Gamera! Gamera!
Gamera is really neat!
Gamera is filled with meat!
We've been eating Gamera!
Shells! Teeth! Eyes! Flames! Claws! Breath! Scales! FUN!
Gamera is super sweet!
He is filled with turtle meat!
We believe in Gamera!
Friday, September 30, 2011
On Gamera
As it stands, blogspot will not allow me to post a comment on my own blog because: "'goog' is undefined". If I had access to source, I could use my super programming powers to fix. However, I don't, so I can't. Rather than attempt to resolve political problems and reach sublime levels of ivory-tower enlightenment, enjoy this:
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
On Christian Victimology
John recently quoted a statistic regarding opinions on same sex unions, which stated that those in favor accounted for 52%, those opposed, 48%. This statistic is important, not just because those in favor represent a majority, but because this figure is so close to 50/50. It might be true that the equal strength of these two opposite opinions might account for the heated rhetoric when it comes to subject. Something to ponder.
Now, the trend over time is toward toleration of homosexuality and gay unions. That's not just practical or political, but philosophical too. People are feeling more and more that there's nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality, and that it's not harmful to society to allow gays to settle down. Conversely, some are feeling more and more that there's something wrong with those who do not accept homosexuality. It seems logical at this point to assume the trend is going to continue in that direction.
There's a fine line between acceptance and tolerance, and I do believe that there's plenty of room for religious dissent and freedom of opinion, but that's something of a side point. Mainly, I'd like to answer to the opinion of some Christians that they are being victimized because of their beliefs.
In as much as a man can criticize any person or idea in this country, he himself is not free from criticism. It is not a question of which opinion has merit. It is not a question of whether homosexuality is actually wrong. It is not a question of whether it's fair to call Catholics or Southern Baptists bigots simply for their code of morality. Right or wrong, in this country we are free to believe any ridiculous, stupid, even hateful thing that we wish.
The media is within their rights to act on bias by giving liberal or conservative voices disproportionate focus. An individual is within his rights to protest... anything. Our society as a whole is within its rights to turn their opinion against one group or another. It may feel horrible to be a minority which is unfairly hounded, but too bad.
I am not oppressed when Wanda Sykes appears on my TV to tell me to "knock it off" when it comes to using "gay" as a coloquialism to mean "dumb"; although I am annoyed by it. When one party says, "You aren't allowed to do this", "You aren't allowed to think this", and their words have the weight of law and civil authority behind them - that is a question of oppression. That is legitimately a a matter of victimization.
Make no mistake, there is nothing necessarily wrong with authorities making victims of people. It is, by design, one intended purpose of society. We victimize those convicted of crimes by placing them in prison, or executing them. We victimize the rich by forcing them to pay a higher marginal tax rate (which they, in turn, avoid with loophole, but nonetheless...). Whenever the force of law is executed, a victim is created.
The question is, is the benefit to society as a whole (the greater good) worth the collateral damage? If it's a question of outlawing anti-gay speech, I would say that it is certainly not worth the damage to individual rights. Luckily, I know of no such bill currently under consideration. Why did I just waste my time illustrating such an outlandish notion? I'm not sure. Where was I going with this again? Oh yeah: Stay outta my booze.
No! OK, back on track. A more feasible possibility is a business owner being sued for denying service to a homosexual. Which has a greater value (the greater good) to our society, preventing victimization of the store owner, or store patron? I think the homosexual patron would have the stronger case, but I guess it's open for debate. My point is this: this case, and others like it, are not simply a matter of Christians being run roughshod over because of their beliefs. There is not one victim here, but two. Not one aggressor, but two. Two competing worldviews are duking it out in field of public opinion. This is one battle in a greater culture war. Lawmakers do their best to balance the interests of various parties to find a balance (the greater good - SHUT IT) that serves the public interest. In the past, they might have been more inclined to side with a shopkeep against a minority that people don't care for, or are indifferent to. Now, it's more likely to side with a minority who wants a sandwich from the shop that everyone else is eating at.
Does that mean Christianity is being oppressed? No, I don't think so. I don't think that's a fair characterization. We are not forcing any particular church to perform a gay ceremony. We are not forcing churches to change their theology. And we're certainly not forming an Outback Nazi Law Enforcement Agency to hunt down and exterminate the intolerant. Nor are there any plans to do so. So yeah, I think such characterizations are overblown, and dishonest.
Now, the trend over time is toward toleration of homosexuality and gay unions. That's not just practical or political, but philosophical too. People are feeling more and more that there's nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality, and that it's not harmful to society to allow gays to settle down. Conversely, some are feeling more and more that there's something wrong with those who do not accept homosexuality. It seems logical at this point to assume the trend is going to continue in that direction.
There's a fine line between acceptance and tolerance, and I do believe that there's plenty of room for religious dissent and freedom of opinion, but that's something of a side point. Mainly, I'd like to answer to the opinion of some Christians that they are being victimized because of their beliefs.
In as much as a man can criticize any person or idea in this country, he himself is not free from criticism. It is not a question of which opinion has merit. It is not a question of whether homosexuality is actually wrong. It is not a question of whether it's fair to call Catholics or Southern Baptists bigots simply for their code of morality. Right or wrong, in this country we are free to believe any ridiculous, stupid, even hateful thing that we wish.
The media is within their rights to act on bias by giving liberal or conservative voices disproportionate focus. An individual is within his rights to protest... anything. Our society as a whole is within its rights to turn their opinion against one group or another. It may feel horrible to be a minority which is unfairly hounded, but too bad.
I am not oppressed when Wanda Sykes appears on my TV to tell me to "knock it off" when it comes to using "gay" as a coloquialism to mean "dumb"; although I am annoyed by it. When one party says, "You aren't allowed to do this", "You aren't allowed to think this", and their words have the weight of law and civil authority behind them - that is a question of oppression. That is legitimately a a matter of victimization.
Make no mistake, there is nothing necessarily wrong with authorities making victims of people. It is, by design, one intended purpose of society. We victimize those convicted of crimes by placing them in prison, or executing them. We victimize the rich by forcing them to pay a higher marginal tax rate (which they, in turn, avoid with loophole, but nonetheless...). Whenever the force of law is executed, a victim is created.
The question is, is the benefit to society as a whole (the greater good) worth the collateral damage? If it's a question of outlawing anti-gay speech, I would say that it is certainly not worth the damage to individual rights. Luckily, I know of no such bill currently under consideration. Why did I just waste my time illustrating such an outlandish notion? I'm not sure. Where was I going with this again? Oh yeah: Stay outta my booze.
No! OK, back on track. A more feasible possibility is a business owner being sued for denying service to a homosexual. Which has a greater value (the greater good) to our society, preventing victimization of the store owner, or store patron? I think the homosexual patron would have the stronger case, but I guess it's open for debate. My point is this: this case, and others like it, are not simply a matter of Christians being run roughshod over because of their beliefs. There is not one victim here, but two. Not one aggressor, but two. Two competing worldviews are duking it out in field of public opinion. This is one battle in a greater culture war. Lawmakers do their best to balance the interests of various parties to find a balance (the greater good - SHUT IT) that serves the public interest. In the past, they might have been more inclined to side with a shopkeep against a minority that people don't care for, or are indifferent to. Now, it's more likely to side with a minority who wants a sandwich from the shop that everyone else is eating at.
Does that mean Christianity is being oppressed? No, I don't think so. I don't think that's a fair characterization. We are not forcing any particular church to perform a gay ceremony. We are not forcing churches to change their theology. And we're certainly not forming an Outback Nazi Law Enforcement Agency to hunt down and exterminate the intolerant. Nor are there any plans to do so. So yeah, I think such characterizations are overblown, and dishonest.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Primary Update
There is some buzz over Governor Christie possibly entering the race. I'm thinking if someone new (Christie or otherwise) officially announces candidacy, I'll open the books so folks can adjust their bets. You can make any change you want. A new candidate potentially changes the whole dynamic, so it only seems fair. The books will stay open for 7 days, so take your time.
Also, if all things stay equal, John and I will tie if Romney wins nomination. How about a tiebreaker? Maybe on running mate? Or number of states carried in the general election? I'm open to suggestions, whaddayathink?
Also, if all things stay equal, John and I will tie if Romney wins nomination. How about a tiebreaker? Maybe on running mate? Or number of states carried in the general election? I'm open to suggestions, whaddayathink?
Friday, September 23, 2011
Against the GOP
I've attempted many times to write something about the state of the Republican party, and the current conservative movement. Something in the nature of the nuts taking over the nuthouse, religious fringe hijacking the party, or angry dumb mobs (read: Tea Party) shouting down what little is left of reasonable discourse in politics.
I simply can't find the words. I'm too emotionally involved in this. I'm too outraged and upset to be playful with words. It's probably true that this will come and go. Like all events that seem too great to get over, too apocalyptic, it will eventually pass. I can accept that likelyhood.
However, it's not just that it's a bad thing for the country. It's not just that it's bad for governance during a recession. It's not just - incorrect or imprudent. It's vile. Truly vile. What these people are is simply repulsive. Everytime I think about casting my thoughts into words on the subject, I can only shake in impotent rage over these wretches. These subhumans. These pathetic excuses for human beings that make up the conservative "base", that apparently has the ear of leadership.
Here's a clip from the last debate, where viewers booed a gay service member who submitted a video question to Rick Santorum.
You don't boo a service member. Period. At least not if you're a person who claims to "support the troops".
Santorum proceeds to answer the question by lying and saying that the repeal of DADT is an endorsement of homosexual misbehavior on duty. The lies are stacking up so fast among these people that it's impossible to stay above it. It's a triumph of untruth. The lesson being learned is that if you tell as many audacious lies as possible, and never apologize, you can create an alternate reality for at least a quarter of the population. And you'll make an additional 50% of the population at least give pause to seriously consider your lies.
If I could I would punish these people. Obviously I can't do that. What I can do is refuse to give this group, or anyone who chooses to associate under the same banner (Romney and Huntsman included), the time of day. I want them out of politics. I want them off of TV. I frankly want them out of my country, but I'd settle for being exiled from decent society...
KNOW HATE
I simply can't find the words. I'm too emotionally involved in this. I'm too outraged and upset to be playful with words. It's probably true that this will come and go. Like all events that seem too great to get over, too apocalyptic, it will eventually pass. I can accept that likelyhood.
However, it's not just that it's a bad thing for the country. It's not just that it's bad for governance during a recession. It's not just - incorrect or imprudent. It's vile. Truly vile. What these people are is simply repulsive. Everytime I think about casting my thoughts into words on the subject, I can only shake in impotent rage over these wretches. These subhumans. These pathetic excuses for human beings that make up the conservative "base", that apparently has the ear of leadership.
Here's a clip from the last debate, where viewers booed a gay service member who submitted a video question to Rick Santorum.
You don't boo a service member. Period. At least not if you're a person who claims to "support the troops".
Santorum proceeds to answer the question by lying and saying that the repeal of DADT is an endorsement of homosexual misbehavior on duty. The lies are stacking up so fast among these people that it's impossible to stay above it. It's a triumph of untruth. The lesson being learned is that if you tell as many audacious lies as possible, and never apologize, you can create an alternate reality for at least a quarter of the population. And you'll make an additional 50% of the population at least give pause to seriously consider your lies.
If I could I would punish these people. Obviously I can't do that. What I can do is refuse to give this group, or anyone who chooses to associate under the same banner (Romney and Huntsman included), the time of day. I want them out of politics. I want them off of TV. I frankly want them out of my country, but I'd settle for being exiled from decent society...
KNOW HATE
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
The Absence Of Evidence...
...Is not the evidence of absence!
In the wake of John's hiatus, I began frequenting a blog run by a fundamentalist Christan to sate my rhetorical blood lust. Regarding the media's attitude towards homosexuality, Sola quoted this passage from Paul:
I figure that Paul is criticising the Hellenistic/Roman culture that was seeping into his own at this point in history. Paul was a devout Jew, and later a devout Christian, and the values of the decadent Romanized world didn't jive with traditional Jewish values. Now, when it comes to homosexuality I can understand Paul's point. We've all heard a hundred times about the Greek and Roman penchant for buggery. While I think that's a little overplayed, it's still valid to say that Romans might have given "hearty approval" to the act while within an earshot of Paul.
But murder, strife, deceit, arrogance, boastfulness? Untrustworthy behavior?
It's hard to imagine a functioning society where such vices aren't just tolerated but are applauded. Such a society couldn't be sustained for a year, let alone 400+. What is Paul referring to? A few bad eggs casting a bad impression on the whole bunch? Maybe. What I think is more likely is that Paul is criticising the lack of open condemnation, and legal action against these evil ones. Proto-western culture, while not wholely wicked did not necessarily move to attack immoral behavior in it's citizens. The status quo was not to attempt legal supression of moral nastiness, unless it reached an extent of interfering with civic business. Upstanding citizens might view liars and braggarts negatively, but there wasn't a mandate to chop their hands off either. Your average citizen certainly wouldn't say "YAY" to theft or murder (exception: criminals in the arena).
The traditions of the middle east, however, were just the opposite. Law was derived from a class of Priest-Kings who's sole interest was making God happy by punishing immorality, with little to no concept of rights or consenting adults yada yada.
This culture shock is still being carried on today. The middle eastern model of morality-based lawmaking has a modern representative, in those very same words from Paul, and those that use them as a guide for civil and private morality.
The mainstream media certainly doesn't condemn homosexuality. Likewise the media does indeed portray Paul's heirs as intolerant and cruel. However, the media does not give "hearty approval" to homosexual behavior. No. The media does not give the thumbs up to anal sex. It does not celebrate a penis going into a butt. Ditto to fellatio, rimjobs and scissoring.
Featuring homosexuals prominently, without criticising the behavior is not equivalent to approval. Failure to condemn is not approval. Failure to assert is not the same as denial. This is not nitpicking, it's an distinction that is essential to a functioning democracy. It is criticial to western civilization to be able to look at something and basically say "meh", without it being interpreted as support.
In the wake of John's hiatus, I began frequenting a blog run by a fundamentalist Christan to sate my rhetorical blood lust. Regarding the media's attitude towards homosexuality, Sola quoted this passage from Paul:
And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them (Romans 1:28-32).At first I glanced at this, later I really read through and pondered it. Looking at this passage critically, as a student of history, I can't accept this at face value.
I figure that Paul is criticising the Hellenistic/Roman culture that was seeping into his own at this point in history. Paul was a devout Jew, and later a devout Christian, and the values of the decadent Romanized world didn't jive with traditional Jewish values. Now, when it comes to homosexuality I can understand Paul's point. We've all heard a hundred times about the Greek and Roman penchant for buggery. While I think that's a little overplayed, it's still valid to say that Romans might have given "hearty approval" to the act while within an earshot of Paul.
But murder, strife, deceit, arrogance, boastfulness? Untrustworthy behavior?
It's hard to imagine a functioning society where such vices aren't just tolerated but are applauded. Such a society couldn't be sustained for a year, let alone 400+. What is Paul referring to? A few bad eggs casting a bad impression on the whole bunch? Maybe. What I think is more likely is that Paul is criticising the lack of open condemnation, and legal action against these evil ones. Proto-western culture, while not wholely wicked did not necessarily move to attack immoral behavior in it's citizens. The status quo was not to attempt legal supression of moral nastiness, unless it reached an extent of interfering with civic business. Upstanding citizens might view liars and braggarts negatively, but there wasn't a mandate to chop their hands off either. Your average citizen certainly wouldn't say "YAY" to theft or murder (exception: criminals in the arena).
The traditions of the middle east, however, were just the opposite. Law was derived from a class of Priest-Kings who's sole interest was making God happy by punishing immorality, with little to no concept of rights or consenting adults yada yada.
This culture shock is still being carried on today. The middle eastern model of morality-based lawmaking has a modern representative, in those very same words from Paul, and those that use them as a guide for civil and private morality.
The mainstream media certainly doesn't condemn homosexuality. Likewise the media does indeed portray Paul's heirs as intolerant and cruel. However, the media does not give "hearty approval" to homosexual behavior. No. The media does not give the thumbs up to anal sex. It does not celebrate a penis going into a butt. Ditto to fellatio, rimjobs and scissoring.
Featuring homosexuals prominently, without criticising the behavior is not equivalent to approval. Failure to condemn is not approval. Failure to assert is not the same as denial. This is not nitpicking, it's an distinction that is essential to a functioning democracy. It is criticial to western civilization to be able to look at something and basically say "meh", without it being interpreted as support.
Monday, September 12, 2011
On 9/11
This is going to be short. The question is, does 9/11 matter anymore?
I'm not trying to be taboo for the sake of shock value, but the thought suddenly occurs. The #1 movie at the box office this past weekend was Contagion, a movie about a massive worldwide epidemic that reaches an apocalyptic level. So, Americans coped with the 10 year anniversary of what might have been the worst tragedy on American soil by seeing a movie about the worst tragedy on American soil? More importantly, studio bigwigs apparently calculated that no one would make the connection, or care enough to let that stop them from seeing the movie, with surety enough not to change the release date. And they were right.
I'm not saying that 9/11 isn't considered significant anymore. We're still feeling the affects in the way we conduct politics and in the two wars that are still ongoing. I'm just saying that I believe most people have moved on, emotionally, and this date has become just another anniversary to be acknowledged every year. Aside from a touching story I heard on NPR last week about Mychal Judge, a Franciscan friar who died at ground zero, this date has had no emotional impact for me. Besides the NPR thing, the only emotion I've felt is a slight irritation over the past weeks that I would soon be forced to recognize an arbitrary date and round number, and that current affairs will be suspended for this forced memorial. It's not that I don't care anymore, I do think of that day reflectively and with sobriety now and then, but the national remembrance has begun to feel forced and out of proportion.
Maybe I can only care so much for so long. It was a horrible thing, but it's been over for a while. The scale of this event was huge, but not unlimited. Even events as monumental as this cannot mean everything to everyone forever. Eventually we move on. It may take quite a long time, but all tragedies can eventually be sorted out and tucked away.
I'm not trying to be taboo for the sake of shock value, but the thought suddenly occurs. The #1 movie at the box office this past weekend was Contagion, a movie about a massive worldwide epidemic that reaches an apocalyptic level. So, Americans coped with the 10 year anniversary of what might have been the worst tragedy on American soil by seeing a movie about the worst tragedy on American soil? More importantly, studio bigwigs apparently calculated that no one would make the connection, or care enough to let that stop them from seeing the movie, with surety enough not to change the release date. And they were right.
I'm not saying that 9/11 isn't considered significant anymore. We're still feeling the affects in the way we conduct politics and in the two wars that are still ongoing. I'm just saying that I believe most people have moved on, emotionally, and this date has become just another anniversary to be acknowledged every year. Aside from a touching story I heard on NPR last week about Mychal Judge, a Franciscan friar who died at ground zero, this date has had no emotional impact for me. Besides the NPR thing, the only emotion I've felt is a slight irritation over the past weeks that I would soon be forced to recognize an arbitrary date and round number, and that current affairs will be suspended for this forced memorial. It's not that I don't care anymore, I do think of that day reflectively and with sobriety now and then, but the national remembrance has begun to feel forced and out of proportion.
Maybe I can only care so much for so long. It was a horrible thing, but it's been over for a while. The scale of this event was huge, but not unlimited. Even events as monumental as this cannot mean everything to everyone forever. Eventually we move on. It may take quite a long time, but all tragedies can eventually be sorted out and tucked away.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
The Prize
We need a more tangible prize for our 2012 Primary wager, rather than some abstract notion like "glory" or "honor". Can you spread honor onto a kaiser roll? I think not. So, that in mind, I unveil the 2012 Republican Primary Race GRAND PRIZE:
The "Mustard of Glory"
This bottle of generic-brand mustard has sat on my desk since early February. I don't recommend you eat it directly, or as an accompaniment to food. However, it had only one previous owner: James Bond. Some folks say that the famous MI6 agent used this mustard on a turkey sandwich, which he consumed just prior to intercourse with a beautiful live girl. You might be wondering how I obtained a jar of mustard that was owned by a fictional spy, or why it's a relevant prize anyway. Well, I don't have an answer to that. However, my scientist, Dr. Cody, spends his days in a tin shed, deep inside a small canyon outside of San Bernadino...
There you have it folks, the die is cast. Pick a winner, acquire the mustard. Perhaps you too can enjoy intercourse with a beautiful live girl.
The "Mustard of Glory"
This bottle of generic-brand mustard has sat on my desk since early February. I don't recommend you eat it directly, or as an accompaniment to food. However, it had only one previous owner: James Bond. Some folks say that the famous MI6 agent used this mustard on a turkey sandwich, which he consumed just prior to intercourse with a beautiful live girl. You might be wondering how I obtained a jar of mustard that was owned by a fictional spy, or why it's a relevant prize anyway. Well, I don't have an answer to that. However, my scientist, Dr. Cody, spends his days in a tin shed, deep inside a small canyon outside of San Bernadino...
There you have it folks, the die is cast. Pick a winner, acquire the mustard. Perhaps you too can enjoy intercourse with a beautiful live girl.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Against George Lucas
OK, this is a very old and very played out criticism, but I don't care. George Lucas is at it again.
Hey, remember this tub of crap?
When Lucas took what should have been the most badass moment of the whole series and turned it into some sort of bizarre parody of Frankenstein (sans irony) with a shot from the ceiling of Darth Vader saying "NOOOO!" that defies all reason and taste as an attempt at legitimate drama ("MENDOZAAAA!!!!!")?
Well, Lucas has now decided to ramp up his campaign of terror against his own fans by taking this campy moment and extending it into the original trilogy, with the upcoming bluray release of the whole series. Take a look.
I could scarcely believe this wasn't a hoax until Lucasfilm confirmed that this change, along with several others (such as replacing puppet Yoda with CGI yoda in Phantom Menace and giving Ewoks blinking, moving eyes in Jedi) will indeed be a part of the bluray release.
I could spend hours trying to describe the depths of depravity that I think compel George Lucas to constantly make creative changes to works long established and cherished in the public psyche. Suffice to say we're all aware that he is deranged. Unfortunately, the bottom line is that Lucas owns the films, and he's going to do whatever he wants with them. And there's nothing we can do about it.
I feel that Justice demands that those rights be stripped away from him, the original films be restored, and that he should suffer in some unimaginably painful way for his crimes against taste. However, we live in a society of laws where, unfortunately, Daddy Justice cannot always be served to the extent that he should.
I do have a modest suggestion, for how we can serve justice without violating property rights and inflicting arcane torture. It's quite simple, really. To quote Jay Sherman, "If you stop watching bad movies, they'll stop making bad movies". Make a vow to yourself that you will give no more of your hard earned dollars to fund George Lucas's madness and tyranny. Do not purchase any new products produced by Lucasfilms. Do not patronize any films produced or endorsed by Lucasfilms. Do not, for an instant, turn to a television station that is showing any of the Star Wars films. To do so is to give royalty money to Lucas by proxy, through ratings and advertising funds on the channel in question. Cut him off completely and utterly.
We have been lax these past decades. And Lucas has interpreted our laxity and lack of moral fiber as an endorsement of his actions. No more. Cut him off. If he ever gets the picture, and re releases the original versions of the films, give him a hearty "yes" vote by going out and purchasing at least one copy of each.
This is the best that we, the little people, can do. We don't have the power to "push a button" on a creative effort of which we disapprove. But we can refuse to play ball until we get what we want.
What say you, Calculon?
Jake?
Hey, remember this tub of crap?
When Lucas took what should have been the most badass moment of the whole series and turned it into some sort of bizarre parody of Frankenstein (sans irony) with a shot from the ceiling of Darth Vader saying "NOOOO!" that defies all reason and taste as an attempt at legitimate drama ("MENDOZAAAA!!!!!")?
Well, Lucas has now decided to ramp up his campaign of terror against his own fans by taking this campy moment and extending it into the original trilogy, with the upcoming bluray release of the whole series. Take a look.
I could scarcely believe this wasn't a hoax until Lucasfilm confirmed that this change, along with several others (such as replacing puppet Yoda with CGI yoda in Phantom Menace and giving Ewoks blinking, moving eyes in Jedi) will indeed be a part of the bluray release.
I could spend hours trying to describe the depths of depravity that I think compel George Lucas to constantly make creative changes to works long established and cherished in the public psyche. Suffice to say we're all aware that he is deranged. Unfortunately, the bottom line is that Lucas owns the films, and he's going to do whatever he wants with them. And there's nothing we can do about it.
I feel that Justice demands that those rights be stripped away from him, the original films be restored, and that he should suffer in some unimaginably painful way for his crimes against taste. However, we live in a society of laws where, unfortunately, Daddy Justice cannot always be served to the extent that he should.
I do have a modest suggestion, for how we can serve justice without violating property rights and inflicting arcane torture. It's quite simple, really. To quote Jay Sherman, "If you stop watching bad movies, they'll stop making bad movies". Make a vow to yourself that you will give no more of your hard earned dollars to fund George Lucas's madness and tyranny. Do not purchase any new products produced by Lucasfilms. Do not patronize any films produced or endorsed by Lucasfilms. Do not, for an instant, turn to a television station that is showing any of the Star Wars films. To do so is to give royalty money to Lucas by proxy, through ratings and advertising funds on the channel in question. Cut him off completely and utterly.
We have been lax these past decades. And Lucas has interpreted our laxity and lack of moral fiber as an endorsement of his actions. No more. Cut him off. If he ever gets the picture, and re releases the original versions of the films, give him a hearty "yes" vote by going out and purchasing at least one copy of each.
This is the best that we, the little people, can do. We don't have the power to "push a button" on a creative effort of which we disapprove. But we can refuse to play ball until we get what we want.
What say you, Calculon?
Jake?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)