Sex and Profanity in Comedy

I don't have a problem with it, strictly speaking.  Jokes on the subject have the possibility to be hilarious.  There are comedians who use it very cleverly and effectively.

I do, however, had a problem with the fact that comedians have for some reason taken this fact and drawn the conclusion that "sex/profanity = funny, no exceptions".  Now, technically I have this problem with just about everything, as anyone in the voting section of Memebase can tell you that just because a joke contains some potentially funny element it is automatically funny.  Sex and profanity just happen to be the most prevalent.

Presented for your consideration, Pauly Shore:

The man is not funny.  Just simply... not funny.  There is no funny there.  If funny were to be measured by scientific instruments a recording of his shows would be a flat line at zero.  However, because he throws in a brigade F-bombs he gets a few laughs.  Hollow, soul-crushing pity laughs.  This is cheap, lazy comedy at its worst.  Comedy is defined by cleverness and lateral thinking, and this man has neither.  If someone wrote a computer algorithm to make jokes in the 1980s, using a computer of the era, it would come up with precisely this kind of recycled, flat-soda commentary unfounded in reality, but perhaps with an "insert name here" where he says "Hillary Clinton" where you could instead say, oh, Geraldine Ferraro.  He does not deserve to have a career as a comedian; if I ran a comedy I would not allow him to perform if he paid me.  Profanity is his crutch, and the fact that it can be used as such is why I am speaking out against it now.

On the other hand, George Carlin:

He doesn't use dirty language or strong ideas because he can't get laughs otherwise, he does it because it's the right thing to do for his set.  Because of the way he uses it, with obvious practice and forethought, he maximizes the effect of what would already be an poignant and hilarious piece of rhetoric.

The same problem has to do with sex, which again can be an delightful fountain of amazing jokes but can just as easily become a millstone around the neck of a viewer or listener.  Remember, about 60% of any William Shakespeare play is two male protagonists talking about each other's penes (which is the correct plural of "penis", by the way).  Think I'm kidding?  Go re-read Romeo and Juliet.  Still, he's hailed as a master of the craft of writing because they were subtle, thought-out, and creative.

Another problem: oftentimes a movie will insert some cussing or a boob shot in order to avoid getting a G or PG movie and being labelled by the public as "for kids".  I would like to remind you that just because something is not good for kids does not make it good for adults.  Comedy does not work by the process of elimination.

So I realize my point hasn't exactly been clear.  What it comes down to is this: I am neither explicitly for nor against dirty jokes.  However, make sure that they are good jokes and not just dirty.  Here's an exercise: if you can prove to me you can be consistently funny without foul subject material, I will be okay with you being as filthy as you want to be.

Geek Test

"Geek" and "nerd" have in recent years become quite the vogue.  Thanks to the "adorkable" movement and the increase in casual gaming, geeks and nerds are no longer considered greasy, undesirable social outcasts; now, we are charming, desirable social outcasts.  Unfortunately, this means there are now poseurs who think that playing The Sims and reading the classic literature assigned in class qualifies them for these titles.  Unfortunately, no.  These are titles you must earn, and as the charter of the Edison High School League of Awesome Intellectuals I feel the need to set the boundary.

Complete the test that follows.  At no point are Google nor Wikipedia allowed, though you may access other archives of which you are aware.

GEEK TEST

1. Who is the one true James Bond?  Support your argument.

2. Who is the superior captain of the Enterprise?  Provide your argument, citing at least three specific examples.

3. What five types are super-effective against Grass?

4. From which show is the Scooby Gang?  Name its four most permanent members.

5. Name at least six of the actors who have portrayed Doctor Who.

6. Name thirty anime or manga.

7. Who is tearing Johnny apart?  (Hint: He did not hit her.  He did noaught.)

8. There are currently 23 seasons of The Simpsons.  List the good ones.

9. Who are the two main characters of Penny Arcade?

10. Define Armor Class.

11. Name the webcomic shown below, as well as its author.

12. When was /b/ good?

13. Give the model names of two types of Imperial walkers.

14. Who was Percy's girlfriend in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets?

15. Do you ship Vanitas with anyone?  If so, leave now.

16. Who is pictured?

17. Which level of Pac-Man is glitched?  Is it possible to beat it anyway?

18. Name four albums by Weird Al Yankovic.

19. Whistle or hum all three songs from the original Tetris.

20. UN Owen was whom?

21. Left, A, Down, Left, A, Down = ???

22. What is the correct sequence to perform a Hadouken?

23. Which is the first episode of Puella Magi Madoka Magica to show the end credits sequence? (Hint: at what point would they not need to hide it?)

24. Name the six members of Monty Python.

25. Name two Studio Ghibli movies not directed by Hayao Miyazaki.

26. Make at least one wicked burn on the Twilight Saga.

27. What mathematical error does the Scarecrow make at the end of The Wizard of Oz?

28. Who is the one true Batman?  Support your argument.

29. How many consoles do you own?

30. What is Enoby's full name?

31. Identify Zelda in the picture below.

Bonus Round. Identify the speaker and origin of the following exclamations:
"A flat chest is a status symbol!  Very rare and valuable!"
"You spoony bard!"
"Dang it, Ash!  I don't even like girls.  Why do I have to like you?"
"It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds!"
"Someone fat get in my way!"
"The problem must be in your pants!"
"You and me, baby, ain't nothing but mammals/So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel."
"A Bat Credit Card?  ...RAPE MY CHILDHOOD, WILL YOU!?"
"Curse-me-ha-me-ha!"
"Francisco Franco continues his valiant efforts to remain dead."

Black and Yellow

Wiz Khalifa's "Black and Yellow".  I'd like to talk about it.

Todd in the Shadows, a pop music reviewer of whom I'm fond, has already done a detailed review of it, but I have a few items I'd like to address as well.

The chorus is [Yeah, a'ight, you know what it is, black and yellow (x4)] (x2).  Well, no, I don't know what it is.  It is your job as a writer, Mr. Khalifa, to inform me of what it is.  Now, technically, you could say that I'm holding you to higher standards than other performers, but considering you don't feel the need to stick to the rules of rhyme and meter established for poetry or songs, I felt it would be more appropriate to appraise this as prose.  You fail to show me in any way what it is in the entirety of the work.

In fact, this refrain contains only nine words: yeah, you, know, what, it, is, black, and, yellow.  There's also "a'ight", which is not a word but I suppose I can count it for something.  So your chorus is 9.5 words repeated over and over.  Okay, perhaps I am being unfair.  After all, "I Palindrome I", one my favorite songs by my favorite artists, has a chorus that only uses 13 words.  However, that song was actually about the concept of repetition and recursion.  And it still used more word power than you.

Unlike many short stories, "Black and Yellow" fails to establish setting, characters, or conflict.  While it does use "black and yellow" to tell us that it is set in Pittsburg, this is an entirely nominative setting, as it fails to influence the work, and no imagery is used other than "black and yellow".  Unless I am severely misinformed about the appearance of Pittsburg, I do not believe this is very helpful in enabling me, the reader, to form a mental picture.

Thus, I have concluded it is a work of postmodernist genius.  Rigidly minimalist in both its limited vocabulary and flat delivery, the short story "Black and Yellow" defies many traditions of how to properly form a song, poem, or story.  While I personally do not enjoy it in the least, I assume it is simply above my head.

Selective Service

I'm overdue registering for the draft, and I've started receiving letters.  Well that's fantastic.  The draft is by far the stupidest, most outdated, least logical, most unethical government program currently active.  How can I say that?  Well, examine it, shall we?

THEN WHY DO YOU HAVE THE OPTION, YOU IDIOTS?

Problem number one: it's sexist.  This is part of to what I'm referring when I say it's outdated.  It is not something made with a modern mentality, it is something written decades ago and never revised.  Women are perfectly capable of serving in the military.  In fact, recently they were permitted to serve on the front lines, and I think it's pretty ridiculous that it took them until 2012 to do that.  Moving on, the problem persists in that only men are required to register for the selective service.

In fact, it's not made with a mentality fitting of a few decades ago, either.  It's made with ethics more fitting to the Roman Empire or an ancient Greek city-state.  It's acting as if there is no greater contribution one can make than to serve your country in combat.  While I do respect our soldiers, I politely disagree on the grounds that war is not good.  I might hazard to say it's a little bad.  Programs that encourage war would, by association, be less than optimal.

Frankly, it doesn't matter whether or not you agree, because I have my opinion.  If my opinion is that war is rarely if ever justified, and I am being forced to serve in the military, then my right to my opinion has been violated.

The military is an enticing package.  Scholarships, legs up in employment searches, decent pay (I said decent, not great, they're still underpaid for what they do).  Believe me, if there was anyone who would be "just okay" with joining the armed forces, if there was anyone with little enough reason to resist that they wouldn't mind a sudden mandate for them to do so, they would have already enlisted.  Just about everyone else would be doing so against their will.  Not everyone, of course, but I'm going to say at least a good-sized chunk of the people who are registered for the draft would have a problem with being drafted.

Then they have the gall to say "current law does not permit females to register".  Permit?  PERMIT?  Let us get one thing straight, this is not a privilege, this is a demand.  This is reducing our liberties.  That is just nauseating, that they would say "permit", as if this is some grand glorious right that we males are lucky enough to receive from our benevolent leaders.  I have received letters ordering me to register.  Golly gee, I hope they let me.

Oh yes, I'd hate for anyone not legitimately in America to take away my hard-earned right to unwillingly serve an entity I oppose.

Let me make another thing abundantly clear: I don't love this country.  Why should I?  Yes, it's better than a lot of places; I could have been born into far worse circumstances.  However, the United States is not the pinnacle of all that is good and right with the world, and it hasn't been for a very long time.  "The Land of Opportunity" and "The Home of the Free" are borne from a time when the US was the only developed country not run by a monarchy.  Nowadays, our monopoly on democracy is a bit less absolute.  Further, America is one of the worse democracies available.  What do we have that's so great?  A system of election that's broken almost beyond repair from political parties, the spoils system, and rigidness?  Citizens too stupid, stubborn, and/or apathetic to work towards fixing it?  Public school systems so bad they're an active detriment to their students half the time?  Corrupt businesses satisfied with making the American Dream a fairy tale?  You're lucky I'm not actively fighting against you!

I'm not trying to blame Obama or Bush or Clinton.  I do blame Bush Sr. and Reagan a little bit, but not really.  Nor am I trying to blame any of the presidents before them.  This was a gradual problem centuries in the making.  While "The Founding Fathers Wanted" is an idiotic argument, I do feel the need to point out that the Constitution was mutable for the very purpose that they recognized they weren't perfect, and they wanted the government to be able to change to fit the needs of the people or to be able to incorporate new ideas that would improve it.  We have not acted on that.

I'm actually a little more lenient with countries that have obligatory military service, like Israel.  In that case, you know it's coming, you're signed up for it.  I still think the government is spitting in the face of its citizens, but it's a little better than being given a packet of spittle and being told to hold onto it and apply to the eye when instructed.

June 25, 1993.  I'm eighteen, like everyone required to register.  This of course means I am seven years too young to be elected to the House of Representatives and twelve years too young to be elected to the Senate.  Wonderful.  This also means that everyone who might be able to argue on the topic will be entirely unaffected by it.  That will work, we've seen how quickly they passed women's suffrage.  At least it's better than the first several decades of the draft, when the average soldier in Vietnam was two years short of being able to vote.  But of course, that's a matter of maturity.  How can we count on someone so young to make important decisions, or be intelligent enough to study the important issues that rule political discussion?  Not to mention they're young, we don't want to put too much pressure on them.  Much better to give them a gun, ship them off somewhere they've never been, and order them to kill people they don't know.  Much better indeed.

See, the government actually bankrolled an argument against their own policies.

Yes, eighteen is quite young.  As I pointed out, they are twelve years too young to run for the Senate.  They are 60% of the age needed to run for the Senate.  They will not be able to drink for three more years, or rent a car for seven.  Many of them are still in high school.  Does no one else see anything wrong with this being our drawing pool?  "But it's still the best age available!" some may say, but if the "best age available" is still an absolutely horrible age at which to be drafting people, then it seems pretty obvious there is no age when drafting is appropriate.

Here's the complete form.  As you can see, there is no "conscientious objector" checkmark, no "opt out".  You're eighteen, you're a guy, sign the form.

Really, we could pay for a lot of our underfunded programs by cutting money from the military.  We have no real reason to be involved in so many international affairs, much less militarily so.  As we've seen over and over again, getting involved with other countries ends badly for us, and we go bankrupt in the process.  That's why the other countries are beating us.  That's why they have things like universal wi-fi, high-speed rail, and decent education systems.  They aren't wasting trillions of dollars screwing themselves over.

Honestly, I'm not even concerned about myself.  I'm not a healthy person; I'm sure I've got something or other that disqualifies me from serving.  I'm concerned about all those other men who are trapped in an unfair, outdated system.

I'm not registering.  Not only do my plans see me living outside the United States anyway, but I would rather serve five years in jail than support this program.

Hoods

I've always been baffled by the clothing of Sora from Kingdom Hearts.  Now, I can overlook the zippers and the belts and the Mickey Mouse color scheme.  What bugs me is that his short-sleeve shirt has a hood.  Why?  What weather or event would mandate that your head be covered completely, but not your arms?  He lives on a tropical island, and as a person who lives on a tropical island let me tell you there is little occasion to wear a hood.  Considering he always has it down makes me doubt its necessity.  This is actually a recurring theme in Tetsuya Nomura's character designs.  Tidus has it, and Neku doesn't have a hood, per se, but he does have a scoop-like thing on a sleeveless shirt.

What is that thing?  Oh well.  I just wrote it off as something weird Tetsuya Nomura does.  But then I discovered this:

A hoodie-vest, being worn by Kagamine Rin.  Interesting.

As it turns out, this is an actual thing in Japan.  I have seen several Japanese students at my school wearing vests with hoods or short-sleeved hoodies of some kind.  Why?  It's much the same dilemma as the sweater-vest, which by the way appeared in that same video.

It's too warm for when it's warm, it's not warm enough for when it's cold.  These articles have no logical purpose.  They are kept, of course, purely for fashion reasons.

What this says is obvious: people are attracted to people with no sense of practicality.

Filler

I apologize for my lack of activity and lateness on this week's top ten, due in part to some minor health complications.  I'll get that up as soon as possible.  In the meantime, enjoy this conversation between myself and a friend over Facebook chat:


>I got a $50 off coupon to Men's Warehouse for some reason.
>You should get a suit and demand you look good in it.
>Haha.
"But you guarantee it!"
"Our slogan is targeted towards men."
"But there was no gender specification in your guarantee!"
>Be sure to make it as awkward as possible. Bring that up as often as semantically possible. "Yes, hello, I'm a woman and I'm shopping at Men's Warehouse, whilst I am a woman. Please help me find a man's suit."
>"I have ovaries, and I would like to see be fitted for one of your finest men's tuxedos. Run along now, this two x chromosome possessing female gets impatient!"
>A tuxedo for $50?
>$50 off. Obviously I have some money in the tuxedo fund already. The discount would be a bonus.
>I see.
And you need to think of something to say if they ask for what you need it.
"For appearing in music videos."
"In case of nuclear holocaust."
"I've inherited a large number of novelty ties and have no canvas on which to display them."
>Hahaha
"I've been hired to accompany people who have an extreme fear of arriving overdressed to social gatherings."
"It's a sexual thing. Don't ask."
"I'd like to find something nice to be buried in."
>"If I told you, I'd have to kill you."
"To throw them off my trail."
"It adds +5 to my DEX and poison resistance."
>"I'm being photographed as a female interpretation of Magritte's "Son of Man." I'm stopping by the fruit stand after this."
"My sister wants to go the penguin exhibit at the school. I wanted to make them feel more comfortable."
"I'm trying to scare my hyper-religious relatives. They're convinced I'm a lesbian."
>"Prostitution is such a dirty industry, I wanted to bring some class to it."
"It makes people more likely to trust my drunken advice."
"Why, what would YOU wear to the World Cup?"
>"I wanted something nice to tear off when I run off to fight crime."
"I'm a dog lover. I don't believe in wearing colors they can't perceive."
"To be honest I don't really need the tuxedo, but I need the hanger to go perform a back alley abortion."

Disney Complaints

Aladdin: Aladdin wishes to become a prince.  The genie gives him a hundred camels and a hundred servants loaded with gold.  First of all, that's not technically granting his wish.  That's making him nobility, not royalty.  But the bigger problem is... from where did those hundred servants come?  There are two possibilities.  Firstly, that Genie, when it was requested of him, indentured a hundred random people.  No regard for their previous life, no concern for the fact that they were now demoted to nothing but carrying one guy's gold.  That's pretty screwed up.  The second and even more troubling possibility is that the Genie created these people out of thin air.  What kind of existence would that be?  Would they be human, and if so what does that say about the nature of humanity?  If the wish were to be undone, what would happen to them?  Would they vanish into thin air, effectively mass murder, or would they be released into a world where they have no home and no origin?

Beauty and the Beast: A similar problem: there are way too many servants in that castle.  The curse lasted ten years (until the Prince's twenty-first birthday), and there were at least, I'm going to say, 200 dishes, feather dusters, etc. in the "Be Our Guest" musical number.  So that means an eleven-year-old was in charge of 200 people.  That's not responsible.  On top of that, the Beast seems to be the most unhappy with the transformation.  Excuse me, but you got off pretty easily, sir.
"Don't look at me, I'm a monster!"
"Suck it up, a-hole, I'm a candle!"

The Little Mermaid: The heartwarming story of a girl who wants something, gets it via the easiest route despite being warned about the risks involved, foists responsibility for those risks onto the person, her father, who warned her about them, and ends up getting everything she wanted without growing or developing.

Snow White: Why aren't all fourteen-year-olds married to date-raping near-strangers?

Mulan: At the end, Mulan turns down the position in the Emperor's court to live a domestic life.  In the sequel, she teaches young girls martial arts.  Fair enough.  Mulan was based on an existing Chinese myth, and that's what happened in said myth.  Except no, not fair enough.  This is Disney.  The original version matters about as much to them as the physics of combustibility matter to Michael Bay.  If Ariel is allowed to live, Claude Frollo is allowed to be a judge instead of a priest, and Pocahontas is... well, everything about Pocahontas, then you can make some slight adjustments to the Mulan myth to give her a more proactive ending.

Cinderella: Technically, my complaint is about Kingdom Hearts: Birth by Sleep.  Terra insisted "You have to work hard to achieve your goals."  After visiting Castle of Dreams, he says "Maybe sometimes it's enough just to dream."  That's right, Cinderella is so passive she actually gets someone to backtrack morally.

Tarzan and Brother Bear: Why, Phil Collins, why?

The Disney Corporation: Unlike many adults, I do not believe Disney is an evil corporation.  The thing is they market themselves as the moral pillar of all humanity, but they are still a corporation, and they do what corporations do; their job is to make money.  This discrepancy is what people tend to interpret as "evil".

I do, however, strongly disapprove of the copyright laws they have pushed through, such that a copyright now lasts for seventy years after the death of the creator.  There's no need for that.  Copyrights were intended to protect the creator from theft for a limited amount of time.  I won't much care if people are taking money from me after I'm dead and unable to, say, use said money, much less seventy years afterward.  I would like it if something that was released during my childhood would be in the public domain during my lifetime, rather than fifty years after I die (that's being optimistic, I don't take good care of myself).  It would also be slightly more palatable if Disney didn't get every single movie it makes from the public domain it seems to be trying so hard to kill.  E.g. Snow White, Pinocchio, Dumbo, the music from Fantasia, Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, Sleeping Beauty, The Sword in the Stone, The Jungle Book, Robin Hood, Oliver Twist, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Hamlet, Pocahontas, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, Mulan, Tarzan, Treasure Island, Chicken Little, The Princess and the Frog, Rapunzel, Winnie the Pooh.  Fun fact: if the copyright laws now in place were around during the publication of Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, The Jungle Book, or Tarzan, Disney would not legally have been allowed to create films based on them because of the laws they themselves recently passed.  That's my beef with them.

Valentine's Day

"Pshaw!  Valentine's Day.  Nothing but a false tradition invented by greeting card companies to sell useless crap!  I don't need some corporation insulting me.  I'm single and I like it!  I'm not going to put any significance into this day, because there's no significance to be had!"

...well, yeah.  That's how a holiday works.

With a couple exceptions (Veterans', Memorial, Presidents', and MLK Jr. Days come to mind), there are no major holidays with any actual meaning.  Let's run down the list, shall we?

-New Year's Eve/New Year's Day: Really not something worth celebrating, and more importantly, an arbitrarily chosen date.  Literally any day could be called New Year's Day.  Also, considering a year is not 365 days long but closer to 365.3, we should really be celebrating each subsequent New Year's six hours later than the previous until Leap Year sets it back.  It used to be April 1, to celebrate the coming of spring.  I'm not sure why we've decided the coldest month of the year deserves fireworks and unnecessary noise.  There's a product literally called a "noisemaker", and New Year's Eve is keeping it from burning in merchandise hell where it belongs.
-Oh good, Ireland is Catholic.  Let's consume alcohol and wear a certain color on that basis here in a country that isn't Ireland with our friends who aren't Catholic.
-April Fool's Day probably started to make fun of the people who were still celebrating New Year's.  It's been four hundred years.  We can let it go.
-Arbor Day makes sense, and of course no one celebrates it.  Let's move on.
-Easter is set on the first full moon after the vernal equinox.  It involves painting eggs and a giant rabbit who hides them along with candy, though in some countries (such as France) it's a chicken.  You know, just like the crucifixion.
-I'll give Mother's Day and Father's Day a pass, since I don't think I can describe why I dislike them without angering some people.
-Independence Day celebrates the day the United States became a sovereign country.  Actually, no it doesn't, since America went unrecognized by any other countries until years after the Revolutionary War, which itself ended years after 1776, and while the Declaration of Independence was finished on July 2 (not July 4) it wasn't published until later.  I'm not sure where July 4 came from, and I especially don't understand why we celebrate it with German food and Chinese explosives.
-Halloween is when we ensure our autumn harvest will not be assaulted by demons.  I think it's working.
-Yes, the pilgrims would occasionally break bread with the Native Americans when they weren't killing them or taking their land and then killing them.  But there wasn't any set time of the year for it, there was rarely an appointed purpose, let alone giving thanks (not that giving thanks wasn't the goal, it's just that the pilgrims were a mote religious and everything they said or did was giving thanks somehow), and of course they didn't have turkeys, nor did anyone at Thanksgiving until World War II.  They had bread, some vegetables, and eels.  I don't see many eels at Thanksgiving nowadays.
-Every December 25th, millions gather in the spirit the winter solstice when polygamist Celts born 2500+ years ago bring trees into their homes to appease the spirits, sang songs to appease the spirits, and dance around a fire, before a Scandinavian folk hero and his demonic assistant Krampus bring sweets to good children and beat the naughty ones with birch branches and then drag them to hell in rusty chains.  I mean, Christmas.  On an unrelated note, Jesus of Nazareth was born sometime in early April.

P.S. Hey, overpanicked moms concerned about your kids turning to Satanism because of rock'n'roll and Judy Blume?  You're the ones who taught them those Pagan traditions every year.
P.P.S. Oh yeah, Christmas is under attack?  Christmas dates to about 400 CE at the earliest, making Chanukkah between 500 and 900 years older than it.  Just sayin'.
P.P.P.S. Yeah, I just said CE.  Deal with it.

The point is, every holiday is meaningless, except for the fact that people have decided, "Hey, I should buy my significant other some dopamine-promoting foodstuffs, red paper in the shape of a female's buttocks, and some plant genitals, and go to an overpriced restaurant" or something else equally meaningless in the long run.  So if you want to knock Valentine's Day, be prepared for a very dull rest of the year, since there's nothing you can say about it you can't say about any other holiday.  I'm not going to force you to celebrate it, but I am going to request that you, in the words of B.B. Rodriguez, "kindly shut your noise-hole".

I realized at some point last year that the people protesting Valentine's day were collectively far more annoying than those who were celebrating or advertising it.  Yes, we know it's meaningless.  We just don't care.

Culture is what makes people do stupid stuff, but "stupid" doesn't necessarily mean "bad".  And if you don't believe me, let me ask you, what color do you associate with boys, and which with girls?  And let me ask you the follow-up question, why?

Yes, I realize there is absolutely no connection to the historical St. Valentine.  Yes, there is no actual reason to do any of the crap people do.  Those two clauses are true about absolutely any day of the year.  So just let them have their day.

Signs and rules

I'm a moral relativist.  Ethically, I'm a utilitarian, and to that end I have a very strong tendency to go for the flexible, spirit-of-the-law, ox-in-the-mire, exception-to-every-rule, highest-respect-for-the-law policy of enforcement.

The exception, and it's a huge exception, is the laws of transit, to which I am a stickling moral absolutist.  This is because, as far as I can tell, the laws in place are set up almost perfectly to ensure that transportation is safe and fair.

"But what if I'm running late?"  Then you should have left sooner.  That extra fifteen kilometers per hour is not going to make a difference, and you'll just be stopped at the same red light as the people going the speed limit anyway.  If not, you've just saved about thirty seconds.  Thirty seconds and about fifteen meters of stopping space.  Most of the time, I'm a cyclist, and I can tell you, you're a dick.  I'm basing this on the "mean to the waiter" theory of human behavior--if a person is nice to his or her date but mean to the waiter, he or she is not a nice person.  You may be a loving mother of three who donates to charity, but if you drive like a dick, I have very strong evidence you're a dick.

That's not even the stupidest thing drivers do.  Now, I'm prone to exaggeration, but when I say that since 2008 I have seen a grand total of twenty-four people make a complete stop behind the limit line before turning onto the main street, know that I am dead serious.  I don't believe there's any way they could simply not notice the limit line, because it's a huge white line, made with paint that includes flecks of metal to make it stand out under light, which is preceded by a two-meter long "STOP" also made of highly visible white paint on a black or dark gray background, accompanied by a STOP sign (which by the way is the only red sign and the only octagonal sign used in most of the world, meaning that an illiterate person could still recognize its meaning even if their vision was so bad they couldn't recognize either the color or the shape) and considering that under scientific study white on red draws attention more than most any other combination of colors, I can only assume they see the sign, the writing on the ground, and the line and decide, "Yes, I see these, and I know what they mean, but I'm going to ignore them, plus the fact that this is a T-intersection in most cases as well as ignoring the laws which enforce these signs and laws because..." and I'm sorry but I can't think of any way to finish that sentence, unless every driver I've ever seen is actively malicious.  I'd believe it.

And while it's not the subject of this rant, drivers seem to have a disturbing tendency to believe it's okay to specifically target cyclists for harassment.  So far I have seen people pull into the bike lane and start driving in it towards me for no discernible reason; I have been hit by four water balloons, a half-full soda, a chicken sandwich, and something round and hard wrapped in paper which I didn't bother to identify, all thrown from moving vehicles.  An almost weekly occurrence would be for someone to honk at me at full volume or perhaps roll down the window and scream as they passed me.  Why, I wonder?  I have not yet received an answer.

This problem, this blatant disregard of law and order, has only worsened here at BYU-H.  Again, I point out I'm not exaggerating; I have seen each and every posted rule violated within range of the sign.  On my way to the dining hall, I passed three "No Skateboarding on the Sidewalk" signs and six people skateboarding on the sidewalk.  I passed no people skateboarding in the street, where it is permitted.  In fact, it's become a rarity to see people riding their bikes, skateboarding, rollerblading, or what have you anywhere but the sidewalks.  I know they must be seeing the signs, and again ignoring them for no reason.

As I said, I'm a relativist, and I'd be willing to ignore this as long as these skateboarders (hundreds upon hundreds of them) were decent people about it.  They are not.  They seem unwilling to move even slightly when they are in people's way or when they are about to crash into them; worse, they get angry at the pedestrians.  I recall that only one of use is violating the rules.

I would, however, like to give props to the guy who figured out the loophole that unicycles are never prohibited on the sidewalk.  Well done, sir.

Moving on, every single posted sign has been violated at least once, usually more.
-"Please do not stack your cups!" on the dishes repository has been interpreted as "Come on, man, you can make it to twelve!"
-One young woman decided to overfill the waffle iron, add something other than waffle batter in the iron, and then remove her waffles with a metal instrument, thus breaking every rule of the waffle irons in the sequential order those rules were listed.  On a huge sign, dangling over the exact waffle iron she was using.  Well done.
-"Quiet hours are from 10:00 PM-7:00AM!"  Aaahahahahahaha.
-"Women are not permitted past this point."  To be fair, I'm not sure what I was expecting.  Maybe something like the vampires in Buffy.
-Not even the "Caution: Slippery when wet" sign is right.
It has gotten to the point where I oppose posting the Ten Commandments.  It's a religious school, I oppose it out of concern for my personal safety.

While there are exceptions to rules, of course, they're in place for a reason, and likewise exceptions have to be made for a reason.  Martin Luther King said that to break an unjust law represented the highest respect for the law, but somehow I doubt that crosswalk is infringing on your rights.

Last Words

On Sunday, February 12, 2012, the writer of this blog was found dead in his dorm.  Next to him were found several notes recounting the events of the previous night, most of them apparently written in his own blood.

Saturday, 11.02.12 8:56 PM
So, I went to brush my teeth, but there were two people using the sinks to get water for ramen.  College!

Saturday, 11.02.12 9:14 PM
I guess it's not just ramen.  They're having a full-on food party out there in the hall.  Some of the stuff smells pretty strong.

Saturday, 11.02.12 9:31 PM
I'm having trouble breathing and my eyes are burning.  I think I'm allergic to something they're using, plus it smells just... awful.  It's like the olfactory equivalent of sandpaper.  I'm going for a walk.

Saturday 11.02.12 9:49 PM
Okay, seriously?  I've walked all over the place and I can still smell it clearly as ever.  I have no idea why someone would need that much spice.  What is that, wasabi?  Can you even eat that much and survive?

Saturday 11.02.12 10:10 PM
There is no use.  The smell has permeated the entire campus.

Saturday 11.02.12 10:23 PM
The smell has permeated the entire town.  I cannot escape.

Saturday 11.02.12 10:31 PM
I am upwind of the source.  I can smell it.  I can smell it against the tropical breezes.  What does this mean?

Stardate 11.02.12 10:34 PM
Clearly the entire world has been contaminated and it has looped back around to here.  We must burn it down, burn it all down, and start anew.  Fire is the cleanser.

Saturday 11.02.12 10:40 PM
They fight my vision.  They know not the evil they support.  Pure, cleansing flames.

Saturday 11.02.12 11:16 PM
On February 11th, 2012, a date which shall live in infamy, American college students stationed in Hawaii were suddenly and deliberately attacked by Japanese spices.

Saturday 11.02.12 11:26 PM
Have I perhaps wronged them in some way?  Please, if there's something I can do to make you stop, I'll do it!

Day in Glory of Saturn 11.02.12 11:34 PM
To the manufacturers of the Bug Bomb,
Have I got an exciting business proposal for you!  If you consider joining your wonderful and iconic Bug Bomb with the cleaning power of air purifiers and cleansing bleach, I'm certain it would sell wonders.  I believe you could make a working prototype and send it to the provided address within the next thirty minutes, and I will gladly let you keep the profits venture.

Day in Glory of Saturn 11.02.12 11:34 PM (scrawled on top of the previous note)
To the manufacturers of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene,
Have I got an exciting business proposal for you!  If you consider joining your wonderful and iconic trinitrotoluene with the cleaning power of air purifiers and cleansing bleach, I'm certain it would sell wonders.  I believe you could make a working prototype and send it to the provided address within the next thirty minutes, and I will gladly let you keep the profits from this venture.

Saturday 11.02.12 11:55 PM
I promise to be a better Christian if I make it through this.  Please just make the spices go away.

Sunday 11.03.12 12:00 AM
Better Muslim?

Sunday 11.03.12 12:03 AM
Was it Jamestown?  Did I miss my chance already?

Sunday 11.03.12 12:12 AM
Oh, I get it.  It's Shinto, right?  Pretty tricky!

Tsundere 11.03.12 12:18 AM
If I don't make it through this, call every girl on my contacts list and tell her I love her.

Sunday 11.03.12 12:19 AM
Unless there's an asterisk by her name, in which case tell her I hate her.

Sunday 11.03.12 12:26 AM
I'm not sure why everyone hates Pauly Shore, Biodome was hilarious!  He made noise with his mouth a lot.

Sunday 11.03.12 12:31 AM
I fear my mind has begun to failllllllllllme.  Let it be known that I am a man who faces death with composure!

Sundae 11.03.12 12:44 AM
I drew a horsey [this note was accompanied by a picture of a horse, also drawn in the author's blood]

Dimanche 11.03.12 12:51 AM
Screenplay idea: a man struggles against the forces of darkness, despite the darkness's horrible smell and Japan spice
[the rest of the screenplay has been omitted from this report for brevity]

In addition, investigators estimate the author used well over the 4 L of blood contained in a single body in writing this screenplay.  DNA testing is currently being used to determine from whom he took the rest.

Sunday 11.03.12 12:64 AM
I don't like Google Chrome.  I just don't.  Too fancy.

Soonday 8.6.75 3:09 AM
They're still out there.  Why?  Why are they still out there?

Monday Monday Why Would You Leave And Not Take Me April 14 802,701 AD
There is no place for me in this world.  Farewell, foul stench.

4 8 15 16 23 42
Oh, wait!  Tomorrow they're serving pancakes, aren't they?  I'm gonna miss that.


There were no more notes.

Vegetarianism

I am vegetarian.  Usually I try not to make a big deal out of it, but I am just seriously squicked out by the concept of meat.  And don't worry, this rant is not going to be some appeal trying to get you to stop sticking cow parts in your mouth.

Well, that's not entirely true.  There's one product that just... utterly disgusts me, and that's the hot dog.  Basically taking pig organs, grinding them up into paste and sticking them inside one large organ, and then twisting it up a regular intervals so that the paste is under pressure and sort of solidifies.  I don't care how it tastes, I just don't get how people could put that in their bodies.  I'm not even talking about the health part of it, because I have a pretty crappy diet.  Hot dogs just strike me as just about the most disgusting thing an animal could produce (yes, out of anything) and we've chosen to eat it.

I actually might overlook that, except that the sausage has existed for millennia.  They may have had them as early as 1000 BC.  This means that "ground up organ goo inside one large organ twisted up" predates all of the following:
-radio
-women's suffrage
-the steam engine
-the seed drill
-the violin
-feudalism
-gunpowder
-indoor plumbing
-paved roads
-the longbow, and
-democracy

They say "necessity is the mother of invention".  Apparently at some point a pre-Hellene gentleman was looking at a pig and thought, "Hm, I've already stripped it everything edible, but there must be some way to get more of it inside me!"  He then set to work, running experiments, creating hypotheses--at least, I imagine something along those lines, since this predates the scientific method.

This rant is concerning vegetarian food.  See, I have come across some problems at my school's cafeteria.  While there is a medium-sized salad bar, that gets boring quite quickly.  The school does not seem to consider that, just maybe, not everyone who wants pasta wants it thickly coated in meat sauce.  There is also that possibility that fries can exist without chili.  I've watched the process, I've seen the point at which they add meat sauce or chili, but for some reason it is prohibited to interrupt it even once.

I'm not the only vegetarian, of course.  However, they seem to fall prey to another annoying fallacy.  Their thought process, as far as I can determine, runs along the track, "This dish does not contain meat. We should try to cover it in as many different spices and as much spice as we can possibly manage.  Johnson, check the saturation point of oregano for this sauce."  No, some people don't like that.  I'm not sure if you've realized this, but some people don't like that.  They've made a few stews that looked appetizing, but from the smell seemed nothing short of noxious.  The cooks seem to believe that just because someone discovered a plant with a particular flavoring, it would be a shame to let it go to waste even for a single meal.  Perhaps they accidentally misordered very large quantities earlier in the year, and they feel it would be a shame to let any of it spoil.

I try to expose myself to new things--film, music, nature--but when it comes to food, I have very bland tastes.  I don't particularly care for sharp flavorings, odd spices, the sour or spicy.  I'd appreciate it if they would at least offer a little more variety in that way.  My preferences may be bland, but I will eventually get tired of cereal, salad, and waffles.

Also, their orange juice is perhaps the most disgusting vile thing I have ever tasted.  Signing out.

Top Ten: Favorite Movies

Well, it's Friday, and if you're me or if you hacked my account, you know that means it's time for a Top Ten list!

Today, I'll be rattling off my top ten favorite movies of all time.  To make it a little more interesting, I've decided to only use one film per director maximum.  Yes, that means I'll be excluding some of my favorites.  Remember, this is a personal list.  If you have different opinions, give us your own top ten in the comments.

Number Ten: Sunset Boulevard
Billy Wilder
Film Noir is kind of a mixed bag for me personally.  I like a lot of the concepts, but I have trouble when it comes to actually sitting down and enjoying the movie.  Sunset Boulevard is the exception, in a big way.  It's not dark for the sake of dark, it's dark because the story is deeply rooted in complex and troubling topics such as sanity vs. insanity and the pain of time, and it explores them well.

What really makes this movie great, compared to other comparable movies, is the characters.  You'll remember from one of my earlier rants the problems I have with female characters and romance in most media, particularly older American films.  Not here.  Every character's goals, motivations, and personality and made perfectly clear and remains consistent throughout the film's entirety.

Something I really, really like is that point where there are no "well what if"s, because the background is so thoroughly explained that the film or television series portrays the most logical course of events for the setup.  I got one of those in Puella Magi Madoka Magica; I got one here.

It's subtle, it's brilliant, it even has a few funny moments.  If this were an objective list instead of a subjective one, Sunset Boulevard would be much higher up.  I put it at number ten mostly because it's sort of outside my normal preference of genre.

Number Nine: Grave of the Fireflies
Isao Takahata
One of my pet peeves when it comes to anime isn't really with anime, it's sort of the idea that it's inherently better (or for that matter, that it's fundamentally different) because it's from Japan.  While they do have a few key cultural differences, I really prefer to judge them on the same scale as American media.  Anyway, I digress.

Grave of the Fireflies is probably the saddest movie I've ever seen.  It's like they took that banned Jerry Lewis Movie The Day The Clown Cried, recast it with Littlefoot's mom, Simba's dad, and Fry's dog, and screened it for a theater full of orphans with cancer.  Oh yeah, and it's based on the director's true story.

(This of course makes it slightly hilarious that it ran in a double feature with My Neighbor Totoro, a kid's movie.  I would absolutely love to see those kids' reactions.)

And again, it's sad for all the right reasons.  The characters are so deep and well-detailed that you have trouble actually "blaming" the antagonist (whose only crime was expecting the protagonist to contribute) any more or less than the protagonist (whose faults are the result of childhood immaturity in a harsh environment more than hubris).

I can't really say a lot without ruining the movie.  One thing I'd like to point out, though, is the subtle tricks and foreshadowing that you don't even notice the first few times watching.  It's definitely one to review.

Number Eight: Up
Pete Docter
One of the most common misconceptions in media is that things made for children are inherently inferior.  Though there are shows like Invader Zim and My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic with peripheral audiences, it's pretty rare that something dubbed a "kid's movie" gets any serious respect, which is a shame because a lot of it is genuinely well-constructed stuff.

Up is one of those few that's just so amazing that people have trouble dismissing it.  It has perhaps the most heartbreaking story ever told in ten minutes or less... and then the rest of the movie happens with the same momentum.  Pixar is famous for not doing anything halfway, and it's hard to list just one of their movies.  Roger Ebert called Toy Story "the greatest trilogy of all time".  But I'm confident it's Up that best shows off everything they do right.

The animation is spectacular.  At a few points I found myself utterly forgetting what I was seeing wasn't real.  The story and dialogue, not to mention the voice acting, were designed perfectly to garner the perfect emotions at the perfect times.

Again, this is a little low on the list, and while I'm saying the other films are better, it's hard to say this one is worse, even though, y'know, that's the implication.  It's pretty hard to criticize it.

Number Seven: Citizen Kane
Orson Welles
"To Build A Fire" is frequently hailed as "the perfect short story".  The trouble is, while it does pretty well exemplify everything a short story should be, I personally don't find it that interesting.  I don't dislike it, per se, but there are a lot of short stories I like more.

Citizen Kane, often called "the perfect movie", is not like that.  For me, at least.  I genuinely enjoyed every minute of this film.  There's of course the story (deep, well-crafted, and clever, enough to impress you even when you know the ending), but what really makes this movie for me is the technical aspects.  The directing and cinematography did things that filmmakers today still rarely attempt.

Again, I'm forced to put this movie lower than it would be on an objective list (where it would be number one) because it's sort of outside my preferences.  It earns its spot by being just so technically amazing that I can't help but love it.

Number Six: Airplane!
David Zucker, Jim Abrahams, Jerry Zucker
Another common misconception (and one that's built into many institutions, including the Academy Awards) is that comedy is somehow "less" than serious drama.  While I'll elaborate more on that in a future rant, the point is that comedy is just as difficult to make, if not more so, than serious drama, and it is no less art.

This being why Airplane! is so often underappreciated.  No, it's not some complex satire (though it is a parody of a particular genre); no, it's not some subtle deconstruction.  It's just funny.  Really, really funny.  So funny that I defy you to watch it and not laugh at least once.  I forget whom, but one critic of the film raved, "If you don't like a joke, don't worry; another one will be along in a couple of seconds". With considerably more hits than misses, at that.

The film follows the plot of the earlier movie Zero Hour! (so closely, in fact, that the directors bought the rights to that movie just to be safe) and mocks the "airplane disaster" movie genre fad of the time.  Some younger readers may wonder, "What?  I've never seen any of those movies!"  That's because Airplane! so thoroughly spoofed them that after that, people just stopped making them and watching them.  That's thorough.

It's a work of cinematic art, and nothing less.  And yes, the exclamation point is part of the title.

Number Five: Edward Scissorhands
Tim Burton
Say what you will about Tim Burton, but you have got to give him Edward Scissorhands.  His love of grim, German Expressionist designs with high key lighting gives the perfect atmosphere of the stranger in a strange land.  Vincent Price was magnificent as the inventor.  Tim Burton fills his shots with subtle but meaningful props and backgrounds that bring even more depth to the characters.

The story is perhaps the epitome of "it's better than it sounds": A guy with sharp blades for hands moves into the suburbs, cuts hedges and hair.  But trust me, it's better than it sounds.

What makes this movie magnificent is two things: the first and most important is the character of Edward.  Here's something: he only says 169 words in the entire film.  Did you even notice that?  That's how effectively those words were chosen to portray him.  A lot of directors seriously screw up the "quiet guy" archetype.  Not Burton, not here.  Johnny Depp gives a brilliant performance as someone who's confused, scared, and just wants to feel safe.

The second thing is the ending, which I'm not giving away.  Watch the movie.

Number Four: The Graduate
Mike Nichols
One of the handful of exceptions to the "comedies get no respect" rule, The Graduate is a dry, witty tragicomedy following Benjamin Braddock as he tries and fails to find his place in life.  With iconic characters and dialogue ("Mrs. Robinson, you're trying to seduce me!") and an uproariously funny ending, The Graduate has struggled to earn its place of honor.

The mise-en-scene and cinematography are excellent, despite the fact that they were largely handled by newbies to the scene.  Like e.e. cummings with poetry, they break the rules in all the right ways (zooming instead of tracking; the rule of thirds).

It's hard to put one's finger on exactly what makes this movie so great, though.  It's the sort of thing you have to see.

Number Three: A Clockwork Orange
Stanley Kubrick
Kubrick is a director known for taking a lot of risks and winning.  Picking his "best" movie is really a matter of personal preference, so I'd like to make a shout-out to something in one of his other films before proceeding.

HAL 9000, from 2001: A Space Odyssey.  With his creepy monotone voice and cold robotic logic, plus the fact that he can do literally just about anything he wants to kill you, make him perhaps the most terrifying villain ever brought to screen.  You can't even put a face to him, he's just a red dot and a space station.  His polite manner of speaking just serves to make him creepier.  I scoffed at The Exorcist, but "I'm sorry, Dave.  I'm afraid I can't do that" still throws me for a loop.

Anyway, A Clockwork Orange.  This time we get the twist of seeing the villain as our protagonist (it's not unique or novel, but it's still rare enough to become a delicacy of cinema).  The film explores themes of human agency in a chilling narrative that makes it a real moral question, not just a straightforward "this is wrong, don't do it" sort of way.  I say that despite hating the word "chilling" (again, a rant for another time).  The book did that; the movie adds to it by the controversial technique of not cutting anything.  We see every violent horrible thing Alex DeLarge does in detail.  By making him so thoroughly evil we're forced to seriously consider the moral prospects the film provides.

Everything that makes this movie comes down to that singular goal: make the audience say "I don't know".  The soundtrack, the dialogue, the staging, the editing--it's all designed towards that one end, and boy does it work.

It earns its place because I love dystopian settings.  It's a quirk of mine.  And you'll certainly see that in...

Number Two: Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind
Hayao Miyazaki
This was a really, really tough decision to make, since there's no Hayao Miyazaki film I don't love.  It was really a tough decision, one on which I'm still not 100% positive, so I'd be remiss if I didn't at least point out its competition.

Kiki's Delivery Service: While the slice-of-life genre is pretty prevalent in television, it's pretty rare in film.  And for good reason, since the format and timing is extremely hard to get down.  Kiki's Delivery Service, though, shows that it is not impossible, and that it can be done very well.  There's no antagonist and the story is pretty loosely defined, yet it still pulls it all together for a thrilling climax in the face of everything you learn in film school.  Since this is Hayao Miyazaki, the characters are lovable and the animation and art is breathtaking.

Spirited Away: His most famous and awarded film, for good reason, but it never really clicked for me.  I loved it, of course, I just never loved it-loved it.  The art is probably the best it's been in any Ghibli film, at least any Ghibli film I've seen (which is most of them, though I've heard Goro Miyazaki's films are very impressive in this respect).  Again, it's hard to say it did anything wrong, it just wasn't my favorite.

Princess Mononoke: Okay, this was the big one.  It really came down to Nausicaa or Mononoke, and there are still some things in Mononoke that I prefer to Nausicaa.  The art is nothing short of gorgeous, the message is subtle but poignant, it's got some great action and world creation.  It was physically painful to leave it off the list.

No film by Hayao Miyazaki would be out of place on this list (My Neighbor Totoro, Laputa, Howl's Moving Castle, Ponyo).  Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind wins on a few slim margins.

The first: I love the world in which it's set.  I said I love dystopia, and Nausicaa includes a beautiful one.  We see just enough of it to get a deep appreciation for the situation, but it keeps enough hidden to prevent it from being a true dystopia: there is still hope, no matter how lost it seems in the Sea of Decay.

Princess Mononoke and Spirited Away win for the art, but Nausicaa is no slouch.  One of the things I adore about animated films is the visual freedom they express.  The animation is smooth and beautiful from start to finish, and it sort of epitomizes the Ghibli style you'll see in their other movies.

It goes without saying that I love the characters.  The people aren't easily divided into "active" or "passive", "good" or "evil".  They fall everywhere on any spectrum, and you can even get a sense of individuality among characters that aren't even named.  Nausicaa herself is developed and overall delightful to watch.

I guess the clincher would be (and call me petty if you will) the soundtrack.  "Mehve To Corvette No Tatakai" is my favorite song from any Ghibli film, and the music throughout was probably the best I'd heard in Ghibli up until The Borrower Arrietty.  Like I said, it was a slim victory.

Nausicaa is just the tallest head in a tall field, and I absolutely adore it.

And finally...
Number One: Brazil
Terry Gilliam
Again, this was a hard one to pick, since the director has done so many great things (all three Monty Python movies, Twelve Monkeys, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen).  This boils down to one thing: dystopia.

If I may digress, let me state that this movie is criminally underappreciated.  It did okay in the UK, but it flopped in the US because of poor marketing, and I've only met a handful of people who've heard of it, let alone seen it.  That is an appalling shame, because it is a masterpiece.

Now, the movie itself.  I love the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell (yes, to be correct, you have to spell out the numbers).  Terry Gilliam took heavy inspiration from Ingsoc and decided to make a dystopian movie that was absolutely side-splittingly hilarious.  Another thing I love is black humor, and Brazil is replete with it.

A bored bureaucrat swats a fly, setting the story in motion as unhappy drone Sam Laury attempts to track down the woman of his dreams, literally.  The story is intricate, dark, satirical, and laugh-out-loud funny.

The story is great (and I don't want to give too much away), but it's really only half of it.  Terry Gilliam has a notorious but very effective style of mise-en-scene: nearly perpetual low-key lighting, extremely crowded shots full of bustling activity, and paper, lots and lots of paper.  There's no shortage of visual motifs, all of which are perfectly placed between subtle and obvious.

There's nothing I don't adore about this movie.  The visuals are amazing to watch, the dialogue is flawless, and every character is pleasantly unpleasant.  If I had to give up every other movie in the world just to keep this one, I'd do it.

So, that's my personal top ten.  Tune in next Friday for: the Top Ten Franchises for Geeks.  Signing out.

The Romantic Bechdel Test

This story, one of countless "Facebook Love Stories" distributed by hormonal teenagers who apparently "crie evertim" they read the word "love" or "dead" and whose appreciation for the English language is underdeveloped to say the least, represents a fundamental flaw I see in humanity's collective culture.  While this is particularly narmy (and without the dramatic reading, almost painful to read), the problem is universal.

The problem is that we, as a species, have no appreciation for subtlety when it comes to love.  When we see a couple on screen, if they aren't sucking face they aren't "in love".  They're "boring".  The best they can hope for is to give the main characters bad advice (old people are exempt from this rule).

They aren't all bad, of course.  It's much like the Bechdel Test*, though: it's less a judge of a single movie and more of movies in general.  Does the movie intone that one type of love is better than another?  That's the problem to which I'm referring.

[[*At least two female characters who have at least one conversation about something other than men or a man.  Used as a litmus test of the feminism of movies: do they treat the females as actual characters, or just as accessories to the male lead?]]

Even worse, it seems like we're unable to have any movies without romance.  Again, sometimes it's okay.  Sometimes it's great.  But it gets very frustrating when every single movie decides that its lead had to close a scene with a kiss.  If there's both a male and a female in the main cast, then it's a forgone conclusion.  The last exception, at least the last exception I can currently recall, was Blade.  That came out in 1998.  It's like, no, I'm trying to get into this story, but you seem to have decided that plot isn't enough.

This also has an annoying tendency to create characters with no purpose other than being romantic partners.  This is why chick flicks like When Harry Met Sally do so much better than those like Kate and Leopold: not because of some magical non-chick-flickiness, it's because they're, y'know, good.  These characters are absolutely frustrating for me, as a connoisseur of fiction, because they are the epitome of flat characters: they don't even have that one trait that makes a flat character, their only trait is that they exist alongside another character.

Why is this so absolutely awful?  Because it means the romance won't work.  The characters aren't interesting enough for me to believe that they stand a conversation together, let alone a relationship.  Here's my "romantic litmus test", modeled after the Bechdel Test: the characters must have at least one good conversation on a topic other than themselves or each other that would work equally well (A) if they were romantically connected; (B) if they were not romantically connected and had no desire to be; AND (C) if they had already been married for twenty years.  That's what I would consider a real conversation.

If you can't fluidly do that, then don't make them romantic leads.  It would just be an awkwardly shoehorned subplot.  Next time you watch a movie, see if it passes.  Again, like the Bechdel test, it does not by itself mean the movie/romance is bad (my favorite movie of all time, Brazil, does not pass).  Plenty of wonderful movies failed the Bechdel test, too (Twelve Angry Men, any war movie).  The problem arises when you consider how rarely the test works.

It doesn't have to be a romantic movie.  The original Bechdel test used Alien as its example, which was hardly a radical feminist statement.  It was just a movie which happened to have well-written female characters.

Coming back to the "dramatic romance" part of the rant: that's just simply not how love works.  It works because two people can tolerate to be around each other so much that they begin to want to tolerate each other.  A date goes smoothly because people have common interests, not because the guy rescued the girl from the enemy ship.  I long for a movie that recognizes, yeah, just because we've done something big together doesn't mean we should get married.

Oh yeah, another pet peeve: high school romances end.  They end.  Maybe 5% of them don't.  But if your TV show or movie ends at graduation, then those romantic leads are getting married.  That's always bugged me.

Personally, I want a girl who doesn't mind that I'm flipping through Wikipedia while we talk... because she's doing the same thing.  Not someone who'd drag me to her friend's birthday party, someone whose friends are interesting enough I'd want to go anyway.  "Our Song" would be something with an awesome guitar riff and trippy lyrics, not some sappy pop ballad.  In short, the absolute opposite of nearly every rom com I've ever seen.

With the exception that I'd really like her to be hot.  Signing out.

Men and Women

You've all seen it.  Every two-bit stand-up comedian, every sitcom drained of ideas, every obnoxious adolescent girl on Facebook seems to have some fanciful, exaggerated opinion about the difference between men and women.  Well, here's a shocker.  It's nonsense.  Yes, utter garbage.

While I can't quite say "identical", I think you'll find that outside of cosmetic and biological differences, men and women are astonishingly similar.  I have determined this through years of studying social behavior.  After spending far too long being surrounded by the intolerably stupid mantra "the girl/wife is always right", I, as a person who loves being right and a man of science, decided to take it upon myself to prove just how asinine this idea is, as well as the Mars-Venus mentality upon which it is based.

"The girl/wife is always right" is in fact so stupid that even hearing it once is to be exposed to it for "too long".  Thanks to Mormons and high school girls, I had to hear it more than once.  It was dreadful.  Before I proceed to the meat of this discussion I shall expound on the unrivaled idiocy of this belief.

The most easily identifiable flaw is that "always" and, for that matter "never" hold absolutely no truth outside of a mathematics textbook.  Next, if a woman is assumed to be "right" and the man "wrong", that implies several things initially.  Firstly, that all men and all women share the same belief on everything.  Thus, every option can be divided into only two options: the "right" option selected by all women and the "wrong" option or options selected by all men.  This would mean there would always be only two political parties, one for the men and one for the women; the party run by the women would consistently make correct decisions in policy and campaigning, thus trouncing the men's party.  Why men would even allowed to vote, knowing they would only make the wrong decisions, is puzzling on its own.

Taking away the "always" modifier, even though no one who supported it ever did, and substituting the much less brief and less satisfying "a statistically significant number of women are correct more often than men with statistically significant magnitude" still fails to resolve the problem.  If you haven't been paying attention to the entirety of history before New Zealand became the first country to give women the vote in 1896, men are, in fact, capable of doing things.  In fact, up until about the 1970s it was entirely the opposite: men were the stable, capable ones taking care of their ditzy, hysterical wives.  While I'm glad that's over, I can see we've overcorrected.

It also raises philosophical questions: would a particular point of view be right because it is right, or because it is feminine?  If a man consigns his opinions to a woman's, on which scale are they judged for weight of possibility of being correct?  The point is, never, ever say that phrase ever again or I will scald you.

Moving on to the less-obvious and more-relevant matter, masculinity and femininity represent false dichotomy.  Saying a particular action, interest, or trait is "masculine" or "feminine" is as meaningless as saying it is particularly white or blue or green.  "You enjoy sports?  That's an orange trait, all right!"  Mentally, men and women are not so different.  That's to what this all boils down.

Housework and cooking are not "feminine", they are "domestic".  Playing sports is not "masculine", it is "sporty".  Likewise, paying attention to sports is not "masculine", it is "stupid"*.  And recalling that 40% of the Super Bowl's viewership is female year after year, it is easy to see that gender really has little impact on this.  At least, that's what I would have said back when I was young and optimistic about humanity.  In practice, people have yet to pick up on this.

[[*I can put a spheroid through an opening with greater accuracy and/or frequency than the layman.  Give me millions of dollars!
Alternatively: You are large and can run towards other large people without being readily knocked down.  Congratulations, you have all the qualifications to play football or mate with a female gorilla.]]

So what does cause those schisms that fill the repertoire of bad comedians and page after page after page of Dating Fails?  Purely social stigma.  This is where those years of study come in to play.  As you come closer to the social norm, gender differences become more and more pronounced.  The duck-faced pre-teen girls, the frat boy jocks, the long-married Mormons.  The further from social norms (that is, the disaffected nerds, hippies, and counterculture) the less gender roles matter.  It seems no coincidence that the only gender-integrated teams at my school of which I am aware are those populated by nerds (Quiz Bowl, Science Bowl, mock trial), though mind you, this was NOT the extent of my research.  Why?  Because the people already separated from the popular influence (and this plays up heavily the "nurture" end of the equation) in elementary, middle, and high school are those who are not, for lack of a better word, contaminated by the dichotomy model of gender theory.

Perhaps most frustrating is the "protector-protectee" dynamic seen far too often, which holds (in addition to "the girl is always right") that the girl is inherently special and deserves the adoring support of the boy.  This is a way of simultaneously building up and insulting both genders: the girls think of themselves as the magical chalices of vague virtue and the boys as lowly servants; the boys think of themselves as noble knights protecting a valuable object, but an object nonetheless.  Comforting on some level, but ever so stupid.

Boys are encouraged into sports; girls are, by and large, not.  However, the worst part about this is that it is self-perpetuating.  When a girl plays and enjoys sports, she is called a "tomboy", the implication being that her interest is not in sports but in masculinity, again tying into the false dichotomy.

This leads into the sexual double standard, which fortunately has been growing weaker in recent years. Truthfully I'm a little squicked by the whole topic (I also have trouble touching people, so perhaps I'm not the most reliable source on the topic), but to place one group as the "victors" and the other as the "prize" just represents building up these non-existent differences even more.  And while at first glance it seems unfair to women, it also means that men are assumed, by default, to be undesirable and thus forced to rise above their lowly station to score.  Yes, it strikes that rarely-seen sweet spot of stupidity where nobody wins even a little.

I am a straight male who enjoys clothes shopping and fashion, video games of most genres, Terry Gilliam and Hayao Miyazaki, alternative rock, writing, comedy (particularly dark comedy), and bashing on stuff.  I hate sports, children, rap, Michael Bay, Twilight, and sensitivity.  Notice a pattern?

Good, you weren't supposed to.  There wasn't one, because a person's interests are, by and large, not directly tied in with one another and particularly not in such broad bundles as "male" and "female".  Unless you noticed "nerdy", "tasteful", or "whiny", which are correct.  If you deduced that I had just returned from Afghanistan, then I'm afraid I must inform you that Dr. Moriarty's plan has already succeeded.  Moving on!

What does this mean for you?  Instead of worrying, "How on earth will I talk to this girl/boy?", think instead "How on earth will I talk to this person?", and then the problem seems to diminish.  Unless you have a phobia or anxiety disorder which pertains to that situation, but now I'm getting too technical.

Not that gender is meaningless, of course.  There's still sex, of course.  However, unless you are presently engaged in the active pursuit of someone with whom to hump, it's not much of a concern.  Like I said, I can't quite call men and women identical, but society plays a far more enormous role in their differences than any actual differences.

So in short, the key to figuring out women is that they have thoughts comparable to your own.  Fancy that

The Mary Sue

Aah, the Mary Sue.  Bane of fanfiction readers everywhere, this horrible abomination against writing has managed to wriggle its way into every medium, dragging down its quality and ruining forever everything it touches.

Except, no.

The Mary Sue, despite all the hate against it, is a character archetype and, like any character archetype, can be used poorly or used well.  Very well, in fact.

First, it seems like we should describe exactly what makes a Mary Sue (which I will be using to refer to both genders; in other contexts you may see male Sues called Marty Stus or Gary Stus or some other variant).  This is not easy to do, since everyone has their own definition, and since it's hard to pin down exactly.

The original Mary Sue comes from A Trekkie's Tale and was actually a parody of other ridiculous self-inserts the author had seen in earlier fanfictions.  Some of the defining traits is that she is overly perfect, enough that he or she overshadows all the other characters.  The character does not grow or develop significantly.  The rules of the universe seem to be built or bent just for them.  We'll say that these are "the" Mary Sue traits, and the others are peripheral to it.

Her powers and abilities are vaguely defined so she can conjure new ones as the plot demands.  These powers and abilities may or may not fit in with the context of the world, may or may not be explained, and will always be more important than anyone else's.  If she dies, it's either because she was "too good for this sinful earth" or else she's coming back.

Her physical appearance is always perfect, but she'll rarely know it.  She might have some deformity (wings are popular) which she thinks make her ugly until someone tells her otherwise.

Expect them to be able to do whatever they want and no one will ever call them out if (I repeat: if) they make a mistake.  She'll probably have had a hard life, but it will never weigh her down.  She will have sex precisely as often as she wants to.  In most cases it's an insert of the author; the author's views are always exactly right in the universe in which the story takes place, and no good character will ever question them.

Sounds pretty boring, right?  No wonder every Mary Sue is a detriment to anything in which she appears, right?  Again, no.  While this describes many unpleasant characters (Ebony Raven Dark'ness Dementia Tara Way, Bella Swan, Wesley Crusher, Jenna Silverblade, SCI Spy), it also describes a surprising number of beloved pop culture and literature icons.  Don't believe me?
-Mary Poppins
-James Bond
-Gandalf (from The Lord of The Rings, The Hobbit)
-Sora (from Kingdom Hearts)
-Vash the Stampede (from Trigun)
-Mary Jensen (from There's Something About Mary)

We already know James Bond will never be defeated, and he'll always pull off some daring feat in the third act that results in perfect victory after sleeping with an attractive female lead.  So why do we watch movie after movie while ripping Sonichu to shreds?

Well, to be fair, Sonichu's kind of beyond saving.  But let's ignore that for now.

I currently have a multi-part model that explains this.  The first is the setting and storyline.  If you're going to have a perfect character, then the challenges they must face must be scaled up appropriately.  They must be challenged despite their seeming perfection.  Vash, the superbly skilled gunman, must win without killing anyone, while coping with the pain he's inflicted in the past.  Mary Poppins' perfection is actually the main point of her character, and she's used as a tool to develop the others.  If the audience is more concerned about how our hero will win this time, they'll be a lot less concerned about how unrealistic it is that they've made it this far.

In How Not to Write a Novel, the authors tell prospective writers that the more improbably something is, the more important it must be to the story.  If the protagonist wins the lottery, they must win it early on and the story must center on it (was there a caper involved?  How will they spend the money?)  Likewise, the more impossible a character, the more the challenge must be ramped up.

One of the cornerstones of the Mary Sue bashing is saying that it's just wish fulfillment for the author.  This overlooks the fact that this can be a good thing--as long as it can be wish fulfillment for the reader as well.  Ultimately, James Bond is built on this.

However, the third point is far more important, and it all comes down to that cardinal rule of writing: show, don't tell.  SCI Spy isn't all that different from James Bond, to the point where it's fair to call him a straight rip-off.  What SCI Spy does wrong, however, is that it focuses far too much on telling us why the titular character is so great, while a James Bond book or movie gives us the pleasure of watching him outsmart the bad guys and charm the ladies.  Instead of having someone tell us Sora is cheerful and lovable, then making him act like a sullen jerk the entire game, we see him being cheerful and lovable.

This becomes particularly important when it comes to dialogue.  Mary Sues are often built up as witty, charming, and uproariously funny.  As Dorothy Parker said, "I have yet to have an author inform me that a character is charming, and then, by that character’s deeds and conversation, convince me of that fact."  Again referring to James Bond, we know he's witty because we see him being witty, and we enjoy it.  In fact, the problem is not the Mary Sue; no character or story works well when telling overshadows showing.

However, none of this means that your fanfiction is good.  Signing out.

The People Who Play Pop Music Way Too Loudly

Well, it's all come down to this.  No fewer than six times, some young couple has decided that the entire school, nay, the entire island of Oahu needs to hear their musical selection.  Naturally, I disagree with this stance for many reasons.

First, I should point out exactly how loudly they are playing this music.  I live in the male dorms, in Hale 4.  They live in the married couples dorms (it's an LDS college, that need actually exists) in Hale 2.  They are across the street, and I can hear every lyric with crystal clarity through my own headphones.  I can only imagine how torturous it is for their more direct neighbors.

I say that because I had the delight of learning that:
1) Our dormitory walls are extremely thin, so thin that just because you're singing along with something almost under your breath people can hear it.
2) Just because someone is not Japanese does not mean they do not speak Japanese.
3) Regardless of context, "Pantsu nugeru mon!" sounds wrong in baritone.  It just sounds wroooong.

So I corrected that behavior.  They have not, and unless the walls in Hale 2 are considerably thicker, their neighbors hate them.  Absolutely hate them.  Actually, "hate" is a strong word, which makes me glad I used it.  I'm not sure how, where, or why they got such powerful speakers.

Anyway, my next point is about how awful their musical tastes are.  As I said in my last rant, I don't have a problem with pop music in general; however, I have a problem with bad music, and they seem to have filtered out any tolerable chart-toppers from their playlist of choice.  For example: in general, I like Bruno Mars.  He's not really in my preferred musical style, but I believe him to be perhaps the most talented singer and one of the most talented musicians currently performing.  He has incredible amounts of passion, his voice's timbre is a little weird in all the right ways, it's obvious he truly loves music and he loves making it, and, I'm not ashamed to say it, he's kind of hot.  However, I absolutely despise "The Lazy Song".  It's dull, it's unimaginative, it's annoying, and it's basically Bruno Mars cautiously avoiding anything he does well.  I'll give you one guess which Bruno Mars song they're constantly playing.

At one point, I swear they picked the most annoying part of The Lazy Song and were playing it on an infinite A-B loop for about four minutes.

And that's not even their worst choice.  I have heard "Eenie Meenie", "Tik Tok", "Party Rock Anthem", "Club Can't Even Handle Me Right Now", "Hey Soul Sister"--basically the entire Todd in the Shadows playlist, and then some.

So the first matter at hand is determining why they chose this awful, awful music.  My current hypothesis is based on the fact that BYU-Hawaii is a very international campus, and a little over 50% of the students come from outside the US.  I fear that someone utterly unfamiliar with American culture but desperately wanting to fit in listened to some American chart-toppers and thought, "This is awful, but I guess it's what they listen to."  They picked the most awful songs, assuming them to be consequentially the most American, made them into a playlist, and began blasting them as loudly as possible, in order to fit the American custom of forcing our own opinions upon others.  It's not the worst plan I've ever heard, but I feel I am a casualty of it.

Alternatively, perhaps they come from some backwater dystopia of which I've never heard which is modeled after that Footloose town, and they have never before been exposed to any sort of music.  As soon as they heard music radio for the first time, perhaps Kiss FM or something, these were the first songs they ever heard, and they now hold some sentimental significance.

However, my next point of order and the main focus of this post is to determine how exactly to react.  My first instinct is to wage unilateral and violent warfare against them.  Do not mistake me for some bloodthirsty madman, but I would kind of like to kill them.  I am a rational man.  But they played "Eenie Meenie".

This would be rather difficult, considering I do not know their room number and there are bars around their windows, much as there are bars around everyone's.  I'm not entirely sure why, presumably it's for precisely this reason.

My next plan would be to get a petition going to have them ejected from the university (and, if they are in fact from outside the US, perhaps from the country in the name of thoroughness).  I am not the only person within earshot of their dorm.  I've got all of Hale 2 and much of Hale 4 on my side, and perhaps more.  The on-campus faculty housing is rather nearby as well.  I reiterate, "Eenie Meenie".

Perhaps the least extreme and least effective method of retaliation would be to respond in kind.  I have music.  I have music that most people wouldn't like, least of all them.  However, unless I make my intentions clear beforehand, this may lead to a vendetta against me as well, lead by some other righteous warrior of peace and quiet.  I also lack any speakers powerful enough, having only my iPod and laptop, whose speakers are rather unreliable as it is.

For now, my best course of action is that of passivity: killing them.  Signing off.