Month: August 2011

Analysis of “Goths – Analysis of a Subculture (By Puppy)”

Goths.  Yes, goths.  What are they?  Well, even THEY don’t really know.  Most of them, at least.

– This isn’t entirely accurate.  It was meant more of as a slam against the pretentious, angsty, “rebel-without-a-clue”, and/or truly nasty people that revel in the lifestyle without caring that it’s all just bullsh1t to them because they’re using it for fun and they don’t actually believe in sh1t.

7/9/12: It is in fact accurate.  However, it is not precise.  My point was to say F you to that portion of the “goth” community that is described below.  I’m not saying it NOW…now, I just ignore them.  I wouldn’t walk up to a cockroach and insult it, by the same logic.  There’s really no point, and it would be a waste of (even a single) moment.

First, a historical and unbiased cultural appraisal.  Second, my experience with those that choose to label themselves “goth”.

– If you want this, look up “Gothic Subculture” on Wikipedia.  It’s irrelevant for my purposes here.

7/9/12: Or, if you want to, talk to some of them.  A person’s true nature usually comes out after brief initial pretenses that some have.  This is an option to consider, not a suggestion.

So, if all this is taken as true, a real “goth” is someone that
recognizes that we all have a dark side, isn’t afraid of that side, and
is disturbed by those that pretend they are somehow “better”
because they follow different ideals, dress differently, etc.

– You don’t need to dress in black and listen to mopey music to despise hypocrisy.  Come to think of it, EVERY subculture hates hypocrisy (supposedly, as is the case here).  We all know (except for the fanatical Puritans amongst us, of which there are FAR fewer than you would be led to believe) that everyone has a dark side, we all know some people who embrace it, some who deny it, some who just control it, some who are somewhere in the middle…it’s got nothing to do with gothique, sorry.  Gothique is a fashion statement, a trend, like 80’s new-wave hair and acid-wash jeans, nothing more.

7/9/12: Perhaps I went a little too far near the end.  But I believe my point is made fairly well.

This is, of course, propaganda.

– Why did I even need to say this???  That’s like saying “1 plus 1 is, of course, 2.”

7/9/12: Repetition.  The key to analysis.  Repetition.

In my experience with self-proclaimed “goths”, I have found that at
least 90 percent of them are either stupid, ignorant, malicious, greedy,
selfish, manipulative, users, abusers, addicts, “victims”(that is,
those that revel in being hurt, the “victim mentality”), fakes, or a
combination of two or more of these elements.

– MONTHS later…ditto.

7/9/12: I didn’t actually make a mathematical study out of it, but this is also accurate, if not precise.

Most “low-ranking” goths I have encountered like to dress in black
because it hides their bellies and emphasizes their bosom.  I mean, if
you weigh 250 pounds, a corset is BOUND to produce some cleavage.

– Ok, this is just mean.  And I’m not insulting overweight people.  I’m insulting the 90+ percent of the female “goths” that are overweight, because they’re all the nasty things listed above…not BECAUSE they’re overweight.  They simply can’t stand being ugly on the outside because there’s very little on the inside.

7/9/12:  See above, and if you have a feeling of Deja Vu when reading the last sentence look up “Jim Jarmusch” on Wikipedia for the explanation.

The “high-ranking” ones are those that have discovered the joys of
reality, be it via a real relationship, a family, etc…and they are a
bit amused by their past, seeing it as more of a post-adolescent angst
period than any real stage of development.

– Yup.

7/9/12: Or, they’ve incorporated the non-abusive/manipulative aspects into their lives.  Just as good.

The true goth, of which there are some, adheres closely to the
definition given above…that is, they admire darkness as well as light,
for are we all not dark in some way? 

– Uh huh.

7/9/12: 20,000 Leagues Deep.

I believe I can summarize the “goth” population as follows-
10 percent like George A. Romero’s ‘Night of the Living Dead’
because it is a bitter, biting social commentary on man’s tendency
to fight amongst ourselves and within ourselves.
90 percent like George A. Romero’s ‘Night of the Living Dead’ because zombies eat human flesh and it looks really cool.

– HAHA…yeah.

7/9/12: Not really all that funny, but I wanted to type “HAHA”.  And ‘Land’ is better.

-Puppy

– Yip!

In the interests of not-being-a-rat-unless-someone-betrays-me, I won’t state any names, but…

The predictable response to this will be “Well, you’re just jealous”. 
In a way, I am.
I find “goth” women, by and large (no pun intended) to be absolutely beautiful.  Physically.
However, when I’ve actually ventured into their minds, I’ve found
twisted car wrecks that inevitably out-wreck even my own…quite a
feat, since I’ve been institutionalized.
So yes, I’m jealous that so many beautiful female bodies are inhabited by so many UGLY “spirits”.  Quite sad, really.

– Oh well.  There ARE exceptions…but then again, not ALL human beings are born with a spleen.  Exceptions, you see.

7/9/12: More than that…but not all THAT much more.

The next response will be “Well, they don’t want you anyways”.
This is not true.
I spoke to several “high-ranking” goth women, who assured me they
viewed their “followers” as nothing more than amusing toys, and that
if I wanted to, I could rank quite highly among them.
I’m sure this would lead to lots of sex, drugs, and rock n’ roll…and, probably, happiness.
But only at the expense of morality and by using and abusing the weak, scared, hurt, and confused.
I don’t do that.

– Let me correct something…if someone is scared /weak/hurt/confused and is ALSO a scumbag…well…that’s a different story.  You can’t do fcked up sh1t and then go crying home to mommy…grow the hell up, ok?

7/9/12: This is concerning those that abuse/manipulate those that are “easy” to, but turn into utter cowards when confronted with a challenge.  “I don’t run away from bullies”.

I mean, I dated a “goth” that was a pure psychopath (unbeknownst to
me at the beginning) and justified this by saying “Well, I’ve been
horribly hurt, so I get to do it to others…”
This is tripe.  Michael Tripe.  HA!
I’ve been more hurt emotionally than the vast majority of these posers, but if I do something wrong, I take responsibility.
It’s called “growing up”.

– Not exactly accurate…and Michael Stipe isn’t as bad as I thought.  Musically.

7/9/12: Comparing pain isn’t really proper.  And I don’t know the man.

Many “goths” also tend to be Anarchists, Satanists, or LaVeyan Satanists.

– Not exactly accurate, and I forgot Atheists…but that’s neither here nor there.

7/9/12: Replace “Atheists” with “Crusading Disbelievers”.

Anarchists in the pure sense believe in complete and total individual freedom.
In practice, they believe in pretending to believe this to get what they want.
Much like Stalin used the idea of Communal Living “Communism” proposed by Karl Marx to enforce his Totalitarian will.
So most anarchists are exactly the opposite of what they claim.

– Again, there are exceptions…but real PURE “Anarchists” are about as common as “Pure” Psychopaths…that is, less than one percent.

7/9/12: I would say this is fairly accurate.

Satanists believe that everyone is their “Own God”.
That we don’t know what exists after death, so we must be true to ourselves and do what is right, here and now.
In practice, most Satanists believe that they are stronger than others
either physically or mentally, and so if religion is done away with
(e.g. ‘1984’ or ‘Brave New World’ or ‘Animal Farm’) then others, with nothing to hope for, will bow down before them and serve their goals,
which inevitably tend towards greed, manipulation, meaningless sex,
abuse, domination, cruelty, etc…

– This is not correct…it is in fact LaVeyan Satanists (see below) that believe this.  Real Satanists actually worship Lucifer, for reasons I understand but think are stoopid.  It’s not beyond me…I just think it’s stoopid.

7/9/12: “I’m glad you approve.” * “I do NOT “approve”…I understand.”

LaVeyan Satanists are those that are either REALLY stupid and
believe that you should BUY a MEMBERSHIP CARD to a religion
that advocates INDIVIDUALITY (Insert laugh track here)…
Or…
They are the ones collecting the money, thereby making them frauds, manipulators, and abusers of “weaker” minds.

– First comment dead-on funny…second one a bit over-reactionary, since it was meant as a joke and if someone WANTS to buy a joke, hey, there’s one born every minute…just ask LaVey.  And one positive point about LaVeyans: They believe that while you shouldn’t love everyone, you should be loyal and protective to/of those you CHOOSE to love, those that you deem worthy.  I agree.

7/9/12: The True believers, that is.  True believers are very difficult to find.

Basically most powerful “goths” prey upon people that have been
hurt or abused, telling them that they really care about them, and
inviting them to join a group…ANY group, because any group is better than nothing.

– Yup.

7/9/12: Repetition.  The key.

Sort of like Ed Norton’s character in American History X. 

– Bit of a stretch there…more like Cam.

7/9/12: Or, if they’re not very clever, the big fat guy.

Luckily, he woke up.

Oh…how many Hispanic, Black, Asian…ummm…Non-Caucasian “goths” are there?  Not many…
What does that say?  Oh, I dunno…
“Be tolerant of us!!!! You aren’t tolerant of us!!!!”
“Can I join???”
“No way man you’re black!”

– Uh huh.

7/9/12: There are a token few allowed “in” for plausible deniability purposes.

I mean, “goths” despising Society for the “Evils” perpetrated on them…
Well, should black people despise society for having been enslaved 150 years ago?
Should Jews hate society for Millenia of persecution?
I mean, grow the heck up, ok? 
Get over it.
Yeah, you’ve suffered.  A single tear rolls down my cheek.  GET OVER IT!

– Ditto.

7/9/12: The key.

Anne Gwish is a goth woman that has her own strip in the later part of the series. Her name is a pun on the word “anguish.” Her storyline is completely unrelated to Johnny’s, though she lives in the same fictional universe. The strips featuring her are largely a satire on goth culture’s tendencies towards pretension.

In most of her strips, you can find puns and parodies on gothic subculture. Like “Johnny the Hamicidal Maniac” (with Johnny as a
pig), “Ditchspade Symphony” (a parody of the band, Switchblade Symphony), “The Shmoe” (a rather obvious parody of The Crow, who proclaims “I stole this look from KISS”) and “The Dirtman” (a Sandman joke).

Vasquez ends the Anne Gwish strip with an aside comment,
“With just a touch of self-mockery,” due to his personal goth
lifestyle as well as the cultural category his comic books are
placed in.

In the back of the JTHM: Director’s Cut, (naming her
AKA “bitch”) it was revealed that Jhonen Vasquez liked the idea of
Anne Gwish being the “most physically attractive” of his characters,
as it “only frames more distinctly how HORRIBLE a person she is inside.” 

 (That’s Jhonen Vasquez, “hero” of the “goth” community, saying what he really thinks of most “goths”)

– Peace

7/9/12: Out.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

The Crow (1993)

Giving goth a Good name.

Plot: Man killed comes back to life and is almost invincible, until his “wrong” has been made “right”.

There’s not much more to it than a series of revenges, but they’re all done brilliantly…if you like that sort of thing.

It’s “style”, it’s “atmosphere”…WITH substance...and there’s no “pretension” here.  Brandon Lee’s death in reality is a fact, and lends an undeniable weight to the movie in which he died(twice) before dying on the set.  The makeup scene in particular is clever (“Mime from Hell”, HAHA) and gleefully foreshadowing.  The film was released during the reign of Grunge, and so in fitting fashion it IS raining…ALMOST all the time.  Good music, too.  The dialogue can be really cheezy…but the cool quotes abound.

Brandon Lee is brilliant as the lead…a true Gothic Hero, not an “Anti-Hero”.  He’s dark, he’s a killer…but he’s a very sympathetic character.  You feel his pain because you do, not because he whines about it and shoves it down your throat.  And he’s Good, in the exact sense of the word that comes back to haunt one of his “victims”…(aren’t we all?…Sorry, I can’t help myself).  The Evil “Devils” in this movie “See Goodness” and truly FEEL how awful it is.

Inspirational Quote: “Buildings burn, people die, but Real Love is Forever”

Grade: A-

In The Mouth Of Madness (1995)

Wherein John Carpenter does Michael De Luca’s best H.P. Lovecraft.

You know it’s a John Carpenter movie because, like fellow egomaniac George A. Romero (although with much less justification) he calls this movie, like most of his, ‘John Carpenter’s *Insert Name Of Film Here*’.  Just a minor, trivial note; but since this is easily Carpenter’s best work since ‘The Thing’ it’s a good idea he made sure to lay claim to it, unlike some of his other “works of art”.

It doesn’t really matter who stars in this movie, they aren’t important…the performances are solid but there’s nothing to stand out either in a good way or a bad way.  They do their jobs, nothing more nothing less.

The POINT is the mood, the story, the fragmentation, the eerie growing disquiet, the descent into either armageddon or insanity, depending on your viewpoint.  And perhaps not even depending on your viewpoint, because what does it matter what YOU think?  It’s not *knock knock* reality.

The plot is thin and disjointed and the script isn’t brilliant, but that doesn’t matter…in a story of insanity, coherence is self-defeating and any faults here can be overlooked by saying “Well, he did that on purpose because it’s about insanity”…did he?  *Shrug*  Who knows…who cares.  Just go along for the ride…it’s creepy, cheezy at points, but mostly scary in an eerie, hopelessly free-falling sort of way.  Reality isn’t what it used to be.

Inspirational Quote: “I can’t, he wrote me this way.”

Grade: B+

2012: Grade: B

5/26/13: Oh, P.S. – I changed my mind, kiss my a$$! Grade: B+

8/5/14: Sam Neill is actually quite good, as the only (then) star. Otherwise no change, although this is a very guilty pleasure at times, even for a very good movie – which it is. Grade: B+

An American Werewolf In London (1981)

This film is very silly.

No, that’s not the entire review, but you get the general idea.  I’m not quite sure exactly how much of it is MEANT to be silly, but I suppose that doesn’t really matter.  Intended or not, this is almost all camp, with some of the best scenes coming in unbelievably macabre and twisted fashion.  Macabre and twisted, but so hokey that you can’t help but snort or snicker, much like ‘Dead Alive’ only without anywhere NEAR as much gore.

The plot centers around a couple of college students on vacation in jolly olde England.  They’re walking across the countryside and come to a little tavern called “The Slaughtered Lamb”.  Foreshadowing?  Who knows.  Who cares?  It’s a silly movie.  Anyways, they go in, and the best part of the movie occurs…unfortunately, right near the beginning.  The reception they receive is grim but turns lively in rather amusing fashion, and the atmosphere is captured perfectly.  Then they leave, and the movie starts to mostly suck.

One of the students (David Naughton) is bitten by a (get ready for a surprise) werewolf, while his friend is bitten repeatedly (translation = mauled to death). 

Naughton’s character David (yes, same name) then slowly starts to “transform” into a werewolf, or so it seems, while his dead friend keeps appearing to have polite discussions about what happened, what will happen, and what SHOULD happen.  It’s amusing in places, utterly ridiculous, vastly overblown, and good for a few chuckles.  Once.  Da End.

Inspirational Quote: “You…made me miss.”

Grade: C

3/21/12: Ok, funnier (cheezy amusing not “haha”) than I gave it credit for, and played straight.  Which gives it a slight edge over stuff like ‘Troll 2’.  Grade: C+

The Princess Bride (1987)

This is a Rob Reiner film, and so the satirical/silly parts go without saying.  The difference between this and, say, ‘Spinal Tap’ (Where Reiner goes for all-out satire) is that not only does the movie totally succeed as a satire on the pretensions of D+D movies that have been dreadful since the dawn of time itself, but it also totally succeeds when it becomes wry, romantic, touching, menacing, dramatic, uplifting, *insert adjective that it goes for here*.

It’s a beautiful, nearly perfect film.  Cary Elwes plays a role that IS Cary Elwes, as he’s proven (sometimes unintentionally and unfortunately) in countless movies since: quick-tongued, charming and yet annoying at the same time, overly dramatic, and hopelessly over-acting.  But here, it WORKS…it’s like if Jim Carrey ever found a movie whose sole intention was to extol the virtues of talking out of your a$$.

Robin Wright is perfect as the perfectly Pure Princess “Buttercup” (Yes, it’s meant to be a silly name). Chris Sarandon is excellent as the Evil yet Stoopid Prince Humperdinck (Yes, it’s meant to be a silly name).  Even Andre the *BEEP* Giant is good in his role…

However the two absolute standouts are Mandy Patinkin and Christopher Guest, who fittingly have a confrontation near the end of the movie that is without a doubt the climax of the movie and one of the most moving scenes in a non-pure drama that I have EVER seen.  And this is seeing it 24 *BLEEPIN* years later!

If you don’t know the script by now, look it up somewhere.  Actually, don’t.  It’s a PURE Fairy Tale…quaint, charming, understated, fun, funny.  A truly great film.  Enjoy.

Inspirational Quote: “I want my father back you sonofab1tch!”

Grade: A+

The Professional (1994)

This is the edited-for-content American version of the longer (and much more explicitly controversial) ‘Leon’, the original film by French director Luc Besson.  Most of the scenes that have been cut from the original deal with the relationship between Leon and Mathilda.  Personally, I’d like to see them because they would show how the two become closer, and even if they do veer more and more towards what is already made explicit in this edited version, they never (from what I understand) cross the line from disturbing into flat-out obscene.

‘The Professional’ is ostensibly the story of a “cleaner” named Leon who saves the life of a young girl named Mathilda.  How young?  Well, she’s 12, as people seem to know for absolutely no reason.  A young boy’s age is also known for absolutely no adequately explored reason, and it’s a bit of a running joke after a while, sort of like everyone thinking “Snake” Plissken was dead(sp?).

Some of the action scenes are somewhat dated(Perhaps ‘Equilibrium”s only redeeming scene should be cut-and-pasted?).  The acting is not as good as the ideas, nor is the writing.  But the ideas are brilliant, and those who complain about Gary Oldman’s over-the-top Stansfield are overlooking the fact that at least Oldman gives his character an interesting persona, beyond what is actually “called for” in the script.

I could wax philosophical about how the movie is not about death and killing but about saving life and Salvation, and while that may or may not be true, it seems to me to be more about slick cinemacraft than either.  Not without its merits, certainly, but as over-rated by its adoring fans as it is hated by its critics.

Oldman’s character displays a creepy fascination for REALLY close physical contact(think of a younger version of ‘Book of Eli”s Carnegie) and is just as menacing in his calm, relaxed psychosis as Pesci in ‘Goodfellas”s “Funny Guy” scene.  Reno plays emotionally stunted and naive perfectly…I buy it, at least.  Natalie Portman does about as well as a child-actor can as Mathilda, out-performing many of the adults.

Oldman’s character Stansfield is in a position of extreme power, which is a bit far-fetched – Odd, Psychotic Drug Addicts seldom rise to that level of power, I would imagine.  And most of his men are INCREDIBLY incompetent.

The “bonding” scenes seem a bit forced at times, again begging for the inclusion of the deleted scenes.

The last third of the movie is easily the best part…everything has been established and the ending is, in its own way, brilliant.  However the whole thing is perhaps a bit TOO well-directed.  Slick, stylish…so slick it loses some of its believability.  Sort of the Reverse-Reservoir-Dogs effect.

Inspirational Quote: “I’m DYING to meet him.”

Grade: B

7/22/14: Parts of it are dumb and parts are too slick and parts are boring, but there are too many great scenes and powerful moments/feelings not to grade this slightly higher.

The ray of light, as if sent down from Heaven in a gesture of Divine mercy, is a fav touch. Arty without being pretentious.

Grade: B+

Pupdate – Acknowledgement of areas of Mediocrity

Having myself gone back, after writing reviews for ‘Lackluster’ and (my favorite) ‘Equilibrium’, I’ve realized that while I’m not a GREAT critic now, I am at least an intermittently witty one with a certain degree of (useful) knowledge.

I’ve also realized that a lot of the sh1t I wrote many years ago is more akin to a high-school student’s homage to a REAL poet than anything of much value on its own. (Robert Christgau rocks my socks).

Therefore, I will be re-analyzing/writing a lot of the reviews I’ve written (mostly musical) over the course of the near future.

Feel free to check back, and if YOU have a band you want mercilessly analyzed in a competent fashion, just let me know and I’ll see what I can do.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

3/2/13: Mission mostly accomplished.  It gets better, slowly…

Monty Python’s Flying Circus – Episode 38 (A Book At Bedtime)

Highs:
Kamikaze Scotsmen
No Time To Lose
Gilliam’s 2001 parody
web-footed little bastards
discoveries
Brain sizes
Test chart
Fenced-In people
Subtitles
Unexploded Scotsmen Disposal Squad
Spot the Looney
Microphone wars

Lows:
Ending

Grade: A (The last great Python episode)

Monty Python’s Flying Circus – Episode 37 (Dennis Moore)

Highs:
Botany lesson
Astrology
Criminal doctor
Gilliam’s ambulance
Lupins
The Great Debate
Dennis Moore theme song
judging
Gilliam’s black hole
solicitor
Dennis Moore’s moment of clarity

Lows:
Hospital scene
Gilliam’s “frog”
Boring Noble conversations

Overrated:
Ideal Loons

Grade A-

Why It’s Completely Absurd To Advocate A Lifestyle Of Total Logic – Analysis Of A Trend (By Puppy)

If you’re reading this because you agree with the title, are bored, wanted a potential chuckle, etc…Great.

If you’re reading this because you disagree with the title, I would suggest the following…

Any argument I can make can probably be out-argued by you, because you’re so much smarter than I am in that “useless beyond-genius no-real-value Rain Man” sort of a way.

So just think about the following two quotes, and continue to worship Stephen Hawking as your Deity.

“You don’t understand, and you never will.” – Diane Chambers (A fairly logical character)

“Computers make excellent and efficient servants, but I have no wish to serve under them.” – Spock (Also, fairly logical)

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Era Nocturna

Lackluster (2009)

Pleasantly Gloomy.

Alternating between dark-trance and dark-pop, this will be consistently boring or annoying to anyone that doesn’t like “dark”.  To those that DO like “dark”, this will intermittently enthrall/entice and madden/disappoint.

The vocals blend in with the music, or vice versa, rendering them irrelevant on their own, which is fitting for trance and especially goth-inflected trance and the preference of mood and style over substance.

Think of early My Bloody Valentine after a death (or two) in the family and with more of a desire to express ideas and less concentration on fostering (and maintaining) a mood.  The synth seems over-used and the drums seem (by contrast) under-used, which is perfect for trance, but when it veers more towards pop it becomes a problem.

Potential?  Yes.  But for every band that eventually puts out a ‘Loveless’, a masterful work of indecipherable mood music, there are dozens that either never perfected that mood despite repeated attempts or never learned to write consistent hooks (vocal or otherwise) that would make said mood irrelevant.

One of those paths is necessary for any true, long-lasting relevance.
(“If Only I Could”)

Grade: B-

2012:  In an attempt to write a proper review, I sought a band to compare them to.  The choice was incorrect because, as I state in my initial review, there is more a desire to actually express ideas via intelligible words, to be verbally blunt.  My Bloody Valentine they’re not, and they never will be…the wall of sound erected on ‘Loveless’ is, in my opinion, too intricate.  But that’s not the point.  The specialty of THIS band is writing catchy songs with mostly vocal/synth hooks (the vocal ones are actually better than the synth ones, not to insult the synth ones) and an increasing incorporation of drums.  All that being said, I still think this is exactly what I graded it initially…pretty good.  If the writing ever consistently reaches the level of “If Only I Could” and “Beautiful Death” (The playing is already there), then they will have something…no ‘Loveless’, but Dae Noctem doesn’t want that, I think…she wants to express herself in a blatantly hooky way.  And sometimes, she succeeds.

Grade: B-

Monty Python’s Flying Circus – Episode 32 (The War Against Pornography)

Highs:
Chapman preparing for surgery
Molluscs
Baby suction
odd ministers
The Big Bad Rabbit
Match of the Day
Cleese turning into a pirate
NO cannibalism or necrophilia
Lake Pahoe
Silliest Sketch Ever

Lows:
Intro
Welk-bashing

Overrated:
Gumby Brain Surgery
Idle’s flagrant display of verbosity called “Politicians”

Grade: A-

Monty Python’s Flying Circus – Episode 31 (The All-England Summarize Proust Competition)

Highs:
Summarizing Proust
A Magnificent Festering
Useless!  and Right Out!
Gilliam’s Communist Revolutions
Bat
Bloody Gob
Watney’s Red Barrel
Thrust

Lows:
Everest hairdos
Fire Brigade Choir
the BBC cutting out Chapman saying “masturbating”

Overrated:
Shoe sizes

Grade: B-

8/8/12:  “Somehow “strangling animals” is ok, but “masturbating” isn’t” – Terry Jones  
Grade: B

Monty Python’s Flying Circus – Episode 30 (Blood, Devastation, Death, War And Horror)

Highs:
BDDW+H
Chamran Knebter
Gradually more ridiculous nature documentary
Hungry house
Army Recruitment
Spectrum
Out of work announcer
The news
Chaotic ending

Lows:
NCP Car Parks/Animation

Overrated:
Late Night Flim

Grade: A

The Pointlessness of Pointless Sex – A Logical Argument

It has been argued that humans are inherently poly-amorous, that all people truly want to have sex with as many people that they find attractive as possible…that “relationships” are only entered into by those that cannot succeed in routinely obtaining sex from more than one attractive person, that wish to allow themselves to not have to “keep up their appearance”, because of societal pressures, because it’s the “easy” thing to do, and so on.

This argument is just as blatantly flawed and self-serving (as it is made, of course, by those that are NOT in committed “relationships”) as the argument that it’s “wrong” to be with more than one person even if noone is hurt, that you shouldn’t have sex outside of marriage, that homosexuality is wrong, that one must wait 7 dates before having sex…and so on.  These arguments, of course, are made by those that adhere (or at least pretend to adhere) to the “wrong”-ness of choice.

Every Human Being is different.  To suggest that it is IMPOSSIBLE to truly WANT to be with only one person, for the sole reason of that is truly what YOU want, is absurd.  Simply because one cannot “understand” that desire, because one does not feel it themself, does NOT by definition mean that it cannot exist and that anyone that says that’s what they want is just “pretending” or “kidding themselves”.

The most ridiculous part of the argument AGAINST voluntary fidelity is that the people making it are completely disdainful of the other-side-of-the-coin argument (that you MUST be in a heterosexual, monogamous, married, etc etc etc relationship).

The reason I (And many people) don’t have random sex with any other attractive adult possible is NOT, as some might suggest, because I’m “repressed” or “afraid”. 

I’m not afraid of “Sinning”, I’m not worried about my ability to obtain sex, I don’t feel that it’s “wrong”, I don’t care about public perception…and so on.

The reason I don’t have sex with every attractive adult I COULD have sex with is because, quite frankly, I don’t want to.

From a logical perspective, I think everyone except those bent on sexual “conquest” to prove their virility would agree that the POINT of sex, apart from procreation, is PLEASURE. 

Therefore, the aspect to be considered is…what do I derive the most pleasure from?

Having had meaningless sex in the past, I’ve found that the empty, awkward, rather dull feeling that comes (no pun intended) immediately after the act is completed is FAR worse than the act itself is more pleasurable than just THINKING about it.  It just doesn’t make sense to spend SO much time trying to obtain something that, once obtained, becomes meaningless and leads you to think “Ok, who’s next?” if the feeling arising from the “success” of the attempt is, in fact, BAD.

Not to suggest that meaningless sex doesn’t feel GOOD…sure it does.  But the period and amount of pleasure achieved, for me, is just simply not worth the post-meaningless-act depression over the sheer meaningless-ness of it, the resources (Time, money for *insert foreplay meetingplace here*, etc) wasted, and so forth.

Sex with someone that I actually CARE about, at least somewhat, lacks these negative results and is therefore something to be strived for as a vastly superior option.

From a purely logical standpoint, for me, meaningless sex is just plain stupid.

It also displays an appalling lack of self-control, which, if you’re doing something you know will just make you feel worse afterwards, is akin to doing hardcore drugs (I assume, never had the urge to try) only this is a VOLUNTARY addiction, and hence lacks ANY sort of reasonable justification outside of the inability to control one’s most base animal instincts. 

I mean, if a wolf can be platonic, can’t a “superior” human?  It’s not a sign of weakness or herd mentality, it’s a sign of Self-Control, Logic, and Love.

Of course, if you actually feel GOOD after having sex with someone you care nothing about, and you both want to…go for it!  I won’t make the same pretentious, inane assumption that critics of Fidelity make by criticizing other people’s emotional  choices, as if I have any idea what it’s like to be inside their head.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Monty Python’s Flying Circus – Episode 27 (Whicker’s World)

Highs:
Terrible Njorl’s Saga
checking the spleen
stock market report
burying the cat
Mrs. Cutout

Lows:
the majority of the Mrs. Premise/Mrs. Conclusion sketch, which is QUITE long

Overrated:
“I’m Sorry” trial
Whicker’s World

Grade: C+

2012: Cleese and Chapman do their best to drag this down…maybe Cleese just insisted on doing something “new”, and a long, boring, drawn-out sketch about book interpretation was, admittedly, new.  Still, the rest shouldn’t suffer QUITE as much for that.  Grade: B-

The Legend Of Huma (1988)

A prequel to the then-deserved-hit and now-overbloated-franchise called ‘Dragonlance’, this is the story of (you guessed it, subtlety was never D-Lance’s strength) Huma, a young man who is a Knight of Solamnia (Solamnic Knights are warriors that live by a Code encompassing the “Oath” and the “Measure”, the latter much more complex than the former) and his “adventures”.

Critics of Dragonlance in general have a point: The stories are fairly simple and easy to follow, having nowhere near the grand scope and descriptive power of, say, J.R.R. Tolkien’s ‘Lord of the Rings’.  However, sometimes grand scope and descriptive power can be taken to a bit of an extreme.  Personally, while I admire the skill of Tolkien’s work, after a while reading three pages of description on exactly how a twig broke, its causes and ramifications, etc…does get a bit dull and boring.

So take this for what it is:  An excellent bit of escapist fiction, on par with the few other D-Lance novels written before the idea turned into an assembly-line production and the quality turned from predictable but charming to redundant, absurd, and just plain BAD.

In a way, this is to ‘Lord of the Rings’ what the original ‘Star Wars’ is to the second trilogy:  Much more simplistic, much more predictable, much more humorous, much more FUN, perhaps a little bit cheezy but possessing an undeniable and lasting charm that the latter simply did not (At least, in the case of ‘Star Wars’…Tolkien’s ‘Ring’ series certainly had its own charm, but the grim, boring, state-of-the-art “perfection” of the ‘Star Wars’ prequels did not).

Accepting it for what it is, it is a brilliant piece of work fully undeserving of the scorn heaped (oftentimes rightfully so) on the setting itself.  A story of “Good” versus “Evil” couldn’t be more obviously divided, but how often did you wonder who was “really” the bad guy in ‘Star Wars – A New Hope’?  Knowing Darth Vader represented “Evil” and Luke Skywalker represented “Good” (With Han Solo somewhere in the middle, admittedly) did nothing to lessen the charm of the story.  If anything, it made it more enjoyable as what it was – a wonderfully done bit of escapist (science) fiction.  You didn’t watch it to psycho-analyze the characters and consider the implications of their actions…you watched it to root for Luke and boo whenever Vader came on the screen.  To criticize ‘Huma’ for its simplicity would be to say that ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ was “derivative”.  OF COURSE it was…that was the point.  It was also a great film.

As for the story itself, having vented my frustrations over its outright dismissal, it begins with Huma encountering what would normally be, to him, a very dangerous enemy.  His reaction to the circumstances begin to define his character (Which is fairly one-dimensional, but so was Vader’s, and Skywalker’s) and the story unfolds from there.  No point in detailing everything that happens, that’s the charm of actually reading the book, since it was meant to be read for pleasure, not enlightenment.

If this is coffee-table literature, then it is coffee-table literature at its finest.  There are enough overly and intricately complex worlds out there created by authors desiring to be more and more obscure, as if obscurity and complexity equals quality.  They don’t.  Orwell’s great Novel ‘1984’ was EXTREMELY complex, and brilliant.  His Fairy Story ‘Animal Farm’ was EXTREMELY simplistic, and brilliant.  Take that, elitists.

Inspirational Quote: “Est Sularus oth Mithas”

Grade: A

The Truman Show (1998)

Much-ballyhooed as a triumph of the Human Spirit and a celebration of Reality, my only problem is this…why did they possibly think Jim Carrey was the “perfect” person for this role?  Granted, he has his moments, and he tries…but that’s the point.  He tries TOO HARD, like he always does.  And for all the fanfare to the contrary, despite an impressive debut as a real, “serious” actor, his performance is flawed.

‘The Truman Show’, if you don’t know by now (I’m 13 years late with this, oh well) is the story of a man (Truman Burbank, played by Jim Carrey) whose life is entirely contained and controlled, without his knowledge.  Sort of like the world’s biggest artificial bubble, except that Truman is the only one that doesn’t know it’s artificial.  At a time when the world has grown tired of “special effects” (I doubt that) and seeks a real person they can identify with (I don’t doubt that), Truman plays, unbeknownst to him, an important role in the lives of millions of people.  In his life, they see the safety, security, tranquility, and harmony that they wish so desperately for in their own lives.  The problem is, such things come at a price, and Truman has to decide if willfull, blissful ignorance is better than sometimes-harsh reality.

In some ways this is a brilliant movie…Ed Harris is exceptional as Christof, the “Creator” (of a television show) and some of the lines are truly haunting/inspiring/scary.  I like to think of this as a sort of Positive Transcendentalist’s response to ‘Brave New World’, ‘1984’, and countless other books/movies that portray the impossibility of happiness and safety existing hand-in-hand…in ‘Brave New World’, the only answer is escaping happiness for liberty, in ‘1984’ the only answer is escaping liberty for “happiness” (If you can call a zombie-like state “happy”).  ‘The Truman Show’ offers another way out…a difficult road that may or may not be taken, that may or may not succeed, but is there.  In that, it is a complete Triumph.

But the majestic sweep and power of the message is constantly lessened by the now-familiar histrionics of Carrey, who seems to think the script isn’t good enough as a drama and needs his own particular blend of humor, which has NOTHING to do with the movie, and which seems COMPLETELY out of character for a man in his situation.  Over-acting is suited more to Carrey’s natural style (playful and “wacky”) than what you’d rationally expect from someone whose entire Life’s Reality is collapsing around him at an accelerating pace.  When Carrey is subdued, it works perfectly.  Then he slips into ‘Ace Ventura’ mode and gets a few laughs at the expense of destroying the logical character development that should be taking place.  I don’t know about you, but if I found out that everything I knew was wrong, I wouldn’t feel “liberated” and start running around…I’d curl up into a ball and hide.

Carrey’s best work is when he is actually being SUBTLE, which he does with (considering his previous work) surprisingly good effect, and especially in his confrontation with Christof, when the music’s repeated swells echo the lost nature of his soul and his extreme inner conflict building to a (perhaps) logical conclusion.

Message: Given the choice of Alpha Plus placement in a brave new world, choose the Freedom of the Savage.  There is hope for individuality, if the will is strong enough.

Couldn’t agree more.

Inspirational Quote: “Cue the Sun”

Grade: B

5/18/16: “He’ll turn back, he’ll be too afraid.”
…
“Give me some lightning.
Again.
Hit him again.”
…
“Capsize him.”
“He’s gonna drown and he doesn’t even care…”
“Do it.”
*headshake* “No.”
“Do it!”
…

…
*end*

The horror parts, the truly scary parts, happen long before this. This, actually, is an escape; one way or another. Grade: B+

FAIR USE: CRITICISM – In the clip, Carrey, Harris, and the music combine to signal a defining moment for Truman; an absolutely vital decision. It’s the best part of the movie, IMPO, and I find it moving every time.

Monty Python’s Flying Circus – Episode 26 (Royal Episode 13)

Highs:
Opening titles
Coal mine dispute
Roundabout speech
dragon cartoon
feeding a goldfish
Dinsdale!
Insurance sketch intro
Nautical pepperpots
letter from O.W.A. Giveaway
Lifeboat cannibals
Undertaker sketch

Lows:
parts of words
surgical garments
racing pigeon-fanciers
dormitory voices/sketch

Overrated:
Bird-Watchers’ Eggs
Queen watching
Hospital Sketch
Exploding version of the Blue Danube

Grade: B+

Monty Python’s Flying Circus – Episode 25 (Spam)

Highs:
“The Black Eagle”
Dirty Hungarian Phrasebook
Pleading incompetence
Gilliam’s 2001 parody
World Forum
Karl Marx trying to win a beautiful lounge suite
Molineux
Ypres sketch
Knickers
lots of extras
Sotheby’s sell-off
Cleese overacting
Richard III Ward
disproportionate bomb
Flower arrangement
Spam
Vikings

Lows:
Cutouts
Art Walkout

Grade: A+

Monty Python’s Flying Circus – Episode 24 (How Not To Be Seen)

Highs:
Conquistador Coffee
Palin stripping
American defense
Crelm toothpaste
Gavin Milarrrrrrrrr
Crackpot Religions
nude organist
Hymn 437
Archbishop Nudge
Cartoon religion
How Not To Be Seen
filing cabinet interview
the entire show repeated

Lows:
train schedule sketch
audience reaction
weird bishops
lunatic religion

Overrated:
Huge teeth

Grade: A-

Monty Python’s Flying Circus – Episode 23 (Scott Of The Antarctic)

Highs:
Idle’s pretentious review
pretentious stock footage
“Scott of the Antarctic”‘s parody of pretentious “epics”
“epic” lion fight
sled dogs
giant electric penguin
Eric the fish
Eric the cat
Eric the fruitbat
Kamel Attaturk (Page 91)

Lows:
Rubbish dump
odd rugby matches
ending

Overrated: Conrad Poohs and his Dancing Teeth

Grade: B+

Monty Python’s Flying Circus – Episode 22 (How To Recognize Different Parts Of The Body)

Highs:
Intro (Woohoo! Errr…)
parts of the body
Bruces
Not contradicting people
Cleese’s pig
Raymond Luxury Yacht (again)
military performances
Gilliam’s eyeball bit
Cleese meeting the ocean
the death of Mary Queen of Scots
Penguin on Telly
Intercourse
Posh talk

Lows:
The killer cars
underwater productions
“Bing Dittle Dittle Bong”

Grade: B+

8/8/12: In comparison to almost everything non-Python, the lows don’t seem so low anymore.
Grade: A-

Monty Python’s Flying Circus – Episode 21 (Archaeology Today)

Highs:
Gilliam’s bits
The Gits
Hunting Mosquitoes
Beethoven’s bird and friends

Lows:
Idle’s Intro
Archaeology Today (very long, unfortunately)
The National Truss
Hunting sketch petering out
Poofy Judges
Talking about shopping
Mrs. Beethoven
Colin Mozart

Grade: D (Their worst…so far)

Monty Python’s Flying Circus – Episode 20 (The Attila The Hun Show)

Highs:
Intro
Terry Jones’ improved stripping
random tv interview
Council Rat Catcher
Wainscotting
Killer Sheep
Palin cracking up
Random Viking
Parliamentary Report (For Humans)
Idiots
Ritual Idioting
Naught for Naught
Mrs. Scum trying for a blow on the head

Lows:
Attila The Nun
A Tale of Two Cities (For Parrots)
City Idiot Interviews
Furniture race
REALLY blatant racism

Grade: A-

Advice

Anyone that tells you that “the only constant, dependable thing in Life is change” is either trying to sell you something or get something from you(physically, morally, financially, emotionally, etc).

Semper Fidelis

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Monty Python’s Flying Circus – Episode 19 (It’s A Living)

Highs:
Time Check
L.F. Dibley’s film ‘If’
Human pyramid
Palin cracking up during a poetry reading
Dung
Raymond Luxury Yacht
Registrar of Marriages
Election Night Special

Lows:
People tossed into water

Grade: A-

8/8/12: The water bit goes on as long as Yohan G. but with less point…otherwise can’t complain.
Grade: A

Monty Python’s Flying Circus – Episode 17 (The Buzz Aldrin Show)

Highs:
Gilliam’s intro
Architect Sketch
Recognizing a mason
Satire…Satire…Satire
Mr. Devious
The Bishop!
Wombat Harness
Sudden weather report
nude man
The Bishop!
Apology
Apology
Chemist Sketch
the basement
Buzz Aldrin

Grade: A+ (The unquestioned one-episode height of ‘Flying Circus’)

Ghost Dog: The Way Of The Samurai (1999)

Low on dialogue and high on imagery, foreshadowing, and mood (What do you expect, it’s a Jim Jarmusch film), this hypothetically modern take on Yamamoto Tsunetomo’s instructional manual for Samurai (‘Hagakure’) is forced to get by (or not) on the strength of the wisdom quoted throughout and the powerful lead performance by Forest Whitaker as ‘Ghost Dog’, who shows that a book can indeed have a VERY powerful effect on a young person’s mind.

Whitaker’s performance is amazing, and is easily the best in the film.  The role seems to have been made for him: an actor/character that can convey at the same time equal parts menace, cunning, detachment, and a still-innocent affection for those few things dear to his heart.  When he has a conversation with a little girl (played by Camille Winbush) you don’t, for a second, have any sense of foreboding.  In his eyes, as in yours, she’s an innocent…viewed the same as defenseless animals, only with more (again, innocent) affection and a sense of reluctant nurturing.

The plot centers around a young man saved from a savage beating by the lucky coincidence that the person that notices it happening has a gun and “isn’t afraid to use it”.  From this develops a sense of Loyalty and Devotion, a personal allegiance intertwined with the extremely complex “Code of the Samurai” and Ghost Dog’s own personal background, hardly the stuff of upper-class Feudal Japan.  It’s a fascinating contrast, as Whitaker manages to display an easy street savvy (look for the obvious references) while still maintaining an extreme focus and a disciplined, simple (in the materialistic sense) life.

Parts of the movie are boring.  Then again, parts of ‘Hagakure’ are boring.  Parts of life are boring.  It’s a necessary thing to bear with the less “interesting” parts in the knowledge that there is more to come.

Repeated watchings make it more, not less, impressive, as it was obviously made with extreme care.

The music is very well suited as yet another contrast between Ancient Japan and the world that Ghost Dog is REALLY living in…this ain’t no Ancient Culture, but, to him – “Sometimes it is”

Grade: B+

2012: A must-watch for people who don’t read.  Grade: A-

Gore Film Afficionados – Analysis of a Subculture (By Puppy)

Recently I’ve been trying to re-analyze and re-assess my views of people that have an affinity for particularly gory films.

The important distinction here is between “gory” films and gore films…that is, movies that have incredibly disturbing scenes (‘Land Of The Dead’, ‘Saving Private Ryan’, ‘Schindler’s List’, ‘Platoon’, ‘Seven’, etc…) but that include them for a non-obligatory point, and also feature brilliant acting, character development, and intelligent scripts; and movies that exist, it seems, merely as a means for people to voyeuristically watch disgusting things happen and (more often than not, in my experience from contact with such people) cheer for the one doing these things.

I think the second category has four types of fans:
1) Those that admire the “ingenious” ways in which these things happen,
2) Those whose lives are so boring and dull that they rely on these movies for their excitement,
3) Those that are viewing them as instructional videos, and…
4) Those that secretly wish they could do these sorts of things, lacking the basic morality to care if they “should” or not, but also lacking either the intelligence or the courage to follow through.

As with my “goth” analysis (Although my percentages there need adjusting in a positive manner, admittedly) I find that the majority fall into either 2, 3, 4, or a combination thereof.

I mean, are there people who watch films from a coldly clinical viewpoint, taking no “sides” and feeling nothing for the characters (good or bad)?  Sure.  A few.

Most people, in my experience, feel emotions from/towards a film and its characters.

So it follows that the vast majority of the people that intentionally sit down in front of ‘Saw 15’ are doing so not because they “like being scared” or out of “admiration”…

They’re doing so because if your life is monotonous and dull, if your senses are dulled by prolonged exposure to things so extreme that you need to keep upping the ante to get the same effect (See “Heroin”, only without the addiction excuse), watching “normal” films just doesn’t do it for them any more.

Of course there are the Psycho/Socio-Paths that watch them for ideas, I assume…but since pure Psychopaths are very rare and pure Sociopaths even more so, I think this percentage is very small.

On a slightly lower level are those(Trust me, I’ve met them, unfortunately) that are secretly (or in some cases, not so secretly) cheering for the lunatic because it gets them off in either a strange sexual way (See “Extreme BDSM”) or because it fills them with a sense of power/vengeance/defiance because (get the tissues out) they’ve had horrible things happen to them and so relish in seeing the same happen to others.  Although, as previously stated, the vast majority of these people stop at this point.  They’re NOT “dangerous”…I’m not suggesting that at all.  Most of them, at least.  In order to be dangerous they’d have to be extremely intelligent, somewhat courageous, and/or totally lacking in any sense of morality.

The intelligent part isn’t that difficult.  Even the lack of morality isn’t THAT hard to find…

But the courage is.

Again, it’s difficult to find True believers, even in the sickest sh1t.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

5/10/16: In all fairness, if one has been traumatized in some way by the unfair actions of another(s), then to feel anger and bitterness is not only natural, but completely acceptable: You have every right to be angry and bitter at people who have unfairly fcked you over (for unfairly fcking you over). And, speaking as one with major depression (among other things), a person is not “better” or “worse” because of their feelings and moods…since to a large extent, for some people, these things are out of your control.

Where the DISTINCTION comes into play between decent people and scumbags is in what you choose to DO with these (justified or not) feelings and moods. So if you get some sort of vengeful joy out of seeing nasty things happen in movies, that – BY ITSELF – doesn’t mean anything.

It’s what you choose to do with that, as always, that means something.

If you simply indulge those feelings/moods in ways that are purely non-harmful to anyone, I can’t (I don’t think anyone can) rightfully say you’re doing anything “wrong”, or that there is something wrong with YOU because of said indulgences. If you disagree, ask yourself (where applicable) “Why do I WANT to watch two men try to hurt each other?” (MMA, Boxing, Hockey Fights, Etc…) or “Why do I WANT to see the results of a car wreck?”, or a number of other similar questions.

HOWEVER…

There is a MASSIVE difference between indulging in fictional activities – that were consented to by all involved – that cause NO harm to ANYONE ELSE (Gore movies being just one example)…

And indulging in REAL activities – that were NOT consented to by all involved – that cause REAL harm to one who DID NOT CONSENT to such harm.

THAT is the difference between “harmless cathartic indulgence” (e.g. watching graphic gore movies…works of FICTION) and “harmful, vicious, self-centered indulgence” (taking the step from fantasy to reality in any way harmful to a non-consenting other).

So, in THAT sense…I was wrong. There’s nothing wrong with someone for enjoying pointless gore flicks any more than there is for watching and enjoying pointless agreed-upon violence (boxing, etc)…AS LONG AS such actions remain as such: harmless, FICTIONAL, cathartic indulgence.

The moment they become in any way REAL – cause real harm to another or in any way alter one’s BELIEFS and/or ACTIONS in any sort of real-world sense as opposed to simply one’s cathartic FEELINGS – is the moment they become deplorable and unacceptable.

And, as we see from real events, there are many people that CANNOT make that distinction, and abide by it.

And that is why it is inherently more dangerous to receive catharsis from such things than from, say, inspirational movies, Disney movies, positive-bent movies/music, etc…

One who “snaps” and incorporates cuteness, positivity, etc…into their real lives is a LOT less dangerous than one who snaps and incorporates a desire to see gore, to see people suffer, etc.

And that’s not a MORAL “self-righteous” judgement…it’s a logical statement.

All that being said…it is fair, in my opinion, to state the following as truth: “Enjoying watching gore movies simply for the gore does not make one any less of a person.”

It just HAS TO STOP there…as fantasy.

To paraphrase D. Vinyard: “(Show) a little self-(control) (for Chrissakes).”

Monty Python’s Flying Circus – Episode 14 (Face The Press)

Highs:
Small patch of brown liquid
New Cooker Sketch
Vintage Monarch shaving
A bit of pram in good condition
Ministry of Silly Walks
well-crafted links throughout
heads nailed to things
Doug, Dinsdale, and Spiny Norman
Psychotic criminologist
Chinese Watches from Mr. Luigi Ficotti

Lows:
Anglo-French Silly Walk lead-up and performance

Grade: A

Excerpt from a Philosophical Discussion

Here is my honest appraisal:

To say that Humans do not have Free Will is, to me, a copout. It is a convenient excuse for those that choose, for one reason or another, to act in a manner deemed improper by the majority of society. If a person is completely insane, then yes, perhaps. But the vast majority of people know EXACTLY what they’re doing, and why they’re doing it, even if only on a semi-conscious level.

Most people choose to do things because they want to…out of weakness.

Be that weakness lust, greed, envy, laziness, maliciousness, arrogance, etc.

Personally, I think the notion that “Good” behavior is only done because it’s programmed or learned or “accepted” is false, at least as a general label. Yes, there are some people that do “Good” things because it makes them feel better, to get something back, etc…

But me, personally…I do “Good” things because I believe in them. I’ve done things I’ve found uncomfortable, things that have actually hurt me in some way and in no way, physically, mentally, or in any other way, benefitted me. I did them because I believed they were the correct and proper things to do.

Are MOST people like that? No. I think most people are greedy, selfish, self-centered, and somewhat cruel. But this is a choice, not a condition.

Using sexuality as an example is incorrect, to me. No, we cannot determine what we WANT to do…but, just as in every other area, we CAN determine what we DO do. I couldn’t choose to change my desires, but I could choose to change my actions. In terms of sexuality, that simply makes no sense, so I never would…but I “could”, hypothetically.

I also totally disagree with your view on charity.

I think you’re minimizing the HUGE numbers of people who don’t WANT charity, but require it in desperate times. There’s a huge difference between sending money to help someone from starving to death because they’ve been the victim of a natural disaster and need a one-time aid before they can recover, and walking by a homeless person every day and giving them 100 dollars.

Also, the term “friend” would become completely meaningless if charity was considered a “bad” thing…I help my friends because I believe they deserve it, not because I want something back, or because I feel obligated, or even because it makes me feel good. I have clinical depression, sometimes NOTHING makes me feel good. So I can either be a random scumbag and just do whatever gets me off, or I can show a little self-control and do what I believe in. I’ll go with the second one.

– Puppy >.< Yip!