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.
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!!!!!")?
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.
These primaries have been incredibly dull for me. In my opinion, when following the candidates, we're not so much measuring the merits of the candidates, or their likeliness to win, but rather we're grading them by how much political baggage they carry, and the various points of concern for each. It's, in essence, a collection of losers, and it'll be a bloody war of attrition to decide who will earn the right to look ridiculous in a general election.
Let's spice this up a bit by making a game of it. Each of us is given 10 imaginary dollars to bet on whichever candidates we want, in whatever proportion that we want. I'll offer the house odds on each standing candidate, and we'll place our bets in the comments section. When the race is over, we'll tally up a winner, who'll receive the glory.
Note: This is just a bet on who the winner of the GOP primary will be. The outcome of the general election doesn't figure as a part of this in any way.
On to the candidates...
Rating: Secure
Mitt Romney 3 to 2
Rick Perry 2 to 1
Rating: Growth
Jon Huntsman 5 to 1
Michelle Bachman 4 to 1
Paul Ryan (should he run) 5 to 1
Rating: Speculative
Newt Gingrich 15 to 1
Herman Cain 20 to 1
Sarah Palin 20 to 1
Ron Paul 20 to 1
Rick Santorum 15 to 1
Gary Johnson 30 to 1
Rating: Junk
Jonathon Sharkey 100 to 1
Buddy Roemer 100 to 1
Andy Martin 100 to 1
Fred Karger 100 to 1
Thaddeus McCotter 100 to 1
Jimmy McMillan 1000 to 1
Matt and Trey's Broadway musical, "The Book Of Mormon" has won a lot of praise. It's well deserved (judging by the cast recording). It's not just funny, like the South Park episode, "All about the Mormons", it's also quite touching. However, one criticism that I haven't quite heard enough to my satisfaction is this. Isn't the moral of this story kind of cynical?
To explain, let me sum up the plot. Two 19 year old Mormon Elders are sent on a 2 year missionary trip to Uganda. The conditions there are terrible, women are mutilated, human life carries little to no value, and 80% of the villagers have AIDS. After the more "capable" of the two fails to persuade any villagers to convert, his chunky sidekick has better luck by tweaking the content of the Book of Mormon to include morals about dealing with AIDS, not cutting off clitorises (clitorii?), and not raping babies (not to mention inserting Boba Fett, Sauron and the fiery pits of Mordor). This persuades the entire village to convert and reform. Mormon bigwigs don't like the liberal attitude toward the scriptures and throw the two (along with the villagers) out of the church. They all decide to continue with their own scriptures and their own church.
The moral of the story is that it's OK to tweak the facts, or to put only 50% belief into those "facts" as long as, at the end of the day, you're helping people live a better way.
This seems like a popular viewpoint. The viewpoint of lukewarm believers and non-believers alike, that what's true or real is not as important as taking the stories and proverbs and rolling with them. What's true is not as important as avoiding being a dick. Like by being a stickler about truth and falsehood.
Yeah, I kinda take exception to that. What is real and what is true does matter. I enjoy a rest from reality as much as the next guy. Taking a break to read some fantasy or sci-fi is fun. But to live your life according things which you figure are probably false, but ignore because your quality of life is better. That's just bogus and wrong. Or the flip side, to believe that you do indeed possess some understanding of the truth, but refusing to engage others for fear of looking like a dick.
It just surprises me that this isn't more amity, or at least grudging respect between devoted evangelists and "new atheists" like Dawkins and Hitchens. They both share the quality of belief in hard truths which should be promoted, and conversely, blatant falsehoods which should be publicly refuted and given the boot.
