Movie Review: Religulous (Part 1)

At the request of my good friend Big Pappa, I am watching the Bill Maher documentary Religulous and offering up my commentary.

I think it should be offered up as a disclaimer before I start that A) I'm not a fan of Bill Maher and B) based on what I've seen in the previews, his view of Christianity is not the same as my own. That being said, I will watch it and offer up some thoughts.

The film opens with Maher stating that, when the Book of Revelation was written, "only God had the power to destroy the earth," but now we do because we have nuclear weapons and global warming. So...it's gonna be like that, is it Bill? Well here we go, then...

He says that he simply "can't" understand why people cling to religion, and that it is a "detriment to humanity." Isn't the inability to understand something the same as being ignorant of it? For instance, I completely understand why people are atheists, regardless of whether or not I agree with them; I understand why people choose different political parties in spite of my own views; I understand a lot of things I don't agree with. I even understand why people think being a progressive liberal is a good idea -- because they are missing a portion of a logical-thinking brain.

With a brief review of his childhood -- which was one of having a Jewish mother but being raised Catholic -- Bill has a discussion with his mother in which she reveals that the biggest reason they left the Church was because they used birth control and Catholicism is decidedly against birth control. Obviously they weren't into it soon enough, but I think I'm getting ahead of myself.

The first stop in his journey of "seeking the truth" is at the Truck Stop Chapel in Raleigh, North Carolina, and begins asking them (all seven people at the chapel) hard questions about what man has done to change Christianity from what the Biblical intent was. Way to challenge yourself by tackling some real intellectual heavyweights there, Bill. A couple of obese truckers can't answer you to your liking, so clearly you're right.

Well I stand corrected -- he's now interviewing Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project and author of the very interesting The Language of God. Maher uses the argument that the historicity of Jesus has never been proven, and when Collins tells him that he is setting up a standard that is impossible to meet, the interview disappears through the magic of editing and is replaced by Maher talking about how Jesus must have had an "awkward" childhood. He then claims that none of the Gospels are "history" and that they were not written by people who knew Jesus. My problem with this is that he states it as an accepted fact by historians. This is simply not true. Of course there is dispute regarding the historicity of the Gospels, but to deny them outright as not historical at all would be to discount much of what we have today in terms of non-religious history, as well. And last time I checked... nope, Bill Maher is not a historian. Huh.

Back to Collins so Maher can ask a question... and then not let him answer.

The next interview is with some sort of tele-evangelist-type dude who dresses like a pimp because he "likes gold" and says that "Jesus dressed very well...he was not poor." Once again an outstanding representative of Christianity. The guy can't even correctly quote one of the most widely known verses in the Bible. Crimeny who is this guy? Jeremiah Cummings. Remind me to buy his DVD.

Next up is the question of being gay, and how organized religion has approached the issue. Maher questions a pastor about whether or not someone can be born gay or not. Whether the answer is yay or nay, how does this impact the truth of Christianity? It's called playing to the audience. He knows it's a "hot button" topic and stirs people up. There's absolutely no value to the debate in an intellectual sense, but it's fun to make people uncomfortable by throwing the words "fag" and "gay sex" at them.

Back to the conversation with Bill's mother and him covering the topic of how upset he was when he found out that Santa wasn't real and then jumps back to a conversation with a shop-owner about the story of Jonah and how unbelievable it is to him that a story like this could happen. In other words he is taking the stance of presupposing that miracles cannot happen, therefore treating the simple mention of a miracle with pure mockery. Which is what makes his next foray -- into the topic of the founding fathers of American history and its relationship with Christianity -- all the more ironic. Given the circumstances of the American invention, I'd say the fact that we came to where we are is a pretty good example of a miracle.

A couple of quotes are thrown up on the screen from Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, seemingly with the intent of showing the viewer that the Founding Fathers were not Christian as many claim. Oddly enough he leaves out any quotes by James Madison. Interesting. I think he was kinda important... Moving on to modern day politics he interviews Mark Pryor, a Senator from Arkansas, about the Ten Commandments. Bill commits a common fallacy here after he suggests that people could figure out murder is wrong without religion by stating that "more killing has been done in the name of 'my God'..." Though he fails to complete the thought, it is left hanging as if to imply that religion has caused more murder than any other source in history. This is a great line of thought...as long as you don't pick up a history book. Ever. If he can come up with a single religious-based war that caused more deaths than Stalin did during his time in power, then that would be a greater miracle than anything Jonah ever did.

On to the topic of evolution, Maher uses another classic: saying that scientists "pretty much agree" on evolution. Uhhh...what? Try this: Google "origins of life" and then tell me that scientists are in agreement. Nothing could be further from the truth. And here's the real kicker: Christianity isn't in agreement on the subject. There are several very well-educated Christians who propose old-earth theories -- some of which pre-date Charles Darwin. Crazy talk, I know. But notice that Maher didn't include this line of questioning with Dr. Collins -- opting instead for a bumbling, good ol' boy Senator.

I'll get to the rest later. But I'd like to note that I'm half-way through this thing and so far my biggest complaint is that Maher has not challenged himself at all. Yes, Dr. Collins is a heavyweight, but his answers are edited out or cut short. He states at the beginning that he is searching for the truth, but if that were the case why would he purposefully seek out those who can be mocked with ease for their lack of understanding? One can find a fool in any discipline if their intent is to make the discipline look foolish.

Will try and do the second half tomorrow.

Hollystupid: Part II of the New Game

Remember Val Kilmer? That guy who was so cool in Top Gun, Top Secret and played a wicked version of Doc Holiday in Tombstone? Yeah, well... I'm not quite sure what to say about this piece of work.

In case you don't want to read the whole thing (and I personally recommend you don't), I will give you the highlight. In response to a question by the interviewer "you understand how it feels to shoot someone as much as a person who has actually committed murder?" Kilmer has this to say:

I understand it more. It's an actor's job. A guy who's lived through the
horror of Vietnam has not spent his life preparing his mind for it. He's some
punk. Most guys were borderline criminal or poor, and that's why they got sent
to Vietnam. It was all the poor, wretched kids who got beat up by their dads,
guys who didn't get on the football team, couldn't finagle a scholarship. They
didn't have the emotional equipment to handle that experience. But this is what
an actor trains to do. I can more effectively represent that kid in Vietnam than
a guy who was there.

I would love to tell you it gets less crazy from there, but... I'd be lying. He goes on to say how he understands Moses and how it would feel to be Jesus... Geez, this guy manages to insult veterans and Christians without even discussing politics. That's fairly impressive.

Though I would love to spend the next 30 or 40 minutes kicking the crap out of the above statement, I think it speaks for itself. Just remember, these are the people making millions of dollars to entertain and enlighten you. Then tell you how horrible you are for being a greedy capitalist and for hating minorities and children. I hope you are all ashamed of yourselves.

Movie Review: The Book of Eli

Before taking my review at face value, keep something in mind: this is my type of movie. It is set in a post-apocalyptic world and deals with the topic of The Bible and Divine intervention. So it's right up my alley, in other words.

That being said, it is an excellent movie. Denzel Washington, playing the lead character, is on a journey across what was once America, some 30 years after a nuclear holocaust. He is in possession of the last remaining Holy Bible, and is compelled by "a voice" to take it to a place he is not sure of, but knows he will when he gets there.

Of course there is a bad guy -- in this case played by Gary Oldman -- who is in control of some other bad guys and wants to expand his bad guyness into more territories and over more people. He believes the best way to do this is to get a hold of a Bible; its words and teachings can be used for the purposes of controlling the masses.

Because of this conflict between the protagonist and his adversary, an interesting sub-theme is developed which poses the question of power in regards to religion and how people use it. Which is interesting for me because the majority of debate I have engaged in regarding religion ends up focusing more on what Christianity has done, rather than what it should do. For most who oppose religion and belief, a large portion of their argument is dedicated to "well what about when 'the Church' did _____." Whether or not "the Church" actually did what is in question is often irrelevant; the point is that people see the actions of a group in power as being indicative of the source documents from which that power builds itself.

However, this is, as I stated, a sub-theme; the primary theme is that Denzel Washington's character, Eli, is one bad mamma-jamma. To paraphrase the Blues Brothers, he's on a mission from God and people who get in his way are generally less well-off than they were before. It's not a non-stop action movie, but the action that exists is very well done and the pace of the movie certainly does not make you feel like you are watching a film about religion.

Aside from a couple of small technical flaws (like, where did they get the gas for the vehicles 30 years after everything was destroyed? And how do they keep them running?) I thought it was an extremely well done movie with great acting and a thought-provoking storyline. In fact, whether you are a believer or not, you would be hard-pressed to disagree that it is quite rare these days for Hollywood to put out something with a positive spin on anything Biblical and/or relating to the Christian faith. This manages to do just that while still addressing a pertinent argument that many anti-theists make against organized religion.

But a solid two thumbs up from this guy, for what it's worth. It's not a super-fancy special effects extravaganza, but it certainly keeps you engaged and makes you think about a few things in a different light, for sure. I highly recommend it for anyone making a trip to the theater. Especially for those who are a fan of the post-apocalyptic genre like myself.

Unfortunately, however, there are, in fact, no zombies. The film could certainly have used some zombies.

How To Know if You Should Be Taken Out And Shot: Part I

If you have experienced depression after seeing a movie because you come to the realization that the fantasy world depicted in said movie is, well, fantasy, then you should probably be put out to pasture. Your time is over. Whatever possible usefulness you may have had towards society has been used up, and you are now a drain.

Thank you for playing, but we kindly ask you to leave now.

This is literally where we're at in this country -- people are creating forums on the internet to discuss "ways to cope with the depression of the dream of Pandora being intangible." No, really. You just read that. And it was a quote on CNN. I couldn't make this up if I tried.

So, again, for anyone out there who shares those feelings or feels "despair" regarding the human race after seeing the movie Avatar, please see yourselves out quietly.

As for me, I'm headed to see The Book of Eli this afternoon and should have a review up later tonight. Should be a pretty good movie, as Denzel rarely disappoints, and it has to do with the apocalypse and Bible stuff. Sweeeeeeeeeeeeet.

Movie Review: Hurt Locker

Has anyone reading this been to Iraq? If the answer is no, then... YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS LIKE, MAN!!! YOU WEREN'T THERE!!!

Whew. Now that I have that out of my system...

The Hurt Locker came out on DVD yesterday, and as I had read several very positive reviews from reputable sources, I went ahead and bought the DVD so that we -- myself, J, and Big Pappa, all hardened combat vets ourselves -- could watch it and offer up a review.

Let me begin by saying that, overall, it was a good movie. The pace was good, acting was well above average, special effects were quite well done, and the production was exceptional considering that it's not exactly a high-budget Hollywood flick.

The movie follows a team of Army EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) soldiers during their last couple of months in Iraq. The team is forced to adjust to a new leader who seems to be a bit of a thrill-seeker after losing their first one in a bomb blast. Due to the adventurous nature of the new leader, the team finds itself in multiple situations that raise the heart-rate to a near-explosive level for the other soldiers.

Now for the down and dirty (enough of this "plot" nonsense, eh?): although I liked it, there were some glaring problems I saw that could have been corrected with little effort on behalf of the production company and the film would not have suffered. I do realize that dramatic license must be applied from time to time in order to make things more enjoyable for the viewer. But most of the problems I saw were not ones that would make it less exciting, but rather just more realistic.

For instance, at the beginning of the movie the caption on the screen reads "Baghdad, 2004." We see a very well done set that very much resembles Iraq (not sure where they filmed it) and some soldiers patrolling, all in their uniforms which were very well done and completely accurate. If it were 2008. The U.S. Army did not have ACUs in 2004, but rather DCUs; nor was everyone using M4s (many units were still carrying the old musket, the M-16). Many viewers probably say "so what, it's not that big a deal." Well... yeah, you're probably right, but it's the attention to detail that I think sets movies apart; just overlooking stuff and saying "ahhh skip it, only a few people will notice" lends to shoddy work all around.

Which leads to the next problem -- throughout the movie, our heroes are seemingly out on their own. They arrive at the scene of a bomb/IED...alone. They patrol up a street to the bomb....alone. They go out to dispose of ordnance...alone. Granted, I was not there in 2004, but I've never seen EOD do anything alone. Ever. In fact, the only time they got out of their truck was to inspect ordnance. No patrolling, no pulling security against snipers, nada.

Keep in mind, this is not to take away from EOD. On the contrary; they have a very specific job that they do quite well. They are not needed for the other tasks, and because of that they are free to concentrate on their job -- preventing things from blowing up where they shouldn't, and making them blow up where they should.

In other words, their job is pretty exciting as it is. Hollywood magic is not really necessary to spruce it up.

My biggest point of contention with the film comes at what is probably the best action scene in the movie. The EOD team is out -- alone, again -- and runs into a team of British...contractors? Special Forces? They are dressed in Haji garb and it's never made clear what they are for sure. Either way, they are dressed like dudes who have been there and done that, and have a couple of prisoners.

I won't completely spoil the events, but all of them together come under fire from some bad guys and are forced to take cover in a ditch. One of the Brits has a .50 caliber sniper rifle, so they attempt to use it to engage the snipers who attacked them, who are...apparently over a thousand yards away. So far, in fact, that the Americans and Brits have problems hitting them accurately with their .50 cal.

For those non-gun people out there, let me explain: there is no hand-held rifle in the arsenal of any Arab military force that can cover that distance accurately, let alone out-shoot Brit snipers with that kind of weaponry. Which leads me to the issue I have with this: why would the producers of the movie go out of their way to make bad guys look better and Western forces appear incompetent? I know it's a small detail, but it's almost like a conscious effort in movies these days to make our military look weaker than the enemy we are fighting. As critical as I am of the U.S. Military, we are far superior to anything a Middle Eastern country has produced. Ever.

The classic blooper of the movie occurred at this point, as well, when they tried to use the sniper rifle but couldn't because it was jammed. Why was it jammed? Because there was "blood" on the bullets in the magazine. Uhh...what? If blood makes weapons jam, we are in serious trouble... Rest assured, it would have worked just fine. But here again, it would not have detracted from the movie had they changed this part to reflect a more realistic problem. Like, say, maybe a female soldier unable to participate because she was asleep? Ohhh come on, that would never happen, right? RIGHT??? Keep telling yourself that...

That being said, I liked the movie. It was definitely the best thing I've seen regarding the current conflict, and it did a good job of staying away from the whole everyone-comes-back-broken-with-PTSD theme that plague so many films in this genre. It may also be good to keep in mind that I watched the movie with two friends who I deployed with, so we may have had a lot of open commentary that forced us to miss portions of the film. Possibly.

I would highly recommend it in your Netflix que or from the Redbox, as it is certainly better than most of what is out there.

On a slightly related note, Kelly Crigger has a great piece over at Ranger Up telling about the passing of a true American hero, and how preoccupied people are with Tiger Woods and the like instead of guys like Robert Howard. Take the time to check it out.

New Game

I think I'm going to start a new game that will take the blogging community by storm. And by "blogging community" I basically mean myself and the three other people I know who have blogs. So you should play too, as it will assuredly be great fun.

The game will work like this: who can come up with the most idiotic thing in Hollywood -- be it a quote, an idea, or a random happening -- and explain how it is that these people are able to continue not only living in our society, but earning substantially more money than we are while doing it.

My first nomination comes from one of the champions of Hollywood-stupid, none other than Oliver Stone. Poorly constructed historical efforts regarding Alexander the Great, Nixon, and the 60's in general not withstanding, Stone may very well have out done himself with this one.

Stone announced yesterday that a 10-hour crash course in the history of the 20th century he is putting together for American TV is designed as an antidote to the inaccuracies and biases he believes exist in the conventional historical narrative dished out in American schools and mainstream media. The title alone gives an inkling of what lies ahead: Oliver Stone's Secret History of America.

Because Oliver Stone is a highly trained historian. Oh wait... He then went on to discuss how he would portray Hitler and Stalin "in context" because he was able to empathize with them, and say how the film would cover Mao and...McCarthy. Apparently outing communists in your own government while being a drunk is equal to the genocide of millions of people. Seriously. It is. Look it up.


Anyway, that's the coup de grace of stupid in Hollywood this week as far as I can find. I'm looking in the direction of Big Pappa and his roommate to come up with something better, and am confident they can.

Tomorrow I will be watching The Hurt Locker and hopefully reviewing it soon, as it is supposed to be a pretty good flick. And later in the week I will be going to see The Book of Eli as I am more than just a little excited about that one. Let's hope Hollywood can restore my faith in entertainment. After all, if I lose faith in famous people, where does that leave me???

Television Nonsense

I'm currently watching the Kennedy Center Honors on CBS and it's every bit as self-indulgent for those involved as you can imagine.

Right now they are paying tribute to Bruce Springsteen for singing three songs with different words over the course of 30 years. Sting is singing a song about children dancing in the sky...or something. I'm not sure because his beard is leaving too big of a carbon footprint for me to hear the words clearly. People like Edward Norton and Philip Seymour Hoffman are dancing in the audience and that is every bit as nightmare-inducing to my eyes as you are imagining it could be.

Melissa Ethridge sang a tribute to him a minute ago, which was fitting seeing as how her whole career was based on ripping him off. Oh what's that you say? She also sounded a lot like Bob Seger? Well yes, but what is Bob Seger but a poor man's Bruce Springsteen? And that's pretty sad because Bruce Springsteen is really just a poor man's Bob Dylan, who was just a poor man's Jack Kerouac. Which really puts us in a bind because Kerouac was a raging alcoholic who never made that much money. Wow, I'm depressed now. Imagine how Miss Ethridge feels...

Anyway, before the Springsteen tribute was one for Mel Brooks and then one for some opera singer. Yawn.

I'm going to make a pretty obvious statement here: Television is downright awful. Even what passes for "news" is just plain lame. Fox News, which praises itself on being fair and balanced, apparently thinks part of being fair includes giving air time to Charlie Sheen's attempt to impersonate Ike Turner (for the younger crowd, that is a domestic violence reference which, in my opinion, is pretty darn funny. So just insert some cool, hip, new guy who beats his wife in place of Ike to make the joke work if you don't know who that is).

Honestly, aside from South Park -- a poorly drawn cartoon -- I don't think there is a single weekly-airing show geared toward adults. Even the Discovery Chanel is running shows like "Ghost Lab." Really? Ghost lab. Yes I can see that being very educational and thought provoking, what with all the lab work involved...with...ghosts...

I could go on about entertainment these days, but I think that the sinus infection from which I'm currently suffering is substantially more interesting at the moment. Maybe I'll continue this another time. Then TV will be better. I just know it.

Movie Review: Sherlock Holmes

A great movie all the way around. Robert Downey jr. is without question one of the best actors alive today, so generally speaking if you see a movie with him in it, the acting is going to be at a higher level than most. It seems that not only does he do well in the pictures he is in, but those around him seem to be better than they normally are.

That being said, the movie itself is pretty entertaining, as well. Slightly on the long side (for those of us who now have the attention span of an OIF zombie-movie-watching veteran) but mostly fast-paced throughout. I was especially fond of the complete lack of blue-faced aliens who are at one with their environment. Their absence gave room for a gritty and humerous look at Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's most famous character come to life on the big screen.

I was also impressed at the relatively small use of CGI in the film and how few transforming robots there were. That's quite rare these days, I've come to find. Apparently the budget didn't allow for that, but I think the movie benefitted in the end.

And speaking of things absent from the movie that made it infinitely better, there were no rappers-turned-actors, schlocky political messages, or even a hint of "corporations" being the end-all be-all of evil. That's downright amazing, given the last half-dozen movies I've seen.

Oh and neither Hugh Grant nor any member of Sex and The City made a single appearance. High marks received on that note.

Worth your time on DVD for sure, and possibly a trip to the theater, as well.

Non-Politically Correct Post About the Military

If you are looking for a touchy-feely, congratulate-the-military kind of post, then you should probably look elsewhere because this one ain't it.

A friend of mine, who we shall refer to affectionately here as "Big Pappa," did a post on this article and how women returning from tours in Iraq and Afghanistan feel that they are not treated fairly.

While Big Pappa does a fantastic job of shredding the author of the article -- starting with the first line and continuing throughout -- I want to focus on a couple things more specifically (and with less swearing for the family). Namely, lines such as this one:

More than 230,000 American women have fought in those recent wars and at least 120 have died doing so, yet the public still doesn't completely understand their contributions on the modern battlefield.

You know what? I've been deployed and *I* don't completely understand their contributions on the modern battlefield. In our Detachment in Iraq there were approximately 20 soldiers (dependent on the day/week/month/), one of which was a female. Guess which person worked the least, slept the most, and caused the most drama over the course of a year? Guess who broke down and cried when told to do their job? Guess who dropped hints of suicide when forced to get out of bed before noon? Guess who played the sexual harassment card when completely unwarranted?

Yes, this is what we call anecdotal evidence, and is in no way indicative of the entire Army taken by itself. But here's a test: Go find a soldier who was deployed with women and see if they don't have the exact same story. I will even bet you that if you talk to a female soldier she would tell you that the women were the cause of many an issue.

Do women contribute to the cause? Absolutely. Are there women out there who do their job and don't cause problems? Most assuredly. But the aforementioned article raises some serious questions if not looked at through the corrective lenses of sensitivity training. I'll show you what I mean by comparing and contrasting.

Take another line from said article:

"People didn't come up to us and thank us for our service in the same way. They didn't give us free beers in bars in the same way when we first got back," said Williams, 34, of Ashburn, Va. "Even if you're vaguely aware of it, it still colors how you see yourself in some ways."

Now compare that with this article on Breitbart about soldiers getting better gear:

Soldiers are being issued a rucksack made of plastic that is not comfortable or effective in combat situations...Troops carry heavy loads on their backs and the plastic straps cut off circulation to their hands and arms, "making it virtually impossible to fire their weapons," they told Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Now, let's think about this for just a minute. Female soldiers are complaining because they aren't being bought free beer at bars and dudes are complaining because they need a better way to carry heavier loads into combat.

Yes, these are only two articles that are talking about different subjects. But this is a perfect example that reflects current trends of thought in the Army today -- kinder and gentler folk who signed up to get college money and "find themselves" want to be treated fairly (i.e. more fairly than everyone else) and for people to stop being so darn mean to them, while rough dudes want better gear and training to kill bad guys.

To many of us, this is not a new revelation; to many who have had their heads up their rears, it certainly is and I'm quite sure that they will be "shocked" if they read this. But the simple fact is that there is more than one Army in reality, even though they all wear the same uniform and adhere to the same rank structure. Women talk about being treated "fairly" while at the same time having lower standards; sexual harassment classes are more common than weapons handling drills, while rape is statistically lower in the Army than it is on an average college campus in the United States. And if you think that women "can do everything men can do" when it comes to soldiering tasks, go hang out with the boys of the 75th for a day or two and then tell me that.

While I have known two women in my life that were most definitely capable of hanging with the boys when it comes to physicality, both were a very, very rare exception and their case does not do justice to the argument at hand. Which is, in essence, there needs to be a defined difference between separate sections of the military. There is far more to this topic than just the physicality of military service, and the AP article shows exactly that.

Horribly bad reporting and even worse fact checking aside, the article misses something huge that the Army is actually addressing: one of the big reasons why women come back from theater depressed is because, while deployed, they were mostly the center of attention for 12 months due to a disproportionate ratio of males to females. Upon return, men reintegrate into society and see their wives/girlfriends/other women and the deployed females are suddenly left with a huge lack of male attention comparatively speaking. We saw this first-hand.

I'm not saying it makes women weaker or worse as a person. On the contrary, I think guys would be just as bad if the situation were reversed (imagine a guy deploying with a group of women for a year then coming back to a bunch of other dudes). What I am saying is that the integration of sexes in uniform spells trouble when deployed. That's the nature of the beast that I think everyone knows deep down. But, more importantly -- I may make a thesis out of this part -- what people need to realize is that the overwhelming majority of soldiers don't see "combat" while deployed. Now factor in how many less women there are than men, and the percentage is very, very minute.

Are there women who have seen combat and been injured and/or killed? Yes, and they are and shall always be remembered as patriots. Is there a need to recognize their contributions? Absolutely. But should we bend over backwards and go out of our way for them differently, given that the very nature of the complaints are flawed and coming from soldiers who already don't have to live up to the same standards as their male counterparts? I think you know my answer.

I served with two women, albeit in a limited capacity, who seemed to keep the drama to a minimum and just did their jobs (one of which was actually deployed with and lived with her husband, so take that into consideration). My hat is off to them for doing so. However, and as I have repeatedly mentioned here and in the past, they don't meet the same standards as men. So if they Army itself does not treat them equally, why should male soldiers be subjected to countless hours of being told that they are?

This whole subject is indicative of a larger problem in the Army, some of which I mentioned in my previous post on MAJ Hasan. No, I'm not likening women to terrorists (although there was this one girl I knew...), I am simply reiterating my point about political correctness taking hold of a government bureaucracy where it should have little or no place at all. The military and its people are a subject near and dear to my heart, so when I see nonsense being spewed about them, I feel it should be addressed.

Now take the aforementioned bureaucracy, multiply it by a thousand, and you would have nationalized health care. Sounds like a treat, don't it?

Update: There are (or were, in this case) good leaders in the Army. When can I vote for this guy??
To be continued...

Some Thoughts On MAJ Hasan

While people like Jonah Goldberg at National Review are doing a far better job of "reporting" this incident than I ever could (or intend to do), I have decided after reading a fair amount about this event that a perspective from a (former) soldier is needed. After all, what I have seen in a bulk of the reporting on this issue needs to be sliced down the middle by Occam's Razor.

Simple facts first: He is a Muslim. As much as some media outlets seem bound and determined to ignore, this is a well established fact. And because many try to ignore it, something huge gets left out of the issue; namely, that because of the overwhelming lean towards political correctness and tolerance in the military today, "extremists" are increasingly difficult to weed out. There seems to be a loud cry about "how could he have continued to be in the Army??" Another question that could be asked, eliciting nearly the same response, would be "why do good people get out of the Army?"


The answer to both of those questions revolve around the ridiculousness of Army policy in the day and age of a "kinder, gentler military." Soldiers are constantly bombarded with class after class of "awareness" of some kind; whether it be sexual, racial, or suicidal in nature, that is a constant in Army life.

Please don't misunderstand me, some of this is a very good thing. Understanding signs for suicide prevention is never bad, for instance. However, after so many classes, a bulk of the Army is left with one overarching conclusion: that heterosexual, white males will, as a mathematical certainty, rape someone, hurl a racial epithet, and persecute due to religious preference. Possibly all at the same time, while carrying a rebel flag and burning a cross.

A few years back, in my other Army life, I remember a Ranger Instructor saying "all this political correctness is going to come back and bite the Army in the ass." It's tough not to think of that statement after the last few days. And while a lot of people don't see the connection, those of us that have been in for more than a day and have some common sense most certainly do.

Think about this: his own superiors quoted him as saying things that were totally inappropriate. Yet they did nothing. Why? Some will look at those superiors and fault them. I don't. At least not from what I understand. Simply put, I would imagine their hands were tied from doing what they probably thought in their heads as the right thing. Don't think so? Try this headline on for size:

Army Major relieved of duty for holding on to Islamic ideology.

Think that would fly over well in Washington? Think those officers wouldn't lose their retirement? If you don't, think again. The Army is one massive gravy train, and those who stay on it for life aren't getting off until they absolutely have to. If that means letting some nut-job psychiatrist run his mouth about jihad and the Great Satan, when the alternative is losing that cushy retirement check, then hell no they won't stop him. Nor would most people in the corporate world. Which is why everyone is "shocked" when Bill from accounting shows up with a MAC-10 hosing people down because he just couldn't take it anymore. No one wants to be the person who goes on record and says "oh yeah, I knew he would snap. But I didn't say anything 'cause I didn't want to lose my job."

But the Army is supposed to be different, right? Right?!?! Well yes, but it's not. Point of fact, it's much worse simply because people can't be fired. Yes, it's hard in corporate world too, but... In the Army, one has to...well, one would have to do basically what MAJ Hasan did to get fired. And here we are.

What I'm getting at here is that the Army is not what most people think it is -- there are little to no repercussions for one's actions. I have seen people who, by all tests of logic, should not have even been allowed to wear the uniform be promoted into the ranks of both the officer and non-commissioned officer corps. Part of it is a need for bodies. There just aren't enough people to fill the ranks. But an even bigger aspect is what we see with people like MAJ Hasan. I would bet my bank account that there are over 20 soldiers who have been in contact with that guy in the last 6 months uttering a phrase that is similar to "they promoted that guy???" Yet, as stated earlier, one could be punished for expressing said discontent more so than a MAJ Hasan would be for stating his "religious views," even if they include beheading of the same men he shares a uniform with.

So that I don't appear to be complaining without a solution, here is what I propose:

1) Knock of the tolerance crap in the Army and trade it for good, hard training. If people are focused on doing their job, they are much less likely to invent problems like complaining that so-and-so made fun of them for whatever reason. The person doing the whining will either be too tired to complain, or they will not be there. Whiny people tend not to make it through hard training, if (leading me to the next one)...

2) Enforce the standards. Across the board. In other words, if someone fails a physical fitness test, they don't get a pass because they are a Muslim. Think it doesn't happen? Think again. As stated above, the type of person who causes the most problems generally doesn't have what it takes to make it through tough training. Conversely, those who do make it through tough training tend to be more focused on the real problems at hand.

3) Accept that, by the strictest definitions and interpretations of the Qu'ran, Islam is a violent religion. Yes, I'm putting myself on a hit list here (which would, in effect, prove my point), and yes there are many millions of peaceful Muslims. But there is way, way too much tolerance when it comes to this subject. It needs to stop, and it needs to be accompanied by a good, hard look at the religion and doctrine taught by way more of the Islamic world than many think. Using "there are millions of peaceful Muslims" as a defense is both inadequate and intellectually hollow. There are a lot of Catholic priests who diddle little boys, too. That doesn't mean they are following doctrine when they do it.

4) Also accept that when a Muslim man yells "Allah akbar" as he is shooting people, it is, in fact, an act of terrorism. And it's "OK" to call it that. The PC Police won't arrest you for being intolerant. You may get called that by people like Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, but I would consider that a win for me anyway.

Oh and do yourself a favor by doing some reading on the Muslim clerics people like MAJ Hasan studied under. Then come back and tell me that we need more "tolerance."

This is a subject which I hold near and dear to my heart, so it will be covered in greater detail later. For now, however, I thought it important to get some thoughts down in the written form.

Movie Review: State of Play

State of Play, staring Russel Crowe and Ben Affleck, is the story of a United States Congressman who is going after a private military contractor and an old-school, gum-shoe reporter who happens to be the congressman's old roommate and how he is tracking the story down.

The movie fails completely because of two main flaws: One, that it forces the viewer to assume that Ben Affleck could be both a US Congressman and also a legitimate actor. Second, that it follows along with the latest trend of demonizing the "evil, greedy private military company." Both of these are what's called a "disconnect from reality."

I won't bother with all the details of the movie. Namely because it is just too painful (watching Russel Crowe try to be both Woodward and Bernstein at the same time is pure agony). Suffice to say I am growing ever more weary of the plot lines involving "evil private contractors." I could write a whole post on that subject alone, but I will sum it up by just telling you not to bother with this movie. Unless of course you think Ben Affleck is remotely talented, in which case you should probably stop reading this blog.

Drunk, Moonwalking Ewoks on the Today Show

I don't think you need any more explanation than the title to make you go watch this clip. It pretty much sells itself and is well worth your time.

Halloween Is Evil

The Vatican (which I think is...Hindu...?) released a statement in their newspaper this week that Halloween is "anti-Christian."

Where to begin.... First of all, they are saying this now? Pretty sure kids have been Trick-or-Treating for a good number of years, so is this a subject that the Vatican finally said "hey, wait a minute....we should look into that!" or did they just get fed up with little kids dressed up as Transformers and begging for junk food at the Holy City's door, so they figured declaring it "evil" would put a stop to all the shenanigans and eggings.

Second -- and this is the big one -- seriously, how can the Vatican, of all places, label a holiday evil because it is based in the occult? Umm, have you ever looked up the history on Easter? That seems to be a rather big one for the Roman Catholics, last time I checked. But I guess borrowing customs and traditions from pagan rituals is OK when it's convenient. And doesn't involve giving out free candy.

If one ever wonders why organized religion is frowned upon for lack of serious thought, look no further than instances like this. Message to the Pope: Stop worshipping rabbits and don't be such a candy jew. People might start taking you more serious.

Charles Manson Is a Genius

I am currently watching an MSNBC (best news site ever!) special on Charles Manson and the "inner workings" of the man who, by anyone's fair assessment, is quite the deep thinker.

Charlie (as I like to call him) gave an interview in 1997, and MSNBC is now analyzing this interview with the help of a "criminal profiler" from the FBI. Whoa. The FBI? That is some serious stuff. Those people don't mess around. I've seen every episode of the X Files and if there is one thing I've learned from that, it is how incredibly professional and competent the FBI is. For serious.

But watching this interview with ol' Chuck is quite enlightening, I have to say. Why was this guy put in prison? I think he's got some pretty good ideas.

"Hodge-podge of psychoanalytical podge-o-rodge-o-ramma-lamma crapola."

I don't care who you are, that's pure genius.

"I've been with prostitutes, bums and winos my whole life. That's the real world. And if I started murdering people, there would be none of you left."

See where the genius is? It's all in the transition. He went right from living like Jesus to killing anyone and everyone. That takes talent to be able to make that leap so quickly and -- most notably -- so smoothly.

"I told the judge years ago what was coming. He didn't care."

I care! Tell me where I can sign up!

"When you turn young kids into Rambos and lead them into strawberry fields, you're gonna have to answer for what you've done."

Uhhh...

"I'm still a little kid. I don't read too well, and I don't mind being stupid. But I can't get a away from politics."

This where we play the game of "Who said it: Charlie Manson or Ted Kennedy."

"Would you tell jokes about me if I was in the same room with you?"

I don't know, your 5' 1" 95 lbs frame is pretty imposing, so....?

"He portrays a profound disconnect" says the FBI expert. Really? No foolin'... I wish I had the ability to be in the FBI. They are so smrt.

Apparently California state law was changed so that there can be no more televised interviews with inmates. Which is really too bad because I could watch this kind of thing every day.

I saw this show today about rich kids having their "Sweet 16" birthday party and the ridiculous amounts of money their parents spend on them. Seriously, I think Chuck Manson has a more realistic and valuable world-view than a Beverly Hills teenager. How sad is that? Yet, here we are. I can more closely relate to a guy who is doing life in prison for his insanity than I can to, what MTV calls, today's youth.

What I think is most interesting -- and possibly scary -- is how much he sounds like Al Gore. And I'm not sure if that speaks poorly of Al or well of Charlie. Either way it makes us all realize how wrong we were to criticize An Inconvenient Truth. Not because of the poor research and abuse of science, but because Al could end up in your bedroom writing "Helter Skelter" on the wall and stabbing away like a race-war gone wild. Tragic, I say. Tragic.

Zombies AND Midgets: The Best Post Ever

Because it's not about "if" a zombie apocalypse will happen so much as it is "when," I feel the need to post updates I find regarding the subject.

Jonah Goldberg at National Review posted this yesterday. I think he makes some valid points, not the least of which is that he would rather be with a team of Navy SEALs than with a bunch of gamers. That is an interesting phenomenon when discussing a possible zombie apocalypse; gamers think that somehow they have more knowledge and ability to survive than the average human. How so? Clearly they are missing out on some of the most important aspects of survivability (like finding hot chicks, rescuing them, and being all macho and stuff with lots of guns).

I won't get into details just yet, since this is a short post. So here is a starting point to educate yourself on possible zombie types. We can discuss more of this later.


And yes, the title was correct -- we have midgets as well!

I blame my sister for this particular funny (she laughed. I didn't. I find it horribly offensive. Totally).

This one was linked off of the same page and is just too good to be true. Why had I not thought of that....

Napolitano Is Some Sort of Genius

"Napolitano Says Al-Qaeda-Style Terrorists Are in U.S."

Wow. She must be some sort of highly trained expert with access to top secret documents or something to know that.

"It is fair to say there are individuals in the United States who ascribe
to al-Qaeda-type beliefs," Napolitano said in an interview with Bloomberg
Television today.

I for one am grateful to our amazing government for providing such expertise on a subject no one has been talking about at all for the last ten years or so.

Seriously, where do I apply for her job? 'Cause I'm pretty sure I can do it based on the few things I've seen out of this woman. At least it's been a few months since she insulted veterans returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan. That's something.

X Men Wolverine: A Live-blogged Review

Why pay $4.99 when you can read a summarized, semi-coherent rant-version of the newest-to-DVD blockbuster right here at your favorite blog? Ok, second favorite. No? Give me something here, people. I'm struggling. It's the economy.

I'm anticipating this to have some hard to follow plot lines and deep story telling, so be prepared to keep up. I'm not waiting for you.

We begin our story in the year 1840...something. Great, I'm already lost. Wolverine is a little kid and sprouting claws out of his hands already. And who does he use his newly acquired tools on first? His father, of course. I'm sure that won't cause any psychological issues down the road.

Whoa, it's a little early in the film for a montage, but here we are. Cruising through history seeing Wolverine fighting in the Civil War, WWI, WWII, and Vietnam. I'll bet they can file one heck of a PTSD claim, if nothing else.

Montage is over and Wolverine and his brother -- who has the same ability -- are part of a special unit on a special plane with some special people doing special things for a special secret government organization. I am guessing something special is about to happen.

I was wrong. They flew to Nigeria. And unless they are there to get the millions coming to them from the Nigerian bank, nothing special happens in that country.

Emergency alert system?!?!? I just paid $4.99 for this movie and they interrupt it for a TEST of the Emergency Alert System?!??!?! Oh that is super. And now that the test is over, does it go back to my movie? Hell no. It went to Star Trek. This is going to get ugly...

On the phone with the ever-knowledgeable computer voice at Comcast Cable. They are telling me I can access the movie through my DVR.... LIES!!! "No Listings Available" it says. Wait... we may have something here... "Error Retrieving Data." Of course there was. When has data ever been retrieved without error? We'll give this one more shot and then it's fire-setting time.

As hard as this is to believe, it didn't work. So with my Bic lighter in hand, I'm back on the phone with Comcast and currently jamming out to whatever passes for hold-music these days. Crazy kids and their rock music! Let's take this time to bet on what I get for a Customer Care Representative. It's a given that they will be someone for whom English is a second language, but there are a few choices within that realm. Will they be A) India/Paki-based, B) Spanish-based, or C) Ebonics-based. When in doubt, choose C on any multiple choice test, they always say.

They were... wait, the movie is back on! Regardless, I'm staying on hold just so I can find out who wins the bet.

The "special" team has infiltrated some building in Nigeria. Hopefully to get those millions they were promised in an email. Oh look, Wolverine developed a "conscience" and has a problem with genocide now. That's the problem with superheroes these days. They have no stomach for the really big projects.

So he moves to the Canadian Rockies to pursue his life-long dream of being...a lumberjack? Sure you betcha. At least he lives with a supermodel and he's not a carnie like this guy. Wait a second, that's Pippen from Lord Of The Rings. Or Mary. A hobbit, at any rate.

By the way if you didn't guess C on the bet, you all owe me money. Ha!

Wolverine is sharing sentimental moments with his hot girlfriend. I'd say that pretty much seals her fate within the next 5 to 10 minutes to be...oh it was much less than 5 minutes. Wolverine's brother is taking a keen interest in her. I think he likes her. Whoops, she must have fallen down. Or maybe she's just tired and wanted to take a nap. Blood loss will do that to a person.

Of course they fight, and of course Wolverine gets hit by a semi-truck. Just another day at the office for a mutant. And of course this leads to Wolverine getting his super-duper metal endo-skeleton. Oooh that's gotta hurt. I remember the last time the Army put indestructible metal onto all of my bones, it was no walk in the park. It's not as bad as sitting through an hour of the Rachel Maddow show, but it's pretty bad.

It was bad enough for the hero here to end up naked in a barn -- which is slightly better than in a van down by the river. But with some sage wisdom from an old man (and some free clothes courtesy of 1984), he takes off on the old man's Harley. I guess the old man didn't need it seeing as how he got blown up by the helicopter.

The Army is chasing him with what must be the fastest Humvees ever built. I've personally never seen one that can go over fifty, but they have three or four that can out-run a motorcycle. This really is a special unit. Quick question: has there ever been an action movie made without the main character walking in slow motion away from a fiery explosion? If you can name three I'll give you my Durango.

Working towards the big, climactic finish now (there wasn't much to blog while they tried to develop plot-lines), which is taking place on 3-Mile Island.

Mutants flying, sprawling, generally doing mutant things... It's an orgy of special effects. With the result being, of course, the reason why 3-Mile Island blew up. How convenient.

I'll save you the craptastically boring details of the ending. Don't you just love it how prequels try to tie everything together for you at about a third grade level? We get it. These are the same characters from the other movies. But no, they have to beat us over the head with an attempt at being "clever."

Overall a decent movie, and probably the best out of the X-Men series. I'm sure the ladies love it because Hugh Jackman is on the screen for 98% of the film. I'm guessing he had that in his contract. Like the other X-Men movies it's great for some mindless entertainment, or as a more intelligent alternative to Keith Olbermann. I wouldn't suggest running out and renting it, but it's not bad for a slow Friday night, either.

If Ever There Were Any Doubt...

...about the validity and relevance of the Nobel Peace Prize.... Well, check the news today.

ZOMBIES! (Live-blogging 28 Weeks Later)

Ok, so I have seen the first 20 minutes of this movie three times. We started watching it in Iraq and every time we did, somehow it was interrupted by something so vastly important that it took us away from what I am continually told is an entertaining zombie flick. With the luck I've had, I expect my apartment to catch on fire about twenty minutes from now, seeing as how I just started it...

Well, the beginning starts off with some people boarded up in some cottage (that's what these snooty British people call a "shack" don't ya know) and... zombies attack them. Well, not "zombies" per se -- they have the "rage virus" -- but basically, they are zombies. And are they ever ragey. Full of rage, they are. Biting, clawing, running... they are fast. And do these Limeys have even so much as a shotgun? Nope. Why would they? They are hiding from people who have become raging mutants intent on consuming human flesh, why on earth would they need firearms? Why, doesn't the British government take care of all problems that guns could solve?

It looks like the main character bailed on his own wife and some small kid. Left them to be lunch. Maybe he wanted a divorce, anyway? Who are we to judge, really. Have you ever been left with a choice of fighting zombies with your hands or leaving your wife? Then stop pointing fingers, smartie pants.

Fast forward to 28 weeks later (whoa! That's where they got the title!), American military forces have quarantined mainland Britain and are pulling security while they rebuild. Hmm, I hope they are better at this rebuilding game than certain Middle Eastern countries I have recently visited. Either way, the Americans have guns. Lots of guns. That's what we do. No one ever sees Americans show up to a crisis and then says "Aww, they should have brought more guns."

Heh, the American forces are still wearing full protective equipment. Would you need a bullet-proof, Kevlar vest and helmet if zombies are the number one threat? Hmmm... No matter, it's the Army! We know how to make even the coolest of apocalyptic scenarios painfully lame.

The main character is back, and he is being reunited with his kids. The kid who became a Happy Meal earlier in the movie wasn't his; these kids were...somewhere. Away. They were away. And that's all you need to know. One is a girl, about 14, and one is a...boy? Yeah, we'll go with a boy of about 10. A really wimpy looking boy with long hair. Now there is a female Army officer who is some sort of medical "authority" complaining about...something. The kids. I would complain about kids too, in this situation. You know they are going to slow you down when running from zombies, they can't shoot (they're British kids. If they were American kids there would be a strong possibility of them knowing the ins and outs of a Glock, at least), and they whine a lot when they're hungry or have to pee. Basically a huge liability in a zombie Apocalypse.

In addition, kids ask things like they are asking now in the movie like "what happened to mom?" Well, he could tell you the truth -- that he sacrificed her to save his own skin -- or he could do what he's doing now and say that he fought gallantly until she was "bitten." What are the odds that Mom is going to show up later as a special, hybrid revenge-zombie? I say strong to highly likely.

Here we go, American sniper teams on roof-tops spying on people. Only a matter of time before the...oh, there it is. The gratuitous sex scene. That's what sniper scopes are made for! Oh and also for checking out the American doctor, who is obviously going to be of some importance because she is "wondering" what they will do if the virus comes back. I wonder, too. But for now, I'm sure everything is fine. So fine, in fact, that the kids will assuredly run into nothing harmful at all on their little "foray" out of the quarantined zone. Who saw this coming? Kids, getting into mischief? Never! And on a moped, even!

The kids are now exploring their old house and I have officially made it further than I have on the previous three occasions trying to watch this movie. And... the apartment is not on fire. Sweet! Ok, so back to the movie...whoa. Mom is back already! And alive! Sorta...maybe... ooh she is trying hard to control the zombie urge to eat the boy. But they have Mom in the decontamination chamber now, giving her one of those cool showers where instead of soap they use steel wool.

They dropped the bomb on the main guy that his wife is still alive. The kids are slightly peeved at Dad 'cause, well...'cause he just told them last night that he watched her die. Oooh boy, talk about awkward... And so what does he do when he goes to see her? He kisses her. Genius. You are a bright one. Of course she's carrying the virus. Now he is...slightly upset. And a zombie. So of course the only logical solution is to eat her. Which he does. And then claws her eyes out and goes on a zombie rampage. Are you following this? I hope so 'cause it's really complex. I mean the plot-lines are running deep, man. Deep.

Code red. That's where we're at. You heard it right -- code red. When the Army goes to that level, things happen. Things like...zombies going crazy and eating people and not a single shot has been fired yet. Man, I swear, put me in the zombie Apocalypse and I will, if all else fails, let bullets fly. Oh and the Dad is back, clawing more eyes out and turning other people into zombies. This guy is nothing if not productive. More than I can say for the Army. He's turned about ten or so people into zombies and the soldiers are busy doing a rape awareness class.

Pure pandemonium, now. Tearing and eating of flesh, people screaming... this is like a Hannah Montana concert. At least the snipers are engaged. They're the only ones shooting so far. And shooting they are. Bless their hearts. Elevated positions with scoped, semi-automatic weapons brings nothing but good things, really.

The main sniper has now hooked up with, you guessed it, the kids and the hot doctor he was spying on earlier. They have to escape the area because F-16s are fire-bombing the whole quarantined zone. See, now that is how to take care of zombies. Ominous music aside, I see this as a win for the good guys. Sure, some non-zombies probably got cooked, but that's kinda how the Army works. Finesse isn't one of the paragraphs in an OPORD.

The movie has slowed down a bit, so I would like to take this time to tell you that I watched Zombieland yesterday and highly recommend it for your viewing pleasure. I would write a full review, but honestly this is more fun and I don't think there is much point. Woody Harrelson plus zombies equals a good time.

Back to the movie, in one of the coolest zombie-kills I've ever seen, a helicopter just tipped it's rotors down into a whole group of zombies and made mince-meat out of about 30 of them. I think that qualifies as "zombie kill of the week" for sure. The sniper is toast. Literally. So my theory that he would hook up with the doc is shot. What can I say, I'm out of practice for watching movies. I'm having a tough time following the intricate nature of story development that our cultural and moral superiors in Hollywood develop throughout the course of a movie. But what I am having a really hard time understanding is that why the doc, who is now the only one with night vision -- which is on top of her M4 -- is having the kids go in front of her in the dark. Here's a thought, lead the way and have them follow. Too late, the Dad is back and he just beat the doc to death with her own M4. Which, sadly... is about the level of competence most soldiers display with their personal weapon.

In a not-so-surprising twist, the girl just capped her dad with the M4. Of course not until after he had bitten the boy. Who has the special "immunity gene." I have that, too, but it only applies to when I talk to crazy liberals.

And all live happily ever-after with the boy and girl being flown over the Cliffs of Dover to safety on an Army helicopter. Except that now there are zombies in Paris. But really, if there were zombies in Paris, would you be able to tell?

Until next time...

What Is Off Limits: A Retort

I stumbled upon this article by Rich Santos today and realized about 30 seconds in to reading it that A) the guy is an idiot and B) I would like to punch him in the face. But I can't 'cause I've never met him so instead I will just write a blog about how much better I am than him.

First of all, Rich -- or can I call you Dick? -- is obviously what we would call "Testosterone Challenged." His lack of male hormonal production therefore inhibits his ability to think clearly and rationally, making it difficult for him to, well, to not suck so bad.

I would say his article starts off on a bad foot, but that would imply that this guy can even take a step on his own without fear of offending someone.

Some work friends and I were recently discussing things that men
can not criticize their girlfriends about. It was astounding how incorrect us
guys were when trying to lay out our "rights" in terms of constructive
criticism.

Good job, Dick. You managed to completely emasculate yourself within the first two sentences of your article. Next article you write I would also encourage you to apologize to everyone of different races for being white.

He then proceeds to make a "list" of all the things that are supposedly "off limits" to talk about with girlfriends. Which I'm guessing Dick has never had, so in his world this is all hypothetical, anyway.

Weight: There is no friendly way for a guy to tell a girl that she's put on
weight. Even if there was a friendly way, most of the women I've talked to about
it said they would not want to hear it from a guy.

Most of the time, there is no friendly way to karate-chop people in the throat for being stupid, but sometimes it has to be done, right?

Outfit: I think I'm only allowed to say someone generally looks nice,
because I'm a big sissy and only do what I'm "allowed" to do.

Dude, do you wear a leather mask and get chained up at home? Are you allowed to speak unless spoken to? Go dunk your head in a tub of water until you see the wizard.

Friends and Family: We've all dated people with annoying friends. But,
people consider their friends as extensions of themselves so if you criticize
friends, you're criticizing your significant other indirectly.

You know what's a great way to go through life? Let annoying and rude people continue on with their habits, let them walk all over you, and then apologize to them for getting in their way. That way they will like you and respect you more. And you will be able to run for President.

Then he goes on to write some stuff about driving, blah blah blah... Look, the simple fact is that this guy is sadly indicative of the common modern man -- this belief that we can't "offend" women or...fill in the blank with whatever group you want permeates the thoughts of a good portion of our society. People like this guy are bending over backwards every minute of every day of their lives so that no one will be mad at them. The idea of confrontation scares them so bad that the alternative -- placating everyone in sight who isn't a white male -- seems to be a wise and logical life choice.

Here's a tip for people like Rich Santos: grow a pair. Stop worrying about how much you are offending people if all you're doing is telling the truth. And for the people who get offended at hearing the truth? Get some thicker skin and stop whining. Yes, there is a difference between criticism and people being mean. That's where this thing called your brain comes in; if you have an IQ higher than that of a shoe-box, you should be able to tell the difference.

We worry far too much about offending people. I think it's time to turn the tables on people like Rich; they need to worry about people like me slapping them in the face with a cold, hard dose of reality when I come across them. There is no such thing as "off limits" when discussing the truth. There is a time and a place for everything if it is done correctly. And if you aren't afraid of your own shadow like Mr. Apologize-for-being-alive-guy.