I Don't Speak Destiny

a few thoughts about Determinism versus Free Will on ABC's Lost

As of this writing, next Wednesday will be the evening of the last new episode of ABC's Lost until some time next year. This will be the end of season five. The episode's name will be "The Incident." We are to assume the show will be about an incident that has been described or alluded to several times throughout the series' run, but that we've never actually had a chance to see happen, until this Wednesday. How did we get here?

For those unfamiliar with the TV series Lost, here's a vain attempt at a crash course in the plotline. Let's say for the sake of argument that in September of 2003, a commercial jet air liner was cruising from Australia to LAX and encountered a temporal anomaly in the shape of an uncharted island that just happened to be along their trajectory at just the right moment. A shaft of energy shot up out of the island from a man made installation that would later be discovered to be called "The Swan Station," built and funded by an organization called The Dharma Initiative.

This plane crashed on the island, and the survivors spent one hundred and eight days there surviving, interacting unsuccessfully with the previously ensconced inhabitants of the island, and eventually negotiating what they thought to be rescue off said island. However, due to a varied and hard to predict number of variables, only six individuals from that plane actually made it off the island. These six people attempted to return to their normal lives, but so much had upset the trajectory of their lives that it was quite literally impossible for them to return to any resemblance of normality.

None of them wanted to come back, and some were never convinced they had to return, but eventually either voluntarily or by coercion, five of the six "lost" people who thought they had been "found" were forced to admit they were still lost, and went back to the island to finish what had been started. Is this destiny? Are these people unable to stop the inevitable? Or is it their very actions and the choices they make that cause their own misery and strife? Or is there something more complex at work here than either of those possibilities?

There are multiple schools of thought in philosophy. Essentially for purposes of this rambling of mine, it boils down to two sides: Determinism & Free Will. We either get to choose what happens in our lives, or regardless of our choices, fate or God or something else decides for us what's going to happen. If the latter is true, then it's pointless to get out of bed in the morning, because our destiny will seek us out whether we actively pursue it or not. However, if we choose never to get out of bed, then if there were a destiny out there for us, our actions would prevent us from achieving them... UNLESS of course, we were destined to sit in bed and await death.

The real dilemma with this very discussion is that the entire contemplation is essentially a quagmire of thoughts previously set down by philosophers and Great Minds of humanity's history. One must define such things as "Free Will" and "Determinism" and there are many who will argue to the bitter end on semantics; so much so, that it becomes impossible to even agree between people upon what "choice" means. Or any aspect of the conundrum. Or even whether or not it's a conundrum at all! Needless to say, for all the generations of contemplation, we haven't really come up with a final answer as a species.

Of course this ain't for a lack of trying. The great minds of which I speak include but are not limited to the following names: English politician Anthony Cooper, Irish statesman Edmund Burke, Utilitarian and Legal Positivist Jeremy Bentham, Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin, Law professor John Austen, Genevan philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Philosopher of Enlightenment John Locke, Scottish skeptic David Hume, Dutch novelist Hugo de Groot, Scottish writer Thomas Carlyle, and author Clive Staples Lewis. Astute observers of Lost have noted that many featured characters of the series are named after these great philosophers of human history.

One can also argue that the Holy Bible deals greatly with the issues of free will versus determinism, and the names of characters Jack & Christian Shepherd alude to this. Religious minds accept as a given that their god is omniscient, and as such knows everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen. If this is true - and accepting as a given means for those doing that it IS true so don't bother arguing about it - then their god's knowledge means that everything is already essentially set in stone. We don't know the Master Plan, but there is a sentient being out there that does. Though we can't see this set in stone, we must assume that it is. This pretty much precludes Free Will. Whatever happens happens, and there's not much to be done about changing it.

However, the reason why things happen, or don't happen, in your life (beyond events that are caused outside your purview), is because you choose or choose not to do them. You can opt to stay in bed. So you don't go driving today, so there's no chance you'll be in a car wreck, unless someone drives a car into your home. That's not completely out of the realm of possibility, but if for some reason you fear being in a car wreck today, not getting out of bed lessens the odds that such an event will happen to you. Therefore, your action, or rather inaction, has affected the probability of certain events occurring in your life at that time. So you have the freedom to do as you wish, and the will to commit to whatever action you choose to make. This means if there's destiny, you make your own.

Now here's where it gets murky. You have free will. You prove that every time you choose to do anything, even if it's just getting out of bed or having a glass of water or having a beer instead of a glass of water or a glass of water instead of a beer. You have free will. ...So does everyone else.

Your actions sometimes affect only you. Sometimes they affect you and the objects around you that you use to commit those actions. Sometimes your actions affect people in your immediate vicinity. Sometimes your actions and choices affect either directly or indirectly people not in earshot or eye shot of you. Sometimes you make choices which lead to other choices that lead to even more choices that eventually put you in a position where whatever you do this particular day will cause X number of people to be put in danger or even die, so that Y number of people may retain or maintain some level of security or freedom or pleasure or contentment. Maybe you make choices that lead you to robbing a bank. Maybe you make choices that lead you to commanding a military outfit. Maybe you make choices that lead you to becoming the assistant director in charge of media affairs to some conglomerate organization. Maybe you make choices that lead you to becoming a vagabond who is standing on a street corner and is about to walk out into the middle of the intersection because you see a frightened cat about to be run over by a bus and you have to save her.

Choices. Actions. Reactions. Consequences. You choose to make all those choices. You will yourself to commit to those acts. So do all the people around you. There's also physical laws that inanimate objects must adhere to.. usually. There's also other aspects of reality that we don't quite yet understand, but when we perceive things we don't know we (many of us) chalk such things up to miracles or magic or aliens or supernatural forces or something anything than just "I don't know."Things we take for granted now, were considered fantastical less than a century ago. We can make fire now with a cigarette lighter in the palm of our hand. Such a thing would have been considered the Devil's work back in medieval times. There are things at work in the universe today that were we to witness them we'd have no way to comprehend the how or why. It's not magical. We just don't understand how it's done yet.

Earlier today I was at a laundromat and I witnessed a little boy (apparently unsupervised by his mother) climb into a metal laundry basket that's on four wheels and is built in such a way as to topple whenever a child attempts to climb into it. I've seen other children do this and fail. I was too far away to do anything about it. I found myself just standing there witnessing this, expecting the inevitable. It was going to topple. The child was going to fall two feet to the ground and the laundry basket was going to fall on top of him. Then the child would run away screaming to his mother. I've witnessed this before. Sometimes I'm able to stop the children from harming themselves but I do not adhere to Hillary Clinton's insistance that it takes a village to raise a child. It takes parents to raise their children. If I wanted to raise children I would have had some. So nowadays I pretty much just let them be. It's just two feet. His butt will be bruised and he'll run off crying and that'll be the end of it.

However this time, against all logic and common sense I could muster in that moment, the little child climbed into the laundry basket on wheels without toppling it. Once he was inside the laundry basket on wheels he seemed very pleased with himself, but about thirty seconds later he found himself wanting to get out of the laundry basket on wheels. This proved even more difficult and time consuming but he pulled that off too.. almost.

I'm watching this, now mouth slightly agape because this child is in my layman's opinion defying all laws of physics accomplishing this feat, but here comes the inevitable and it looks like his small weight is going to cause the laundry basket on wheels to topple, and at just the last second before that happens, a larger child who may have been his big sister or may have been a complete stranger I don't know, but she saunters by and just at the right second she put her hand on the basket, keeping it from toppling, and the boy touched the floor without ...incident.

The child in question chose to climb into the laundry basket on wheels. He chose to climb down. However, he didn't choose the laws of physics that he was ignoring. They exist whether he wants them to or not. Gravity is still going to bring that laundry basket on wheels down on his head unless he manages a way to balance himself on the thing, however precariously, to keep it upright long enough for him to climb into and out of it. Where he puts his hands, how far his first leg goes before he pushes up and lets his other leg off the ground, how he shifts his weight so as to not upset the cart, all these things and more, including tiny minute decisions he makes with regards to breathing and movement and balance etc., he does have some control over what happens with regards to himself, but he has no control over his own environment. More importantly, he has no control over the other people in the room. I was certainly of no use to him because rather than walk across the room and stop him from endangering himself, I had chosen to not get involved. He had no control over that. Furthermore, he had no control over his sister stepping in at the last second and helping. Perhaps he did not want her help, because now he can't say with pride that he did it all by himself, whether he could have done so or not.

So we have free will, but our actions do not solely determine the outcome. There are forces beyond our control. Friends, family, strangers, animals from elephants to bacteria, and the world at large, all these and more are out there and will either assist our endeavors or become obstacles to our goals. It is the combination of all these factors, variables far too numerous to comprehend much less ever successfully calculate to any non relative certainty, that accumulate into what we (for the lack of a better word) perceive to be our destiny.

We have free will, but our actions and reactions are affected by the consequences of past actions made by ourselves and others. In the Lost television series we've seen this at work countless times. Kate Austen murdered her father, because she felt he had been physically and mentally abusing her mother. This action led to Kate having to run from the authorities, limiting her choices to stay in one place and have a normal life. Resisting arrest and other illegal actions she committed while on the run eventually led to her capture in Australia, which threatened to severely restrict her free will from then on.

John Locke gave his kidney to his father, because he perceived this would bring them closer together. However, his father behaved in a way counter to Locke's anticipation, and because of choices he and his father made and reactions to one another's actions, Locke eventually found himself thrown out an eight story window by his own father, which led to paraplegia for several years, until he arrived on the island. Was Locke always destined to lose control of his legs, or was it his inability to forgive and forget his father that crippled him? Or was it Anthony Cooper's fault alone, and regardless of his actions, Locke is not to blame for his own condition? Was he always meant to be in that wheelchair, so that when he went on walkabout in Australia, they'd turn him away which led to his plane trip back on Oceanic 815? Was he always meant to try the walkabout, or was it the suggestion to him by Abbadon that caused Locke to try something so improbable despite all common sense to the contrary?

If one were to meditate upon the back story of each of our principal characters, one would see that while they had free will, their actions tended to cause consequences that minimized or polarized the choices they had later on. Hugo Reyes used a curious set of numbers he'd got from a friend to play the lottery, and those numbers led to him winning the lottery, but though the millions of dollars at his disposal gave him the appearance of freedom, it also gave him responsibilities that weighed him down, and the numbers themselves led him down a dark path where he discovered others who used the numbers for personal gain later regretted the "bad luck" that it seemed to engender in themselves and people around them. His investigation led him to Australia, and later to the fated plane crash upon leaving Australia. Was all this fated, or did "Hurley" do it to himself? Or is it a combination of the two?

We are also limited by the laws that dictate how the universe behaves, only some of which we actually understand. You can choose to jump in the air, but this will only defeat the force of gravity for a fraction of a second before despite your desire to remain aloft, gravity will usurp your will in that regard. We have free will, but we are restricted by what goes on around us.

If there is a god, s/he/it may know what will happen and how and even why, but s/he/it may not have absolute control over the outcome. It is the culmination of everything in the universe that determines the outcome. The godhead is one element of that culmination. She/he/it may opt to change the outcome, or it may just observe. Quantum physics theorizes that its not possible to observe without affecting the outcome. If one molecule is moved out of place at a strategic time, that could be enough to change everything. Chaos theory speculates that a butterfly can flap its wings in Tokyo thus causing it to rain in California. This is highly improbable, but not outside the realm of possibility. Would that be destiny if it happened, or would it be because the butterfly chose to flap its wings? Simultaneously the answer is both and neither. If such a thing happened, its because the butterfly flapped its wings and it was always destined to do so in that moment, because that's what butterflies do. More specifically, it's what that butterfly would do in that moment if it had free will to do so, and its actions lead to consequences, most of which are beyond the little butterfly's control.

Scottish philosopher Thomas Carlyle once said, "Everywhere the human soul stands between a hemisphere of light and another of darkness; on the confines of the two everlasting empires, necessity and free will." The television series Lost has dealt with the idea of 'light and dark' both symbolically and literally. However, what appears to be light is not always predictably good and what appears to be dark is not always predictably bad. In fact, trying to determine what the "sides" are has become increasingly difficult.

The final conundrum leading up to The Incident is this: Jack believes he needs to set a bomb off at the Swan station in order to destroy it, so that there will be no Swan station thirty years later. So that his plane will never be struck by an energy beam from the Swan station, and it will land in LAX like it was always (according to him) meant to land. Kate was on that plane too. While what has happened to her is as frustrating as what has happened to Jack, and they have for the most part shared this confounding journey together, had she and Jack landed on LAX without crashing on the island, they never would have met, and she would have gone straight to jail, because of choices she had made prior to getting on the plane in Australia. So to Jack, changing their destiny appears to be a good thing. However, to Kate, changing their destiny is a very bad thing indeed. The fact that Jack wants to erase the past three years, essentially means he wants to erase his entire experience with Kate. To Jack this is a small price to pay for saving the lives of all the people they have lost in the past three years. To Kate, this means he never loved her in the first place, and wants to wipe the slate clean; he'd rather save all those other people than save her.

And you know what? She's absolutely right.

Boldly Backing Away

The new JJ Abrams movie is more like Star Wars than anything George Lucas ever produced, and less like Star Trek than is physically possible.

I can't get to blip.fm without 'Internal Server Errors' at the moment, so since I can't blip music, you're gonna be subjected to my rant about how this latest Paramount film claiming to be Star Trek ..simply ain't.

Recently Onion News made a faux news piece in jest, but I laughed because it's so true. The gist of it is that because the latest Star Trek film is such a success, diehard fans of Star Trek are criticizing that because it's not as bad as previous Star Trek films, or the original series itself, this latest Star Trek film from the same movie studio is an offense and a disgrace. I laughed, but I understand completely that their joke is on people like me: Trekkies. Cuz at least some of us resemble that remark and are totally shamelessly accepting of the fact. If the Orion Slave Girls fit, drape them on your shoulders and enter the Dealer's Room. It's your bloody convention. Qapla'!

I was born the night TOS's Return To Tomorrow first broadcast. I've got Star Trek running through my veins. I was born with a space age spoon in my mouth. My older sister used to dress up as Spock every year and I would argue with her because she insisted upon caking on the green makeup and even though I concurred that Spock's blood was based on copper while ours was based on iron and therefore he had a slight green sheen to his skin, Vulcans simply were never as green as the Wicked Witch of the West. She was nonplussed. I was nine. I won the argument by the way, but I was dressed as C3P0 at the time, and let me tell you the alleged 'official Lucas sanctioned' store bought version of his costume was ripe with discrepancies and opportunities to nitpick. But I digress.

Today I come to bury Caesar. I mean Star Trek.

What J. J. Abrams is trying to pass off as Star Trek is an attempt by Paramount to resusitate a franchise that was never theirs, and turn it into something that people who made Jerry Springer famous would like. This is an offense to anyone who enjoyed Star Trek precisely because it was NOT what people who made Jerry Springer famous would like. True Star Trek is quirky. It's obtuse. It's peculiar. It's strange, weird, inexplicable, and yet has its own curious consistency and convoluted logic. Heisenberg compensators are called that for a reason, even though admittedly trying to explain the reason makes one sound like Sheldon from the tv series The Big Bang Theory, who by the way was no doubt a character designed in part after observing diehard Trekkies discussing the very concept of Heisenberg compensators over schematics at a physics lab commisary.

It has been documented that the Star Trek of my youth has inspired astronauts to venture into space. It has inspired astrophysicists and engineers into looking at the sciences and seeing just how many times can we look at what we know and go "well what if we try this instead?" In fact, Star Trek inspired the creators of that thing you carry around in your pocket or purse that you call a phone but it's clearly a #$%&ing Star Trek Original Series COMMUNICATOR! Take THAT you makers of TANG!

Yes this new Movie That Pretends To Be "Star Trek" Like is very pretty. It has all kinds of pretty actors standing around in well tailored pretty clothes doing pretty things. Pretty explosions occur every few pretty minutes, whether the pretty plot really requires it or not. Sometimes there's even pretty sex, which I have no pretty problem with of course. Kirk was always #$%&ing something, it's just that NBC didn't allow them to show it. Now we can, and it's pretty. The pretty music grabs you by the throat and takes you down into the murky deep with it. Ooh Ahh. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, chances are, it's not really Star Trek.

There was a time with regards to the movies when the general understanding among Trekkies, Trekkers, and Star Trek Fans alike was that the odd numbered movies were bad while the even numbered movies were good. Time is not being kind to this traditional convention of infallible logic. Currently this only applies to the Original Series based films, and even then it is difficult to defend under scrutiny. After the Next Generation crew took over, all bets were off. Now with this entire reboot of the Star Trek Franchise, this kinda throws that whole "odd numbered bad even numbered good" theory completely outta whack doesn't it?

1. The Motion Picture: 80% (that's being kind)
2. Wrath of Khan: 90% (Win!)
3. Search For Spock: 76% (that's being kind)
4. Voyage Home: 84% (Show!)
5. Final Frontier: 21% (that's being very kind)
6. Undiscovered Country: 82% (Place!)
7. Generations: 49% (that one's about right)
8. First Contact: 91% (it was okay but it wasn't THAT good)
9. Insurrection: 55% (Data as flotation device: fail)
10. Nemesis: 38% (the fact this got green lit proves there's a Satan & he lives among us)
11. JJ Abrams' Shitstorm With No Name: 94% @ 65 reviews as of this date.

Yes it's pretty. I'm not saying it's a bad film. Far from it. I'm saying it's not Star Trek. It's more like Star Wars. As a child who grew up in love with both, I can tell the difference. When I was a child, I fell in love with Star Trek not because it was perfect. I fell in love with it precisely because it was imperfect. It was fantasy. It was fantastical. It was fun. It was sometimes silly, and sometimes it took itself way too seriously, but it was always a joyride and a pleasure to behold. Most importantly, as I grew older and studied the plots and characterizations more intricately, I was amazed at how the themes and messages of the series held so true and steadfast despite the fact other parts of the series did not hold up under close scrutiny. The important thing was always the storytelling, not whether or not the producers had enough money to make that space alien look authentic. The story behind Trouble With Tribbles is silly fun and humorous and suspenseful and intriguing but most importantly the events that transpire leave one contemplating the ramifications of how something so small and seemingly harmless could effect an entire ecosystem, or even interplanetary economics. Today we call this being 'green' or eco-friendly. Roddenberry and Gerrold were talking about this in Trouble With Tribbles, decades before it became fashionable or trendy. It's a cautionary tale, if not downright satire on how despite all our government rules and regulations, sometimes you're just gonna have to bow to the absurd, and there's nothing to be done about it. I use that episode as an example because it's the one most familiar to people, but every episode from The Menagerie to Turnabout Intruder can be critiqued for story content and marvelous gems of thought provoking knowledge reveal themselves. No wonder this series still captivates and leaves people in awe and wonder even today.

What does this new movie say really? Comparatively, not much. Young thinner men from Abercrombie & Fitch ads look better in shirts and slacks than men forty years their senior. I coulda told you that for far less money. I am happy for people like Zachary Quinto and Simon Pegg that they're able to cash a pay check and cover their bills. More power to 'em. However, a rose by any other name would still be a blatant excuse to use the name Star Trek solely to sell merchandise and make Paramount rich. Roddenberry's vision is lost amid greed and pride. I thought that had been Berman's fault, as I noticed Roddenberry's star fade in the franchise after his death and before that horrid excuse for a fourth series. Though Scott Bakula did his best with what was given him, I understand broadcast of repeats of that series is banned in some countries for fear it might be the true cause of swine flu. I hesitate to even name the bastard stepchild series here for the same reason I prefer to call Macbeth "The Scottish Play" when within eyeshot of any conventional stage or theater.

As Hamlet would perhaps not say, "the play's the thing wherein we'll find the conscience of the studio executives." Guess what? They wouldn't know their phaser from their sabre if you tattooed their eyelids. I'll take Shatner's overacting over Abrams' overproducing any day of the week.

Carrot Top is NOT the Worst Comedian

Originally this was just a Digg reply that I knew would get immediately buried, so I wanted to preserve it here for posterity's sake. Someday they'll paint this on the walls of the Sistine Chapel, I promise you.

"We all know that Carrot Top is incapable of making jokes."

This flagrant dismissal of Carrot Top upsets me to no end. There's no forethought. No research is placed into this. Someone at one time jokingly referred to Carrot Top as the worst comedian ever and everyone just fell in line like sheep. If one were to study the history and science of humor as I have, one would come to understand that Carrot Top is not the worst. Far from it. In fact he's the benchmark.

I have learned over time to appreciate the work of Carrot Top. His is an acquired taste to be sure. It's not unlike learning how to eat the kinda stuff they'd made people eat on Fear Factor for fifty thousand dollars. Someday I hope to win a bar bet that I'll be able to survive a Carrot Top joke without internal hemorrhaging.

There are comedians worse than Carrot Top. Kevin Meany for example. Pauly Shore. Andy Dick. Joan Rivers. Sinbad. Anyone who can only get a job doing motivational speeches or drunk driving instruction and still insist they're comedians. Anyone who claims to be solely a "clean comedian" in so much as refusing to 'go blue' and use profanity or mature themes even if the comedy requires it. Such lowlifes offend me.

There are literally tens of thousands of people, of whom you will never hear, who are far worse than Carrot Top. In fact Carrot Top can be used not as the worst comedian ever, but as the baseline average. All other comedians may be compared to Carrot Top. On a scale of one through ten, he is merely a five. So yes. comedy is far worse than you could possibly have imagined before now.

For example, when I attempt to be funny in front of a group of people, compared to Carrot Top, I'm pi. This is why you will probably never see me get in front of a group of people. Anyone at or below pi should never tell a joke. This is to ensure the sanctity of the human race. They should relegate themselves to message boards and prank calls to infomercials.

Wesley Willis was a 4: better than me, and he never even knew he was a stand up comedian. He never tried! He was too busy singing! Imagine how great he would have been had he tried!

Arguably, tho I personally adore her, Janeane Garofalo is not particularly good at traditional stand up comedy. She's more of a political and cultural commentator on whatever she scribbles into her datebook fifteen minutes before her performance. Hers is also an acquired taste, and not for the squeamish or easily distracted. Granted, when she's at her best, Garofalo is on par with Mark Twain and Will Rogers (at their drunken worst) but that doesn't make her a great comic.

So for comparison, Carrot Top can generate more laughs (and groans) than Garofalo per attempt at humor, but Garofalo does make you think, whereas Carrot Top makes you want to blow your brains out. Sometimes Garofalo makes you think and then want to blow your brains out. So they may be equally as bad, but there's still artists far worse.

In conclusion, please remember not to diss Carrot Top so dismissively. Doing so does a disservice to all the sixes and sevens out there, who really aren't all that bad.

Distorted View of Importance

The following was originally part of an email to a friend, but after typing in a trance for ten minutes, I blinked and realized what I typed no longer made sense in her email. I decided to put it here instead. She was talking about how we were blowing the Swine Flu epidemic out of proportion when there's other diseases that kill more per year and have been around longer. I agree with her, but that started me off on a tangent that after reading it I was like, "this has nothing to do with what she was talking about." Still, I like what I was saying. So I'm putting it here in hopes that someday I'll find a better place to use it.

Oh I completely agree with you that here in America we have a very distorted view of what's important. For example, so many people want to give to charities that help children starving on the other side of the planet, but we have a homeless problem here in America that needs to be addressed more fervently. The problem is appearances. A crazy guy in his forties wearing rags doesn't illicit the same kind of concern and sympathy as a toothless crying baby in Tanzania with flies buzzing around her. However, that baby probably has a better support system around her than the poor old man does. I personally have a slightly more vested interest in the crazy guy in his forties, cuz take away my home and my car and my job and my paycheck, and that's all I am. A crazy middle-aged guy in rags. It is selfish selflessness that makes me think we here in America have a very distorted view of what's important.

I'm beginning to think a worldwide refocus of priorities is necessary. I just wish if we ever get that New World Order crap that some want and others fear, that THAT is what would be addressed. It's SO not. I guess that makes me one of the ones who doesn't want the NWO. Cuz I don't trust human beings. However, what we NEED as humanity is not either socialism or capitalism but what some may incorrectly perceive as a bit of both.

Some things need to be addressed in the common market. I used to think EVERYTHING needed to be addressed through capitalism. However, without a redistribution of wealth, eventually everything goes topheavy somewhere, and that develops caste systems based on economic well-being. When you corner the market on something, you don't easily let go of your grip. It's king of the hill. The toughest kid's gonna eventually take a stand and the only way to keep the possession of that hill from turning into a dictatorship of the playground, is if the rest of the playground bands together. There's some things we shouldn't have to fight over. Everyone deserves a piece of that hill. No one should be dismissed from the playground.

Every human being on this planet should be given Universal Rights. Those rights are built around necessities for physical and psychological well being. The right to live, to be happy, and to be unrestrained. This won't happen, but this is what we need and so long as we don't assure this for every single member of society, we're a worthless species.

I'd like for us to at least start with a Universal Agreement to food, drink, shelter, and function. All humans should be allowed to exist unencumbered by worries over those basic four things. That way, when it comes to combating in the marketplace for everything else, we all start on an equal level. Everyone needs shelter. Not everyone needs an entertainment center. However, not everyone can buy what you want to sell, if we don't all have a place to keep it. So it benefits capitalism, if all consumers' most basic needs are managed outside of capitalism.

If a charity isn't focusing on one of those big four, preferably in the community that a philanthropist is using his money, then that philanthropist needs to seriously reconsider how and why he is spending charity funds on something more frivolous outside his own neighborhood.

The problem with my mindset here is that some believe it to be unamerican. I know it. Which is why we'll never see it happen. One cannot force their will upon others. Well... you can, but no one's gonna invite you to parties if you do that. Unless of course you force them to invite you to their parties. No, the answer is not coercion or force, but education. We're not well-enough informed to make wise decisions about how to improve our community or our world.

The way I see it, most people look at the argument of capitalism vs socialism as if it were an either/or situation. It's not. One can have socialized medicine, but leave other things open to the marketplace. That's not unamerican. That's making sure all Americans can function - can have their inalienable rights of life, liberty, and happiness without being encumbered by the weight of oppressive poverty and starvation and ill-health.

A person watches a commercial on TV that tells them about how horrible it is on the other side of the world for poor children and that person's heart reaches out to them. We all want to be the one to save their lives and make the world a better place. However, that commercial only tells one side of the story. We don't see what's behind that camera - only what the camera wants us to see.

Why doesn't the camera man give the kid a Snickers bar? Why are those children in poverty? Who is causing this? How can they be stopped? Or is there more to the story that leads one to believe a sack of rice is not going to solve the problem, but getting world leaders to settle their differences and focus on what's really important, WILL solve the problem? Provided those bastards can get their heads out of their asses long enough to realize what they've been doing all these years is precisely what's making those kids starve.

A person doesn't get to see commercials on TV about the poverty and starvation happening right under their noses, sometimes just a few houses down from their own. Nobody makes those commercials, cuz there's no money in it.

Maybe it feels better to anonymously give a few dollars a week to war torn provinces on the other side of the planet than it does to cook a homemade meal for people shuddering in the cold wind on the other side of town. How does that help us though? How does helping someone in India help me in America? I'm never even gonna meet that guy over there. Ideally it'd be great to help everyone everywhere on the planet, but shouldn't we start closer to home, and then help others elsewhere after our own home is in order?

But who am I to talk right? I don't frequent homeless shelters. I don't give, cuz I don't have a lot. I don't even know how to cook. I sure don't put my money where my mouth is, but then I don't have a lot of money. I'm constantly reminded that I'm often a paycheck away from being one of those middle aged men in rags wandering the street corners panhandling. Maybe my problem is I don't watch TV commercials about Indonesia or Ethiopia. I'm too frighteningly close to the images staring me back in the face.

This is about when I blinked out of my reverie and my own breath got caught in my throat. I tell you what, if I actually had any money to give, I'd probably start here with the Metro Dallas Homeless Alliance. So if what I just typed affected you at all, please send them a little something if you can afford it. Or better yet, find the homeless shelter in your area, give to them, and tell them Zach sent you. So maybe when everything is stripped from me, and all I am is a crazy person without a roof over my head, I'll have a place to go. And you to thank.

TweetLand

With Fans Like These, who needs idiots?

TheEmperfect: Okay. Way too many tweets from @BrentSpiner And the tweets are about? Later dude
mollywas: @BrentSpiner is scaring me, and I never watched Star Trek anyways, so I think I might stop following him.
vancgirl: @BrentSpiner I think i am going to vomit with this crap.
AuthorPenn: @BrentSpiner note to self, "unfollow @brentSpiner ASAP!
cam_rock: @BrentSpiner Whatever it is you are doing, it is excruciating to read these posts.
tracy_tiz: @BrentSpiner bullshit.


This is just a sampling of responses people have sent to Brent Spiner regarding his recent foray into storytelling via Twitter. Responses I might add, that he has personally labelled 'favorites.' This does lead one to interpret his reaction to people telling him how bad his Tweets are; he is entertained by their juvenile ignorance.

What is he doing exactly? He's telling a story. Something he has done, in one form or another, his entire theatrical career, for what is an actor of any calibre if not a story teller? What he's doing on Twitter is unique. This is something I have yet to see done with such success by anyone else on the Internet. Brent Spiner is single-handedly expanding the envelope of what it means to Tweet. While sycophants like Ashton Kutcher and Oprah Winfrey are obsessed with numbers, Brent Spiner is challenging the medium, and yet others who claim to be supporters of his past work are questioning his content.

For those who are not in on the loop, Twitter is a social network program allowing people to tell one another what they're up to and what's on their mind, but only 140 characters at a time. While most people are using Twitter as an opportunity to describe the trivial minutiae of their daily lives, Brent Spiner is describing what might be his day, if he actually had a life as exciting as we fans of the celebrity think he should. However, he's self-conscious of his audience and turns that anticipation we fans have on its ear, by describing a fantasy life that's even better than we could imagine, but not in the way one might imagine. Rather than describing himself as some world reknowned celebrity that everyone knows and loves, Spiner describes a more shadowy world of uncertainty and hidden truths. It's a world of hardship and hope, where women can love and men can dream and jewish agents can cut twenty percent off the top of nothing, leaving you with less than zero.

Most recently, in this meta-soap opera that is Brent Spiner's life, he's been framed for a murder he didn't commit, and so is forced to change his appearance to look like that of Patrick Stewart, attempt to hide inside a darkened movie theater where his accusers are witnessing new Star Trek Movie premiere. That's where Spiner's narrative has led him thus far, but how he got here is plainly fascinating. Spiner thought he could change his name to "Norman" and get a job as a man's chauffeur, where he wouldn't be bothered by people who recognized him for playing an android on a tv show two decades ago. He weaved for himself a life of anonymity, yet described this other life to an avid and affable audience.

Yet, as well written as the story has been, albeit constricted by the limitations of the Twitter medium, it's not real. It's not truth. ...well okay. What's truth? Some can argue fiction is more honest and descriptive of The Human Condition than news, but I digress.

Apparently, many people who signed up for Brent Spiner's tweets wanted him to tell them when he next brushes his teeth. They don't want fiction. They want him to do what everyone else is doing with the medium. When he doesn't do that, they call him boring. What the rest of us are doing with the medium is what's boring. He's thinking outside the proverbial box.

Those who allege to be fans of him are rejecting what he offers, because they can't wrap their minds about the idea of fiction being presented via Twitter as if it were fact. They don't want a storyteller. They want to peer inside the private life of a man who quite frankly has already gone above and beyond the call of duty of any celebrity. Anyone who bitches about his Tweets but hasn't bothered to buy his latest CD Dreamland need to just shut the hell up. See what he's offering to entertain the audience for what it is, and quit trying to tell him what he should do. Either hop on board or get left behind, but don't drag the rest of us down with you. ...No I haven't bought Dreamland yet either. I want to, but I've been unemployed recently. Let me get a few paychecks under my belt and maybe I'll be able to afford to do that.

In Tweetland, Brent Spiner sees yet another stage, and he is filling it with a vibrant world of wonder and cruelty. He pads it with snarky sentiment and a wink and a nod to melodramatic pathos. Yet, those who claim to be his fans can't hold on to this ride. They complain, "can't stand this torture, my head is about to explode" and "I feel bad but his nonsensical tweets are befuddling and annoying."Are people really this insipid? What were they wanting? Grocery lists? Veiled requests to buy his latest CD (available for purchase)? Brief thank yous and a link back to their own Tweets? It's like they're all saying, "enough about you Brent! What do you think of me?" The answer? Not much. Nor should he. After all, he IS Brent Spiner. We're just the audience.

Either hop on the ride or don't, but telling Mr. Spiner his storytelling is bad because you are not intelligent enough to understand it? Not his fault.

To Retweet or Not To Retweet That Is The Question

Recently Dave Winer talked about Retweet which features a petition for Tweeters to sign if they want twitter.com to incorporate a "retweet feature" into the website design. I'm torn regarding this concept. The website in question doesn't go into detail about how this retweet function would work. Winer says, "Digg does it right, Twitter --> wrong."

I don't mean to pick on Dave Winer. The name may or may not ring a bell for you. He's a big wig on the Internet but not in a way that makes him a household name, unless the household is filled with web geeks. A lot of people look up to him and respect his views and I think other people whine and complain about whatever it is he's saying. Probably cuz he's usually right and they don't wanna admit it. I don't understand the politics of it but the bottom line is he's smarter than me. Chances are he's smarter than you. Let's leave it at that.

I've been on Digg. I've been on Reddit. Yes, their systems are very good at showing how many other people liked whatever it was a person said. Retweeting isn't exactly the same concept. When I "RT" something, it's not just because I agree with the sentiment. It's because for some reason I believe people who are following my tweets (or more specifically my blips cuz I have a few more blippers than I do tweeple) might be interested in seeing a tweet I've happened upon. Rather than just pretend the idea was mine, I want to acknowledge who said it. Personally, I prefer rewording the sentiment, or shortening it and adding my own two cents, but you only get 140 characters to do all this and oftentimes something gets lost in the translation.

What I'd prefer to see on Twitter, is a way to display the tweet I want to retweet, while leaving some or all of the 140 characters of MY Tweet open for me to add my two cents to what's already been said by someone else. I don't want just a retweet button that automates all this. I want to cheat, essentially. I wanna be able to display all of the previous tweet while still maximizing room for my opinion. Be it a rebuttal, a punchline, a ditto, or a crude ascii picture of boobs using parentheses in a way unsuitable to general audiences.

Currently the way it works now is tolerable for me cuz I can manually sculpt the previous RT to suit what I'm trying to say and add my thought, but I have to do all this in 140 characters. I'm a longwinded son of a bitch. Tweeting is already trying my patience as it is.

There's probably a way to just manually link to the other person's tweet, and I could make one of those tinyurls to minimize space, but then someone has to click to that other screen to see what I'm talking about. Since I'm usually going for the funny, that rather ruins the set up; not that what I want to say is going to be funny to the person reading it but it might help if I could better present the intended joke.

So if someone can better explain to me what the petition over at retweet.com is going to look like, if it matches what I'd like to see, then maybe I can hop on board this particular parade.

Reasons Why My Girlfriend Thinks I'm Gay

1. I don't enjoy sports.
   
2. When I was a kid, I had a sissy bar on the back of my bicycle. Bullies used to pull on it and throw me off my bike.
   
3. I'm not interested in cars. I can't even fix them. I can barely fix a flat tire.
4. I'm not any good with tools.
   
5. I play with dolls. I call them puppets but she calls them dolls.
   
6. I'm homophobic, which she says is an obvious give-away.
   
7. I used to be into theater back in college, and still have a very strong interest in most things theatrical. This is apparently an area that has been usurped by the homosexual community, so my interest in it automatically makes her think I'm gay.
   
8. I like show tunes. Notably anything from A Chorus Line, Cats, Fiddler On The Roof, Grease, Spamalot, West Side Story, Avenue Q, Wicked, and Chess' One Night In Bangkok by Murray Head. However, I draw the line at Rent.
   
9. I enjoy the music of Mandy Patinkin, Brent Spiner, Barry Manilow, Neil Diamond, Freddie Mercury, David Bowie, and Billy Joel, but I draw the line at Boy George.
   
10. I enjoy the music of Bernadette Peters, Barbra Streisand, Bette Midler, Judy Garland, Liza Minelli, and Cher, but I draw the line at Celine Dion.
11. Women I tend to be attracted to are invariably semi-butch lesbians. Famous examples include Laurie Anderson, Janeane Garofalo, Ellen DeGeneres, Melissa Ethridge, Sara Gilbert, Janis Joplin, Lucy Liu, Michelle Rodriguez, Jamie Lee Curtis, and The Indigo Girls. However, I draw the line at Margaret Cho.. just this side of Margaret Cho. I mean I think she's hot but anyone beyond her is too much.
    
12. I'm self-conscious about the idea of watching Brokeback Mountain, but I have no problem watching Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire dance together.
    
13. Not that I am gay, but I would rather tell my mom I'm gay, then tell her I'm an atheist.
    
14. I haven't had sex with anyone of any gender since the summer before Nine Eleven, and I'm very okay with this.
    
15. My girlfriend is located in Kentucky and I am not, and I am very okay with this.
    
16. My girlfriend is dating another man and I am not, and I am very okay with this.
17. I have no problem at crying. I don't cry often, but if it happens I welcome it. As I get older, my eyes tend to dry up anyway, so I think it's therapeutic and healthy to cry whenever possible. Saves me money on Visine.
    
18. I have to qualify whether or not its okay to cry by writing an entire paragraph about it.
19. Objectively I'm aware that it's wrong to think being gay is wrong, but due to a southern Baptist upbringing and a lifetime of heterosexual presumptions, gay men creep me the hell out. I do enjoy the company of lesbians, but I'm painfully aware it's mostly because I want to fuck them. All this makes my girlfriend think I'm gay.
    
20. Also, I think this list is FAB-ulous!
    

Heroes Has Jumped The Shark

Reasons why I am no longer going to watch Heroes starting with season four.

1. Greg Beeman was let go, and in my opinion he was one of the most passionate and talented creative minds behind the series. With him gone, I really don't care about the story from this point forward. I might reconsider if the network realizes their error and hire him back, but this is just one of a number of reasons why I'm leaving the series now.
   
2. I loved season one, but after Sylar survived the first season finale, despite the fact he stood alone against the entire rest of the cast at the time, which I found to be absurd and terribly written, the series has gone down hill from there.
   
3. Season two had some good moments, and I love many of the characters, but the writers often have characters doing things inappropriate to their characters for purpose of storytelling, which is pisspoor storytelling.
   
4. Season three had a great opening, where the vast majority of powered characters were captured and in a plane which then crashed. It started great, but bad writing coupled with obvious financial restrictions turned what started as a powerful and suspenseful opening into a very anticlimactic and laughable season three. By the time we get to the season's end, it's obvious that behind the scenes there's been some sort of power struggle for creative control, with constant changes of opinion regarding the direction of the series.
   
5. In season two, DL was written out of the series in a terrible way, and the series has suffered for the lack of Leonard Roberts' unique on screen quality and formidable talents.
   
6. In more recent seasons the series has suffered from an inability to properly decide to make tough decisions and keep the cast small by killing off or writing out of the storyline roles that aren't supporting the story or being interesting to the audience. Admittedly, every time a character is killed off, the series is risking to alienate a chunk of its audience. However, the series is top-heavy with featured characters.
   
7. This series has always essentially been between three to five different television shows merged together so as to keep an appearance of action when really we're just juggling multiple storylines. First, there's the story of the Petrellis. Second, there's the story of the Bennets. Third, there's Hiro and Ando. Fourth, Matt Parkman. Fifth, Mohinder's story. The sixth major storyline was Niki, DL, and Micah, but this story suffered the most in this juggling game and has all but disappeared in later seasons. Each of these plots alone could have been sufficient for a tv series of its own. The majority of episodes have essentially been telling snippets of each storyline through an intercutting song and dance. Some episodes would reveal a focus of one or more storylines as they merged, but most episodes feel more like a badly produced and frenetic soap opera. I'm reminded of the days of Love Boat & Fantasy Island which were formulaic in generating three plotlines that would be told interchangeably with the impression that if an audience didn't find anything of interest in one story, in a few minutes another story would be told that'd make up for it. Heroes did not need such a crutch. It just needed better writing and more focus. NBC's audience would have been better served if these half dozen or so storylines had each been given their own separate television series within which to truly grow and stretch its legs and fluorish. However, that would have probably been more expensive, and each story would have had to stand on its own legs, rather than letting other stories take up the slack when one story failed to properly interest an audience.
   
8. Though the publicity has dressed Ali Larter up as a talented actress who could play multiple roles, which has become a necessity due to what the writers have done with her various characters, the actual logic behind why they need to do this has been lost, and Ali Larter has not proven to be believable in multiple roles. In season one I was buying the difference between Niki and Jessica. However, Tracy never seemed to have a convincing identity of her own. Ali Larter is pretty, but I'm not convinced she's an actress capable of meeting the challenge demanded by the psychotic writing.
   
9. I really don't give a shit about Sylar. Oftentimes the writers treat him as if he's the most important character in the entire series, but he's not why I tune in and I do not want to see his redemption. I want to see him fry, and I want the writers to come up with some real villains that are far more interesting. I don't want to know about Sylar's past. I don't want to know about Sylar's future. Yes, Zachary Quinto is a talented man. The character the writers have devised him to play is more dastardly than JR Ewing of Dallas and less appealing than Major Nelson of I Dream Of Jeannie.
   
10. I have never bought Claire forgiving Noah. Hayden Pantierre is admittedly talented beyond her youth, but the dialogue the writers have shoved down her throat at times has been pathetic and laughable. Noah lied to his entire family repeatedly. Yes he had to, but I wanted to see more of Claire struggling with this, when she struggled a little bit and then got over it as if Noah just grounded her for a week or something. He betrayed her family.
    
11. The writers made a point to dramatically change Peter's powers for storytelling purposes, yet didn't hold true to the rules they stipulated for themselves. Peter's power has always been empathy - his ability to borrow powers from others was not originally based on touch. It was based on his affinity with other people. Taking that from him suddenly made him not Peter. What happened at Pinehurst changed all that, but when he got his power back, it was by physical contact, and not empathy. How is that Peter Petrelli?
12. The writers made a point to place limits on Hiro Nakamura's powers for purposes of storytelling. Admittedly, they simply started him off as way too powerful. However, his response to it did not seem in keeping with the character's previous behavior. Also back in season two the whole thing about going back in time to ancient Japan suffered from budget constraints and did not live up to the hype.
    
13. Mohinder injecting himself to get a power and then going all buggy and loony mad scientist crazy and then with the incident at Pinehurst he was able to retain the strength without the buggy side effects... somewhere in all that the writers completely lost sight of who Mohinder was, and that character ceased being remotely interesting. He turned into a plot device.
    
14. They kill off Brea Grant's character and then bring back Ali Larter? Yuck. I liked Brea Grant. I've lost interest in Ali Larter. Both women are beautiful, but Grant is simply more entertaining and talented as an actress than Larter.
    
15. The series has spent far too much time separating these characters and moving them around so that they almost meet or meet briefly. There should come a point where they band together more. The plot strings stretch too thin turning the series into a very boring soap opera. If I wanted a soap opera I'd watch daytime television.
16. Due to financial constraints, oftentimes the writers are forced to show that special abilities and combat happen off camera. So focus is placed on character interaction which is nice, but if you can't actually show characters with super powers using their powers, then why the hell are you telling a story about characters with super powers? It's like telling a story about firefighters but never actually using fire because you can't afford to show fire special effects. If that's the case, make the series about librarians or something that doesn't involve fire.
    
17. My favorite characters on the show are Matt Parkman and Hiro Nakamura. While both characters do get face time, what the writers are doing with them is a disappointment and a waste of character potential as well as talent resources.
    
18. The introduction of Denko proved ultimately very anti-climactic. It would have been much more powerful had Denko not been introduced. Instead, Nathan & Noah were doing everything Denko had been doing. The conflicts would have been much more dynamic, but the writers weren't willing to let Nathan & Noah go that dark.
    
19. The season three finale means Nathan's dead, and Sylar is taking his place. Tracy's apparently back from the dead and is the new Big Bad. Big deal. Sylar now being Nathan? That's jumping the proverbial shark. I presume that eventually we'll learn Nathan's real body was preserved and later regenerated. Like comics, no characters really die on this show unless the writers just don't want to write about them anymore.
    
20. What the hell happened to Caitlin? She's just lost in an alternate future that no longer exists. WTF?
    
21. If you're gonna hire Michael Dorn, and have him play the president of the United States, effin use the guy! He was little more than a glorified extra! Dorn's a rare and precious talent with a great screen presence and booming voice. You don't just have him stand there and smile for five seconds and that's it. Give him a scene where he says and does cool shit.
    
22. If you're going to introduce characters on the Internet and then promise to later have them incorporated into the tv series, do it so that it actually has meaning. If you can't do it in a way that's valid, don't pretend to do it and insult your audience's intelligence.
    

I may add to this as I come up with more examples, but I have to wrap it up somewhere. I've weighed the pros and cons as I tend to do with every series I like to watch, especially around the time of the season finales, and Heroes no longer passes the litmus test. It actually jumped the shark a long time ago, but Sylar being forced into believing he's Nathan because Angela Petrelli can't bare to part with him is patently absurd, and that Noah and Matt would go along with it? That's the proverbial straw that broke this camel's back.

I can't believe the writers to expect us to swallow this malarkey. The series has spent the majority of its time after season one trying to find itself. We're going into volume five now. If it can't find its identity, it's not gonna. I'm done waiting for Heroes to get good again. I'm convinced it won't. I'm sure it'll get better and wow people and blow everyone's socks off the second I stop watching. That's fine. Whatever. I'm getting off at this stop. I for one am just tired of devoting another second of thought to something so disappointing.

Up until now, even when the show didn't go where I would have liked it to go, I would be pleasantly surprised and have had my share of fun with it. However, I'm now at a point where I am wondering why I am still watching this. It's turned from an amusing roller coaster into a sad and unfortunate train wreck, and this past season I've just been hanging on because I'd like to see how it ends. Like a person who started watching The Fugitive back in 1963. Even if one didn't like the occasional episode, one would still want to eventually see Dr Richard Kimble come face to face with the one armed man that killed his wife. Here with Heroes, I no longer believe the writers have the slightest idea where they're going with the series. There's no end game. There's no light at the end of the tunnel. There's just very disjointed writing with inconsistent characters that have short memories and no attention spans. The show seemed to have a soul on the outset, but now it's just a shadow of its formal self. With several shows this year being canceled that I believe are very good, it seriously saddens me that something this terrible is yet again being renewed for another season.

It's been an interesting ride, but I no longer want to go where Heroes is going, nor do I care to look at the destination. I will miss the acting talent, for the most part. I could say wonderful things about almost all of the actors on the show. It's the insipidly insulting and creatively retarded actions and dialogue they are being made to do that I can no longer stomach. I largely blame the writers, but more importantly I blame the money, because most of these writing choices probably are coerced by the lack of proper funds to tell a more realistic and intelligent tale about the What If Fantasy behind specially powered individuals. If you can't tell this story the way it should be told, why bother?

I used to wonder why television doesn't make an episodic tv series based on the comic books of my youth. I guess this is why. It can't properly be done. At least, not yet.

Haunted By Hollows Part Two

Caroline: "You have repeatedly raped me!"
Adelle: "Excuse me? I have done no such thing! You agreed to this!"
Caroline: "I never had a choice!"
Adelle: "We always have a choice!"

That's the exchange I've been waiting to see since the first scene of the first episode of Joss Whedon's Dollhouse. Since we first saw the two main characters of this shadow play treating tea drinking as if it were a chess board, that's the elephant in the room to which I wanted them to eventually return. Adelle DeWitt, mistress of the Dollhouse, gives Caroline an ultimatum: let us use your body as we see fit for five years, and we will give you back the rest of your life only better. We will fix whatever you perceive to be wrong about it, and you'll get a fresh start. Or except the consequences of your actions and the fact we will not let you go to the authorities and shut us down. Caroline had a choice, but if she wanted to continue breathing, she only had one choice. People feel like that all the time.

I don't get to make the choices that lead to that exchange though. Those decisions are far from my grasp. There's now rumors that Fox Television is not going to show the thirteenth and last episode of Dollhouse. It won't get broadcast. Something they want to save for the DVD no doubt, to encourage more people to buy it. The carrot put out on the stick for us consumers to go 'nom nom nom' on like hopeless squirrels. Joss Whedon has strived throughout this mockery of television publicity to shine a light of beauty and compassion on the Fox Network. He does not want his loyal audience to blame them for the inevitable cancelation of Dollhouse. It was perhaps doomed from the start. It's a premise that network television can't abide. We're talking about using technology to rape people. That's the long and the short of it. A fascinating concept actually. I wish I'd thought of it.

Oh wait. I did. Doctor Xanus. Back in elementary school. A crazy man built a fortress laboratory into a mountain, inside which he had captured human specimens which he then did insane experiments that tortured and twisted the very genetic make up of these poor souls, and he brainwashed their minds so they would follow his every order, fulfill his every maddening whim. Then one day, Doctor Xanus went out into the world to capture another victim for his experiments. He had left instructions for his slaves to continue their routines until his return. While away, his laboratory was self-sufficient, and was even designed to withstand nuclear winter, because he believed humanity was going to eventually destroy itself, and his efforts alone would find a way to make superior humans that could survive anything. He was an insane genius.

Anyway. Something went wrong. Xanus never came back. Maybe he was captured by police. Maybe he just died of natural causes. Maybe any number of a thousand other possibilities occurred. I don't think I ever answered that part of the story. Yet his fortress laboratory under the mountain remained for years, and those inside it continued his work and followed their routines as instructed, waiting for his return. Then one day, years later while on a camping trip with friends, a nerdy teenager named Trevor happened to fall into what he had thought was an old abandoned mineshaft. While trying to find a way out, he stumbled upon an entrance to Xanus' laboratory, and the creatures inside it thought he was their Doctor Xanus. I never finished the tale. I think I started from the idea of a kid falling in a mineshaft and finding a crazy doctor's humanoid brainwashed slaves, and then built the hows and whys around that fall into the mountain. That initial moment of surprise and shock and awe. I guess the end of the story would be the real Xanus somehow returning. Or maybe just the discovery of what happened to him once and for all, but I never answered that for myself.

So maybe the Xanus laboratory in the mountain is not exactly The Dollhouse. I guess there's nothing new under the sun. However, it's how we interpret the old in new ways that puts our individual mark on it. Still, perhaps one of the many reasons why I enjoy Joss Whedon's work so much is that it inspires one's creative juices. Not so that one thinks they can do better. That part kinda keeps my creative juices in check cuz I SO cannot do better than Whedon. Still, one sees a story about vampires existing in modern day and one thinks what other things could co-exist today upon which stories could be told? How many other alleys are there that some other blonde chick could walk down it and begin an adventure?

I'm not satisfied with part one of this vomiting of thought upon these pages [and I'm not satisfied with part two either now that I'm done with it]. There's something in me that won't spit out. It's painful typing these words and I'm not sure why. It's a simple thing. We all have choices. Every day. Every fucking day we make choices, from the nanosecond we wake up in the morning. To quote from the illustrious Margaret Cho, "should I get up and pee, or just pee in the bed?" Those choices have consequences. Peeing in the bed would feel good for about ten seconds, but eventually you're gonna have to clean the sheets... and air out the mattress. So we make the only viable alternative choice; we get the hell out of bed, go to the damned toilet, and we start our godforsaken day, which is going to contain a whole nightmare of other choices like that. Freedom versus control.. or rather the illusion of control via choices that are not really choices when you weigh the options. We make the best choices based on those available. The choices that are least painful or have the least number of bad consequences.

I could have written Evelyn Hollows story. I coulda tried harder to get it right. I coulda found the right medium within which to tell her story. I coulda done whatever one has to do to figure out what an audience really wants in storytelling and then mold and shape Evelyn Hollows' story to meet an audience's expectations. I could have done Evelyn justice. Whedon did it with Buffy. And Angel. And Reynolds. And Echo. Why can't I do that for the population of characters inside my head? Evelyn deserves better than me.

When I saw the episode Haunted, my mind's eye superimposed scenes of the Hollows Eve storyline when snippets of visuals or dialogue coincided coincidentally with where my mind had gone years before. Objectively speaking the comparisons are totallly irrational. Both stories have a leading talented equestian female from a well-to-do family who cheats death. That's about where the similarities end. However, seeing Eliza Dushku walking through the paces of a story vaguely similar to that of Evelyn Hollows... was rather creepy. Evelyn Hollows was buried in a long black dress, so that's how I see her pretty much throughout the story. So when my mind's eye would superimpose images of the Hollows Eve story as I watched Dollhouse's Haunted, the similarities were uncanny. Even her facial expressions triggered images I could only paint mentally from 1987.

Revisiting this, I'm still not doing it right, or conveying to you the reader how heartstoppingly queer this experience was. I did enjoy Haunted very much, but I can't tell if that's because it is thus far the best episode Whedon's Think Tank has done for the series, or because it rekindled a fire I'd long since thought extinguished, and without even realizing it, did justice to a tale I couldn't regurgitate out of my creative juices no matter how many times I have tried in the past twenty years. Perhaps that's a true sign of genius, if the talent of one storyteller can spark the creative juices in another. I don't know.

They say there are two different kinds of the same story. There's the story the writer writes, and there's the story that the reader gets. How the reader interprets the writer's story is something over which the writer has only an illusion of control. When I read Michael Crichton's "The Lost World" before seeing the movie, I had in my mind's eye seen only Sigourney Weaver in the role of Sarah Harding. In the movie, Stephen Spielberg obviously saw Julianne Moore in the part. Decidedly different strong women with remarkably different approaches to their role in storytelling. I was not disappointed in Ms. Moore's performance, but I had to do some mental gymnastics to hop on board Spielberg's superiority of the situation.

So there's more than two interpretations. There's as many different versions of a story as there are people reading it. If you have a group of people writing the story, each of them perceive the story differently too, even though accumuatively they only churn out one physical version of it. Even for one individual, there's multiple stories for the same story. I can't explain with any simplicity how many different versions of the stories surrounding Bridgeborouogh have taken in my mind's eye as I've struggled with trying to find a place to put it or a way to convey it that does the story justice. I have often also tried to leave Bridgeborough and tell stories that don't go there at all, but much like Kevin Smith's relationship with the View Askew universe, one always finds oneself gravitating back to the well that helped one begin. The neurons that fire creatively in my cerebellum are hardwired to a place I've never been, that doesn't exist, but I know precisely where it is. I can smell it. I can taste it. I can feel it.

And when something out of the blue triggers those memories in the most unlikely places, I find myself trying to make these connections and understand why, but there are no answers. Just as the perfume of a passing woman in a bar might suddenly call to mind an apple tree I loved to climb when I was eleven, that woman is not going to understand or appreciate the sudden sensations that flow through me, and I'm not going to be able to tell her she makes me feel young again. She's not going to understand. Or she's going to think I'm trying to stick my dick in her when what I really want her to do is help me find an apple tree we can climb together. Considering the dress she's wearing, she'd probably be less inclined to climbing than the other thing. Besides my back ain't what it used to be. Maybe it'd be enough for me to just politely ask her what fragrance is that, and then thank her and walk away. She'd never know why I asked. I'd be unable to tell her the story. Doubtful it would be of interest to her anyway.

Perhaps these stories of Evelyn Hollows and Justin Graves and Brandon Witcher should never be told. Maybe that's the point. If they were worth telling I would have been able to make it work by now. Or maybe I have failed them. The choices that I have made in my life have been choices that ultimately failed them. I am unable to go back and make different choices and I can't seem to find a choice now going forward that would give these characters their deserved day in the sun. All the years they have entertained me, and I lack the power to return the favor.

So I put them in the back of my mind and I try to forget them, and sometimes I'm successful in that choice. Sometimes I go entire years without thinking about them, or maybe that's what I tell myself. I actually think I think about them far more often than I let myself remember.

But last night, watching Dollhouse's Haunted, the floodgates were once again opened. I guess you could say I'm having... difficulty closing the gates again.

Haunted By Hollows Part One

"...you don't pitch 'Buffy' with 'The Body.' You earn that. You pitch it with the premise, and then you get to all the stuff that you're really doing it for."
-- Joss Whedon

This will take a little explanation. I'll try to keep it brief. [I lied. This so is not brief.]

Back around the early 1980s, I wrote a story mostly for my own benefit; entertaining myself and trying to teach myself how to write. I never got the story to a final draft. It took many incarnations. It was a poem at one time. Then a short story. Then it became the inspiration for a comic book I could never draw. Then I game mastered DC Heroes for friends and elements of the story filtered in. This story grew and blossomed and I still carry it with me. It's more than one story now. It's a lot of stories. Far too many than I could ever tell. And while parts of it remain solid in my mind, other parts remain fluid. The majority of the foundation was built in the early eighties, but now and then I return to this place in my mind - it's an entire city now - and I find more there that I hadn't found before, like I'm a tourist, or a journalist, or even an archeologist, digging up more streets and buildings and people and places and things. Like it's all always been there waiting for me to discover it.

Currently I tell myself stories about one of the estranged granddaughters of one of the characters in the original tale. She doesn't even know about her past. Part of the ongoing narrative is that eventually she's supposed to figure it out, but so far she hasn't, because ironically her personality tends to look forward and not back. I should get all this down on paper somehow. I have tried. It's just bigger and better inside my head than my humble talents to tell it on paper. I can't convey it in a way that would enrapture an audience as much as it has already enraptured me.

Every now and then, I see elements of my story show up elsewhere. In movies. In books. Other talented people telling their stories, and I see reflections of my story in theirs. Like ripples of my own reflection in a disturbed pond owned by someone else. I can't grasp my reflection and claim it as mine. As soon as it's there, it's gone.

The movie Mask for example, with Jim Carrey. It reminds me painfully of my failure to tell Justin Grave's story. Elements of a character in my own story called Harlequin, that I came up with easily a decade before I saw the movie, appear in Mask. There's no way the writer of Mask could have known about my story cuz I never got it down on paper in any public manner. I never published it. However, watching Mask the first time left me a little disturbed. It's not the story of Harlequin. There's a lot of major differences. However, a mask that gives powers to whomever wears it? That was the impetus; the germinal idea behind Harlequin's character. The Mask just did it better than I could ever do. And the humor.. well, Justin started as a standup comedian who couldn't be funny, but the mask had the spirit of a medieval jester that over time ...well Justin learns how to laugh, but he also learns how to grieve. It was the whole tragedy versus comedy mask thing. I guess the story could still work. Maybe there'd be an audience. However, after seeing The Mask with Jim Carrey, I felt the wind knocked out of my sails. I couldn't ever make Harlequin better than Mask.

There have been other examples of this, but as I said when I started, I wanted to keep this brief. Enough preamble. Tonight I felt it happen again. Another character from this city, her name was Evelyn Hollows. She was a colleague of Justin's after he got the mask, and after she got to die.

Evelyn was a popular and successful equestrian who competed with her favorite mare, but there were people who didn't want Evelyn to continue winning, so they drugged her horse just before a competition. The plan was for the horse to go crazy during the routine and throw the contest. The people who drugged her horse didn't know that the mare would throw Evelyn off and then trample her to death. It wasn't the mare's fault, but the drugs ruined her and after an animal publically kills a human being, there's little that can be done but put her down.

So Evelyn and her mare both died that night. However, Evelyn had previously made a bargain with supernatural forces, and challenged the Reaper to a game of chess for her soul. She won, and was able to return to life in her original body. The Reaper didn't tell her though, that she'd come back to a body that was supernaturally enhanced, and linked to a minor diety that had her own agenda. Evelyn wanted to come back to life to investigate her death and that of her horse, but first the minor diety had to be appeased, and Evelyn didn't want to do what the diety wanted her to do. Evelyn essentially returned to the streets of her childhood as an undead thing. Unable to do more but observe her loved ones from afar, and tho the minor diety was powerful enough to grant her special abilities, there were also limitations and side effects to this imitation of life.

Eventually, with the help of the father of her best friend (a paranormal investigator named Brandon Witcher) Evelyn Hollows was able to both appease the minor diety that gave her a second life, and discover that her life was ended by someone close to her. The discovery of this betrayal struck her more painfully than any horse's hoof, and she no longer wanted this illusion of life. However, the deal struck allowed the minor diety and her lord and master to keep her animated as long as she wanted, and she wanted Evelyn to convince people to worship her again, because more believers and converts means more power. That's about where she's at when Evelyn encounters Brandon Witcher's granddaughter some thirty-odd years later.

Now, I guess based on the above description, anyone who saw tonight's episode of The Dollhouse, which was titled Haunted, would probably not see what I saw. Again, this isn't the same story. However, I see elements of Hallow's Eve reflected in Haunted. I see a story better told than I could tell. The equestrian woman who gets a second chance at life is older than Evelyn, and it's not a minor diety she strikes a bargain with but Adele DeWitt of the Dollhouse. Still, the pain of learning how her family members really felt about her when she lived - I gasped. The look on Eliza Dushku's face in that moment is the look I see on Evelyn Hollows every time my mind's eye looks upon her. The sadness and frailty of knowing in death what one could never have known in life. The realization of how precious every waking breath truly is, that you can only know when you are trapped inside a body that no longer needs to draw a breath.

Now, in this incarnation, the equestrian woman came back in a younger form, and was able to talk to her family directly. That wasn't the case with Evelyn. She could never go near them because she looked too ghastly. She needed someone to intervene on her behalf, which is where Bewitcher came into the picture. He was a paranormal investigator. Murders involving people not really dead? Kinda one of his specialties. So there are obvious differences, but I can honestly say Haunted was a far superior way to tell the kind of story I wanted to tell back in 1987 when I first tried to get all this down on paper somehow.

It both hurt and helped, to see on a screen images that I had previously only seen in my mind's eye. I'd never thought about it before but dark eyes, dark hair, pale skin. Eliza Dushku woulda made a good Evelyn Hollows... ten years ago. It's too late to tell the story now.

My problem has always been that I can't dissect it. When I see the story, I see the big picture. I keep trying to whittle it down to just something that I could manage into a single meal for an audience, but the end result loses its flavor. The relationships between Witcher and Graves and Hollows are intertwined, and yet they're not at all because they're each separate individuals with their own lives to live, but I can't seem to introduce one without finding myself having to describe the others. Never to my satisfaction, and all I do is lose the audience.

It's all connected, but Whedon was right. You have to earn that. I was never able to find an in into the overall story arc. I had hoped Witcher's granddaughter would be the in, but she looks forward, and so much of the story is now trapped in the past. Locked forever in 1987. Graves is long since dead, Witcher is missing, but Hollows is still there. ..and is she even still Evelyn anymore? I can't tell, and I created her. I think she's fooling even me.

Oh my God. It's Evelyn's body but it's no longer her soul! Of course! If she'd been an actual zombie she woulda bit me. But that means.. Who the hell is she? The diety? Did she actually get a church started? How strong is she? Have I misplaced Evelyn's soul, or is that part of why Witcher disappeared? I thought Witcher disappeared because of Malcolm Factor but that was long since over by then. Maybe he took Evelyn's soul somewhere that minor diety couldn't get to her. Which would explain why he can't return.

Damn. This story is just bigger than me. It always has been. I can never get a grip on it. The more I learn, the more I don't know. I haven't earned any of this. I have to find the story in the story - the part that an audience would actually want to know. A meal that isn't biting off more than can be chewed. If that worked, from there I could get to the rest of it, maybe someday.

Keep It Or Kill It?

Websites that insist on spreading lame lists like this over twenty or thirty pages so they can get more ad clicks piss me the hell off. Still, Zap2It has put together a list of television shows that, as we approach May Sweeps and head towards an uncertain summer break, appear to be on the bubble for renewal next fall. From their list of almost thirty shows, these are my picks. If'n I were a network executive god type dude, which TV shows would I keep and which ones would I kill?

KEEP!

• Dollhouse: MEGA AWESOME! I'm a Whedon fan. Can ya tell? It started rocky but has really hit a stride in recent episodes and I wanna see where it's going.
• Castle: Formulaic. Predictable. Procedural. also? MEGA AWESOME! Katic is hot & Fillion is hilarious.
• The Unusuals: Procedural, but unpredictable. Funny. Great cast. Kinda formula but has a quirky slant. I like it.
• Lie to Me: Great cast. Interesting premise. Bad writing. I liked it at first, but it's already jumped the shark for me. You think you understand the characters one week, but next week they behave like pod people. No consistency. I still say keep it tho cuz Monica Raymund and Kelli Williams make business attire sexy hot.

KILL!

• Better Off Ted: never seen it. not interested.
• Samantha Who: never seen it. not interested.
• Surviving Suburbia: never seen it. not interested.
• In the Motherhood: never seen it. not interested. not a mom.
• Reaper: never seen it. Never heard about it before today. Looks mildly amusing, but I might have trouble suspending my disbelief.
  
• Cold Case: This is still on? Very formulaic and repetitive. Depressing. Didn't like the regulars.
• Without a Trace: This is still on? Very formulaic and repetitive. Depressing. Didn't like the regulars.
• Everybody Hates Chris: This is still on? ...Wait. The entire CW Network is still on?
• Sit Down, Shut Up: I try not to watch Fox - especially animated shows. The Simpsons should have been canceled around year seven. Fox kills the shows I like and keeps other crap going long after it should have died. FOX SUX.
• Terminator The Sarah Connor Chronicles: I watched the first season, mostly cuz I like Summer Glau. Stopped watching around the finale when the big action scene consisted of an artsy use of stunt men jumping into a swimming pool with Johnny Cash music playing. If you can't afford regular fight scenes, explosions and gore, don't call it Terminator anything.
• Chuck: I'm happy for Adam Baldwin getting a regular paying gig. Aside from that? DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE. I really don't care if Chuck gets the blonde spy chick. The entire premise is unbelievable. The humor is hokey and trite.
• Gary Unmarried: Huh?
• Harper's Island: Huh?
• Eleventh Hour: Huh?
• The Unit: Huh huh huh huh huh.. he said 'unit'
• Privileged: Uh not really.
  
• Medium: I used to like it. Fun if tedious premise. Nice cast. Tolerable writing early on. There just came a point where I could no longer believe what was going on. Suspension of disbelief flew out the window and I went with it.
• New Adventures of Old Christine: I really wanted to like this.. for about 5 minutes. Then I really wanted to watch anything else. I tell ya, the Seinfeld alumni are cursed.
• My Name Is Earl: I never wanted to like this. They lost me with the first episode. I don't care about the characters. I don't find the situations amusing - more like cringeworthy. The humor is forced and juvenile. The accents are annoying. The lack of intelligence on the part of the characters... just sad really. I understand it's trying to break new ground and be different, but I really don't enjoy the journey.
• Parks and Recreation: I like Amy Poehler, but not enough to give this a try. The premise does not remotely interest me.
• Worst Week: Note To Self. If I ever get to name a TV series, try not to put the word "worst" in the title.
• Life: Note to self. If i ever get to name a TV series, try not to use a word that could be used to describe ANY other television series ever in the history of anything.
• The Game: Note to self. If you ever get to name a TV series, don't start with the word 'the' and don't use a vague four letter word that'd look boring on a t-shirt.
  

I would also like to add Smallville and Heroes to the Kill list, although those two have been picked up for next season. I stopped watching Smallville around the second or third season, when it became obvious they were not trying to describe to us how he gets in the cape and long johns. This was admittedly not the Superman story of my youth. It was a retread that turned it into a weak-kneed soap opera. I liked where it started but I despised where it's gone. Recently I revisited it and watched a few recent episodes, witnessing Chloe marrying Jimmy Olsen. Since when was Jimmy Olsen ever married to anyone?

I'm currently still watching Heroes but I wish I could stop. What began as one of the most innovative and imaginative series to come along in some time has deteriorated into a convoluted and mixed up narrative that has no focus or drive or spirit any longer. This is by no means the fault of the actors who are struggling with scripts thrown at them by committees obviously more interested in appeasing product placement than what's required for the story. This show has literally been all over the map. It's overly reactionary to fan opinion. It repeatedly breaks its own rules regarding things like how powers work, usually changing powers based on the needs of plot convenience. Characters join and leave as the story needs it with only cursory explanations regarding motive and despite any common sense. I'd rather they kill off over half the cast, and then focus solely on a handful of survivors who would band together out of necessity and fear that united they survive but divided they'll be next. Keep the narrative more focused, driven, and cut down on the globe trotting. HRG must have frequent flyer miles coming out of his ass.

The only other prime time show that comes to mind which isn't mentioned above is Lost, which I'm happily addicted to and sadly it will end after one more season, but that's a good thing cuz it means the producers of this show know when to end it - when the story is done. Most tv shows do not know when they have worn out their welcome. I'm happy to report that Lost will leave us still wanting more, yet satiated that the tale the writers wanted to tell will be complete. So Lost would definitely stay in the KEEP category, but I understand with fond sadness why it must go when it does.

I used to like a lot more television than I do currently. I'm not sure if that's because I've changed; that maybe I've gotten older or my tastes have matured.. I'd prefer to blame it on the TV industry, which in many cases seems to be phoning it in and it's been like this for some time. The rare exceptions usually get canned, either for political strangeness that only men in suits would understand, or because good quality television costs more to produce, and for some reason advertisers don't want to support that when cheesy talk shows, fake news magazines, and unrealistic 'reality' game shows are cheaper with more stupid people watching who will buy the shit they're hocking. I'm obviously not a part of the demographic that networks want, so I watch television less and less.

That's probably a healthy thing, when you really think about it.

Smishing = Masochistic Sadism

Three quarters of all cellphone users send text messages via the Short Message Service provided in their cellphones. That's over two billion users every day. That's a lot of texting. That's where the minds of roughly one third of the population of the planet are currently. You guys love your cellphones. I say you guys, cuz I don't own one. Nor would I want to. Follow:

I learn something new every day. I already knew about spam, beyond the edible meatish stuff in a can, or the Monty Python reference. I already knew about phishing, where annoying and desperate people use computers to trick people into giving away sensitive personal information that can lead to getting robbed in a cold heartless digital way. Now there's Smishing. Will wonders ever cease? Smishing is so new of a phrase, that the spellchecker which Blogger.com lets me use thinks it's misspelled.

Rather than using email, as in phishing, the process of Smishing utilizes SMS text messages sent to people's cellphones. The message pretends to be some legitimate sounding company like a bank or a dating service, informs the Mark that they will be charged fees for NOT responding to the message, and gives a fake website or phone number. The Mark then responds and learns they must give up their bank account or credit card info in order to have the charges canceled. Of course, there were no charges in the first place because the original message is phony. However, once the Mark gives up their confidential bank info, the Smisher robs them blind. I think that's called a "Sting" in the biz of being an asshole for money.

Currently the standard response to this behavior is to ignore it. Really, there's nothing more you can do. If you respond, you risk the bad guys gleaning some kind of info from you. It's possible if you click on the phony site link, the second you do that server will be able to determine who you are, what ISP you use, your IP address, and other info you probably wouldn't want them to know. Some hackers are able to set it up so the second you click on a website, malicious software or "malware" might infect your computer through the website. You might have that on your computer now and are unaware of it. Most of the time keeping anti-virus software running in the background can help deter that, but there's no such thing as an unhackable program. And since the info provided by the smisher is purposefully fake, it's impossible to use that info to trace back to the source. You can't learn the identity of the person trying to get your identity, so you can't respond by driving to their house and TPing their front lawn.

The sad truth is that simply ignoring them is not the answer either, and I'll tell you why. The reason spam and phishing and now smishing continues to proliferate is because spammers and hacks can continue repeating this behavior with little to no fear of retaliation. Arguably there are laws on the books against this sort of thing, but it's difficult to police and the penalties even if convicted are not a big deal compared to the possible profit one can get if one succeeds. Same reason why thieves rob banks. Sure you'll go to jail, IF you get caught, and thieves always think on the outset that they're smart enough to get away with it. Sometimes they are.

It takes little to no effort or resources on the part of a spammer or Smisher, and because there's hardly any investment on their part, it only takes one fool responding for them to eke out a profit. A spammer or Smisher can spam tens of thousands in minutes or seconds, and if only one person falls for it, they profit. Ignoring them may save you in the short term, but it does not improve the situation for the long term, and there's a sucker born every minute.

As for being charged per text message, I don't own a cellphone so can't speak to that. However, I'm shocked that anyone would sign up with a cellphone company that would charge them per message sent to them. That's absurd. I wouldn't even want a plan where I'm charged per msg I send out. That's crazy too. I'd want a monthly fee and that'd be the end of it. Can't get that, so I live without a cellphone just fine. One of the many reasons why I don't have a cellphone is because I've yet to hear a plan that doesn't sound like I'd get nickeled and dimed to death by the phone company. If they started charging me by the webpage, I'd drop my ISP in a heartbeat! Why do you put up with that on your cell?

If those of you with cellphones would demand more respectable plans from the phone companies, maybe then I could get one, once phone companies are forced to use common sense instead of scamming tactics to rob people of their money. Use your brains, cellphone users! Furthermore this entire issue should not be your problem. The phone companies should be stopping spam and malicious messages BEFORE they get to your phones. What ARE you paying them for, anyway? If you wanna pay someone to randomly annoy you every day, there's homeless people out there who would do that for half the cost of a cellphone. Come to think of it, I'm unemployed currently. I'd love to get into a business where I can annoy people for money. I'd charge twelve dollars an hour - minimum of two hours a day. That'd be like $120 per person per week - I just struck the mother lode!

Et Tu Jackie Chan?

I don't know which one of these is worse!

1. Jackie Chan says: "we Chinese need to be controlled. If we're not being controlled, we'll just do what we want."
2. Jackie Chan says: "You know what the world really needs? A remake of Karate Kid with me as Mister Miyagi!"

OMG! WTF! Say it ain't so, Jackie! You've turned on us! You've turned on me! Despite the fact you've spent your life pursuing life, liberty, and happiness in your own unique way, you now question whether you or anyone has the right to do that? You'd rather just hand the reins of your life and the lives of all Chinese subjects to the rule of your masters? You wound me, Mr. Chan. I'm struck! You might as well have hopped on a plane to Dallas, got in a cab to Oak Cliff, knocked on the door to my home and slapped me in the face.

Perhaps Jackie Chan is under duress. Maybe the Communist regime of China has secretly implanted little doohickeys in all of Jackie Chan's friends, family members, handlers, hair stylists, cooks, massage therapists, and most beloved fans, and if Jackie Chan doesn't do what the Communist regime tells him to do, and say what they tell him to say, some Red China dude will push a button and Jackie Chan's entire entourage of well-wishers and helpers will simultaneously die of mysterious deaths that won't be traced back to the Communist government cuz they control the police force that would normally investigate such things. Boom.

I can't believe a man who co-starred in the Cannonball Run movies would think for a nanosecond that freedom is a bad thing. Okay. Maybe a man who co-starred in the Rush Hour movies would want the power of shutting Christ Tucker's mouth. Who wouldn't? Still, capitalism has done wonders for Jackie Chan's fame and fortune and even his well-being. How could he possibly look at the parts of his life under capitalist rule in comparison to the parts of his life under communist rule and go, "you know what? I like it better when they tell me what to do."

Still, let's try to look at this in context. If there's anyone on this planet who has fully experienced both sides of this coin, it's Jackie Chan. In his dealings over the years with multiple governments in obtaining capital to make his films and obtaining permissions to pull off his stunts for the cameras, Chan is in a most unique position to tell us which way works better for him. However, don't think for a second that he comes from a fair and impartial position, or that he can be objective or fair in his opinion. His opinion is just that; an opinion. Something that everyone in a capitalist society can freely express (provided they understand they're gonna get rebuttals like this one).

Whereas, in a Communist society, you have a right to their opinion.

Chan's point, if you read his entire quote and not just the headlines, is that historically speaking, Chinese people have made mistakes when not under Communist oppression. Sometimes they did the right thing, but sometimes they did the wrong thing, and if one looks at the recent history of the Chinese people, one can look at it as "the glass is half empty" while seeing times the Chinese have been ruled by Communist dictators as "the glass is half full."

I'll grant Jackie Chan that much. I'll go halfway with him there. Provided one accepts that the converse is also true.

When left to our own devices, human beings (not just Chinese people but all kinds of humanoid peoples - even the purple ones) will make mistakes. The real truth is, and don't let them know this cuz they pretend to not know and telling them just pisses them off, but believe it or not Communist regimes make mistakes too. The only difference is, Communist regimes tend to rewrite history as soon as mistakes are made in order to make their past appear flawless. They can do this because they control the historical organizations that would normally keep track of such things.

Capitalist regimes try this too, but since they don't control the media, they don't often get away with it. Case in point; the Bush Administration. The truth will out on that one. Just wait and see. Even Nixon's attempts to convince people he was not a crook soon became a sick twisted joke, and he's the one who helped to open China and US relations in the first place! And Obama's already making mistakes, but contrary to other capitalist run governing, he doesn't seem to be even trying to hide it. So maybe at least Obama's smart enough to know better, or maybe he's just better at hiding the real mistakes by covering them up with smaller more laughable mistakes. Again, the truth will out.

Now, if you let the Communists control everything, and something goes wrong, in theory, you know who to blame. Since they run everything, it's all their fault. However, by the time you give all power over like that, it includes the power to do anything about it. Here in a capitalist state, there's always crazy extremists who are ready to try stuff like seceding from the union or burning things in effigy or protesting on the streets of major cities and interrupting traffic in attempts to orchestrate change.

We have some messy events in American history, but I can't think of anything as scary or bad as Tiananmen Square, which I understand most Chinese children don't learn anything about nowadays. Correct me if I'm wrong. Do those Chinese children learn about Jackie Chan? Now that Chan's publicly prostrated himself before his masters, I'm sure Chinese govt-funded schools will soon require their children to memorize dialogue from Rumble In the Bronx for extra credit.

Paying The Poor

This was my response to a Digg post and I thought I'd repost it here so that, in theory, I can find it later; not that this tactic has worked well for me in the past. In a nutshell the contrary argument to which I respond is thus: "If you pay people to be poor, you'll never run out of poor people. Poverty is not simply an absence of money. Rather, it is bound up with a whole set of other circumstances: lack of qualifications, demoralisation, family break-up, substance abuse, fatherlessness. It follows that you do not end poverty by giving money to the poor..."

We have an economic system that allows a very small minority to control the majority of wealth. Do the math. If the majority of your society has to share a small percentage of the wealth, some people are gonna be left with nothing. An economy is not determined healthy because some of its participants are rich. It has nothing to do with how much an individual saves, but how much an individual spends. Economies are healthy when money is changing hands. Without constant bartering and constant transactions, an economy will stagnate. Only when people give money to one another, or spend money on goods and services, is there a fluid economy that supports the society it serves.

If you think by giving money to poor people you are paying them to be poor, you completely miss the point. By investing in people who are down today, you help give them a chance to pull themselves out of the hole and become productive members of society. If they have no resources, they can't improve themselves. Now granted, most poor people also need education and support so they don't spend what's given to them in a frivolous manner. Most people wouldn't know a good investment versus a bad investment without proper education.

For example, if you come across a homeless person and want to give him money, and he has a liquor bottle in his hand, there is a relatively high probability he'll use the money you give him to buy another bottle of liquor. However, if you take the man to a grocery store or restaurant and buy him a healthy meal, that's a more resourceful way to invest your money on his health. It may cost you more time and resources than if you just throw five bucks at him, but he'll be in better shape when you leave him, and it may help him get out of his hole. Most people just throw money at homeless people to get them to leave them alone. It allows a person to get on with their day and they feel like they helped somebody, but it's not as good an investment as it could have been with more forethought put into it.

Also keep in mind some people just don't wanna get out of their hole. Most of us are always trying to improve our lives whether we're at the bottom of the ladder or on top of the world, but some people just give up on the foolishness of the rat race and find a comfortable place to just be. Maybe you think everyone should constantly be fighting one another to be top dog on the hill of life, but not everyone has the same goals. Some people just want to live a peaceful and happy life, and bring joy to the people around them. Their lives are no more or less forfeit than the lives of the go-getters in the world. We can't all cure cancer. Some of us are just meant to light the way for others with a smile or a word of encouragement. Everyone has their place in this universe, no matter how big or small that place may be.