Saturday, November 27, 2004

I've noticed that in a lot of people's profiles/sub-profiles/blogs/whatevers, they've been putting things like: "Note to George Lucas: Star Wars Episode III better be awesome!"

Well, allow me to issue a statement of my own to Giant Assface, I mean, George Lucas.

"Do not make Star Wars Episode III. Just pull the plug and cancel it. You've sullied the good name of Star Wars, and there's not a shadow of a doubt in my mind that Episode III will be terrible. I don't care about 'unanswered questions' or 'wrapping up lose ends'. I care about salvaging what little dignity Star Wars has left. Just quit. You created some nice characters. But you suck at storytelling. Just retire and sell the stories to someone with some talent."

That is all.

Sunday, November 21, 2004

So, I recently got back from a trip from Florida, and I would tell you all about it, but that would involve me recounting everything that happened, and then I'd have to type it all out, and I already know what happened since I was there, so it would be boring for me. So I'm not going to do that.

What I am going to say is despite the fact that it was a nine day break from work and school, I already can't wait for my next break from work and school, Thanksgiving Break. Yes, I get work off on those days too, which kicks ass.

Sigh... stress. I don't even know where it's coming from. School and work aren't taking THAT much of a toll.... I just get stressed.

Ah well.

Thursday, November 18, 2004

We were friends
Once, so long ago
He and I
Now things are different


When we were young
We’d play all day
Without a care in the world
Side by side


We were inseparable
He much younger
I much older
He looked up to me…


He looked up to me
Looked to me to be his guide
And I did guide him
For a while


Years went by
Things changed
I found new friends
He did not

We drifted apart
I was glad
Glad to have moved on
Glad to be rid of him


“He never gives me a moment’s peace!”
“He’s always pestering me!”
“I can’t hang out with him all the time!”
“He’s not my only friend.”


But I was his.
And I abandoned him.
I hurt him
I destroyed him


Now he has new friends
Bad friends
Dangerous friends
And he wants to die


He lost his way
And he looked to me to guide
And I was no longer there
Because I had lost mine


He found new guides
In desperation
In my absence
And these guides destroyed him


I failed him
I failed my friend
Now he’s not my friend
My friend is dead


Because I killed him
Because I abandoned him
My friend. My friend.
I killed my friend


My friend who was always there for me
Was once my only friend
We were friends
Once, so long ago…


I am the worst human being in the entire universe. Just thought I should warn you all.

Goodnight.

Friday, November 05, 2004

I've decided to do something different with today's post. I've decided to do a book review. Why? Well, A) its been a while since I've found a book that was interesting enough for me to blow through in a week like I did with this particular novel, and B) its a novel that I feel is greatly underrated and very, very misunderstood.

The novel is William Peter Blatty's The Exorcist.

Now, I know what a lot of people are thinking. "Ugh, how could you read that dreck! That horrible filth that does nothing but glorify the devil and demonic possession."

Well, no. If you actually read the book, you'll see that while the events that transpire are very horrific, and I won't lie, extraordinarily offensive, you'll also see that at the core, the novel isn't about the demonic possession at all. Its about the conflict between good and evil. Its about how doubt and faithlessness concieve powerlessness. How sometimes there are things that go beyond the help of science, or medicine. How sometimes, in order to save a life, logic and facts must be put asside and replaced by faith and courage to face the unknown.

I borrowed this summary from Amazon.com, because if I tried to summarize the novel, it would take forever.

"A visiting actress in Washington, D.C., Chris MacNeil, notices dramatic and dangerous changes in the behavior and physical make-up of her 12-year-old daughter, Regan. Meanwhile, a young priest at nearby Georgetown University begins to doubt his faith while dealing with his mother's terminal sickness. And, book-ending the story, a frail, elderly priest recognizes the necessity for a show-down with an old demonic enemy."

That's the very basic version. As it turns out, the 12 year old girl's behavior simply cannot be explained by medical science. Every doctor she is taken to is baffled, every psychiatrist completely at a loss (particularly the one that is attacked by the girl.) Finally, the atheistic actress turns to her last resort, as often is the case with the previously faithless: the Church.

Enter Father Karras, a priest whose mother has recently succumbed to illness, a priest who feels guilty for, as he sees it, abandoning his mother for his faith. Karras has, for quite a while, begun to feel heavy doubts in his beliefs, and throughout the novel, inwardly tries to rationalize everything that happens to Regan. Some of his rationalizations become even less believable than the idea of a higher power being in control, but Karras is afraid of re-embracing his faith for fear that he'll just be disappointed again. Finally, still not completely certain of his faith, he requests permission to perform an exorcism on the girl.

Enter Father Merrin. The Church, well aware of Karras's crisis of faith, opts to bring in an experienced exorcist, a man who had his own crisis of faith until he was forced into a showdown with a devil years ago during a dramatic exorcism in Africa.

I won't ruin everything, but basically by the end of the novel, Karras realizes the only way to truly save Regan from the devil that has infected her, is to abandon his "rationalizations" and come to terms with the fact that only through God, and faith, can he hope to defeat not only Regan's literal demon, but his internal, metaphorical demons as well.

I find this to be a very good message indeed. Now, a lot of people will say "Okay, he tacked on a happy message, but that's not excuse for the vulgarity.

In all honestly, I don't think the message would have had as much of an impact, were it not for the absolutely graphic and vile nature of the demonic entity. Willam Peter Blatty included the vulgarity, and purposely made it offensive to get across one message: there does exist true, extreme, absolute, and unadulturated evil in this world. Evil that does not hold back. Evil that will scar. Evil that will do the worst imaginable things. But that there is a very real and effective defense against this evil. Faith. Through faith in God, even such powerful, pure evil can be defeated.

The Exorcist was a very powerful novel. It was very gritty, very realistic, and very raw. And it also came with a very good message. It isn't a message for everyone, however. If you're perfectly satisfied with your faith and beliefs, and have a distaste for the horror genre, you may just find The Exorcist nothing but offensive and disturbing. But if your one who constantly forgets that God is in all things, that He shouldn't be a last resort, but a first resort, and that through faith in Him even the most vile of darknesses can be lifted... one like me, who unfortunately sometimes places too much in front of his faith... The Exorcist can be just the jolt you need.

That, and its a damn good read. It's very well written, and very, very enthralling. If you enjoy good literature, you'll most likely enjoy The Exorcist.

There's also a sequel called Legion, which I plan on picking up. You'll most likely find a review of that one later.

So, to make a long story short, The Exorcist was a good novel. Well written, good message, but you may want to stay away from it if you don't like scary stuff or are easily offended. I won't lie, the book made me cringe a few times and made my nights a little more restless. And that's kinda tough to do, for me. But, it wasn't anything unbearable.

Anyway, books are good. That's my main point.

Au revoir, kiddies.

Tuesday, November 02, 2004

Okay, I feel really dumb for how I handled the whole Bush thing a few posts ago. I really don't hate the guy. I was pissed off at a particular Bush supporter I knew and needlessly flew off the handle at Bush.

However, I still stand by a lot of the things I said.

I'd also like to address Poster #1. (Whom I think I know who they are, and I'm sure they're not trying to hide their identity, but at the risk of my being wrong, I'll refrain from saying their name.

I still am not convinced on the Weapons of Mass Destruction thing. I haven't found what I would consider a single reliable source that says anything about weapons being found. Plus, as I said, everytime he's addressed about no weapons being found, Bush begrudginly concedes. The first debate, when Kerry specifically brought this up are a prime example of that. And thirdly, I decided to go to the source, and check a guy in the know. I asked my Uncle John, and he said he wasn't sure, but as far as he knew.... no, nothing was found. Of course, he's not the president, and he's not directly involved with the Iraqi War, so its possible he's wrong, I dunno.

Secondly... the arguement on North Korea didn't add up. North Korea wouldn't hesitate to bomb us, there's an entire ocean separating us, but there's only a line on a map separating them from China. China has the largest army in the world and is on good terms with the Koreans. I doubt they'd fear an attack from North Korea. I don't think the Korean's would dare attack China, they know they'd be crushed instantly. I still say the "Let China handle them" policy is no good.

Oh, and that whole Iraq is responsible for terrorism, JUST because they're anti-America... THAT was the weakest arguement I've ever heard. I don't care who said it. That doesn't work. Anti-Americanism breeds terrorism, eh? Well, better get rid of the entire European Union (except for Lapdog Town, I mean, England), most of Asia, Canada, Cuba, three or four countries in South America, the Middle-East, and half the population of America itself, they're all Terror-breeders!

And thirdly, basically, your arguement on Iraq becoming an unstable terror zone was "oh well, the Middle-East is known for this, big deal." I find that completely unnacceptable. If its okay for Iraq to degenerate into instability and chaos after we went through so much trouble to boot out the dictator and install a new government, then our going over there really WAS useless. I think the Iraqi's deserve as much time as they want for their elections. Forcing them to have elections by OUR deadlines isn't a good plan. And despite the fact that I said I don't hate Bush, I DO hate Donald Rumsfeld with a fiery vengeance. Alex, you seem fond of hurling insults at anyone that hopes for true peace in Iraq. Bush supporters seem fond of saying "Well, its stupid to hope for any real peace over there, that's just the way it is in the Middle-East!" Okay... so we didn't go over there to achieve peace for the Iraqi people? Then, when you bring up the WMD thing, people say "Well, that wasn't Bush's ONLY reason for invading!" Okay... so... if it wasn't for the weapons... and it wasn't for peace... what was it for, exactly?

Lastly, I have to admit that I completely agree with you on the stance of abortion. I think abortion is horrible and wrong. But, as bad as this is going to sound, its not really much of an issue for me, because I guarantee you no matter who is in charge, or what their stance on abortion is, it's legality is never going to change. I guarantee it.

That being said... election night. Tonight. Hope it doesn't end up like 2000.

Au revoir.

Monday, November 01, 2004

I would like to take this opportunity to retract one of my opening statements from my last entry. Where I said it was "stupid" to support Bush.

I disagree with Bush, and I support Kerry. But I don't think people that support Bush are stupid.

Have a nice day. And go vote.
Okay, I've had it. I've been trying to keep my damn opinions to myself on this whole election thing, but I can't do it anymore. Too many people support Bush. It's stupid. I don't get it.

Kerry's a flip-flop. I know this. I'm not an idiot. And heaven forbid a man should actually change his mind on something. I suppose Kerry should be more like President Bush. Stick with his stance no matter what, even if the facts proving your fallacy are specifically placed directly in front of your face dozens upon dozens of times.

Bush said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There were not. Bush said there was a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaida. Okay, sure... if by connection, you mean Saddam Hussein himself was on the Al-Qaida's hitlist. Bush said finding Osama Bin Laden was a number one priorty. Then, a few weeks ago in a response to accusations that Bush was putting the situation with Iraq ahead of the situation with Afghanistan, he retorts with a "Osama Bin Laden is no longer a concern." Hmmm... didn't Bush say something about not resting until Bin Laden had been found? Now he's no longer a concern? The most dangerous man in the world, the first person in 60 years to launch such a devestatingly effective attack on the United States is still at large and no longer a concern?! I guess that's what happens you outsmart Bush... he decides to pretend you're no longer a threat. Its called the Ostrich Syndrome. If you pretend not to see something, it ain't really there. Bush tries to pretend he no longer sees Bin Laden as a problem. Therefore, he no longer is. See how that works? Good. Moving right along.

Bush is ignoring the situation with North Korea. I like how Iraq, a nation that has nothing to do with us, a nation that we stopped from invading another nation (Kuwait, a nation ruled by an absolute monarch which is OBVIOUSLY nothing like a dictatorship. ** slow sarcastic clap **), a nation that ALLEGEDLY had weapons of mass destruction, is higher on the priorities list than a nation that has OPENLY STATED that they are developing nuclear weapons, and has said, also openly, that they plan to use these weapons on the United States. "Let China handle them." says Bush. Oh, wonderful idea! Let a giant crazy Communist nation handle the smaller crazy Communist nation! I wish I were as brilliant a tactition as Bush.

So now we've taken Saddam Hussein out of power. Okay. That's good. He was evil.

We also completely destablized the nation and given thousands of psychotic guerilla factions the opening they were looking for. And now one of George Bush's cohorts, the equally brilliant Donald Rumsfeld is pushing for free elections in Iraq in January no matter what. Even though the Iraqi people protest the elections saying they need more time. Only about 15% of the population will even be capable of voting come January. "Oh well!" says Rumsfeld, all smiles. "Nothing's perfect!"

** More slow, sarcastic clapping **

Brilliant. So, when the elections DO take place, and people are "elected", people that 85% of the population had no say in one way or the other.... well.... that 85% probably isn't going to be happy. So then we'll have a nation full of angry people unhappy with their new "democratically elected" leaders, leaders who do NOT have the strength to stave off any revolutions.

Don't think the Iraqi people would revolt so quickly? Why don't you go look up Iraq's history before Saddam's Ba'ath Party took power.

This of course will only give the guerilla factions an even stronger foothold, and Iraq will become a war torn, revolutionary nation with a powerless government that has to keep itself secreted away from the dozens of would-be assassins, while everyday life is governed by radical guerilla fighters and.... the dreaded t-word... terrorists!!

And of course the people will be unhappy about this. And who will the terrorists tell them to blame?

The same people they ALWAYS tell them to blame. Us. America. They'll say "America destroyed your government and stability! America forced you to behave the way they do! And look what its gotten you!!"

Then there will just be one more place for Osama and his crew to hide and orchestrate their networks from.

And President Bush maintains that if he had to do it all over again, he would change absolutely nothing. He would follow the same course of action to the T. Mission accomplished, right Mr. President?

John Kerry has admitted his mistakes in the past. Kerry is willing to admit when he's wrong, and do what he has to to go back and correct the problem. He plans on attempting to branch out and form a true coalition of nations to restabilize Iraq. George Bush won’t allow this. Because nations like France, Germany, and Russia refused to fight in Bush’s war (for shame! Not allying yourself to fight in a foreign war that effects you approximately zero percent!) Bush won’t allow them to be part of the reconstruction. Never mind that it would be much more logical for several nations to help in the reconstruction, and that security and popular support in the U.S. would be greater, these nations have to learn their lesson! If you don’t do what George Bush says, you have to sit in the corner for five minutes! George Bush believes himself to be infallible. He will not go back and correct any of his mistakes because he doesn't believe he's made any. And he responds to any accusations of mistakes made with hostility. You try to correct him, he just gets angry. Basically, it almost seems like he feels peoples' protest of his policies is even MORE of an incentive for him to stick to his course.

John Kerry MUST be elected president this Tuesday. There's already an enormous mess that Bush is sitting on top of, refusing to clean up, with his arms crossed and a pouty expression on his face. If he's allowed to do this for four more years, who knows how large that pile will have grown to and how badly it will have festered.

Vote for John Kerry on November 2nd. Please.

Kerry/Edwards '04: For a Stronger America