Here's an Ultimatum

Thinking about going to the movies sometime soon? Do you have any idea how much tickets cost now? Remember how disgusted you were the last time you bought a ticket? Well I guarantee they're 50 cents more now. Oh, you went two weeks ago? Then it's probably 75 cents more by now, smartass. Movies have sucked so bad this summer that the demand curve has shifted left, driving prices (and the number of pre-preview Coke commercials) up. Probably. What am I, an economist?

The point is, we all have to be increasingly careful about how we allocate our movie-ticket funds. As surely as restaurant service will suffer once a 20% tip becomes the standard reward for managing not to spill a carafe of hot coffee on your child's lap, so too does the quality of movies reflect what we are willing to pay for. That's why I modestly propose that everyone over the age of 12 reward Universal Studios and your local cinema house with your patronage, and soon. I'm talking about getting in front of a screen that's showing The Bourne Ultimatum. If it's not the best action movie of all time, it still reaches those dizzying heights where the Rightful Occupier of the Pedestal of Greatest (within agreed-upon genre) is debated among movie geeks and bloggers.

The Bourne Identity was really good--surprisingly good. The Bourne Supremacy was great--one of the best action movies ever--and it was doubtful that the third could match it. Well, it did match it. In fact, it surpassed its predecessor. For a trilogy to start as well as it did and get progressively better (which itself is an understatement) is unprecedented in all of movie history. Ultimatum completes what is now most certainly the best trilogy of all time--firmly and decisively unseating the previous holder of that distinction. Heh.

For your consideration: Superior, non-stop action with little-to-no reliance on explosions. Sustained adrenaline rush that leaves you drained and tired an hour or two after the closing credits. A near-omnipotent CIA infrastructure making full use of the intricate camera system in London. Villians that are almost patriots, but at some point before the narrative crossed the line without returning to the side of the good guys. Political commentary that is left in the subtext where it freaking belongs. A protagonist that would kick James Bond's ass between his early morning run and late-morning gym attendance, or perhaps use his bafflingly high intelligence and a paperclip to reprogram 007's gadgets against their master. Oh, and they did it all with a PG-13 rating. In. Credible. How watchable would "Shooter" have been without the eight dozen explicit killings via bullets to the head that gave it a certain "R" rating? If you answered "not very" you'd be correct. Unless you've somehow managed to make it through life thus far still sensitive to brutal violence, in which case I envy you. Hang on to that.

Anyhow, there are a good many people who have a natural aversion to the movie theater, and with those people I sympathize. Even as I entered the movie theater to see the aforementioned masterpiece my brand-new, piping-hot 20-oz Dunkin' Donuts' coffee was firmly forbade entry as my inanimate companion. Surely, I had rationalized, with ticket sales down so much this summer, theater owners would try their best not to antagonize the faithful few who are still willing to shell out 10 bucks a pop. I begged and pleaded, and was still told to "finish my drink in the lobby before the start of the film", which translated to applying second-degree burns to my mouth, tongue, and esophagus. Naturally this made me madder than I have been in a year. Glad no one was hurt, especially the nice lady who was only doing her job. I regret looking at her as if I wished her children had incurable diseases.

The price, the noise, the people who won't shut up, the crowd, the sticky floors, not to mention the ever-increasing sophistication and affordability of the home entertainment room. On the other hand, shut up about all that. The phrase "you have to see it in a theater" is thrown around too often these days, but as I am cautiously sparing about its use, it means a lot when I say it (so says I). Your girlfriend's or wife's father may have a pretty decent set-up in the basement for watching movies, but this movie is so good that decency requires immediate patronage.

Or maybe you were thinking instead that you'll go see:

• Transformers. Bad idea. A bunch of Hasbro toys materialize in outer space and make war here at our planet. Who needs nostalgia from the bottom of the barrel from arguably the worst decade in the history of pop culture? Get with the times, people. What's next, a Thundercats movie? If anyone from Hollywood somehow reads this, please wipe the previous sentence from your memory immediately, and move on to the next bullet.

• I Now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry. See, this is what I'm talking about. This movie has already made about 80 trillion dollars at the box office and I could probably make a better movie with my Sony camera, a coffee mug with a face painted on it, and any random housecat. It would probably be a movie about racial harmony or something, making you want to laugh and cry at the same time.

• The Simpsons Movie. If the show stopped being watchable during the Clinton administration, why in the world would the movie be anything more than a reminder of how completely flawless the show used to be? Remember the (paraphrased) words of Troy McClure: "Who knows what wacky adventures the Simpsons will have between now and the time that the show ceases to be profitable?" Indeed.

• Hairspray. Fresh off his role as smooth assassin Vincent Vega in the critically-acclaimed Pulp Fiction (he may have done another movie or two in the interim), John Travolta uncomfortably steps into a fat suit and ladywig for every red-blooded American male's favorite kind of flick: The movie musical! In Baltimore, where I more-or-less live, John Waters is somehow considered proof that we are an important movie city. To what extent that is true, I don't know. Apparently quirky characters and NC-17-bordering smut are a really good combination in movies, but that's for critics to ultimately decide--which at least in the case of John Water's has been answered in the affirmative amongst the Baltimore crowd. Long story short, Hairspray probably sucks.

• Rush Hour 3. Usually when I pay money to see a comedy I expect some laughs instead of the pity I will feel for the once-admirable actors starring in a tired cashcow. "Don't evah touch a black man's iPod, Lee! You speaka English yet?!?" Maybe their mattresses stuffed with thousand-dollar bills will help them get some shut-eye, because it definitely won't be the knowledge of participating in something good.

Alright, seriously, go see The Bourne Ultimatum, and while I appreciate and am humbled by the tears of gratitude, perhaps they should be directed to people involved in the production or something. Or you could stop crying altogether--are you OK?

Christopher Hitchens is a Swell Guy

If the actions and mannerisms of everyone born before 1964 have taught me anything, it's that speaking ill of the dead is rarely appropriate unless they are a universally agreed-upon villian (Hitler, Stalin, Jim Jones, etc.). For your run-of-the-mill bad guys, I'm pretty sure a couple of weeks of waiting is warranted. For your law-abiding yet generally distasteful characters you may have to wait a few years. Apparently Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Hitchens missed this timeless wisdom as he maliciously and disturbingly celebrated the passing of Jerry Falwell on Anderson Cooper 360. Worse things have been said in a respectable, highly-visible media outlet, but I can't exactly remember when. I won't even go into the "Can you imagine if a(member of such-and-such-ethnicity/ideology) said the same thing about a (Mid-sized-Inuit American, Disenfranchised White Male, etc.)" routine. This is in a league all its own.

Some more surreal comments:

When asked if there was a heaven and if so is Jerry Falwell there, Hitchens responded:

"No. And I think it's a pity there isn't a hell for him to go to." Nice. He continues:

"The empty life of this ugly little charlatan proves only one thing, that you can get away with the most extraordinary offenses to morality and to truth in this country if you will just get yourself called reverend." Whatever morality means to Christopher Hitchens, dancing on a still-warm body is not an offense against it. Bear in mind that this interview happened the night of Falwell's passing. There's more:

"T]he country suffers, to a considerable extent, from paying too much, by way of compliment, to anyone who can describe themselves as a person of faith: Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, Chaucerian frauds, people who are simply pickpockets." Yes, if there's one thing Jerry Falwell has received from the country, it's compliment.

There's so much more to say about why this is such vulgar, vitriolic filth but I'm hesitant to dignify it much longer. Now, for Hitchens and his ilk, a moral plea for basic respect of the recently deceased is clearly too superstitious to consider. What he may not have guessed is that the embodiment of the so-called Christian Right is not Falwell or Swaggart. These easy, frequent targets are, if anything, analogous to the kids in high school that used to be the big kids in 4th grade until everyone else caught up or surpassed them, and now they have their little cliques and clubs that sometimes make some racket but are regarded by most to be either harmless and/or a little nutty--certainly not worth a lot of attention. Meanwhile, Hitchens is smoking in the bathroom with a few less-brainy hangers-on who chuckle knowingly at his snarky comments, but won't admit that they don't quite get everything he says, but they do understand flippancy directed at others and so long as it's not them, whew, cue the phony laughter. So Falwell dies in a car accident (teens don't have heart failure, stay with me here) and most of the kids in school are indifferent, but some are sad because they either liked him; or it's a scary reminder of their own mortality, but Hitchens is sitting in the back of Miss Harding's English class with a slightly-curled lip carving "Falwell Deserved It" into his desk, and he'll totally tell everyone at the lunch table what he did and they'll awkwardly nod in agreement before returning to their Chick-wiches. "Hitchens goes a little crazy sometimes" some might think. "At least Dawkins is cool about it. He's pretty badass in class, but at least he's pretty nice most of the time."

Such is a man like Christopher Hitchens--existing in the public eye by virtue of shock value and controversy, and little else. If the above wasn't enough for you, you can read more about how Jerry Falwell was the biggest threat in existence to Western civilization here at Hitchen's essay on Slate, posted the day after his CNN appearance. You know he's thrilled at the death of another human being as he kicks his essay off: "The discovery of the carcass of Jerry Falwell on the floor of an obscure office in Virginia has almost zero significance, except perhaps for two categories of the species labeled "credulous idiot." Hoo-ah! Also, you can find out how "like many fanatical preachers, Falwell was especially disgusting in exuding an almost sexless personality while railing from dawn to dusk about the sex lives of others." I think Christopher Hitchens is brave to confront the powers in this country that dare to suggest that society may be a little over-sexed! Also, are you an anti-Semite? Apparently most Christians are! Read Hitchen's essay to learn more about yourself! Ditch this guy.

A Continuation of dKos Dialogue

Note: The following is a continuation of dialogue with a member of the self-described partisan Democratic website "Daily Kos". The conversation could have continued at Daily Kos but the format of that particular forum did not lend itself to the response I wished to make. In other words, you probably won't care about this post!

As you could take all night to chronicle ill-begotten religious wars, so could I take all day to respond to your questions. I'll save your time by simply saying, as a start, that (most of) your questions are framed with assumptions with which I profoundly disagree. Also, some of your questions necessitate waxing at length about my personal religious views, and while I am not at all averse to sharing those, you may not be as receptive. I will therefore try to stick to questions I can answer without "preaching," highlighting your comments in blue.

It seems to me that there is little connection, if any, between religiosity and good behavior. I think most religious people are probably pretty decent, but only because most people are most of the time.

This is a loaded statement, but suffice it to say that people are motivated by comfort, sex, and the avoidance of pain. In our society, “being decent” conforms nicely to these goals. I don’t mean to sound cynical, because there are a lot of people, religious or not, who like to do good for others. It’s just my way of saying that I’m not quite impressed by the appearance of common decency. The guy who shot up the Amish school was considered a decent person for the 30+ years of his life. Who knows what darkness lurked in his heart, and for how many years? My point is that appearances can be deceiving, and nowhere is that cliché more true than when applied to human behavior.

Religion can lead to acts of selflessness and charity; and it can just as easily lead to killing people because they believe in the wrong version of god.

Agreed.

When's the last time you've ever heard of anyone murdering someone or starting a war in the name of atheism? It would take me all night to chronicle all the religiously motivated wars and massacres that have taken place in human history.

Of course there were no wars in the name of atheism. Atheism, as a philosophy, does not facilitate action. Only a twisted view of atheism would encourage modern war, just as only a twisted view of religion would today. That's why, if you look at my previous post, I emphasized a sincere practice of "integrity, service, honesty, honor, and humility." Try chronicling the religious wars where the war pigs had these characteristics.

But that doesn't let atheism off the hook. Hitler was an atheist, and so was Stalin. Ditto Pol Pot and Mao Tse-Tung. The "Hitler was a Christian" mantra is simply false. He used Christian language in the beginning for political use only. The only thing an atheist is accountable to is the law. But what if an atheist is the law? To whom does he answer? Not all atheists strive for social justice like you and others on dKos. Some have evil intent, but they also have power, and, in their minds, nothing to stop them. Do you see how atheism, in Hitler’s case, was a potent factor in his megalomania, and a crucial ingredient to the man as a whole? He answered to no one. Nothing the man did resembled Christ at all, which is why he is the perfect study in how evil men can be.

And, how do you account for the fact that Christians in the South in the 1800s saw no problem with having slaves, whereas people who adhered to the same religion in the North for the most part thought slavery was morally wrong. To me that says that the notions of morality came from somewhere else, and religion was just window dressing. I mean, if the Bible is so crystal clear about morality, why are there so many disagreements within the same religion about what it says?

Slavery was the biggest American evil in the 1800s, no doubt. But I suspect that, regardless of your obvious education, you have missed the whole story. Lincoln famously said that “If I could preserve the union without freeing a single slave, I would do so.” The Civil War was not all about slavery, although we pretend it was to justify it.

How about all the good Christians in Germany in the 30s who were gung-ho for Hitler and either stood by or helped out as he murdered millions of Jews?

I assume you're being sarcastic when you say "good" Christians here. Obviously there was a disastrous and tragic lack of Christian values at work in 1930s and 1940s Germany. There were no true Christians who aided the Holocaust. But evil does thrive when good men do nothing, and that's to all of our shame. Even now, aren't we mostly standing by as the atrocities in Darfur continue?

And, if religious folks are so about fair play, why are so many of them rabid supporters of one of the most corrupt political administrations in our nation's history? Is fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq that has lead to the death of large numbers of innocent Iraqis, and stirred up the flames of religious hatred there an example of fair play?

Let's assume that the Bush administration is one of the most corrupt administrations in history. I don't think he has enough "rabid" supporters to fill a McDonald's. That aside, even those who support him do so because they genuinely believe that he is a good man. If they are being lied to and successfully propagandized, it may reflect on their intelligence, but not their moral character. Certainly you can see the distinction. Or do you think that Sally Soccermom is complicit in these alleged crimes?

And for that matter, explain to me why so many Muslims feel the need to blow up their fellow muslims? When's the last time an atheist blew up a fellow atheist because they disbelieved in God in the wrong way?
I'm not saying that the fact that some people abuse religion in and of itself invalidates religious belief; I just don't think there is much factual evidence that religion does a particularly good job of helping people to be good.

I think the fact that you've acknowledged that you use anecdotal evidence in this instance speaks for itself. But I am an evangelical Christian. You should ask a Muslim friend what they think here. If you take religion as a whole, I would be hard-pressed to defend it. Christianity is what I believe, and I should have made it clear earlier. I truthfully don't know if other religions make people act better on the whole.

Be honest with me--if someone could prove to you beyond a doubt that there is no god, would that really change your ethical and moral beliefs? Would you all of a sudden think it was OK to murder people or steal from them, and would you be capable of doing those kinds of things if you are not capable of doing them now?

You may as well ask me to assume that there was no sun, and what then would I do to stay warm? Well, not only would we not exist in such circumstances, even if we hypothetically could we would have no concept of "warmth" in the first place. Likewise, "no God" means "no existence at all." My point is that my philosophical foundation, when approaching anything, is that God does, in fact, exist.

Still, the question is an interesting one. Suffice it to say that, if you could prove God didn't exist, I concede that I would probably not murder or become a habitual thief. But would I be capable of doing certain things I wouldn't do now? Absolutely. The fact is that I used to engage in self-destructive and hurtful behavior on a much larger scale than I do now. With God's help, I have really changed. And there are millions who can testify to the same change, praise the Lord.

Note: The preceding was in response to issues brought up in the left-leaning Daily Kos comment forum. I have recently tried to take some time to engage them in dialogue. I've always known they have grave misconceptions about "us" (whoever "we" are). What I've learned in the past few weeks is that I have been mistaken about them as well.

Humble Pie

So it turns out that I went on a pretty steamed rant yesterday, fueled by what I thought was righteous anger. Man was I wrong. Here's a little background: Within the next few days, the Maryland Senate will be voting on a House-passed bill that will allow illegal immigrants to attend the excellent public colleges in Maryland based on the in-state, resident tuition rates. In other words, we're now subsidizing the higher education of illegal aliens. Hmm. Doesn't sound very fair to me. However, they must be taxpayers prior to enrollment. OK, so they're contributing to the thievery pot in Annapolis like the rest of us. But I didn't know that. I was under the assumption that illegal immigrants didn't pay income taxes, and the fury I heard on 1090 AM seemed (to me) to confirm that assumption. So, with a slow afternoon at work yesterday I sent the following email to about 20 people or so (the text wasn't red, but it is here to show how hot of a little potato [see Zoolander] I was):

"TO ALL MARYLANDERS
"We are not a people or a country who has ever willfully chosen to condemn people to living in the shadows of our society." -Governor Martin O’Malley, speaking yesterday (March 28th).

What our esteemed governor is referring to here is the granting of in-state college tuition to illegal immigrants in Maryland. He will most certainly sign it into law if it hits his desk. To him, it’s a wonderful, fair concept: Take the tax-dollars of Maryland citizens and give it to people who are here illegally and who don't pay taxes. Oh, and do it even though a majority of Marylanders are against it.

It couldn’t be worse if he sat us down personally and explained to us, perhaps in a condescending tone an adult might take with a child, that we are quite simply idiots and will believe any airy, meaningless platitude he cares to throw our way. And he will take our tax dollars and spend it on whatever group he feels he needs to win in the next election. Of course, this is exactly how Martin “I Think I’m JFK” O’Malley always speaks when there’s a microphone in front of his face.

Illegal immigrants will absolutely flock to Maryland now, and if our legislature is willing to let us foot the bill for their college degree, what else will we be paying for? Here’s a fair prediction: EVERYTHING. Meanwhile, there are honest, law-abiding foreigners waiting to immigrate legally, and we shove another insult in their patient faces. By the way, there are students right here in Maryland who are denied in-state tuition because they did their undergraduate work in another state, even though they didn’t do anything beyond leave home to go to school. But they come back for their Master’s degree and we tell them, “No, sorry, you’ll have to pay out-of-state price. Oh, so you’re angry about that? Ha! Talk to your parents! They’ve been here the entire time you were away, paying us taxes (and your out-of-state tuition) every year. But not for your benefit, no. For illegal immigrants to go to school! Welcome home, Johnny! You have until April 15th to file with us, as well!"

To deny illegal immigrants in-state college tuition is not “condemn[ing] people to living in the shadows” like the teary-eyed O’Malley says. It is an affirmation that we are a nation of laws. That Annapolis is not free to distribute our income to those who do not even pay taxes. That it is un-American and unfair to reward lawbreakers. That Congress is supposed to represent the citizens. That we’re not fooled when they pretend to be compassionate but are really buying future Hispanic votes.

No one can blame poor foreigners for wanting to come to the US and to Maryland. But that doesn’t mean we condone it, and it certainly doesn't mean we have to foot the bill for their college. Did the state pay for your immigrant ancestors to go to college before they were taxpayers? Of course they didn’t—that would have been wildly unfair and wrong.
Once your outrage is controlled enough to speak coherently, phone or email the scumbags in Annapolis who will be voting on this in the next few days:

http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/05sen/html/sendist.html

And if you know anyone in Maryland who pays taxes, send this along to them. This is not about Republicans or Democrats, liberals or conservatives. It's about common sense."

But they do have to pay taxes. And I really, really hope that the retraction I sent a half-hour later was quick enough to keep this garbage from hitting too many inboxes. Ah, amateur punditry...you're a cruel mistress.

Update 04/02/2007: The governor seems to have forgotten a little practice in our country called slavery. Oops.

The NFL Sucks

Operating on principle is really hard sometimes. Take the decision I made five minutes ago to pull all support from what was previously my very favorite consumer-driven organization: The NFL. It turns out that they declined to include this recruitment ad for the U.S. Border Patrol in the official 2007 Super Bowl program, apparently due to its controversial nature. If someone can please help me see where the controversy is, I promise not to seek out and join a crazed militia in the hills somewhere. Or maybe the NFL can make amends next year...we can always hope that humility can lead to the admittance of wrongdoing. Until then, I will not support the NFL, even my beloved Ravens. Hmm. Did I mention operating on principle is hard? It's so hard that sometimes a man can't help but get a little sidetracked, especially in mid-to-late August...

United 93

See this movie. Don't blow it, go right now.

Update 2/15/2007 -- I wouldn't recommend purchasing this movie. As good as it is, it's not likely you'll want to see it more than once. Unless you feel the need to own every good movie you see as part of your collection. I won't comment on the motivation behind such impulses...