one second after

So, I don't think I ever spoke about this book. Considering Matteo lent it to me, he'll probably find this post a little boring, buuuut who knows. The book is about the weapon known as EMP, which stands for Electromagnetic Pulse, and about what happens to the United States 'one second after' the weapon detonates (because it takes literally one second for the effects to be felt across the entire affected area). It's interesting, because you see society devolve over the course of time, and how people both band together and also how they do horrible things to each other in order to survive. The end chapter, where you find out what happens to the rest of the world, is equally interesting, learning which countries may have been responsible, and learning what is happening in other parts of the USA...it's all very fascinating, to me, at least.

One of the things in the novel is that they start weeding out, at one point, the people who are from the city (as in, they were born there) from the people who just happened to be in the city at the time of the blast. They also start to refuse any newcomers, to ensure the survival of the city they're in. It's really more of a town, because it's so small, but...ah well. Anyway, what ends up happening is that they weed these people out, but they let new people in ONLY if they have skills that can be used in the city. In this day and age of uber-technology, only practical skills will really be useful. EMP knocks out EVERYthing electronic, so literally they were back in the dark ages, as far as technology went.

This got me to thinking: man, I would definitely not be accepted into this town, with the skills I have now. Honestly? A LOT of people I know probably wouldn't be accepted into the town. I mean, sure, cooking is a practical skill, but in a town in such a place, they would be looking for military help, or for physical (read: large strong people) help, or stuff like that.

It was funny, I got a new job recently, and every day I sit at that desk, and I kind of marvel at the inanity of it all. I mean, it's at a bank, a foreign exchange bank, and the primary function of this bank is to trade currencies on the market (as in, buying and selling), so that our clients make money (and the bank then makes money ourselves) off of the difference. A lot (actually, nearly all) of this business is done over phones; the sales people cold call people to see if they do business overseas, or if they would consider it, and once they convince those people to say yes, they transfer those clients over to the 'traders', who deal with the clients for the rest of their business with the bank. My job, then, is to scout the competitors, and find out literally everything there is to know about them, and provide this information to my boss, the VP of Sales and Trading. It's just a little crazy, because EVERYthing this company does is based on tech that is literally watching graphs rise and fall, and watching currency value rise or fall, and watching CNBC (a business channel) all day. Sure, I find the corporate world somewhat interesting....but, what if the power went out? That entire business...would be screwed. There would be NOTHING to do, because everything is online. Further more, everyone there, all these 30-something, high-powered traders? They have no practical skills. All their skills are is negotiating and convincing, and they can extrapolate information based on arbitrary graphs that they have no control over. I can only imagine that these people also would not be let through the gate to this city to stay....I would think they're even MORE screwed than I am, because this, this is their career. I'm doing this for the summer...they're doing this for the REST OF THEIR LIVES.

Okay, maybe that's unfair. Maybe one of them hates it, and doesn't want to do what they do. I have to admit, though, from what I've seen so far, that seems very unlikely. Also, don't get me wrong; for the hourly pay I'm getting, I'm down to do this for the rest of the summer and then never ever ever ever do it again. After working here, and at my last two jobs, I can safely say that the business world is never going to be something I enjoy. It is simply too boring.

The job I DO want, something to do with writing, well, I can't say that's much better in terms of applicable skills to a situation such as the one described in 'One Second After'. I'll have way more fun with it UNTIL the world ends, though. I imagine that once that DOES happen, I'll just make sure my family's safe, and then venture off to find my friends. There'll be no way to contact anyone, so I think within the first day or so, I'd just get on my bike and hightail it downtown to find people like Carrie, Christianne, Ashley, etc etc, since they're the 'closest'...it's sad that my CLOSEST friends, location-wise (and friend-wise), are like 2 hours away by bike. Aurora and Richmond Hill? I have close friends there, too, but...that's so goddamn far away. Maybe after the downtown trip =P Oh well.

Anyway, that's the post for tonight. It's nearly 2am, and I have to get up for that aforementioned bank job. No, I'm not robbing a bank...though that would be cool. I also have to sort out so much crap with the Registrar tomorrow...ugh, course enrollment is the worst. Bedtime!

falling skies

Ah, alien invasions. Let me start by saying that I'm not wishing that aliens come to Earth in real life any time soon, and start shooting the place up. Goodness knows the world has enough problems without aliens blowing crap up all the time. As far as sci-fi goes, though, it's pretty awesome. In fact, alien invasion stories make for some really really good entertainment, in both literature and in Hollywood.

Some of the best alien invasion stories, in fact, have been movies! In my sci-fi film class, we watched the original 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' movie from 1956. It was interesting, because (like most movies), it had a subtext of everyone being paranoid of each other, and people not being what they seem. Also, Kevin McCarthy, who recently passed away, is an awesome actor. We also watched movies such as 'War of the Worlds', both the old and new versions, and even those movies were interesting in the way they portrayed aliens coming to Earth. We watched 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind', which, while not an invasion movie, was still pretty damn scary at some points. 'Signs', by M. Night Shymalan ('what a tweeeest!' I love Robot Chicken), was also pretty scary...well, for the first 2/3rds of the movie, at least.

I purposely left off two fantastic invasion movies: District 9 and Independence Day. I left them off because they're so good, I wanted to talk about them more than just a mere sentence. District 9, then, isn't a real alien INVASION movie....because the aliens hardly invade. They get to Earth, realize they're screwed, and effectively get quarantined in a small area in South Africa. Racial subtexts abound, and after some solid acting and plot development, the movie ends on a sad sort of cliffhanger. Independence Day actually had some real invading, however....we don't see much of the aliens themselves, short of the one encounter with Will Smith dragging one of them back to Area 51 to eventually meet the President, but we DO see their massive ships that easily annihilate cities all over the planet. I often wonder if Toronto was destroyed....I mean, the movie states that they hit all the major cities first, so New York, Washington D.C., L.A., Moscow, I presume London as well...and then they move on to the slightly smaller cities, and so on and on. Would they have come for Toronto, or Ottawa first? It's not THAT far from NYC. Buuut, I digress. Human ingenuity prevails here, and the humans win, eventually, thanks to Jeff Goldblum and Will Smith. Millions upon millions die, but....we win! Also, the President's speech in the movie? Awesome.

Nowadays, though, there aren't any good alien invasion stories. It's a little sad, because there have been so many throughout the years. It's as if it peaked with Independence Day. The most recent alien invasion movie that was released was actually 'Battle: Los Angeles'. In this movie, we witness the shock troops of the aliens landing on Earth, and witness the American military mobilize itself to take them on. After a protracted conflict, we realize that even the mighty American military (and so, I'm guessing the implication is that the rest of the world is ****ed, since AMERICA couldn't deal with it) can't beat them back, and so they prepare to sacrifice the city of Los Angeles. Well, what would a good alien invasion movie be without the heroic protagonists? Along with every movie military cliche ever invented, the protagonists battle through the city, and manage to save some civilians....and also manage to take out the alien command centre, which allows the humans to mount a counter-attack that would potentially let them save the city (and this of course lets the other places around the US and presumably the world know the method for 'freeing the skies' around occupied cities). It was a solid movie, nothing GREAT, but definitely something I would watch again. I've only seen it once, so I guess I'll watch it later on for fun.

Falling Skies, though, is probably the most promising alien invasion story I've seen in years, and the fact that it is a TV show makes me even more excited. TV shows, while they can definitely be really crappy, can also be pretty awesome. This one is being produced by Steven Spielberg himself, and it follows the exploits of a group of people (civilians and fighters alike) who are traveling through the eastern United States, as they try to survive now that aliens have invaded and occupied the planet. Over 90% of the Earth's population has been killed, and so the remaining 10% is trying to survive...and fight back. Only the first two episodes have aired so far, and I loved every second of it. It's really compelling, and I have high hopes for this series. There's action, solid acting, and even the aliens seem scary...well, kind of. Regardless of that last bit, it has the potential to be fantastic, and I'm going to follow it with great interest...and if that's your thing, you should too!

bad boys

Whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do when they come for you? I recently watched the movie again, the first one, with Will Smith and Martin Lawrence. You know, I love that movie....it has fast cars, gunfights, explosions, hot women and hilarious/badass one-liners. Also, who knew Tea Leoni was hot when she was younger? I mean, she is STILL pretty hot, thanks to Google, but....well, she's almost old enough to be my mother. That doesn't detract from her hotness, it just weirds me out...juuuust a little.

But, bad boys. I was trying to be clever by working in the movie reference, but the real topic of this post are bad boys. You know what I'm talking about, those dudes who walk around with their leather jackets and all that....well, okay, I have a leather jacket, so that's clearly not the only criteria to be one. To be completely honest, I'm not 100% sure what a bad boy is. Is it just someone who doesn't follow the rules? Is it someone who just goes around with a bad attitude? I have no idea, really. What I DO know, though, is that for some reason, women seem to be attracted to these types of guys like flies to a dead body. Maybe that's a bad analogy, comparing women to flies and bad boys to dead bodies...but, ah well, too late now, there's no going back.

I had a brief conversation about this subject with a friend of mine a while ago. She postulates that girls are attracted to bad boys because they represent the thrill of danger, the unknown, and it's that unknown that makes people want to investigate it more. The mystery, the possibility of discovering something new, that's why the bad boy attitude/personality attracts people. I wonder if that's actually true...I mean, it sounds pretty much right. I think it's silly that women feel that way in the first place, but it still sounds like it's probably true. For example, I have another friend who seems to be attracted to this type of guy. I will preface this next little anecdote with the comment that I have never met this guy. I have only seen pictures of him thanks to Facebook, and via his BBM picture. To be completely honest, giving him the moniker of 'bad boy' almost seems to be doing him a favour. From everything I have seen of him, which includes digital conversations as well as those aforementioned pictures, he just seems....well, disgusting. He does look like a 12 year old (I should know, my brother is 12 years old, and he looks more mature than this dude), and he seems to enjoy hitting on women with reckless abandon. Guys like this, who think they're god's gift to women....they drive me insane. Maybe it's because my friends (the guys, I'm talking about them specifically here) aren't like that at all, so it just seems annoying. I never ever understand why women are attracted to those types. Perhaps it's the confidence. I know plenty of people who appreciate confidence in a guy, and that's perfectly fine. There IS a difference between confident, and being a sleazy, flirty annoyance. But, the end result? These type of guys seem to attract way more women than the other type: nice guys.

So, on one hand, you have these pseudo 'bad boys', and on the other hand, you have these 'nice guys'. You know the saying that's tied into this, I'm sure you do: nice guys finish last. Thus far in my life, I have seen nothing to prove that saying wrong. Nearly every girl I've become friends with have expressed far more attraction at some point for the guy who looks like he's a bad boy. Even if they've never met the dude in their LIFE, the bad boy look is what pulls them in. If there's one lesson that Hollywood teaches you, it's 'don't worry, everything will work out in the end'. What a load of bull. That, unfortunately, is NOT how life works out....but, bleh, here I am being a negative person again. The same friend who I had the conversation about bad boys with earlier, I also had a discussion with her on why nice guys seem to always finish last. Nice guys are...well, nice to everyone! They're not just nice to people who they are romantically interested in, but they're nice to literally everyone. This, apparently, makes girls think that they're not being treated specially, because it seems like everyone is getting the same treatment. So, what's the solution? You have to do something that makes the girl/person you're interested in seem like they ARE being treated specially. She also got this from some video or something....I paid attention to HER, but that video was just way too boring for me to watch the whole way through. Fortunately for me, she told me the 'lesson' the video was trying to impart...so...win!

Anyway, that's a nice lesson. It is true, and I definitely agree with it to a point....but, even so, I feel as if 'nice guys', even when making that extra effort to make sure they're noticed to the girl they're interested in, that it doesn't actually do anything. Considering I have done that myself, long before I ever was TOLD that this was something that might work...well, it doesn't work. I have found that if a guy WAS to do this, then the following will happen. You'll just get put farther into the friend zone, because you're now a sweet guy who cares just enough to help them out, but in a brotherly sort of way, not a boyfriend sort of way.

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure what the point of me publishing this post was. It was just an issue that had been irritating me for a while, and I was watching 'Bad Boys' today, and just decided to post it...also, I haven't posted anything in a while, so...woo. I'm also writing for another blog, for the vicorientation.ca blog, so that's my excuse. Anyway, as usual, feedback = win. Off to bed!

in blackest night

I was going to be clever and entitle this one 'In Brightest Day' if Green Lantern was a good movie....but, it wasn't. So, I was even MORE clever and entitled it 'In Blackest Night', since it was GODDAMN AWFUL.

Now, I should preface this by saying I knew going into this movie that it was going to be bad. I saw on rottentomatoes.com that it had an average review of 25%...which, when out of 100%, is pretty bad. I have gone to see worse movies before, and honestly, I was kind of hoping my expectations would be so low that it would impress me and I would walk out thinking 'well, that wasn't so bad. It was actually kind of good!'...wow. I have never been so wrong about a movie in my entire life.

Let me also say that I am a comic book fan. Suuuure, that's a little nerdy, but it also means I've read a lot of the Green Lantern background. They used character names, and villains and alluded to a sequel....but, my goodness, this movie was so bad.

The GOOD things about this movie are so few and far in-between that I shall talk about them first to get them out of the way. First of all, Ryan Reynolds. I always thought he was a good actor, and he has a certain charm about him that makes him likable, to ANY audience member. It's this charm that saves Green Lantern from being one of the worst comic book of all time...heck, it saves it from being one of the worst movies, period. Hal Jordan, the character he plays, is supposed to be stoic and serious with a touch of humour, and Reynolds pulls it off very well. Of course, if you've seen X-Men Origins: Wolverine, you know that he plays Wade Wilson/Deadpool, and in the former half of THAT movie, you'll see that Ryan Reynolds was born to play a smarmy character such as Deadpool, the 'Merc with a Mouth'. ANYway, back to GL; he was great, but, really....the role/dialogue/everything else failed him. Blake Lively had nothing to do as the love interest other than sit there and look hot...and, guess what, she performed that role to perfection. Honestly, she is gorgeous, and if I ever met her, I would probably faint. For the record, the only other people I would faint if I met would be Harrison Ford and, obviously, Tom Brady. The last good thing was Mark Strong, who played Sinestro. I'm not saying Sinestro was good, because he wasn't, but Mark Strong is a fantastic actor, and from the dialogue he said, he really came across as the powerful, serious leader that I always imagined him to be. It's the role that failed him here, as he was largely unimportant, and....well, it was just disappointing. They used him for an OBVIOUS setup in an after-the-credits scene, and if you know anything about Green Lantern, I'm sure you know what I mean. Hint: it has to do with the colour yellow.

I'm kind of getting into the bad things, so I'll just do it. My main problem with the movie was that there were so many unnecessary things. The villain on Earth was unnecessary...and the use of Parallax was butchered. Parallax, an entity made of energy that IS fear itself, is reduced to a cloud of black smoke that roars and yells, and when it inexplicably changes course from Oa (the home of the Green Lantern Corps and the Guardians) to go to Earth, to wipe out ONE Green Lantern....Hal beats it in about five minutes of screen-time by just reciting the GL oath. I was sorely reminded of 'Clash of the Titans', when after the entire movie of building up to the Kraken being released upon the world to teach the humans a lesson, Perseus beats it in about three minutes. It really sucked, in BOTH cases. Finally, to go back to Sinestro...he was criminally underused. It's not a spoiler to say that he eventually becomes a bad guy; he advocates for the creation of a yellow ring from the very first time we see him, and when he does create it? It gets locked away and we see it once in the after-the-credits scene I was talking about before. What a load of crap.

I think I just lost all interest in the movie where Hal Jordan, as the GL, goes and meets Blake Lively (whose character is named Carol Ferris), after he had saved her life the night before. Let's be real here for a second. His mask covers his eyes and part of his cheekbones. Otherwise, he looks EXACTLY THE SAME. I have the same issue with Superman (actually, the issue with him is bigger, since Superman DOESN'T WEAR A MASK, Clark Kent wears glasses and that's the only difference), but here it's also ridiculous. I'm surprised that Carol Ferris didn't recognize Hal Jordan the moment she laid eyes on him, to be quite honest...but I'm happy she didn't just completely miss that point, as she finally did. The specific point I lost interest was when he FINALLY recognized him, after a long conversation, and says 'Hal?! No way!'....I couldn't even restrain myself from saying 'This movie is shit.' in a really loud voice...and the saddest part was that people didn't tell me to shut up, a lot of people actually laughed. You know why? BECAUSE I WAS RIGHT.

A lot of the times, I can come out of a movie and say 'you know, that movie was bad, but it had its moments.' Not for Green Lantern. I feel sad, because it's such a good chance for DC to make a good movie for one of their huge characters other than Batman, and they not only squandered it, but they wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on this piece of garbage...and they took 10$ from me that I'll never get back, along with 2 hrs of my life that I'll also never get back. This is easily up there with one of the worst comic books out there (X3 and Spiderman 3 come to mind for recent competition for bad superhero movies), and it's sad. I fervently hope that any of my friends (or really, anyone) who reads this never goes to see that movie until you can be sure it won't cost you anything other than time...and even then, be care. Time is precious, and this movie sure wastes a lot of it. (oh, right, a rating out of 10. Let's go with....2.5/10, and keep with the rottentomatoes ranking. What garbage.)

cheering for the other guys

[Wrote this on May 25th....way to go about forgetting to post it >_>]

No, not the movie with Mark Wahlberg and Will Ferrell...though, I must admit, that WAS an entertaining movie. The last scene in that movie where you see The Rock and Samuel L. Jackson, I laughed so hard I almost fell out of my seat. But, what I AM talking about is when you/people in general cheer for the other team. When I say the 'other team', I really just mean ANY other team. For example, with the Vancouver Canucks going to the Stanley Cup Final for the first time in 17 years, many people have already hopped on the bandwagon, and I'm sure it's getting heavier by the day. There is a difference, however, between cheering for a team and hoping they do well. I *hoped* the Sharks would do well, but they lost, and I don't really care. Similarly, the Canucks have moved on, and I don't really care either? Why don't I care? Well, because MY team, the Toronto Maple Leafs, are not in the playoffs. I don't cheer for another team! How can you do that? It's a bit shameful, honestly.

I am a fan of the Leafs, the Toronto Raptors, the Toronto Argonauts, the Toronto Blue Jays...can you tell I live in Toronto yet? I am also a fan of the New England Patriots, but I'll explain that one in a bit. Anyway, to go back to the hockey example, I don't understand cheering for teams that are not your own. How can you truly be a fan of 'your team' if, when they get eliminated for whatever reason, you're suddenly cheering for ANOTHER team? That smacks of cheap-ness to me, as you clearly don't have the interest in your OWN team to stand by them even when they're collectively playing golf for the summer. Yes, I understand wanting certain teams to win over other teams, when neither of them are YOUR team, but actively cheering for them? Disgraceful. For example, whenever anyone plays against the Montreal Canadiens or Ottawa Senators, I fervently hope that the team playing against them wins...because I dislike seeing those two teams do well. As a result, I found myself hoping that the Boston Bruins would win the series in the first round of the playoffs this year. After the Canadiens were eliminated in 7, I was pleased. I generally just enjoy hockey, so I don't see the need to cheer for a team, especially when you would be cheering artificially for said team.

The whole Winnipeg Jets-Atlanta Thrashers thing is another issue that bothers me a little bit. To start, the team may not even be CALLED the 'Winnipeg Jets' when the sale is finalized (apparently they're waiting on the official announcement for a day where there is no action in the NHL playoffs, as to not draw attention from the games that are happening, which is a legit point). Let's be honest here, however; if the team were to go back there under a different name, they would still be the Winnipeg Jets in everything BUT name, and so people who claim 'well, its a new team, it's legit for me to cheer for them!' would be completely and utterly wrong. They would essentially be abandoning their team (their regional team, which is the hometown team) to jump on a bandwagon, and that is just as disgraceful as cheering for another team during the playoffs. Cheering for a team during the playoffs that isn't your own is a LITTLE excusable, if only because that cheering will stop when the regular season begins again in September. This is bandwagon-ism of the worst kind, considering you're abandoning an entire team to cheer (both during the reg. season and the playoffs) for a new one. The only people who have a legitimate claim to being fans of the Winnipeg Jets would be, you know, people who live in Winnipeg (or at least live closer to Winnipeg than Calgary/Vancouver/Edmonton/Toronto/whatever American hockey city is closest south of the border).

To revisit my New England Patriots fandom for a sec, however. I was a fan of the team long before Tom Brady became one of the best players to ever walk on a NFL field; in fact, Drew Bledsoe was the QB, and while he was not terrible, let's not forget he threw FOUR interceptions in the Super Bowl. Four?! ugh. Nevertheless, the Patriots were mired in a world of mediocrity, if not downright awfulness, and yet I was still a fan. True, I do not live in New England (which is a region, not a state or city), yet Canada has no NFL team anywhere in it. Regardless, I somehow became a fan of the Patriots when I was old enough to understand football (the first SB I ever saw was watching a young Brett Favre tear apart the Drew Bledsoe-led Patriots, the Green Bay defense intercepting him 4 times as I previously mentioned), and I was rewarded with watching them win three Super Bowl titles, as well as an undefeated season (and when THAT was brought to a bitter end, I felt like crying. So sad). I don't cheer for any OTHER teams (and though it's nice to see the Detroit Lions doing better as a team, if it came down to another game between them and the Patriots such as it did this past year, I would love to see the Patriots absolutely destroy and demoralize them), and I never will. In fact, I actively cheer against the New York Jets and Miami Dolphins, considering they are both division rivals of the Patriots (yes, the Bills are too, but I can't bring myself to wish them bad luck, they're just SO BAD), and I doubt that'll change any time soon. If, however, there was suddenly a Toronto NFL team....well, let me tell you, that would be a conundrum for me =P

If, for example, you were born in Toronto, and you cheer for the LA Lakers in the NBA? Then that's not cool, because Toronto HAS an NBA team. If you were born somewhere like Halifax and you cheer for the Lakers? That's a little better, if only because your city doesn't have a team. Essentially, if you have a hometown team, and you don't cheer for them, well, that smacks of bandwagonism. If you have no team in your hometown, but you live in one of those communities that are JUST outside of a major city...then who are we kidding, that major city's team is your team. But, if you live in a major/minor city, where the nearest sports teams is hundreds of kms away, then that's acceptable to cheer for another team.

Of course, this is all my opinion. None of you guys probably care what I think, but still, that's my opinion on the whole cheering for other teams. It's funny, originally I meant this to be about Canadians cheering for the Canucks, but I guess it's expanded a bit. Ah well. woo sports!

gender roles

http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/babiespregnancy/babies/article/995112--parents-keep-child-s-gender-secret

I figured I would start off with this, for a more serious topic. I promise I'm not trolling anyone here, I genuinely found this interesting. Also, a little ridiculous, but....well, alright, let's continue.

If you read through the (admittedly long) article, you'll basically find that it's about two parents who are raising their 3rd child to be genderless. There are, I'm sure, many people who feel strongly against what the parents are doing, and just as many people who feel strongly FOR what the parents are doing. I am one of the former; I think this is wrong, and will seriously inhibit the kid in the future. Maybe I'm a conservative at heart, but...I really don't approve of this, and I'll tell you why (I'm sure you'll all so excited, lol).

This, to begin, is different from a situation where someone was raised as a boy or girl and then feels (for whatever reason) that they identify more either as a genderless person, or as someone of the opposite gender. That's perfectly fine to me; that is great, and if said person wants to pursue that, I am all for them, and it's wonderful when parents legitimately support their children. That is NOT what is happening here, just so we're clear. This is a decision being made FOR this kid, who is a three-month old baby.

These parents are, essentially, refusing to define what 'normal' is. I mean, don't you think that part (if not the most IMPORTANT part) of a parent's job is to tell their child what is normal and what is socially acceptable? Someone said the following, as an example, which I somewhat agree with:

Pretend this had nothing to do with gender; pretend this was about parents not teaching their children how to talk because they didn't want them to be "restricted by the confining nature of established languages, thus stunting their creativity." It's pretty obvious there that the parents are setting up their kids for failure, beause they'll be unable to communicate and function in normal society. Outside of their own family group, those hypothetical children would be completely helpless, because they lack something everyone else considers an extremely basic skill.

The way these two parents are raising their children is little different, because said children are going to be so socially maladjusted that they're not likely going to understand how normal society works (and being home-unschooled is only going to compound the problems).

I agree with this, essentially. I would also say that not teaching your kids to talk is somewhat of a larger issue, because speech is a tool that one needs in order to get through every day life (or at least MORE of a tool than gender is, IMO). What's worse here is that these parents (in real life, the ones in the article) are taking things a step further; they're showing the kids how to be ABnormal, and are encouraging it. If Storm is born as a male, biologically, then...what is wrong with that, exactly? Are they incapable of raising a child as a boy, and then teaching him AFTER the fact that it is okay to challenge the norm? What's wrong with that, exactly?

These kids, not just Storm but Jazz and Kio as well, they have some rough times ahead of them, and I genuinely feel bad for them. They're going to have to go through some serious therapy if they ever want to come close to something that is 'normal', or else literally face scorn and ridicule for the rest of their lives. Being raised in an environment such as this will definitely create some serious sexual/gender identification issues, and if that doesn't mess a kid up, I don't know what will. I'm not saying they will DEFINITELY be screwed up, but they already have a tough road ahead of them. I simply disagree with this because it is something being pushed onto a three-month old baby, not someone who can make the decision for themselves.

Some might say that parents force a LOT of things onto their children, which is true. That doesn't necessarily make it right, however. For example, religion. Parents definitely force (if they follow a religion) their beliefs onto their kids from the moment they're born...yet, this is a horrible analogy, because religion in no way stunts someone's mental, physical or social growth. At the basest of levels, religion can be considered a 'hobby'...and this is coming from someone who IS religious, so bear with me. You might spend a day or two a week on it, you might learn some morals that you should have learned from your parents as general rules in the first place, and you'll get (more often than not) a book with things in it that you need to memorize. When practiced normally, religion is not taking the place of anything, such as social and intellectual interaction. Essentially, and I'm stealing this point from someone else who made it but it's a good one so w00t, "teaching a child to be religious does not remove a core skill the child would otherwise learn."

I don't want to come across as bashing the LGBT community or anything like that, because that's not what I'm doing here. There is a difference (an important difference) between a member of that community and these kids (Jazz, Kio and Storm): sexuality (or a lack of it, really) and social dissonance.

If you're attracted to your own gender, then that's a sexual urge and it's one that is not likely felt until you hit puberty, and that is a sexual feeling. The other thing here, which I've brought up already, is that of choice. Someone who chooses a transgendered lifestyle normally does that because they feel they were born with the wrong 'equipment'. Going to the kids that are currently being raised by the parents in the article, Jazz and Kio, I don't get either of these indications. Jazz, for example, wears dresses and does his hair up in pigtails...he's not doing that because he thinks he should have been born a girl, or because he feels like a member of the opposite gender (because, if you read the article, he identifies himself as a boy), he's wearing dresses because he thinks that's what a boy should do. THAT is what is messed up here. Challenging the norm is great; it's awesome, and if parents want to do that, then that's great. However, these kids are essentially having their conceptions of nearly everything screwed with, without being able to decide if that's what they want, and that is going to cause a great deal of hardship for them later on in life. They're also being home-schooled...so, great, they're going to have an even harder time when their schooling is done, since they'll have even LESS interaction with the outside world than normal.

Essentially, the choice for someone to move from a 'traditional' gender role to a less traditional one (aka, to decide that you are transgendered rather than a male or a female), that's a choice that should be taken by the child, and not the parents. These parents are forcing their own ideas of why the kid should be transgendered onto him/her, onto a three-month old baby no less, and it's sad, but the kid is going to be messed up in years to come. Kids already have hard lives....but that doesn't mean these parents should go out of their way to make it harder.

watching a lot of movies

I really have been watching a lot of movies lately. This is perhaps born of the fact that I do not have a job, but I already watch an obscene amount of movies, so I figured I would write a little about them. I've already written about seeing both Thor and most recently Pirates of the Caribbean 4: On Stranger Tides (there's no '4' in the actual title, but whatever), but I've seen a bunch of other movies in between, so might as well talk about those!

Fast Five (2011), Wedding Crashers (2005), Sherlock Holmes (2009), Iron Man (2008), Back to the Future (1985) and No Strings Attached (2011) are all movies I have seen over the past week, in addition to On Stranger Tides (2011) and Thor (2011)...though, that last one I saw at midnight, May 6th. I saw Fast Five and OST in theatres, the others I all saw...uh....not in theatres. Yup.

Anyway, Fast Five. I was not the biggest fan of the Fast and the Furious series of movies, because really, as the series went on, the movies got progressively worse. It hit rock-bottom with Tokyo Drift, and number four (which I think was just called 'The Fast and Furious', or SOMEthing like that) kind of brought the series back to a level where things kind of resembled respectability. At it's core, the series has really only been about a few things: fast cars and hot girls. Add in a liberal sprinkling of destruction and things being blown up, and you have a series of movies that anyone looking for a fun time will give a try. Fast Five made the series a little more fun, as it was obvious that it didn't try to take itself too seriously. Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, even Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson...they all had ridiculous one-liners, tough images and intense races and fights. Even Tyrese Gibson and Chris 'Ludacris' Bridges had their moments. I enjoyed this movie, I will not lie, and I enjoyed it way more than I did PotC 4. They are, however, very different movies, so it's kind of unfair for me to compare them. Elsa Pataky, one of the new cops alongside The Rock himself, is also ungodly attractive...definitely the hottest chick in the movie, hands down. But, ah well. Also, yes, The Rock and Vin Diesel fight...and it's awesome. My only complaint was that neither the People's Elbow nor the Rockbottom was used...but I guess that would have been a little too MUCH fan service? Does a thing even exist, 'too much' fan service? At the end of the day, it was a fun movie, and I enjoyed it. Happy endings for all, and the after-the-credits scene leaves it open for a potential sequel/reboot/spin-off, even IF the storyline of Paul Walker and Jordana Brewster has a satisfactory ending. Ah well; fast cars, hot girls...what more can you ask for?

Wedding Crashers was released in 2005. That was six years ago, in case you can't really count that well....it has been rented (back when Rogers Video was still around my house) by my parents MANY times, and each time, it was returned before I could watch it. I just kind of resigned myself to never seeing it, and then finally, I just got the urge, got a hold of it, and sat down and watched the whole thing. I really like Owen Wilson, and Vince Vaughn is kind of meh, but whatever, I can deal with him. It was a hilarious concept, but honestly, as soon as Wilson's character said 'Aren't we being a little irresponsible?', I KNEW that movie was shifting right into rom com territory. Indeed it did, as Rachel McAdams graced the screen soon after, and Owen Wilson's character was done. It was still funny along the way, and I got to see Bradley Cooper be the bad guy, before he was famous like he is now! I think he has a LITTLE to go to become truly a mega-star, but I mean come on, he was in the A-Team, the Hangover (which is getting a sequel this summer...how does a movie like that even GET a sequel? Isn't the lesson learned here one that says 'we should never get this drunk ever again'? ah well.), Limitless, and a few others. As far as the movie itself goes, however, it was funny, and the side plot with all the craziness that kept happening to Vaughn was also entertaining. It was just a little TOO predictable, right down to the wedding scene...but, ah well, entertaining is what matters, right?

Okay, I totally ended the last two paragraphs with questions, and I get annoyed when that happens too much, so I shouldn't do that too much myself...right? Ugh, stop it. Okay. I had already seen Sherlock Holmes, Iron Man and Back to the Future several times, the latter two being in my favourite movies ever list, so I will refrain from talking about them too much. Suffice to say they are awesome, especially the latter two. Sherlock Holmes I re-watched because I had been reading the stories again, and so it's always fun to watch another imagining of it. Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law have undeniable chemistry, and I am excited to see them take on Professor Moriarty (one of my fav villains of all time, even though he's only really been in one story) come Xmas time of 2011. Back to the Future is one of the best movies ever, period, so if you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it.

It's ironic that I spoke about BttF, because one of the things Christopher Lloyd says in that movie a lot is 'Great Scott!!' Honestly, when they said 'Great Scott!!' in No Strings Attached, I ACTUALLY thought that Christopher Lloyd was going to be the dad of Ashton Kutcher's character. Clearly not, but a weed smoking Kevin Kline is probably the next best thing. Also, what is wrong with me? I literally just STARTED watched a chick flick at 2am, and CRIED at the ending (well, not the ending, but the part where they get together/where Natalie Portman admits to Ashton Kutcher that she's completely in love with him, which is essentially the ending). No, that's not a spoiler, because it's a chick flick. You knew Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher were going to get together from the very beginning of the movie, so don't complain about that. It was a good movie, however, one that I would give maybe a 7 or 7.5 out of 10. It was recommended to me by two girls who thought it was awesome, and it WAS a chick flick, but it was a good movie nonetheless. What DID weird me out was at the end, where you see the director...Ivan Reitman?! The guy who directed Ghostbusters I and II as well as Kindergarten Cop? Wow. Ah well...his next project seems to be Ghostbusters III, so maybe that will be awesome.

There are still some big blockbusters left on the summer list, and of course I'm still going to be watching movies in between. Harry Potter, Cars 2, Green Lantern, Captain America, Transformers 3, Cowboys and Aliens, X-Men: First Class....all of those movies are coming out within the next two months, and I am going to be there to see them. wooo movies!