"That's So Gay" Commericals Win Top Ad Council Award… How Retarded

I recently caught a commercial on the TV box where comedienne Wanda Sykes chastises a teenager in a pizza parlor for the apparently inappropriate use of the word “gay” in reference to a statue of a happy chef holding a pizza and I must say that my blood began to boil. 

I’m not going to rant too much about political correctness run amok in modern times. I think it’s clear to us all that, like it or not, it’s here to stay. So does that mean we now have to also tolerate blatant hypocrisy from the media? Comedians have traditionally been amongst the highest profile people on the forefront of the fight to maintain our right to free speech. It makes me wish Lenny Bruce or Sam Kinison was still alive to slap this annoying bitch who is supposed to be a mirth maker. It’s bad enough that Miss Sykes’ voice grates on the nerves like nails across a chalkboard but she has rarely elicited the slightest chuckle from me despite being featured prominently on such favorite programs as Crank Yankers and Curb Your Enthusiasm where she is anything but politically correct.

The “That’s So Gay” commercial campaign also used Hillary Duff to promote the same message which makes sense coming from a Disneyesque, bubble gum pop star who you would expect to do whatever her agent recommends in relentless mission to sell out whenever possible. But I don’t expect to see it from a supposedly edgy standup comic. I just needed to make note of my feelings on this and say “Shame on you Wanda Sykes”.

Rubber-baby-buggy-bunker

I sometimes think about things that I know are a complete waste of brainpower and yet as a result of my own dumb curiosity and a modicum of OCD, I am forced to explore every facet of the notion until there is nothing left to consider except perhaps why I've still not sought counseling. This is one of those times. Now if you are easily offended, you certainly don’t have to read any further. In fact it would probably be best if you simply didn’t follow my blog at all. My mind will at times take me to some pretty dark places whether I ever wanted to visit them or not and when that happens I may feel the need to write about it. Consider yourself warned.

On this particular occasion I found myself wondering exactly how many babies it would take to defeat me in mortal combat. Just to clarify, I’m not talking about babes (i.e. large-breasted 18 year-old underwear models armed with pillows etc., although that does conjure in my mind a somewhat more enticing battle) but actual infants whose ages can only be calculated in months. Now before I delve too deeply into this and in case you didn’t heed my above warning and are now thinking “What kinda sick son of a…”, I just want to say that I in no way advocate child abuse nor the bullying of pre-toddlers and their ilk. I say this in spite of the fact that no matter where I go, if I lock eyes with a baby, it inevitably wants to stare me down. No this is purely fanciful speculation. Hey just be glad that it’s not another nerd discussion board rehashing that tired argument about the final outcome of a by now clichéd battle between Superman and the Hulk. I can’t think of a scenario where I might actually come face to face with an army of infants but it could at least theoretically happen because babies are real... as am I.

Now we’ve all, at one point or another, used the term “…makes me want to punch a baby!”as an expression of what we would be willing to do to stop something that is especially grating on the nerves. We have all said that right? Well I was muttering that under my breath the other day when my inner redheaded step-child was being particularly annoying and it got me to thinking about the consequences of such a horrific act and whether or not there could ever truly be a situation in which it would be considered an acceptable or appropriate response even if it isn’t exactly a desirable one. I pondered this for a while and it occurred to me that if there was a large enough contingent of babies that wanted me dead, then that might be justification enough. But how many would it take?

As with any combat situation, there are variables that will need to be considered before the baby general will be able to estimate with any accuracy the number of troops required to accomplish the mission. By the way, that baby general thing is really only a metaphor. Obviously a baby is way behind even myself in mental development and therefore lacks the ability think tactically. That is itself one of the variables to be considered and it becomes instantly clear that in this situation, I will only be defeated by sheer strength of numbers. I was really just having fun with the image of a baby general wearing his little army hat with the five stars standing in front of the flag like Patton in Pampers. Pretty cute image I know but babies will be dying in this scenario so I'll get back to the serious matter of war that lies before us.

I was discussing the variables that will factor into my enemies' ultimate headcount. Take note, by the way, that I do desire to keep the death toll to a minimum but the babies' inability to outwit me takes strategics out of their equations. There are other ways to increase their chances of actually killing me while at the same time decreasing the number of babies that it will take to actually do it, and I do want the babies to have a real chance or it's not not going to be worth it.

First off let’s assume that we’re only going to be recruiting male babies. That one is a no-brainer because males are, generally speaking, the stronger sex physically. Besides the females will be needed later on to replenish the baby population with the few male survivors of what will no doubt be a massacre. Also the babies going into combat cannot be happy babies. Sure we all love that beautiful bright eyed angel we see smiling back at us from the Gerber jar, but you certainly don’t want a little pussy like him out on the wall patrolling when the shit hits the fan. No you want many many ill-tempered neonates… we’re talking colicy, teething bastards with a full load in their Huggies.

Another variable to consider is whether or not the babies will be armed and there is no question that they’ll have to be because this is war after all and it’s a sure bet that I’m going to be. I picture the scene will be like the opening battle of The Lord of The Rings and I’m Sauron with my huge iron flail just swinging away wildly knocking ten or so babies into the air at a time.

In order to even things up and dramatically lower the ultimate number of required babies, I would consider allowing them firearms. I say I would consider it, were it not pointless. A baby simply lacks the strength to pull even a hairpin trigger and supposing he could, how would he aim effectively? He would likely just shoot himself and his comrades thereby thinning out his own numbers doing my job for me… and the results are even worse for the babies if we’re talking about automatic weapons. No, guns are simply out of the question as are blades for pretty much all the same reasons. But on the bright side, they’re ruled out for me as well because there are but a finite amount of babies in the world and if I get to use guns… well game over dumb babies. I could blast away endlessly and without ever breaking a sweat again rendering the whole thing pointless.

Let’s face it, the babies’ only hope is in blunt, clubbed weapons but they still are not strong enough to pose any threat at all with maces, morning-stars or the like. About the only thing with which a baby can arm himself is a rattle; a flimsy, hollow assemblage of cheap plastic adorned with a bow. And so it is with the rattle that the baby must wage war. Do you know how many many rattle blows to my skull it would take for a baby to even break skin? I don't either but its definitely a lot. The number of babies needed is climbing. Well how’s this for an idea? What if the babies could each take up two rattles? I’m pretty sure that, in terms of his motor skills, the average baby would be no less effective duel-wielding than he would be swinging with one weapon. So yes of course the babies should have two rattles each. With two rattles the individual baby can do double the damage and therefore the number of babies needed can be instantly reduced by half.

I have to say, I feel kind of stupid helping the babies like this since their goal is to kill me but as I said before, they're lacking in mental development and consequently cannot do things for themselves so somebody’s got to help level the playing field. Hey, I’m not Satan you know. I’m only considering what’s in the babies’ best interests here.

Another variable to consider is what kind of shape am I personally in for a battle that will consist of entirely melee style combat and how much time will I have to prepare? Well since I go to the gym about once a month, I’m hardly an Adonis. However according to my doctor, who just gave me my first physical in twenty years, I’m in excellent health. Other than the fact that I used to smoke (cigarette-free going on three months, thank you) I’ve lived a pretty clean lifestyle. His only recommendation is for me to shed about twenty-five pounds, which I could easily do in a couple months time.  But is giving me two months to prepare really a good idea for the babies? No. They would be well advised to strike now and strike hard, before I’ve have any time whatsoever to ready myself.

So now that we’ve determined that my enemy will consist of inconsolable male babies armed to the teeth with rattles and a thirst for immediate victory, (that actually sounds kinda scary) exactly how many will it take; a thousand, a hundred-thousand or possibly a million?

The answer is about a million and here’s why. The babies will never be able to defeat me by way of actual combat. As I stated before, their only hope is sheer numbers. No matter what shape I’m in, I will probably wear out long before I have annihilated a million babies. Once I’ve become so exhausted that I can no longer swing my weapon, I will fall unconscious in a blood and poop splattered heap giving the surviving babies the chance to crawl en masse upon me, suffocating the life out of my weary body.

With the death toll being so high on both sides, let us hope that instead, one will arise from among my enemies' ranks and serve as a sort of baby chosen one. Perhaps he will be some kind of genetic leap forward for infant-kind.  He alone will show his people the error of their ways, exposing the futility and madness of war, thereby ending their bloodlust before it has a chance to materialize within them…

…and then I will smite that little bitch down.

Movie Review of Titanic II (yes somebody actually made this and apparently I'm going to review it)

Titanic 2 is a shining example of why you don't need to go to theaters and spend half of your paycheck to be entertained when there are such things in existence as microwavable popcorn and direct-to-DVD movie releases waiting to be rescued from a 99¢ bargain bin. The five stars that Netflix offers are simply not enough. Ten stars wouldn't even begin to cut it. I’m looking at you IMDB. No, in order to even begin to do it any semblance of justice, this modern masterpiece would require a titanic twenty possible stars for a rating of any one star to convey its true level of goodliness. Unless you've been living under a rock that is in a cave, you’re no doubt aware from the amount of media hype surrounding this film that it was directed by that incomparable master of suspenseful action thrillers, hold on... uh... Shane-Van-Dyke???

Yes this surefire blockbuster which also stars Shane Van Dyke is entitled Titanic 2 but don’t you dare call it a sequel damnit! While even the most unwary of moviegoers will notice the presence of number two gracing the cover, the title is merely taken from the name of the fictitious ship in the film which happens to have been christened “Titanic II” and therefore has nothing to do with, nor is in any way similar that other waste of time based on some boring actual historic event. You know the one that made a billion, trillion dollars and received all those stupid accolades by exploiting the tragedy of 1,517 deaths causing those poor victims of man’s avarice-driven arrogance in the face of nature to roll over in their collective watery grave while in no way paying respect to their horrific plight? Well roll back over dead people and get ready for the most sensitive and tasteful homage to human suffering sinceSchindler’s List 2: The Wrath of the Jew.

This riveting and highly imaginative period piece set in the year 2012, exactly one hundred years after the sinking of the original Titanic, had me on the edge of my sofa from beginning to end. I've not seen a film this wholly original since the sci-fi epic, Transmorphers: Fall of Man, also starring Shane Van Dyke or the chilling Paranormal Entity, also also starring Shane Van Dyke. In Titanic 2, Shane Van Dyke is at the top of his game, offering up a dramatic performance that can only be described as "something". With a style reminiscent of a young Jan Michael Vincent only better, Van Dyke has the rare ability to elevate the performances of the less talented actors around him to almost, but not quite, his level of mediocrity. Do I hear Oscar buzz? I do if I’m listening to Shane Van Dyke… and I am. But I’m certainly not going to be the one to tell him that the award ceremony occurred almost a week ago.

Five minutes into the film I voluntarily and without any coercion whatsoever by an armed or coked-up Shane Van Dyke, allowed myself to be tied up and then, while kicking and screaming with joy, had my eyelids clamped open, thereafter being delivered a steady stream of re-wetting drops so that I could thoroughly enjoy the feature while secure in the knowledge that I wouldn’t have to miss a single frame. The film was then promptly started over from the beginning and from that point on I was fully immersed into this nonstop thrill ride, not allowing myself to even go to the restroom but instead opting to pee right there on my sofa lest I ruin the experience by pausing the irresistible drama playing out before me. During the course of this overwhelmingly entertaining roller coaster ride, I experienced every conceivable emotion, such as disgust, fear, boredom, hate, fear, sadness, anger, laughter and fear.

If I have one criticism, (I must be the ever objective reviewer) it is that the screenplay could have been a tad stronger. The producers should have thought it through, come to their senses and gone with Shane Van Dyke to also handle the writing duties on this one. After all, he is the imaginative force who conceived Street Racer and The Day the Earth Stopped. Shane Van Dyke surely would have taken a screenplay that was only ninety minutes in length and, by way of his unrelenting talent, easily stretched it out to twice as long with a few additional story devices. Imagine, for instance, a young and plump girl named Rose living in the year 1912, who is able to see into the future and tells some people about how she’ll one day be a well-to-do elderly woman riding as a passenger on the maiden voyage of a ship that will for some reason be named after that famous Titanic ship that just sank and how it too will collide with a massive iceberg that will this time be hurled directly  in its path by a tsunami but not before she meets an elderly vagabond stowaway named Jack who has a surprisingly upbeat attitude despite being dirt poor at the age of eighty-three and how he’ll convince her to abandon her life of privilege and rascal away with him to live under a bridge somewhere but instead dies saving her life and while she’s telling the story, the film will slip into her psychic vision of the future (basically present day to us) and all will unfold in dramatic fashion with a titillating scene where Jack draws pictures of Rose in the nude. You think I could have come up with a killer concept like that? No freaking way! That is pure Shane Van Dyke.

The dumbass producers, being corporate Hollywood fat cats lacking in artistic vision, failed to see how these subtle additions would have been the only possible way to improve upon what is already a fleshed out storyline rife with a twist as well as a turn. A spokesperson for juggernaut production company The Asylum stated that “…With the production being a day behind schedule, tens of dollars over budget and an impatient viewing audience that has for months ahead of time been violently clamoring over one another in miles long lines surrounding every WalMart across the country in anticipation of this at-home viewing event, we simply couldn’t see how throwing any extra time or money at the project would be a worthwhile endeavor.” then further elaborated… “Do you know where I can buy any pot?”

Despite these few obligingly constructive criticisms, I still cannot recommend this film... enough. Yes Shane Van Dyke has indeed done it again. He was a household name before but now even the homeless will surely know the name Shane Van Dyke.

After viewing Titanic 2, but before writing this review, I went directly to eBay and bought thirty-seven copies directly from Shane Van Dyke, apparently so that I'll have the "opportunity" to watch it thirty-seven times in a row. I won't allow myself to leave my house for fear that I might miss the FedEx guy. Yes it was that good. What, you don’t believe me just because everyone else who’s seen it panned it with the most scathing reviews imaginable? Well let me ask you this. Do you think James Cameron's films gross anything close to what Shane Van Dyke's films do? Think again pal. Since its release, Titanic 2 has raked in literally hundreds of dollars in domestic receipts alone. Cameron can "suck it".

By the way, don't miss Shane Van Dyke in the forthcoming... Super Shark. No it’s nothing at all like Jaws you silly naysayer. Why would anyone pay to develop a concept for a film that originally gained popularity some thirty-six years ago? That would be moronic. Speaking of… If you're like me and can't get enough Shane Van Dyke, and you undoubtedly are, (I mean who are we kidding right?) go to shanevandyke.net where you can see all things Shane Van Dyke. You won't regret the several seconds you’ll spend feverishly pouring through all of the site’s content the way you might regret something stupid like never having bothered to have that security alarm installed..

Hello World!

This posting represents my first foray into the blogosphere and let me just say first off that I hate myself for using that term... "blogosphere".  I mean it's essentially a culmination of websites used by self-important people to convey their oh so very important thoughts for the world to peruse. What exactly is spherical about it anyway? Actually now that I think about the description I just wrote, it does kinda make sense... but I still don't like it. Blogosphere just feels like a word that was created by the ever mind-raping media to be regurgitated primarily by hipster tools with an unyielding need to punch me continuously in the face with whatever they're currently being told is trendy. In fact that has always been my basic attitude towards the concept of blogging in general. Yet here I am like some Stevie-come-lately ready at last to give the devil his due.

I blame my wife whom I dearly love for having, on more than one occasion, suggested that since I seem to find writing to be a therapeutic use of my free time, I would probably enjoy blogging. It is more likely that she planted the seed in my head in the hopes that it may serve as a way for her to tap into my brain and therefor better understand what makes me "tick". She's pretty damned smart and perceptive and I have to say that it suddenly did seem like a good idea.
I've always used writing as a means to gather my otherwise scattered thoughts and organize them into something coherent to me and anyone else reading. I freely admit that on some level I like the idea of having an audience even if, at this point, said audience is virtually non-existent. But whether or not anyone is actually reading this doesn't matter because their is another, higher level that loves the idea of telling that audience to fuck off because I don't care at all what it thinks about anything I have to say. This is my little corner of the "sphere" and my thoughts simply are what they are. To censor them could only serve to mask truth and that really doesn't serve anyone.
I have no agenda that I'm aware of, nor are there plans for any kind of running theme. My blog is in it's infancy right now (hell, at this point its a shapeless fetus) and my plan is to, from time to time, write whatever may be on my mind, like a journal I suppose. It will likely reflect my mood at the time. On a given day it may contain something I feel very passionate about, perhaps in politics or some other item in the news, or I may be in the mood to be mean or funny or both. One things for sure, if I'm writing at all, its because I feel inspired to and its bound to be better in content then what I'm saying now because I'm only typing this introduction out of a sense of obligation.
Having an online expression of my thoughts is certainly not an original concept and there are no doubt countless like it in intent but as I said this is one is mine. Perhaps in time it will evolve into something of more substance or it could just simply whither away. I certainly hope the later will not be true. But true or not, that's all the inane rambling I have for now. If you're reading this, thank you... it's bound to get better.