Comics, Beer, and Shakespeare

Man of Steel review

2013-06-17T17:52:00.000-07:00

Currently, Man of Steel is at 56% on Rotten Tomatoes, which is fair to say that the reviews have been mixed. That pretty much sums up my feelings on the film as well, as they have been mixed before I had seen it, and they continue to be mixed afterward.

I'm actually one of the few comic book fans who defends Superman Returns, and I was disappointed that they had no plans to bring Brandon Routh back for more adventures as the Last Kryptonian. While they kinda painted themselves in a corner with the whole son of Superman thing, I still think that there was room to take things in a new direction for another movie. So, I wasn't feeling too good about the reboot of the franchise. Then I heard that Christopher Nolan would be producing, and I got more positive. When I saw the trailer, I started to get really excited. I'll admit it - I'm one of those guys who got a tear in his eye in the snippet where Kevin "Pa Kent" Costner says, "You are my son". I was thinking that this movie was going to do for Superman what Batman Begins did for Batman.

Then the mixed reviews and negative comments from friends on Facebook started coming in. Was it possible that they could create such a moving trailer to an absolute stinkpot of a movie? I began to fear the worst, and today I finally saw it.

As I said, my feelings are mixed. It's certainly not the worst superhero movie ever, the honor for that going to Batman and Robin. It's also better than some of the not-so-good-but-not-horrifically-awful movies like Spider-Man 3, Green Lantern and Daredevil. Yet it certainly doesn't belong in the same category as Christopher Nolan's Batman films or even any of the Avengers-related Marvel movies.

It's hard to explain how I feel. When I compare it to something like Thor, which I thoroughly enjoyed but didn't feel as though it's the kind of movie that would win over people who normally don't like superhero movies, it's simultaneously better and worse. There are moments in Man of Steel that I absolutely loved more than anything that Thor had to offer, yet there weren't nearly as many moments in Thor that had me scratching my head, wondering what the hell was going on.

If I was to explain what worked, I would have to start with the music. It's hard to imagine something being as moving as the original John Williams Superman: The Motion Picture score, but I think that Hans Zimmer has it beat with this one. The casting was definitely good as well, with Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Russel Crowe, and Laurence Fishburne all being good choices who properly embodied their iconic characters. Also, the flashbacks of young Clark Kent all worked, and they created a new twist on a familiar story - where Superman's greatest fear is how people will reject him for being different. As I've heard it said before, Superman's real weakness isn't Kryptonite but his heart, and that certainly comes through with this film.

I guess the bad parts were all plot-related for the most part. As my wife said, they were just trying to cram way too much into it, what with both the origin and an alien invasion. Also, there was a bit where Superman put Lois Lane down in a field while she happened to have the secret to stopping Zod, yet she doesn't say anything until she reunites with him later for a dramatic moment where she reveals to him that she knows how to stop Zod. Huh? Why not say something earlier? And why is she always able to be exactly where he is?

Usually I just go with the flow in a movie like this. Characterization and dialogue are always a lot more important to me than being devoid of plot holes, but there were just so many in this that I couldn't help but be annoyed by it all.

Also, some of the action scenes at the end were just plain confusing. I couldn't tell exactly what the hell Superman was trying to do to that thing that was over the Indian Ocean. It just involved a lot of him grimacing and stuff blowing up.

So, it wasn't nearly as good as I had hoped, but at least it wasn't nearly as bad as I had feared. I'm not sure whether that makes it the best of the lamer superhero movies or the worst of the better ones, but overall it just doesn't come together, despite having some truly great moments in it. Looks like they're on the fast-track to make a sequel to this one with basically the same creative team. Considering the great stuff, I think that they have the potential to make a phenomenal Superman movie; it's just too bad that this one wasn't it.

Confirmation bias versus following the evidence

2013-06-02T20:02:00.000-07:00

I've been noticing something in some of my recent discussions with theists. While I'm really not bothering to debate things with Biblical-literatlist types, I've noticed something that they all do - from your scientifically illiterate creationist to your more thoughtful, introspective theist. Essentially, they don't seem to realize that it's pretty bogus to start with a conclusion and then work your way backward.

When it comes to the extreme end of theism, young Earth creationists, they pretty much come out and admit that they start with the conclusion. Check out the Statement of Faith from Answers in Genesis, but be forewarned that the circular reasoning might give you vertigo. Some highlights include the following:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

I couldn't write something so obtuse if I tried. Basically, nothing can contradict the Bible no matter what. We have all the answers we need. And you gotta love the idea that scientific evidence is subject to "interpretation by fallible people" (which is true) there is absolutely no way that The Bible could have been changed about as it was written, copied, translated, and interpreted by those same fallible people.

I also love the following:

The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.

Wow. If circular reasoning didn't work, then how come it works? Seriously, if you sit and read this sentence and nod your head like it means something, then there is no hope for you. You are beyond reason in the same way that any cult member is.

I seem to recall a comic strip on the AiG website where it had a fossil and a creationist on one side and an "evolutionist" on the other. The creationist thinks to himself, "Great evidence for creation!" and the actual scientist thinks "Great evidence for evolution!" Essentially the narrative that they're trying to create is that we all have a starting point, and those who look for creation will find it, and those who look for evolution will find it. Of course, this is complete malarky for the simple fact that there IS NO EVIDENCE FOR CREATION. And you may be thinking: "Oh, but Lance! There is!" And to you, I must say: "No, there is not. Stop. Just stop. Seriously, stop." I could elaborate, but I've done this dance too many times only to find out that the other person lacks basic scientific literacy, is using a bit of supposed "evidence" that's been long-since debunked, or is engaging in some sort of "God of the Gaps" fallacy (not to mention pretty much every other logical fallacy that one can imagine). Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me for the billionth time, and I'm Don frikken' Quixote.

Anyway, so I don't really talk to these types all that much, mainly because the opportunity rarely presents itself, and secondarily because I could better spend my time smashing my head into a brick wall. No, the theists with whom I converse are a bit more of a slippery species of fish. It's kind of hard to nail them down on exactly what it is they believe in the first place, but they essentially play this same game where they elevate their position to the same status as the atheist by claiming that we're just looking at the universe from different perspectives.

Because see, when your starting point is that you believe in God, then it's easy to see His work in the universe. It's all fine-tuned for life and blah blah blah.

Essentially, they give the very definition of a confirmation bias, and then they try and put me on the same level as though I do the same thing. After all, don't I start with the assumption that there ISN'T a God? And isn't that why I don't see His work? Hmm...maybe.

But let's break that down and replace the word "God" with something else - pick something, whether it be hobgoblins, gremlins, or Cthulhu. Is the reason why I don't see evidence for these things because my starting point is that I don't believe them? Or is it that I don't believe them because I don't see any evidence for them? The second one sounds more likely, doesn't it?

Oh, but we're talking about God! It's different! I have a personal relationship!

No, it's not any different at all. And I always have to remind them that I grew up as a believer, so I know exactly what it's like to see evidence for Him all around me. In other words, my "starting point" was as a believer. But then I started to realize that I accepted reasons for the existence of God which I would not accept for the existence of anything else. In other words, I realized my own confirmation bias. Now I just go where the evidence goes, and it's not going to any kind of theism. That's right, not even Shinto.

Assuming the non-existence of something is not the same as assuming the existence of it. There are a billion things that could get me to change my mind. And what would change the mind of a believer? Go ahead and ask one some day. I have yet to get anything approaching a straight answer to this question. I either get a straight-up evasion along the lines of: "I'd hate to even think of not believing!" or answers to questions that are somewhat similar but not quite the same. I was once accused of asking the theist to prove a negative, but that's not the same thing. I'm not asking: "What would disprove God?" I'm asking: "What would change your mind?" Again, I can give you answers to this for each and every thing which I believe and accept about the world. Go ahead, put me to the test.

Back to the young-Earth creationists, there are a lot of scientists who refuse to debate them for the simple fact that doing so elevates the creationist to a level with the scientist - a level which he has not earned. After all, you don't have geologists debating flat-earthers, do you? To what end? Of course, a lot of creationists interpret that as cowardice on the part of the scientists, but you really can't waste your time with every crackpot idea.

I'm starting to think though that even debating theists in general is akin to this idea. By engaging them in the debate over the existence of God, you've just given their side a legitimacy which it has not earned. The only thing that they have going for them is tradition and majority opinion - neither of which is a foundation for a legitimate belief system. On the other hand though, I'm sure that I'll still engage in conversations with theists - as I find myself doing that more than "debating" lately. Otherwise, how do they even know why we atheists don't believe in the first place? Sure, you might not change their minds, but you definitely won't get anywhere if all they hear is the echo chamber of their particular religious faith.

The truth about Islamophobia

2013-05-19T14:54:00.004-07:00

I have a great deal of respect for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali woman who left Islam at the risk of her very life. In fact, her commitment to speaking the truth and personal freedoms makes her one of my personal heroes. If you haven't read her story, it's worth checking out, as are her books Infidel and Nomad. However, just like pretty much everybody I respect, she has said at least one thing with which I must disagree. I've seen her at least once say that there is no such thing as Islamophobia.

While one could argue that her greater point is that it's not a problem to the degree that some Muslims would have us believe, it's still far too broad of a statement to make without being challenged. (Her exact words were that Islamophobia is a "myth".)

I'd say that it's very much a real thing. The first bit of evidence was the poor guy who got shot shortly after 9/11, and even though it turned out that he was a Sikh, the point was that his attacker was trying to kill a Muslim. Some more recent examples would be the anti-Sharia laws that are being introduced throughout the country, as though some folks don't think that the First Amendment is enough to do the trick in order to save us from some sort of Islamic theocracy. On top of that, I have plenty of anecdotes where I've heard ignorant comments about them. In one instance, a woman I know expressed her concern that she saw "an Iranian" in the hospital elevator. Sure, you could say that maybe she's Iraniaphobic, but I think it falls under a greater umbrella of Islamophobia. (Personally, I think that the chances were probably better that the guy was a doctor at that hospital than a terrorist, and the odds of him not even being Iranian are probably high as well.)

So, it definitely exists. But now it's time to be real - if you assume that your Middle Eastern neighbors are likely to be Muslim terrorists, then you're Islamophobic. If you think that we need to convert all Muslims to (insert your religion here) then you are as well. If you're worried that your podunk town with three Muslims is going to become a mini caliphate, then congratulations, you're an Islamophobe.

It should be noted that you also qualify if you go around spreading false information about the religion. You probably also meet the description if you get all up in arms about the horrific passages in the Koran while completely ignoring/excusing the equally horrific ones in your own holy book.

But you absolutely are NOT practicing Islamophobia if you criticize the beliefs of the religion or the practices of its followers. In other words, you're not practicing a form of bigotry when you point out that one can make a Broadway hit out of a show that mocks Mormons, but if somebody makes a cartoon disparaging Mohammed, he's going to be in fear for his life. That's not saying that every Muslim out there will kill you for making fun of his religion, but it's a simple fact that there are enough of them out there to have critics of Islam worried.

You're also not an Islamophobe if you point out that the Muslim world is centuries behind the times when it comes to the way women are treated, and any Muslim who says the laughably awful talking point that Islam gives women equality has got his head up his ass. Yeah, I know, there are Muslims out there who do believe in full equality in the same way that I do. I even know that some of them can point to passages in the Koran that supposedly supports their position. But guess what? In most places where Islam is the predominant religion, THEY'RE DOING IT WRONG.

It kind of reminds me of Christianity and slavery. Christians will hem and haw and give you all sorts of reasons why slavery is against their religion, despite the fact that Christians practiced it for centuries and nowhere in their holy book is there a clear prohibition of it. Yeah, most Christians will now condemn it, just as one day most Muslims may condemn the way that their women are treated nowadays, but you gotta admit in both cases, religion sure was easy to use as a convenient excuse for treating people horribly.

I believe that every Muslim has the same rights that I do. They are allowed to believe what I believe, and they are allowed to speak up against things that they don't believe. If a Muslim is to take issue with anything I'm saying, then that is his or her right, and a violent reprisal should not be the expectation if he/she uses that right. I realize that there are Muslims out there who feel the same way as I do, but considering what's going on in Bangladesh, there are plenty out there who would want to see me rot in jail just for writing this blog entry.

Honestly, it doesn't do Muslims any favors when we pander to them and pretend like what's being done in the name of their religion isn't offensive to our sensibilities. They should be able to handle it, especially for those who come to the United States and want to live in a free society. The right to not be offended doesn't exist, and their beliefs must be subject to the same exchange of ideas as any other.

And let's not play the game of "Well, yeah, but what about all the violence done in the name of Christianity?" Of course, every screwed up thing done in the name of that religion should be condemned - whether it's the killing of abortion doctors, withholding medicine from their children, or lying to kids and telling them that Intelligent Design is a "theory" in the same sense that evolution is. But the fact is that many of us feel much more comfortable criticizing those actions than we do the negative actions done in the name of Islam. And let's face it, while many Christian apostates have a hard time, depending on what part of the world that they live in, the official punishment for them isn't death, and there aren't a significant number of them who advocate that.

But even if the Christian world was the mirror image of the Muslim world - so what? Two wrongs make a right all of a sudden? Do I have to condemn everything that's bad all at once when I say that it's wrong to assume that women need to cover themselves up so men don't rape them, for instance?

We need to feel free to criticize any and all beliefs, which isn't the same as criticizing a person's right to believe. For me to say that you shouldn't be allowed to limit another person's freedom isn't somehow me trying to limit yours.

Thoughts on Digital Comics

2013-05-18T23:04:00.001-07:00

I own the nook HD+, and with the recent software update, it's basically turned into an Android tablet with somewhat limited functionality. The stuff that it can't do doesn't really bother me, because I can always use my phone for those things. However, what interested me the most is the fact that I now can use it to access Comixology and Marvel Unlimited.

I have only purchased a couple of digital comics before. I bought Darwin Cooke's adaptation of Parker, and I also got the recent Marvel version of The Wizard of Oz. They looked fine with my old nook tablet, but they looked much better with the HD+'s 9 inch screen. Still, I didn't buy any new ones, even though Barnes and Noble increased their comic book catalog and started to include individual issues for sale.

When it comes to most books, I have no problem reading them on an e-reader. In fact, for the kinds of books where I'll just read them once and then never look at again, I prefer reading them that way. I also like reading magazines like Time and National Geographic on my nook, as I don't have to deal with a stack of magazines that pile up in my bathroom.

With comics though? I guess I'm a bit of a purist. I figure that it would be nice to have access to an online catalog if I ever miss an issue. For instance, I'm missing one issue of the series Planetary and I can't find a copy of it at a reasonable price anywhere, whereas on Comixology, I can find it for less than the original cover price. While I prefer the physical books, I can live with an issue on my tablet.

I've tried reading some comics on my phone, where you need to utilize the "smart panel" technology. For those who don't know, it essentially breaks up each comics page panel by panel, so you can get a better look at it and actually get the text large enough to be legible. This involves a lot of shifting your phone around for panels that are optimal in vertical versus horizontal modes. Personally, I find that annoying, and I don't like reading a comic book that way for the same reason I don't like watching movies in "full screen". It's clearly not the artist's intent for you to view it that way. There's a certain layout that's specific to comic books, and a good artist makes use of this layout. When you break it up, you might be getting a good look at what's going on, but it feels like a different experience to me.

For me, the most promising thing is Marvel Unlimited. Essentially, it's like a Netflix for Marvel's back issues. For $10 a month, you have access to a very large selection of the publisher's catalog. I signed up for this, and while I have a couple of issues with it, I'm really digging it.

The problems are as follows: the pages don't fill up the screen of my nook. I try zooming, but to no avail. It's big enough to be legible, but I have to hold it up fairly close to my eyes. It basically shrinks it down to "digest" size. Also, while you're supposed to be able to reserve up to six comics for offline reading, that feature seems to be a bit buggy. For some reason, I'm only able to download a three-page preview of each issue. This isn't too horrible though, as I do most of my reading at home, where I'm connected to the wi-fi. Sometimes I take it to work, and we have wi-fi there now as well, so this shouldn't be too much of an issue. Lastly, you're not going to find any recent issues, as everything is at least six months old.

With that said, I still am pretty jazzed about this. There are a lot of comics out there that I want to read, but I either don't have the money to get them all. Plus, comics take up space, and sometimes I limit myself based on the simple fact that I don't want to take up any more room than I have to.

Do I think that this is going to replace my regular trips to the comic book store? Absolutely not. There will always be books for which I want the physical copies. If anything, this just means that I'm reading a lot more comics. (I signed up for it a couple of days ago, and I've read about 12 of them - which means I'm getting more than my money's worth.) There's a ton of stuff that I would most likely never buy unless I saw really cheap, but this way I get to check them out and see what's going on. For instance, I don't think that I'll ever be a regular reader of Scarlet Spider, but I'm curious enough to know what's going on in that series for me to read it this way.

I guess the real question is whether I'll eventually run out of stuff that I want to read. Will it be like Netflix which adds stuff at a faster rate than I can view them? I guess that's what is nice about a monthly subscription. Still, I'd like to see DC and some of the other comic book companies do something similar.

Movies! - "No prisoners! No prisoners!"

2013-05-12T20:29:00.002-07:00

Way back in 2009, when I had a lot more time on my hands, I participated in "Movie a Day" which basically involved blogging every day, only the subject matter had to be a movie. My inspiration was Roger Ebert's Great Movies. In his series, it's not about giving a score to the movie or creating a list of "best movies". It was all just about the great movies. In my case, it was more about my favorite movies, as I'm not exactly going to call Predator 2 "great" even though I enjoy the hell out of it.

I also had a really good time participating in that little experiment, and I've been looking for the opportunity to do so again. While declaring that I'm going to write about a movie every day just isn't feasible right now, I think that I can promise myself to write about at least one movie every week or two.

Turns out that one of the movies that I had considered writing about back then was Lawrence of Arabia, but it just didn't make the cut. The reason probably had to do with the fact that I probably appreciated it more than I actually liked it. Don't misunderstand, I definitely enjoyed it, but I probably didn't get the same kick out of it that I did with a David Lean film that I did write about, The Bridge on the River Kwai.

Just like Barack Obama's stance on gay marriage, my view of this film has evolved over time. I first saw it when my mom bought the two-tape VHS "director's cut" for my dad. (I almost called it two-disc. Tape? For a movie? Huh?) I remember being annoyed by the fact that the entire thing was letterboxed. (Keep in mind that I was only 15 years old. Trust me, I work with kids that age - they don't know anything. Well, most of them don't. I was one of the ones who didn't.) I also remember enjoying the first few minutes where you see him riding a motorcycle only to crash to his death. After that? I was bored by it. I was so bored, in fact, that I didn't even bother watching the second half when my parents watched it the next day.

Flash forward over a decade, and I went ahead and bought the DVD edition of the movie. Why would I buy a movie that I had previously thought was boring? Well, I was still young, but I was old enough to know that my 15 year old self didn't know squat. My taste in movies was becoming more refined, and after the aforementioned The Bridge on the River Kwai quickly jumping up the list to one of my favorite movies of all time, I figured that I'd probably like the adventures of T.E. Lawrence a bit better. Fortunately for me, I was right.

I avoid making lists of favorite movies, but while I'm not sure that it would crack my top 10, it would probably crack my top 50. I really enjoyed the character development, the scenery, and all of the performances. Still, something about the second half of the movie kind of dragged for me, which prevented it from being one of the first movies that I'd name if anybody would have ever asked me to list off my favorites. I definitely got some good mileage out of that DVD though, as it was a movie that I probably watched at least once a year.

Flash forward once again to my 39th birthday, and my wonderful wife bought for me the Blu-Ray. Not only did she get me that, but she got me the uber-special edition with the picture book, film frame, two extra discs (on top of the movie and standard bonus disc). I had asked for it, but I was still pretty excited to get it anyway.

Now, I don't know if it was the quality of the Blu-Ray that did it, but I felt like I had my "magic viewing" of this film. In many ways, it was like really seeing it for the first time. Perhaps I was just in the right mood, but not enough can be said about how awesome this new edition is. Simply putting a movie on Blu-Ray doesn't ensure that it's going to look good. I've seen some where, in all honesty, I don't know if I would have known the difference between it and a DVD version. (Maybe it would be different if I had a screen that was wider than 42".) With some classic movies, I've been impressed with the transfer, but this was like a revelation. The only other time where my expectations were so exceeded was when I watched the Blu-Ray of Jaws.

This is a movie that's known for its scenery, and while I must shamefully admit that I've missed a few opportunities to see special screenings of it in theaters, I have to say that I felt like I was there in that desert along with Lawrence and his army of Arabs. I'm not even that technically inclined, but I was pretty engrossed in the bonus feature where they explained how they went about making this new transfer - and it should be clear that this is a new transfer. It's not simply a high-def version of the old one. I'm not smart enough to explain any further, but suffice it to say, you're getting something that required a lot of extra work. It's so good-looking, that I'd easily use this as an example of how great high definition looks for somebody who still hasn't made the switch.

The great transfer aside, it really struck me what a great performance Peter O'Toole gives in this movie. While you should't watch the movie for strict historical accuracy, the real Lawrence was a complicated guy, and O'Toole certainly gets that across. He's a true iconoclast, who sees moments in his life where people both ignore and celebrate him. He's a self-made man who's at war with himself. And most interesting about him; he doesn't quite have himself figured out. Just when he starts to get a handle on who he is; he starts to question whether he's doing the right thing. It's quite the character arc, and if you don't feel satisfied with where it goes, it's probably because he doesn't either.

Like any good movie, there are a lot of great lines. Lucky for me, my favorite bit, where Lawrence takes his young Arab assistant to the British Officer's quarters, is on Youtube. Here's a man who's found his purpose in life, but he's not quite ready to deal with all the slaughter that comes with it.

Oh, and if I'm ever forced at gunpoint to list my top 10, it's definitely in the running now.

T.E. Lawrence: My friends, we have been foolish. Auda will not come to Aqaba. Not for money...
Auda abu Tayi: No.
T.E. Lawrence: ...for Feisal...
Auda abu Tayi: No!
T.E. Lawrence: ...nor to drive away the Turks. He will come... because it is his pleasure.
[pause]
Auda abu Tayi: Thy mother mated with a scorpion.

T.E. Lawrence: It's my manner, sir.
General Murray: Your manner?
T.E. Lawrence: Yes. It looks insubordinate, but it isn't really.

General Allenby: I believe your name will be a household word when you'll have to go to the War Museum to find who Allenby was. You're the most extraordinary man I've ever met!
T.E. Lawrence: Leave me alone!
General Allenby: What?
T.E. Lawrence: Leave me alone!
General Allenby: Well, that's a feeble thing to say.
T.E. Lawrence: I know I'm not ordinary.
General Allenby: That's not what I'm saying...
T.E. Lawrence: All right! I'm extraordinary! What of it?

Fermenting is better in a Speidel

2013-05-05T21:53:00.001-07:00

Man, ya gotta hand it to those Germans. No, I'm not saying that only because I'm half of one myself; I'm talking about the fact that they know how to make some pretty darn good stuff. To be more specific, I'm talking about the Speidel fermenter that I've used for my last couple of batches of beer.

Wanna know what's scary? When a glass carboy breaks. I've had it happen once before. Lucky for me, it happened when I was outside and cleaning it, so there wasn't glass all over my house, and the only liquid that spilled was water.

After that, I went and bought one of the plastic carboys. Those are nice because they're lighter and much, much harder to break. The problem was the cleaning. I have one of those angled brushes, and unlike with a glass carboy, the dried krausen that forms at the top wouldn't just brush away with a quick swish. I had to really work it, and that no doubt resulted in the metal part starting to scrape the plastic. Experienced homebrewers will know that if the plastic is scratched, that makes for a potential home for bacteria - which means you can get some pretty awful beer.

So, I went back to glass, and I've been extra careful ever since. Still, there's that constant paranoia with glass. What the hell am I gonna do if I drop the damn thing while walking it through the house and to the closet? Five gallons of beer and tons of broken glass all over the place? How many frikken' paper towels is that gonna take to clean?

Then Speidel came up with something brilliant - a plastic fermenter that's easy to clean. Check out the image above. Basically, you can unscrew the lid on top, reach your hand in, and wipe away any dried up mess with a soft sponge. Another plus is that you don't have to siphon it into the bottling bucket like with a carboy. That's not a major pain, but it's certainly easier to just turn a spigot and let it all pour into a bucket (using an attached hose, of course - don't want too much splashing!)

Other pluses include the handles and plenty of headspace. It's a German company, so they go by liters. That means that for my five-gallon batches, I have to use the 30L, which is 7.9 gallons. (They have other sizes, from 12L to 120L.)

I've used it twice now, and the only drawback, as I've seen somebody else mention, is that you don't get to see your beer fermenting, which is kind of a fun thing to do, as it's tempting to scream: "It's alive!" whenever I do. Maybe they can work on a version using clear plastic, but I'd say that all the pluses, especially if you're as paranoid as I am, far outweigh that one minus.

I figured that I'd write this little review because when I was considering buying one, I didn't see a whole lot of information out there on it. Hopefully this review will help, and maybe I can figure out a way for MoreBeer to give me some kind of a discount for anybody who clicks this link and buys one from them. Honestly, if I knew somebody who was just going to get started into homebrewing, I'd recommend that they go straight to the Speidel.

Iron Man 3 Review

2013-05-05T21:28:00.001-07:00

I wrote my thoughts on the first Iron Man movie back when I did the "Movie-A-Day" challenge on this blog, and I praised it as one of the best superhero movies ever. I still think that. I never wrote about the second one, so let me just get it out of the way that while I was initially disappointed, I have since come to appreciate it more upon repeated viewings. It doesn't transcend the genre like the fist one did, but it's a solid superhero story with good performances, fun dialogue, and some pretty sharp special effects.

I got a chance to see the third one today, and my overall impression is that while possibly better than the second, it's still not on par with the first, or with The Avengers if we want to include every film with that character.

How many "part 3" films don't feature a significant drop off in quality? That could be a blog post unto itself. More often than not, they seem to take a serious dive, especially when the second one was better than the first. However, that trend may be reversing itself as screenwriters are figuring out how to write third parts that are more satisfying. Toy Story 3 might be the best of the lot, and The Dark Knight Rises might be the weakest of Christopher Nolan's trilogy, but it's still head and shoulders above any of the Burton/Shumacher films. If that had come out right after Batman and Robin, it would have seemed like the Citizen Kane of superhero movies.

With Iron Man 3, we don't get any majorly jarring shifts in tone or character that often plague a part 3. There are some moments that don't quite work, including a relationship with a young boy that's all too convenient. Don't get me wrong; it's not awful, but it didn't seem to come organically out of the script. It felt a bit forced.

We do get a great villain, which is important. I don't want to get to into it for the simple fact that I've never been a big enough of a fan of the comics to comment on how well The Mandarin was done, and I don't want to spoil any surprises. Fans of the "Extremis" story will be mostly pleased, I think. I happen to have read those, and while it doesn't play out exactly the same way, there is potential for more in any possible future films.

Even more important, we have a pretty good arc for the character. The film rewards fans of the entire Marvel Universe franchise, as there are plenty of references to what happened in The Avengers without relying on them for comprehension's sake. Basically, Tony Stark's predicament in the film is pretty believable, as dealing with advanced technology is one thing, discovering that there are gods and aliens who want to take over the planet is another. It also ends with him in a good place, and they deftly leave the audience believing that this could be the last chapter, and yet, there could easily be more - which is precisely what you want with this sort of a thing. If it's Robert Downey Jr.'s last shot as the character in a solo movie, it's a more respectable ending than poor Tobey Maguire's turn in the third Spider-Man.

The effects and action sequences are really good as well, and as with pretty much all of the Marvel movies, the CG is used appropriately and I never got distracted by it. The scene where Iron Man has to rescue a bunch of people who fell out of an airplane is particularly impressive.

The supporting characters all get a chance to do something important, and Iron Patriot (formerly War Machine) gets a chance to be appropriately heroic and integral to the final victory. It's tough to juggle all these characters, but they managed to pull it off.

I'll leave this with my Facebook status update that I wrote earlier, which tells the story of what happened during and after the film:

During the movie, some lady kept talking as though she was in her own living room. I finally turned around and shushed her.

After the film, while we were walking out, the lady got my attention. (Former students, imagine my voice in the tone you hear it when I'm shutting down some nonsense.)

LADY: Hey buddy, that was really rude how you shushed me.
ME: Oh, I'm being rude? Seriously? You were talking during the movie, and you're going to talk to me about being rude?
LADY: It wasn't necessary for you to shush me. It's very rude.
ME: Really? You're going to tell me about being rude when you're talking? Give me a break.
LADY: Give me a break.
ME: Thank you for repeating me.

We walked out, but when I got out of the bathroom, she was there, bugging Kirsti. She then doubled down on her ridiculousness.

LADY: Look, I wasn't even the one who was talking. The lady behind me was doing it, and it was bothering me, too.
ME: If you weren't talking, then I wasn't shushing you.
LADY: I only said two words.
ME: I thought you just said that you weren't talking! Which is it?

She then walked away in frustration. For the record, she had said much more than two words. It was just a two-word phrase that finally got me to tell her to shush.

I don't think that went the way she planned it in her head.

Don't mess with a guy who works with teenagers for a living, lady.

Cider, you disappoint me.

2013-04-28T21:02:00.001-07:00

The last time I was at Costco, I saw a mix-pack of ciders from a company called Crispin. (What is a company that makes cider? Not a brewery. Not a winery. A cidery?) I was intrigued because of the descriptions. One was made with honey, another with maple syrup and fermented with Belgian abbey ale, and another made with rice sugar and fermented with Sake yeast.

I have to admit something, to my eternal shame. I used to drink ciders. And wine coolers. My only saving grace is that I never drank Zima. What can I tell you? I was in my early twenties and wanted to get drunk without having to drink something that I didn't enjoy. I wasn't willing to chug beer or anything else that practically made me gag, as doing so struck me as the sort of a thing that an alcoholic would do. Ciders and wine coolers? Those were perfectly drinkable.

Once I became a craft beer enthusiast, ciders and wine coolers were a thing of the past, although I do admit to trying a pear cider that I saw at Trader Joe's. It was made by a small company, and I wondered if maybe there was something to it just as there was something to craft beers versus the standard macro lagers. Unfortunately, there didn't seem to be, and I never tried another cider...until the aforementioned Crispin ciders.

Maybe I went about it all wrong. I was thinking that maybe a good cider, just like a good beer or wine, would be complex and have all kinds of interesting things going on at once. I'm not much of a wine expert, so I'll only elaborate on beer. When you have a good beer, there's this balance between the sweetness of the malt and the bitterness of the hops. Some will lean more toward one way or the other. Then, of course, you have darker beers where the roasted malts give off various coffee, chocolate, biscuit, etc. flavors which adds even more complexity. Of course, there are also the Belgian ales, where the yeast creates all kinds of interesting aromas and tastes, which tend to change the more it warms up.

I was hoping for something kinda like that, but all I could think of when I tried them is that they all pretty much tasted like apple juice. I don't mean that in a bad way. They were good, and not as sweet as straight-juice would be, but I didn't really distinguish any significant difference with the flavors. It's not like going from a Pilsner to a Stout to an IPA. It's more like going from a Stout to a Porter to a black lager - all kinda different, but we're talking fine lines here.

I'm not saying that they were bad, but I just don't see myself getting these again. While I had no problem finishing them (which is more than I can say for some beers that I've had) I didn't feel eager for more. The website shows that they're good to cook with, just like beer and wine can be, so maybe I'll make some kind of marinade or something with my last bottle.

While Crispin might be filling a niche by creating a cider that's arguably better than what you normally find at the grocery store, I'm not seeing a big cider movement coming anytime soon.

Maybe we'll see something like that happen with mead?

The Avengers & the State of Superhero Movies

2013-04-28T18:11:00.002-07:00

As I'm looking forward to the third Iron Man movie, I can't help but take note of the fact that I never wrote a review of The Avengers. I think that I write reviews for pretty much every superhero movie that comes out, but I never got around to the biggest one of all (box-office wise). I wrote about The Amazing Spider-Man and The Dark Knight Rises, but somehow I never got around to that one, especially considering that I loved the crap out of it. Still, it's been so long that it seems kind of silly to write a review about it now, so I'm just going to use that movie as a launching-pad for some other thoughts I have about superhero movies in general.

I've been a fan of comics for most of my life now. I've been reading them since I was twelve, and I'm going to turn forty this November. Unlike a lot of fans, I've never had a period where I didn't get them. In fact, I doubt that I've gone more than a month without setting foot in a comic book store since I started getting them.

I also went to my first comic book convention around the same time that I started reading comics. I remember how excited I was because Stan Lee was there, and there was a panel where he talked about all kinds of upcoming movie projects. I also remember getting all excited when he'd write about the movies featuring Marvel characters in his "Stan's Soapbox" column. Can't you remember all those great Marvel movies from the late eighties and early nineties? Here, I'll pause as you start naming them off.

Crickets.

The thing is, I would get all excited about supposed Iron Man, Silver Surfer, Spider-Man, etc. movies that never saw the light of day even though my uncle, who was following comics for some time before me, told me that I shouldn't trust anything that Stan would say. Apparently, "The Man" had a bit of a track record of hyping movies that were "in development" that never actually got developed.

Not only that, but Lee would praise utter crapfests like The Punisher (the Dolph Lundgren one) and Captain America (the one with J.D. Salinger's son). Face it, true believer, the state of superhero movies was pretty abysmal.

As I got older, I pretty much figured that I would probably never see a decent comic book movie. The best ones around were the Batman films, and those all just got worse and worse. Spider-Man was in development hell as they tried to figure out exactly who owned the rights to make the movie with the character, and the idea of James Cameron directing was just too good to be true. (Although he genuinely did have a hand in developing a film, even though it went nowhere.) Everything that did exist was clearly made by people who had no idea what was cool about superheroes in the first place.

I remember that Wizard magazine used to have a pretty cool column called "Casting Call" where they would pick their dream choices for hypothetical superhero movies. It was enjoyable, but I never thought I'd ever see them come to light. I mean, Sir Patrick Stewart as Professor X? You gotta be dreaming!

And then X-Men came out, and everything changed. Have there been bad superhero movies since then? Absolutely, with Daredevil, Spider-Man 3, and The Fantastic Four springing to mind. To take those three examples though, each one is a billion times better than the versions that came before. Daredevil made an appearance in The Trial of the Incredible Hulk. He wore a black costume that had a blindfold on it, because apparently Daredevil thinks it's a wise move to announce to the underworld that he's blind. He was also the guy who used to host Solid Gold. Ever see the 1970s live-action TV Spider-Man? Don't. And the FF had it so bad that the director made a movie that he had no intention of releasing. With the more recent versions of those films, I can at least find some good things to say about them, not so much with the older versions.

We've had some other bad ones, like Green Lantern, but if that movie had come out when I was just starting to read comics, I'd think that it was the greatest thing ever. At least it was made by people who read the comics and had some understanding of the mythology, even though it was a colossal misfire as they attempted to translate it into a movie. As a fan, I at least enjoyed seeing some ideas that I loved in the comics come to life on the big screen.

All this brings me back to The Avengers. A movie that featured characters from four other franchises? And it's all in the same continuity with (mostly) the same actors? The twelve-year-old me would have pooped my pants in anticipation, but once I wised up to Stan Lee's trickery, I'd say that it was darn-near impossible. Even if they tried it, the movies would probably stink, and the end product would probably be so far from the concept that it would be unrecognizable.

I've heard a lot of people say that the film was overrated. I can see that, but at the same time, it was something that I'd never thought I'd see, and dammit, it was good. In fact, all of the movies leading up to it were good. I know some folks will want to quibble with me on that, but I enjoyed them all. They were true to the genre and featured capable actors and some fun dialogue. None of them transcended the genre (with the possible exception of the first Iron Man) but they were all solid, entertaining films.

The Avengers, and I hope you'll forgive the cliche, was greater than the sum of its parts. I harbored some doubts as to whether it could actually work, but it all came together quite well. And unlike the Christopher Nolan Batman films, which are great, The Avengers completely embraced its genre roots. And that's pretty impressive considering what a crazy mish-mash of genres comics tend to be. You wouldn't think that Robert Downey Jr.'s Iron Man could live in the same space as Chris Hemsworth's Thor, yet you never question it when it's happening.

Did it touch on more real-life issues like The Dark Knight did? No, but it wasn't exactly trying to, either. It was a movie that embraced everything cool about superheroes and celebrated it. It's probably the first movie where I could tell a non-comic book fan, "Yeah, that's pretty much what it's like." I should also note that my wife, who enjoys these kinds of movies but not with the same enthusiasm that I do, actually saw this one TWICE in the theater.

Considering its box-office, it obviously appealed to a more mainstream crowd, which proves what we comic book fans have been saying for a long time - being true to the comics will only be a good thing. These characters have endured for decades; there must be a reason for that.

I guess I'd say that The Avengers is kind of the ultimate B-movie in a way. It breaks no new ground, but it gets everything right, and it doesn't suffer from the curses of most B-movies like painfully awful dialogue, bad acting, and awful effects.

There are just so many things that I enjoy about it, that you can add my name to the list of people who are over-rating it. I loved the bit where Captain America finally takes charge, and he's able to convincingly tell a god what to do. Even better, it's great that it was prefaced with Iron Man realizing that the guy he's been mocking this whole time is the man for the job, saying, "Call it, Cap." Not only are there so many little moments that I dig, I can't recall a big-budget action film that actually gets BETTER in the third act. I usually find these things to kinda run out of steam as they get toward the end. I would actually say that the film's weaker scenes are at the beginning.

Here's hoping that they don't screw it up with the second Avengers movie. But even if they do, I've already seen enough good superhero films to get the taste of the 70s, 80s, and 90s out of my mouth. Even if it totally stinks, I can guarantee it will be better than Batman and Robin.

As for the next thing that I'm doubtful as to whether it can happen or not? Getting Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man and Hugh Jackman's Wolverine in The Avengers 2. Good thing I've been wrong before.

Comics Roundup...NO MORE!!!

2013-04-28T17:03:00.004-07:00

For the ten of you who regularly checked out the Comics Roundup, I'm sorry to say that it is no more. I'm still reading comics, and I plan on writing about comics some more on this blog, but I was losing interest in writing it.

I hope to write some more in-depth reviews of stuff that I have been enjoying once a bunch of issues of it come out. I also hope to write a lengthy retrospective of Geoff Johns's run on Green Lantern once that wraps up in the next couple of months.

Basically, I don't have as much time to write as I would like, and if I'm going to take the time to do so, then I want to focus on stuff that interests me.

Comics Roundup for 3/6/13

2013-03-09T13:20:00.000-08:00

Avengers #7 - ...and I'm done! I realize that Jonathan Hickman has his fans, but this series has begun to bore me. I've been having a hard time putting my finger on exactly what it is, but the big reason is that I just can't find myself caring about what's going on. Yeah, I know, he's going for a "big picture" kind of a thing here, but by the seventh issue, I need something to hang on to. You can be "big picture" and episodic at the same time.

For me, the big problem is that the initial story arc ended a bit too abruptly, but I was okay with that. Then we got several issues with obscure characters from the Marvel Universe - most of whom I care little about. The thing is, I can get interested in B-list characters. Brian Michael Bendis got me to like Luke Cage and The Sentry, for instance. But he made them work by having them react with all the characters one wants when he or she picks up an Avengers book. I pick up an Avengers book to get the characters I like, and if new ones are worked into the mix, then that's great.

And now we're dealing with something from the New Universe? That was a line of comics that came out when I was in middle school. They tried bringing it back at least once, but comics fans everywhere were underwhelmed. So, after three issues of barely getting to know three obscure characters (one of whom, I don't think Hickman even bothered to give us the name) there's some sort of incident involving a thing that I didn't care about two and a half decades ago? That's it. Reading this book feels like a chore. I'll stick with Uncanny Avengers for my avenging fixes.

Green Lantern #18 - Speaking of a book that got me to care about all sorts of stuff I never cared about before...What can I say other than what I always say? This was another solid issue, and it seems like Geoff Johns is setting up the pieces to wrap up what he's been building for the past few years now. He hasn't let me down with this character yet, so I'm looking forward to where this is all going.

Winter Soldier #16 - This is a good book, but I just don't think that I'm interested enough to keep going with it. I suppose I only stuck with Brubaker's entire run out of a sense of loyalty because I liked the character and everything that Brubaker did with him in Captain America. However, I'm just not that huge into spies and cold war type shenanigans to keep reading this.

All New X-Men #8 - Here's another book where I'm running out of stuff to say. I was entertained yet again, and as usual, the story moved forward. Oh, and the bit of comedy between Iceman and Shadowcat was priceless.

Hellboy - In Hell #4 - I was a bit confused by what was going on in this issue, but I enjoyed it anyway. Looks like I'll have to go back and reread some of the past couple of series to get caught up on what I've forgotten.

Superior Spider-Man #5 - This issue didn't have all the subplot stuff that I've been liking lately, but it was still a solid read. Basically, the inevitable happens and Octavius shows that he's willing to cross a line that Parker never would - and just like Travis Bickle, he gets praised for it.

Age of Ultron #1 - The new crossover gets off to a pretty big start. Bendis has been building toward this for a while now, and it definitely has some pretty serious implications. It's easy to see why fans are predicting a line-wide reboot when this whole thing is done. My only issue is that Spider-Man seemed a lot more like Peter Parker even though he's supposedly Otto Octavius in this issue.

Comics Roundup for 2/27/13

2013-03-03T19:57:00.001-08:00

Punisher War Zone #4 & 5 - I missed the last issue of this series, but luckily there was still a copy in stock so I could have the complete story. Overall, this was a decent miniseries, and it was fun to watch Frank take Tony Stark down a notch or two. Nothing great, but it was entertaining.

Hawkeye #8 - Here's a question - is this really a superhero comic book? Just like how the current Wonder Woman and Thor series are more along the lines of fantasy/sci-fi, this series almost reads like what Ed Brubaker was doing with Criminal. Sure, it has some of the trappings of comic book superheroes, and you have a character who's a crime-fighter, but where's his costume? His secret ID? Hawkeye is definitely a superhero in the pages of The Avengers, but in this book, Matt Fraction is doing something different - and it works. I never thought I'd still be getting this book by this point, but I'll get 100 issues of it if it maintains this level of quality.

Batman, Inc. #8 - Even if the Internet didn't spoil the death of Damien Wayne, the cover basically does the same thing. Is he really dead though? I've been reading comics too long to understand why the online comics media seems to be taking this at face value.

Uncanny Avengers #4 - Even though I might be on the fence when it comes to the main Avengers book, I'm still pretty enthused about this one. Rick Remender is really doing a good job of giving every member of the team a clear purpose - even Thor, who I might have thought didn't fit.

Avenging Spider-Man #17 - I'm glad I stuck with this series. This was another fun installment, and it's good to see that they're playing up the Ock/Spider-Man mind switch for all its worth. And not that we expected this to last, but it's nice to get confirmation from time travelers that this will have an end.

Uncanny X-Men #2 - Nothing great, but a solid read here, and I'm looking forward to seeing them mix it up with the Avengers next issue. I also like how Chris Bachalo is reigning in his art style a bit. He's definitely talented, but sometimes he goes a little too crazy and the storytelling is hard to follow. Perhaps he just works best with Bendis?

Comics Roundup for 2/20/13

2013-02-23T13:17:00.000-08:00

Indestructible Hulk #4 - I've been a bit torn with this series, but the end of the last issue really started to get my attention. With this one, I was interested in the beginning but didn't care as much for the end. I guess I'm interested enough - especially now that we know why the Hulk has armor on him - to at least get the next issue. I don't know, maybe Peter David's run on the character has spoiled me for all time.

Savage Wolverine #2 - While the artwork is really nice on this, the story just isn't interesting enough to keep me on board for another issue. I'm hoping that the new, adjectiveless Wolverine story will be more interesting. This one though feels like it has little consequence in the life of the character - kinda like it's a fill-in, and I have a feeling that it's either going to end when Frank Cho leaves or they'll get some second-tier creative team after that, which will mean that it will end shortly after that.

Daredevil #23 - This was pretty good throughout the whole thing, as Matt Murdock helps his friend, Foggy Nelson, deal with his cancer diagnosis. The last page had me pause on it for several minutes before I finally closed the book.

The Superior Spider-Man #4 - Fun stuff, as usual, and I really like the fact that the original Green Goblin is back. I suppose it would be too much to hope for things to get even more interesting with the original Hobgoblin mixing things up as well, but that's probably not going to happen.

Avengers #6 - I really have to wonder how accessible this book would be to anybody unfamiliar with the Marvel Universe. And even with an old hand like myself, this certainly isn't the Captain Universe that I recognize. I'm still intrigued, but this book had better start paying off soon, or I'm done.

Captain America #4 - The main story is wacky and just interesting enough, but the flashbacks are getting to be even more compelling, just as I hoped. While it's nothing groundbreaking, it's cool seeing the life of a young Steve Rogers. I wonder if any of this terrain has been covered before or not. Still, I'd like to see a return to good old Earth 616 soon. Oh, and I do think that John Romita, Jr. is producing some of his best artwork in a while, even if he might be channeling Jack Kirby just a wee bit.

Green Lantern #17 - Turns out Geoff Johns is leaving this book - not that it has any bearing on my enjoyment of this issue. Anyway, as usual, I liked this installment. I'm not sure that I'm going to stick around after Johns leaves though, as I don't have the same attachment to this character as I do a lot of other ones, and it was Rebirth that got me on board with this stuff in the first place.

Thor: God of Thunder #5 - Easily one of my favorite books right now - great art, great story.

Wonder Woman #17 - This was a bit of a weak entry, but I've seen those before with this series only to find it get really interesting again - especially when the original artist comes back. I'm not too worried about it all. I'm still wondering exactly who the mysterious guy in the ice is supposed to be - not to mention how Orion is still breathing after slapping WW on the butt.

Comics Roundup for 2/13/13

2013-02-16T20:00:00.000-08:00

Star Wars #2 - I'm not loving this as much as some of the online reviewers are, but I'm finding it interesting enough to keep with it. Some new characters are introduced, and it leaves off with Han Solo about to get into some shenanigans on Coruscant. I really have to wonder now though if the Expanded Universe is starting to contradict itself multiple times by now. Seems like the era between "Hope" and "Empire" is pretty well-worn by now.

Batman #17 - This was a good ending, but it was pretty anticlimactic after the excellent "Court of Owls" story. Still, it answers a good question - if the Joker is such a mad genius, why hasn't he ever figured out Batman's secret ID? It's because he has absolutely no interest in it, which makes sense considering the whole "mad" part.

Uncanny X-Men #1 - I don't think that I liked this as much as Bendis's other X-book, but it was entertaining enough and left off with a pretty good cliffhanger to make me want to check out the next issue. Is this going to be a long-term return to the X-books for me? I have read them off-and-on over the years, but I haven't gotten them regularly since high school.

Secret Avengers #1 - This was a fairly amusing setup. I'm curious as to how The Hulk is going to fit into a team that's supposed to be a stealth one, but I guess we'll find that out in the next issue. If it's another slow week, I might just pick it up.

Comics Roundup for 2/6/13

2013-02-07T19:37:00.000-08:00

Winter Soldier #15 - I figured I'd give the new creative team of Jason Latour and Nic Klein a shot. It certainly reads like a Winter Soldier book, and they're definitely sticking true to the basic concept behind the character. Bucky Barnes continues to look for redemption - this time while trying to apologize to those whom he has wronged. Of course, all sorts of high-stakes shenanigans ensue. I didn't love it, but I just might be intrigued enough to pick up the next issue.

New Avengers #3 - This was good - really good. It basically demonstrates why Captain America wasn't a member of the Illuminati in the first place, and it shows that he's going to be a problem with it if they let him stay. Definitely some good character interaction, and it's interesting to see something defeat the Infinity Gauntlet. Still, this series has no business being called New Avengers no matter how good it is.

All New X-Men #7 - Good stuff, as usual, from one of my current favorite books. I still wonder how long they can run with this concept, but so far I'm still intrigued. Eventually there's going to have to be a reckoning between the young and old Scott Summers. I wonder how much it will be necessary to read the other Bendis X-book that's coming out soon in order to follow what's happening there, 'cause it looks like Cyclops is headlining Uncanny X-Men.

The Superior Spider-Man #3 - The plot thickens, and Carlie Cooper is finally starting to serve a purpose beyond "post-MJ girlfriend". So long as this series can deliver a new wrinkle in the current situation every issue, I think that this book will have some traction. In this one, we find out that the "ghost Peter" is able to view the memories of Otto Octavius. Perhaps somewhere in there lies the answer to fixing all this again - that, or the fact that Carlie seems to be hip to what's going on.

Hellboy in Hell #3 - I was a bit more puzzled as to what was going on in this issue than the last one. Satan has brothers? Is that what it is? Either way, I'm still digging it, and I can only imagine how much it would have freaked me out if I read this back when my family was under the influence of the Jehovah's Witnesses. My comic with Jack Kirby's Demon would seem like a children's book of Bible stories.

Avengers #5 - We get introduced to one of these mysterious Avengers who's been hanging around the book for the past couple of issues. I'm not sure who she is, exactly. I read a review, and apparently she's "Smasher". I don't know much about her or if I should know about her. I'm kind of interested in her backstory, and I want to see how she'll fit into the greater plan, but I think that greater pains could have been taken to make things a bit clearer in this issue. (Apparently the original "Smasher" debuted in some old Chris Claremont/Dave Cockrum X-Men comics. He doesn't ring a bell.)

Hit-Girl #5 - This issue is delightfully violent, and the panel where a little girl uses a sledgehammer to turn a guy's skull into pulp is a thing of macabre brilliance. As I always say, this works better as a comic than it does live-action. Dammit if this twisted book isn't entertaining, and I'm looking forward to the grand finale in Kick-Ass 3.

Comics Roundup for 1/30/13

2013-01-31T20:50:00.000-08:00

The Superior Spider-Man #2 - I'm not sure how long this storyline can hold up, but it's pretty interesting now that we get to see Peter Parker reacting to everything that's going on as Doctor Octopus continues to control his body. I think that one good thing that Dan Slott has done with all this is that it's clear that he's been setting stuff up long-term. In this issue, Mary Jane is getting suspicious, but Peter's other ex-girlfriend, Carlie Cooper, has even more reason to be. I'm hoping that all of this will play out in the issues to come.

Avenging Spider-Man #16 - I figured that I'd give this book another shot since it looks like it's getting a regular writer. Plus, it will be interesting to see Ock-Spidey interact with the rest of the Marvel Universe. I'd be disappointed if Wolverine didn't notice that something was amiss in this team-up with the X-Men, considering that they're fellow Avengers and the two are friends, albeit unconventionally so. Anyway, I buy it that Rachel Grey wouldn't violate Spider-Man's privacy to see what's going on in his head, but I'm thinking that the new Spidey needs to run into Emma Frost. It would be hard to imagine her having such reservations. Overall, I liked this one, and I'm glad to see that it's going to have an ongoing story, as although the team-up concluded, it set things up for the next issue.

Hawkeye #7 - This issue is Matt Fraction's response to Hurricane Sandy, if you will. Basically, it's got Hawkeye and his friends dealing with what happened. It doesn't feel too much like a superhero story, but this series is barely your standard superhero fare in the first place - which is part of its appeal. Anyway, I didn't like this one as much as I've liked the past issues, but it certainly has its place as an important comic along the same lines as the 9/11 issue of The Amazing Spider-Man.

Avengers #4 - Glad to see that this whole Hyperion guy gets explained in this issue. Plus, it's not like the story from the first three issues is actually complete. I'm not sure what to think of this series. It's different, that's for sure. I'm not entirely convinced that I'll be sticking around for some time, but I'm at least interested enough to check out the next issue. I'm just hoping that I won't have to wait too long for some payoff.

Batman Incorporated #7 - This certainly is the oddest Batman title around, which is what keeps it interesting. I'm not sure where Grant Morrison is going with all this, but it's nice to see that he's following up on ideas that first came up in the initial Batman Incorporated intro book.

Better Bible Stories: Job

2013-01-26T20:49:00.001-08:00

Some time back, I wrote the first of my "Better Bible Stories". It was a retelling of the story where Abraham was told by God to sacrifice his son and somehow, agreeing to do it was the right thing to do. Today, I thought I'd write my own version of the Book of Job, mainly because it gets to the heart of pretty much everything that I think is wrong with religion.

In the land of Uz, which was not too far from Oz, there was a fella named Job. The dude was hella rich and stuff. He had sheep, oxen, donkeys and camels. Man, did the guy have some camels. He was also really faithful to his God, which in this case is Yahweh, the god of the Jews, who also happens to be the one, true god, unlike that Huitzilopotchli asshole.

One day, Yahweh was bragging to Satan, who may or may not take the shape of snake from time to time, about how swell Job was and how much Job loved Him. Satan pointed out that it was only because of the fact that Job had a really great hedge, the kind you'd see on the front cover of Better Homes and Gardens.

Then Satan had an idea, and before he could speak, Yahweh replied:

"Forget it."

"What?"

"What you're about to propose."

"I didn't even get to say it!"

"Yeah, well, I'm omniscient, remember? I know everything."

"Oh yeah, then what was I going to say?"

"You were going to suggest that if Job didn't have that really great hedge, he'd start to curse me. Then you were hoping that I'd be all: 'Go for it. Take it away.' And then you'd take away the hedge and do all sorts of nasty things to him like make him sick and kill his family. And his camels. You were going to kill his camels. Your hope would be that he'd then curse me."

Yahweh paused as Satan sat there, astonished, which was stupid of Satan, because by now he should be aware of the fact that Yahweh was omniscient. But then Satan explained that he only pretended to be astonished as the reader needed some kind of a reminder that being omniscient was an impressive thing.

"That about right?" Yahweh asked.

"Yeah. So, let's give it a go then, okay? I bet that he'll curse you if you let me completely ruin his life."

"He won't."

"How do you know?"

"Omniscient, remember?"

"How do I know that you're not lying?"

"What do I give a crap what you think? You refused to bow down before Adam, according to one major branch of the Abrahamic faiths."

"You're just scared that I'm right."

"No, you're wrong. I know you're wrong, and being that I'm not only omniscient but omnipotent, I'm now also going to make it so that you know that I'm right in the same way that I do." Yahweh then said the secret, magic word that he uses when he does all of his tricks.

"Whoa." Satan said. "You're totally right. He could go through totally unimaginably awful stuff and still be faithful."

"Kind of messed up, isn't it?" Yahweh said.

"Messed up? How do you figure? Seems reasonable to me."

"Reasonable? I let an evil being ruin his life and kill his children, and yet he still remains loyal to me? He's like one of those abused children or spouses who makes excuses for their tormentors. Can you imagine if a parent let some guy beat the crap out of their kids just to see if the kids would still love them? How messed up would that be?"

"Messed up, I guess. But I'm the devil, and I'm evil, so I dig that sort of a thing."

"Figures." Yahweh sighed, which is bizarre because he's an incorporeal being who doesn't have lungs. "I'm going down to talk to Job to give him a bit of a lesson on how to respect himself. Geez...he'd still worship me after his kids were killed. His kids! It's like they're just props in some kind of sick farce. And don't get me started on the camels. I like camels."

Comics Roundup 1/23/13

2013-01-26T19:48:00.000-08:00

Uncanny Avengers #3 - This is a bit late, isn't it? That's okay because it's a nutty good time, and John Cassaday's art is in top form. Rick Remender is also making good use of each team member, and it's certainly interesting to see Captain America have to defer to Havok. How the heck can somebody give orders to Captain America? Well, Havok seems confidant enough to pull it off.

Green Lantern #16 - I'm hoping that I won't have to buy all the other Green Lantern books to be able to follow what's going on, because I'm enjoying this story, and I like the new Green Lantern. This issue also gives us a reason why he carries a gun, and it's a pretty reasonable one.

Wonder Woman #16 - This is becoming another one of those titles where I don't have much to say simply because it's an entertaining read and I have not much else to add to it than that. I guess I could point out that I like the new look for Orion, and the story gives a pretty good reason for introducing the New Gods into the mix. I still think that this would make for an interesting team-up with Jason Arron's Thor: God of Thunder. Oh, and I love the bit when Hera reminds Ares that he's her least-favorite child. Mythology nerds like me eat that stuff up.

Avengers #3 - Apparently Jonathan Hickman is the kind of writer who thinks long-term, which he'd better be doing here or else that was really anti-climactic. I also have to wonder just how new-reader friendly this is. Apparently that's Captain Universe who saved the day there, right? Doesn't the Captain Universe power only attach itself to a person in times of great need? And what's the deal with Hyperion? Not a whole lot is being explained here, but I'm intrigued enough to check out the next issue.

Winter Soldier #14 - Ed Brubaker goes out on a pretty high, albeit melancholy, note with this series. I'm not sure if I'm interested enough in the character to see what happens to him with the new writer, but it's certainly been fun following his adventures ever since Brubaker introduced him in Captain America's book. Hopefully the movie will do him justice.

The Secret Service #5 - Another installment of another Mark Millar book, and I'm entertained and surprised that I don't have to re-read everything that came before since it's been a while since the last issue.

Making my brain work better

2013-01-19T17:16:00.000-08:00

Over a year ago, I wrote an entry that I entitled "Not Depressed Enough to be Depression". What I really liked about it was the response that I got. A couple people, both on my blog here and on Facebook, told me that they could relate to what was going on. I think that it was one of the few entries where I ever really got personal - instead of writing about my thoughts on beer, comics, religion, etc., I was writing about me and what was going on in my head. While I figured it would have been a bit of a form of therapy to write that stuff down, I guess the real therapy was in knowing that I wasn't alone. I tried the same thing with "Got Guilt? Kill a Hydra!" but I think that my mythological reference might have gotten lost on some people.

I've been thinking for the past few weeks that I should follow up on what I wrote because I have some good news - I've been feeling really good lately. Oh, sure, there was a moment of depression when it looked like Prop 30 wasn't going to pass in California, but I think that even in that awful scenario I'd find a way to bring my mood back up to what it is now.

Perhaps the biggest sign is that I've been sleeping really well. One problem that I'd often have is that I'd fall asleep quickly enough, but then I'd wake up in the middle of the night with my mind spinning on something. This isn't happening anymore. I guess the trick that I learned is that much of my sleeping experience depends on the thoughts that are going on in my head when I go to bed. This became really obvious when I'd either read or watch The Walking Dead right before retiring for the evening. It was inevitable that I'd have bad dreams about zombies. So, what did I start doing instead? I'd read something light - oftentimes some Uncle Scrooge Stories by Carl Barks. That really did the trick. Now, not everybody has this exact same situation, or a collection of Uncle Scrooge stories handy, but the basic principle is the same - go to bed with good thoughts.

However, I have an even better control over it lately. When I have some negative thoughts, I just push them out. This is easier said than done. I remember telling my therapist that I wished that I could just shut my brain off and stop thinking about things. She told me that I had to just keep working at re-focusing my mind. It's not that I didn't believe her, but I resigned myself to the notion that this was simply the reality that I was dealing with - I had a brain that went places that I didn't want it to go.

But like most long-term solutions, it takes a bit of time for it to finally work. Does my brain still start to dwell on things that drive me nuts? Sure, it definitely goes there. However, now I'm able to push it out of my head with just a little bit of effort. It's not even so much that I have such excellent control, but I'm just TIRED of thinking about things that bother me. It's like I get annoyed with the fact that those thoughts are even there because I finally understand that dwelling on them solves nothing. Of course, I had always understood that on a conscious level, but it's like my subconscious level finally understands as well.

I'm not sure what other factors have played a part in all of this. I think that much of it has to do with the fact that my wife and I finally moved out of our house, where we were ridiculously underwater - literally, if literally means figuratively, which it doesn't, so we weren't. The stress of that situation finally being gone is a big plus. Also, I seem to have adjusted to condo life. The sheer fact that I don't have lots of yardwork is fantastic. Would it be nice if it was a little bit bigger? Yeah, but do you know what I'm also tired of? Not being satisfied with what I have.

Part of me thinks that being a dad has adjusted my outlook a bit. It's possible that I just don't have as much time for my brain to go wandering off places. I pick up Logan right after work, and then I take him and the dog on a walk once we get home. Then it's time for dinner and a bath (wifey usually does the bath) and then bedtime for him. After that, I'm pooped. Maybe it's that, but maybe some sort of instinct has kicked in where my brain simply won't let me go off into a dark cloud.

Part of it too is that at 39, I'm probably closer to death than I am to my birth. Yeah, that sounds depressing, but it isn't to me. I have no plans to kick off anytime soon, and I hope that at the very least, I grow old enough to see Logan become a man. But as for death itself, I have no fear of it. (I do fear dying though - at least, a painful experience. Once it gets here though, I'm fine with it.) And unlike the Egyptian Pharaohs, I realize that I can't take stuff with me, good or bad. Perhaps some people might think it's morbid, but often I get rid of those negative thoughts by just thinking as to how much it will all matter when I'm dead. It may sound strange, but it cheers me up.

All of these unimportant things that I stress over won't matter, and the only thing that will matter is that I've left this world in a slightly better place, as that will no doubt be my final thought. While I certainly don't think that I'm a Martin Luther King or somebody along those lines, I think that I've done all right. Here's hoping that I'll be around plenty long enough to pad the resume some more.

Comics Roundup for 1/16/13

2013-01-17T20:02:00.001-08:00

Lots of good stuff. Here we go:

Star Wars #1 - I read some good reviews of this new series from Dark Horse. It's basically what the old, original Marvel series was back in the 1970s - the adventures of Luke Skywalker and company right after the destruction of the Death Star. I like this issue well enough to check out the next one. The one thing that I thought was pretty good was how they dealt with Han Solo and his Jabba the Hutt situation. After all, why not just go and pay the guy off and then move on? Han gives a good reason in this one; at least, he gives a reason that you could believe Han would think is a good reason. I have to wonder though with all of these Expanded Universe Star Wars stories, are they starting to contradict what's come before? There are only so many times you can go through the same territory without walking on your own tracks.

Daredevil #22 - This was a fun issue, and thankfully, DD can tell that there's definitely something off with Spider-Man, even though he sounds, smells, etc. the same. I think it should only be a matter of time before other characters start to catch on. My only slight complaint is that it would have been nice to see the Peter Parker "ghost" have a say, but maybe they didn't want to spoil the first issue of Superior Spider-Man for those who haven't read it yet.

Captain America #3 - Well, things get even more bizarre in this issue. It still feels like a Captain America story, but only just barely by this point. Let's hope that Rick Remender can walk the line between doing something completely different from Ed Brubaker (his shadow still looms large) and something that's still true to the character.

Indestructible Hulk #3 - Just like the first two issues, this one was a fun read but it's not quite sticking with me. However, at least with this one some interesting developments including a supporting cast get introduced. I'll stick around.

Savage Wolverine #1 - The art of Frank Cho is the selling point of this series. His writing? It's not bad, but it's nothing special. Still, this was an enjoyable read. I'll get at least a few issues of it, but I have a feeling that the new adjective-less Wolverine series drawn by Alan Davis might give me my monthly Wolverine fix a bit better.

The New Avengers #2 - This was stronger than the last issue, and that's mainly because we start to get some of the personalities conflicting with one another. Having Steve Rogers as a member of the Illuminati (which should be the title of this series) certainly sets a new tone for the team (if you can call them that).

Batman #16 - This issue felt kind of perfunctory with its confrontation with the Joker and other members of Batman's rogues gallery. Also, I was a bit confused as to what was going on, as the art didn't clearly lay out what happened during the fight with Mr. Freeze. Oh well, the beginning of this story has been great, and Scott Snyder has entertained me more than he has not, so I'll just consider this to be a bump in the road.

All New X-Men #6 - I was feeling somewhat uninterested in this issue until the end, and then things started to get good again. As for new artist David Marquez, I don't think that I like him as much as Stuart Immonen, but I sure as heck am not going to complain about his work - it's pretty spiffy. Again, this is the series that has surprised me the most, but I guess it shouldn't considering how many of my favorite comics from the past decade have been written by Brian Michael Bendis.

Just be a dad, dammit!

2013-01-12T20:02:00.000-08:00

Little known fact: Once the baby is born, the father can do almost all of the same stuff as the mother can do. No, this isn't going to be one of those blog posts where a man moans and groans about how tough he has it in this CLEARLY oppressively matriarchal society. It's just that it seems like there might actually be some dads out there who need to be told this.

My son, Logan, is not quite two and a half, but I've been changing diapers, feeding him, reading to him, playing with him, hugging him, kissing him, putting him to bed at night, etc. pretty much since he got out of my wife's belly. Obviously, I deserve some sort of a medal. No, that's not it. I'm fairly certain that my dad did all of those things with me as well. (I kinda have to take his word for it since I don't remember those days so much.)

So, this is obviously some sort of magnificent trait that's been passed down through the Johnson line. We're clearly a family that produces awesome fathers. Well, that's not it either because my father-in-law is the same way. Also, all of my friends who are fathers do the same stuff that I do.

Then what's the big deal? I'm just doing the same stuff that all dads do, right? Well, not necessarily.

I've heard a few stories about some dads out there who basically see caring for the child as "her job". Not only that, but my wife once told me about a guy she knows who got all nervous when his wife left him with their baby for the evening. "What do I do if she cries?" He asked. Umm...figure it out, dude! You're the dad! (Again, it's not any of my friends who fit this description. These are "friends of friends" kinds of stories.)

I'm hoping that these types of dads are in the minority, but it amazes me that there are even any of them out there nowadays. How the heck do you bring that little baby home and then NOT want to care for it? It's not exactly like I was fighting my wife to hold on to my son, but I'm pretty certain that if she never let me touch him, I'd start to get pretty upset. Call it instinct, because I'm fairly certain that there's just as much of my DNA that's invested in my son's welfare as my wife's.

I guess that nothing should really surprise me about people, but a father who's unable and/or unwilling to do the basic are for his child? It boggles my mind.

The afterlife of Christopher Hitchens

2013-01-12T11:02:00.004-08:00

Sometimes when I'm getting ready for work in the morning, I like to listen to various Youtube clips. Since I'm not sitting in front of the computer, some of the best stuff to listen to are videos that feature debates. Lately, I keep getting videos featuring the late Christopher Hitchens in my "What to Watch" feed. Some of them I've seen before, but every now and then one will come up that's brand new. It's pretty astounding how many videos there are. One thing the guy was not afraid to do was get into a debate.

While they're interesting, part of me dislikes the entire debate format. I can understand why guys like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers refuse to debate creationists. On one hand, it gives those creationists ammo to say, "Look! He's afraid! He knows he's going to lose!" On the other hand though, why should a respected biologist take the time to debate something that's nothing more than a ridiculous pseudoscience? It doesn't matter how many people believe it, creationism is bogus, and why should he legitimize it by having a debate? Sometimes, there simply isn't anything to debate.

There's something different though about those Hitchens debates. True, many of the people he debates drop so many ridiculous logical fallacies and unproven assertions that there's no way for him to address all of them point-for-point. What's great about them though is the fact that he did them while promoting his book God is Not Great. Also, according to him, he didn't take the expected book tour for a book like that, and instead he went right into Christian territory in order to have these debates. In other words, the Christians were giving him a format to bring his point of view to people who might not hear it otherwise.

Because that's the thing, in some parts of this country, there are people who never really hear the arguments against theism. All they hear is what they're exposed to. Even in the Information Age, it's astounding how many people I've talked to who don't seem to understand the basic objections that an atheist has. If I had a nickel for every time I had to explain basic stuff like what the Big Bang even is and how atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive, well, I'd have one hell of a lot of nickels.

So that's what he was doing - getting the message out to people who wouldn't normally hear it. I think that one of the most telling of these debates was the one with William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, Douglas Wilson, and Jim Dennison. What's so telling about it? All of those guys are Christians. Not only that, but so is the moderator, who gets into the debate as well and makes some points. In other words it takes 5 GUYS to debate Hitchens. What do you think it would be like if it was the other way around? Well, I'd feel bad for the Christian, that's for sure. And it's not like each of the Christians get their turn followed by a response by Hitchens. He has to listen to all four (five, really) before he's able to get his say.

Honestly, I'm not sure how many atheists would be willing to do this, and Hitchens handles himself admirably in this. At least, he does a better job than I ever would. I'd be sitting there facepalming my way through the whole event if I had to listen to those guys.

It's a pretty long debate, and I watched it in pieces over the course of a few days. The things that stand out are the absolutely absurd assertions of William Lane Craig. The guy's a good speaker, and he's probably pretty convincing to everybody who's already convinced. However, his assertion that "if it's possible that a God exists, then a God exists" is so breathtakingly inane that I'm surprised that Hitchens didn't fall out of his chair. Craig also likes to use the "fine tuning" argument, which I've heard theists parrot ad nauseum. Luckily, Hitchens skewers that one, although I doubt it changed the minds of his fellow panelists. The thing is with that point is that it's so nebulous, like most arguments for theism. What, exactly, does "fine tuning" even mean? And considering that our planet (not to mention the universe) is mostly completely uninhabitable and that the galaxy next to ours is crashing into us, how can anybody even go there? Plus, with 99% of the species on this planet going extinct, you really gotta wonder. (I'm repeating what Hichens said here, but I think those points stand just fine on their own.)

Of course, a theist can work his way around anything. I once had one brush off the whole crashing galaxies thing by saying that God can do what he wants, and it's probably just part of his plan since he said that he was going to destroy our world some day anyway. In other words, there's no way that they can be wrong.

Then you've got Douglas Wilson, who seems like an affable fella, but he makes one of the most disingenuous arguments that's been floating around in Christian circles. He tries to flip the burden of proof around by insisting that Hitchens can't call anything "immoral" in his world view because he doesn't have a "standard". I've had this bit of sophistry thrown my way before as well. The fundamental flaw with this assertion is that just because one has a standard, that doesn't make it either good or correct. If Hitchens was a Scientologist, then he'd have a standard, but that wouldn't make it correct or even reasonable.

Forgive me for somewhat parroting Sam Harris here, but just because an atheist can't define an ultimate, objective standard for morality, that doesn't mean that he cannot speak to it at all. What's the ultimate standard for what's healthy? Is it the shape you're in? Is it how long you live? Is it how many pullups you can do? If I can't do what Michael Phelps does, does that mean that I'm unhealthy? What about a basketball player who can't swim as well as him but can jump higher? Who's healthier? But the problem with the Christian who makes this form of argument is that it's like saying: "Hey, you can't say that drinking lighter fluid is unhealthy! You don't have an ultimate standard! However, I do. And my standard is Kieth Moon."

Unfortunately, Hitchens is only able to address this point very fleetingly, as he's basically buried up to his neck in bullcrap. Still, you gotta admire that he even went for it, and if he even reached out to one person in the audience (or on Youtube) then it was worth it. And this is the great thing about the world we live in. Hitchens may be no more, but he's still out there, haunting the tubes, getting the message out to those who are struggling to reconcile those nagging doubts in their heads.

For a much more amusing example, I recommend the following two videos. Hitchens is the guest on the Way of the Master radio show, which is hosted by the odiously arrogant Todd Friel. While I'm not a fan of what the guys in the other debate are saying, I could see myself enjoying a conversation with them (maybe not Craig - the guy is too absurd). This Friel guy is something else though. Anyway, Friel tries to get Hitchens to play along with his absurd little "game show" that's basically an attempt to corner a nonbeliever into accepting that his position was groundless. Hitchens simply will not play along though, and Friel keeps trying to get him on track, with much amusement resulting for any nonbeliever out there. Enjoy.

Comics Roundup for 1/9/13

2013-01-09T19:00:00.001-08:00

Superior Spider-Man #1 - I realize that it's the norm for anybody who's writing about the Spider-Man books to bash them nowadays, but you still won't find me doing it. Obviously, I don't want this Doc Ock in Spidey's body to be what they're still doing years from now (and I don't believe for a second that's what anybody at Marvel wants either). Still, I found myself eagerly flipping through the pages, and I like how even though Octavius has the sense of responsibility, he continues to be an arrogant blowhard. I especially love the fact that he sits there at the dinner table with Mary Jane with one of those douchey headsets in his ear. You gotta figure it's only a matter of time until she catches on that something's wrong - and again, she continues to be an interesting character as his non-wife.

As for the twist at the end? I wasn't surprised, but I was glad to see it.

SPOILER ALERT

Basically, we find out that Peter is still holding on to at least a little bit of control, and he's continuing to fight to regain full consciousness of his own body. Personally, I could have settled for a more subtle way of showing this and holding off on this reveal until the third or fourth issue.

Punisher War Zone #3 (of 5) - Thor versus the Punisher? It's not much of a contest, so it ends in a conversation - a somewhat interesting one though.

Thor: God of Thunder #4 - More excellent stuff, and we're starting to see how the young Thor, present-day Thor, and Old Thor stories tie together. I hope we get a motivation for the villain. He's kinda like Christopher Hitchens as a god-killing supervillain, only not sympathetic.

You don't have that much to say

2013-01-04T20:29:00.001-08:00

I've taken an interest in listening to right-wing radio lately. Mainly the reason for this is that somebody has informed me that we have a Marxist in the White House! And he's a Muslim! And an atheist!

No, wait, that's not it. I guess I'm just tired of my radio stations, as there are only so many times in the week that I need to get the Led out and/or be welcomed to the Hotel California. One of these days, I might invest in satellite radio, but considering that my commute is so short, it just doesn't seem all that practical right now.

Why listen to right wing radio then? I don't know. It's morbid fascination, I guess. I've done it before. Years ago, I'd go to the beach with a couple of friends and we'd listen to Michael Savage and Sean Hannity. Usually we'd just make fun of the stuff they said - which was either nonsensical, knocking down a strawman, shameless propaganda, gratuitous lying, and/or repetitive talking points. Lately, my personal favorite has been Mark Levin.

This guy is an expert in the Constitution. How do I know? Well, he says the word "Constitution" so much that if you made a drinking game out of his show where every mention of the word equaled one shot, they'd have to pump your stomach by the second hour. He's also taught me that the current administration and the Democrats in Congress (and some Republicans too!) don't believe in the Constitution and what they prefer is tyranny. He proves this point by repeating it.

This actually isn't the first time that I've mentioned the guy on my blog. In my post titled "Why I'm not a Conservative", I wrote the following:

A conservative recently recommended the book Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto by Mark Levin. I read through bits and pieces of it at Barnes and Noble, but I think that I read enough to say that it's ridiculous. His first chapter sets up both the strawman and the false dilemma. Basically, you were either a conservative, or you were a "statist". Essentially, if you weren't somebody who identifies as being conservative, then you essentially want a government that controls every aspect of your life. I remember reading his opening chapter and thinking, "I'm not either one of these things!" Yeah, yeah, I know, you probably shouldn't judge a book unless you've read at least the majority of it. But how can I keep going when the initial premise is so flawed to begin with?
And don't get me started on his chapter on religion. His whole argument was, "Science can't explain reason, so therefore a magical man who lives outside of space and time created everything." (Okay, he didn't use phrases like "magical man" but that's still the crux of his argument. Since you can't explain something, therefore a god must have done it. This of course is fool-proof logic, as we all know that Thor brought lightning before we could explain it.)

Honestly, I probably only listen to his show for about 15-20 minutes a day, and I've only been doing so for the past month now. Yet somehow I feel like I've heard pretty much everything that the guy has to say, although I must admit I could stand to hear him say the word "Constitution" one more time. What gets me is that there are no doubt some people who listen to his show all the time, and the entire thing! I realize that even though it probably runs for about 2-3 hours, about 1/3 of that is commercials, but still! Are you hearing anything new?

There was a time there when I was listening to some liberal talk show or another in the morning. While I found myself agreeing and being at least slightly more entertained, I started to lose interest because it started to turn in to the same thing over and over again. Maybe some people need to have their beliefs constantly reinforced, but I'm not sure that I do. At least, not via radio or TV anyway. Part of me thinks that this is why left-wing radio never really catches on in the first place - many people who tend to lean more left don't flock to authoritarian demagogues like those on the right do. And yes, I'm aware that I just made a dangerously oversimplified generalization with little evidence to support it. Let's just call it a hunch for now.

I think that it takes somebody who's remarkably thoughtful and well-read on a myriad of issues to be able to fill that much time with enough original thought, and I'm not sure if such a person exists or if he or she did, people would listen to something with that much variety.

Blogs are kind of like that as well. So long as new comic books come out, I'll always have something to write about. However, there's a reason why I go long periods of time lately without writing my thoughts on religion and politics - it's because I've said much of what I've had to say in the first couple years of writing this thing. I know that I have written a few religion posts lately, but I wouldn't be surprised if I touched on those issues at least once before. At best, I'm just refining some old ideas, approaching them from a new angle, and/or elaborating on different aspects of them.

I check out some atheist blogs and podcasts, but unless they're talking about stuff that hasn't already been discussed ad nauseum, I usually skip those posts/episodes. I don't need it explained to me again that the burden of proof is on the one claiming that a God exists, for instance.

Hosting a talk show where the whole thing is basically centered on your pontificating is probably a difficult thing to do well - at least, in a way that attracts listeners. I suppose I can respect that, but I don't think that I can listen to this stuff much longer. If I didn't find it to be hilarious, albeit unintentionally so, I probably would have tuned out a long time ago.

Knowledge only accessible to me

2013-01-03T21:09:00.001-08:00

I'm not entirely sure what distinguishes a religion from a cult. Apparently, Mormonism was a cult but then it stopped being one when a Mormon Republican ran for President. I imagine that there are some of my fellow non-believers out there who make little distinction between the two, but if I'm being honest, I can't exactly lump The People's Temple (you know, Jim Jones, Kool-Aid) in the same category as your average group of Lutherans. There's a difference, even if I'm not able to define exactly what it is. Sure, you could say that the difference is that one involved murder and suicide whereas the other doesn't, there are definitely groups out there that I would call a cult that aren't necessarily deadly - the Jehovah's Witnesses, The Purple People, and Mac users spring to mind.

What about Mormons? Are they a cult? I've had this conversation with some friends. One of my friend definitely thinks they are, but I disagree. Now, if we're talking about the Fundamentalists who live in those isolated communes with multiple wives, then yeah, that's a cult. However, Joe Average Mormon? I don't see him as a cultist. They're too mainstream and more importantly, which I think is a major distinction, they're very open about their beliefs. Mormons will tell you the whole story if you want to hear it (and in some cases, even if you don't). There's just too much that's out in the open with them.

There is a relationship between cults and religions though. Oftentimes, cults spring out of more mainstream religious movements, for starters. Maybe the best way to look at this is for me to come up with a completely original analogy for religion that nobody else has ever thought of ever. I'm going to say that religion is kind of like a drug. No, that has the wrong connotation to it. How about religion is like the poppy plant? Opium? Opiate? Yeah, that's it. Religion is like an opiate. If you ever use that comparison, remember, you heard it here first, and you owe me a nickel every time you do. After all, I'm a capitalist.

So, to continue on with this metaphor, religion can be for some like having a couple of beers after a stressful week of work. It makes you happy, it gets your mind off your problems. While you might not really NEED it, you could make the argument that it's doing more good than harm to you. Of course, too much of it and you turn into an asshole, but you get my point. However, there are other opiates out there like meth which pretty much ruin your life, and that's where the People's Temple comparison starts. Then you've got all sorts of stuff in between.

Recently, I was doing some reading on cults as a bit of research for my senior English class. We're reading The Autobiography of Malcolm X, so I thought it was apropos to have them read about cults since we need to distinguish between the religion of the Nation of Islam and the religion of Islam. I tell the students that in my opinion, the former is a cult whereas the latter is a religion. (I make it clear that this is my opinion though, as there is no scientific scale that measures which is which.) As a little writing exercise, I have them create their own cult, using various criteria that I've been able to piece together that all cults seem to have in common (like charismatic leaders, a combination of traditional religious beliefs with New Age, etc.) One of the things that I noticed that all cults do is they have some kind of secret, for lack of a better word, knowledge. It's stuff that only the leader, or people who are deep into the organization, are able to figure out.

For instance, Marshall Applewhite of Heaven's Gate was able to interpret various passages from the New Testament to let his followers know that it was about alien visitations and UFOs. Charles Manson heard messages in songs from The Beatles. Shoko Asahara of The Supreme Truth actually managed to travel into the future and witness the devastating effects of World War III. (That happened in 2006. You probably don't remember it because it didn't happen - most likely because Asahara managed to prevent it ala Terminator 2.) And let's not get started on the Scientologists. You've gotta get to Tom Cruise-level status until you finally realize that psychotherapy is a Nazi conspiracy.

So, that was one of the criteria that I had my students create - a source of "secret knowledge". It could be an interpretation of Moby Dick. It could be from the back of a cereal box. Whatever. The point is that not just any schmuck should be able to figure it out. (I got some pretty fun bits of creative writing out of this assignment, by the way.)

Several days later, it occurred to me that this is something that's not really unique to cults. Crap, this is what nearly every religious person does when they engage in debate with a nonbeliever. They might not point out something that's obviously as wacky, but, well...it still is kinda wacky. You especially find this kind of thing with the Biblical apologist. I was listening to a debate with Christopher Hitchens and Dennis Prager some time ago. (You can probably find it on Youtube). I remember that when Hitchens was talking about all of the atrocities and absurdities in The Old Testament, Prager hemmed and hawed about how he didn't have a problem because he had studied it in the original language and thusly had a greater understanding. (I'm not using any quotes, because I might not be remembering this correctly. However, I've heard this sort of a thing from other apologists.) In other words, you've gotta spend your whole life studying this damned book in order for you to realize that all the awful stuff isn't really that awful, and all the ridiculous stuff isn't all that ridiculous. Heaven forbid that you expected it to just be straightforward and easily understood. It would take some sort of all-perfect being to pass on something like that!

I've also gotten into discussions about specific passages where apologists refer to something called Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. Basically, you can check that out to find out all of the possible translations, variants, connotations, and denotations of every damn passage from the Bible's original text. It's aptly named, because you'll be exhausted when you realize what a ridiculous waste of time you've engaged in trying to fit square pegs into things that aren't even meant to have pegs inserted inside them.

Beyond that, you get the arguments from personal experience. You know, God talks to people, but you can't record the conversations or objectively verify it. People will tell you that they "know" that it's true because they have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe. Basically, that stops any and all discussion, but it does it in the same way that a personal vision of the future stops discussion. The truth of the matter can't be confirmed one way or another, making it indistinguishable from bullshit.

You also get a combination of the last two examples. See, just reading The Bible isn't good enough. You have to ask God to open your heart so you can read it the right way. Obviously, if you're going into it as an atheist, you're going to have trouble asking this thing that you don't think exists. Whatever you do though, don't read it while considering that it's untrue is a possible conclusion that you might reach.

I've even had somebody go so far as to use the phrase "other ways of knowing" in order to explain how one can "know" that his or her religious beliefs are true or not. I'm not even sure of what that means. Couldn't I just say that I have another way of knowing that your other way of knowing is malarky? How could you verify it one way or another?

Well, in the 200th issue of The Amazing Spider-Man, you will see the prophecy that proves that I can figure these things out. Of course, if you try and read it for yourself, you probably won't get that message. You have to ask Spider-Man to guide you, and if he doesn't, and you still don't get it, then you're doing it wrong, obviously. Send me money, and that will be a good first step toward figuring it out.