Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Now for something completely different...

A lovely bit from MMO to the Supreme Court:

"YOUR PETITIONERS ARE ATHEISTS and they define their life-style as follows. An Atheist loves himself and his fellowman instead of a god. An Atheist knows that heaven is something for which we should work now — here on earth — for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist thinks that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue, and enjoy it. An Atheist thinks that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellowman can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. Therefore, he seeks to know himself and his fellowman rather than to know a god. An Atheist knows that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist knows that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life. He knows that we cannot rely on a god, nor channel action into prayer, nor hope for an end to troubles in the hereafter. He knows that we are our brother's keeper and keepers of our lives; that we are responsible persons, that the job is here and the time is now."

~ Madalyn Murray (later O'Hair), preamble to Murray v. Curlett, U.S. Supreme Court, April 27, 1961

Sunday, August 19, 2007

Superbad date rape comedy?

From the Entertainment Weekly review I just read:

"As best friends and graduating seniors Seth [...] and Evan [...] face the prospect of a partnership disrupted by the distractions of college, they envision one last chance to unload their nagging virginity: They'll get a couple of girls drunk at a party and do 'em. Lay 'em, plow 'em...choose the age-old crudity of your choice."

Oh, I get it! Ha ha ha...wait, WHAT?

Come on, amateurs! Go get some Rohypnol like the real players. (I mean, are they serious with this?)

So we have a film marketed to teenagers that includes these charming assertions:

1. Boys should not be virgins by the end of high school.

2. Boys must get laid by any means possible. If girls don't wish to cooperate while sober then boys should investigate chemical options.

3. Boys are partners in this enterprise, meaning they are aligned together against girls, who are merely means to an end. (This aspect of the plot would make Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick chortle, not that our fag bashing populace will recognize the homoeroticism of boys who vow to lose their virginity together, of course.)

I understand from the rest of the review that these boys turn out to be harmless dorks and no one is actually date raped or whatever, but I could not give less of a shit. And please don't tell me I should really see the movie myself because you would have to pin my eyelids back Clockwork Orange-style to make me view this tripe. Shame on everyone involved.

UPDATE: I have since read an amateur review that includes this info:

'The last act is very well done, while being funny and also realistic and dramatic, pointing out some of the harsh realities of teenage drinking, instead of just making everything cool and fun like most movies. I’m unhappy to report that a large portion of the audience didn’t seem to appreciate the dramatic turn. Many of them seemed to be cheering (too loudly) for date rape. Also, when Seth and Evan start expressing their true feelings as best friends there were a lot of homophobic groans and even some asshole shouting out lines from “Brokeback Mountain.”'

I rest my case.

Number of online users in last 3 minutes