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!

Monty Python’s Flying Circus – Episode 12 (The Naked Ant)

Highs:
Wilkins/Robertson
Meaningless graph
Mr. Hilter (at the beginning)
Ken Shabby
The Wood Party
Spectrum Host’s Demise

Lows:
Hilter and company get a bit dull after a while
Vocal Annoyances
Speech Analysis
“No…No…No…”

Overrated (But not bad):
Upper-Class Twits

Grade: B-

Monty Python’s Flying Circus – Episode 11 (The Royal Philharmonic Orchestra Goes To The Bathroom)

Highs:
Wistful undertakers
Terry Jones’ pep talk
Nobody being asked to leave the room
very long arms
Proustian display of modern existentialist football
Jimmy Buzzard
Sleepy bricks
Flying Cat

Lows:
Mr. Walters
Extreme undertaker attrition
The World of History

Overrated:
Gumbys
Pearl Harbor re-enactment

Grade: B-

2012: Bad parts not so bad, just not nearly as good as the good parts.  Grade: B

BSH-Speak

In the manner of LTI, here are some handy phrases to know if you ever end up at BSH…

ITU (“Intensive Treatment Unit”) = Solitary

CO = Someone that can sneer/laugh at/mock/”subdue” (WHEN APPROPRIATE!) patients

Patient = Prisoner

Established Bedtimes = When you go to your cell unless there’s a sporting event that calls for much earlier bed

CO Training Walk-Through = Lock up the patients and pretend it’s always this way

Good CO (Of which there are many) = Someone who has their job for a reason other than listed above (See “CO”)

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Monty Python’s Flying Circus – Episode 10 (“Untitled”)

Highs:
Polite robber
“It’s a Tree”
A piece of laminated plastic
Vocational Guidance Counselor
gay banter
“The Larch”
Luigi Ficotti
Ron Obvious
Pet Conversions
Gorilla Librarian
Gilliam’s “Survival of the Fittest” during an intellectual debate

Lows:
Lonnnnnnnng (and boring) bedroom seduction

Grade: A-

Monty Python’s Flying Circus – Episode 9 (The Ant, An Introduction)

Highs:
Llama info
Cleese behind a desk
Double Vision Mountaineering
Michael The Homicidal Barber/Lumberjack
The Larch
Ken Buddha
Unwanted Knight
“Let’s have a ding-dong”

Lows:
Professor Gumby
Gilliam’s animation goes on a BIT too long
“Hunting Film”

Overrated:
Man with a tape recorder up his…

Grade: B

Monty Python’s Flying Circus – Episode 8 (Full Frontal Nudity)

Highs:
Watkins the Coward
Army Shakedown
Colonel Chapman’s bits throughout
Art Critic
“Dog Kennels”
Vicious “Keep Left” signs
Dead Parrot Sketch

Lows:
None…just mediums.

Grade: A-

8/8/12: The “Lows” are only low compared to the other bits.  They’re not actually bad.  Grade: A

Monty Python’s Flying Circus – Episode 6 (It’s The Arts)

Highs:
Cleese’s impromptu burial
The Whizzo “Quality Assortment”
Dull City Stockbroker
Cleese’s “Free Officer”
Twentieth Century Vole
Yes Men/Pencil Droppers/Lousy Ideas/SPLUNGE

Lows:
The self-indulgent and admirable but somewhat painful Yohan G…whatever.

Grade: A-

8/8/12: Yohan G. is brilliant in its apathy for ratings.  But it still gets dull.  Grade: A-

Monty Python’s Flying Circus – Episode 5 (Man’s Crisis Of Identity In The Latter Half Of The Twentieth Century)

Highs:
Confuse the……..cat
The world’s worst smuggler
A Duck
A Cat, and
A Lizard
“Sandwiches???”
Attacking the lower classes
Unfortunate Newsreader
Stock film or sex
Gilliam’s marked improvement
Management Training Course
Encyclopedia Salesmen

Lows:
Careers Advisory Board

Grade: A+

Monty Python’s Flying Circus – Episode 3 (How To Recognize Different Types Of Trees From Quite A Long Way Away)

Highs:
The Larch
Mr. Larch’s “Freedom” rant
The late Arthur Aldridge
John Cleese going “Wooooo…”
“E-wic” and “Mi-chael”
Nudge Nudge Wink Wink
Dirty Cutlery
THE HORSE CHESTNUT

Lows:
Bicycle Repairman (Except the random “international communism” part)

Grade: A-

Monty Python’s Flying Circus – Episode 2 (Sex & Violence)

Highs:
A quick…visual…Arthur Frampton
Palin’s first charming utter wimp receiving counseling with gorgeous “wife” Carol Cleveland
Tungsten-Carbide Drills
“The Epilogue” : A Question of Belief
Mr. A (Arthur Jackson)

Lows:
Eric Idle’s first (and only) attempt at being the “completely different” guy
Queen Victoria “Vaudevillian” film

Overrated:  The whole “Sheep” theme

Grade: B-

2012: Flickering with energy, just not fully focused yet.  Grade: B

Monty Python’s Flying Circus – Episode 1 (Whither Canada)

Highs: 
Sir Edward………….Ross.
Arthur “Two Sheds”……………Jackson(And a Viking) in a remarkably similar studio.
Palin’s “lost soul” emerging from the water.

Lows:
Terminally mediocre Palin/Jones bit about Picasso on a bicycle.
Early Terry Gilliam misses and “hits”.

Overrated:
The not-very-funny-World’s-Funniest-Joke.

Grade: C+

Braveheart (1995)

Mel Gibson’s extremely fictionalized account of William Wallace and the Scottish struggle for independence from English rule is a true Epic in the classic Hollywood sense – Visually stunning, action-packed, and alternately inspiring and sappily cliche.

Taken as a historical recreation, this is an abysmal failure.  Taken as a work of fiction, it is a triumph whose charming and numerous strengths overcome its annoying weaknesses.

Weaknesses: The same incredibly gory battle scenes that made me “Oooo!” in amazement and delight as a young lad now make me either cringe slightly in frustration and/or disgust or just get through them by spotting the obvious errors in battlefield placement (the Scottish soldier half-heartedly fighting noone is a personal favorite).  In a film like ‘Saving Private Ryan’, similarly disturbing scenes work because they’re SUPPOSED to be disturbing, serving as a reminder of the horrors of a War that too many people have nearly conveniently forgotten.  In ‘Braveheart’, they seem obligatory if not glorified, as if Gibson thought of a lot of interestingly gruesome ways for people to get killed and he was going to make d@mn sure he took this opportunity to display them.

The other major complaint is the interaction between Wallace and the Princess of Wales – not because of its obvious historical impossibility, but because it’s so TOTALLY out of the character that Gibson had worked so hard to establish for Wallace.

On the positive side, the acting is almost uniformly excellent, with Gibson’s lead being outdone especially by Patrick McGoohan as King Edward “Longshanks”, and also by Wallace’s three Lieutenants (Most notably Stephen the Irishman in a bit of brilliantly insane comic relief).

The scenery is absolutely breathtaking, the costumes and soundtrack beautiful, and the script is (for the most part) intelligent, inventive, and gripping.

I cried several times watching this movie over the years, and also felt an undeniable surge of adrenaline and exultation.  When a movie can produce both effects, you know it’s doing something right.

Grade: A-

2012: It’s only a movie…it’s only a movie… Grade: A

10/3/16: Robert the Bruce also deserves a mention for impressive acting, and Gibson does have *some* moments of brilliance; the feelings and thoughts he conveys without words after meeting the Bruce on the battlefield are impressive and undeniable. Grade: A

Anton LaVey Vs. John Doe (Referee: Puppy)

Contrary to Occultist (and undeserved Cult Figure) Aleister Crowley, whose drug-induced “revelations” have about as much credibility as “Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds” (Yes, I know about the drawing), Anton LaVey actually tried to put forth an intelligent intellectual argument in his conglomeration of mostly other people’s ideas known as ‘The Satanic Bible’.  John Doe, from the film ‘Seven’, would likely take issue with LaVey’s stance that the “Seven Deadly Sins” in fact reflect man’s inherently carnal nature and should be embraced, not avoided.  Granted, John Doe was an incredibly sick and disgusting character, but what makes ‘Seven’ so scary is that he is perfectly lucid in his explanations, which are rather more articulate than LaVey’s…e.g…

9/6/12: I’m big enough to admit when I’m wrong…I didn’t really understand Crowley when I wrote this.  Although I put no faith in his spiritual/theological arguments, nor do I “oppose” them…they are, at least, genuine.  Unlike LaVey.  And Crowley, while in my opinion quite flawed and, at times, completely incorrect in his non-spiritual musings, was from what I now understand an extremely intelligent man whose one-line philosophy doesn’t mean what many people think it means.  As a wise(r) man once said, “Those things that are easily understood are rather shallow.”  Unlike LaVey, Crowley was NOT shallow.  Now, onward…

Lust: 
LaVey: Believed it should be embraced in whatever (consensual, legal) way you wanted, including extramarital affairs and relationship infidelity.
Doe: Although he objects based on the morality of the marriage contract with God, he also seems to think it’s wrong to have sex with someone after you’ve promised someone you supposedly Love that you will always be faithful to them.

Winner:  Doe

Pride:
LaVey: Believed that one should be Proud of their accomplishments and abilities, and that Immortality is achieved by performing great deeds on Earth, and being thus remembered.
Doe: Believed that, as was taught in Medieval Times, Pride is a “Sin” even if you don’t believe in the concept of Sin because becoming too full of oneself often leads you to underestimate others and overestimate yourself, and has caused more amazingly stupid defeats than can be counted on all digits (INCLUDING toes).

Winner: Doe

Wrath:
LaVey: Believed that it was proper and just to exercise one’s Wrath upon one’s enemies, assuming (supposedly) it was within the constraints of the Law.  A bit of a contradiction, since violence is rarely lawful.  Then again, the law hasn’t exactly always been in keeping with truth and justice (See “Slavery”).
Doe: Believed that exercising one’s Wrath upon another was a weakness, something only God had the right to do, and would inevitably lead to your own destruction in one form or another.

Winner: Call it a draw…Revenge rarely leads to happiness or closure, but the law itself is a form of revenge against those who do wrong.

Envy:
LaVey: Believed Envy was a driving force in man trying to achieve one’s goals and obtain things desired.
Doe: Believed that everyone should be content and happy with their place in life, and not want for anything they were not provided with.

Winner: LaVey.  From a purely logical standpoint, he makes sense…in moderation.

Sloth:
LaVey: I’m not quite sure how Anton justifies endorsing doing absolutely nothing as part of the basic nature of man.  Sad, really, if he believes it is.
Doe: Believed that Sloth (Apathy, laziness) was wrong as a form of omissive destructiveness.

Winner: Doe…I mean, come on.

Greed:
LaVey: Again, as with Envy, believed Greed motivated people to better themselves.  Or, to quote Gordon Gecko – “Greed is Good”.  Sounds a bit too Capitalistic.
Doe: Believed that Greed motivated people to do things they knew were wrong simply for monetary gain or other relatively meaningless factors.

Winner: Doe.  I’m not a BP fan.

Gluttony:
LaVey: Believed that one should indulge one’s appetites as one wished, that it was every person’s right to consume anything they wished (within legal means)
Doe: Believed that it was wrong for people to eat WAY too much food when millions of people are starving to death.

Winner:  Doe, although this only applies if the excess food is in fact given TO the people that actually need it.  It does no good sitting on store shelves.

After Se7en rounds, the bout goes to Doe, 5 rounds to 1, with one draw.  Still a twisted little thing, though.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949)

George Orwell’s great Novel (as opposed to the “Fairy Story” entitled ‘Animal Farm’) is an intricate, incisive, and terrifying warning against the dangers of blind obedience and the quiet tolerance of unacceptable changes.  It makes absolutely no attempt to moralize, and that’s exactly why it’s so scary…the story is told in a matter-of-fact way that suggests a recital of facts, and nothing more.

That’s not to say that Orwell wasn’t trying to make a point…he most certainly was.  But unlike Aldous Huxley before him and many others after him, he realizes that to inject his own personal feelings into the story explicitly serves only to push the novel towards exactly that which it is objecting to – Propaganda.  The characters are laid out, the rather complicated world is created, and the story unfolds.  It is neither good nor bad…it simply is.  In NOT trying to generate sympathy for his characters or his cause, Orwell succeeds in doing both.

In a similar fashion to ‘Hagakure’, it seems that Orwell is writing in a way that is the limit of what can be understood by most people.  An overly intellectual treatment would serve no more useful purpose, and since the message of non-conformity and freedom of thought/expression/ideas is meant for everyone, it is written for everyone to understand.  You can heed it or you can ignore it…Orwell doesn’t seem to be particularly hopeful it will do any good, and I would tend to agree with him.

Grade: A+

‘The Satanic Bible’ – Updated Analysis (By Puppy)

– Anton LaVey thanks Ragnar Redbeard, whose “Might Makes Right” philosophy would be applauded by Adolf Hitler, among others.  And, of course, no women (until the secondary “thanks”)…because to Anton (although he would never actually come out and say this) women are here on Earth to please men.  I also like the acknowledgement of P.T. Barnum (“There’s a fool born every minute”) as an influence on LaVey…it shows from the start what a fraud he is.

7/23/11: Apparently he thanks him a lot, according to those that contend much of his book is plagiarized from ‘Might Is Right’.  This philosophy is, of course,  abject nonsense,  the sort of mindless drivel spouted by the physically and/or mentally strong when they’re at the height of their powers and conveniently forgotten whenever they actually need help from anyone else.

9/7/12: I suppose there are those who espouse this when physically and/or mentally strong, AND who continue to espouse it even when they become physically and/or mentally weak…but I’m pretty sure the ratio of those “true” believers to fraudulent, bullying scumbags is about 1:1000.

10/21/15: For some reason I was thinking about bugs and this naturally came to mind. Bees, ants, and other insects that have a sense of “community”, at least in SOME way, are NOT LaVeyan. Spiders, cockroaches, ticks, mosquitoes…these are the best LaVeyans on the planet: existing to exist, thinking only and always of themselves (each one), producing nothing. Well, spiders are at least good organic vacuum cleaners.

– The introduction, in which Anton is described as dedicating things to “The Devil”, although he by his own definition defines “The Devil” as a Christian concept…and, being a Christian concept, he must see it as ignorant and foolish. So, he’s dedicating his ceremonies to ignorance and stupidity. Brilliant.

7/23/11: This isn’t completely fair, as he is using “The Devil” as a metaphor in an attempt at parody/mockery/shock value/etc…I don’t think he’s doing it very WELL, but he is doing it.

10/21/15: It’s comedy that’s not funny. Simple as that, really.

– “man’s carnal nature will out no matter how much it is purged or scourged by any white light religion.” – Anton LaVey

Really, Anton? Then how do you explain Mother Theresa, amongst others? You didn’t say “Usually”…you said WILL…meaning always. STRIKE.

7/23/11: My response sounds a bit petulant in retrospect, so I’ll expand it…there’s a huge difference between “carnal” and “brutal and selfish”. To use the example of sexual repression, as opposed to the (non-destructive) display of lust in a consenting manner, as THE nature of man and as something “opposed” by white-light religions is simply deceptive. White-light religions do not by definition attempt to “purge”, “scourge”, or really even repress sexuality. Not ALL of them, at least…the generalities are unfounded and the basis for his reaction is therefore false.

9/7/12: “The sensuous Pagan ritual begins…” – Tom Servo. Sorry, I LOVE that one. No offense to Pagans in general meant in any way.

10/21/15: Clarification: No offense to NON-LaVeyan Pagans meant in any way. If you’re LaVeyan, please stop visiting my website.

– “I came to detest the sanctimonious attitude of people toward violence, always saying it’s God’s will.” – Anton LaVey

I never said that. So…you formed a cult. Brilliant.

7/23/11: Here I agree that to explain something horrible by saying it’s *Insert Deity’s Name Here*’s will is insufficient, at least from an intellectual point of view. But I think, again, he’s lumping in EVERY Theist into the same category, which is, again, a false premise.

9/7/12: Let’s be frank: He’s an angsty post-adolescent venting his frustrations.

10/21/15: He’s a showman with nothing to show, a comedian without material.

– “In my case, I found I could conjure up parking places at the last minute in front of theaters, when none should have been there.” – Anton LaVey

So you just blinked the cars out of existence that otherwise
would have been there…did you wiggle your nose or fold your arms
and nod your head quickly?

7/23/11: I still think my response here is amusing and I have nothing to add.

9/7/12: Personally, I always preferred ‘I Dream Of Jeannie’ to ‘Bewitched’…but that’s a whole other (more interesting and worthy of thought) topic.

10/21/15: Of course the reason I preferred ‘I Dream Of Jeannie’ wasn’t really the writing…also, it strikes me that he must have done the nose-wiggle ‘Bewitched’ thing, because the other one would be really hard whilst driving.

– “Satanism is a blatantly selfish, brutal religion.” – The guy that wrote the foreword.

…ummm…aren’t you supposed to PRAISE what you’re forewording?

10/21/15: Personally I think the vast majority of LaVeyans are idiots, lunatics, or (the majority) a$$holes who want to pretend that they have a “philosophy” behind why they’re such an a$$hole when the reason is…they’re an a$$hole.

– “This is the book of our era.” – second foreword guy.

HAHAHAHAAHAHA!!! Oh…ummm…you’re serious. I wrote better sh1t in Junior High.

7/23/11: Actually according to its Precepts, it isn’t supposed to NECESSARILY be a “blatantly selfish” or “brutal” philosophy (No, it’s not a religion). It’s only used in that way by blatantly selfish and/or brutal people. As for the “book of our era” quote…I think Joel Hodgson said it best – “That’s a reach…that’s a reach.”

– “Crucial to the concept of Satanic ritual is an appreciation of its illustrative and inspirational qualities without necessarily regarding it as inflexible reality.”

Translation – It’s good theater! Well…so is Rocky Horror…

7/23/11: Form over function is perfectly fine for a lifestyle or a hobby, but as a personal guiding philosophy it leaves a lot to be desired.

9/7/12: Do not AVOID the Hounds of Hell…do not AVOID the Beasts of Brimstone…do not AVOID the Pup..pies of…Pur..ga…tory…

10/21/15: I’m sorry, I lost interest, where was I?

– “Satan…Although condemned to the most hideous of domains, a Hell totally shunned by the divinity, he embraced such privations as the burden of his intellectual prerogative.”

Ummm…no. Actually Satan/Lucifer/TheDumbAngel was cast out
of Heaven, according to Christian mythology. So unless Anton found some Holy books that say otherwise, he’s using Christian mythology to denounce Christian mythology…which doesn’t quite
work. If Satan (If he exists) was offered a chance to go back to Heaven, he’d say “OK!” and leave all his pathetic “followers” behind.

7/23/11: This part is actually the most convincing/factual of all the quotes thus far…Lucifer WAS, in fact, cast out of Heaven for refusing to obey God’s will (If you believe in such things), and he did start off as a bit of a “tragic hero” before being consumed by his own (justified or not) hatred and bitterness. I still stand by the last part though…he’d leave in a second if he could (Again, if you believe in such things).

9/7/12: To wage a war you know you cannot win can be considered noble. It can also be considered insane. A matter of perspective, I suppose. <=== That’s NOT a snide comment.

10/21/15: Ten bucks says Anton used a Thesaurus for this.

– “The Satanic Bible is a most insidious document.”

No…it would have to be clever to be insidious.

7/23/11: Ditto.

9/7/12: If it’s so insidious, why do you have to SAY that it’s insidious? That’s like one of those cr@ppy 50’s horror film posters with the word “TERRIFYING!” on it.

10/21/15: EXPLOSIVE…A MUST-SEE…

– “As candid and conversational as the Satanic Bible might seem at first glance, it is not a volume to be gently dismissed.”

Sure it is!

7/23/11: Ok, ok…perhaps not “gently dismissed”. It’s better written than that. But dismissed nonetheless.

9/7/12: You are the weakest LaVey. Goodbye.

10/21/15: Well, at least you can take a picture of it.

– “You, the reader, are about to be impaled upon the sharp horns of a Satanic dilemma. If you accept the propositions of this book, you condemn your most cherished sanctuaries to annihilation. In return you will awaken – but only to the most fiery of Hells. Should you reject the argument, you resign yourself to a cancerous disintegration of your previously subconscious sense of identity. Small wonder that the Archfiend’s legacy has won him so many bitter enemies! Whatever your decision, it can be avoided no longer”

WOW! This sounds like it’d make a decent “Choose-Your-Own-Adventure” book…maybe Steve Jackson can re-write it and make it more interesting.

7/23/11: Hmmm…I certainly was a bit bitter, no? Although I was a funny guy…

9/7/12: I was just funny, you know.

12/19/12: You know…just, the way I talk…you know, like a clown…

10/21/15: Get the fck outta here…

-Puppy Yip!

10/21/15: Edited for appearance.

Brave New World (1932)

Two book reviews, two Doors appropriations.  Unfortunately, this time the source in question (Aldous Huxley, ‘The Doors of Perception’) isn’t nearly as interesting as the previous one (Yamamoto Tsunetomo, ‘Hagakure’).

‘Brave New World’ starts out ambitiously enough, suggests an extremely interesting idea, and then takes it absolutely nowhere you don’t expect it to go. 

As with ‘Equilibrium’ (although this isn’t anywhere NEAR as bad) the aspirations far exceed the accomplishment, although ‘Brave New World’ does at least maintain a constant level of moderate interest, a fervent hope that perhaps, eventually, it will regain/fulfill the promise of the opening/hype.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t, and the ending is as much symbolic of my relief of escaping Huxley’s ‘World’ as it is the very real relief of the “Savage”.

The name references are obvious, the progression is obvious, the explanations and counter-arguments are obvious…basically, this has the ambition of ‘1984’ with the verbal and conceptual simplicity of ‘Animal Farm’, only with much less subtlety and charm.

Sadly, any two-paragraph review of the plot is about as interesting as the entire book itself, and wastes far less of your time.  If he did in fact plagiarize this, he didn’t do it very well. 

The kind of “work of art” people sneer at when others have the audacity to label it a “classic”.

Grade: C

In Appreciation

“When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought
like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became
a man, I put childish ways behind me.” – Corinthians 13:11

…

“…I do not know what I may appear to the world; but
to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing
on the sea-shore, and diverting myself by now and
then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell
than ordinary, while the great ocean of truth lay
all undiscovered before me…” – Sir Isaac Newton

Hagakure (1716)

Propelled into the relative mainstream by the 1999 Jim Jarmusch film ‘Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai’, this collection of observations (translated roughly as “Hidden Leaves”) is extremely diverse, focusing on everything from the very mundane basic aspects of everyday life to deep philosophical/spiritual concepts, some of which I still don’t fully understand.  But that’s the point, as (to quote the book) “Those things that are easily understood are rather shallow”.

The book consists of comments recorded between 1709-1716 by Tsuramoto Tashiro as told by the samurai Yamamoto Tsunetomo.  There is very little linear order to it, as there is no clear progression from “start” to “finish”, but perhaps that’s intentional…it’s clearly not something to be read casually or simply memorized.

There seem to me to be three distinct types of entries: Physical/Mental Instruction, Philosophical Observation, and Historical Recollection…although sometimes two (or all three) intertwine.  I frankly found very little use for some of the memories recorded, not because they weren’t interesting but because, in comparison with the other entries, they had very little to actually think about and/or “use”.

The wisdom displayed in the book is truly profound, which is made that much more impressive because I get the distinct impression that most of it wasn’t MEANT to be profound, simply told in as complex a fashion as Tsunetomo believed most people would be able to actually comprehend.  It can be a bit tedious wading through the recollections…not to say that they’re boring, but they simply have nowhere near the power of the most far-reaching of the observations. 

Knowledge gained too quickly often is lacking in wisdom, and whether intentionally or not, this is certainly a book that (contrary to Tsunetomo’s own advice) must be re-read many times to even begin to fully understand.  Which is a good thing, I think.

When a book can inspire a lyric that is considered profound 251 years later, you know it’s something special.  Watch the movie (‘Ghost Dog’) for a (then)-modern day “interpretation” of ‘Hagakure’, but read the book itself if you want anything near the real, intended experience.

Grade: A

10/4/12: It cannot be explained simply, because it’s not simple.  Read it.  Grade: A+

Land Of The Dead (2005)

The precise moment when George A. Romero FINALLY gets some real actors to work with is the precise moment he creates his greatest film and definitive statement, better even than the original ‘Night’ or the mercilessly cynical and anti-commercial (but quite cheezy) (original) – sequel ‘Dawn’.

Simon Baker (showing that “Good Guys” need neither be Pure nor Stupid), the late (great) Dennis Hopper (showing once again that inflection and attitude can make ALL the difference) and especially the vastly underrated John Leguizamo (pushing an ultra-cocky attitude that only a VERY few actors, including himself, could fully pull off) are all first-rate.

The supporting cast is almost as good, especially Robert Joy as the somewhat-unwanted sidekick and Eugene Clark as “Big Daddy”, the most intelligent of the zombies (Yes, they’re getting smarter).

The unrated/uncut version is grotesquely gruesome, and while I’m sure that a lot of the same people that liked the original movie not for the story or the message but for the shock value will revel in it, to me it’s irrelevant…perhaps a necessary reminder of the horrid contrast between the Have’s (Fiddler’s Green) and the Have-Not’s (Everyone else), and a grim depiction of Inhumanity versus Humanity, but purely secondary to the acting and character development.  That’s not to say it’s “gratuitous”, it’s used to horrifying effect and makes the movie’s endgame that much more Hopeful.

The story is a multi-layered version of ‘Night”s claustrophobic inevitability, and while I won’t spoil it by telling every detail of what happens (That’s what Wikipedia is for, if you want to know) I will say that it is extremely good from start to finish. 

When people talk about loving or hating horror movies, this is where the divide should be:  Only those that absolutely refuse to watch a film that is violent even if it is of extremely high quality won’t derive pleasure from this, while those that simply crave gore will probably be a bit disappointed that Romero didn’t spend less time having his characters talk and more time having them dismember…or be dismembered, as the case may or may not be.

Inspirational Quote: “No.  They’re just looking for a place to go.  Same as us.”

Grade: A-

2012: Add Asia Argento to the supporting cast mentions.  Her and Baker win in the “Most adorable romance that you KNOW will eventually lead to LOTS of sex using mild flirtation only as their lives hang in the balance” category.  I had to watch this again to make sure I wasn’t over-rating it as a thankful reaction to most gore film sh1t.  I wasn’t.  Grade: A-

6/23/18: Yes I was. Grade: B

Equilibrium (2002)

A cult seems to have sprung up around this movie for reasons I can’t fully understand.

Yes, the idea is a brilliant one.  Unfortunately, it’s not ‘Equilibrium”s idea.  But beyond the concept of totally rehashing previous films/books, which is a weak argument at best considering that many fine movies do exactly that (see “sequels”), there is just nothing here beyond the opening scene (Which is quite violent – get used to it, love it or not – but also displays a certain inventiveness in combat choreography and a mild subtlety to its character development and foreshadowing that seems to be lost during the rest of the movie) that’s worth watching in any way, shape, or form that could in any way be considered an advancement or even a worthy homage to an idea not already driven into the ground with the finesse of a Peter Gabriel.

LET THERE BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

Perhaps fans of the over-rated but still vastly superior ‘American Psycho’ are just humming Genesis and Huey Lewis and The News songs as Christian Bale trudges woodenly through Ch..ch…ch…ch…changes in (I guess you could call them) emotions during his painstakingly reinforced metamorphosis from cold-blooded killer to warm-blooded killer (I mean “Freedom Fighter”), but for me, the promising professional mediocrity of the opening scene having long since worn off since…the opening scene, the final moment of tolerance comes during a dog-killing spree that apparently was the result of a “Creative” meeting that must have gone something like this:

(Man) “Hmmm…the script kinda sucks, how exactly are we going to keep people horrified?”
(Other Man) “How about burning priceless works of art?”
(Man) “Not enough…”
(Other Other Man) “How about flashbacks to traumatic moments?”
(Man) “Nope…”
(Woman) “How about actual character development?”
(Man) “Shut up!”
(Other Other Other Man) “How about killing defenseless little cute adorable animals?  Ummm…Kittens?”
(Man) “PUPPIES!!!”
(ALL) “BRILLIANT!”

Grade: D-

2012: Housekeeping and re-evaluation.

Grade: F

4/23/16: Like ‘Fight Club’, ‘Saw’, and other movies I think are VASTLY overrated, I WANT to rank this lower than it deserves; sort of a counter-balance in the overreaction department. Unfortunately, critical integrity demands that I not. So…it just really stinks.

Grade: D-

Jokey!

Ok…if you were from the Scandinavian Peninsula, and you also happened to be a character in the game “Mortal Kombat”…and you were fighting someone else in the game, and you had them almost beaten, and they were helpless and you could execute a really cool finishing move on them…what would it say?

“Finnish Him!”

HA!

-Puppy >.< Grrr…

Ayn Rand

‘Atlas Shrugged’ appears to be saying – Creative people are inherently better than everyone else, even though for the most part, you’re either born creative or not…you can’t “work” on “making” yourself creative.  Yes, there’s a certain element of hard work that goes along with producing works of art, but if you have no Creativity to begin with, the likelihood of producing the next great film or novel simply by “trying hard” is virtually nil.

So, what Rand is saying is…if you’re born lucky enough to be creative, even if you did absolutely nothing to deserve (or not deserve) this, you’re better than everyone else, and if they don’t appreciate you, screw ’em, cuz poor people and “non-creatives” are just parasites anyway, living off the inspiration of the “gifted”.

I guess she’s lucky she was (moderately) creative, though…because, much like, say…Woody Allen, another (VERY moderately) creative person, she is so enormously repulsive physically that the only way she (and he) got (get) laid is by being “deep”. 

Although I’ll say this for Rand…at least she didn’t target her next partner while raising them.

Come on, though…shave off E.A. Poe’s moustache and I think we’ve unveiled proof of resurrection.

-Puppy >.< Grrr…

6/3/16: Eugenics is bad, m’kay?

FAIR USE: CRITICISM

This clip is a very good display of the dumb arrogance of eugenics.

A Wise Man Once Said…

“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there
is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.” – Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein, Agnostic.

I was offered the suggestion that religion of all sorts should be done away with.  The rationalization for this is that, if there were no religions, there would therefore be no religious conflict.

This rationalization is simplistic, incomplete, and completely flawed.

The purpose of the fervent Skeptic is to seek Truth.

The seeking of Truth brings one into areas of different views.

Since no Human Being thinks exactly as another, conflict MUST arise when seeking one’s own Truth in the manner of rationalization.

Therefore, if the purpose of doing away with religion is to do away with conflict, then the purpose of X is to do away with conflict.

Therefore, if removing X would remove conflict, it should be removed.

Imagine then, how many things could be factored in for X.

Love, Lust, Passion, Emotion of any kind, Competition(Sports), Differences of any sort between individuals, as differences can produce conflict.

Therefore, the ideal “Rational” world is one where everyone likes the same music, reads the same books, obeys the same laws, has the same values, has the same (lack of) religion, has no emotions, does not compete in any way, does only what is logical…in short, Human Beings as computers.

As a (fictional) wise man once said…

“Computers make excellent and efficient servants.  But I have no desire to serve under them.”

-Puppy >.< Grrr…