grew up! What a loser!)
-I wrote a silly song about Dan Rather. (People like this guy think they're witty, but they're just boring!)
-I linked to many cartoons that I've done. (My kid could do better!! oh sorry, that's inappropriate, isn't it?)
-Also, good for me, he's crazy, arrogant, long winded, and I like Grover from Sesame Street!
Go to it folks!

Last Update?

Sorry, I've been out playing music with two buds. All three of us are "non-breeders" and we all discussed in amazement, the entrenchment of some people who call themselves "CF" (not all, I am specifically talking to this specific forum mentioned above, for all I know the rest of the "CF" world are a bunch of mellow, friendly types). The major issue that amazed my friends was the idea that someone could just demand a world where they never had to face children in any way. Now, I can understand if it was "loud children" or "wild children" although good luck on separating yourself without going into public exile, but I think it's the "all children" thing that unnerves some of us and, well, makes us think....well.....that you cats are just crazy. I'm not saying you are, but I will explain my use of the word sociopath below.

Some of the folks over at Childfree-EZ are pretty much saying "leave us alone in our own space."

I guess it's a comfortable way to vent. The great hostility they have towards the world in general and parents and children specifically, may come from more horrid experiences than I have ever had. Women especially, must feel society pressuring them to have children, and that's obviously wrong. Of course Plain(s) Feminist has said all the same things. All the people I've talked to about this support a person's right to not have a child and to live their lives as they please. That hasn't stopped folks from lashing out and name calling. I guess it's a reaction to the pain they feel, since it certainly is not pound for pound in equality with the thoughts professed by those they have spoken ill of.

madchen says- that StuffDaddy guy is nuts - people who hate kids are sociopaths? Methinks we should buy that idiot a dictionary. Wow.

SD - madchen, your wish is my command. (definition found at www.Dictionary.com)

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
sociopath [(soh-see-uh-path, soh-shee-uh-path)]

Someone whose social behavior is extremely abnormal. Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others.

This could also explain that, while your forum is protected from unwanted attacks, you begrudge others from doing the same in response to you. Of course here, you are free to say what you will... I know you don't believe me, but you never know till you try..

Taz in CH says- Methinks that StuffDaddy has got way too much time on his hands to write all this stuff. First, defending some delusional :moocow 's non-argument that the sun shines out of the ass of her newborn and that everybody else should just suck it up, when the loaf acts out in public, and then being all upset about EZCF rules, excluding him from our community.

WTH, he is not CF, so he can't be part of the community. Baaawaaaah! That's unfaaaaaiiiiir.

SD - Hey, Taz in CH. How you doing? Let's breakdown your argument a bit, shall we?

First, can somebody define CF for me? I not a parent! Aren't I "Free of Child?" Or, is it about agreeing with everthing you say? I am confused about this...

Lazy Intellect Internet Response Number 533:
"has got way too much time on his hands "
This commonly used phrase attacks an author by cleverly poking holes in his theory or thesis without actually discussing it's content, but instead, with a retort comparable to "Oh yeah!! Well, if you have the time to write down a cogent thought, then you must not have a life!" The common but incorrect response to this is for the attacked to then go into an explanation of how much of a life he/she has ie (I drink a lot/I have sex with multiple partners/I have a expensive car/I'm rich/I'm a movie star etc.) The first correct response is to admit defeat at the feet of the clever response. As we all know, intellect means nothing if you have time on the weekend to respond to a forum. The second correct response is to say "I type fast."

I also question how much you read the "moocow" in questions post and comments below the post, my reading of it finds it very sympathetic to your cause. By the way, your calling her a "moocow," utter brilliance mate! Did you come up with that yourself? I bet that really put her in her place and made you feel a bit better about the long sentences she wrote, didn't it? I bet she doesn't have a life either.. It' sad that some people have to write big long responses when you can eloquently sum it up in just a few words like "moocow."

(Note: notice below how FichtnerFan first establishes him/herself as having a full life as a muralist [perhaps a store owner too?] before responding... That's a nice touch.)

FichtnerFan says- Things are slow today and I'm working on a couple of murals on the hallway of the store. In between doing stuff, I've been looking at the article (or whatever it is) written by "Asshole" at the above link

I think the thing that bugs me most about this guy (and the woman who wrote the article that is the subject of the original post in this thread) is his attitude that breeders should be able to make us all miserable every-fucking-where - including here at this happy little place in cyberspace we call The Safe Haven. It's called that for a reason - because we don't want to have to put up with their shit here. The number one thing that bothers me about breederdom - except maybe the forced taxation to pay for "the future," which isn't looking too bright - is that they insist on spreading their misery literally everywhere. That is just about the ultimate in entitlemindedness (except, of course, their demanding and forcing us all to pay to educate, feed, transport and essentially wipe the asses of their horrible progeny).

You know, it really isn't a "movement" - I can't figure out where they're getting that. Am I wrong, but even No Kidding, which is about as organized as it gets, isn't political, is it? It's just a social club for people who don't want to have to hear about other people's brats non-stop. Imagine that!?

I'd just like breeders to demonstrate basic human decency and, if they can't do that, stay the hell away from me.

SD -FichtnerFan, other than the enjoyment I got from your use of the word "breederdome" (which I will treasure forever) and the puzzlement from your existentialist belief to live in the "now" and for yourself completely, which reminds me of the "White Man's Rights" movement in it's tunnel vision of self entitlement, I really can't blame most of your logic.

I only came over here (your forum) because of the venom I saw towards the other blog and I must admit, the entrenchment of small ideological groups fascinate me because the very thing that sometimes creates support provides a gap between martyrdom and political action.

You do have a right to have your "Safe Haven." (I also, of course, have a right to have a blog, which does not make rules or demands) I also applaud your plea for "basic human decency" and I think to demand that, you must learn to practice it, by casting away the name calling and allowing yourself to have calm discussion.

To be honest, this is only a post to me. Tomorrow I will write about something else. You folks obviously have a lot of pain to deal with and I don't want to keep you from getting the support you may need from a like-minded forum. I hope you find peace in your lives and find a way to do what you want without provoking the ire of the heavy handed society. But I also leave myself free to respond when the bouncing ping of the Internet tells me that my name mentioned.

Cheers!-The Stuff Daddy

Mayor Menino VS. Aqua Teen Hunger Force!!

2007-02-01T02:37:00.000-08:00

Look, it's illegal advertising with battery powered devices, so I would want police to investigate. It is also possible that a real "terror" device might mask itself as advertising. However, too many people (age 12-30) know the image on the box is from Aqua Teen Hunger Force (An adult cartoon which has been around for over five years) and had it been recognized as a Cartoon Network product, Boston officials could have verified that the advertising was benign with Turner, ending the panic in minutes and saving a lot of cash.

That fact that Boston was the only city that responded this way, either says that Boston is the least hip or the most prepared. The fact that Mayor Menino and the police now feel they have been made fools of and want payback, is going to be unfair and unfortunate to the kids who put up the art. Hopefully, when this dies down they will get some nice street cred in the "dumb ass white boys with dreadlocks" community. Either way if I were Menino, I would hire someone between the age of 12 to 30, so we don't have to go through this next time VH1 decides to paste Flava Flav Clocks all over the Tobin bridge.

From The Boston Globe 2/1/07

Froth, fear, and fury
Cartoon devices spur antiterror sweeps; two men are arrested
By Suzanne Smalley and Raja Mishra

Enraged city and state officials yesterday readied a legal assault against those responsible for a guerrilla marketing campaign that dotted the city with small battery-powered light screens, setting off fears of terrorism and shutting down major roadways and subway lines for parts of the day.

Authorities last night were retrieving the 38 magnetic signs depicting cartoon characters under bridges, on storefronts, and outside Fenway Park, among other locations, that were installed as part of a Turner Broadcasting System marketing blitz for a Cartoon Network television show.

For much of the day, police treated the signs, which measure about 1 by 1 1/2 feet and feature protruding wires on one side, as potentially dangerous. But their investigation shifted when they happened to move one of the signs into a darker area. The sudden lack of sunlight prompted the lights forming the character's image to brighten into color.

Sometime between 2 and 3 p.m., according to a public safety official, a Boston police analyst recognized the image as a cartoon character, and police concluded it was likely a publicity stunt.

Turner Broadcasting System Inc. apologized about 4:30 p.m. for the campaign, which included cartoon characters making an obscene gesture.

Last night, in Arlington, police arrested Peter Berdovsky , 27, an artist originally from Belarus, who told the Globe earlier in the day that he installed the signs for an ad firm hired by Turner Broadcasting. Berdovsky, who described himself as " a little kind of freaked out," faces up to five years in prison on charges of placing a hoax device in a way that causes panic and disorderly conduct.

Attorney General Martha Coakley's office announced late last night that a second suspect, Sean Stevens, 28, of Charlestown, had been arrested in the case about 11:30 p.m. Like Berdovsky, Stevens was charged with placing a hoax device and disorderly conduct.

Both suspects are scheduled to be arraigned at 9 a.m. today in Charlestown District Court, said Coakley's office. The deployment of scores of state, federal, and Boston police specialists, from bomb experts to terrorism analysts, exceeded $500,000, according to Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino.

While police responded to the episode with swiftness and gravity, some Bostonians, especially younger adults, were amused by the spectacle and suggested authorities overreacted. But Coakley said the placement of the devices, on key infrastructure points, like highway ramps and under bridges, alarmed even seasoned investigators.

Turner Broadcasting acknowledged that it never sought approval or alerted authorities that it would put up the signs. The company hired by Turner for the campaign, New York-based Interference Inc., declined comment.

The signs, installed about two weeks ago, were part of a 10-city marketing campaign for the cartoon "Aqua Teen Hunger Force." They had not set off terrorism fears in New York, Los Angeles, or any of the other locations, and it was not clear whether they had been widely noticed in those cities.

Yesterday Turner Broadcasting scrambled to alert police in the other cities to their presence. A visibly angry Menino said he would ask the Federal Communications Commission to yank TBS's broadcasting license for what he called "an outrageous act to gain publicity for their product."

The "Aqua Teen" program, launched seven years ago, chronicles the adventures of a talking box of French fries and his irreverent fast food pals. The images on the signs, including the characters with grimacing faces making the obscene gesture, are tiny video game characters that make cameos on the show, which airs during the Cartoon Network's late night programming block called "Adult Swim."

Menino and others said the campaign was especially reckless given Boston's sensitivity to terrorism threats, after planes that left Logan Airport on Sept. 11, 2001, were hijacked and flown into the World Trade Center. Menino was also upset, he said, because top executives at Turner Broadcasting did not contact him directly to discuss what happened. The mayor said he did not receive a call from the company until about 9 p.m., and it was from a low-ranking press official.

"Give me a break. . . . It's all about corporate greed," Menino said, adding that he wanted make sure "not the guy we arrested today pays, but also the people in the boardroom have some obligation also on this issue." But others were relishing the story, which rocketed around the Internet. Computer users e-mailed their friends links to video on YouTube that showed young people using telescopic poles to place the magnetic devices on recognizably Boston locations, as electronic music played in the background. Others went to eBay, where someone was already selling one of the magnetic devices, which was apparently removed from a South Boston location, with a minimum bid of $5,000. Read the whole Story HERE!

The Kid even had it all on Youtube!!

Regarding the Class Divide...

2007-01-17T09:58:00.000-08:00

I could creep around the fact that Bob died until the end of the story. If I chose to, I could paint a poignant, sobering punch line about the callousness of the urban professional. I could talk about how little anyone noticed his absence and replacement, the fact that he died and maybe more importantly, had been dying for months without being noticed by the white collar workers he shipped back and forth in his parking lot shuttle bus. It would make a powerful example of the isolation in general of people nowadays and the rational coldness of class, that would eloquently harken back to serfdom. It would be true to some degree, but it would be a disservice to all involved and I would simply be using Bob as a pawn in an intellectual game of demagoguery.

I could easily excuse myself from this game. I talked to Bob every day that I saw him. I would have minor conversations with him regarding the weather, but he also told me how expensive the toys his grandchildren wanted for Christmas were and I listened carefully to his bitter toned yet cleverly mocking disgust of people who got onto his small shuttle bus with attitude and contempt for his lack of a serviced smile and tendency to be smoking the last half of a cigarette in the moments between each of the forty to sixty trips he took from the far, far end of the largest parking lot to the connecting plaza of office buildings. I empathized with that feeling, since I too have it towards the modern white collar worker, even if I have just by the barest amounts, become one.

Still, any attempts to abstract myself from the burdens of the rationalized day to day callousness that exists between servers and servees would only be the barest of excuses. I am a pleasant person and I know how to be warm at a moments notice with strangers, but that is not comparable with interest. Interest like social currency must be willingly invested, it is not simply a toll that we pay when we politely interact with people of different status or station day to day, it's investment, establishing a foundation of friendship or at least acquaintance, that builds on equal footing with each encounter and it requires trust and sacrifice, not a lot, but at least your anonymity. At least there would be a cordial exchange, an introduction, at least he would know that my name is Jared and I would know that his name is Bob, which I did not know, until the woman who drives the shuttle at night told me, when she told me Bob had died over Christmas from a complexity of aliments that he knew had him cornered. I still don't know her name.

The Pop Politics of Generation Bland

2007-01-15T07:51:00.000-08:00

I have become agitated by the younger generation's lack of concern of for anything other than their obsession with "Bling, Bling, Bling!" The justified, proud ignorance of the crumbling world around them is all the more shocking when you do see them spring into action with causes like the cancellation of a Joss Whedon TV show or the unfair treatment that the ultra violent video game industry gets from the conservatives. Where were they when the government kidnapped American citizens for four years of imprisonment without legal representation?

My response to THIS article :

"Grand Theft Boston: Videogames in the CrossHairs"

by The Xenos

Which deals with the Video Game industry being attacked by the Religous Right as a bad influence on children.

"Seems Boston wants to make M Rated video games the equivalent of pornography. The legislation is being drafted by none other than Florida activist lawyer Jack Thompson along with Boston's own Mayor 'Mumbles' Menino. Seems Jackie boy wanted a new Democrat friend up here in the north.

I cannot help but be reminded of the similar scapegoating and government legislation that comic books went through not even fifty years ago. Instead of Jack Thompson, it was Fredic Wertham and his Seduction of the Innocent book. Wertham argued that crime comics lead children to a life of crime and turned them into murderers and rapists. He also argued that Batman and Robin lead kids to a horrible life of homosexuality and the strong female role of Wonder Woman did the same to young girls. You have to remember Wertham and his damanging claims and his connections in the Senate whenever Jackie boy opens his lips about video games and children." Read the whole story HERE!

Dear The Xenos,

I feel your side of this story. I live in Brighton. I agree with most of your piece. I love Video games, comics and free speech. I think you are right, that the responsibility is mostly the parents. Sadly, it's the society as a whole who pays, when the parents do a crappy job. Banning Video Games isn't the answer to a better world, but do 90% of all video games need to be so damn violent?

I grew up in the age of video games and I yelled at Tipper Gore when she banned music lyrics in the late 80's. But as I have hit my 30's I started to take a look around. I tried to find the artists who were being censored by community standards. I looked for all the free thinking independent minded kids who were fighting for their rights and futures, who "The man" wanted to shutdown. What did I see? Ignorance. Blissfully so. Kids standing in line and shooting each other because they needed a PS3 and they need it now!!

There is a war on. We watch kids die and the only thing that can get us politically active is the thought that it's unfair that a video game can't advertise on a subway? Why do video game rights or petitions to keep TV shows on the air seem to be the only thing to activate the little brains of "Generation Bland?"

I still believe in artistic freedom, but I also can see that big corporations sell violence and greed, wrapped in false security, luxury, trans-fats and corn syrup to anyone they can. They have no concern about your welfare, they won't shed a tear if you just keep playing their games and consuming their products until you die of a premature heart attack while playing GTA Kentucky Still. They do not care about you. They laugh at you as they market their products to you, while you think you're being a rebel when you buy what they call "quality."

People like Jack Thompson may be heavy handed and slightly fascist, but I've talked to many of them. They're scared. They want a safer world. They see rich people, old white men, getting fat off of turning out generations who are proud that they never read a book and know nothing about the world around them. I grew up in a world where being in a gang meant fighting mostly with your fists and being a man. That world is gone. Only in video games can you live to fight another day. (everywhere else people are pack'n!)

I love that the technology of GTA has brought about games like Spider-man 2. I think Video Games will yet again amaze us all with new innovations. But do I think that video games make people more sociopathic and more apt to commit violent acts? Yes I do. Not by themselves, but when mixed with the right combination of apathy, neglect and disinterest from a parent, yes they can.

You can still buy pornography at the 7/11 can't you? Why is it bad to make it as hard to but violent adult rated video games as it is to buy booze and porn?

Free Speech is about the freedom to say what you believe in the public forum, not about the ability for companies to sell products without safeguards. My hope is that video game fans who want to do something step up to the plate and contact the Jack Thompson and Mayor Manino. Tell them you will support a responsible effort to keep Video Games out of kids hands if they take away the Baquardi ads and put a real effort into crime reduction. This could be a unique moment.

Cheers!
The Stuff Daddy

The Dan Rather Song

2006-06-21T06:43:00.000-07:00

Dan Rather is leaving CBS news this week (HERE!) after living in an attic there since he told people the truth about George Bush's service record with faulty papers. Dan, Dan, your such a complex mess of things both good and sourly melodramatic. What a way to go! This ones' for you!!

The Dan Rather Song
by Jared Lucas Nathanson

I think we are all sorry, that you're leaving CBS,
Honestly, we thought you left in 04, I confess.
I understand your move, since they took your anchor chair away,
After 44 long years you didn't want to stay.

Growing up with you, there on the TV was sublime,
I honestly saw you as "Cronkite Junior" at one time.
You seemed so filled with passion for the news when I was ten,
When I turned twenty, you were rehearsed, like all other newsmen.

Once you lost your sincerity, for me that's when you left,
They forced you past your principles into a public death.
You cried like a baby at 9/11 and said it was honestly,
But that's not what you told the BBC.

If you'd faced this George Bush story, when you were in your prime,
America would've loved you more, they would have drawn the line.
But Dan, Republicans knew that your documents couldn't prove the case,
Carl Rove shredded the real ones back during the Texas Governor's race.

So CBS, in its new form, doesn't want you on TV,
Next to Katie Couric, you're not what they call cuddly.
If you stay, a desk is all they promise you will get,
But is it wise to trust Mark Cuban and go to HDNet?

For all your mistakes, I'll say this Dan, you really don't deserve,
To leave in shame, a footnote of when CBS lost their nerve,
Somewhere you'll always be in that green flak jacket you had,
Sometime when you're still our TV NewsDad.

So if you're really leaving, but you still want to be heard,
Cast off the sad assumptions of what modern news has learned,
And for us, be that Newsman that you were always meant to be,
You can say whatever you want, now that you are free!

And take a page from Cronkite before you're through,
He doesn't give a fuck about CBS, George Bush or you!

Goodbye Dan!!

Goodnight Boys, It's all down hill from here....

An Open Letter to ABC Television

2006-04-12T05:33:00.000-07:00

Update!!! It's all over... Read HERE!!!

Update!!! Sign the petition HERE!!!
I never do things like this. I especially love Creator Fred Goss at #3 with the comment "This is the best show I've ever made." Sign up your whole family!

Regarding the Wonderfully Funny Show You Are About to Axe:
"Sons & Daughters" (HERE)

(Check why this show is insane at http://www.treeofnuts.com/)

I hate getting involved with new television shows, because anything worth watching needs time to build an audience. Otherwise we could all just watch a giant breast move back and forth across the screen. (the movement would be the plot device) Of course watching "Sons & Daughters," was easy, no one could watch this show for more than five seconds without nestling their fleshy cheeks in for a siesta in front of the Tube. (That was awkward, I meant that it was a funny show. Sorry.) This show didn't need my support, it was gonna be a ratings snowball, rolling at a faster, faster, faster pace, reaching breakneck speeds towards...a Comedy Home Run, Goal? (something like that)

Sadly, apparently they put the show on during the that ill-fated month of March, which is filled with "Free Money, Sex and Drugs Tuesdays" at Walmart, which I think lasts until at least 10PM. The moral of the story? ABC, please let this show grow, don't give up on it just because people would rather go to Walmart and get coked up while having sex with the door greeter than watch it. You just need to put it on a safe night for a few weeks. Hold on, let me check the Wallmart schedule.... Okay, how about Wednesday at 8 or 8:30? Walmart only has a Chiwawa giveaway that night. (Chiwawa = Comedy) Bump Freddie "Chico and the Man Jr." off for a few weeks, 12 year old girls should be doing their homework anyway not thinking impure thoughts about the man who gives hope to Keanu Reeves!! Put it on then and I guarantee, instant "Seinfeld"-like longevity. You young ABC producers will be swimming in Champagne and really expensive other liquid, that you would like and want, but can't have now, because even as a big TV guy, it's expensive for that much of that stuff! (Come On, It's Imported!)

Seriously, much love to the whole show! Shout out to the cool, talky neurotic, wrote himself in as the lead producer actor guy, His weird artsy son, ethical dumb nephew, talky niece with braces, hot wife, the super passive aggressive mom, karmically challenged (most likely a goth as a teenager) sister, singing hottie loserbait sister, incredibly dense thespian brother-in-law, cute kids who will grow three years each season (or not, I guess Damn), funny drunken ex of hottie singer and his mini me, and of course the greatly missed Poppa, Sargent Wojohowitz, who needs praise from no man!!! People, you made something great!!! Please be proud and let me know if you find a way back to the airwaves. Damn You ABC!!!!!!!

Yours Truly,
Jared Lucas Nathanson
http://www.stuffdaddy.blogspot.com/

P.S. The Hot Wife is also funny!

"V for Vendetta" Review By Distraction

2006-04-11T18:54:00.000-07:00

An Open Letter to The New Yorker and "Film Lover" DAVID DENBY

My letter to the New Yorker. refering to this review:(HERE)

Dear Big City Folks,

Regarding David Denby's review of "V for Vendetta" Posted 2006-03-13.

Well, at least I'm entertained. Film criticism seems to be becoming a wondrously bizarre effort to merge sophisticated taste and observation with a genuine disgust for epic grandeur, high drama or allegorical storytelling. I find movie reviews are more often filled with the Hollywood back story and the political intrigue of film production than real criticism.

It's hard to discern whether some critics have actually viewed the movie in question. It's my guess that those that have might be easily distracting themselves by the pale glowing light of their electronic phone/computer/notepad of choice, in which they may be furiously jotting and scribbling witty thoughts, points of critique and one liners, lavishing the object with more attention than they did on the girl they first took to the back of the balcony during that showing of American Graffiti back in '73.

The Love of film for poor Mr. Denby seems a jaded love, far too polished with the bitterness of endless viewings, the contempt of sinking standards and the somberness of a weary prostitute for whom sex is a chore and sensuality is a lie. Does a film hold no joy within its own context for Mr. Denby? Is each film just a sad minion in a line of thousands he will view each year?

Your reviewer lavishly spends time expounding on the history of the overly praised graphic novel and Alan Moore's Thatcherism paranoia. He bemoans the intellectual hypocrisy of Guy Fawkes as a cultural icon for the embodiment of rebellion and exposes obvious and supposedly criminal similarities to Orwell's "1984." He points righteously to the clearly random or at least backward design of any modern political references that those silly Matrix Boys imply and condemns the bankrupt moralities of this "dunderheaded pop fantasia that celebrates terrorism and destruction."

As a question, "Thank you Mr. Denby, but how was the Movie?" seems as pointless as asking Mrs. Lincoln whether or not she enjoyed the play.

As for the actual movie in question, we do learn that Hugo Weaving "is merely formal and condescending" in comparison to James Mason's acid wit, which someone forgot to mention to Mr. Denby has long since departed this realm of existence with its owner.

We learn that "The movie has an elaborate visual design." (Ok, he liked the look.)

Mr. Denby notes that "V jumps out of the darkness, and his mask—mocking and immobile—spooks us every time.....The violent passages, with steel knives flying through the air and turning end over end, are as uncanny and beautiful as similar scenes in The Matrix." (Ok, he liked the action.)

"There's a big drop in excitement every time V and little Evey discuss life and art in the shadow gallery, but, all in all, James McTeigue seems just as skilled as the Wachowskis in putting together a large-scale movie." (Ok, he didn't like the 'talky bits,' as much as he liked the 'fighty bits' but it worked regardless.)

So what does Mr. Denby think of the movie? Past the gratuitous exposition, through the flimsy but positive film critique, Mr. Denby lets us know there never was a chance to begin with because "there's no getting around the fact that this allegedly antifascist work lusts after fire and death."

Well, as I said, I'm entertained. Not only by the way your film reviewer skates completely away from film criticism and into the world of high-minded morality, but by his ability to so twist film critique as to leave it devoid of any passion for film itself. Like the Joan Rivers of reviewers, he's standing outside the theater complaining about the director's fat butt.

Has ego become so entangled with critique that the review has become a vessel for the judgments of vulgar and loveless killjoys, so they can spread disdain and indifference for anything less bold then Fassbinder or Bergman?

Only a "literal-minded prig" like Mr. Denby would know for sure.

Yours Sincerely,
Jared Lucas Nathanson
"Film Lover"

Man In Black

2005-11-18T07:37:00.000-08:00

I wanted to remind people that the Johnny Cash Movie is coming out Today and being that I'm the nut who believes that we will one day look at Johnny Cash as a more influential musical icon than Elvis, I thought I'd share a word or two about why I believe his importance is so vital today.

I listened to Johnny Cash's music because my Dad did. He had a lot of his records from the 50's and 60's and it was a great father-son moment whenever he would put a record on the player.

Unlike many of childhood's fascinations that lose vibrancy when reviewed through the eyes of adolescence, Johnny seemed to adapt his work to my age. The sweet bitter gospel songs and the melancholy ballads seemed to make way for the cocaine violence and the blood filled story songs.

Of course some of the songs were the same, it was just my references that changed their meaning and uncovered their other layers. Johnny Cash was a complex man and a lesson to all performers in the true possibilities in being yourself, in selling yourself and in only marketing yourself as "yourself." I truly don't know any musician, in any genre of music from Rap to Folk to Pop to Punk who doesn't get something from Mr. Cash. As Chuck D said "there will always be a place for 'true rebels' like Johnny Cash."

I don't know if this movie is any good or not, I just think its great that we all get to think about him and people like him who come from poverty and little education and yet see the world as it is, without clinging to petty bias or ethnic hatred. In a time when so much of our direction is lost, and I say this not to liberals or libertarians or greens or moderates or conservatives or any group, because I have friends in each group and I myself don't have a clue what I am, I think its nice to look to people like Johnny Cash, listen to his music and hope that the Human race pops out a few more of them before we are through. I know, I'm a sentimental putz.. Cheers!

Man In Black
by Johnny Cash

Well, you wonder why I always dress in black,
Why you never see bright colors on my back,
And why does my appearance seem to have a somber tone.
Well, there's a reason for the things that I have on.

I wear the black for the poor and the beaten down,
Livin' in the hopeless, hungry side of town,
I wear it for the prisoner who has long paid for his crime,
But is there because he's a victim of the times.

I wear the black for those who never read,
Or listened to the words that Jesus said,
About the road to happiness through love and charity,
Why, you'd think He's talking straight to you and me.

Well, we're doin' mighty fine, I do suppose,
In our streak of lightnin' cars and fancy clothes,
But just so we're reminded of the ones who are held back,
Up front there ought 'a be a Man In Black.

I wear it for the sick and lonely old,
For the reckless ones whose bad trip left them cold,
I wear the black in mournin' for the lives that could have been,
Each week we lose a hundred fine young men.

And, I wear it for the thousands who have died,
Believen' that the Lord was on their side,
I wear it for another hundred thousand who have died,
Believen' that we all were on their side.

Well, there's things that never will be right I know,
And things need changin' everywhere you go,
But 'til we start to make a move to make a few things right,
You'll never see me wear a suit of white.

Ah, I'd love to wear a rainbow every day,
And tell the world that everything's OK,
But I'll try to carry off a little darkness on my back,
'Till things are brighter, I'm the Man In Black.