Craig's Happy Place

Down on Democracy

2012-01-17T16:45:00.000-08:00

I would probably be described as a liberal by most who know me, and the more right wing propaganda I hear, the more liberal I seem to get. Therefore, it might come as a shock to hear me say that I’ve just about had it with Democracy, but hear me out.

The idea of Democracy, one person one vote, with everyone getting to participate, sounds great in theory. Here’s the problem: Most people are morons.

When I was 16, I made up my first statistic: I proudly announced in English class that 7 out of 10 people were idiots. I had no data, but I stand by that figure. If anything, it’s only grown. Think about the kind of people who get to vote in this country:

Everyone who believes that Evolution is a less valid theory for how we came to be than “God did it,” gets a vote.

Everyone who thinks homosexuals are less than people (just like they used to say about Native Americans, blacks, and so forth), gets a vote.

Everyone “Pro-Life” advocate who wants the death penalty gets a vote.

Everyone who sells heroin to children and doesn’t get caught gets a vote.

Everyone who knowingly manufactures a dangerous product gets a vote.

As far as I know, people with dementia can vote, as well as the mentally challenged, sociopaths and alcoholics.

“But that’s what’s great about America!” you exclaim! “No matter who you are, no matter what walk of life you come from, you get your say!” But is that really great? Is that really what’s best for all of us?

I can sense the alarm bells going up. “But without Democracy, there will be tyranny! Fascism! Nazism!”

No Democracy = No Civil Rights?

I disagree. I think people have a misconception that a democracy is required for equal, civil rights for citizens. Not so. Even if our leaders are not democratically elected, that does not mean they have absolute power. For those of you who think so, I’d like to point out that we don’t in fact, live in a Democracy right now. Actually, the founders created our government as a Republic specifically to guard against the “Excesses of Democracy.” Although our country may not now be a classic republic, we are, at the very least, a representative democracy, not a real one.

Even now, you don’t get to vote on whether this country should have the death penalty, or whether or not there should be limits on abortion, or how much to pay members of Congress. You can only vote for someone who you hope will vote your way on these issues. You can’t even vote for President. All you can do is vote for an Elector and hope he will vote the way he promised.

On the state level, you may have varying degrees of democracy. The state where I live, California, happens to be very democratic, mostly, I think, because legislators are lazy. Every Election Day, there are a ton of laws and propositions that we really get to vote on. This system has given us things like Proposition 8 and a host of Pro-Business, anti-environment legislation that I don’t really completely understand and neither do any of the other voters, except the ones who represent the corporations that spend billions steering the vote the way they want it (a popular tactic is to send out “Voter Guides” that tell you all the “good” (pro citizen) ways to vote, EXCEPT for their pet proposition, where they flip it to trick you into voting their way).

So clearly you can have civil rights without democracy, because we do right now. And if my state is any indication, more democracy is not always better. So why not make it a meritocracy? Why shouldn’t you have to be intelligent to help determine the course of our nation? Or at the very least, why shouldn’t you have to prove you understand the issues before you decide how everyone else will be affected by them?

My Proposal

In my mind, you should have to take a test to vote. Now, this immediately raises big flags among the liberal community, because it raises the specter of the old racist “literacy tests” that were used to block African Americans from getting to vote for years, and similar tactics (e.g. Voter ID requirements) are still being used today. But hear me out. I’m not talking about a test like the SAT. I’m talking about a test that specifically measures the issues you will be voting on. It doesn’t matter which way you vote, you just have to prove that you understand, at least in a rudimentary way, both sides. Is that really so much to ask?

Minority Rights

But what about minority rights? Wouldn’t such a test mean that those with limited access to education, i.e., minorities, won’t get to vote? In my fantasy, each district across the country would have an Education Center, where every citizen would have free access to all the education they needed to pass the test. Even if the individual could not read or had a learning disability going in, there would be an Educator at the center to make accommodations for them. Now, I know the idea of having the government pay to educate its citizens is anathema to Conservatives, but really, isn’t that part of the problem?

Abolishing Democracy

Do I really want to abolish democracy? Not quite yet. I’ll admit I may not have thought this all the way through, and this country has survived for…. (quick, it’ll be on the test!) 235 years under the current system, but it is food for thought, isn’t it? A society where we know all our elected officials were placed there by informed, educated voters, and not shepherded in by special interest groups taking advantage of the fearful or ignorant in order to grab wealth and power? I mean, it’s worth a shot, right?

Reviewing The New 52 - Part 6 - The Final Chapter

2011-10-07T13:56:00.000-07:00

BATMAN

Hey, I’m a big Batman fan, but 11 Bat-Titles may be a bit much. Let’s find out.

Birds of Prey – Duane Swierczynski, Jesus Saiz

Birds of Prey opens with Charlie, a journalist trying to track down a “covert ops team run by a bunch of supercriminal hotties.” He quickly meets the first one, a tattooed, gun toting babe called Starling, as she and the Black Canary save Charlie from a bunch of ninja types who are trying to kill him. We then find out that these two have been using Charlie to flush out whoever’s behind the ninja types. They aren’t too successful, as they send Charlie to the airport and try to put him on a plane, at which point he blows up (an airplane seems to be a very bad place to be in the New DC Universe). If you like skillfully rendered pictures of hot, leather clad babes kicking ass, you will definitely like this book. If not, you may have to check out a few issues to see if it’s really going to become something worth reading. Recommendation: Issue by Issue

Catwoman – Judd Winnick, Guillem March

I’m not sure that leather clad babes kicking ass is enough to save Catwoman though. Catwoman starts with our heroine leaping from her apartment, half dressed, as skull-masked baddies break in and destroy the place. It continues with her infiltrating a Russian mob party and shredding a rapist, and concludes with her banging Batman. All in a day’s work, I guess, but not anything I really need to see more of. Recommendation: Pass

Nightwing – Kyle Higgins, Eddy Barrows, J.P. Mayer

I always thought that Nightwing, who is Dick Grayson, the original Robin, worked better as the leader of a team, specifically the Titans, and never took much interest in what he did on his own. Especially now, since it always seemed he was being groomed to be the next Batman, then he BECAME the next Batman, and now he’s back to Nightwing again. It’s a bit of an anti climax. This issue was pretty standard, Dick does some reflecting, fights some crime, visits his old circus folk friends, and fights some more crime. Nothing spectacular by any means. Recommendation: Pass

Batwing – Judd Winnick, Ben Oliver

Batwing is South Africa’s Batman, created as part of the Batman, Inc. initiative. Batwing’s secret identity is David Zavimbe, a police officer, so he really never gets a break from crime fighting, and can give Batman a run for his money when it comes to being obsessed. What’s interesting about the Batwing concept is captured perfectly in this little exchange:

I told Batman that a man dressed as a bat will not instill fear in the average criminal in Africa. They have seen too much.

He told me: “You just have to sell it.”

Need I say more? Recommendation: Keep Reading

Batgirl – Gail Simone, Ardian Syaf, Vicente Cifuentes

In Batgirl, Barbara Gordon is back. About 20 years ago, the Joker ended Babs’ Batgirl career with a bullet. Since then, she’s been confined to a wheelchair, and fighting crime as information processor supreme Oracle. (The guy who really needs to register with DC’s complaint department is The Joker. His two big coups, killing Robin and paralyzing Batgirl, have been undone. What’s a psychopath gotta do these days?) Now Barbara’s back in action, and you can tell she loves it. She takes out a group of young murderous sociopaths with giddy delight, even remarking to herself “I did? I completely did!” when one of the villains comments on how Batgirl has knocked his compatriot out cold. However, we also see the other side, when, while attempting to save a victim in a hospital bed, she freezes when a masked villain pulls a gun on her and points it right where the Joker’s bullet went, triggering a trauma flashback, allowing the villain to kill his prey. There are a lot of facets to this character, and I’m interested to see where this one will go. Recommendation: Issue by Issue

Batwoman – J.H. Williams III, W. Haden Blackman

The claim to fame of Batwoman, a recent addition to the DC universe, is that she became the first mainstream lesbian superhero. I’m not sure if that had anything to do with the stylistic choice, but for some reason Batwoman has a very gothic feel, with lots of raven blacks, ethereal blues, smoky greys and blood reds. We start with Batwoman saving a family from some kind of creepy water spirit. We then move on to see Kate Kane, after a brief back and forth with a cop friend, hanging out in what appears to pass for her version of the Batcave, where she is offering some sage advice to her sidekick, who is not Batgirl, but Flamebird, AKA her cousin Bette. We then get a little backstory where we learn why Kate hates her father. The book feels sort of all over the place and I would wait for it to find an identity before following it. Recommendation: Pass

Red Hood and the Outlaws – Scott Lobdell and Kenneth Rocafort

This book is the Teen Titans Gone to Hell, and not in a good way. It features Roy Harper (Speedy), Jason Todd (Red Hood, A.K.A. Robin II), and Koriand’r (Starfire) as a ragtag band of I don’t know what. It starts with Jason breaking Roy out of an Arab prison, and moves to some tropical island where it seems they’re both sleeping with Kory. Roy has no personality, Jason has one, but it’s very unpleasant, and Kory seems to have been turned from a nuanced alien princess to an adolescent fantasy sex toy. I think you can guess where I’m going with this one. Recommendation: Pass

Batman and Robin – Peter J. Tomasi, Patrick Gleason, Mick Gray

Finally, we get to the books that actually feature Batman. Batman and Robin is fun, if for nothing else, than for Robin, AKA Damian Wayne, whose father is Batman and whose mother is the daughter of R’as Al Ghul, one of Batman’s greatest enemies. The result is a Robin who is cynical, nasty, smart, precocious and alarmingly vicious. Seeing Batman try to get this little brat under control is worth the price of admission. Recommendation: Keep Reading

Batman: The Dark Knight – David Finch, Paul Jenkins, Richard Friend

This book is fine, but I’m not sure it’s necessary. It’s a standard Batman story, with Batman having to deal with a breakout at Arkham Asylum. I assumed that one of these books would be a Batman: Early Years, the way Action Comics is for Superman, but if that’s the case, I haven’t figured out which one. I’ll probably keep reading this for an issue or two to see if it distinguishes itself from other bat-books, but if you’re not big on Batman, you can skip it. Recommendation: Issue by Issue

Batman: Detective Comics – Tony S. Daniel, Ryan Winn

Detective Comics might be that Batman: Early Years book I’m looking for, since in it, the police are an enemy of Batman, but that may be true in the current New Universe. It’s a Joker story, and in the fine tradition of Joker stories, it’s a disturbing one. There’s plenty of brooding, action and daring saves, so if you’re a Batman fan, you should definitely check it out. Recommendation: Keep Reading

Batman – Scott Snyder, Greg Capullo, Jonathan Glapion

I was obviously hoping for big things from the Batman title. Unfortunately, I didn’t really get it. In fact, I think this book exposes the problem with Batman oversaturation. This issue actually borrows sequences from the other books. There’s a breakout at Arkham, just like in the Dark Knight, and there’s a Batman internal monologue that turns out to be a speech Bruce Wayne is giving to a nattily dressed crowed, just like in Detective Comics. In fact, check out the art from P. 8-9 of Batman and P.11-12 of Detective. They’re practically interchangeable. And no, these aren’t just different takes on the same scene. There are enough differences that they are clearly separate stories. I don’t know who borrowed from whom, but the net effect is originality seems to have gone out the window. I can’t bring myself to tell you to pass on Batman, so I’ll just say Recommendation: Issue by Issue

And that’s it! Of the 52, I’ve only tagged 16 as must reads, so that’s a fairly affordable $12 a week. No need to send money, even though I’ve just saved you a ton of it; your undying gratitude and admiration are sufficient. I’ll probably take a break for awhile, and then possibly move on to non comics matters for a bit, so savor these reviews! Later!

Reviewing The New 52 - Part 5

2011-10-06T13:35:00.000-07:00

We’re coming down the home stretch of The New 52 review, covering the Superman and Green Lantern titles this time, and finishing up with the Batman line next time around. So, without futher ado…

Superman

I have to say up front that I’m a Batman guy, but I was willing to try to keep an open mind when it came to the “New Superman Family.” Here’s what I found:

Superboy -- Scott Lobdell, R.B. Silva, Rob Lean

What’s been nice about The New 52 is that each group of titles has had one surprise for me, one title that I thought there was no way I’d have any interest in that I ended up loving. For the Superman group, it was Superboy. When I was a kid, Superboy, along with Teen Titans and the Legion of Super Heroes, was one of my favorite titles. Once I grew up, the idea of Superman as a kid no longer had much appeal for me. I’m happy, therefore, to say to today’s young readers: this is not your father’s Superboy. This Superboy is the child of Superman and Lex Luthor. Seriously. He was cloned from a combination of their DNA. This new Superboy has been around for awhile, but the first time around, he basically just appeared on the scene as a “hip” cocky young Supertype. In Superboy, we actually get a “clone’s eye” view. We first meet Superboy in the tank, where an organization called NOWHERE is “growing” him. We hear his thoughts as he is observed and experimented on by a team that does not realize he is conscious. We sense his frustration as he is “educated” through a virtual reality program that we know he knows is not real, a fact his captors are ignorant to. We feel his fondness for Dr. Fairchild, the one NOWHERE agent who seems to really care about him (one of the agents who does NOT really care about him happens to be Rose Wilson, Deathstroke’s daughter). We also eagerly anticipate what will happen when he is finally released to eliminate the Teen Titans, who are posing a problem for NOWHERE. At least, I do. Recommendation: Keep Reading

Supergirl – Michael Green, Mike Johnson, Mahmud Asrar, Dan Green

I mentioned in the last blog that Animal Man has really been put through the ringer by DC. That’s nothing compared to what has been done to Supergirl. She’s been made into a blob of protoplasm, an “Earth Angel,” a supervillain, and of course, she's been killed. This Supergirl really starts from scratch, and I think it’s a good thing. We start with Kara Zor-El, Supergirl, crash landing to earth in her costume (in a cute twist on the legend, we learn that the costume is some form of ceremonial gown that she was saving for her graduation). Kara acts exactly like anyone waking up in a strange place with no memory of how they got there would act, until of course, she is attacked by giant robots and finds out she has super powers. While Kara prevails over the giant robots, she’s still a bit lost, until finally cousin Kal (Superman) shows up. What will happen next? I’m curious enough to want to find out. Recommendation: Issue by Issue

Action Comics – Grant Morrison, Rags Morales, Rick Bryant

Action Comics presents Superman: The Early Years. His powers are not fully formed, he’s the “leap tall buildings, more powerful than a locomotive, but can still take damage from being hit with giant metal things” type. Even his costume isn’t fully formed. He fights crime in an “S” t-shirt, the cape he was wrapped in as a baby, blue jeans and Timberlands. His morality isn’t fully formed yet either, and he is much more of a Batman type crime fighter, using threats and intimidation to get criminals to comply. As far as I’m concerned, that’s better left for Gotham City, and this take on Superman, while original, doesn’t work for me. I’m going to go ahead and say pass, since if you’re a Superman fan, you’re obviously going to go buy this book anyway no matter what I say. Recommendation: Pass

(NOTE: Since writing this review, I broke down and bought Issue #2 of Action Comics. Now that I think I see where Morrison is going with it, I'm actually on board)

Superman – George Perez, Jesus Merino

As you would expect from any book with George Perez at the helm, the book looks fantastic. Once you get past that though, it’s just the same old Superman, fighting a giant monster, and getting back in time to write it up for the Daily Planet (which has been taken over by Morgan Edge’s Rupert Murdoch-esque global media empire). There’s certainly nothing here to suddenly make me a Superman fan, although again, if you are, I don’t see how you could fail to buy it. Recommendation: Pass

Green Lantern

Green Lantern, on the other hand, I always did like, because I thought the idea of science fiction heroes was always pretty cool. Here’s my take on the four new GL books.

Red Lanterns – Peter Milligan, Ed Benes, Rob Hunter

No, this book is not about a bunch of power ring wielding prostitutes, although that might be interesting. In fact, one of the newer developments in the DC Universe is the splitting of the Guardians of the Universe’s energies into not just green lanterns and power rings powered by will, but a whole rainbow of lanterns, each powered by a different emotion. Red Lanterns and rings are powered by rage, which makes you wonder if perhaps any of us could be chosen. Their leader is Atrocitus, who is a pretty nasty, angry fellow due to the wanton slaughter of his entire race. This book is worth getting for the opening sequence where Atrocitus’ cat, also a Red Lantern, shreds the crap out of a bunch of aliens torturing some innocent soul. Not sure where this one is going to go, although it seems a rebellion by the Reds against Atrocitus is brewing. Recommendation: Issue by Issue

Green Lantern: New Guardians – Tony Bedard, Tyler Kirkham, Batt

A bunch of years back, few will remember that DC attempted a New Guardians book, about a group that were chosen to eventually replace the Guardians of the Universe. That book was impossible to take seriously, in large part due to the cartoonish, Joe Staton art, and was quickly shelved. Now it seems that DC is reviving the idea. A cataclysm has left the Guardians wiped out, except for one, Ganthet, who tasks himself with finding a solution to this catastrophe. The solution starts with selecting Kyle Rayner, a struggling young illustrator, as the recipient of the last available Green power ring. This makes sense to those who have followed DC history, as Kyle has been the fourth official Green Lantern from Earth for some time, but it’s not really clear why he is chosen in this book. Furthermore, Kyle is given a ring for each color of the rainbow, presumably to help him find new recipients for them. Rudely, these rings have been extracted from their current wearers, while they were using them, which sucks, since ring bearers often use these rings to do stuff like fight off hordes of angry aliens or travel through space, which it’s difficult to continue to do once they are suddenly removed. While that’s an amusing idea, I’m still not clear where this book is going, and I don’t have high hopes. But we’ll see. Recommendation: Issue by Issue

Green Lantern Corps: Peter J. Tomasi, Fernando Pasarin, Scott Hanna

As a kid, I loved the Alan Moore Green Lantern Corps back up stories, so when they decided to launch a Green Lantern Corps series, I was thrilled. Imagine my horror to learn that rather than anthology stories of alien Green Lanterns in space, we were going to be treated to a team of Green Lanterns operating on Earth, saddled with that cartoonish Joe Staton art I mentioned earlier. Actually, don’t. You can’t possibly imagine. It was too horrible. Fortunately, I got over it. Even more fortunately, this Green Lantern Corps has a chance to get it right. Although we’ve got two human Green Lanterns, Guy Gardner and John Stewart, at the helm, they end up leading a team of alien Lanterns tasked with finding out why a bunch of GLs visiting a certain planet have turned up dead. And they do find out. It’s because everyone on that planet has turned up dead. What now, GL Corps? Recommendation: Issue by Issue

Green Lantern – Geoff Johns, Doug Mahnke, Christian Alamy

I’ll give DC credit on this one. While most of the flagship entries in The New 52, i.e. Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, seem to be sticking with tried and true formulas, Green Lantern went a different way, decommissioning the classic Hal Jordan Green Lantern and re-signing his arch nemesis, Sinestro, as a Green Lantern and the star of this book (although, I’m forced to wonder, with Hal Jordan out of the picture, Stewart and Gardner fighting a world killer in the far reaches of space, and Kyle Rayner forming the New Guardians, who the heck is protecting Earth’s space sector? Talk about feast or famine!). I mean, yeah, we know Hal is going to get the ring back, but it’s a nice way to start fresh. In this issue, we follow Hal getting acclimated to civilian life, and Sinestro trying to get used to the idea of being on the green side of things. Neither are too good at it, and we end with Sinestro asking Hal to work with him so that they can get back to where they belong. Should be interesting. Recommendation: Keep Reading

Okay, that covers everything but the Batman titles, and there are plenty of them, as you’ll see next time.

Reviewing The New 52 - Part 4

2011-10-05T11:02:00.000-07:00

The Dark

In this part of the New 52 review, I’ll be talking about the “Dark” titles, which are the name DC has given its supernatural, horror, weird, scary, what have you, titles. Next time I’ll cover the Superman and Green Lantern titles, and then we’ll wrap it up with the Batman line. So, here we go, with THE DARK.

Demon Knights – Paul Cornell, Diogenes Neves, Oclair Albert

So a demon, a witch, an immortal and a sexually ambiguous magical knight walk into a bar… It sounds like the opening of a bad joke, but is in fact the very entertaining setting for Demon Knights, a medieval adventure featuring Etrigan, the titular Demon, as well as his partner Madame Xanadu and a host of other DC legends from long ago. Etrigan and Xanadu, having escaped the siege of Camelot together, find refuge at an inn that just happens to be in the way of Mordru, an evil sorcerer who has no qualms about killing a newborn baby or two in order to divine the future, and certainly doesn’t mind razing to the ground anything that gets in his way, including our heroes. This book looks to be a lot of fun, and something different from the usual fare, so it definitely gets my vote. Recommendation: Keep Reading

Frankenstein, Agent of S.H.A.D.E. – Jeff Lemire, Alberto Ponticelli

This book, on the other hand, does not. Frankenstein, Agent of S.H.A.D.E., which features the “Creature Commandos,” who are essentially super beings based on classic movie monsters, working for a secret government agency to fight various dark things, seems to me to be little more than a clone of Hellboy, and if you like this sort of thing, you should probably read that instead. If you can’t get enough Hellboy, or you have nostalgic fondness for the Creature Commandos, you might enjoy Frankenstein. Not for me, though. Recommendation: Pass

Swamp Thing – Scott Snyder, Yanick Paquette

In the beginning, Swamp Thing was a guy named Alec Holland, a scientist who invented some kind of super plant food. Terrorists wanted Alec’s invention, presumably for some Fern-based world takeover plot, and blew up Alec’s lab with him in it. He ran into the swamp, and emerged the muck-monster known as the Swamp Thing. He was big, mute, and fought crime in the Louisiana Bayou. Kind of fun, horror type stuff, but not really enough to carry a whole book. Then, the holy messiah of comic books, Alan Moore, descended from the Heavens and told us Swampy’s true origin: Swamp Thing was not, in fact, Alec Holland, but the collective consciousness of the various plant organisms that ate Holland’s corpse after his dying body landed in the swamp. He was not a man who had become a plant; he was, in fact, a plant who falsely believed he was a man. This groundbreaking concept launched a new era in comic books writing, and expanding the idea to reveal that this plant creature was actually a plant elemental who had existed in some form for time immemorial only enhanced the concept. In the New 52, Alec Holland is somehow resurrected, and people (re: Superman) don’t seem to get the idea that he never was the Swamp Thing, who Holland bumps into in the final panel. I don’t know if I care for this re-reimagining of a sacred comics cow, but the writing and art is strong, so I’ll stick around a little while. Recommendation: Issue by Issue

Resurrection Man – Dan Abnett, Andy Lanning, Fernando Dagnino

Resurrection Man is Mitch Shelley, who, due to some kind of secret government experiments, can come back from the dead. When he is killed, he returns moments later, with powers based on how he was killed. The first issue follows a disturbingly similar path as The Grifter, with a somewhat disoriented Mitch ending up on plane where supernatural forces attempt to kill him. Like Cole Cash, Mitch and the otherworldly beast out to get him end up diving out of the plane. Unlike The Grifter, Mitch dies on impact. Because he can. I’m not sure quite why we care though, and if you want to read about a troubled soul who has the forces of the heavens (hells?) out to get him, I recommend you pick up some back issues of Preacher. Recommendation: Pass

Justice League Dark Peter Milligan, Mikel Janin

Justice League Dark opens with Madame Xanadu, a sort of female Dr. Strange who it seems will be the focus of the “Dark” portion of the DC Universe (For extra fun: If you ignored my recommendation and bought Resurrection Man, compare the last page of that book to the first page of JL Dark. They seem to immediately follow one another). The central crisis of this book seems to be that the Enchantress, a witch, seems to be losing it, with our reality suffering the consequences (Think Scarlet Witch-House of M, for you Marvel fans). The real Justice League tries to rein her in, but due to their vulnerability to magic, it’s not working out too well. Who can save the world? Justice League Dark! They’re not really called that, thank God, but they consist of a group of “underheroes” whom Madame Xanadu assembles to fight a growing evil that she cannot fully explain. They include Shade, the Changing Man, whose M-Vest allows him some reality-altering ability of his own, which he mostly uses to resurrect his dead girlfriend, John Constantine, who, that terrible Keanu Reeves movie aside, is a pretty bad ass ghostbuster, and Deadman (possibly Zatanna and the Enchantress, if she can ever get her act together, as well). Just as Justice League seems to be the cornerstone of the New Justice line of titles, this one looks to be the anchor for the Dark titles, so if you want to keep up, you’d better keep reading; but don’t worry, Milligan/Janin is an incredibly strong team, so you shouldn’t be disappointed. Recommendation: Keep Reading

Animal Man - Jeff Lemire, Travel Foreman, Dan Green

The “British Invasion” of music was headlined by the Beatles, the Rolling Stones and The Who. The British Invasion of comic books featured Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, and Grant Morrison (although Morrison is Scottish). Grant Morrison earned his place in the pantheon with his take on Animal Man, a deconstructionist romp that refused to stay locked within the confines of the traditional comic book panels. Since then, just about everything possible has been done with Animal Man. He’s had his family killed and resurrected, he’s lost his powers, he’s been rocketed out into space. Now he’s back on Earth, managing trying to resume his super hero career with the demands of a family. Frankly, I’m A-Manned out. I don’t love the art, it’s a little too “pop” for me, and the story, while sufficiently creepy, and climaxing with A-man’s daughter summoning a bunch of dead animals to play with, just doesn’t get my motor running. Recommendation: Pass

I, Vampire – Joshua Hale Fialkov, Andrea Sorrentino

Well, it wouldn’t be a dark line without a vampire, right? This particular vampire tale features Andrew and Mary, vampire ex-lovers, disagreeing strongly on the place of vampires in modern society. To wit, Mary thinks they should rule the world, whereas Andrew thinks they should all be exterminated. This is clearly too big a problem for couples counseling, so instead they both go off to try to get their own way, Mary by forming a vampire army, Andrew by trying to be a one man slaying operation. Doesn’t look good for Andrew, does it? Recommendation: Issue by Issue

Okay, that’ll do it for the seamy underside of the new DC Universe. Back up into the light next time with the Superman and Green Lantern Titles.

Reviewing The New 52 - Part 3

2011-10-04T12:56:00.000-07:00

Young Justice

Continuing my review of DC's New 52, these are titles that feature teenagers as their main characters, so maybe they aren’t geared towards me. However, I’ll try to give them a fair shake.

Blue Beetle -- Tony Bedard, Ig Guara, Ruy Jose

Blue Beetle was the most pleasant surprise of this group for me. All I had heard about the book going in was how great it was that it showed diversity by featuring a Latino superhero, which it does, in the form of average Puerto Rican American teenager Jaime Reyes. If that’s all it is, I thought, it’s probably not going to be for me. But far from it. I mentioned last blog that I dig sci fi heroes, and in this incarnation, that’s who the Blue Beetle is. Jaime finds himself caught in the middle of a battle between some nasties (including the Brotherhood of Evil), over a mysterious artifact, which ends up in the car that Jaime is riding in. Due to the backstory, we know what’s in it, a weapon called a Scarab, created by a race of world beaters called The Reach. What a Scarab does is turn people into living weapons, who can then be turned against their very own people. The Scarab that ended up in Jaime’s possession is a stray, and when it merges with him and turns him into one of these Scarab Warriors, there’s no telling what will happen. This book has shades of early Spider Man, a young, moral hero trying to do good while trying to grow up at the same time under impossible circumstances. It’s a keeper. Recommendation: Keep Reading

Static Shock – Scott McDaniel, John Rozum, Jonathan Glapion, LeBeau Underwood

Static Shock, on the other hand, feels like it’s going for that Spider Man vibe, but missing the mark. Teenager Virgil Hawkins, is of course, a genius, and also has electricity powers. The problem is, he spends most of the first half of the book narrating about the physics behind his powers. Here’s a sample of some of the leaden dialogue:

“This won’t hurt a bit! A small positive charge for you… and one big positive push from me!

“Do you even know what you’re doing? I ought to sue you for assault!”

“Of course I know what I’m doing! I’m an expert! Like charges repel! You should be more… POSITIVE!”

I’m positive if I want a physics lesson, I’ll get a textbook. Yawn… Recommendation: Pass

Hawk & Dove – Sterling Gates, Rob Liefeld

DC has never seemed to really know what to do with Hawk & Dove. Originally, Hank and Don Hall were brothers who would say “Hawk” and “Dove” and become avatars of war and peace, respectively. Then they would fight crime. Back in the ‘60s, when the Vietnam War made every teenager a “hawk” or a “dove” this seemed like a very clever idea. Now it’s not, but DC doesn’t seem to want to let it go. At one point they made Hawk the totalitarian ruler of the world, more recently, they killed off Don and replaced him with the mysterious Dawn Granger. That’s the current incarnation we read about in this issue, Hawk is Hank Hall, while Dawn has some unknown connection to the deceased Don (my theory? She IS Don, reincarnated). In another weird add on, Dawn is dating Deadman, who, as you might guess, is dead. Hank has anger management issues, Dawn is a mystery, and none of it is particularly exciting. Recommendation: Pass


Image Source: MajorSpoilers.com

Teen Titans – Scott Lobdell, Brett Booth, Norm Rapmund

When I was a teenager, the New Teen Titans was my favorite book. That kind of makes sense, right? The original titans were the sidekicks of the Justice League, joining together to fight crime as a team. These titans are younger versions of adult heroes, but not quite sidekicks. They include Kid Flash, whose connection to the Flash is not made clear, Red Robin, aka Tim Drake, who was the third sidekick of Batman before they went their separate ways, Wonder Girl, aka Cassie Sandsmark, who claims no affiliation with Wonder Woman (Don’t call me Wonder Girl!) but whose powers look very similar, and Superboy, the cloned love child of Superman and Lex Luthor (I’m not kidding). I’m curious how this book will fit in with Superboy, as he has his own title, which looks quite interesting. This one does too, so I’m sticking with it for now. Recommendation: Issue by Issue

The Legion of Super Heroes – Paul Levitz, Francis Portela

Paul Levitz is widely regarded as having written the definitive LSH, so it’s great that he’s back on the book, which has undergone many mutations and changes over the years. Now we seem back to basics, with Chameleon Boy leading the Espionage Squad for covert missions, Brainiac 5 doing the thinking, Colossal Boy being all brooding and self-pitying, Ultra Boy not being the brightest of the bunch, but always reliable, and so on. In other words, Levitz does a good job of portraying the Legion as a big group of teenagers with varying personalities stuck with a lot of power and responsibility. Will he be able to keep that up? I’m not sure, but I think this issue is a good sign. Recommendation: Issue by Issue

Legion Lost – Fabian Nicieza, Pete Woods

This book, I don’t really get. A handful of Legionnaires, Dawnstar, Wildfire, Yera, Gates, Tellus, Tyroc and Timber Wolf, have become trapped back in time. Specifically, our time. They’re on the hunt for a villain named Alastor, who is about to release a catastrophic pathogen. Can they stop him? Can they get back to their own time? I’m thinking yes and no. But I’m also thinking this should be a backup feature in the regular LSH and not its own book. Recommendation: Pass

Okay, that takes care of Young Justice. Next time, The DARK….OoooOOOoooh….

Reviewing The New 52 - Part 2

2011-10-03T16:58:00.000-07:00

Continuing my series on “The New 52” this time with the “Edge” titles:

The Edge

I’m a big supporter of non-superhero books becoming more mainstream. Now that comic books aren’t much of a kids medium anymore (they seem to like, you know, video games and stuff), I think it’s even more important that superheroes give way to some more varied fare. This is why I’m on board with the Edge and Dark titles, which do include some flashy costumes, but not quite as much four color leaping from tall buildings and saving the day from evildoers.

Voodoo – Ron Marz, Sami Basri

Since reading Voodoo, I’ve read some less than favorable reviews of the issue from a few sources. Frankly, I loved it. A big distinction between me and them may be that I knew nothing about the character going in, since she was transferred over from the WildStorm imprint which I never really read. We open with Voodoo, a (hot) stripper of indeterminate ethnic origin doing her thing on stage. We quickly learn that two (government?) agents, Tyler and Jess, have been tasked with following and observing Voodoo. Tyler seems to be observing a little too vigorously, and he and Jess fight, which results in Jess walking out. Tyler then takes it upon himself to break protocol and move in for a little one on one interview with Voodoo, using the tactic of buying a private dance. Well, there’s no sex in the Champagne room, but I think the twist regarding what does happen is too good to reveal here. I recommend you go buy it and find out. Recommendation: Keep Reading

Suicide Squad – Adam Glass, Federico Dallocchio, Ransom Getty

Glass finds a very clever way to introduce us to the Suicide Squad – They’re under a torture interrogation, having been captured by unknown assailants. While they resist efforts to get them to reveal who they’re working for and why, we do learn through flashback who they are and how they were captured, specifically, Deadshot, Harley Quinn, Voltaic, King Shark, El Diablo and Black Spider, six very nasty villains who comprise the Suicide Squad, a Dirty Half Dozen who now perform Black Ops in the service of the government, specifically Amanda Waller’s Task Force X. There are a few twists in this one (the absolute least of which is the “new” Amanda Waller’s dramatic weight loss), which I won’t reveal, so if you want to know more, you guessed it…. Recommendation: Keep Reading

OMAC- Dan Didio, Keith Giffen, Scott Koblish

This is probably my least favorite of the New 52, in part because of the art, which is Keith Giffen channeling Jack Kirby. That might be great for some, but I prefer realism in my comic book art. OMAC, or One Man/Machine Army Corps, also reads a lot like a New Gods story, which was never really my thing. Essentially it’s one big monster beating up a lot of little monsters in order to get to a supercomputer called Cadmus. Not for me. Recommendation: Pass

Grifter – Edmonson, Cafu, Gorder

Grifter is one of those books where there’s not quite enough information yet, but it could be interesting. The Grifter is Cole Cash (a pseudonym, one would assume, but he’s got a brother, not a grifter, also named Cash), a con artist who is abducted by aliens while making his escape from his last con job. Cole wakes up 17 units of time into his capture (what those units are is unclear: Minutes? Hours? Days?) He escapes, but not before something has been implanted in him. He boards a plane only to find that the aliens seem to be everywhere, possessing the humans around him and trying to kill him. He escapes, only to earn a reputation as a terrorist, which causes the military to send Cole’s brother, a Special Ops officer, to get him. With aliens, the authorities and his own brother after him, how will The Grifter survive? I guess I’ll need to tune in to find out.

Recommendation: Issue by Issue

Deathstroke – Kyle Higgins, Joe Bennett, Art Thibert

The first line of Deathstroke says it all: “Deathstroke, the Terminator—The scariest badass on the planet.” Slade Wilson, AKA Deathstroke, was invented about 30 years ago as a foil for the New Teen Titans, and has been one of DC’s most enduring villains ever since. He’s actually been more of an antihero, an assassin for hire with a heart, as evidenced in part by the family that he truly seems to care about. The problem is that Deathstroke is supposed to kill people—a lot, which in the past, did not fit in well with traditional comics behavior, especially from a protagonist. But this is “The Edge,” and the new Deathstroke doesn’t f—around. If you don’t believe me, just look at how he treats his new “team.” Recommendation: Issue by Issue

Stormwatch – Paul Cornell, Miguel Sepulveda

Stormwatch, and its literary progeny, The Authority, were among the few WildStorm titles I did read, owing largely to the skilled take on the super hero genre that Warren Ellis offered. Cornell here gamely takes up the mantle, with the existing Stormwatch members, including Jack Hawksmoor, who is specially designed for urban environments, The Engineer, whose blood is basically made of machines, the Projectionist, who possesses an alien language processing lobe in her brain, the Swordsman, whose abilities you can probably guess, Jenny Quantum, the “Spirit of the 21^st Century,” Adam-One, who seems to be in charge, and the Martian Manhunter, who presumably got tired of being the sixth wheel in the Justice League for five decades, trying to recruit their potentially most powerful member, Apollo, who is pretty much Superman, but better. They ultimately capture Apollo, but he is rescued by the Mid-Nighter, who is basically Batman but better (I know, and now YOU know, that these two will eventually become lovers, but this is not yet hinted at in the book). My problem with Stormwatch is that they don’t really seem to fit in the DC Universe. This is a group that in their own book took over the world because they thought they could run it better. This new incarnation seems like it’s just going to be an edgier Justice League, but I’m willing to reserve judgment. Recommendation: Issue by Issue

Men of War – Ivan Brandon, Tom Derenick, Jonathan Vankin, Phil Winslade

A war book! Cool! Not that I’m any big fan of war, or even war movies, but any non super hero mainstream book is worth at least a look, in my estimation. In this one we are introduced to a soldier named Rock, a tough grunt who’s smarter and more skilled than those who outrank him. Old school comics readers will think we are being reintroduced to the famous Sgt. Rock of Easy Company, but in fact, this is Frank Rock’s grandson, and he is only a Corporal, at least for now. The twist seems to be that this book asks the question: “What is it like to be a soldier in a world where people can fly and shoot laser beams from their eyes?” I’m curious to find out. Recommendation: Keep Reading

Blackhawks – Mike Costa, Graham Nolan, Ken Lashley

Okay, I know I just said that any non super hero book is worth a look, but I’m going to backpedal a little. The Blackhawks, which were originally a team of WW2 Flying Aces, have been reimagined as a crack tactical assault team with code names and quirks. That’s right—they’re GI Joe. If you like GI Joe, you might like this book. It’s not for me. Recommendation: Pass

All Star Western – Justin Gray, Jimmy Palmiotti, Moritat

All Star Western picks up where their Jonah Hex book, which was quite good, left off. The twist is that the tides of fate have brought Hex to Gotham City, where he becomes embroiled in a murder mystery as the reluctant partner of Amadeus Arkham, who video game fans will recognize as the architect of Arkham Asylum, the home away from home for Batman’s sociopathic villains. I love the idea of putting Hex in this setting, and I can’t wait to see what happens next. Recommendation: Keep Reading

Okay, that’s it for the “Edge” titles. Next up, Young Justice!

Reviewing The New 52 -- Part I

2011-10-01T23:17:00.000-07:00

So about every twenty years or so, DC Comics does a “reboot,” essentially scrapping their existing universe and starting over. The characters are the same, maybe a few are added or subtracted, occasionally costumes or identities change, but it’s basically a new starting point, a “System Restore,” if you will. There are a few good reasons to do this. One, it’s a way for the new generation of comic book readers (Hello? Are you out there?) to get in on the ground floor. Two, twenty years of writers and stories create a continuity that becomes somewhat too complex and unwieldy to continue with and three, if they didn’t do this and remained chronologically consistent from when these characters began, you’d have a Superman and Batman in their 90s running around, which might not be that much fun to read about.

This decade brings us “The New 52,” a “soft” reboot where much is the same, but DC is cancelling all books and starting fresh with 52 titles, all of which are starting (or starting over) at #1. Batman has been around for about ten years, other heroes about five (Batman needs to be around longer because of Robin, which fixes him a bit with regard to continuity. Specifically, there have been four major Robins of different ages, all of whom exist in the current universe, so Batman must be aged accordingly).

Now, I know what you’re thinking. “Sounds interesting, but who can be bothered to spend the time and money sifting through 52 titles to decide which ones are worth reading?” Fortunately for you, dear readers, I have no children. Which means I have plenty of time and money to waste buying and reading all of these first issues and reviewing them for your entertainment. Which I have done. What follows, in multiple parts, are my brief reviews of each title, plus my “recommendation,” which is really just what I plan to do about each title, either: Keep Reading, Issue by Issue or Pass. A pass doesn’t necessarily mean you shouldn’t read it, it just means I won’t be. None of these books are terrible, but at three bucks a pop, I expect them to be more than good to pick them up every month.

DC has segregated their books into groups as: New Justice, Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, Young Justice, Edge and Dark titles. For Part I of this blog, I’ll be looking at the New Justice titles. So, without further ado: The New 52!

New Justice

Aquaman – Geoff Johns, Ivan Reis, Joe Prado

Quick, what’s the first thing you think of when I say “Aquaman?” Guy who talks to fish, right? DC faced a challenge with this one. How do you make a superhero who’s basically the joke of the superhero world cool and hip for modern audiences? DC embraced the challenge and put their all star, Geoff Johns, on the case. Johns immediately goes to work getting right out in front of the problem with Aquaman. In the first sequence, after Aquaman thwarts a bank robbery (on land), the cops ask him if he needs a glass of water. Later, patrons are aghast to see Aquaman go into a seafood restaurant for lunch, likening it, seemingly, to cannibalism. It’s here in the diner that the Aquaman challenge is fully presented and accepted. First, this exchange, between a diner and our hero:

“Aquaman talks to fish. Everybody knows that.”

“Fish don’t talk. Their brains are too primitive to carry on a conversation. I reach into their midbrains and telepathically push them to help me out.

And then, a hipster douche blogger at the next table really brings it home:

“I’m sure you’ve heard all the jokes and seen all the skits from Saturday Night Live on YouTube. So how’s it feel to be a punchline? How’s it feel to be a laughingstock? How’s it feel to be nobody’s favorite superhero?”

Aquaman doesn’t like hearing it, but the guy is saying what we’re all thinking. I wasn’t expecting much from this book, but now I’m looking forward to finding out the answer. Recommendation: Keep Reading

Justice League - Geoff Johns, Jim Lee, Scott Williams

Justice League takes us back five years from the current universe timeline for the formation of the Justice League of America. It seems that this book will be the sort of cornerstone of the new universe. Here we get to see the first meeting of Batman, Green Lantern and Superman, and soon thereafter, Cyborg (who was a New Teen Titan in the pre-booted universe, but is now a JLAer), Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the Flash. Not sure if they plan to keep this as an “early years” book or catch us up once the team is formed, but it’s worth it to check out now just to see these early meetings for the first time. Recommendation: Issue by Issue

Green Arrow – J.T. Krul, Dan Jurgens, George Perez

One thing I have to say about all the New 52 is the art is spectacular pretty much throughout. That’s pretty much the only really good thing I can say about Green Arrow. The “New” GA seems to be the Justin Hartley, “Smallville” version, which was adequate for a TV show, but I’m not sure translates really well to the comics page. He kind of comes off as trying to be a cooler, hipper, younger Batman, but I’m not seeing anything too inspired about the new Green Arrow so far. Recommendation: PASS

The Savage Hawkman – Tony S. Daniel, Philip Tan

As a Sci Fi guy, I always liked it when Sci Fi heroes like Green Lantern or Hawkman appeared in comics. Of course, the sci fi version of Hawkman, a police officer from an alien world, was in itself a reboot, and DC has recently seemed to favor the original version, of Hawkman as a reincarnated Prince who has discovered a mysterious “Nth” metal, enabling him to fly. In Savage Hawkman, Carter Hall has actually merged with the Nth Metal, and seems to be able to call upon it whenever he needs it. Although he does fight an alien, this Indiana Jones-Robert Langdon type who transforms into winged fury as needed is not really my cup of tea. Recommendation: PASS

The Fury of Firestorm, the Nuclear Men – Ethan Van Sciver, Gail Simone, Yildiray Cinar

The conceit of the original Firestorm, the Nuclear Man was that he was actually two men fused together, Professor Martin Stein and Teenager Ronnie Raymond. Ronnie was the dominant personality when they merged to become Firestorm, with Stein offering advice from inside Ronnie’s mind. The new Firestorm is actually two Firestorms, Honor student Jason Rusch and dumb jock Ronnie Raymond, who naturally, hate each other. They become Firestorm by accident when terrorists come after the Firestorm technology, which in this universe, Stein invented and entrusted Rusch with before he died. They can transmute matter, and when necessary, merge to become FURY, a very big, very nasty looking Firestorm monster. I’m interested to see how the conflict between these two very different young men who suddenly have a very big responsibility, develops. Recommendation: Issue by Issue

DC Universe Presents: Deadman – Paul Jenkins, Bernard Chang

I suspect this book will change its focus every three or four issues or so, but for now it’s Deadman, so let’s talk Deadman. I was always a fan of this supernatural hero, who is, let’s face it, a ghost in a funny costume. The premise of the original Deadman, which I think would make a great movie, is that egotistical aerialist Boston Brand is murdered in the middle of his circus act by an assassin, but is granted permission by the God Rama Kushna to come back and try to find his killer, provided he help others along the way. He would do this by possessing those people, which would be the only way he could act or communicate with the mortal world. This version presents an intriguing idea, which is that Deadman does not use his abilities merely for superheroic feats, but also to help people with moral, ethical or even psychological problems. Sort of like Quantum Leap without the time travel. In this first issue, Deadman, who is called upon to help a war veteran who has been left a shadow of his former self by an insurgent attack that left the rest of his unit dead, is having his own crisis of conscience, and seems to be willing to go no further until he has a little discussion with Rama Kushna. I definitely think it’s worth sticking around to see what happens. Recommendation: Keep Reading

The Flash – Francis Manapul, Brian Buccellato

I remember having a lot of Flash comics around when I was a kid, but for a long time I couldn’t figure out why. Now I kind of get it. The Flash was fun. He was all bright colors and flashy villains and clever quips. It was amusing how he was The Fastest Man Alive, but his alter ego Barry Allen could never get anywhere on time. So far this new Flash, which has restored Barry Allen to the role (in the prior continuity, Allen was killed saving the universe and replaced by his nephew Wally West, although he had been recently resurrected. The current disposition of Wally, or Barry’s predecessor Jay Garrick, is not known to me at this time), is just not that much fun. It’s a perfectly adequate story about a friend of Barry’s who is killed during commission of a crime and seems to have had his DNA tampered with, but nothing that’s going to keep me coming back. Recommendation: PASS

Mister Terrific – Eric Wallace, Gianluca Gugliotta, Wayne Faucher

I have to confess, I was never a big fan of Mister Terrific. With his status as “Third Smartest Man” in the world, his “T-Spheres” and other tech toys, his Olympic level athletic ability, tremendous wealth and tragic origin (his wife and unborn child were killed in an accident), it just felt like he was supposed to be “like Batman—but better!” In this first issue, we get a bit of a reminder who Michael Holt is, plus a high tech mystery to solve. It might be of interest to some, but I just can’t connect to this character. Recommendation: PASS

Wonder Woman – Brian Azzarello, Cliff Chang

I’d like to tell you whether or not to keep reading Wonder Woman, but there’s simply not enough information. For this book, Azzarello decides to jump right into the middle, where a woman who is being pursued by mythological creatures literally drops into Diana (Wonder Woman)’s bedroom. Diana acts to protect her, and in the process we learn that the woman in question is carrying Zeus’ baby. Is that enough to know whether this book will be worth reading? Not for me. Recommendation: Issue by Issue

Captain Atom – JT Krul, Freddie Williams II

Captain Atom underwent a bit of a renaissance after Alan Moore used him as the model for Dr. Manhattan, of Watchmen fame. It seems that Krul and Williams are trying to draw on the Dr. Manhattan mythology, but it’s not clear how much. The big dilemma presented in this issue is that Captain Atom seems to be literally coming apart at the seams. However, there is little enough character development that I’m not sure that I care. Recommendation: PASS

Justice League International – Dan Jurgens, Aaron Lopresti, Matt Ryan

Under the guidance of Keith Giffen, the old Justice League International was the “funny” Justice League, a comical counterpart to the serious squad of Superman, Batman, etc. That book was a little too funny for my taste. This one has just the right element of humor, as the story of a Justice League team assembled to be the U.N.s own personal super hero squad. What’s funny about it is that no one seems to really want to be there. The leader, narcissist Booster Gold, thought he was joining the “real” Justice League, and the Green Lantern of the group, Guy Gardner, bristles at being led by someone he thinks is a buffoon. The Chinese superhero and the Russian don’t get along, and no one seems to be entirely pleased that Batman is sent along to nursemaid the group. This is the “fun” book I was looking for. Recommendation: Keep Reading

OK, that’s it for “New Justice.” Next time, I’ll talk about the "Edge" titles. It’ll be fun; you won’t want to miss it!

Inktip Pitch Summit II Report

2011-07-23T17:32:00.000-07:00

I just attended the Inktip Pitch Summit for the 2nd consecutive year of its two year existence, and I have to say that this pitch festival is rapidly becoming the best one out there. After last year's festival, Jerrol LeBaron and the staff, far from shying away from criticism, welcomed it. "It's our first try," they said, "tell us what we can do to make it better." We did, and they listened. The result was a pitch fest that was well organized, ran smoothly, and was pleasant to attend.

I blogged about this event last year, and refreshingly, Inktip addressed EVERY SINGLE COMPLAINT I HAD. For example, I said,

"I think it’s better to have the numbers designating the lines hanging from the ceiling, rather than on the floor."


See if you get that kind of fast response from Tech Support

I also had a problem last year with the way the executives were grouped. It seems that each pitch fest has their own little twist, their own spin on how to run the show, and Inktip's unique spin is that they put several companies (usually no more than 3) with similar interests at the same table. The idea being that you get to pitch many more companies who are interested in your type of project. Last year, this didn't always work, as a "misfit" seemed to be at almost every table. This year, not only were execs well grouped within tables, they were even grouped by section, so the first ten tables were execs interested in TV, the next twenty had reps who wanted thrillers, and so on.


People lining up at the "Action" section

This made things incredibly easy and efficient for the writers. Rather than hunting all over the place for the right execs, If I had a TV script (which I did) I could just go right down the line, Table 1, then 2, then 3, etc. If I wanted to switch to Comedy, I could just hop over to Table 58, then 59, then 60 and so on. They even had the individual companies and what they were specifically looking for (Reality TV, Sitcoms, Sci Fi, etc.) so there were few surprises when you sat down to the table.

I also didn't care for how long it took to start things up last year. This year, there was a delay of no more than ten minutes before things got underway, and considering herding producers is probably not unlike herding cats, that's a pretty impressive feat.

Another plus was with the volume of companies attending, most lines were short, and I didn't encounter lines of more than three until late into my pitching process.


Shorter lines means more pitching opportunities!

Most of the people there were in good spirits, and the organizers work hard to make sure everyone has ample opportunities to pitch their next tentpole blockbuster or multiple Oscar winner.


"Pfft! I got this."

On that note, just FYI: If I'm getting ready and just about to go in to pitch, don't come up behind me and say in my ear "Don't worry, they're going to like it." (Yes, someone did this.) If I am worried about that, I don't know you, and your assurances are not going to help. And if I'm not, why do you want to put that idea in my head?

But back to business: If there's one criticism I had, it's that it would be great if they could really nail down the people who promise to show up. I know this isn't really in their control, but it's a big disappointment when you're on a line and the company you came to see suddenly disappears from the list. Maybe asking for two reps from each company, or for companies not to say yes unless they can really commit, would help. If I had two criticisms, its that parking was tough to find and expensive. But these are really minor things. They did an amazing job, and an amazing job integrating the feedback. Whether I sell a script through this year's festival or not, I'll definitely be back next year.

10 Big Stars That You Forgot (or never knew) Played Soldiers in 1980s Vietnam War Movies

2011-07-21T14:31:00.000-07:00

Forest Whitaker (Platoon)

Kevin Dillon (Platoon)

John C. Reilly (Casualties of War)


John Leguizamo (Casualties of War)


Dylan McDermott (Hamburger Hill)

Johnny Depp (Platoon)

Vincent D'Onofrio (Full Metal Jacket)

Don Cheadle (Hamburger Hill)

John McGinley (Platoon)


Ving Rhames (Casualties of War)

Honorable Mention: David Caruso (Officer and a Gentleman)

WSOP: Lessons Learned

2011-06-24T17:14:00.000-07:00

I participated in my first World Series of Poker this year. It was a great experience, and one I hope to repeat. I didn’t cash, unfortunately. I survived about five hours in Event #32, $1500 NL Hold’em, and I came tantalizingly close to winning a Main Event seat, finishing 8th in a 100 player Super Satellite that gave away 3 seats. I also learned a few lessons which I will take with me if I’m fortunate enough to go again next year.

Lesson 1: Don’t Play Hold’em

Well, I wouldn’t ignore hold’em entirely, but if I can only play one bracelet even next year, I’ll probably opt for seven card stud or Omaha. Unlike about 95% of today’s poker playing community, I can play all the major poker games. Given that at my buy in level, I can face 3,000 people in a no limit hold’em event or 300 in a stud event where half the people probably don’t know what they are doing, I think the choice is clear. Also, the structure of the low buy in events, short chips – long rounds, probably favors a limit game, as opposed to typical tournament structures, where blinds rise so rapidly that it’s extremely difficult to amass enough chips to stay ahead of them and cash with fixed betting limits (although I’ve done this in limit hold'em too.)

Lesson 2: Don’t Play Cash Games

While many cash game specialists salivate at the idea of all the juicy cash action that happens during the WSOP, I can play cash games at home (well, not at HOME, thanks DOJ, but in Los Angeles). The WSOP is a poker tournament Mecca, and there’s just no time to waste playing cash games, especially since the juiciest games are no limit hold’em, and NLHE cash games are not really my specialty.

Lesson 3: Don’t Leave the Rio

After busting out of my bracelet event, I raced over to Caesars to see if I could get into a tournament. I ended up playing a $100 buy in with a deep stack, short rounds, and not many players, and my head was not really in it. There was no need for this. Events are running constantly and every day at the Rio. At any time, I was at most a few hours away from a super satellite, a bracelet event, a single table satellite, a deep stack tournament or some other type of daily non-bracelet tournament. These tournaments were all stocked with players, many of whom were not particularly gifted. There’s no reason to leave the Rio. No reason at all.

Lesson 4: Stay at the Rio

A corollary to this idea is to be sure to get a room at the Rio. I naturally assumed that the Rio would be all booked up, and that rooms would be at a premium. The truth was just the opposite. If you could present a registration ticket to a WSOP event, the rooms were probably the cheapest casino hotel rooms in Vegas. Considering the Rio is a bit off the strip, being able to stay there is a big advantage. You can bet I’ll be doing that next year.

Although the series is still going on as I write this, I think I’ve taken my shot for this year. My next poker adventure will probably be at the Legends of Poker at the Bicycle Casino in August. With any luck, I’ll generate lots of blog material there.

Marvel Super Heroes Poker Party!

2011-05-20T21:38:00.000-07:00

I see that my last few posts may not have been the most entertaining pieces I have ever posted, so I thought I’d liven things up a bit with something more fun. Here then, is my assessment of your favorite Marvel superheroes and how they would be likely to perform at your Thursday night poker game.

For those unfamiliar with poker, poker players are classically analyzed on two dimensions, tight vs. loose and passive vs. aggressive, where tighter players tend to play fewer hands and give up on them more quickly than loose players, and aggressive players tend towards betting and raising rather than just checking and calling.

Extremely tight-passive players are called rocks. They rarely win much but rarely lose much either. Loose passive players are called calling stations. They play too many hands and can spew a ton of money in an evening. Tight aggressive players have good hand selection and play the hands they do play very well. This has long been considered the most effective style, although a good loose aggressive style, involving playing a wide range of hands very well, has also proven highly effective in recent years, especially in no limit hold’em. A player who is too loose aggressive is called a maniac. So, without further ado:

Marvel Super Heroes Poker Party!

Captain America: Rock

Steve Rogers would be your classic tight passive player. He probably prefers not to gamble and is mostly there for the camaraderie. He knows which cards are sensible to play and he’s going to stick to that plan. You probably won’t get him off the best hand too often, but you’ll always know when he has it, so you don’t have too much to fear from him.

Iron Man: Loose Aggressive

Tony Stark, on the other hand, is a guy you’re going to have to watch. He’s got plenty of money and he hates to lose. Get into a pot with him and you’re going to have to grab the table and hold on for dear life. Don’t call his raise unless you’re prepared to play for all your chips.

Thor: Maniac

The God of Thunder is just at the game for a good time. He’s happy to throw chips around with reckless abandon, and is definitely going to hang around to the river to see who wins. Don’t be afraid to call him down with only a moderately strong hand; its 50-50 he’ll give your money back at the end of the night anyway.

Spider Man: Tight Aggressive

You know how the best players can read their opponents and pick up subtle signals that tell them when their opponents are strong and when they are weak? This guy has a freaking SPIDER SENSE. No way you’re fooling Webhead into thinking you’re sitting on a busted flush when you’re holding quads.

The Hulk: Are You Kidding?

Getting into a poker game with the Hulk is not advisable. You can probably bluff Bruce Banner without a problem, but don’t show the bluff. You don’t want to make him angry.

Stay tuned for DC Super Heroes Poker Party!

Whatever happened to the U.S. Mail?

2011-05-18T14:12:00.000-07:00

When I was a kid, if there was one thing you could rely on, it was the U.S. Postal Service. It was commonly understood that you could basically tape a nickel into a gum wrapper, write a mailing address on it in crayon, and it would arrive at its intended destination in a few days. There were still services such as Certified Mail and Return Receipt (although fewer of such services than there are today) but you didn't really need them, because there was simply no doubt that your letter or package would get to its destination.

Those days, sadly, seem to be long gone. It could be a California thing, since I didn't start experiencing this problem until I moved out here in the 2000s, but I remember being shocked the first time I delivered something through the Post Office that mysteriously failed to arrive at its destination. By the third time, I wasn't shocked anymore, just sad. Keep in mind that these were items that I opted to purchase delivery tracking for. Who knows how many items that I just dropped in the mailbox never made it where they were supposed to go?

What's the explanation? Is the Post Office really just less careful with items that have been marked with some kind of delivery confirmation, relying on the fact that customers will assume their packages are safer and not bother to check? After all, you don't really have any recourse once the Postal Service screws up (although you do have some. EHow has some ideas on what to do when your stuff is lost in the mail). Is it just a West Coast thing, and East Coast mail is as reliable as ever? Is it the fact that so many people use email and other forms of digital transmission that the Postal Service just figures no one is paying attention anymore? Is it that people are buying fewer stamps?

If anyone has any ideas, I'd love to hear them. In the meantime, I have a letter to reprint and resend.

The War on Teachers

2011-03-12T13:56:00.000-08:00

Ok, I’ve tried to kind of hold my blogging tongue on this for awhile, but I can do it no longer. The war on teachers that is happening in this country right now is unconscionable, and people need to speak out. In Wisconsin, teachers were stripped of their collecting bargaining rights in a complete subversion of the democratic process. In New York (more on the war on NY teachers here), Florida and elsewhere, merit-based systems are in place or are being proposed which use convoluted formulas that have a tenuous connection to teacher effectiveness to determine which teachers are “good” or “bad.” Right wing media are proudly announcing at every opportunity how teachers are overpaid and have a part time job. In a tradition going back to right wing icon Ronald Reagan, when the country needs money, the first place they take it from is education. It has to stop.

Let's look at some of the prongs of the attacks on teachers and why they are happening:

Union Busting

Why do conservatives love union busting? Because unions favor Democrats. That’s the only reason, and don’t kid yourself that Governor Walker or any other front line union busters are concerned about corrupt union bosses or anything else. Democrats fight for workers and Republicans fight for their corporate masters, so naturally, unions support Democrats, and it’s public record that this attack on workers and their rights is an attempt by the Republican party to cut Democratic election funding. There may be some corruption among union organizers, but the days of Jimmy Hoffa are over, and collective bargaining is certainly not the villain here regardless.

Merit Systems

Merit based systems don’t work because they are created and administered by people who are not really teachers. What inevitably happens in these systems is that teachers “teach to the test,” providing only the information the kids need to get a qualifying score. Schools whose funding is merit based cut art and enrichment programs because they don’t show up on these tests. As a result, you get poorly-rounded students who forget all the information they’ve memorized as soon as they get to the next level. Here is a concept that those looking to revamp the education system should endeavor to understand. If kids LIKE their teacher and that teacher is motivated by a system that SUPPORTS him or her, THOSE KIDS WILL LEARN. That is all there is to it. If there is anything axiomatic about education, it’s this. If a teacher is clearly invested in helping a kid learn, it shows, and if that teacher is likable and compassionate, most students will want to learn from them, and they will. The current systems drain all the joy out of teaching, even from good, determined, likable teachers, and the kids can tell. With all the methods proposed to reform education, this idea, the one that’s the most obviously and clearly true, is always completely ignored.

Teacher Pay and Benefits

This argument is the most ludicrous, this idea that teachers get lavish pay and benefits for a part time job. Understand this. Anyone who gets into teaching for the benefits gets out of it very fast. The struggles of trying to be both a babysitter, a parent and an educator for over 30 kids for six hours a day with the bare minimum of tools at your disposal far outweighs the bonuses of an extra month of vacation, a three o clock dismissal time and a decent dental plan. In addition, the amount of “free time” a teacher gets is overblown. Teachers usually show up at around 7:30 and leave around 3:30 at best. That seems like a full day to me. The reality is many show up early and/or leave late to either help kids or prepare lesson plans. Then of course, there’s homework grading and any other responsibilities that they may need to take home with them.

It seems to me that conservatives who think that teachers are in it for the good pay/low hours think that way because they are incapable of attributing noble motives for anything to anyone. They only do things for the money, so they assume everyone else is the same. Furthermore, some of these politicians and pundits bashing teachers for their perks make five to ten times as much money as many teachers and work fewer hours! I’ve spent many hours in the New York City public school system, as a counselor and as a teacher of the chess program (paid for not by the city, but by donations), and I’ve had the opportunity to see my father teach in the system for over 30 years. Trust me when I tell you that most of these politicians and pundits would not last two weeks in the public school system.

Education “Reform”

A little education for you: In politics, reform is a synonym for “cut.” Whenever a politician talks about reforming something, they mean taking money away. Why is education always the first victim? Again, a few reasons. First, an undereducated populace favors Republicans. Less educated populations vote in fewer numbers, and low turnout historically favors the Republican party (watch how excited Republicans get when they forecast rain on election day). It makes sense. Republicans are clearly the party of the rich, and most of us are not rich, so voting Republican is against most people’s interests (unless you are so firmly dedicated to the maintenance of certain moral values you share with conservatives that nothing else matters).

Also, politicians are disconnected from the value of a good education. They went to private schools, or they went to public schools in nice areas where everyone chipped in, or they went to school at a time when schools were better funded and teachers better treated than they are now. The consequences of a bad education system are often not felt for decades, and long term consequences are not the kind of sexy results that voters respond to.

The Solution

So what can be done? Well, you can vote for more Democrats, of course, but that’s probably not going to happen. You can support teachers when they do protest or petition for better treatment. From the government side, probably the best thing to do is put real teachers, the ones on the front lines, in charge of overhauling the educational system. How many years did the current Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, spend teaching in American public schools before his appointment? 20? 10? 5? How about none? He was a PROFESSIONAL BASKETBALL PLAYER in AUSTRALIA. His predecessor, Margaret Spellings, was a CAREER REPUBLICAN POLITICAL OPERATIVE.

No one’s saying you have to insist on higher taxes for the rich to fix what’s wrong with this country, but let’s stop picking on the teachers, okay? We need them.

Subjects I Have Written About as an SEO Copywriter

2011-03-08T18:18:00.001-08:00

Eye Surgery
Grandparents Rights
Online Pull Tab Games
Online Bingo
Roofing
Acne Cream
General Skin Care
Diet Foods
Dental Schools
Orchids
Selling Gold
Detoxifying Foot Baths
Ball Bearings
Credit Cards
Identity Theft
Valentines Day Gift Ideas
Sports Cars
Luxury Hotels
Exotic Travel
Criminal Record Expungement
Baby Gifts
Eco Friendly Homes
State Driving Laws
Background Checks
Colors (Yes, colors)
Corporate Branding
Malpractice Law
Irritable Bowel Syndrome
The Osama Bin Laden Virus
Plastic Surgery
Funeral Arrangements
Finding Apartments
Website Hosting
Dog Accessories
Class Reunions

This is not even close to an exhaustive list. I'm estimating that one out of ten grammatically correct articles on the Internet at this point are probably mine.

Gettin Creative

2011-03-04T03:42:00.000-08:00

I have the third best of the Top 100 new Movie and TV Loglines according to Creative Screenwriting Magazine. Sadly, I have been a contest finalist many times, and unless you come in first, no one of import really seems to take an interest, but hope springs eternal. In any event, the script is still up for bids, so get yours in now!

Mind Your Business!

2011-02-13T18:50:00.000-08:00

There are two kinds of books about screenwriting. One kind tells you how to write a screenplay. Of these, there are probably about five that are worth anything (Start with Blake Snyder’s “Save the Cat” and Christopher Vogler’s “The Writer’s Journey”). The rest may give you some of the basics of screenwriting, but nothing you can’t get in much better and clearer detail from these core books.

The other kind tells you how to sell your screenplay. There are some tips on how to write one as well, of course, since Rule One for selling a screenplay is: Have a great screenplay. Rule Two is: Have several more great screenplays. Writing one of these books seems easy, right? Just compile a bunch of these rules: Have a compelling story that comes from your heart. Have an interesting protagonist that we care about. Give the executives something familiar, but with an all-new twist. And yet, despite books full of these simple to understand rules, many writers, talented ones even, are unable to crack the Hollywood system. What’s the problem?

What’s great about Michele Wallerstein’s “Mind Your Business” is that she doesn’t just tell you what to do, she tells you what NOT to do, and that may be much more important. Michele has compiled twenty-five years as a literary agent watching the rise and fall of countless screenwriters, and she has given you, the budding screenwriter, the chance to not make the mistakes that those other screenwriters made, mistakes that ended careers, many before they even began.

I wish I had Michele’s book ten years ago, when I started on this journey to Hollywood screenwriting glory. I would have known to watch out for “fringe” players. I would have known that you need to scrutinize any potential agent to make sure they are right for you, and that once you get one, you have to work just as hard as they do (if not harder) to get your career going. I would have known the eleven rules to live by when writing spec scripts. And a lot more.

Fortunately, since I’m confident my career skyrocket is just around the corner, there’s still a lot of great information I’ll be able to use. Stuff like what to do in a meeting. Yes, it’s the common sense things that you would think of for any interview, like proper grooming and hygiene, but it’s also crucial information like who to address in the room and how long to stick around.

Most importantly, it’s clear this book is a labor of love. Rather than reading like a “get famous quick, I’ll show you how” scheme, you can tell that you are reading a work by someone who truly cares for all her clients, and for every gifted writer out there struggling to navigate the fierce winds of Hollywood. If you’re still trying to get a grip on the business side of this screenwriting game (and I know few writers who aren’t), I definitely recommend “Mind Your Business.”

2011-02-06T22:05:00.000-08:00

No need for anxious hand wringing, here’s my annual Super Bowl recap, right on schedule. Looking back through the archives, it looks like I somehow failed to recap last year’s historic New Orleans Saints victory over the Indianapolis Colts. Was it that I was still suffering a letdown after my Jets faltered, one game away from their first Super Bowl in 40 years? Well if so, I have a chance to redeem myself this year. The Jets again came tantalizingly close, and I think their failure this year hit me harder because expectations were higher. Will the Jets be second best in the AFC every year? Will they even be back? Well, at least they thumped the Patriots.

But, today was not about my beloved Jets, it was about the Green Bay Packers and the Pittsburgh Steelers, and the greatest spectacle of all of sport, the Super Bowl. So here it is, my recap of Super Bowl XLV.

The Pre-Game Show

I’m sure not too many people watch the 6 hours of Fox Pregame entertainment, and with good reason. It was mostly a concert intermingled with ads for current Fox properties like the latest Adam Sandler movie, and of course, some appearances from the increasingly creepy E-Trade Baby and Frank Calliendo (Calliendo’s not creepy, but his shtick is getting a little tired, isn’t it?). However, if you suffered through it, you did get presented with a fairly interesting interview with Obama by Bill O'Reilly, with Obama gamely smiling through O'Reilly's digs and editorializing to give thoughtful answers to relevant issues of the day.

The Commercials

It’s all about the commercials, right? I think this is getting to be less and less the case, for two reasons. First, I think people are getting more knowledgeable about football. It’s been a long standing joke that the guys come to the Super Bowl party for the game, and the ladies come for the commercials. But where I saw the game, everyone was focused on the action on the field, male and female, football newbies and veterans alike. The other reason is the Internet. All those people who used to show up for the commercials can now just dial them up on YouTube after the game (or even before the game!) That being said, I think the real winners in the commercials department were the promos. As a sci fi enthusiast, I was geeking out much more over trailers for Captain America, Thor, and Cowboys and Aliens than for the various animals getting the better of humans in corn chip and car ads. But the top promo and hence winner for me was this gem from FOX and Hugh Laurie, paying homage to perhaps the most iconic Super Bowl commercial of all:

Here’s the original, for you newer fans:

The Game

Yet another good one! While Green Bay jumped out to what looked like it could be a rout, the Steelers dug deep and made a game of it, and the outcome was in doubt up until the final minute. You can’t ask for much more from a Super Bowl game.

The Winners

Sorry Steeler fans, but I think this year The Pack was the sentimental favorite, this year’s Saints. They’ve got a humble quarterback who stood patiently in Brett Favre’s shadow for years waiting for his turn, they’ve got “Lombardi” playing on Broadway, and they’ve got a team owned by the fans. The Steelers have cemented themselves as probably the best football team of all time with their 8 Super Bowl appearances, but this year belonged to the Green Bay Packers.

The Halftime Show

The halftime show may have taken the place of the commercials with respect to water cooler talk and controversy. This year the Black Eyed Peas had purists up in arms, and other fans cheering for more. You’ve got to keep in mind that any halftime show needs to be sanitized for your protection and accessible to a wide audience (wardrobe malfunctions notwithstanding). Given that, I think they did a pretty good job. I mean, the halftime formula is to pair a contemporary artist with an aging rocker. The Black Eyed Peas are still kind of hip, and when your aging rocker is Slash, I think you’re doing okay. I couldn’t complain.

OK, that’s what I got for this year. Coming up, probably some stuff about writing for a change.

J-E-T-S Rex! Rex! Rex!

2011-01-17T15:28:00.000-08:00

I can hardly believe it. The Jets, for the first time I can remember, are going to the AFC championship game for the second straight year, having taken out their hated rivals, the New England Patriots, in the process. No need to crow about the Patriots defeat; I’ll just say it’s extremely satisfying. I would, however, like to address the controversy surrounding the architect of this magical new Jet atmosphere, one Rex Ryan.

The line on Rex Ryan is that he’s boastful, shameless, classless. The Jets talk too much, people say. They think too much of themselves. I say, they have to, because if they don’t, who will?

The Jets have been disrespected for their entire 50+ year history. Before Joe Namath’s team stepped up, Super Bowl III was predicted to be a joke. The Jets were a 19 point underdog. They were barely considered a professional team.

We all know how that turned out.

Since then, the Jets have always been second class citizens to the older, more prominent, more successful New York Giants. Anyone will tell you, New York is a Giants town. And with good reason. Except for the Namath flare and a few good Sack Exchange years in the 80s, the Jets have given their fans little reason to get excited. Then along comes Rex Ryan.

Ryan had a big job ahead of him. Get rid of that “Same Old Jets” philosophy. Dispel an atmosphere of losing that has clouded this team for decades. Get rid of that “snakebit” attitude and trade it in for a winning one.

And he’s done just that. Sure, he’s done it by being a little louder than other coaches, but he’s had to be loud to be heard over the din of nonbelievers. Last year, NFL pundits and fans alike joked that teams were throwing games to get to face the Jets in the playoffs. Rex said “It doesn’t matter how we get there, just let us in, and we’ll prove we deserve to be here.” They let him in, and he responded by taking the team one game from the Super Bowl. This year, Patriot fans couldn’t wait to get on message boards and gloat about their 45-3 shellacking of the Jets in the regular season. Rex said “We’ll go back there and play them tomorrow, if they’ll let us.” It wasn’t the next day, but they let them come back, and we know how that turned out.

All of Rex’s supposedly classless boasting is in the service of his team. Sure, Rex has said he believes his team is the best and they’re going to win the Super Bowl. Good! If you don’t think that about your team, why bother coaching? Sure, Rex has said “its personal.” That’s because he wants his team to take it personally, because you need heart to win in the NFL, especially if you’re a team that no one thinks has a chance to win, going into hostile territory against the class of the league, week after week after week.

But what’s ignored is that Rex is in fact, pretty humble. The way his eyes light up when he realizes the Jets have made the playoffs, the joy he takes in winning these games that no one believes he can win, that is earnest, that's real. And Rex takes those moments, not to tout his own impressive record, but to brag about his players and how they have stepped up and made it happen. When Rex talks about games being "personal" it's always with clear respect for the opponent. It's personal because they're the best, and he wants to beat the best.

Here are the “boasts” he had to offer before the Colts game:

"You're never going to stop Peyton Manning, but you have to contain him enough to where he doesn't beat you by himself or light the scoreboard up, which he is capable of doing."

And some boasting about the Patriots and Bill Belichick:

"I recognize that I'm never going to be a better coach than him, My job is to be a better coach than him this week."

And after both games: “That’s a great team.” “That’s a great quarterback.” There’s no “they suck, we’re going to crush them,” from Rex. There’s no “they don’t deserve to be on the field with us.” The trash talk directed by Ryan towards Tom Brady (he who “hates” the Jets, he who points towards the sideline after a touchdown) is that he’s a pretty good quarterback (for the record, Rex also describes his defense as “pretty good”) who probably doesn’t study as much as Peyton Manning. Which he probably doesn’t.

You can complain all you want about Rex Ryan and his mouth, but the fact is the Jets need Rex Ryan, and I wonder if people are more upset about someone who refuses to accept the status quo, who isn’t afraid to upset the natural order of things in the NFL, than about Rex himself. Frankly, I wouldn’t have possibly the best coach in Jets history be any other way.

Wherefore Art Thou Sci Fi?

2011-01-08T14:58:00.000-08:00

I was recently talking to a fellow writer about our TV preferences, and he asked me the pointed question: “Do you watch a lot of sci fi?” It was a reasonable question, since much of my dramatic writing has a sci fi/fantasy/supernatural element of some sort. After thinking about it for a moment, I was forced to admit the answer was no.

It’s not that I’ve never watched sci fi, it’s just that I don’t watch much now, because, while there may be a handful of good sci fi shows that I’ve just missed, I don’t feel that the current T.V. landscape produces anything as appealing in the sci fi world as shows from the ‘80s like Quantum Leap, or Star Trek The Next Generation, or even the short lived War of the Worlds.
Why? I don’t think it’s due to any lack of talent among today’s TV writers. I just think it’s really hard to do sci fi well, and there’s very little payoff.

That is to say, it’s very easy for a sci fi world to appear unreal, farcical, or a parody, and even if you nail it, you have a limited audience.

I also think that it may be that our technology has become a little bit TOO advanced. There is a real way in which the 21st century is the future. Technology is advancing exponentially, and wild, fantastic science fiction ideas like electronic books (Isaac Asimov), wireless, handheld communication devices (Star Trek) and cyberspace (William Gibson) are now commonplace. Combine that with movies that provide digital effects that boggle the mind, and it just takes a lot to wow us anymore.

Finally, what I think people forget is that like all stories, science fiction stories are about relationships. About people and how we can relate to them. It’s possible to work so hard to make the science fiction world seem “real” that you forget that.

There’s a lot of great television being made today, and I hope that good sci fi can be a part of it. The critical success of a show like the reimagined Battlestar Galactica seems to indicate that it can. And of course, I myself have plenty of great ideas to contribute ; )

Inktip Pitch Summit Report

2010-09-27T12:00:00.000-07:00

This is the middle portion of the Craig Berger 2010 Pitchfest tour, which started with the Great American Pitchfest (which I didn’t write a report about, so don’t bother looking) and ends with the Creative Screenwriting Expo next month. I didn’t know what to expect, since this was Inktip’s first Pitchfest (“Pitch Summit”) but hopes were high.

Day 1:

I decided to attend the first day, which consists simply of classes designed to help you either pitch, or learn how to get an agent, or some other aspect of the business. The two classes I attended were “How to Impress Your Agent or Manager” and “How to Get Your Screenplay out of the House and into an Agent’s Hands.” The first class I attended because the teacher was my Writers Boot Camp Fellowship instructor Cameron Graham, and I wanted to show my support.

A good mood was set for me right away when I realized that most of the people surrounding me were old men. Not old like me old, but gray hair, reading glasses and endearing crankiness old. It made me feel like I’m not that far behind after all. This feeling was reinforced when, after some delay and confusion because the room was labeled as a “Writers Boot Camp” class and there was no mention of WBC in the schedule or literature, the old man sitting next to me muttered to me “Feels like Mutt and Jeff in here.” I can’t remember the last time I was too young to get a reference, so I was quite delighted. This guy beautifully continued the old man stereotype when he looked at the young woman in front of us on texting on her cell phone and muttered with contempt: “Probably checking her ‘e-mails.’”

Couple of other entertaining moments: First, at one point another WBC staffer pointed out that agents are worse than pimps because “at least pimps are able to recognize talent.” I found that amusing. Even better was when Cameron decided to do an exercise where he asked someone to come up and pitch an existing movie to him (like “Die Hard” or “Star Wars.”) In a room full of people who were planning to pitch their scripts to a bunch of strangers the next day, no one volunteered. Well, except for one person. Pavo. Pavo came all the way from Poland to pitch his script. It was not until he got up and began to attempt the exercise that we learned that Pavo did not actually speak English. It appeared that he had memorized the pitch for his own project and come to this country with little or no other English. It was unclear whether he knew today was not the pitching day, or how he planned to answer any follow up questions about his project.

The second class was led by Michelle Wallerstein, an agent with 20 years in the business. She did seem to be pretty knowledgeable about Hollywood and gave some positive encouragement (“you think this is bad, the music business would destroy you”). She was selling her book “Mind Your Business” which I probably would have bought but I didn’t bring any cash with me.

Day 2:

Was the actual Pitch day, and there were some hitches. The first, and probably worst, was that the event was two hours late in getting started. Since people usually show up early and stand on one of a number of lines in a crowded ballroom antechamber in these things, and are then expected to project exuberance and enthusiasm to a bunch of producers, this is not a good thing.

Also, I think it’s better to have the numbers designating the lines hanging from the ceiling, rather than on the floor.

One thing they did that I’m still not sure about is have three executives at each table. If you had a project that you planned to pitch to a particular executive, you were actually pitching to two others who you may or may not want to pitch to. The pro of this is that you get to pitch to three times as many executives, in theory. In practice, the Producers, who were supposed to have been grouped by common interest, weren’t always that well matched, for example the table with the guy looking for holiday themed material and the woman who hated Christmas movies, or the one with the woman looking for mainstream features and the woman who was only interested in Canadian Writers. Most annoying was late in the day, when you could wait 20 minutes for a table only to find that the two people who were looking for the type of material you are pitching had left, leaving one person who is looking for something totally different.

In the end, however, I think it worked out, and I did get a lot more people to hear about my projects that I would have in a normal, one on one pitch situation. I got the usual distribution of requests for scripts, requests for synopses, and passes, so we’ll see what happens.

One thing that interested me was people’s approach to the experience. Some people seemed to feel it was an adversarial situation: One woman came out with a smile on her face, looking for a friend to talk to. When she found one, she said “The guy asked me a question, and I was totally ready for him! I NAILED him! I totally kicked him in the balls!” Yeah. That can’t be healthy.

Many people seemed to feel it was a competition to see who could pitch to the most people in a given day. One large man came out in the afternoon looking like he was in a marathon. He was sweating heavily and had a GIANT canteen of water in his hand. He told someone, “I’ve done at least 15 already. I’m gonna hit almost everyone! That Lionsgate line that everyone was trying to get on? PFFT! I pitched them at lunch!” I hope he’ll be able to sell his project from his hospital room after the heart attack.

On the whole, it was a positive experience, and I’m looking forward to see how they iron out the kinks for next year. On to the Expo!

Chess in the Schools Goes to Moscow, Chess Life, Dec. 1998

2010-09-08T21:23:00.000-07:00

Congress Shall Make No Law...

2010-09-02T16:07:00.000-07:00

According to a recent poll, 2/3rds of New Yorkers don’t want a Muslim mosque to be built as planned because it is too close to Ground Zero. Once again, I suppose we have FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, and the other fake news entities who profit off of hate mongering to thank. Then again, the ignorance of the American people also knows no bounds.

Never did I dream that half a century after the days of Martin Luther King, Jr., our country would be riddled with discrimination against homosexuals, continued bigotry directed against women and African-Americans and religious persecution. The founding fathers would be turning over in their graves. Regarding the mosque: For one, the proposed Mosque is planned as a base of worship for Sufis. Sufi Islam is about as far from Al Qaeda as one could possibly get. Fundamentalist Christianity has more in common with Al Qaeda than the Sufis. The face of Sufism, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is the Timothy Leary of the Muslim faith, preaching true love, peace, understanding, and following the dictates of the heart. You know, all that stuff that the “good Christians” protesting the mosque profess to believe in.

Furthermore, what kind of religion is going to be practiced in the mosque is not an issue. Freedom of religion is our country’s most fundamental right. Not the freedom to practice Christianity. The Founders, being smarter than most people are even today, were deists, refusing to conform to any standardized religion. This country exists as a haven for people wishing to be free of religious persecution. Trying to stand in the way of that mosque is not just morally wrong; it’s un-American.

Another disturbing poll I recently saw said that the people who believe Obama is a Muslim is up 7%, to 18%. That statistic in itself doesn’t disturb me. Half of the knuckle-draggers in this country still think the Theory of Evolution is a tool of the Devil. What bothers me is that it matters. That Obama, and all the Presidents before him, should have to defend their Christianity, that going to Church every Sunday is part of the job. Growing up, I was led to believe that one of the things that makes this country great is that anyone could become President. Clearly, as groundbreaking as Obama’s election was, this is still not the case.

As a Jew, I was also taught at a very early age that bigotry against one group is a danger to us all. Some may say that the violent nature of terrorists who happen to be Muslims changes the nature of the argument. I disagree. I have no love for terrorists, particularly Islamic terrorists who are among the many groups throughout history that have special brands of atrocities set aside for my people. But all Muslims are not terrorists any more than all Jews are money-hoarding puppet-masters, any more than all Christians are drooling, witch-hunting Bible-thumpers.

Let me close by reemphasizing what I just said, because it’s important, and most people don’t realize it until it’s too late.

Bigotry against one group is a danger TO US ALL.

Roger, Redux

2010-08-19T13:19:00.000-07:00

So Roger Clemens is finally going to be called on the carpet for his denials in the steroid scandal. I called this guy out nearly three years ago as a lying SOB who needs to get what's coming to him.

Finally, justice is served...

Check.... Checkmate!

2010-08-14T01:56:00.000-07:00

I applaud television shows for trying to include chess in some of their stories. I really do. In the past, I couldn't stand it, because the directors took so little care in setting it up. The board would be set up wrong, or what the players were saying wouldn't correspond with the moves on the board. But worst of all was the same horrible trope that appeared in every television show which featured chess. I'm sure you've seen it. One character makes a move, and in as smarmy and satisfied a manner he can muster, announces "Check!" triumphantly, as if putting someone in check was any big deal.

The second player muses, looks over the board, then casually makes a move, smiles and responds "checkmate!" to the stunned surprise of Mr. Smug.

Such a sequence, which probably occurred in every in television show with a chess scene prior to 1990 or so, is almost completely impossible. A player in check is not permitted by the rules of chess to do anything but get out of check. Such a sequence requires a player to make a move which simultaneously gets him out of check and puts the other player in checkmate. A move that blocks the check would not be sufficient, as the player who called check could simply capture that piece to escape. It would have to be a move that simultaneously blocks the check and uncovers an unstoppable check by another piece. This is so unlikely that most amateur chessplayers could not achieve it if they were allowed to put the pieces WHEREVER THEY WANTED. (Go ahead, try it. I'll wait.)

Fortunately, modern audiences and show creators are a little more sophisticated, and now they usually follow the much more intelligent choice of stealing real games from history to allow their characters to wow us with their acumen. Unfortunately, this still does not quite work. Actors and directors may try their hardest, but unless you know chess, it's extremely difficult to get the timing down.
In the Season 3 West Wing episode, "Hartsfield's Landing," President Bartlett and Toby engage in a friendly game of chess. After three moves, Bartlett observes with interest that Toby is playing the Evans Gambit. Unfortunately, it does not become an Evans gambit until five or so moves later. The showrunners clearly found an Evans Gambit game, but any chessplayer watching would know that the actors were following a script.

Last season on the Mentalist, in the Episode "18-5-4," they took a crack at chess, and did a pretty good job of it -- if you're not a player. (I couldn't embed the video, but if you'd like to follow along, someone has captured it for YouTube here:)

Mentalist Chess Game

Simon Baker as Patrick Jane makes a convincing blindfold chess master, but he too, screws up the timing. Early in the game, Jane says, "declining the gambit, interesting." Unfortunately, the game doesn't become a Queens Gambit Declined until d4, the move FOLLOWING Jane's statement. After Be7, Jane smiles knowingly and says "mmm, your funeral," despite the fact that this is an extremely safe move. After his next move, Bg5,he says "mind your queen," despite the fact that his opponent's queen is protected by two pieces. Finally, later on, the opponent says to Jane "Q to e7, taking your bishop." Again, Simon Baker does a great job of looking intrigued by the move. Unfortunately, it's the only move that doesn't lose immediately, and is not very intriguing at all.

Again, Baker cannot be blamed. The producers could have had a chess player screen the episode and he would have found these things instantly. And again, I applaud the effort. But for those producers out there thinking about trying to seamlessly include chess in an episode, be warned: You haven't quite gotten there yet.

FYI, the game that Jane and Bunting play is Fischer Spassky Game 6 from the 1972 World Chess Championship. For chess geeks, I've included the entire game here (The moves in bold are the ones actually played on screen):

1. c4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 O-O 6.e3 h6 7.Bh4 b6 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Nxd5 exd5 11.Rc1 Be6 12.Qa4 c5 13.Qa3 Rc8 14.Bb5 a6 15.dxc5 bxc5 16.O-O Ra7 17.Be2 Nd7 18.Nd4 Qf8 19.Nxe6 fxe6 20.e4 d4 21.f4 Qe7 22.e5 Rb8 23.Bc4 Kh8 24.Qh3 Nf8 25.b3 a5 26.f5 exf5 27.Rxf5 Nh7 28.Rcf1 Qd8 29.Qg3 Re7 30.h4 Rbb7 31.e6 Rbc7 32.Qe5 Qe8 33.a4 Qd8 34.R1f2 Qe8 35.R2f3 Qd8 36.Bd3 Qe8 37.Qe4 Nf6 (diagram) 38.Rxf6 gxf6 39.Rxf6 Kg8 (for some reason, here the show threw in "...f4," which is impossible and I can only assume they did it so that they could have a more convincing version of the "check...checkmate!" moment, since the game is pretty much lost by black at this point) 40.Bc4 Kh8 41.Qf4 (mate in 3 moves sounds better, but it's actually mate in seven ... 41. Qg8 42. Rf8 Re8 43. Qf6+ Rg7 44. e7 Rb8 45. Bd3 Rxf8 46. exf8(Q) Qxf8 47. Qxf8+ Rg8 48. Qxh6)

Five Forgotten Awesome Legion of Super Heroes Characters

2010-07-06T03:14:00.000-07:00

Here are five characters from the Legion of Super Heroes history that everyone seems to have forgotten about. For each one, I'll tell you a little bit about the character, and then tell you why they were AWESOME.

Duplicate Boy:

Duplicate Boy was Ord Quelu, one of a group of super heroes from the planet Lallor who got their powers from cosmic radiation or some such. As a result, Duplicate Boy could duplicate the powers of any super hero he saw. His superheroing ways eventually resulted in crossing paths whith the Legion, and for awhile, he was Shrinking Violet's love interest.

Why Duplicate Boy Was Awesome:

What was great about Duplicate Boy was that he was dumb as a fucking post. I mean it. The guy was a moron. At one point, he confronted Shrinking Violet for resuming a romantic relationship with Colossal Boy. When he discovered that in fact, the woman in question was someone impersonating Shrinking Violet, he left, satisfied. IT NEVER OCCURRED to him to wonder what had happened to the original Shrinking Violet (who had in fact, been kidapped).

Here's the kicker. Duplicate Boy's powers weren't that he could duplicate the powers of other super heroes at all. Duplicate Boy could have ANY POWER he could think of. He just didn't have any imagination.

Shvaughn Erin:

Shvaughn Erin was a member of the Science Police, the United Planets main law enforcement unit. She ultimately became the Legion's police liason and was extremely helpful to them on a number of occasions. Her involvement with Element Lad was one of the series' most storied romances.

Why Shvaughn Erin was Awesome:

Shvaughn was awesome because she managed to hold her own with a horde of men and women who could move worlds and do basically anything. However, what was super-weird about Shvaughn is that it eventually came out that she was a transexual, and had been using super advanced future medical technology (specifically, a drug called Pro-Fem), to make herself biologically female.

Ferro Lad:

Ferro Lad was Andrew Nolan, a mutant with a disfigured face who had the ability to transform himself entirely into iron. Andrew had a brother, Douglas, who did not become a super hero (one wonders what other avocations are available for a disfigured mutant who can turn into iron).

Why Ferro Lad was Awesome:

Ferro Lad may be the only character in comic book history to die and stay dead. Ferro Lad died when he flew a bomb into the heart of the Sun Eater, a very nasty apocalyptic super weapon that did exactly what you would expect it to. After that, Ferro Lad became the standard for super hero heroism ("Who can forget when Ferro Lad died saving us all from the Sun-Eater...").

Kid Psycho

Kid Psycho was Gnill Opral, who applied to the Legion of Super Heroes with his psychokinetic abilities, which he mostly used to create psychokinetic force fields. The Legionnaires all thought this power was super great, even though the way he used it it really wasn't any big deal.

Why Kid Psycho was Awesome:

One might wonder why someone named Gnill "Kid Psycho," suggesting he was some kind of lunatic, rather than say "Kid Psyche," or "Kid Psych." Even "Psycho Lad" doesn't sound as bad. However, the name seems a lot more appropriate when you discover that every time he used his powers, it cost Kid Psycho A YEAR OF HIS LIFE. Knowing this, the maladjusted Gnill decided to put himself in a situation where he would have to use his powers ALL THE TIME. Fortunately, the Legion had more sense then Gnill, and immediately moved him to reserve status.

Validus

Validus was Garridan Ranzz, the child of founding Legionnaires Lightning Lad and Saturn Girl. Darkseid kidnapped the child, sent him back in time, and mutated him into a horrible monster, in which form he would do battle with his parents time after time before he was even born. (One is forced to wonder about the wisdom of Darkseid's plan, If Validus was successful in defeating the Legion, wouldn't he prevent himself from ever being born?)

Why Validus Was Awesome:

Here's what was awesome about Validus. It wasn't that he was stronger than Superman or could shoot lightning bolts from his brain. It was that the Legion of Super Heroes were fucking TERRIFIED of him. Consider this. Validus was a member of the Fatal Five. Included in the Fatal Five (along with Tharok, an evil genius cyborg who could control Validus) were the following: The Emerald Empress, who controlled the Emerald Eye of Ekron, which was essentially the eye of a giant Green Lantern, chock full of Green Lantern energy which can effectively do anything the user can imagine, the Persuader, whose Atomic Axe could cut through anything (literally anything; A steel wall, a car, Superman's head, gravity {Im not making that up. It could cut through gravity}, anything), and Mano, whose black hand disintegrated anything it touched (again, anything. If Mano got to bitch slap Superman across the face, no more Superman's face). Despite all this, when the Legion heard the Fatal Five were on their way, it was VALIDUS that had them quaking. When describing a villain's supposedly awesome power levels, the phrase used would be "Tougher than Validus."

OK, there's some comic book trivia for you to enjoy. See you next month (maybe sooner).

Finalist!

2010-06-01T14:04:00.000-07:00

Good news! I am a finalist in the Storyboard TV Pilot competition. The winner gets $5000, and more importantly, a possible development deal. There are three contestants left, and now it's in the hands of the screenwriting community. If any readers want to help me out, they can do so by going to StoryboardTV.com, registering, and looking for my script, Jen-16. If you think it's the best of the three, please vote for it by clicking "I would watch this." You might have to sign in and sign out after verifying your registration for your vote to count.

Thanks, and I'll keep everyone updated!

Finding LOST

2010-05-24T00:44:00.001-07:00

SPOILER ALERT! If you have not yet seen the last episode of Lost, read no further (if you care about knowing what happens)

So the last episode of LOST has come and gone, and what have we learned? Well, we learned that the surviving Losties saved the island and closed Pandora's Box and made all well with the universe, and then died and went to a place where their plane never crashed and all their dreams came true. Or something like that. I guess its better than just cutting to black?

Truthfully, as finales go, I didn't think it was a bad one, and they did answer a pretty good helping of questions, considering how many they brought up. However, they still left some unanswered, as I gather was the intent. Here are a few of mine. They fall into two categories. The first are about the show in general, and I don't know that these questions went unanswered so much as I don't know the answers, so if anyone does, please feel free to chime in. The second group are about the "resolution." Here goes.

General Questions

Why did Kate get all the best lines in the finale?

This is not really a question so much as an observation. I particularly enjoyed "I saved you a bullet," and "Christian Shepard? Really?"

If Jacob couldn't leave the island, how did he visit all of the "candidates" pre-Oceanic 815 in order to, well, make them candidates, I guess?

I'm sure there is an answer to this one out there, but I'll be damned if I know what it is. Anyone?

Why did Jacob choose those individuals in the first place? And why did he assign them those particular numbers. And what did those numbers mean anyway?

I understand that the answers to these questions may be found on the Season 6 DVD. Maybe they need a couple more months to figure it out?

If you pulled the cork out of that wine bottle, the wine would spill out, and it wouldn't spill back in if you replaced the cork. Why did the "light" come back?

and...

Jacob supposedly brought people to the island as potential candidates. Why couldn't Richard replace him? If Jacob brought Oceanic 815 down, why did we see that it was a result of Desmond failing to punch in the numbers?

Again, it may be that these things were explained along the way, I just didn't catch it if they were.

I'm sure I could come up with more, but I am MUCH more interested in exploring the "Flash Sideways" resolution. Here are my questions on that:

OK, so the Flash Sideways is some kind of Limbo, gateway to Heaven, whatever, and they can all be there at the same time because everybody dies at some point, right? SO:

Flash Sideways Questions

WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?

Are we to understand that Aaron lives a full life to a ripe old age and dies, only to have to spend his initial time in the afterlife as a newborn baby because a bunch of his mom's friends would have liked it that way?

And what about Ji Yeon? When she dies, she has to go back to being a FETUS!!!

WHAT ABOUT HURLEY?

Everybody dies, right? Not Hurley. He's immortal. We must assume that at some point, somebody killed him. Wouldn't you think that would warrant some discussion with Ben beyond just "You were a great number two, you were a great number one?"

WHAT ABOUT BEN?

And what about Ben, for that matter? He has to wait outside, I guess because he was such a pill to the Losties most of the time. But why can't he have his tearful reunion with his father? Is there an "Others" church next door that he will be heading to?

WHAT ABOUT LETTING GO?

So my understanding is that the point of the Flash Sideways was that the dead Losties had to learn to let go before they could move on. That's why, for example, Locke had to agree to the surgery before he could move on. But what did, say, Sun and Jin let go of? Or Claire? Or Charlie? He had to be knocked out and dragged to the final "venue."

WHAT ABOUT CHARLIE?

Speaking of Charlie, he had kind of a crappy Limbo experience, didn't he? Everyone else kind of got their fantasy, but Charlie's first experience is choking on a bag of heroin! How is that fair?

I'm sure there's more, but that should be enough to get y'all started...

That Which Does not Kill You...

2010-05-07T19:21:00.000-07:00

I'm doing a lot of editing lately, and I'm seeing a great deal of confusion over when to use "that" and when to use "which." I know this is a common issue, and it never used to bother me. In fact, I used to get confused too, but now that I don't, I don't want anyone else to either. So here's a simple mnemonic to help you get this right every time:

Which one? That 2?

What does it mean? Essentially it means that if there's only one of the thing in the first clause, you use which, and if there are two or more, you use that.

For example:

Jesus loves Mary Magdalene's home, which doubles as a whorehouse.

Mary Magdalene only has one home, hence you use which. "Which one"

Jesus hates the law that says he can't marry Peter.

There are many laws, certainly more than two, that Jesus could potentially hate, he hates this particular law out of many, hence, use that. "That 2"

By way of illustration, let's flip them. Let's say Mary Magdalene runs a real estate empire, and has houses all over Rome. Jesus in particular hates the Ranch style two family home near the countryside. So:

Jesus loves the Mary Magdalene place that doubles as a whorehouse, not the home near the countryside.

See? "That 2"

Meanwhile, Pontius Pilate, who believes the Jews hate our freedom and love same sex fornication, has enacted the "Sexual Freedom Law" which states that two men cannot get married. So:

Jesus hates the Sexual Freedom Law, which states that he cannot marry Peter.

See? There's only one Sexual Freedom law. "Which one."

So there you go. It's not perfect but it's good enough that I expect you to get this right every time from now on.

I Shouldn't Even Be Writing This Right Now...

2010-04-30T17:46:00.000-07:00

It's been a crazy week. At the beginning of the week, I was informed that I won a Fellowship to the prestigious Writers Boot Camp program, with a development deal on the line. Of course, assignments, which I'll be getting every two weeks for the next six months, start immediately.

Yesterday, I found out that I was a semifinalist in the Storyboard TV Writing Competition. This time, a potential production deal is on the line. They requested a rewrite (in addition to a bunch of paperwork) by May 1st. Yeah, THAT May 1st. Like, tomorrow. Like, yeah, I found out yesterday.

Add to this the fact that I have a weird work situation which I won't get into here, but the bottom line is I have a bunch of catching up to do in that arena as well, plus I recently hired a script consultant who gave me a bunch more work for two weeks from now, and I find myself in a ridiculous workload/deadline situation.

I read once that being a writer is like having homework for the rest of your life. Seems that the teachers are piling it on this week.

Anyway, that's why the blogging is suffering (no excuse for why it was suffering, say, three weeks ago, but then, my stated policy is not to make excuses for not blogging).

Five Comic Book Series Where Superman is the Bad Guy

2010-04-04T11:15:00.000-07:00

In my parents' generation, Superman was the be-all and end-all of superheroes. However, by the time I got to reading comic books, readership had gotten a little more sophisticated, and a lot of people realized that a hero who could do anything and couldn't really be hurt (except by the contrived use of Kryptonite, or a villain who was "even stronger" than Superman) was not that interesting.

Today, that generation is largely the one writing (and reading) comics, so the take on Superman has gotten a little different. In effect, a number of writers have realized that it's much more interesting if Superman is the bad guy. Not a temporary bad guy, like when Superman is under the effects of red kryptonite, but really a nearly all-powerful being of questionable morality. If you like your Superman evil, here are five guys you should definitely take a look at.

The Plutonian (Irredeemable; Mark Waid, Peter Krause)

In probably one of the best examples of the genre going today, Mark Waid explores the idea of the evil Superman with a character who didn't start out that way. That is, he was the same do-gooder Superman was, day in and day out, despite his growing umbrage at the complete lack of appreciation and feeling of being taken for granted by the citizens he protects. Until something really bad happened. After that bad thing, the Plutonian decided he might as well take the world for his own, destroying anything or anyone that got in his way, including, for example, the nation of Singapore, which he utterly destroys when they unite to resist him. What was the really bad thing? Can anyone stop the Plutonian? Check out Irredeemable.

The Homelander (The Boys; Garth Ennis, Darick Robertson)

Is the Homelander evil, or just supremely self-interested? In a world where virtually all superheroes are raging fonts of pure id, this Superman fits right in. He does lead a "Justice League" type group (The Seven) dedicated to saving humanity. On the other hand, that group is in the pocket of a mega-corporation, and he takes time out from his good deeds to, for example, force a young new female recruit to the group to perform oral sex on him, so he's pretty far from a "good" guy.

Hyperion (Supreme Power; J. Michael Straczynski, Gary Frank)

40 years ago, Roy Thomas and John Buscema created the Squadron Supreme, a group designed to be Marvel Comics' answer to the Justice League of America. Each JLA member had its Squadron alternate, with Hyperion, of course, being Superman. Ten years later, Mark Gruenwald reimagined this group with the revolutionary idea that a team of unbeatable superheroes would naturally decide it was appropriate for them to govern the world (this idea reached its apotheosis in the groundbreaking The Authority, by Warren Ellis). In the 21st century, J. Michael Stracyznski reimagined Hyperion again. In this incarnation, the U.S. government, seeing the unidentified object streaking through the sky, took the young alien away from "Jonathan and Martha" immediately, raising him from infancy to be a super weapon. Naturally, spending your life as a government tool gets grating after awhile, and as soon as Hyperion was old enough to know better, he set about using his Supreme Power to rule the world.

Ultraman (Earth-2; Grant Morrison, Frank Quitely)

While these others are merely imitations of Superman, Ultraman really IS Superman, the Superman of a parallel universe where good and evil are reversed, going back at least as far as Benedict Arnold heroically betraying the British for the cause of the United States. In Earth-2, it's a given that the supers run things, and the real conflict is between these godlike being themselves. The biggest conflict, naturally, is between Ultraman and his world's Batman counterpart, Owlman. The main point of contention? They're both sleeping with Wonder Woman (Superwoman, in this reality).

Omni-Man (Invincible; Robert Kirkman, Cory Walker)

Invincible tells the story of Mark Grayson, a seemingly charmed teenager whose father happens to be Earth's greatest hero. Things get better and better for Mark, as he develops his own nearly limitless super powers and gets a hot girlfriend to boot. Of course, this wouldn't be much of a story if things didn't go downhill, and they do in a big way, when Mark discovers that his father, Omni-Man, is no hero at all, but in fact the lead scout of an alien invasion force. Eventually, after fathering children with aliens from two different worlds he was supposed to conquer, Omni-Man seems to have a change of heart, but it may be too late.

So to repeat, if you like your Superman on the wrong side of the law, head to your local bookstore and check out one of these titles.

5 Lesser Known DC Comics Properties That Should Be Made into Movies

2010-03-06T19:34:00.000-08:00

According to recent buzz, DC Comics is finally planning to give in and follow Marvel onto the big screen in a more expansive way. DC is ready to compete with Marvel in the Hollywood arena, preparing big screen versions of Green Lantern and Jonah Hex. I'm hoping they decide to follow Marvel's lead in throwing in some films featuring lesser known characters (e.g. Ghost Rider, Daredevil, etc.). Here are five lesser known D.C. properties I'd like to see made into major motion pictures.

Deadman

Deadman was the story of Boston Brand, a circus aerialist who was shot by an assassin in the middle of his routine. The ancient deity Rama Kushna took pity on Boston, and gave him the ability to roam the world as a ghost, righting wrongs as he searched for the man who shot him and the reason why. Since being a ghost in itself isn't much of a power, Boston had the ability to possess other human beings, using them as tools in his crusade to do good and find out the truth about his death.

I think Deadman would make a great movie. For one, it is a story with a beginning, a middle and an ending (with a twist, which I won't reveal here). For another, it is a very human story, and even as a ghost, Brand is subject to human weaknesses (one of the best conceits of the series was Brand's frustration trying to pull his aerialist moves in bodies that clearly weren't designed for them, i.e. your average, fat, out of shape American couch potato). In fact (surprise!) I'd be very willing to write the screenplay.

Swamp Thing

Now that the seal on Alan Moore properties has been completely torn off, it's time to make a Swamp Thing movie. Moore completely revolutionized mainstream comics with his take on ST, not as a man who has become a vegetable, but as a vegetable who thinks he is a man. It sounds silly on the page, but this story of a creature who comes to accept the loss of a humanity he never actually possessed is actually quite poignant.

Hawkworld

The origin of Hawkman has been put through several wringers leading up to the modern day, but the best interpretation has to have been Tim Truman and John Ostrander's, back in the late '80s early '90s. This series relied heavily on the idea of the Hawks as a pair of alien policemen, one of noble birth and one from the streets, and the politics of the planet Thanagar figured as heavily in the plots as your basic super hero doings, an idea that I think would work well for modern audiences.

Camelot 3000

Fans of Arthurian mythology and science fiction alike could get behind this limited series, which asked the question: What would happen if the Knights of the Round Table were reincarnated in the year 3000 to thwart an ancient evil? The answer: something very entertaining.

Firestorm
The ultimate attempt to bridge the generation gap, Firestorm was two men in one, teenage rebel Ronnie Raymond and stodgy science Professor Martin Stein, who were fused together in a nuclear explosion and forced to work as one to fight evil. This would be a great opportunity to pair an old favorite star with one of the new millenium's finest: Think Bryan Cranston and Aaron Paul from "Breaking Bad."

Arrivederci, Vancouver

2010-02-27T14:31:00.000-08:00

Where have I been? I promised myself when I started this blog that I would never have one of those "sorry I haven't been posting" posts, so I say by way of explanation, not excuse, that I have been busy watching the Olympics. (Also, it's tax season, so financial services professional and faithful CHP reader Bill Saas has had less free time and therefore less reason to harrass me about not blogging).

I love the Winter Olympics. More so than the Summer Olympics. I love the speed. I love the crashes. I love how the United States is not guaranteed to win practically every event, so it's exciting when they do. I love seeing sporting activities that I only get to see every four years, like Biathlon and Snowboard Cross racing. I especially love it now that I have TiVo to whiz past the down time and the fluff pieces.

So, since I've been gone watching the Winter Olympics, here's my analysis, as they draw to a close:

The Thrill of Victory

As always, the Winter Olympics produced (or NBC produced, depending upon how you look at it), some great stories. For me, the best ones were the following:

Bode Miller:

In Turin, Alpine Skiing great Bode Miller was the Sports Illustrated golden boy. He was a World Cup monster, and was predicted to bring home a big haul of treasure for the United States. And he knew it. He played the obnoxious rockstar athlete to the hilt, and, to my personal satisfaction, completely crapped out in Turin, failing to medal at all.

Vancouver saw a new Bode Miller. He was humble. A family man. Someone who had clearly grown up. And karma rewarded him, with medals across the board, a Gold in Super Combined, a Silver in Super G and a Bronze in downhill.

Apolo Ohno:

It's hard not to like short track speed skater Apolo Ohno. He is clearly a guy who worked hard to turn his life around and was awarded with a whole slew of medals. In this, his last Olympics, everything seemed to fall his way, literally, as in races where he looked as if he would fail to medal, last second slips or crashes by other racers paved the way for Ohno to reach the podium. Even in his final indvidual race, the 500m, Ohno made it to the final by dodging racers who obligingly crashed out to clear him a path. He even crossed the line second in that final for a potential silver, but was disqualified in a controversial ruling. He did not let this dampen his spirits, however, as he put it together one last time to help America medal in the team relay event.

The Agony of Defeat

Of course, without stories of disappointment, there are no stories of redemption and glory. Here are a couple of the most moving stories of athletes falling short in this year's games:

Sven Kramer

Probably the most tragic story of these games was that of Sven Kramer. 23 year old Kramer is a long track speed skater and a virtual rock star in the Netherlands, a country as crazy for speed skating as Canada is for hockey. He is far and away the best long track speed skater in the world and took the 5000 meters gold easily, to the apoplectic joy of Dutch fans. This would be followed by tragedy, however, as Kramer went for gold in the 10,000 meter, a race for which he has no peer. Although crossing the finish line in record time a full six seconds ahead, an eternity in racing terms, Kramer was disqualified, as his coach directed him into the WRONG LANE eight laps before the end of the race. Through no fault of his own, Kramer ended up with nothing in the race he was born to win and Kramer's feeling of disappointment and betrayal was palpable.

Women's Giant Slalom (Vonn/Mancuso)

Lindsey Vonn was to Vancouver as Bode Miller was to Turin, without the attitude. She was the great Amercan hope for skiing in these Olympics. She delivered, with the first American woman's gold in the Downhill event, and a bronze medal in another discipline to go with it. A great result, although the American public was probably set up to expect more. Julia Mancuso was the "other" American skier, constantly in Vonn's shadow. With all eyes on Vonn, Mancuso collected silver medals in the Downhill and Combined events.

Nowhere was the idea of Mancuso in Vonn's shadow more ironically and tragically played out than in the Giant Slalom event. Mancuso had been the upset winner in this event in 2006, and a win here would really cement her status as an Olympic champion in her own right. In a bizarre twist of fate, Mancuso was scheduled to ski immediately following Vonn.

A little more than halfway through her run, Vonn crashed, breaking her finger and finding herself stuck on the course. For some inexplicable reason, race officials sent Mancuso on her run while Vonn was still racing, so Mancuso found herself speeding down the mountain with Vonn still crashed on the course. While Vonn was off to the side and would not have made contact with Mancuso unless she also crashed, officials decided at the last minute to flag Mancuso down and cancel her run. Distraught, she trudged back up the hill to start over, but, no doubt distracted by the strange situation, finished 1.3 seconds behind in the first run, and failed to medal.

As I write, the games are not quite over, and there are still some stories to be written; the U.S. has a chance to win for both men and women in the relatively new Speed Skating Team Pursuit, an event in which both teams were heavy underdogs, and most notably, the U.S. Canada Men's hockey final is yet to be played. And of course, there are many stories I did not even touch on. If this all sounds interesting and you're sorry you missed it, I don't blame you. Never fear though, thanks to the wisdom of the IOC in staggering Olympics, there should be a bunch more great stories to enjoy in two years at the Summer Games in London.

Disgracing the Ace

2010-01-29T20:09:00.000-08:00

A few months ago I wrote a blog to sing the praises of a new poker show on NBC, Face the Ace. Now, having seen several episodes of the show, I am writing to apologize.

The show appealed to me because I expected to see some everyman poker players, and some fun stories. I have seen neither. Frankly, my favorite part of the show is guessing the pro from his/her introduction, in which I'm batting 1000.

The parade of cocky 20 (and 30 and 40) somethings that I feared quickly arrived. Typically the level of cockiness varied inversely with the level of success, which was nice. However, the coversations between the pros and the amateurs is unbearable. Either it's blatant hero worship or blatant self-promotion. I found myself fast forwarding through as much of the chatter as possible.

There's little interesting about the matches. It seems the two players trade pots until the amateur decides he has a pre-flop hand good enough to go all in with, and if the pro has any ace, king or pair, he figures "what the hell, there's a big game developing at the Bellagio" and calls.

Steven Schirripa, whose "timid mouse inside a fearsome lion's body" act worked brilliantly in the Sopranos, is clearly suffering in his role as host. He is obviously not comfortable without a script to work from, and it shows. Often, his contributions are of the "So what do you think?" and "So what's gong on here?" variety. Not exactly what I'm looking for in a host. Ali Nejad's appearances to announce blind raises is a rather random intrusion as well.

Finally, way too many of the contestants are quitting after the first win. In addition to being a mathematically atrocious choice, it doesn't make for very good television.

Anyway, the public was right, I was wrong. Sorry about this one.

The Human Target

2010-01-21T20:10:00.001-08:00

There's a new series on FOX called The Human Target. I will tell you right out of the gate that I was prepared to hate this show for a number of reasons. First of all, as a kid, I was a fan of the original Human Target:

And I was quite sure that FOX was going to screw it up (the "Coming soon to ABC-TV!" banner on the above comic refers to a short-lived Human Target series on ABC back in 1992 starring Rick Springfield, which I actually kind of liked).

The original premise was that the mysterious Christopher Chance, a James Bond-type, would serve as a bodyguard, not in the conventional way, but using his disguise skills to actually take the place of the intended victim, drawing the assassin out. When I heard that Mark Valley's Human Target would instead use the intended victim as bait and put himself in harm's way, I was already skeptical.

I was also getting quite sick of this guy:

Mark Valley, who you will recognize most recently from the FOX X-Files knockoff Fringe. Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with Valley personally, or even with his acting. What I'm really tired of is the blond, square jawed, 40-something, slightly goofy sci-fi/comic book hero, who you can also see in Eureka in the form of Colin Ferugson:

and in The 4400 and V in the form of Joel Gretsch:

Am I supposed to identify with these guys?

Anyway, so I watched the premiere, all set to give a scathing review about trite reimaginings of great concepts.

Ladies and gentlemen, I LOVED it. First of all, as action-adventure pilots go, I did not find that the plot was particularly predictable or cliched, which was incredibly refreshing. Secondly, I thought Mark Valley did a fine job, and his decision to be close to his target rather than actually become the target actually made sense. Next, and perhaps more importantly, it co-starred this guy:

Whom people my age will remember as the brash Kelly Leak from the original Bad News Bears, and more recent readers will remember from his absolutely brilliant turn as Rorscach in the movie Watchmen. The character Guerrero that Jackie Earle Haley plays in the Human Target is somewhere in between, a guy who doesn't look like much, but you just know could kill you if he wanted to. You're afraid of him and you don't quite know why. This type of character is possibly my favorite in all of fiction, and Haley is perfect for him.

Finally, and equally important, is Mark Valley's Christopher Chance. To my surprise, he was neither a douchebag nor an intolerable goofball. I'm all for a good anti-hero: I love seeing House put it to his hapless team and patients every week. But it was about time for a protagonist who has his shit together (relatively speaking) and is just a good guy. That's who Christopher Chance is. Chance is a callback to old school action heroes like the A-Team's Hannibal Smith and Mission Impossible's Jim Phelps. He's cool without being an asshole, and I dig it.

Anyway, watch The Human Target. If the episodes that follow are anything like the pilot (and you like this sort of thing), it'll definitely be worth your while.

J-E-T-S...

2010-01-18T10:34:00.000-08:00

Well will you look at this. Who would have thought it. The New York Football Jets are one game away from the Super Bowl, for the first time since 1998. It seems surreal, like some kind of dream.

The nice thing about the Jets is that they really are a team.

The only real breakout superstar is Darelle Revis. You could argue for anybody on the offensive line as well, but that’s the point. It’s ALL the guys on the offensive line, Faneca, Ferguson, Mangold, etc. who are playing at a higher level, not to mention the way the defensive line stepped up after losing Kris Jenkins for the season.

ROAD TO THE SUPER BOWL?

Will the Jets make it to the Super Bowl? Will they win it? Despite Rex Ryan’s protestations to the contrary, I still think the Jets have to be the underdog all the way. But are they capable of winning it all? Absolutely. The Jets defense has a reputation of being able to shut down high-powered offenses, and that’s what they’ll be facing the rest of the way. And if the Jets beat the Colts, in a repeat of Super Bowl III, they can quiet all the sour grapes fans complaining that the Bengals and Colts laid down to the Jets at the end of the season to make their playoff road easier. Seems the Jets had something to say about that.

BUT WHAT OF SANCHEZ??

For those who would argue that a rookie quarterback like Mark Sanchez could never make it to the Super Bowl, let alone win it, I’d like to remind us all of some other questionable quarterbacks who wear Super Bowl rings. Such unforgettable names as Trent Dilfer of the 2001 Champion Baltimore Ravens. Mark Rypien of the 1992 Champion Washington Redskins. Brad Johnson of the 2002 Champion Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Jeff Hostetler of the 1991 New York Giants. Can Mark Sanchez’ name fit in with such distinguished company? Oh yes, I think it can.

J-E-T-S JETS JETS JETS!!!

Goodbye, Aughts

2009-12-31T10:02:00.000-08:00

On the final day of the decade, I thought I'd write a little blog looking back on the major events of the '00s, contrasted with events in my own life. I should note that most scholars believe that the new decade actually begins on January 1, 2011, because there is no year 0 A.D., the first decade started with 1 A.D. and ended at the end of 10 A.D., and so on. But who says there was no year 0? Who was even counting back then? Just because we don't assign any historical events to that date doesn't mean it didn't happen! Maybe it was a slow year! Maybe that's why they called it year zero!

Anyway, on to the remembrances:

2000: The Republican party steals the Presidential election for George W. Bush, in an escapade that put the Watergate burglars to shame. In response, I decide to leave the country. Since these are the days before GPS, I will end up in California rather than Canada.

2001: The Twin Towers are destroyed by terrorists. Realizing we all have to do our part to band together in this time of crisis, I immediately join a graduate professional screenwriting program at USC.

2002: The New England Patriots replace Drew Bledsoe with a young upstart from Michigan named Thomas Brady and upset the St. Louis Rams to win the Super Bowl. Realizing that nothing in life makes sense anymore, I turn to female companionship for comfort and solace and start dating Elizabeth Saas, a relationship that I am hoping has outlived the Patriots' dynasty.

2003: The Human Genome Project is completed. I graduate with a professional screenwriting degree. While both events were greeted with great hope and celebration, neither has yet to produce any discernible results.

2004: Pamela Anderson once more poses for Playboy. I begin teaching her son Dylan chess to give his life some balance.

2005: A phenomenal year for me, as I win one screenwriting contest, come in second in a bigger one, and find myself runner up to Men "The Master" Nguyen in a Legends of Poker preliminary event. I assume this is presaging great things to come. I am wrong, at least in the short term. I should have guessed there would be trouble when the Pope was succeeded by former Nazi Joseph Ratzenberger.

2006: Google buys YouTube. I respond by creating this blog. My first two posts are about liking the Da Vinci Code without shame and the trials of querying agents and producers.

2007: I finally get my first real agent. The Writers Guild immediately goes on strike, shutting down all production and any hope of getting work in Hollywood.

2008: My contract with my agent expires. A month later the WGA strike is resolved.

2009: Michael Jackson dies. I am selected as a finalist in the FilmStream Screenplay competition. As one history-making career ends, another is about to begin.

Bring on 2010!

Catching a Tiger by His Tail

2009-12-12T11:41:00.001-08:00

First, a little bit of business. I'd like to call your attention to the new "Follow" links that should be on top and to the side of the page. If you have a Google account, these buttons seem to provide a quick and easy way to follow this blog, so there's that. Also, I've added "The Oatmeal" to my blogroll. The Oatmeal is a hysterical site created by web designer Matthew Inman which includes some gut busting cartoons and fun quizzes and you should check it out. Finally, happy birthday to my friend and loyal CraigsHappyPlace reader Bill Saas, who turns 21 today or something.

Anyway, on to the good stuff. Tiger Woods. Oh, Tiger, Tiger, Tiger. Multiple allegations of the world's greatest golfer's infidelity have emerged, and while some may be bogus, voicemails, texts and the golfer's own admissions reveal that some are in fact true. Tiger's been steppin out on his wife. For awhile. This has become the top sports story of the year, without question. But why? As my girlfriend pointed out, it's not like a professional athlete never cheated on his wife before.

This is true. However, there are a lot of things that make this particular story very special.

First of all, Tiger Woods is not a professional athlete. He is THE professional athlete when it comes to golf. His name is synonymous with golf. He is what Michael Jordan is to basketball, what Roger Federer is to tennis, what Wayne Gretsky is to hockey. In the eyes of many, these men are perfect. Infalible. So when they stray, when they give us something that reveals to us that they are indeed human, too, we cannot look away.

Secondly, golf is an individual sport. When a football player is accused of a crime, his teammates often rally around him. In golf, everyone else (other than the sponsors) is Tiger's enemy. If he gets into trouble, there's nowhere to hide.

Thirdly, Tiger is someone with a pristine image in a sport with a pristine image. The whiter the cloth, the better the dirt shows up.

Additionally, we seem to have gotten lucky. If not for this car accident on Thanskgiving, none of this ever would have come out. For whatever reason, before the allegations surfaced, all of these women were willing to keep Tiger's secret. Then when the first one talked, they fell like dominoes (It's quite amazing to see the reaction of attractive, greedy young women to the scent of money. It's like blood in the water for sharks, literally stirring them into a frenzy). Now that we know, we have to know more. Everyone loves to be in on a good secret.

So, knowing why the Tiger story is so big, let's look at some of the interesting reactions to it. Here are some of the top questions that the public and the media have had about Tiger's Trysts:

1. How come Tiger gets with so many white girls?

It seems that while not as fair-skinned as his Nordic bride, the girls Tiger is cheating with are mostly white, or at least, don't reflect a lot of ethnic diversity. Now, cheating is cheating, and Tiger is obviously going to cheat with whoever he finds most attractive, but this little fact may lose him some sympathy among minority fans. We don't know what it means anyway. Are white women objectively more attractive, or just objectively sluttier? Or perhaps these were the only women he could get into the Golf Clubs as guests.

2. Waitaminute! Tiger's wife is hot! WTF??

This just goes back to the old saying: You show me a drop-dead gorgeous woman, I'll show you a guy who's tired of f***ing her. Many of us look at Elin Nordegren and wonder how Tiger could possibly not be satisfied, but that's because we can't have her. There's nothing so attractive as what is new. Man is never satisfied. That is what has allowed him to achieve so much.

3. How could that woman release that voicemail? She's a homewrecking whore! That poor family!

I actually heard a woman say something to this effect on talk radio, which I think is a sad commentary on the state of feminism in this country. However you feel about adultery (which if you are one of these anti-gay marriage fanatics, I assume you would like a law passed against it), there's no question who is at fault for damaging this family. That's on Tiger, and no one else. He played, and he's got to pay. These women didn't take any vows.

4. How could Tiger betray us like this?

OK, Tiger Woods doesn't owe you a damn thing except great golf. If you had an image of Tiger that has been shattered, that's on you, not him. It's unfortunate, but people are human and make mistakes, especially people who grow up with the entitlement that professional athletes do. If you want to reduce your chances of being disappointed, make someone like Judah Folkman or Muhammad Yunus your idol.

Well, that's it for now. See you at the next celebrity scandal!

Healthy Debate

2009-11-28T15:56:00.000-08:00

The latest battle in the health care reform war is between the House health care bill and the Senate health care bill. Although the House bill was passed with much fanfare by the Representatives, it is the Senate bill, or some modified version of the Senate bill, that will ultimately pass, for two reasons. The first is that the Senate just generally gets more respect than the House, since there are fewer Senators and they serve for longer (also “Senator” just sounds cool).

The more important reason is that although the House bill would probably be better for the average American, they have managed to construct it so that there is a reason for everyone to hate it. In a good negotiation, all the parties involved should believe they got a little more than they should have. With the House plan, everyone gets to feel like they got a lot less. The New York Times did a breakdown of some of the key differences in both bills. Let’s look at them to see why the House bill could never become law.

Public Option: Both plans have a public option, but the Senate plan would allow individual states to opt out. Having options sounds great, but what this means is that states with strong pro-corporate lobby groups could kill a public option in states that really need one, states where the big insurance companies are crushing average citizens. As far as the average American goes, the House gets the edge on this one. However, strong proponents of states’ rights, the ideology of say, your average center-right Republican, now have a reason to hate the bill.

Employer Contribution: House plan: Most businesses are required to provide insurance or pay an eight percent payroll tax. Senate plan: Employers are not required to carry insurance for employees but if they have 50 or more employees must pay a $750 penalty per worker if any workers receive federal subsidies. What would happen here under the House plan is probably that most people with jobs would get insurance. Under the Senate plan, employers with over 50 employees would simply make sure that their employees make enough so that they do not qualify for Federal subsidies, or, failing that, hold steady at 49 employees. Again, as an average working stiff, you probably want the plan where they have to give you insurance. As a small business owner, however, you now have a reason to hate the House plan.

Abortion: Those receiving Federal subsidies for insurance can’t get a plan that covers elective abortions under the House plan. The Senate plan allows choosing a plan that covers abortion, but subsidies cannot be used to pay for the abortions. The Senate plan isn’t much better, but guess what? Now everyone who is pro-choice has a reason to hate the House plan.

Illegal Immigrants: Under the House plan, illegal immigrants can get national health coverage, but not with Federal subsidies. Under the Senate plan, illegal immigrants can’t. If illegal immigration is your issue, you now have a reason to hate the House plan.

Paying for the Plan: A 5.4% surtax on high income people pays for the House plan. This by itself is enough to send the average conservative spiraling into a rage. Those on the left will argue that this is a very small percentage of the population and the tax will not affect their lifestyle significantly, while a health care plan will ultimately bring down taxpayer health care costs due to fewer emergency visits and more preventative care. The very rich, and many of those who plan to someday be very rich (which is essentially, everyone else), will be outraged at the prospect of shouldering the entire burden for keeping the poor (who many of them hate and find responsible for their own poverty) healthy. Now the wealthy and those who aspire to wealth hate the House plan.

Clearly, most of the provisions of the House plan are going to be abhorred by your right wing conservatives, but there is enough in there for those on the left and center-left to find disagreeable too. The Senate plan, by being less offensive to everybody, will also probably be less effective, but more likely to pass, or at least pass in a modified form.

That’s politics for you!

Lions in Wait

2009-11-28T14:34:00.000-08:00

In honor of Thanksgiving, here is a letter I wrote to the General Manager of the Detroit Lions:

Let me begin by saying that I am not a Lions fan. In fact, my interests lie mostly in the AFC and I have no feelings about the Lions one way or the other. However, I see a way to help your team and feel it would be immoral to remain silent. While at first glance my solution may seem flippant, I hope you will consider all the evidence I will present on its behalf.

Your team needs a uniform redesign. A radical one.

Clearly to suggest that what someone wears is more important than strategies or personnel seems ridiculous on its face, but psychological studies have shown that certain colors tend to stir up certain emotions in people and may make them more or less competitive. I refer you to studies that have experimented with painting prisons pink to tranquilize the inmates. You can be sure that when the list of colors that stirs up competitive instincts and emotional fire is reviewed, Honolulu Blue is not found among them.

I would ask you to look at the empirical evidence. In 1993, the New England Patriots ditched their traditional colors and their unintimidating “Pat the Patriot” logo, instead adopting a streamlined symbol with deeper, more modern colors. In the 25 years prior to that, the Patriots had made only a single Super Bowl appearance where they were soundly beaten by the Chicago Bears. Four years after the change, the Patriots were in the Super Bowl, and four years after that, they began a dynasty that included three NFL championships in four appearances.

Throughout their entire existence, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers were the laughingstock of the NFL. They even included 14 consecutive losing seasons among their credits, all with their “creamsicle” colors and what some said was an effeminate “Bucco Bruce” logo. In 1997, they exchanged Florida Orange for metallic gold to go with a blood red and skull and crossbones logo. Four years later, they began a season that ended with them hoisting the Vince Lombardi Trophy.

Lest you argue that it is the team, and not their colors, that determine victory, I would ask you to take a look at the Cleveland Browns, whose name in the NFL is synonymous with failure. In 1996, the team moved to Baltimore, requiring as radical a uniform change as there has ever been in the NFL. Four years later, the Baltimore Ravens were a championship team, while the Browns that replaced them, wearing their old, featureless orange helmets and brown and white uniforms, have shown no signs of life whatsoever.

If you want to win, just look at the evidence. Uniforms do make a difference. Ditch the Honolulu Blue for a deeper blue, black, or even something more befitting a lion like a deep orange. Make the silver more metallic and replace the logo with a more fearsome lion. The recent redesign of the emblem is a vast improvement over the amorphous blue blob that used to grace the Lions' helmets but it is not nearly enough.

I hope that you or whoever reads this letter will give these suggestions the credit they are due. Remember that I am not a Lions fan and have nothing invested in whether or not you take these suggestions to heart, only that I know that it will make a difference.

Thank you for your time and attention,

Craig Berger

If you're a Lions fan, you can thank me when they win the Super Bowl, four years after my uniform redesign plan is implemented.

The Visitors Are Your Friends (But not on Facebook)

2009-11-04T12:43:00.001-08:00

Like many people of my generation, I eagerly awaited the debut of ABC's "reimagining" of the classic 1980s T.V. miniseries "V." When "V" came out, it was a member of a now dead breed: The watercooler show. These were shows that everyone had to make an appointment to watch, because they would be what everyone was discussing at the water cooler (or in my case, the water fountain) the next day. In the modern era of DVRs and On Demand programming, of course, such events no longer exist.

"V" came out during a time that was starved for good science fiction on television. The Next Generation of Star Trek was still five or so years away, and the idea of a "Sci Fi Channel" was in itself science fiction at the time, so "V" drew huge audiences, expecting to see some cool aliens and maybe a space battle or two.

What they got was a well-crafted allegory of the dangers of allowing too much power to authority. To be precise, it was a Nazi story. If you'll look at the Visitors classic symbol, you'll notice it's really just a swastika with a couple of the lines removed:

The original "V" developed slowly. In fact, even the marketing campaign developed slowly, beginning with advertisements depicting amicable Visitors above the tagline "The Visitors Are Your Friends" which, as the weeks progressed towards the debut, became "tagged" with the classic V sign. With the new "V", we pretty much know right away that the Visitors are trouble, even before the final act when we get to see a bit of reptile flesh.

The new V also tries to get political. With Nazism no longer the hot button political issue of the day (the original was a mere four decades removed from World War II, today we are about as far from the Nazi heyday as those in WWII were from the Civil War), V tries to include more relevant issues, including terrorism (the FBI is tracking a Visitor "sleeper cell") and universal health care (The Visitors are offering it, taking Congress off the hook).

The problem, I think, is that the creators of the new "V" aren't looking at the big picture. The first "V" was warning us not to put too much faith and confidence in authority and government (particularly appropriate for the time it was released). That is hardly any danger today. One can only imagine what Glenn Beck would have to say on his program about the Visitors, or worse yet, Lou Dobbs. Today's message of warning should be not to allow ones' actions to be governed by fear. Fear is what has been the greatest threat to economic recovery and it is behind a message of fear that America has gotten embroiled in two costly wars. Fear is the Nazi bugaboo of today.

This is the opportunity that the new "V" missed. Why not have the Visitors promise to protect us against terrorism? Maybe even have Anna, the Visitor's leader, round up a few Al Qaedas for us. That would be the way to gain our trust and make us ripe for the slaughter. Perhaps even have the Visitors convince us that they have come to protect us from an even greater threat that lies beyond the stars. By failing to do this, I think "V" has missed the mark.

Another way they missed the mark is through their use (or lack thereof) of modern technology. The Visitors announce themselves through a giant broadcast on the bottom of their spaceships. But why not use Twitter? or Facebook, or MySpace? Especially if you're looking to recruit young people. I'm sure there are already in real life "V" social media pages, but they are for multimedia promotion, not as part of the story. How about have the Visitor speeches come in podcasts downloadable on iTunes? It's hard to imagine that the Visitors would not be aware of and be able to take advantage of this technology.

Comparing a single one hour episode to an entire miniseries is not fair, I'll admit, but I'm afraid that we are already seeing a few signs that "V" is going to be just another average sci fi show. And in a world where "SyFy" the channel (not to mention 100 other channels) is no far-off futuristic fantasy but a genuine, ratings share-siphoning reality, average sci fi is not good enough.

Rick James Would Be Proud

2009-10-25T00:12:00.000-07:00

Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner have come out with a sequel to their surprise hit, Freakonomics (entitled, simply "SuperFreakonomics") and it is every bit as entertaining and fascinating as the original. At the same time, a new Malcom Gladwell collection "What the Dog Saw," is hitting the shelves.

You'll probably find these two side-by-side at your local bookstore, as the popular wisdom seems to be that these three are in the same practice of writing books on what seems to me to be best described as "pop-sociology," although Levitt is an economist and Gladwell is a historian. The reality, however, is that in this particular field, Gladwell, as hard-working, prolific and intelligent as he might be, is not fit to shine Levitt and Dubners' shoes.

The difference between Levitt/Dubner and Gladwell is the difference between Rocky Road and vanilla ice cream. Rocky Road isn't for everyone, but it certainly has a lot of flavors to consider, while vanilla is safe and digestible, but ultimately, somewhat unsatisfying. The eater feels like something is missing.

So it is with Gladwell, the Bing Crosby to Levitt & Dubners' Mick and Keith. Gladwell is much less likely to stir controversy, his conclusions in books like Blink, The Tipping Point and Outliers are nearly universally hailed as groundbreaking and revolutionary, and very rarely challenged in popular media (perhaps despite Gladwell's protestations to the contrary). On the other hand, Levitt & Dubner, with assertions such as that there is a causal link between abortions and drops in crime rates, are regularly excoriated by both the right and the left.

My own feeling is that what is missing from Gladwell's work is some kind of practical application; indeed, Gladwell doesn't even seem to be looking for one. While Levitt/Dubner's work easily lends itself to all sorts of ideas about how we can change the world and why we do or don't, in every area from education to climate change, Gladwell's work seems more about wry observations of why things are how they happen to be, with little concern about what that means for the future.

Freaknomics (and SuperFreakonomics) tells us why and when people cheat and how people tend to over and underestimate potential dangers in the world. This is information that is very clearly useful, and can very obviously inform our future behaviors, if you buy into it. Gladwell's work tells us that in certain cases, people born in certain months have a greater chance of success (Outliers) that people sometimes instinctively know when something is out of place (Blink) and that certain products blow up in sales when enough of the right kind of people take an interest in it (Tipping Point). It's all interesting to be sure. But is it really groundbreaking and revolutionary? Without some kind of context, some interesting ideas about how we can manipulate such information in a useful way? Not for my money.

Speaking of my money, I bought both SuperFreakonomics and What the Dog Saw. Sure enough, Levitt and Dubner jump right in with the both controversial and useful notion that, in deaths per mile, driving home drunk is many, many times safer than walking home drunk, and moves into the idea that television empowers Indian women while at the same time leading to an overall increase in crime (not violence, but crime) all over the world, while Gladwell starts us off with story of Ron Popeil, what makes him special (he learned to make the product the star) and how he came up with the idea to invent the RonCo Rotisserie (he realized that people pay a lot for rotisserie-cooked food) and moves on to explore why Heinz has cornered the market on ketchup (they make the best ketchup).

To be fair, the Gladwell book is a compilation of some of his favorite New Yorker articles, rather than a single book concept with a unifying theme, and as he states, is not intended to persuade, but simply to give insight into how others think. It is also well-written, and well-researched, and Gladwell is to be commended for this. The Ron Popeil story, the quest to make a better ketchup, and the other stories Gladwell tells are interesting, in their own way.

That being said, if you want to read a book that will really keep you up at night thinking about things like the economics of prostitution, how terrorists are profiled and whether or not you should be more afraid of elephants than sharks, you're going to want to plunk your money down on SuperFreakonomics. I'm sure Rick James would agree.

Peace, Brother

2009-10-11T05:45:00.000-07:00

A lot of people are up in arms (so to speak) over the fact that Barack Obama has been awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace. Here are a few reasons why this is really nothing to get worked up about.

1. The Award Is Ironic

Awarding the prize to Obama is not ironic, however, the fact that Alfred Nobel, the founder of the award, made the money to fund it (as well as the other Nobel Prizes) by inventing dynamite, one of the most popular explosives in history, is.

2. The Award Is Vague

The Nobel Prize for Peace is supposed to go “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses,” during the preceding year. Ok, I don’t really know of anyone who is doing a ton of work for the reduction of standing armies or the promotion of peace congresses these days, so it really comes down to this “fraternity among nations,” which could mean anything. You could argue that Obama has done a tremendous amount for fraternity among nations just by not being George W. Bush.

3. The Award Is Arbitrary

Gandhi, the poster boy for non-violent conflict resolution, never won a Nobel Peace Prize. Jody Williams, for her work banning landmines, has. Banning landmines is great, but is it really work for fraternity among nations? It sounds more like work for shutting down Nobel’s dynamite competitors to me.

4. The Award Doesn’t Mean Anything

Winning a Nobel Prize is nice. You get a shiny medal and a chunk of cash. But it doesn’t confer any authority or require any recognition. You don’t even have to travel the country for a year as a representative of world peace, the way Obama might have had to do if he was awarded say, the Miss America crown.

5. Positive Reinforcement Is GoodWhen someone is given a prize for doing something, expectations rise. Given that Obama still has two wars to extricate us from and the work restoring our standing with the International community after the disastrous Bush years may not be quite finished, shouldn’t this guy be getting all the encouragement the world can give him?

How to Talk to a Jew About Nazis: Simple Tips

2009-09-15T18:09:00.000-07:00

Recently I was at a party (which on the whole was a lovely, gala affair) where I had the opportunity to lurk in a conversation in which a wealthy, older white professional began to draw some comparisons between President Obama and Hitler. Since such a comparison is completely ridiculous and pathological, it has naturally become a favored talking point among the conservative radio pundit crowd and their rabid, drooling fan base. Should these discussions happen to trickle down to you and you wish to impress your friends and wow your neighbors by pulling them out at a party, you may become discouraged if your host has made the gauche decision to invite a bunch of Jews. Thus, for your convenience, I have prepared some tips for you in this eventuality.

1. Do Not Tell Me About How Hitler was a Socialist, or that the Nazi Party was a Socialist Party

I am well aware that "Nazi"is a rough abbreviation for "National Socialist." However, for one, labelling something doesn't make it so. In fact, often quite the opposite is the case (witness FOX "Fair and Balanced" News, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals {guess what? Humans are also animals!} or the Bill-of-Rights-busting "Patriot Act").

For another, Hitler was a rabid anti-communist and was anti-lower class, not exactly traditional socialist positions.

Finally, the type of socialist policies that were popular among the Nazis were of the "legislating social morality" type that Conservatives like, not the "giving cheap medicine to poor, brutally sick children whose unemployed crack-addicted mother was taught abortion was a sin" type that Conservatives fear.

2. Do Not Tell Me About How "What People Don't Remember Is that Hitler Was a Great Leader"

First of all, if you want to whip out this gem at all, tell me that Hitler was an "effective" leader, a "charismatic" leader or a "popular" leader. Yes, Hitler was able to mobilize a nation that was ravaged by economic crisis and a loss of national identity (don't get excited, Obama-Haters, the comparisons end there). He also was impossibly insecure, a hate monger, and, oh yeah, murdered millions of people. To describe someone like that as "great" makes you sound like a moron.

Secondly, if you do decide to go with one of the options offered, don't say it with smug self satisfaction like you've just delivered some high level piece of political science wizardry. One, you don't know shit about Hitler's leadership other than that he drew big crowds and he made the trains run on time (and you don't even know that, because that was Mussolini, and it's not even true). Two, your insight that to lead an entire nation to imperialism and mass murder requires you have an ability to endgender some cooperation is not a mind-numbing revelation.

3. You Can Try to Compare Obama to Hitler, or You Can Say Hitler Was a Great Leader, but not Both

This is just a logic issue. Clearly when comparing Obama to Hitler you are not trying to cast the President in a favorable light, so going on to talk about how great and effective Hitler was doesn't even make any sense. Unless you are trying to imply that the big Obama purge of all white people is just around the corner. If you are, you are at best a bigot and at worst a complete idiot.

OK! Now you know everything you need to know to chat with Jews about Hitler and Nazism. Let's party!

Drinking the Orient

2009-08-27T11:23:00.001-07:00

Do you need a reason to visit Asia? How about to drink a bunch of really disgusting beverages? Here are some exciting potables of the East to consider and enjoy.

1. Pepsi White

Did you ever think... I love the refreshment of Pepsi, but I wish it looked and tasted more like bull semen? Head to Japan, where you can enjoy the exhilarating taste of YOGURT-FLAVORED Pepsi White!

2. Kopi Luwak

But perhaps you prefer your caffeine with an air of excrement instead. If so, get yourself on over to the Philippines and enjoy the extremely precious Kopi Luwak coffee, made from beans that come from... you guessed it, a Palm Civet's ass. Here's my question. How did the first person to try this decide it would be a good idea?

3. Bilk
Did you ever look at a beer and wonder... "hmm, I wonder what this would taste like with milk in it?" Me neither.

4. Deer Penis Wine

China brings us a wondrous liquid delight in the form of Deer Penis Wine. You've heard the admonitions not to "eat the worm" from your tequila bottle? Well what happens in China, stays in China.

5. Vietnamese Sea Horse Whiskey

Well, after the Deer Penis Wine, choking this down should be no problem.

What Now, Eagles Fans?

2009-08-14T09:47:00.000-07:00

If you're a sports fan, you've heard by now. Ex-con Michael Vick is a Philadelphia Eagle. As the above press conference shows, Mike is contrite and feels gratification [sic] for his second chance, and wants to make up for his cruelty to animals and he realizes that playing in the NFL is a privilege, not a right.

Except we know this is all bullshit, right? I mean, yes, he's happy he's getting a chance to play in the NFL again, but do we really believe he feels remorse for his actions? Come on. He knew dog fighting was wrong before, and he knows now. He's not going to do it again, but probably because it screwed up his life so much and not because a year and a half of quiet reflection made him realize that torturing and fighting dogs for sport is morally bankrupt.

But does it matter? The reality is, the man has served his time. A judge decided a fair punishment and he paid it. Shouldn't he have the right to now reintegrate into society? Does it matter that he was convicted for animal torture rather than rape or murder?

Interestingly, some people feel that Vick is MORE vilified because of a crime against an an animal vs. a human rather than less. I'm not in that camp. I felt much more disgust when people were throwing money at Mike Tyson after he served his rape stretch than I do now. But in both cases, a guy who has done his time does have a right to try to make a living. The fact that this is easier for athletes than for say, construction workers may be frustrating, but it's still true.

By the same token, no one is obligated to support the move. If your local bakery decides to employ a convicted rapist after he is released, you have every right not to buy your cakes there. On the other hand, you're probably on iffy ethical grounds if you stand outside the store picketing to try to put the baker out of business unless he fires said employee.

Michael Vick is in the same position. He has every right to try to get a job, and the Eagles have every right to hire him. If you don't like it, you probably shouldn't go to Eagles games or buy his jersey. On the other hand, in an ironic twist, many people will probably be watching more Eagles games to see if Vick will fail, or if a linebacker will deliver a punishing hit for all the dog lovers out there.

Most likely, after a few weeks playing in the NFL, once the novelty has worn off, the story will fade and it will be business as usual, at least, until the next ex-con gets awarded his multi-million dollar deal.

Facing the Ace

2009-08-02T20:57:00.000-07:00

There is a new poker show on NBC called Face the Ace. The premise is simple. A qualifier from FullTilt Poker is selected to compete against up to 3 professional players. If they beat the first player, they win $40,000. If they beat the 2nd player, they get $200,000, and the third player is worth a cool million. The player can walk away at any time, but if he loses to any of the three players he gets nothing. When I initially heard about this show, I thought it would not interest me, and I was going to let it go by. But, TiVo being easy to use, I figured I'd give it a shot.

}

I loved it. The main reason I loved it was because of the competitors. When I heard they were taking qualifiers from Full Tilt, I expected the usual parade of 20-something hotshots. Young guns barely old enough to shave talking about how no one can stand against their awesome aggression and how they've got the game of poker all figured out. You know who I'm talking about.

For one thing, it's impossible to root for these people (unless, I suppose, you happen to be one). For another you will find that the best poker players in the long term tend to be humble (look at Phil Ivey, Allen Cunningham, Doyle Brunson), so it's very difficult to believe that most of these younger players are not the beneficiaries of short term luck who will fade into obscurity the moment the odds tilt against them, therefore it's very hard to hear them expound on how they have mastered the game of poker. This being the case, I had no interest in seeing whether any of these people could win a million dollars, if these are the people who competed.

}

They weren't. Just the opposite.

}

The first player, Jonathan Nygaard, was a war veteran from Pennsylvania. The second, Don Topel, was a truck driver from Illinois. Both were over 30, baseball fans, and overweight. OH MY GOD! JUST LIKE REAL POKER PLAYERS!!!

}

If you walk into any casino anywhere in the world (and I've been in more than a few), these are the people you will see. Not a horde of brash 21 year olds in backwards caps and sunglasses staring overconfidently over huge stacks of chips, but middle Americans, husbands and fathers, a few wives and mothers, doctors, firemen, lawyers and janitors, senior citizens and yes, a few hopeful young kids in the mix. One of the great things about live poker is the way it puts people from widely disparate walks of life together. Another great thing about poker is that not everyone at the table is an overconfident douchebag, and that the people that are often end up going home relieved of their chip stacks.

}

Anyway, the first exciting thing about Face the Ace was that it had real people competing, people I would actually like to see win a million dollars. But the reality didn't stop there. Nygaard, clearly uncomfortable on television, had the misfortune to select Phil Ivey, who may be poker's next world champion, as his heads up opponent. From there, he showed the world just what real poker is like:

}

On the very first hand, Nygard got pocket Aces and limped to Ivey's A8. Ivey bet out, Nygaard check-raised, bet the safe flop, and took the pot. On the second hand, Ivey got rags and had to muck pre-flop. On the third hand, Nygaard got Queens, he limped, Ivey raised, Nygaard check-raised again, and Ivey moved in with A4. Nygaard insta-called and won the match.

}

Ivey's play couldn't have been more understandable. He was check-raised two out of three hands and naturally assumed his opponent had decided on a strategy of being hyper aggressive and attacking all of Ivey's raises. Ivey decided to take a stand early with his ace. The reality of course, is that Nygaard had the unlikely good fortune to actually have been dealt monsters on those two hands, and so he won the match. If he had not been dealt aces on hand one, it's likely things would have gone very differently.

}

Then, $40,000 in hand, Nygaard shockingly chose to drop and take the money. Considering that he already had beaten the best player on the panel and in short order, this choice was pretty surprising (and mathematically wrong; given the volatility of heads up play, it would be a mistake to pass on 5-to-1 odds against any opponent). It was unclear whether Nygaard chose to quit because he didnt realize how uncomfortable he would be on television (he covered his mouth frequently and gave slow, halting answers to host Steven Schirripa's questions), or he didn't realize how having $40,000 in hand would feel, but either way, it was a very real moment.

}

Don Topel managed to get past his first two opponents, Erick Lindgren and Howard Lederer, in similarly natural poker ways (the critical hand in the first match came when Lindgren made a move with a suited ace and Topel called with a bigger suited ace, Lingren hit his kicker on the turn but Topel made his flush on the river; the critical hand in the second match came when Topel got it all in pre-flop with KK against Lederer's AQ suited), with the result that Topel had the opportunity to go for a million dollar game, which he decided to do (some will say he was greedy, but again, this is the mathematically correct choice). That game will be played out on the next show.

}

I'll be watching, and rooting for Don, a likeable guy who wants to buy his mother and sister a home and who took the Schirripa (not entirely comfortable in the host role yet, it seems) ribbing about his weight with good humor. This really is a poker show that almost anyone can enjoy.

}

Naturally, the first episode of Face the Ace finished last in the ratings in its time slot.

Just in Case You Were Doubting the Journalistic Integrity of FOX News

2009-07-30T09:09:00.000-07:00

Rupert Murdoch has managed to do what years of American foreign policy could not. THEY WIPED IRAQ OFF THE MAP!!!

Let's hope Israel stays on Bill O'Reilly's good side...

And That's the Way it Was

2009-07-17T19:40:00.001-07:00

Walter Cronkite died today, at the ripe old age of 92.

Fortunately I'm not quite old enough to remember Cronkite in his heyday, as the anchor of the CBS Evening News and "the most trusted man in America." I can't speak about my personal experiences with Walter Cronkite, and the New York Times can talk about his impact much better than I.

What I can talk about is what I think his death symbolizes. It will surprise none when I say that it represents the death of T.V. news, or at least, the trust Americans have had in it.

Cronkite made no aspersions to be a pundit, for either the Right, the Left, or anyone in between. His job was just to find and report the news, and when he did it, he did it earnestly and with care, and everyone trusted him because they knew this.

Cronkite had the luxury not to reach his prime in a polarized country, at least, not one where that polarization was played out across 100 different network and cable channels every night. For to be sure, Hawks vs. Doves, Traditionalists vs. Civil Rights Activists, Communist haters vs. sympathizers, and many others had their battles under Cronkite's watch, but those groups in the pre-information age never relied on T.V. newsmen to fight those battles for them.

Today, with FOX, NBC, CNN and all the rest of the alphabet fighting for every little piece of the ratings pie that they can get, everyone who reports the news on television has to take a stand. If they don't pick a side, the rest of the media will sweep them into one category or another.

When John Stewart went on Crossfire and effectively buried the show with his passionate deconstruction of its entertainment-based underpinnings, he shone the spotlight on a serious problem, which is that television news, both local, national, and cable, has, almost by necessity, lost virtually all it's credibility, and I'm not sure that there's anything anyone can do about it.

The trusted, impartial televsion news anchor and television news broadcast died today with Walter Cronkite. I'll be getting my news from newspapers and the Internet. If I want a good laugh or some entertaining video bites with my popcorn, I'll throw on FOX News or CNN.

How Wise, This Latina?

2009-07-16T10:47:00.000-07:00

The opening salvo in the formality known as the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings was an attack on Judge Sotomayor's impartiality.In particular, a 2001 speech in which she suggested that in some situations she hoped a “wise Latina” would make a better judgment than a white man. Republicans and their media mouthpieces, being contractually obligated to bash any Obama nomination, immediately took hold of this story and put it forth as an example of Sotomayor’s potential as an “activist” judge, and even used it to accuse her of racism.

It’s not surprising that the Republicans would take hold of this issue. There is little doubt that a white male justice who said he hoped that in certain cases a “wise white man” would make a better judgment than a Puerto Rican woman would be vilified by the left. The counterargument to this, of course, is that there is no comparable situation a white man could find himself in, since by the nature of our culture, white men do not come from an oppressed class and cannot experience oppression in the same way as a minority can. I’m not sure I agree with this, but I’d rather focus on Sotomayor’s critical statements.

Here’s the lecture quote that has everyone up in arms:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”

She was referring specifically to cases of civil rights and discrimination, and responding to a quote of Sandra Day O’Connor’s that a wise man and a wise woman should come to the same conclusions when judging. The Sotomayor apologists would contend that she was simply saying that a white male does not have the breadth of cultural experience to equip him to fully understand the damages and dangers of institutionalized racism, not that they were in any way genetically inferior.

In her response to questioning on the issue, Sotomayor stated:

"I want to state upfront, unequivocally and without doubt: I do not believe that any racial, ethnic or gender group has an advantage in sound judging. I do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge, regardless of their background or life experiences."

So there you have it. That should be the end of the story. Unfortunately, what isn’t mentioned is that Sotomayor prefaced the “wise Latina” comment with this one:

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

That sure sounds like she thinks racial background makes a difference. Is she saying it makes a difference but that difference is not an advantage? Is it a disadvantage? Clearly she doesn’t think that.

Frankly I am more concerned with the double standard. I have no doubt that if any member of a “non-oppressed” class were to suggest that there are inherent physiological differences that have an effect on judgment, they would be ruthlessly attacked by the left. That doesn’t mean it’s not true. It also doesn’t mean that Sotomayor is a racist. What I think it does mean is that people should not be so quick to play the race card at the merest mention of genetic, physiological or social differences between those of different ethnicities.

Let Freedom Ring!

2009-07-04T09:00:00.000-07:00

In celebration of its 233rd birthday, here are a few fun facts about the United States:

Over 80 percent of the United States have laws prohibiting certain American citizens from marrying the spouse of their choice.

While 13.5 percent of Americans are African-American, 41 percent of those on death row are African American.

Women on average make 78 cents for every dollar a man makes.

The FISA Amendments Act still gives the government almost unlicensed ability to surveil the international communications of private American citizens.

Even with all that, I still believe this is the greatest country in the world. Happy Independence Day!

Is Michael Jackson's Death a Tragedy?

2009-06-27T15:10:00.000-07:00

I don't know if you guys have heard, but Michael Jackson died.

I felt bad when I heard this, but not because of who MJ was. I felt bad because when I hear that anyone dies it reminds me of my own mortality, which is depressing (and largely why I stopped reading daily AOL headlines). Frankly, my first instinct, as I'm sure is the case for many others, is to find out why a 50 year old man suddenly died, so we can assure ourselves it won't happen to us (okay, I'm not doing daily Demerol shots, phew). Also, I've lost four close family members and a beloved family pet over the last five years, so I'm not going to lose too much sleep over Michael Jackson.

But clearly, if the news outlets are to be believed anyway, this is a pretty big deal, and some say, an unspeakable tragedy. But is it really a tragedy, more so than the death of anyone else? One thing I always think about when something like this happens is how much worse it would have been to die at 50 and never to have done anything culturally relevant, which happens probably every day. But objectively, is this a particular tragedy? To answer that, I think we need to talk about what it means to say a life ends tragically.

Was It a Violent End?

One situation in which we say someone died tragically is if their death was the result of violence. A car accident, a shooting, a fire. If not violent, a death that comes with great pain is considered tragic: Cancer, emphysema, ALS. Michael Jackson appears to have essentially passed away in his sleep.

Was Someone Else Responsible?

We also consider it tragic if someone causes the death of another. When someone who should have continued living but does not because someone hit them with a car or crashed their plane, this is considered a tragedy. A suicide is also considered tragic, but usually it is the circumstances that led to the suicide that are thought of as tragic, not necessarily the death itself. This one is not clear. It may be that Jackson received bad information about prescription drug use, and it may even be that drug overdose will not turn out to be the cause of death, but it seems equally likely that he took risks with drugs even after receiving precautionary advice from doctors.

Was His Life Cut Short?

This is the big one. If someone should have lived for a much longer time on average, then we consider his death a tragedy. The average life expectancy of the African American male is about 69 years. That means that Michael was cheated out of 19 years on average. Unfortunate, but it may not be tragic. Of course, MJ was not the average African American male. But we don't know if that works for him or against him. Clearly he is not subject to the life-shortening effects of poverty or gang violence, but on the other hand, there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that the lifespans of great musicians are shorter than average. Some of the greatest musicians in history did not even see their 50th birthdays (Elvis Presley, 42, John Lennon, 40, Wolfgang Mozart, 35, Jim Morrison, 28, Sam Cooke, 33, Marvin Gaye, 45, Otis Redding, 26, Jimi Hendrix, 27).

Did He Have More to Contribute?

What about Michael's contribution to society? While he was planning a new concert tour which would no doubt have been sold out, it seems that Michael's positive cultural relevance is largely on the decline. I would be surprised if most of the people who are now playing their old Michael Jackson DVDs and downloads around the clock had chosen of their own accord to play a Michael Jackson song anytime in the last ten years before June 26th. Since HIStory in the late '90s, MJ has been primarily known for his bizarre lifestyle, accusations of child molestation, and questionable treatment of his own children. This doesn't take away from his historic contributions to the music world during his lifetime, of course, it's just a question of how much more he had to give.

As I stated, there is a way in which it is a tragedy when anyone dies. But is it any more of a tragedy than the death of say, Farrah Fawcett, who lost a courageous battle with cancer at the age of 62 and who is credited for a number of movie roles inspiring women to take control of their lives, or of Stephen T. Johns, killed by a white supremacist while defending the Washington D.C. Holocaust museum? Probably not.

Some might say: why even speak of whose death is a 'greater' tragedy? When anyone dies, especially prematurely, it is equally unfortunate. If that is your attitude, good for you. In a world where certain lives are clearly valued above others, it seems that is a rare position to take.

Wormholes, Worldlines and Whatnot

2009-06-20T12:35:00.000-07:00

In the first blog in this series, I talked about the many reasons that I felt time travel stories don’t work. I specifically mentioned the main physical, metaphysical, logical and aesthetic objections. In the second blog, I bravely took up the other side, and discussed how the Many Worlds Theory effectively rebuts the metaphysical objections, and to some extent, the logical ones. However, the physical, aesthetic, and to some extent, the logical objections remain. What’s a time travel advocate to bring up in his defense now? Answer: Wormholes.

Wormholes

A wormhole functions according the idea that spacetime is curved, and there can essentially be a situation where a bridge is created cutting right through that curve, a sort of tunnel between an earlier and later time. In other words, if time were a straight line ----, it would take you a certain amount of time to get from point A to point B. But if time were more of a “C” shape, you could get from one end of the C to the other much faster by cutting through it rather than going around the curve.

This indeed solves a lot of problems. It counters the physical objection, because you can have a wormhole where objects are not moving at the speed of light inside the tunnel, although they might appear to be to outside observers (a wormhole is not simply two black holes with a bridge between them, but rather a black hole and a white hole linked by negative energy).

The show Sliders made heavy use of wormholes and the Einstein-Rosen bridges between them. Wormholes also take care of my main logical objection, the Tourist Trap, which was that if time travel is possible at one point, it becomes possible simultaneously throughout the time stream. Scientists have postulated that time travel through a wormhole would require the “stationary end” to appear first. In other words, a wormhole couldn’t open up allowing you to travel back to someplace where there wasn’t a wormhole before. The point of this being that we may not have experienced time travel yet because the first “stop,” or the first wormhole, hasn’t been created/found yet.

Worldlines

There has been another use of time travel in fiction that I haven’t mentioned yet, but that I have found to be very effective. This is the idea of the worldline. Worldlines are essentially lines that travel through space and time at once, as opposed to a timeline that simply marks the passage of time. In other words, a person’s life, drawn on a graph, would be a worldline, as it plots their movement through space and time. Some time travel stories intimate that it is possible to travel back and forth on your own worldline, since it is simply a line that exists in the universe, not something that is being created or destroyed. Under the right circumstances you should able to walk back and forth along it like the path to your tomato garden.

Whatnot

This still does not address my aesthetic objection, which you’ll remember was that time travel stories are simply messy: Specifically, it 1. disrupts continuity and makes it difficult to invest in the characters, and 2. creates the slippery slope: You go back and change something, I go back and fix it, you go back and unfix it, ad infinitum. To close out this extended rant, I’d like to take a look at how some time travel stories handle all this and how effective I think it has been.

Star Trek

I frankly think that time travel has made Star Trek a pretty big mess. You can argue with the last movie that the Romulan time trip created a new, alternate timeline, and that the initial timeline is moving forth as it always had (albeit without a Spock). That’s okay, I guess, but I suspect we will never see our “real” timeline again, and even that timeline has been removed by so many jumps it hardly matters (for example in Star Trek, First Contact, the Borg go back in time and take over Earth, radically changing its history. The Enterprise crew goes back and fixes it. However according to the Many Worlds theory, the initial timeline was unchanged by the Borg, and the Borg’s new timeline was unchanged by the Enterprise; we simply have three different universes in effect. Yes I have a headache now too).

Quantum Leap, Watchmen, Slaughterhouse Five

I lump these together because they all make what I think is effective use of the “Worldline” theory of time travel. Dr. Sam Beckett can only travel back and forth through time within his own lifetime, while Dr. Manhattan experiences different times in his life simultaneously. Billy Pilgrim has come “unstuck” in time, and experiences his life randomly through time, jumping from one point to the next without rhyme or reason (or at least without rhyme). In each case, the universe is not offended by their time travel.

Back to the Future

Back to the Future alludes to the Many Worlds theory, but not quite effectively. Dr. Brown does explain how moving through time creates an alternate timeline. However, he creates a sticky situation when he does a test run by sending his dog three minutes into the future. The dog has clearly reappeared in the same timeline, which forces us to confront the possibility that somehow moving ahead in time does not create new timelines while moving backwards does. Marty also finds that changing the past is affecting his original present (the picture with his siblings disappearing as they are “uncreated”), which gives rise to the “grandfather paradox” anew.

Sliders

Sliders handles the wormhole idea pretty well, but its protagonists are jumping through dimensions, not moving through time and space. There are no paradoxes because they never encounter the same timeline twice, although Quinn Mallory’s quest to return to his home dimension may prove impossible.

Comic Books

Members of the Legion of Superheroes travel freely back and forth through time with little concern about the consequences. The mainstream DC universe has not created a very sophisticated look at time travel although they used to have an interesting conceit where if you went back to a time where you already existed, you would appear as a wraith, since the same person cannot “be in two places at once.”

The Terminator

Terminator time travel isn’t too unwieldy for a number of reasons. The first is that only a handful of people go back before the time travel device is destroyed, and they can’t travel the other way. There are still some paradox issues, but since time travel is used so sparingly, it doesn’t interfere with the story too much.

Okay. I’m finally done with the time travel stuff. Next week I’ll go back to ranting about traffic patterns in L.A. or bad poker beats or why some Right to Lifers are psychotic or whatever.

Why You Love Time Travel Part I

2009-06-12T18:13:00.000-07:00

In my last post, I complained about time travel as it appears in television, movies and fiction in general. I felt that there were a number of inconsistencies about time travel as to make it so implausible as to render any story based on it completely unenjoyable.

Clearly I’m in the minority in this opinion. Time travel stories continue to delight, generation after generation. Why should this be, if my objections are so irrefutable? Well, one reason is some people just like a good story and don’t care how unbelievable it is. As I pointed out in my last blog, Superman’s “impossible” ability to fly doesn’t deter my enjoyment of his adventures (although I prefer Batman). However, there's more to it than that.

The Objections to Time Travel

I raised four basic objections to time travel as portrayed in fiction: Physical: As one approaches the speed of light, required for going back in time, mass becomes infinite, effectively destroying the time traveler; Metaphysical: Specifically the Grandfather Paradox (you go back in time and kill your grandfather, therefore you are never born and cannot go back in time to kill your grandfather, etc.) and the Ontological Paradox (Future Craig hands me an envelope which he tells me to hold on to for five years. Five years later I go back in time and hand myself the envelope. Where did the envelope come from?). Logical: Specifically, the Tourist Objection; If time travel is possible, how come we don’t know about it yet? We should be being visited by an effectively infinite number of time travelers all the time, where are they? And Aesthetic: How can any story have internal consistency if someone can always go back in time and change what happened?

I mentioned that there are rebuttals to all of these objections (I excepted the aesthetic but I will stipulate that for most people, if the other objections are satisfied the aesthetic one should be as well, even if I personally am not comfortable with it), and hence, some time travel stories that work. So here goes:

Let’s start by addressing the Metaphysical objections. The famous grandfather paradox and the ontological paradox. There are two main ways that philosophers approach the problem of time travel paradoxes: The Many Worlds Theory and the Novikov Self-Consistency Principle.

The Novikov Self-Consistency Principle

The Novikov Self-Consistency Principle simply states that anything that cannot happen, will not happen. In other words, if you go back in time and try to kill your grandfather, you will always fail. Your gun will misfire at the last minute, you will have shot the wrong person, or the right person but it will turn out that he wasn’t your grandfather after all, etc. The television show LOST makes use of the self-consistency principle. Daniel Faraday repeatedly explains that no matter what they try to do, the future will not change, because whatever happened is immutable and has already happened, even if the time-traveling protagonists are at an earlier place in the timeline. Ben cannot be killed as a child, the Dharma Initiative cannot be saved, simply because it didn’t happen.

I do not find this theory particularly compelling. There is nothing in the universe to suggest that it actively attempts to sort out paradoxes at a macro level. If you shoot someone, they will die, and to suggest that the universe somehow “knows” to protect them seems to be so fanciful as to make the theory meaningless. This also does not explain the ontological paradox.

The Many Worlds Theory

The many worlds theory, popularized in D.C. Comics with their “multiverse,” and based on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which says that the states of certain particles at the quantum level are not fixed until observed, and that until they are observed they exist in multiple states at once, is much more compelling. It is referenced in Back to the Future and used in comic book literature and other works of fiction, including the television show Sliders and the Michael Crichton book “Timeline.”

The idea of the multiverse is that the universe as we know it is just one of many possible universes that exist in different dimensions, and that each choice we make represents the universe that we fix in time out of the infinite universes that are possible. As it pertains to time travel, the theory goes that when we go back in time and change something, we create an alternate timeline. Our original timeline, the one that spawned us, continues on into infinity while we exist in the new, altered timeline.

This idea seems to work pretty well. It addresses the grandfather paradox: when you kill your grandfather, you create a universe where you never existed, however you, the killer, came from a parallel universe where you did exist. It addresses the ontological paradox too. In Terminator, Kyle Reese is sent back in time to protect Sarah Connor so that John Connor will be born. He ends up becoming John Connor’s father. According to the theory, there was a “prime” universe where John Connor had some other father. In that universe, Kyle Reese was sent back in time, creating an alternate universe where Kyle Reese is John Connor’s father, as we see in the movie.

How this is handled can get complicated. In Back to the Future, Marty and his siblings start to disappear when it seems that Marty may have prevented his parents from ever falling in love. If this is an alternate universe, that shouldn’t be an issue. In “Timeline” Crichton addresses this problem by suggesting that events in an alternate timeline have a “ripple effect.” That over the course of time, minor changes happen in the original timeline so that it will “catch up,” and become consistent with that timeline. In other words, events in one timeline can have an effect on others.

I feel that the many worlds theory is pretty effective in addressing the metaphysical objection, and as I stated in my first post, the metaphysical objection doesn't trouble me that much. The many worlds theory does also address the logical objection to some extent. If travelers going back in time are always creating alternate timelines, we shouldn’t expect to ever meet one in our “prime” universe. However I don’t find this entirely compelling. Somehow it seems that we still might receive a visitor from an alternate future, so that our prime timeline is their alternate one, or that the ripple effect should still produce premature time travel in our universe. I feel that there are stronger rebuttals to the “Time Tourist” objection, which is tied in with the rebuttal to the physical objection (hint: Wormholes), and I’ll discuss those in Part II.

Why I Hate Time Travel

2009-05-31T16:37:00.000-07:00

The summer blockbuster season has arrived and it seems that the words of the day are “time travel.” Time travel is all the rage, and appears prominently in the latest “Star Trek” installment, as well as being a key element of Terminator: Salvation. Time travel was also a frequent theme of the Terminator television series, and of course is crucial to ABC’s ever popular LOST.

Time Travel in Science Fiction

While the latest Star Trek movie installment was hailed as “original” and “groundbreaking,” time travel is actually an extremely common element of the Star Trek series. It was the theme of four Star Trek Movies (“The Voyage Home,” “Generations” and “First Contact,” in addition to the latest installment), and has appeared multiple times in every Star Trek series (TOS: City on the Edge of Forever, Assignment: Earth, TNG: Yesterday’s Enterprise, Time’s Arrow, DS9: Little Green Men, Trials and Tribble-ations, VOY: Future’s End, Relativity, ST:E: Cold Front, Zero Hour).

The Terminator series is completely reliant on time travel to tell its story. Clearly time travel is a popular device for purveyors of science fiction. So why do I hate it so much?

Problems with Time Travel

My problems with time travel, like time travel itself, span multiple dimensions. These dimensions are Physical, Metaphysical, Logical and Aesthetic. To address each of these in turn:

Physical:

Time travel the way it is depicted in most fiction is impossible. This, frankly, is the least of my concerns with time travel, as science fiction is generally predicated on the impossible. However, I just thought I’d put it out there. The whole idea of time travel is usually designed around Einstein’s Relativity theories, which essentially state that how fast time moves depends on your perspective, and that space and time exist together along a continuum. The faster you are moving and the farther away you are from an object, the slower time appears to you relative to the object that isn’t moving as fast or that you are far away from. The theory continues to suggest that if you could move fast enough, you could theoretically move backwards through the time stream, and there are in fact particles that do this, called tachyons.

The problem with all of this for say, Ambassador Spock, is that as one approaches the speed of light, one’s mass becomes infinite, and the human (or Vulcan) body is not really equipped for infinite mass, so anyone traveling through a black hole or some kind of particle accelerator might reappear back in time, but they would do so as so much mush.

Metaphysical:

Again, the physical objection is no big deal. Superman shouldn’t be able to fly either and I’m fine with that. I’m also not too caught up in the metaphysical problems, but I should address them as well.

The metaphysical problems are the paradoxes. There is the classic “Grandfather Paradox;” if you go back in time and kill your grandfather, you will never be born, and therefore you can never go back in time to kill your grandfather. There is the equally troubling “Ontological Paradox,” which comes up much more often. For example in Terminator, John Connor sends Kyle Reese back to protect his mother. Reese ends up in a relationship with Connor’s mother and becomes his father. But who was there to send Reese back the “first time?” That is to say, before the events of Judgment Day happened, who fathered John Connor?

Another example occurs in Star Trek. Scotty needs to transport the heroes onto a moving spaceship, but the technology hasn’t been invented yet. Future Spock assures Scotty that he will one day invent such technology, and in fact provides New Scotty with the required information. The question now becomes, where did this information come from in the first place?

It also appears in LOST. Richard Alpert in the past gives Locke a compass. Locke later gives this compass to Alpert with instructions to give it to him in the past. So what is the compass’ origin? Again, there is a rebuttal to these paradoxes, and these issues don’t concern me overmuch, although they are annoying.

Logical:

The logical objection IS one that concerns me. Although there is a rebuttal, it is NEVER used in fiction to my knowledge, certainly not in Star Trek movies. Here goes. The premise of this objection is that time travel isn’t possible because it doesn’t exist right now. You can’t say “it hasn’t been invented yet” because there is no “yet,” since time travel is involved. If it is discovered anywhere in the timestream, then it must exist everywhere. Some might argue that this is okay because whoever travelled back kept it a secret, or met people who could not understand or evaluate the technology. But that assumes that time travel works like so:

One person travels from point A to Point B, and possibly back, no harm no foul. But if time travel is possible, there are an infinite number of travels, like so:

For as long as human beings exist in time, people will be going back, making anachronistic holes in the time line like so much swiss cheese. With an infinite number of travelers, eventually one will make time travel technology possible at an earlier time, which will then lead to infinitely more travelers between that earlier time and other times, until time travelers are EVERYWHERE. And as far as I can tell, they are not.

Aesthetic:

There are even rebuttals to the logical argument, but there is no rebuttal to the aesthetic argument, which is that time travel is just messy. In Star Trek, the 2009 movie, The Romulans go back in time and wipe out Vulcan. This causes the hundreds of years of fictional history and the decades of real Star Trek history to be wiped out. All the great Star Trek mythology you thrilled to as a child, well, most of it just never happened, cause the Romulans went back in time. How then, can I be expected to invest myself in this new group of characters, when I know that someday, the Romulans could go back in time and destroy the escape ship that contained the unborn Captain Kirk, or destroy the Earth in 1776, or take over the Federation in 2214 with advanced 25th century technology?

Furthermore, there is the Slippery Slope issue which I find so grating that the story is nearly impossible for me to enjoy. In Star Trek, the Romulan mining ship goes back in time and destroys Vulcan. Now that Starfleet is aware of this, why not send a Starfleet force back to where the Romulans will someday pop into the sky and destroy them before they do it? Why not send an espionage force to kill Captain Nero’s mother, a la Terminator? It seems to me that if you can go back and change things, you can always send someone somewhere else in the timeline to change things back. And that’s why I hate time travel stories.

Note: There are some valid rebuttals to all but the aesthetic argument, and hence some time travel concepts/stories that work. I’ll address those in my next post.

The Right to Life

2009-05-25T13:31:00.000-07:00

One of the current hot button issues concerns Daniel Hauser, a young Minnesotan suffering from Hodgkin's Lymphoma. The issue is that Hauser is refusing chemotherapy, which studies show have an excellent chance of curing him completely, in favor of untested homeopathic remedies that will almost surely result in his death.

This brings into contrast a classic debate over whether or not the government has a right to interfere in our lives, even when our lives are at stake. Since suicide and euthanasia are against the law in most states, clearly the general consensus is yes. In many cases, such as the right to make informed medical decisions, the situation is not so cut and dried. (By the way if you claim to be "pro-life" and favor banning abortions but think that Colleen Hauser should be free to roll the dice with the health of her child, you are a raging hypocrite.)

What I think is cut and dried is that in the case of children, the medical establishment should prevail. It might be better for society if it didn't, Darwinism in action and all that, but the fact is that the 13 year old Daniel Hauser, who is operating under the warped belief that he is some kind of "medicine man" is simply not old enough to know any better. When he is in his final moments screaming in the throes of cancer-driven agony, he cannot "take it back" and ask for the medicine. It will be too late. For the parents and libertarian advocates to turn this child into a political issue is self-serving and pathetic.

This is also why I hate Jehovah's Witnesses, by the way. Not letting your kids have birthday parties is merely cruel, but refusing them life-saving blood transfusions is just sadistic.

Bigotry Rears Its Pretty Head

2009-05-07T18:07:00.000-07:00

So the latest media flap surrounds Miss Carrie Prejean, also known as Miss California. Miss Prejean achieved fame when celebrity blogger and Miss USA judge Perez Hilton asked her her opinion on same sex marriage. To the consternation of everyone, she told the truth, which is that she opposes it. Now there are several issues here, based on two main controversies that have arisen:

One, she ended up coming in second in the Miss USA competition. Mr. Hilton's comment that, to paraphrase, she was in front before that answer and the answer blew it for her, led Miss Prejean to assume that she was being unfairly persecuted for her beliefs and her honesty.

Two, since the competition, Miss Prejean has gone on to be the cover girl for some religious "defense of marriage" group, and this position has been jeopardized by a website that posted a picture of Miss Prejean topless at 17.

To address the first: I'm glad Miss Prejean answered the way she did because frankly, it makes her a perfect representative for California. A majority of California voters happily came out last year and made their position on gay marriage known, and it is just the same as Miss California's. This brings to the public eye that California is not run by liberal wack job hippies or even a T-800, but by these guys.

Take a look. The Mormons, who clearly govern California, are good-looking, blond, tall, and bigoted. Just like, guess who? Miss California Carrie Prejean. I would have been disappointed if she answered any other way. If she did indeed lose the crown because of her answer, then that is a tragedy.

Oh no, wait. It's not a tragedy. It's a FUCKING BEAUTY PAGEANT. WHO THE HELL CARES. If you don't want to be judged based on superficial opinions, don't get up on that stage. And anyone who is shocked and disappointed about Carrie Prejean's position on homosexuality: Don't put any stock in the political opinions of random beauty queens. Of course, she's entitled to her opinion, just like I'm entitled to my opinion that beauty queens shouldn't breed. But that's all it is, a random opinion. I know as much about beauty queens as Prejean knows about drag queens.

As far as whether or not she is a hypocrite? Well frankly, this picture is pretty tame, and I don't think that it has any bearing on her position on gay marriage. I don't really think Miss Prejean is a bigot, I think she's a kid who was taught bigotry by her family and friends and just doesn't know any better. Perhaps this controversy will help her learn. Then maybe something useful will have come out of a beauty pageant for once.

Pearls Before Swine Flu

2009-04-30T21:02:00.001-07:00

This is why mainstream news media sucks. If you look around, you've probably seen people walking around with protective masks over their mouths, keeping their kids home from school, and avoiding public transportation. Why? The dreaded Swine Flu.

If you've watched any news on television over the past few weeks, you've heard about how H1N1 Type A, better known as Swine Flu, has devastated Mexico and is coming for your good, pure American children (if you favor closing the Southern border as a response, by the way, you are a xenophobe and a racist. Just a little reality check for you there).

Here's the problem. While getting Swine Flu is no picnic, the CDC indicates that Swine Flu is about 30,000 times LESS DEADLY than regular ol' seasonal flu that no one seems to feel the need to worry about.

So instead of people being taught by media outlets to take reasonable health precautions at all times, we're taught to remain insulated until the mainstream media tells us to panic (all in the name of the Great God Ratings, of course), at which point everyone dutifully FREAKS OUT.

Here's some news for you. You're not going to get Swine Flu and die, and by the way, you're not going to get killed by a terrorist or have a gay married couple break up you and your wife. Do as the President says and wash your hands regularly and be nice to your neighbor and everything will be fine.

Unless you're a pig, in which case you may be in trouble. Egypt, in reponse to the panic, has set about slaughtering their entire stock of pigs like...well, like pigs.

The Curse of Good Cards

2009-04-04T03:28:00.000-07:00

Played in a tournament at Hollywood Park today. The first one in a month or so. I kind of hate Hollywood Park and the rounds were only 25 minutes which is awful, despite the "deep" starting stack of 6000 chips, but it was cheap and at the right time. I was doing terrifically until I had the misfortune to start picking up hands.

For the first 9 rounds I never got a hand better than A7 (well, I got AJ one time but I folded it pre-flop to an all-in). Not a single pair, not an A9 or AT. Despite this, I managed to build up a stack of over 30,000. Some hands:

Early on, blinds are 50-100. I pick up 2c4c in middle position. A couple of people limp and I call. I'm a firm believer in trying to flop wheels or wheel draws when you can do it cheaply, as the benefits when it happens and your opponent pairs the ace can be massive. Anyway, it got down to the button who made it like 1000 to go. Everyone folded to me. It will be argued that making such a large call early in a tournament is poor strategy, but the size of his bet and his position made me feel strongly that he was just stealing and that I could take the pot away from him. The flop came down 5 3 8 of mixed suits. He bet out another 1100 after I checked. I considered a check raise, but I liked my hand enough now that I was willing to see a turn. Gin, an Ace. I check and he checked behind. the river was a blank, I bet 2500 and he called, surprisingly, with KK.

A few hands later, I had Q9 and limped. The same player raised to 600 and it was folded to me again. I would often fold in this situation but I knew this player was both tilting and looking to come after me, and that he was likely to move the rest of his chips in on any flop, so if I hit one, I'd clean him up. The flop came K J T. Bingo! I checked. As predicted, he moved in, and I instacalled. He showed me T7. Looked great. Turn, T, River, T and the dealer shipped him the pot. I wish I could say that flopping a huge straight, getting called all in by a pair and losing was something that has not happened to me many, many times.

I got my revenge a few hands later when I found QT of spades. I limped, a player to my left called, the tilter raised, and we both called. The flop came 2 3 4 all spades. I checked, the next guy checked, and the tilter dutifully moved in. I called and he showed pocket sixes, no spade. a 2 on the turn had me ready to blow my top, but fortunately he blanked the river.

It went on like this, with me getting to see flops and turns cheaply, hitting and then spanking a slowplayer, until the table broke. At my next table, very little happened. Then, I got moved to table one, and the worst thing that could possibly have happened to me happened: I started to get cards.

The first, AQ, worked out fine. I raised, and got no callers. The next good hand, AK, worked out okay too. There was a min raise to 3200, a reraise to 5500, I went all-in, the re-raiser went into the tank but then folded.

That's when things started to get hairy. A few hands later, the same guy who had reraised made it 5500 to go again. I looked down at AQ. I flat called. The Big Blind then moved in for 10K more. I had about 40K at this point and we still had 50 or so players to go until the money. If the original raiser calls or raises I have an easy fold. But he folded. So now it's a quarter of my stack to win an increase of more than 50 percent of my stack against a guy who can have a really huge range, given that he was last to act and short. So I call and naturally he has AK, and makes a flush.

The very next hand, lo and behold, pocket Kings! This is perfect, I think. I'll move in with a massive overbet and someone with a bare ace or two big cards or a medium pair will call thinking Im on tilt. I pushed and the same re-raiser from the earlier hand curses and finally calls with AQ. According to plan. However I forgot to account for the A on the flop. No miracle K came to save me and I was out. Let's hope next tournament I don't get any good cards.

Fade In: The Controversy

2009-03-27T17:46:00.001-07:00

It seems that somehow I have found myself in the middle of a war between Fade In: the screenwriting magazine, and The Wrap, an online entertainment magazine, so I just wanted to put my side of the story on record:

A couple of weeks ago, I was contacted by a reporter for The Wrap. The reporter wanted to know about my experiences with the Fade In: screenwriting contest, as I had come in 2nd in the Comedy category in 2005. I agreed to talk with her.

The reporter asked me if I was happy with my relationship with Fade In: as she had spoken to a number of people who had not received the prizes they were promised. I told her unequivocally that I had received everything that was promised to me. I also told her that the notes I got from staff writer Allen Ury were some of the best notes I had ever received, and that I had been a finalist or the winner in a number of contests and none of them had done more for me than Fade In.

She asked me if I knew of any other writers who had not received their prizes and I told her I did not know the outcome of any situation with any other writers in the contest, which I still do not.

Finally I admitted to her that I was a little disapponted that I felt "cut off" from Fade In: after my last set of notes. Although I was told that the script was sent to New Line and MTV, which I believe, I never received any feedback from them, either directly or through Fade In: I also did not receive any further communication from Fade In:, and when I tried to contact Audrey Kelly, was deflected several times, until finally I got through to her and she agreed to put together a list of ten agents and managers who I could contact with my script. This never happened and I was never able to get in touch with her again. At no time did I tell the reporter that this level of access was a promised prize of the contest, only that it was something I expected and hoped for.

I saw the article shortly after it appeared, and pretty much only read the part that included me. Since it stated that I received the prizes I was promised but disappointed that I didn't get that list of contacts, which was all true, I said the article looked fair. I could not and cannot speak to the fairness of the rest of the article because I have no relationship with any of the parties involved.

Shortly after this I received an e-mail from Allen Ury expressing his shock at my participation in the article. I sent him an e-mail in response (which he may not have received), detailing what I have said here, that I told the reporter that I did receive what I was promised, though I was not happy with how our relationship seemed to end.

When I went back to The Wrap website, I saw they had a follow up article which stated:

The letter said Fade In had made good on all promises of cash, prizes and connections to contestants Patrice Williams, Powell Weaver and Craig Berger.

But all three denied receiving portions of their promised prizes and/or industry connections in interviews with TheWrap.

This sentence craftily makes it seem like I denied receiving portions of my promised prizes when I in fact am only part of the "/or industry connections" part.

In the end, I just want to reiterate three points:

1) I always got all the prizes promised to me and I never contended, to The Wrap or anyone else, that I did not.

2) I thought that Fade In: ended their relationship with me abruptly and that was a disappointment to me, even though I understand there were no explicit promises of industry access as prizes in the contest. I mentioned it to the reporter because I think most people enter these contests with the hopes of gaining this access, rather than winning a few hundred dollars.

3) I have no idea whether or not Fade In: made good to the other people named in the article or any other contest participants. I have no relationship with those people whatsoever.

So that's that. Hopefully now we can all get on with our lives.