Speaking of sex ed...

I recently read about a McCain attack ad on Obama, where Obama is criticized for wanting to teach sex ed to kindergardeners. Apparently, the attack is a pretty bogus one, as what Obama called for was "age-appropriate" sex ed that would extend beyond 6-12 and into K-5. By "age-appropriate," we're talking about teaching kids what things like "inappropriate touching" and coming up with a better response than "a stork" if they ask where babies come from. (The stork only being slightly less ridiculous than a magical being who created the world in six days.)

Of course, a lot of people are going to be outraged, and they're going to jump to the conclusion that Obama wants five-year-olds to learn about how to put a condom on a cucumber.

For me though, I really have to wonder - would that be such a horrible thing if they did? You know, if they were taught absolutely everything regarding sex ed? I mean, I don't think that they should, but not so much because it would cause them irreparable damage. The main reason why it should be saved for later is because they simply won't get it. Also, it's just not relevant to teach it to them. But what are we worried about if they're taught how condoms are put on? Five year olds have absolutely no interest in having sex. They don't even have a sex drive.

Again, I don't think that it would be appropriate, but I don't think that it's such an awful scenario either. Want to know what I do think is an awful scenario? Sexually mature teenagers who don't know a damn thing about how their bodies work, that's what. Teenagers having unprotected sex is a far worse thing.

I'm tempted to criticize Sarah Palin here. I'm tempted to wonder how much she talked to her daughter regarding sex. Considering that she's a conservative Christian, chances are decent that the conversation began and ended with, "Don't have sex." Still, that's unfair, because I really don't know. After all, it does happen that there are daughters who get pregnant who have families that are open about sex. Still, I'd bet that the statistics would show that they're the exception rather than the rule.

So, I'd vote no to showing little kids how to use a condom. However, we should be much more outraged at the prospect of an ignorant populace, don't you think?

Condom utility belt

I recently learned that the three boys who comprise The Jonas Brothers, a pop-rock, media-created teeniebopper band, all wear "Purity Rings." Basically, these are rings that a lot of teenagers are wearing nowadays, including some of the prominent entertainers in the teenybopper crowd. The idea behind them is that they're publicly advertise that they're not going to put their wee-wees in a girl's hoo-ha until marriage. Of course, they can't just have that be a personal decision, they have to let everybody know, as they have to set a good example for all their fans. I somehow doubt that it was their idea, and I even have my doubts as to whether any of them are virgins.

The thing is, if I had a son who was in a popular rock band, and he told me that he wanted to abstain from sex until he got married, my response would be, "That's fantastic. Here's a carton of condoms. I want you to have three of them in every pocket, five in your wallet, one in every drawer of your room, ten in each suitcase, one in each shoe, and one connected by a belly-button piercing."

If he responded with, "But dad, I want to remain a virgin until I'm married!" I would counter with, "Do you like girls?" If he said yes, then I would repeat my previous response.

Can we please stop pretending that we're not driven by a biological urge to reproduce? Not only that, but it's an urge that can override all of our reasonable decision-making thought processes. Not only that, but come on, I work with teenagers. It's a proven fact that their frontal-lobes, the parts of their brains that drive decision making, are not fully developed until their mid-twenties. I mean, it's one thing if you were an awkward teenager like I was whom the girls just weren't interested in (at least, not the kinds who wanted to have sex - dammit!!!!) It's another thing if you're a flippin' rock star who girls are no doubt throwing themselves at! Does anybody really think that all the teenage female fans out there are going to respect their "promise rings"? Here's a crazy newsflash - girls like sex too! Can we stop acting like they're all a bunch of sexless robots for once and start getting real?

Don't get me wrong, everybody needs to make their own choices in life, and if somebody's choice is to wait until marriage, then great. However, can we stop pretending like there's something "moral" about this decision? I read that some of these rings say things like, "True love waits." I'm sorry, but what a fuckin' self-righteous, totally assholesque thing to say. Oh, since my wife and I didn't wait, our love is less true?

The thing is, I had some sophomores several years ago, while doing an oral presentation about themselves, who told the class that they had made the "abstinence pledge." I just smiled and moved on, even though I was thinking, "BULLSHIT!" From what I understand, these pledges do tend to make teens wait longer to have sex - if not necessarily until their wedding night. However, I've also read that it makes them more likely to engage in oral and anal sex. I'm sure that's the desired result, right? Maybe the promise rings can have a new logo that says something like, "True love waits up the butt". (Sorry about that if you're reading this, Mom.)

Also, I'd hate to stereotype or make judgments, but I think it's pretty safe to say that at least one of them was not a virgin by the next year. One of them would wear very skimpy clothing the following year, and her friends informed me that she was into some hard drugs. That doesn't necessarily mean that she was having sex, but come on, let's be real. Even if she did keep that promise, I don't know about you, but I'd rather that my teenage daughter was having safe sex than doing hard drugs.

Anyway, even with the kids I know, it's still different because they're not rock stars, for Pete's sakes.

Mr. and Mrs. Jonas, my recommendation to you - get those boys of yours some rubbers.

The Fresh Captain America

A rumor, now debunked, was circulating that Will Smith had signed on to be Captain America in an upcoming film. (And for you non-comics geeks, Captain America is one of the heroes who would also appear in an Avengers movie along with Iron Man, The Hulk, and Thor.) It's been debunked, but Michael Doran over at Newsarama insists that Smith would have been a great choice. Mainly, he cites Smith's box office draw as the reason why he should be the Star-Spangled Avenger.

I'm sorry, but there is one really good reason why Will Smith shouldn't play Captain America. It's because he's black. Oh my goodness! Did I really just say that? Yup.

Mind you, I don't necessarily have a problem with color-blind casting. When I saw a stage production of Julius Caesar, an African-American played the title role, and he was the best thing about that play. Generally speaking, I think that the stage is more forgiving and more accomodating to a stronger suspension of disbelief than the screen is.

Doran argues that "there is nothing essential about the Steve Rogers character that requires him to be white." I would very much beg to differ. For those of you who don't know the character's history, here's the short version:

Steve Rogers was a frail, sickly young man who wanted to enlist in the Armed Forces so he could fight against the Nazis. The Army turned him down, but they offered to have him be part of the "super soldier" program. Rogers volunteered, and he was given an injection that brought him to the pinaccle of human strength, speed and endurance. From there, he was given the uniform of Captain America and sent out to fight the Axis Powers. Not only was he out there to fight, but he was there to inspire the soldiers on the ground.

During a battle with Baron Zemo, Cap fell into the ocean and became frozen in a block of ice. (It's comics - don't get too logical.) He was then found and resurrected in the modern day, and now he's a "man out of time" who continues to fight against all sorts of evil doers.

So there you go. If you make him a black guy then the first part of the story definitely doesn't make any sense. Since he doesn't wear a full-face mask, does it seem very likely that the government would choose a black man during the 1940s to be an inspiration to the troops? Of course not. It would be insulting to imply that they would.

The thing is, there have been a lot of stories in the comics where Rogers quits being Captain America, and then somebody else puts on the costume and continues the fight. While it's never been a black man in the comics, that sort of a story has potential, and I wouldn't mind seeing THAT in a movie.

And let's also not forget that there are plenty of cool African-American superheroes out there, and it would be wrong to cast a white guy as The Black Panther or Power Man. (To be fair, there may be a lot of cool black superheroes, but there should be more.) Will Smith is definitely a good actor, and I'd love to see him do a superhero role. (I know about Hancock, but I haven't seen that one yet. Still, he could do more.) It's just that if he's going to be Captain America, then they would need to completely change the backstory - and then what would be the point in calling it Captain America then?

With all this said though, the Will Smith as Cap rumor didn't bother me as much as the Matthew McConaughey as Cap rumor did. Yee-ikes! Would Cap go running around without his shirt?

Snopin' out the truth

Much like when Prometheus gave fire to humanity (and this really happened and I want it taught in science class) and we realized its potential for both good and evil - the Internet is definitely one of those mixed blessings as well.

On one hand, it can be a tool to spread all sorts of false and downright crazy rumors. On the other, there are plenty of places to find out whether it's all true or not. Of course, you have to be willing to seek out these sorts of sites, otherwise you'll believe that a shark was about to eat a helicopter and there's a little boy who will get a nickel for every email you forward.

Just today, I got an email from a coworker that goes as follows:

This is the list of books Palin tried to have banned. As many of you will notice it is a hit parade for book burners.

A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L’Engle
Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden...
Etc. Etc. Etc. - you get the point - and it even included typical banned fare like the Harry Potter books.

Now, I've heard the rumors of Palin having tried to ban some books while she was a mayor, but there doesn't seem to be any concrete information coming up about it. Personally, I wish that the media would ask - because if it is much ado about nothing, then I'd at least like to know so. I fear that this woman might be a religious extremist, and when it comes to violating the first amendment, I get concerned.

So, when I got this email, I figured that this was the smoking gun. I was even all set to send it to some conservatives that I know. However, even though I don't care for Palin, there's one thing that I dislike even moreso: inaccuracy.

With a little internet searching, I found out that my favorite debunking site had already taken care of this. Turns out, it's completely bogus. As much as I'd like to discourage people from voting for McCain/Palin, I'm not going to go around spreading lies to do so.

Anyway, do a little fact-checking before you spread those rumors and email forwards, okay?

Jesus the War-God

Some time ago, I was speaking with a Christian over the merits of Christianity versus Islam. To be more specific, we were talking about the holy books of the two religions. He talked about how The Koran had various versus that called again and again for the killing of infidels, and he told me that I should "read it".

He has a good point, and I certainly have not read it in its entirety. I've read bits and pieces, and it's hard to deny that the calls for violence are there. I've also read enough to know that there's a bit more to it than that, but it's hardly enough for me to defend it, much less believe that this book was inspired by some sort of higher power.

I pointed out that The Bible has all sorts of violent passages as well. God gives the Jews instructions on how to carry out a proper genocide even. While one could argue that those passages are simply detailing history, and not asking for renewed attacks, it certainly isn't a far stretch to see how Christians over the centuries have used their holy book to justify all sorts of atrocities.

His response was that if you look solely at what Jesus said, it's a message of love and peace. I let him have that one, but I still think that doesn't really paint an entirely accurate picture. After all, Jesus says that he came "with the sword" - although as a teacher of English literature, it would be disingenuous of me to say that particular passage was a call to war. He was being metaphorical. Still, I don't think that 100% of what Jesus says in the Gospels is really good advice. I don't think it's right to consider lustful thoughts (in other words, basic biological impulses without which we would have been long since extinct) to be the same as adultery. I also don't think that one should completely abandon his or her family to become a follower of Christ. (I could look up and cite chapter and verse, but I hope that the folks who actually read this trust me enough to know that I'm not just making crap up when I say these sorts of things.)

Still, Jesus is a peaceful sort of a guy. Sure, if you ignore the rest of The Bible, Christianity certainly seems to be a mostly peace-driven religion. However, that's not all there is to The Bible. In fact, did you know that Jesus appears outside The Gospels? Indeed he does - and I'm not talking about Paul's vision on the road to Damascus. I'm talking about the Book of Revelation. (No, it's not "Revelations.")

Personally, it's probably one of my favorite books of The Bible for its visual imagery if nothing else. However, when Jesus makes his appearance, it's hardly the peace and love, groovy guy who gave the Sermon on the Mount. He comes in as an angry, vengeful, destructive God of War. His eyes glow with flame, a sword comes out of his mouth, and his clothes drip with blood. Kinda makes you want to go up and give him a hug, eh?

When I start my Bible unit with my seniors, I always play a little game with them where I give them a series of quotes, and they have to guess whether they come from The Bible, some other source (like the Koran) or if it's just a bunch of crap that I made up. Most of them do quite horribly, and many of them are shocked as to some of the crazy, violent passages that I take right from the Bible. (Don't panic, Christians - I end the lesson by explaining that I pulled all of those quotes completely out of context, and that they shouldn't question their faith based on a cheap stunt like that. I tell them that if they want to learn more about why The Bible says those sorts of things, they'll have to go look them up for themselves and/or ask a priest/pastor/etc.)

Sometimes, I have had collaborative classes where another teacher works in the room with me. They're usually quite shocked as well - I was even accused of making those quotes up. I gave over the chapter and verse. Kinda hard to get mad when somebody simply quotes what's actually there. (But again, I must emphasize that at the end the point is that they shouldn't just listen to people who pick and choose quotes to get them to think a certain way. If they're going to want to know what it really says, they're going to have to read it for themselves. In my class, all we cover is The Gospels and an overview of the most commonly used Biblical Allusions.)

Anyway, next time you think that Jesus is all about peace, dude, picture those flaming eyes and the sword shooting out of his mouth. Call me crazy, but that sounds like a God of War to me.

Activist voters

It looks like Proposition 8, the Constitutional Amendment proposal that would ban same-sex marriage isn't looking like it's going to pass. I've read more than a few articles now that indicate that it simply doesn't have the support that it needs, and more Californians are okay with the idea of gay marriage now than they were ten years ago. Not only that, but there's a website that places online bets on all sorts of issues and news stories, and right now the money is on it not passing.

I wonder how the extreme right is going to interpret this. Of course, when the Supreme Court got rid of the same sex marriage ban, they all threw around their favorite, totally meaningless phrase, "activist judges!" (At least, it's meaningless in this context - because from what I've seen, absolutely nobody who used it even attempted to address the real issue - how are gay people getting equal protection when they don't have the same rights as everybody else?) My personal favorite, originally spouted off by uberdouchebag supreme James Dobson, was the phrase "judicial tyranny."

Yeah. Those judges are tyrants. Couldn't you just feel the tyranny when you saw that one lesbian couple, who had been together for something like 50 years (give or take - I don't remember, all I remember was that it was longer than I've even been alive). It was like Atilla the Hun all over again! How dare those women! Loving each other? Can't they see that they're destroying marriage with their stupid life-long commitment and ridiculous devotion to one another? I love my wife, but how can I not divorce her now that gay people are getting married?

Anyway, so what will the spin be on this, when the voters reject this bigoted and hateful proposition? Will the voters become activist voters? Will it be voter tyranny?

Personally, I'm not as enthusiastic about Obama (not even sure that I'll vote for him - I'll probably vote Green) like a lot of people I know, but I do think that there will be at least one thing to vote for in November that will definitely make the world a better place.

Batman movies - what next?

Okay, can we start off by saying that the rumor about Cher being Catwoman is a hoax? Let's just get that out of the way.

Anyway, this will probably be the first of a series of an undetermined number of blogs, as I realize going into this that there's no way I'm going to want to sit here and write about every single idea that comes to me.

Considering that The Dark Knight is making money like gangbusters, it's a pretty safe bet that they're going to make another one. From what I understand, the director Christopher Nolan has only been signing on for one movie at a time, but Christian Bale initially signed up for three. It's pretty safe to say that the next one will follow the same continuity as the last two, but that leads to the inevitable question - what's next?

Here's the problem. In this particular series of movies, a very specific mood has been created, and the rules of this world are fairly well established. For the most part, Christopher Nolan has steered away from any of the fantasy or science fiction elements from the Batman comics. While I consider those elements to be integral to the overall mythology of the character, I don't think that this particular series has room for them. Perhaps when they reboot the franchise again in another fifteen years, then they can go with all of that stuff. Until then, they should definitely keep it "realistic."

So, with that in mind, what characters could be in the next movie(s) and how good would those choices be? In no particular order:

The Riddler - Of course, this is the one that's on everybody's mind, and there are even rumors about Johnny Depp playing the part, although he himself has confirmed that it's only a rumor as of this point, and nobody has seriously talked to him about doing it yet. I suppose that could work, but is The Riddler a good choice in the first place?

Personally, I love the character. While he hasn't had his equivalent to The Killilng Joke (which was the ultimate Batman/Joker face-off in the comics), there was a great origin story told in a Detective Comics annual several years ago. Basically, the concept was that Edward Nigma was clever, but he was a cheater - he'd do anything to get ahead and make himself look good. Also, it's an interesting idea that he's so insecure that he basically gives himself away by leaving riddles so Batman can know how smart he is.

Could he carry an entire movie though? Personally, I think that they should do the same with him that they did with The Joker. Don't necessarily worry about a character arc for him, just make him the guy who makes stuff happen. Unlike the Joker, they could go into his origin a bit, but ultimately, he doesn't have enough going on like Harvey Dent/Two Face did.

Catwoman - Okay, get those images of Halle Berry (and every other version we've had of her) out of your heads. This is the chance to finally get it right. Selina Kyle definitely has the potential to carry the next Batman film. Not only could she have an interesting character arc in her own right (probably involving her conflicted feelings over being a hero or a thief), but her arc could directly impact Bruce Wayne/Batman because she could also serve as a love interest.

Hush - What? You've never heard of this guy? Adam West never fought him and you don't remember him from the old Superfriends cartoon? Well, most people hadn't heard of Ra's al Ghul before Batman Begins, so why not try one who's only been in the comics? (Although Ra's had appeared in the animated series - unlike Hush, who's too new.)

Personally, I think that they could make a GREAT film with this guy. Thomas Elliot is what would happen if Bruce Wayne wasn't a decent person to begin with. He was born into a wealthy family just like Bruce. He also faced a great tragedy involving his parents when he was a child - but the catch is that he was the one responsible for it! (He cut the brakes on their car.) He was a childhood friend of Bruce's, and he went on to discover that his old friend was Batman. He already was jealous of Wayne, but when he found that out, he hated him even more.

There's definitely a lot of potential for drama with Hush. I wonder if they're even considering him.

Okay, that's all for today. To be continued.