Tipping my hat to Heath Ledger

I have to admit I was never a huge fan of Heath Ledger. Being a pretty hardcore movie buff and having a healthy interest in screenwriting, I absolutely have to recognize his talent, but none of his films really captured my interest beyond a fleeting hour or two of entertainment. "Brokeback Mountain" was well-acted and, what the fuck, I'm not going to sit here all uptight and say I didn't watch it. I watched it, I considered the implications to the broader human condition for a few minutes, and then I went on with my life. Whatever.

Bottom line: He was a good actor, but never in anything I feel I need to defend to the death in a battle of cinematic tastes. Some would say he was an incredible actor, and I won't argue with them. From what I've read he was purely dedicated to his craft, which I can respect and admire, and at the same time extremely troubled by his shattered relationship, which I can understand. He fell into drugs -- not exactly a new concept in Hollywood, or in any other facet of society -- and ultimately paid the price for his addiction. It's fucking sad, but so is any needless death of a 20-something. At least he didn't collapse into the public eye and make an ass of himself like some celebrities. At least he kept his dignity in the face of despair.

So it's because I respect Health Ledger as a guy following his passion and as a decent actor that I take special issue with the Westboro Baptist Church -- no stranger to my scorn on this blog -- and its mission to picket his funeral. Of course I'm not surprised; the church members are hysterical religious fanatics, and undoubtedly they view Ledger's role in "Brokeback" as a ringing endorsement of gay culture. One could even say that where Heath Ledger was passionated about his dream (acting), Westboro members are passionate about their dream (gay bashing):

A fundamentalist church whose members demonstrate at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq and believe God hates gays will protest the Academy Awards and the funeral of Heath Ledger, because the actor played a gay cowboy in the 2005 film "Brokeback Mountain."

Members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., are trying to find out where the 28-year-old actor's funeral will be held and have already made signs to hold outside the Oscars that read "God Hates Fags and Fag Enablers," "Heath in Hell" and "Mourn for Your Sins," Shirley Phelps-Roper, daughter of the church's controversial founder Pastor Fred Phelps, told ABCNEWS.com.

Though Ledger was not gay, the church believes he "misused the giant megaphone given to him by God Almighty to speak the truth about fags," Phelps-Roper said, and instead "used his position of prominence to say God is a liar and that homosexuality is not an abomination."

With cheerleaders like these, I'm just glad I play for the nonbelievers. The people on my team won't be attending any funerals with Christian propaganda. Every time I see these people in the news it reminds me why I'm an Atheist.

A few candid views on the movie "Cloverfield"

** WARNING: SPOILERS! DO NOT READ THIS POST IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT THE MOVIE "CLOVERFIELD," ALTHOUGH I WOULD RECOMMEND READING ON IF YOU ARE CONSIDERING SEEING IT, AS I AM ALWAYS RIGHT ABOUT MOVIES, AND I THINK I REFLECT THE MAJORITY OF THE MOVIE-GOING PUBLIC IN REGARD TO THIS PARTICULAR CINEMATIC ENDEAVOUR. ALSO, COPIOUS AMOUNTS OF SWEARING FOLLOWS **

An open letter to producer J.J. Abrams:

I have few words in my vocabulary to describe Cloverfield.

It was fucking awful. FUCKING AWFUL.

When I was in high school, my friends and I would tote this shitty, first-generation camcorder around, recording our various antics and witty banter (or as witty as you can get when you're like 16 years old). En route to our aforementioned places of merry-making, we would often walk, run, jump, etc. In transit, the video would shake like a motherfucker. When we watched the finished product, usually consisting of things I hope never surface when I run for senator, it almost looked as if we had a senior citizen behind the camera.

This is what Cloverfield is like. One and a half god-awful hours of teenage-mentality idiots running around New York with a fucking camcorder while a giant sea monster the size of Manhattan eats buildings and shits out these creatures with big jaws that appear to look like walking mosquitoes. I say they APPEAR to look like walking mosquitoes because, between the fact that the screen was grainy through most the movie and the fact that I had to keep my eyes closed for fear of VOMITING ALL OVER THE GUY NEXT TO ME, I only actually watched a total of about 20 minutes.

Twenty minutes was enough. Five minutes would have been enough. Not seeing the fucking movie at all would have been enough. You know what happens when you look at a shaky camera for a prolonged period of time? NAUSEA. EXTREME. FUCKING. NAUSEA. During the times when I couldn't look at the screen because I felt like my insides were revolting like a dictatorship, I was watching the steady stream of people leaving the theater, most likely en route to the bathroom to VOMIT.

Do you hear that, J.J. Abrams? TO VOMIT.

This has been done before. Remember the Blair Witch Project? Shaky camera, spooky forest, retarded ending. Ring a bell? It's already been done, man. The only thing you added to the genre of Shaky Vomit Movies is a CREATURE THAT EATS THE STATUE OF LIBERTY. Oh boy!

As for the creature, I don't get that either. Is it a dinosaur? Is it an alien? Is it a mutated fish? WHAT THE FUCK? If it's been living in the ocean for a few million years, slowly evolving into an efficient killing machine, then did it not realize until now that there is a continent full of delicious humans? Was it just waiting for the right time to attack? Is it pissed off for something we did? Does it have hemorrhoids? In the Blair Witch Project, they never actually showed the witch. It was up to the audience to draw its own conclusion. Maybe there's something to that? Especially if your monster looks like a PACHYDERM.

I want my fucking money back, J.J. The only reason you conned people into seeing this horror show of cinema is your absurd viral campaign on the Internet. Congratulations, douche bag. You sucked me in like the rest of the now-very-nauseated public, but your fucking movie still SUCKS. I hope your children get motion sick and yack all over you when they watch it. I would pay money to see that. In fact, you should make that the sequel, because judging from the groans and people FLEEING THE THEATER FROM YOUR MOVIE, watching children vomit on you is probably the only way you'll get anybody to see anything you produce EVER. FUCKING. AGAIN.

Love,

The public

p.s. I still love Lost!

Live blogging from the depths of irrelevance

Folks, until this junction in my life I've been operating under the basic assumption that the end of humanity would be signaled by three clear signs of the coming apocalypse:

1. Rudy Giuliani would be elected president

2. Zac Efron from "High School Musical" would make the cover of Rolling Stone (already come to pass!)

3. I would catch myself humming along to a Justin Timberlake song on the radio (OK, listen, "Love Stoned" is pretty fucking catchy, so I don't want to hear about it.)

As much as I've relied on this list to keep myself optimistic about waking up in the morning, I'm afraid it's being trumped by a much more sinister and pernicious force: CNN has a Britney Spears live blogger at the Los Angeles Courthouse.

That's right, a (respected?) global news agency actually has a PRODUCER staking out the courthouse, making regular updates about whether Britney Spears has arrived for her hearing about getting back visitation rights for her kids. It's comedy gold, yet crushingly depressing at the same time, like a Carrot Top show. Consider these gems (emphasis added):

CNN Producer Jack Hannah is live at the Los Angeles Superior Court this morning coordinating CNN's coverage of the latest in the Britney Spears-Kevin Federline child custody case. He is contributing reports throughout the day as events unfold at the courthouse.

At times, the blog appears to be a self parody, as if the producer KNOWS he's full of shit for being there, but is hoping to make it look like the rest of the media are the real idiots:

11:20 a.m PT:

Members of the media have been asked multiple times to keep the noise down. Apparently there are other cases being heard at this courthouse. Go figure.

11:32 a.m PT:

On her way back into the courtroom, Anne Kiley, an attorney from the Spears camp, said she had "no comment" when asked if she knew if Britney is going to show up.

Members of the media out here are now commenting how nice Anne Kiley's shoes are.

Most of it, however, is just plain ridiculous. Like somebody-call-the-coroner-because-journalism-is-dead ridiculous:

10:32 a.m PT:

The attorneys for both sides are taking a short break.
Federline's attorney, Mark Vincent Kaplan, walked briskly past members of the media and held up both hands as if to say, "Back away, I have nothing to say yet."
There are media outlets from all over the world. As I type this, a lady is sitting next to me speaking German.

Omigod! German?!? How chic!

Some thoughts on Iowa

Well, what can I say about the Iowa primaries that won't be repeated today by every political junkie with as much as a pair of eyes? I guess I could pre-empt what is sure to be an industry full of fawning, starry eyed journalists who will undoubtedly call this a surprise upset bound to rock the political landscape at its very foundations.

I say this because, really, the Iowa caucuses weren't that surprising. After all, Mike Huckabee came in second in a straw poll in Iowa last summer, months before he was even considered a serious contender and surely way before anybody conceived it possible that he could beat the quintessential Ken-doll-of-politics Mitt Romney and insane Republican fascist Rudy Giuliani. If he was doing well back then, it stands to reason that he would be doing even better after voters had a few more months to expose Giuliani as a vile opportunist and Romney for, well, just being Romney.

That being said, it would be less of a surprise to me if Huckabee loses New Hampshire. Not only does he not have the well-oiled political machine of Romney, nor the power behind his message (what, exactly, is Huckabee about besides religion, anyway?), but a new poll shows him at a sizable disadvantage. In fact, a whopping 40% of New Hampshans have an unfavorable view of him. I'm not sure, but it could be that Huckabee is a fucking batshit crazy religious zealot who compared abortion to the Holocaust. I'm just saying.

As for Barack Obama, his victory is of little surprise to me, as well. I was on the fence between Hillary Clinton and Obama until recently, but just based on my own perception of how both candidates portray themselves, Obama seems to be much less full of shit than Hillary. He also has inherent advantages in regard to general electability: His last name isn't Clinton (and people seem to finally be in the mood to give a new family dynasty a shot at leading the nation); he's extremely charismatic; and he's a man. I don't agree that the "man advantage" is a good thing, but I truly think that voters -- in all their irritating glory -- are at the point where electing a black guy is more favorable than electing a woman. Part of my reasoning here is the fact that Hillary Clinton's sex seems to constantly come up on the campaign trail, yet nobody seems to be talking about the fact that Obama is black. For example, recently people were talking about how Hillary Clinton looks too much like an old woman, yet I've never heard anybody say that Obama looks too black. Perhaps sexism is more chic than racism these days. Who knows.

Anyway, Obama just comes off in the media as a younger, more energetic, more independent and more optimistic politician. Clinton comes off as militant, ready to draw battle lines and fight Republicans with gusto in order to influence a new direction for America. Obama, on the other hand, is succeeding very handily at coming off as somebody who will change this country simply by being an incredible leader. And when the landscape in American politics is such that voters fucking despise politicians more than any other time in history (not counting that time when we rejected the monarchy), I think a glimmer of hope at ending the petty bickering is refreshing, even for the cynics.

And lord knows I'm one of those.

Holiday hiatus

Now that the holidays are over, and I've sorted and cataloged my staggering payload of gifts, I will be updating once again. Stay tuned!

Sex prompts latest victim of Spears family; outrage ensues

Pardon me for even typing these words on the hallowed grounds of this blog, where I'd like to think relevant issues dominate, but: What the hell is wrong with the Spears family? And, as an extension to that query, what the hell is wrong with parents in this country?

If your morbid curiosity prods you to read celebrity news -- as it does me on a daily basis for reasons I blame on intellectual masochism -- you may have heard that Britney Spears' 16-year-old sister, Jamie Lynn Spears, announced she is with child. The father is some poor 19-year-old bastard who is now being threatened with statutory rape charges -- in two states. Dude, really? I hope it was worth it, because you're about to learn the real meaning of "rape" with the crushing reality of prison. (On a side note, see this post for my feelings on statutory rape laws). Jamie Spears is also an alleged "actress" who plays a character on some asinine "show" on Nickelodeon, much to the glee of the younger generation.

In response to the concept of being a teenage mother, Spears had this to say:

"I love babies, and I have my nephews that I love. I have a great mom and she has raised three kids, so if I take lessons from her, I think I'll be great."

Jamie Spears probably loves babies because her knowledge of them extends to holding and playing with them until they cry, and then handing them back to the parents, who do all the dirty work (clean diapers, get up at all hours to feed the child, etc.) I imagine -- and I admittedly can't speak from experience here -- that bringing up a child takes a bit more than "loving babies," like maybe some common fucking sense and somebody older than 16. Also vital to successful motherhood is the ability to see a baby for more than a novelty item to parade before the cameras, like that professional breeding machine Britney Spears. As for those lessons from her mom, I'm sure they'll come in real handy, given how well the first two kids turned out.

Hilariously, outraged parents around America are responding to the baby news by grumbling that Jamie Spears going public about her pregnancy has forced them to explain the whole sex thing to their kids, especially considering that Jamie Spears plays a wholesome, virginal, schoolgirl on TV (From The New York Times):

Parents across the country, on the other hand, commiserated over the Internet about how, thanks to Ms. Spears, they were facing a conversation with their 8-, 9-, and 10-year-olds about sex.

“Nowadays, nothing’s safe, not even cartoons,” Diana Madruga, who has an 11-year-old daughter, said as she wrapped up her shift as the manager of a Dunkin’ Donuts here in the Boston suburbs.

It's almost as if these parents are thinking: "Shit, society is running out of role models. I guess this means we have to do some parenting!" Seriously, if parents actually think plopping their kids in front of the TV so they can glean values from a make-believe, pre-teen character is the best way to raise children, I fear for the future of this society. How about taking some fucking initiative to help shape your children with values that weren't cooked up by a Hollywood screenwriter?

Also, I can't help but wonder whether there's some sort of connection between parents avoiding the "sex talk" with their kids, and their kids having sex and getting pregnant. Seems like there might be some kind of fucking link there, don't you think? Oh, and here's a hint, parents: This isn't the 1950s. YOUR KIDS KNOW ABOUT SEX. They're just looking for a bit of parental guidance on the subject, like whether or not it's a good idea at their age. Kids seem to be partaking at staggering rates, so perhaps it's time for you to weigh in? Just a suggestion.

I would blame this whole shitpile of absurdity on abstinence-only education, but I think Jamie Spears was too busy getting rich off the backs of millions of screaming pre-teen girls to actually get any sort of education. Plus, I think she's probably just an idiot.

Abstinence-only forecast: Heavy teen pregnancy with a chance of stupid

This story is hot off the presses, and by "hot" I mean I read it sometime last week. See, we had a small glitch here at Team Alpaca that involved me getting a Saturday off work and you not getting an update. Funny how that works.

Anyway, in a shocking twist of fate, it turns out that asking hormone-ravaged teenagers to ignore 6,000 years (heh heh) of instinctual mating behavior doesn't actually work (from The Associated Press):

ATLANTA - In a troubling reversal, the nation's teen birth rate rose for the first time in 15 years, surprising government health officials and reviving the bitter debate about abstinence-only sex education.

The birth rate had been dropping since its peak in 1991, although the decline had slowed in recent years. On Wednesday, government statisticians said it rose 3 percent from 2005 to 2006.

The reason for the increase is not clear, and federal health officials said it might be a one-year statistical blip, not the beginning of a new upward trend.

However, some experts said they have been expecting a jump. They blamed it on increased federal funding for abstinence-only health education that doesn't teach teens how to use condoms and other contraception.

Some key sexually transmitted disease rates have been rising, including syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia. The rising teen pregnancy rate is part of the same phenomenon, said Dr. Carol Hogue, an Emory University professor of maternal and child health.

Let me say first that in celebration of this news, I'm officially updating the top four things that should never be mixed with religion. Usually lists like this would have five elements, but I just finished Season 1 of "Dexter" and I really want to start Season 2, so I'm on a timetable here, people. Also, five-element lists mean the terrorists win.

Official, Scientific Top 5 Things That Don't Mix With Religion:

1. Politics

2. Civil rights

3. Heavy drinking

4. Sex education (formally, just "sex")

All kidding aside, the real problem with abstinence-only education is that it relies solely on faith. Faith is great for Christians. Faith allows Christians to say "I can't see God, but I know he's there because it's faith." And that's fine with me, because I'm all about spirituality and open-mindedness and all that crap. I'm also cognizant of the fact that crossing my fingers about God could arguably be better than going to hell if it turns out he was here all this time and I refused to cross my fingers. Then again, if I want a sure shot at heaven, I probably can't pretend to believe in God just to hedge my bets. I just have to take the plunge. And that's faith (I think).

But here's the crushing blow of reality: Faith really sucks with domestic policy. Crossing your fingers is generally a bad idea when it comes to real issues, and especially when it comes to teenagers. The good news is the government doesn't have to rely on faith in domestic policy, for two reasons: science and money. Science tells us that condoms, when used properly, are extremely effective in preventing pregnancy and the spread of STDs. Money, when used property, gives us the ability to spread that contraceptive knowledge to every young person in the country. When you put these two together, you have something mind-boggling that is rarely found in this society. The nuts call it heresy; I call it progress.

The argument against informing teenagers about condoms and making them readily available is that they might have sex. For some reason, religious zealots look at the condom like some magical aphrodisiac. Any mention of its existence apparently bombards a teenager's psyche with the overwhelming urge to procreate. Personally, if it's a choice between hoping a teenager won't have sex and hoping a condom will be effective, I'll lay my bets on the condom. Look at it this way: Pretend we're playing a hand of poker. My hand is condoms will prevent pregnancy, and your hand is crossing your fingers that teenagers will refrain from bumping uglies. Then look at the odds:

1. According to to the Centers for Disease Control, the number of 12th-grade U.S. students having sex was 60.5% in 2001.

2. According to the World Health Organization, the chance of pregnancy while using condoms (perfect use) is 3% at 12 months.

3. Conclusion: I should bet against religious zealots more often.

Supporters of abstinence-only education live a fantasy world. They cling to the futile idea that they can influence teenage behaviors through veiled religious teachings and misguided hope. Unfortunately, faith is simply no match for the crushing pressures of a sexualized society, peer pressure and biology.

It's sad, but it's fucking reality, and you can't face reality with ignorance. Sometimes reality has to kick you right in the balls before you see the light. And believe me, here in America we have some really sore balls.