You can actually avoid death!

Anybody who knows me is aware of my disdain for comments like: "Everything happens for a reason." Another one that goes along with this is: "When your time comes, there's nothing you can do about it." Well, sometimes things happen because somebody did something stupid. I suppose that if you have to find a reason for it, it's because we need to weed out the stupid from our gene pool. As for not being able to do anything about it, that's wrong; the person could have not been so stupid.

I was thinking about this when I heard a story on the news a while ago about a guy who died when he was street racing. The newscaster said that what happened was "tragic." Ummm...no. A kid coming down with a fatal form of cancer - that's tragic. A woman losing her baby in childbirth - that's tragic. Children dying in warfare - that's tragic. Somebody engaging in risky behavior and dying as a result - sad, sure - tragic, no.

Perhaps I'm just more logical than emotional about this one, but something bothers me when people don't acknowledge that somebody's death was stupid. Don't get me wrong, if you're the mother of a kid who died as a result of pretending to be a NASCAR driver on a residential road, I'm not expecting you to say, "Man, my son was really stupid." However, you don't get to ask questions like, "How could this happen?" or say "When it's your time, it's your time." Chances are good the kid would still be alive if he was doing homework.

I also remember feeling this way when Dale Earnhardt, the NASCAR driver, died as a result of a crash during a race. People were acting like they just couldn't see something like that happening. Now, I'm not equating his death with somebody who street races, so I wouldn't call what he did stupid. However, I'm sure that the man knew the risks. I mean, you've got lots of cars going in circles at 200 miles an hour. If anything, we should be shocked at the end of every race when nobody dies! (And if Wikipedia can be trusted on this, he was the fourth to die in nine-month period.)

Yes, what happened to him is horrible. No, he did not deserve to die. If anything, it's a disservice to the dead when things like this happen and we act surprised and wonder out loud, "How could this happen?" I'm sure when Earnhardt went to the afterlife in Valhalla, he didn't scratch the top of his head, wondering just what the hell happened to him. I'm sure the first thing he said to The Valkyries was, "Damn! Must have got in one hell of a wreck, huh?"

Randomness - truth, nukes, and cold

Lots of ideas swimming around in the ol' noggin', but not enough to justify a different post for each one:

#1. It's really sad that so many people think that lying and making stuff up is a perfectly acceptable way to prove your point. I've seen this happen many times, and it still baffles me. Right now, Ray "Banana" Comfort has some new book about how atheists believe that "Nothing created everything". He has had it explained time and time again that he's wrong, and that he's completely misunderstanding the atheistic point of view. (The key word is "create". We don't believe that it was "created".)

Another example was a debate that I read (but didn't really participate in) where some guy was making bold assertions like how the U.S. is the only country that allows people to become citizens simply because they were born here. He also threw out some dubious statistics regarding how many kids get free lunches.

Sure, one religious nut and some online nut - hardly the symptom of a greater problem, right? Wrong. You've got guys like Sean Hannity who takes snippets from Obama's speeches completely out of context in order to attack the man (when all you'd have to do is listen to the next sentence to see that he was actually saying THE OPPOSITE of what Hannity accused him of saying). The dishonesty has gone mainstream, folks.

This is why I prefer online debates to in-person debates. When I debate in person, I have this thing where I don't like just making things up. Unfortunately, not everybody has that problem, and you can't really do fact-checking in the heat of the moment. That's what's nice about the Internet. Somebody can post something and you can destroy their arguments immediately after fact-checking.

#2. Okay, about three times this week I've heard and/or read people still whining about Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I think that I gave it a B- when I first saw it, but upon a further viewing, I downgraded it to C+. And what's the one thing that people won't shut the hell up about? The nuked fridge scene. It's become an internet catch-phrase, and there's even a movie news site called "Nuke the Fridge".

Ugh. Can we get over this? Personally, and I know I'm not the only one, I loved that scene. Yes, it was stupid. Spectacularly stupid. There is absolutely no way such a thing would work in reality, just like the following wouldn't either:

• being dragged behind a truck and having no injuries
• hanging on to a submarine for miles and surviving
• using a life-raft as a parachute (Mythbusters has my back on this one).
• Using your bare hands to pull out a guy's heart (to be fair, there may have been something supernatural at work with this one - which isn't more realistic, but it makes sense in movie logic).
• chopping a rope bridge in half, slamming into the cliff, and not breaking a single bone
• having James Bond be your dad in the thirties

My point is that the movies have a precedent of , illogical stunt sequences that completely defy all of the laws of physics. Why this particular one has so many internet nerds' (not that there's anything wrong with being an internet nerd) panties up in a bunch is beyond me. I've yet to hear an argument that makes any sense as to why this scene is so unforgivable but the others are perfectly acceptable - particularly the life raft/parachute one.

#3. I can't seem to exape these damned Coors Light ads. Basically, their whole selling point is that you can tell when the beer is cold enough because it changes the color on the can. Call me crazy, but I can usually tell if a beer is cold enough WITH MY SENSE OF TOUCH!!!! I mean, do I have Matt Murdock-like (that's a superhero reference) tactile sense here or can't pretty much everybody do that?

What's also bugging me is that they keep talking about how their beer is "frost brewed". What the hell does that even mean? How can you use frost to brew something? First of all, you have to boil everything, so there's no frost there. Afterwards, you have to ferment it. Now, while lagers ferment at colder temperatures than ales, you still don't want any "frost" in the picture. After all, frost implies freezing, and nothing's gonna happen if you get it that cold.

My point? There's no such thing as "frost brewed". Why do they say it then? Because some marketing research guys determined that the phrase concocts thoughts of a nice, cold beer in the mind of the rubes who buy Coors Light. (Not that everybody who buys Coors Light is a rube, but that is what a rube buys.)

Comics Roundup for 7/8/09

Wednesday Comics #1 - Ever take a look at the comics section of your local Sunday paper? It's a travesty, as they try and cram as many strips on a page as possible. Once upon a time, there were strips like Prince Valiant and Little Nemo in Slumberland that would take up an entire page (or darn near close to it). The fact that they've been slicing and shrinking comics for decades now is one of the main reasons why Bill Watterson stopped doing Calvin and Hobbes.

What's that got to do with Wednesday Comics? Basically, it's DC's way of paying homage to those classic strips. It folds out to the size of your average comics page and features 15 different strips (featuring mainly superheroes like Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, etcetera) and each strip fills up the entire page. Of course, this would be meaningless if they had crap artists, but they have some of the best doing this particular series.

It's $3.99 an issue and it comes out every week. Considering that it's only going to last for twelve issues, you can count me in so long as they keep looking this good. My favorites? Batman, Superman, Kamandi, and Sgt. Rock.

Superman: World of New Krypton #5 - Definitely a more compelling read than the last issue, as Superman has to stand trial for treason, with General Zod as his prosecutor. It's a good example of Supes using his brains, as his strength is pretty much meaningless on an entire planet of Kryptonians.

The Amazing Spider-Man Annual #36 - Back when I was in college, there was a long, drawn-out storyline now known as "The Clone Saga". It started off as a compelling read, but it soon got out of hand and ridiculous. (As time has passed, fans have learned that it was supposed to be much shorter, but short-sighted bean counters took the control away from the creative team.) Anyway, when all that was finally wrapped up, the Spider-Man comics have barely made reference to the storyline - with the exception of the occasional joke or comment. Well, time heals all wounds, and that saga is once again having an impact on Spidey's world. So far, I'm intrigued, as there's a guy who has a mad-on for Peter Parker over something that his clone did. This annual doesn't resolve the storyline though, but it will be picked up in the regular series. I'm interested in what's going to happen, and I have a lot more faith in the current powers-that-be that they won't screw it up this time.

Batman #688 - Last issue, I was pleased to see that Judd Winick was the new writer on the series. This issue, it's even better because Mark Bagley is doing the art. What's the bad news? This creative team will only last a few issues, and Tony Daniel will become both the writer and artist. Honestly, I don't care much for his art - his storytelling leaves something to be desired. I haven't read anything he's written, but I have a feeling that I'll be dropping this series after the current creative team departs.

X-Men Forever #3 - Okay, I'm done. There's nothing wrong with the series, but I certainly don't like it enough to get it twice a month and pay an extra buck per issue. Besides, it all feels so inconsequential, as it doesn't take place in the same continuity as all the other Marvel books - which is a big part of the appeal of comics in general.

Green Lantern #43 - I'm only a relatively recent convert to Green Lantern fandom, so I don't know much about the villain known as The Black Hand other than what I've read in the current series. This issue sets the stage for the big crossover storyline 'The Blackest Night" and Black Hand is a big part of what's going down. Some pretty creepy stuff goes down, and I'm once again reminded of why this is one of my favorite comics. Also, it's nice having Doug Mahnke take over the pencils.

Thor: Tales of Asgard #3 (of 4) - Old Stan Lee/Jack Kirby stories about what happened on Asgard before Thor came to Earth as a superhero. Fun stuff. 'Nuff said.

The Bible, Public Schools, and the Law

While goofing around on YouTube today, I came across this little ad (it's only a minute) from Chuck Norris:



Looks like he's with some organization that's trying to get the Bible back into the public schools. Of course, I could quibble with a few things, like the assertion that our forefathers founded this country on "Biblical principles" (you know, other than slavery). Also, I hate the whole doom and gloom about how "God knows" that we need to change the course of our country. (Yeah! Bring back Jim Crow laws and take away women's suffrage!) I'd also have a major problem with a history class using The Bible as its sole textbook (and yeah, I know, he didn't use that exact wording).

What really bothered me though was a lot of the comments from YouTube users who don't seem to understand what the Constitution actually says. No, I'm not picking on Christians; I'm picking on some of my fellow nonbelievers. One guy asks, "Has Chuck Norris ever read the Constitution?" My question to him is: "Have you?" So, for those of you in a coma, here's the First Amendment again:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I teach some Bible stuff to my senior English class, and frankly, I plan on expanding on my whole religious literacy unit. Before I do, I always feel the need to explain that I'm not breaking any laws by doing this. In fact, the textbooks have excerpts from The Bible (including an insultingly abridged version of the Sermon on the Mount). The point is, you can teach the Bible without violating the First Amendment.

How? Think about it. I teach my students about the Greek and Norse gods. I also did a unit on Hinduism. Yet nobody thinks for a moment that I'm somehow violating the Constitution when I do that. After all, it would be absurd to assume that I'm encouraging the kids to worship Zeus and Odin simply by teaching them about him. Well, the same idea applies to Jesus. I can teach what the story is without preaching it. In fact, since it's more likely that there are people who worship Jesus than Odin, I freqently pepper my lessons with phrases like, "That's how the story goes, and whether you think that's literally true is your choice to make in life."

The really funny thing is that people like Chuck Norris obviously aren't considering the far-reaching implications of what they're advocating. Take a look at Europe. They have religious education in the public schools, and they are far less religious. Now there very well may be some other factors at work here, but it's safe to say that teaching The Bible doesn't necessarily make one a believer in The Bible. While I've had kids actually tell me that they gained a greater appreciation for their faith through my lessons (how's that for irony?) I've never had a nonbeliever suddenly go, "Hey! Something about this Jesus guy being the son of God makes sense!" If anything, what I do only seems to reinforce what they already feel to be true. Who knows? Maybe I've planted some seeds that will make some of the believers more skeptical, but let's face it - I'm one out of a half dozen teachers they've had just that year. My influence can only go so far.

SUVs, Hummers, and Raised Pickups

Not only am I missing that special chromosome that makes men interested in sports, but I'm also missing the one that makes us interested in cars. Basically, I'm fine with my Chevy Prizm (which is really a Toyota Corolla) as it gets me from point A to point B. Even if I had a lot more money, I couldn't see myself going out and buying a really expensive car. I suppose that I would have to have insane amount of money to get something really fancy.

That said, if I did have the money for a more expensive vehicle, I'd probably drive something snazzy and sporty like a Porsche. Yeah, there's nothing practical about them, but they're snazzy and cool. Even though it's not my priority, I can see the appeal.

What I don't see the appeal in is all of those tank-sized monstrosities that litter the road. For starters, let me tackle what's probably the least offensive - the SUV. I don't necessarily have a problem with these, but some sort of meme has infected the populous that made these things more popular than they ever should have been in the first place.

Before I go on, please don't give me the, "Hey! I have an SUV! It's my right to drive one! Why can't I do what I like?" If you have one, then Odin bless you, it's your right to have one. Go have fun with it. Still, if you have one, it should be because you either genuinely need it or genuinely want it - I'm not entirely convinced that so many people fit one or both of those categories though.

First of all, what drives me crazy about SUVs is that so many people think you NEED one. I know somebody who as soon as she had a kid, people started asking her about when she was going to get an SUV. Not only that, but I've had somebody comment on my wife's Scion that it was fine since we don't have any kids yet. That's the thing, there's this notion that you simply can't survive if you have kids and don't have an SUV. Well, guess what? There are plenty of folks who don't have SUVs and have kids and manage to function just fine. Not only that, but people got along with them for generations.

"Oh, but Lance! You need space to carry around all that stuff that comes with having a kid!" Well, I realize that I don't have a kid yet, but I'm starting to think that maybe kids don't really NEED that much stuff. And again, I'm sure somebody will point the finger at me and say that I'll change my tune when I have kids. To that, I'll once again point out that there are people who survive just fine without one.

The other thing that bugs me is that I've actually heard people talk about how they're "safer". Where are they getting this from? They're obviously not reading the same stuff that I am - most likely, they're not reading at all. (In all fairness, I have read that some manufacturers have been making them safer.)

Basically, the only advantage I see is that you have more room with one, but I'm not convinced that you even need all that room. I suppose that if I had a large family, I'd probably get a van or something along those lines. (Do they still make station wagons?) So, why would I want to spend a lot of money on something I don't need that isn't safer and gets crappy gas mileage?

Anyway, next up is The Hummer. What can I say about this vehicle other than the fact that it's a total douchemobile? It's big, barely fits into a parking spot, and from what I understand, doesn't even have all that much room. There's absolutely no practical reason (unless you're in a war zone, I suppose) to own one of them. Of course, that's true for a Porsche, but Hummers are ugly looking behemoths. I hate to go with the whole "you must be compensating for something" argument, but the shoe seems to fit on that one.



Lastly, there's the raised pickup. I hate these people - especially at night, as they completely blind me. Supposedly, some people use them to go off-roading, which in all honesty, is something in which I see little appeal, but to each his own. Most of these though, they're far too nice looking to have seen a lot of off-roading action from what I can tell. From what I can tell, these folks must say to themselves, "I want a vehicle that's not only impractical, but completely annoying to other motorists."

There's recurring joke in the movie Robocop about a popular car called the 6000 SUX. The joke is that it's big and gets really lousy gas mileage, but that's what people want in this dystopian future. Watching the movie now, the joke doesn't resonate as much because it doesn't go nearly far enough. After all, it's just a car. If they remake the movie, they'll have to replace it with something the size of a tank.

Comics Roundup for 7/1/09

Whoosh! I read through this week's stack pretty quickly, which is good and bad. It's good because I was eager to read them all, bad because I'm already done. Anyway, I didn't get around to writing about them until now, so here they are:

Batman and Robin #2 - While I really liked the first issue, I loved the second one. The thing that I usually like about Grant Morrison's writing is that he tends to have a lot of wild, big ideas and he'll cram them all into one issue, whereas another writer would take just one of those and do an entire epic story out of it. Well, Morrison's certainly not short on ideas for this series, but what's even better is that it's a character-driven story. Dick Grayson's having a tough time filling his mentor's shoes, and the fact that the new Robin (who happens to be Batman's love-child with Talia, the daughter of Ra's al Ghul) doesn't respect him is making things worse. Easily my favorite read of the week, and the splash page alone captures the theme of the entire issue. Great stuff.

Captain America: Reborn #1 of 5 - The series that brings back the original Captain America is off to a good start, even though the explanation as to how he's still alive is a wee bit convoluted and makes me feel like I'm rereading Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five (which isn't a bad thing, now that I think of it). My only complaint is that I don't see why this couldn't be done in the regular series, but so long as Ed Brubaker is writing this as well (and Bryan Hitch's art doesn't hurt either) I won't complain.

The Astounding Wolf-Man #17 - Robert Kirkman has really mastered the art of moving the story forward and ending on a cliffhanger each issue. That must be why I keep coming back for more. In this issue, Wolf-Man makes amends with his daughter, but he finds himself on the wrong end of the law. Sucks to be him.

Astro City: The Dark Age - Book Three #3 of 4 - I find that this particular series is much better when I read it all at once in one sitting. I read everything up to this point and enjoyed it, but now I'm getting lost again. Too many characters to keep track of, but this series never lets me down on the re-read, so I'll keep getting it and wait for the whole story to finish before I try and read it again.

Echo #13 - Speaking of people who don't let me down, this story keeps moving forward. How to explain it? Think of a woman with some pretty serious personal issues suddenly getting superpowers that she can't control. That's somewhat the gist, but it hardly does it justice. Somebody once mentioned to me that this series would look even better in color, and while I liked Terry Moore's black and white work just fine with Strangers in Paradise, I'm thinking that this particular series could use a dash of color. It would definitely suit the action scenes at least.

Trojan War #3 of 5 - Marvel Comics continues its adaptation of all the Trojan War related stories that aren't found in either of Homer's epics (or Virgil's one epic, for that matter). I knew the story of Prince Memnon being defeated by Achilles, but I didn't know that the swift-footed one also took down an Amazon Queen before meeting his maker. I'll have to work that into my Trojan War lesson plans for next year.

Fantastic Four #568 - Word on the Internets is that they're going to re-boot the Fantastic Four movie franchise. Thank goodness for that, as the first one stunk, and the second seemed like a bad Saturday Morning cartoon. This is the penultimate issue of Mark Millar's run, and while it wasn't as cool as the last issue, I'm certainly eager to see how this all gets wrapped up. Obviously, the good guys will win, but will Ben "The Thing" Grimm be able to get married? With a book like this, it's definitely a possibility, as "family" is often the theme. I'm also wondering if they're going to re-explore Johnny Storm's "music" career like they did in the first few issues of this particular run. (He wasn't really much of a musician, as it was all an opportunity for him to get his own reality show.)

Captain America Comics No. 1 - Marvel did a series of one-shot comics to celebrate their 70th Anniversary, and for some reason I missed this one when it first came out. I wasn't much interested in the other ones, so I passed them up. This one, however, had one of my favorite new artists, Marcos Martin, doing the main story. That alone was enough for me to get it, but I really liked the story, as it establishes that it's not the super-soldier serum that makes Captain America a hero, but the bravery of Steve Rogers. (Yeah, a somewhat cliched message, but it was executed well.)

Is it Wednesday yet?

Women who aren't repulsive

I've never been very good at most forms of generic guy talk. I don't know anything about sports, and all I know about cars is how to drive one, how to put gas in it, and how to change a tire. I suppose that beer is a manly thing to talk about, but there's only so much you can talk about unless the other guy is a beer-geek like me. There's one other thing that I've never been very good at, and that's talking about women.

At many of the jobs I've worked, I've had to listen to men engage in the form of guy talk where they discuss some woman's attributes and/or defects. Generally speaking, I never feel comfortable with this, as many of my comments consist of "yeah" and "yup" and maybe an "uh huh". I suppose I'd try every now and then, but it always feels pretty phony when I do it. I mean, I like women. I like them so much that I even went and married one. Still, I don't feel that it's necessary to point out the things that I like about each one of them. I mean, I can look and enjoy without feeling the need to share it with everybody else. And as far as criticizing the way they look, well, that's just pretty shallow and says more about the person saying it than it does anything else. (And no, I'm not totally innocent of this, but you can probably count on one hand the number of times I've done it in my adult life.)

This, I guess, will be my attempt to do this particular form of guy talk in a somewhat unconventional way. Obviously, aside from blogging about it, I think that my comments will be different from what you hear on the average construction site. (And I've worked on construction sites, and they live up to their reputation - although they're not the only places where you hear that kind of stuff.)

Now, I'm not going to write about any actual women that I do know, mainly because that would be awkward for any of them, I'd imagine. Plus, if I were to include women that I know, then obviously my wife is the most beautiful woman in the world, and all other women in comparison are twisted, hideous, Medusa-esque wretches that fell of the ugly tree, hit every branch on the way down until they fell into a pile of poo from the ugliest dog that ever lived. So, this will be strictly limited to celebrities, and if my wife ever becomes famous, then she will be the only one on this list.

For starters, I'd like to address the women that Joe Six Pack can't seem to get enough of. Right now, there's this Megan Fox who many guys can't shut up about. Is she pretty? Sure. I don't know though - there just isn't anything about her that really gets me excited. I guess she just seems to be too much of a blank slate - perhaps her role in the Jonah Hex movie might get me to change my mind. The other one that men all seem to be required to like is Angelina Jolie. Honestly, I've never understood this one. There are times, I'll admit, when I've seen her in interviews and she's downright...well...forgive this word...lovely, but I just think that too much of a big deal is made out of her. It's like some committee got together and decided that she's beautiful, and all the men in the world had to agree to it while I was taking a nap or something. I'm not going to go into what I don't like about her, because as I stated before, that's pretty shallow, so I'll just let it end there.

As I'm thinking about the women I want to put on this list, there seems to be something that quite a few of them have in common - my wife has yelled (I exaggerate) at me for the look on my face when they come on the screen. Also, I'm surprised as to how fair-haired most of them are, as I figured myself more of a fan of women with really dark, even black, hair. Maybe those ones are just slipping my mind right now. Okay, here we go:

Naomi Watts - Kirsti commented when we watched King Kong that the film had a lot of drawn-out shots of her face. My instant reaction? "There's nothing wrong with that!" What can I say? As far as I'm concerned, they could make a two-hour movie of nothing but Naomi Watts close-ups and I'd watch it. She has this unique mixture of being both cute AND beautiful at the same time. I also think the fact that she's really talented helps, and I have yet to see a performance from her where she wasn't good. Another favorite of mine with her is 21 Grams, and she hardly gets the beauty-queen treatment in that one like she does in Kong, but she still looks really good.

Kristen Wiig - I don't know if she's been included on any "hottest women" lists. Not that she's unattractive, but I can't imagine that she immediately springs to mind when one thinks of these sorts of things - except for me, of course. I think that she's still a regular on Saturday Night Live, and when I still watched it, I pretty much always liked her. For me, the reason why she deserves to be on this is that she's funny. She's already cute, but her personality is what does it for me. My favorite thing she does is on the extended edition of Forgetting Sarah Marshall where she plays the Yoga instructor. There's this moment when she crinkles up her nose when she's talking that's just plain wonderful. Also, she does really good impressions, and for some weird reason, that does a lot for me. (By the way, my wife is really good at impressions, and yes, it's one of the many reasons why I love her.)

Jenna Fischer - Okay, I know that I'm not the only guy in the world who feels this way about her. She's the cute girl who sat next to you in high school that all the guys liked, but since she's not generically pretty, she has no clue as to how attractive she is. Just like Kristen Wiig though, she has personality and she's really funny. She's really awesome at understated humor, and it's not really so much what she says, but HOW she says it and the look that she has on her face.

Evangeline Lilly - I'm thinking that with the exception of possibly Naomi Watts, I guess I'm just a fan of the girl-next-door look, and it's better when a woman doesn't look flawless. (I think that's why Megan Fox isn't doing anything for me - maybe if her nose was a little crooked or something. Speaking of crooked noses, I like that woman who hosts So You Think You Can Dance and her imperfect nose is her best feature.) The character Sawyer always calls Lilly's character "Freckles". Good call. I never understood why so many women cover their freckles with makeup. I'm with Sawyer on that one. I wonder if she can do comedy...hmmm...

Kristin Davis - I'll admit it; I genuinely like Sex and the City. I think that it's a well-written show with interesting characters. Now, while Charlotte, personality-wise, isn't my favorite (that would be Miranda) she definitely is my favorite in the sense that she's the only one my wife yelled at me regarding that look on my face when she came on the screen. Not only is she cute, but she's in her early forties and doesn't seem to be losing it. (Maybe she's had work done - if so, I can't tell.)

I guess I'm going to end this with five even though about five more just popped into my head. After all, I put five men on my man-crush list, so I suppose that if I'm heterosexual, this should be an even easier list to do. Maybe now my wife won't worry that I'm gay. She'll just make me sleep on the couch for even suggesting that any other woman could possibly be even remotely attractive. Ha ha ha ha!!! My wife would never do that! Right, Kirsti? Right? Ummm...right?

Where are the extra blankets?