I should be grading midterms right now. I just want you all to know that I know that's true. Unfortunately, I don't expect I'm going to start caring any time soon. That being said what is my purpose in writing tonight? I haven't read any thought-provoking articles today, or inciting books. I haven't even had any particularly deep thoughts. I did rent George of the Jungle and Tin Cup. Brenden Fraser in a loin cloth I'm not ashamed of, but my ongoing Kevin Costner love...well, I think it's a sign of something deeply wrong with me. And so, in honor of that, tonight I give you another top ten.

The Top Ten Men I Love That Might Accidentally Kill Me While I Sleep:

10. Cole (Charmed)
He's hot, he's wounded, and he's half-demon. Cole fights the good fight and maybe if Phoebe was a different sort of woman, or Charmed ever had a decent storyline it could have worked out. Instead he ended up changing reality and making her his wife in a very I-enslave-your-mind sort of way. And yet, I don't care. If Cole were my King I might not hate reigning over the Underworld.

9. Lucifer / Hades
I know, I know--Lucifer? The Devil himself? It's not so much that should I meet evil incarnate that I think my libido would fire, but between Milton, some fantasy novel I can't remember the title of, and countless other representations Lucifer has stolen my heart. The quintessential bad boy, for some reason the character has fascinated me throughout movies and literature. If it's any consolation I even scare myself sometimes. I include Hades alongside because sometimes the poor guy gets lumped in--I see a difference, but I wanted to illustrate that I'm envisioning a less evil-incarnate Lucifer and a more misunderstood Hades. Hades is so in love with Persephone that he sweeps her into the Underworld to live with him. Yes, his is the kind of love that gives you Stockholm syndrome, but wouldn't it be worth it? Just a little?

8. The Goblin King (Labyrinth)
He sings, he dances, he wears glitter and plays with his balls. Ladies and Gentlemen I give you the Goblin King. I too stood out in my yard as a youngin' and imagined myself fighting my way to the center of the Labyrinth. But when I got there I saved my brother and didn't necessarily leave. Cause in my fantasy he loved me. In all honesty he might one day grow bored and turn me into a goblin, but the risk totally seemed worth it.

7. Angelus (Buffy)
Yeah, I would rather get it on with Angelus than Angel; it's true. Angel's a whiner. Angel's a brooder. Angel can't have sex with you without losing his eternal soul. Angelus is already bad and, while he might kill you, it would be a heck of good time until he did.

6. The Lord of Darkness (Legend)
In speaking to his father Darkness says, "Father, I hold the world in my grasp and yet, this girl distracts me. It has been an eternity since I have felt such desire. What am I to do?"
And his father replies, "She fascinates you because her soul is pure. To make her one of us, charm her, woo her, change her spirit, hypnotize her, set her free, bring her to you!" I would like to draw your attention to the part about being "set free." Yeah, hard to fight that one, horns or not. That sounds like a definite sexual awakening to me and while it might be bestiality, dear old Darkness sure looked like he would make it worth your while.

5. Anakin Skywalker (Star Wars)
I never thought I would fall for Darth Vader. He was more machine than man and, like the Devil, pure evil. Even when he went good it wasn't in a "oh I'm so hot" sort of good more a "I'm a cyborg whose dying after causing genocide" sort of good. Not hot. But then dear old Anakin woke up from his nightmare sweaty and panting and got out of bed in Episode 3 with nothing on but his six-pack. That was the moment my world changed forever and I knew that I truly, truly have horrible taste in men.

4. Dracula
It was only an okay movie and okay book. But Dracula's a lover. Yes he sold he soul. Yes he drinks blood. But isn't that inconsequential when placed against a love that lasts for all eternity? Sure seems to me like it ought to be.

3. The Phantom (The Phantom of the Opera)
So his face is deformed. With the body of Gerard Butler I am not above making him wear the mask all the time. And quite frankly, the deformity never bothered me that much. From my earliest childhood when the made for TV movie introduced me to the charms of the Phantom I was a goner. He just loves Christine SO much. Granted, he loves her so much she might suffocate from his hands around her throat, but it would be really, really hot up until then.

2. Riddick (Pitch Black)
Riddick seemed slightly redeemable the first time I watched Pitch Black. He seemed to have changed from a misunderstood villain to a loner. Then I realized he stabs Caroline at the end to save himself. Not quite so hot. But Riddick sticks to his own set of ethics. So long as you fall within that set he won't hurt you. In that way he is a safer choice than many of my others. Riddick isn't a hero in the normal sense of the word, he doesn't trust easy and if betrayed he will exact vengeance. But he'll do it with all those delightful muscles bunching and flexing. I might be watching them bunch and flex as the knife streaks down towards my heart, but I'll watch happily.

1. Mr. Rochester (Jane Eyre)
Those of you who aren't english majors might be perplexed by this choice. Certainly in my youth I never envisioned Mr. Rochester as the villainous sort. But, upon discussion with Victorian scholars I had to admit what I had ignored the first time I watched Jane Eyre. Locking one's wife in the attic, no matter how crazy, is not acceptable. Yes, it bothered me the first time I saw it. No I didn't let it turn me off Rochester. I found it a quirk, an undesirable trait that obviously wasn't his fault. Bertha was crazy. He had been tricked. It was the only option left open to him. Yeah, yeah...and he wouldn't hit her if she didn't make him do it. But despite all of that Rochester still gives me visions of wonderful, delicious ways to spend the afternoon. And so I keep loving him like any good battered fan would. And I admit that I too, might let myself be locked in the attic if it meant having Timothy Dalton for a time.

In honor of Halloween I thought I would discuss the state of female Halloween costumes. This is further encouraged by this article, http://www.newsweek.com/id/62474?GT1=10450 discussing little girls' costumes and whether they are too racy or not. I have some conflicting thoughts, not because I don't think these costumes are hyper-sexualized (I do) but because many times the costumes are referred to as "slutty." You all know how I feel about words like whore and slut, but I suppose my conflict arises from the impression that if you dress a certain way you are automatically "slutty."

Slutty dress is taken to mean provocative dress, or perhaps easy. I think perhaps my problem with tossing around words like slut arises from the wealth of connotations it carries. But the Halloween costumes out there in the world are hyper-sexualized and do make you look tacky, tasteless, and yes, slutty. So why does the concept of keeping our daughters from looking "slutty" bother me so much?

I think it must arise from the emphasis there being on looking easy. When discussed in terms of objectifying women, teaching young girls to wield their sexuality instead of embracing it, or promoting self-degrading behaviors I have no problem condemning certain modes of dress. For instance, short-shorts that say JUICY or BRAT across the butt. T-shirts that say BRAT across the chest. Why would you want a daughter that was proud to be a brat? Why would you want a daughter that was more proud of her ass than her mind? But clothing that promotes lack of character is different than clothing that just makes a woman look "easy." Looking or being "slutty" is a far cry from lack of self-confidence, being objectified, or feeling degraded.

And there is nothing wrong with wanting to look cute. Confidence in one's body should be promoted in children, teenagers, and adults. But there's a difference in dressing confidently, even provocatively, and dressing a child like a sex object. Perhaps what bothers me about the use of "slut" in this article is that it is entirely too simple of a description of what is going on. What is wrong with these outfits is so far beyond a girl looking like a slut that it bothers me as much to classify it under slut as it does to dress the child in the outfit to begin with.

Dressing your daughter like an adult is forcing sexuality on her long before she is ready. Girls and boys are children, and while there are differences, childhood is a fabulous time of androgyny and playing doctor. That might sound like a paradox, but children can revel in the differences of the body while still being completely oblivious to how much the other gender's appreciation of their body will matter some day. Little girls run around and get dirty if it appeals and little boys can stay as clean as they like. Little girls should be allowed to imagine themselves as army girls or doctors instead of "Major Flirt" or "Doctor Phil Good." Children enjoy life without sex--theirs is a life of make believe and dress up for no greater purpose than one night's fulfillment of the imagination. Adults, in the ever increasing brilliance of consumerism, have realized that sex sells--everyone wants to be sexy--and so everything we wear, think, or do must be pointed towards giving us more, better, wilder sex. And because adults buy costumes for children we sell sex there too.

This isn't a simple matter of girls being slutty or not then. It's a matter of adults robbing their children of their childhood. It's a matter of girls never being allowed to be girls, but being forced into the role of tiny women. It's not a matter of female sexuality as a good or bad thing, but female sexuality being wielded by society to make companies the most money possible.

It's fun to feel pretty--we equate feeling pretty with feeling loved, approved, noticed. All of those things are good feelings. But we can feel pretty, feel good, get noticed, without appealing to the vision of ourselves as objects instead of people. And to all the parents in the world, love your children and let them be. Don't try to make them the person you always wished you were. They deserve more than that. You both deserve more than that.

I have a confession to make. It's not right and I'm not proud of it, but here it is. I've had a weekend of cheesey Kevin Costner movies and now I'm wondering why Robin Hood isn't pledging eternal love to me. Please, before you give up on me let me defend myself (if such a defense is possible when discussing Kevin Costner movies).

I'm dogsitting for my cousin and Saturday found me on the couch trying to avoid the boisterous licking of a 9-month-old doberman puppy and doing homework. TBS had The Bodyguard on and I thought, what better to have on in the background while I read a little Nietzsche? Well, after The Bodyguard came the Upside of Anger. That one almost got a tear, it was surprisingly good. So here I am, reading theory, being licked by a puppy, feeling lonely and there is Kevin Costner preying on my poor defenseless soul. I know people have used the Devil as an excuse for their actions in the past, this time I'm using Costner. I think that's justifiable.

So tonight as I sit trying to prepare class tomorrow and finish homework I find myself watching Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. First off I'm horrified that Robin Hood didn't make it onto any of my lists; granted he's more a bowman than a swordsman, but that character deserves serious love, and I'll have to get to that. Secondly, Kevin Costner or not I love that movie. And finally, I'm so darned ashamed that Kevin Costner can make me sappy. I imagine this is the sort of dirty feeling someone has when she discovers she has a likeness for mullets or spandex. It's unnatural. It's not okay. And yet, I just can't fight this feeling anymore.

But on to the matter at heart--let's have a conversation about Robin Hood. He's always been right up there with Zorro in my childhood love. I mean, I seriously loved this guy growing up. He was debonair, an excellent fighter, a natural with the ladies, and a man who fought the establishment for the good of the people. The more of my childhood movies I watch, the more I discover where all my crazy libertarian ways came from. Though, in my defense, I've been a fighter for the people for as long as I can remember. Obviously I was a revolutionary in a former life.

In any case, there isn't a great point to this except to confess my sins to the world. Said puppy is now sleeping on my leg looking absoluetly adorable and I can almost forget how little I've slept or how much I'm covered in dog slobber. Almost. Doubtless, in just a few minutes she'll wake up, blink her big brown eyes, give a cute yawn, and fart. Then she'll lick me. Then she'll bark.

Maybe that's why I like old Kevin. He doesn't try to lure you in with cuteness or good acting. He says, "hey, I did Waterworld. You know exactly what you're getting into." I appreciate that kind of honesty in a man. It's admirable, even if most of the movies aren't.

Some days it is so hard for me to keep my cheerful demeanor. I feel like for all the wonderful, helpful internet garbage I contribute to the world it never seems to make a difference. Probably, it doesn’t make a difference because it’s wonderful, helpful internet garbage. In any case I hope that any who stumble across this might recognize what is happening and take whatever steps necessary (specifically alerting everyone around them) to avoiding a future where we are all barcoded or implanted by the government “for our own good.”

I give you today’s entry in Slate http://www.slate.com/id/2176381/ listing any number of things going on in the world today. The first is a noninvasive test for smokers. It measures the carbon monoxide in your blood through your fingernail. Fantastic. Doctor’s can use it to check if patients are lying, and insurance companies can use it to decide to give you coverage. I love how we discriminate against people, then they lie, and then we develop technology to catch them in their lie. What a fantastic cycle. Like the traffic camera technology developed for a good reason--helping people remain as safe as possible through catching criminals or giving proper medical treatment--can now be assimilated into the system and used to watch every aspect of our lives. I see no problem with that. The second is about the chip. Oh, the chip. How I love the chip.

Do you know why I love the chip as much as I do? Because any sci-fi nerd who grew up reading books about dystopia s (I had to separate the “s” because Microsoft hates me) has learned over and over again the down side to tagging people. A lot of things are great ideas in theory--id chips, communism, spam, but you put it into action and things go a little wonky. People with interest in power, or interest in forcing people to live as they should, gain control and suddenly the chip isn’t used to make sure you have the right medical attention, the chip is used to make sure you are where you are supposed to be and doing what you are supposed to be doing.

Why does the government get to parent me? Not enforce laws--that isn’t the same thing, but parenting. Enforcement of laws means you punish me AFTER I break the rule. It means I am free to make the decision. Parenting means you ground me, lock in my room so I can’t go to the party where the bad decision awaits me. That’s great as a parent--your kid can’t be trusted so you don’t let the child engage in high-risk activities. But adults, adults should be able to be as intelligent or as stupid as they like. The government’s job is to hopefully catch them before they are too stupid, but you don’t get to try someone for murder before they attempt to commit it. But if you have a chip, a chip that tells someone, or anyone with the ability, where you are, then someone is watching you all the time. Isn’t that unnerving? Isn’t unnerving that even if they don’t watch you all the time, they can? My students’ favorite argument about the Patriot Act is that the government can’t possibly listen to all of our conversations at once, so it isn’t so bad. They are only going to watch you if they have reason.

What everyone fails to recognize is that if you’re innocent you always assume it’s obvious. Can’t you see I’m not a threat? Can’t you see you shouldn’t spy on me? But it doesn’t matter if you are innocent or not. It only matters if you are perceived to be guilty. Guilty UNTIL proven innocent. And even then, maybe guilty by association. If you have given up your right to fight that, your right to be innocent until evidence proves otherwise than it no longer matters if you are innocent or guilty. It no longer matters if you deserve what you get. It only matters if someone, with more power than you, thinks you do.

This isn’t simply America working to keep America safe. This is a basic changing of our democratic structure. It is a removal of our right to freedom--for conservatives, our right endowed upon us by “our Creator.” I keep writing about this because I’m scared. I’m not as scared of blowing up in a terrorist attack as I am of my own government. I’m scared of what it is becoming, of what is being accepted by the people. I’m scared that I’m going to die in a terrorist attack it allowed to happen because it needed to make a point. I’m scared that I’ll die in a terrorist attack and someone will use my death as justification of stripping civil liberties away.

You might think I’m overreacting, but I ask why. Because it can’t happen here? Because America wouldn’t do that? America isn’t a thing--people are a thing. All it takes is for the right (or wrong) person to be in power and for the people to let it be. We’ve allowed the wrong person to be in power for eight years--I don’t blame all of this on him specifically, though I do believe those who are to blame took advantage of the situation. But a leader should be intelligent. A leader should be strong. A leader should fight for more than what a country stands for; a leader should fight for what is right. And what is right isn’t decided by religion or even the Constitution. Right is decided by freedom and equality for all regardless of arguably immoral behavior. Right is decided by allowing all that is best in the human spirit to advance and grow. That is found in freedom to live and the opportunity to learn. Right is decided by allowing people to be wrong.

What can I do? What can any of us do? Maybe we can’t make a difference. Maybe we can’t change anything. But we can care. And we can say no when they tell us to implant a chip in ourselves or our family. And if you just don’t have it in you to care, then I suppose you just don’t have it in you to live.

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Poem on the Holocaust Memorial in Boston, MA.

Here I was wondering what I would regale you all with when msn.com provided me the answer. As evidenced by this article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21440637/wid/11915773?GT1=10514 teen smokers are five times more likely to drink and thirteen times more likely to use marijuana. My favorite thing, my very, most favorite thing about said article, is that it’s news.

The single best line is: “Asked whether smoking is causing these other behaviors or is just another risky behavior occurring alongside the others, Califano said, ‘There's no question that early teenage smoking is linked to these other things. Now whether it's causing it or not, I think the jury is probably still out on that.’”

I love that we think smoking cigarettes, like some sort of vengeful curse, takes control of your mental facilities, rips destiny from your young, nubile, little fingers, and replaces it with a beer and a joint. Once you start down that dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume you it will! As it did Obi-Won’s apprentice.

Do psychologists not factor into the academics looking at this data? Does psychology 101 have no influence on these scientists education? Does basic common sense play no part in our examination? Here’s a hypothesis, one I’m just throwing out there for the fun of it. Teenagers are unhappy. Teenagers are looking for a way to rebel and escape reality. Those that want it bad enough find cigarettes. Those that continue to want it bad enough find beer and pot, and perhaps, other drugs. The cigarettes might affect their growing brain and make dependence more likely, but the reason they try these drugs and drink is because they hate their life. A hate brought on mostly by being a teenager; perhaps compounded by parents, school, and society. A hate that exists with or without the cigarettes.

It’s just a thought.

I would guess, those willing to break the rules and try cigarettes are probably the same that will be willing to break the rules and drink underage. The common factor there is breaking the rules. Amazing, isn’t it? And yet we spend money, valuable time that we could be researching failures of education, failures of the prison system, hell, even failures of the government, and instead try to prove (because it hasn’t been proven yet) that cigarettes are a bad idea. And, to top it all off, that kids who make bad decisions early on, are more likely to make bad decisions later. That’s absolutely fucking brilliant. I’m so glad I’m a member of academia.

This article serves no purpose but to give people something to worry about. It allows parents to have one more reason to fear their children smoking. A more concrete reason than it being unhealthy. Health is some thing we don’t have to think about often. It’s in the future. And if the parent used to smoke they might not worry about their child experimenting. But if the parent is appropriately afraid of their child turning into a pothead or a heroin addict, they’ll react much more violently.

A parent reacting violently to cigarettes in their teens bag is not a bad thing--I’m not sure what I would do, but I’m sure it wouldn’t be pretty. But, again, basic parenting skills along with current education inform you that you shouldn’t let your children smoke. They also inform you that children find other substances to affect reality not because the substances have some sort of evil aura that forces them to, but because they don’t like their reality. The way to combat usage then is not to simply take the substances away (the child will most likely find a substitute) but to take the substances away and try and fix the situation as much as possible.

But the article doesn’t tell you that. It warns you to be afraid, be very afraid, if your child smokes. A lot of articles now a days warn you to be afraid, be very afraid, of so many things. If you are afraid and vigilant than you can stop it. You can control it. You can be so happy that other people are afraid that you will thank them when they alleviate you of some of your control to help lessen the burden. Thank you sir for taking away my right to smoke indoors. Thank you sir for taking away my right to drink. Thank you sir for taking away my right to privacy. I’m so very glad that you don’t let others do these horrible things, so that I, and my children, can be safe.

It’s going to suck a lot when you, or your children, are perceived to be doing those things and everyone else just watches you all be taken away. Thankful that someone is helping to keep them safe.

Top Ten Underdogs

The following is a list and explication of my top ten underdogs I would like to marry and have babies with. I was feeling a bit serious tonight, but nothing has percolated enough for a true rant so I share instead this delightful extension of my list. I offer you every girl’s favorite male hero, the underdog. He’s always getting punched, and usually for a woman, but some how he comes out on top in the end. And no other male characters manage to look quite so adorable getting beat up. There’s just something about the underdog that makes you want to take him home and put him to bed. So here are the ten I would most like to put in bed…and take home. As always, please discuss and add your own suggestions.


10. Casey Jones (TMNT)
Casey Jones caught me at a young age. I was into teenage mutant ninja turtles, and then there was a cute skater-type who beat up bad guys with a hockey stick. My young self was not prepared for that. He blindsided me with his adorableness and I sooooo wanted to be April. I even carried around a big yellow bag hoping to attract the real life equivalent. Oddly, it didn’t work.

9. Harry Dresden (Dresden Files)
This one might catch a few of you off-guard. Dresden Files is a new show on Sci-fi and Harry Dresden is my favorite underdog wizard for hire. He is in a constant state of being beat up, outmatched, love-scorned, and still kicking ass at the end of the day. That’s my kind of Merlin.

8. Captain Kirk (Star Trek)
Captain Kirk isn’t someone normally thought of when considering underdogs, but part of his charm is that he always wins. Despite staggering odds; despite his ship constantly getting the crap kicked out of it by friendly fire, time warp, or a klingon bird of prey that can fire while cloaked, Captain Kirk somehow manages to pull through. The reason he comes in at number eight is that while Captain Kirk may have been a stud back in the day, I grew up with him. That makes him kind of like a father figure. And that’s kinda gross.

7. Wolverine (X-Men)
Oh my first love--comic book love that is. He was too short, too hairy, and always hittin’ on Cyclops’ girl. I so wished I could be an X-Man because I was sure, as sure as a twelve year old could be, that all it would take was one look and Wolverine would kick Jean Grey to the curb and recognize the hotness that was me. Of course when I was twelve I had bad hair, glasses, buck teeth, and a penchant for Walmart clothes, but none of that would have mattered to Wolverine. He would have taught me the ways of the Samurai. Then we would have practiced, at length…in bed.

6. Constantine (Constantine)
I know, I know. Not everyone can appreciate the Keanu love. It isn’t easy. And why Constantine instead of Neo? Constantine is more of the consummate underdog. Poor guy is dying of lung cancer and doomed to go to hell. I’d say the odds are pretty stacked at that point. None of that stops him, though, from saving the girl’s sister, saving the girl, and saving the world. And he does it all while being Keanu--that’s talent man, serious talent. And serious talent deserves serious love.

5. Indiana Jones (Indiana Jones)
Oh come on, you knew it was coming. He wears a fedora, searches the world for artifacts--not to sell them, but to preserve them for posterity. What you’ve done there is trip my bad boy switch, my professor switch, and my action hero switch all at the same time. That means I’m pretty much in the “On” position every time Indiana appears. And he hates snakes. He might be the best guy ever--if only he would stay around after he found the treasure.

4. Rick O’Connell (The Mummy)
Not everyone loves on Brendan Fraser like they should either. But in true Indiana Jones style he makes those silly pants from the 1920’s look good while saving the world, saving the girl, and loving her for all eternity. Manly, funny, and dying to kiss you, he’s a man worth leaving the light on for.

3. Malcolm Reynolds (Serenity)
Joss Whedon apologized to all the watchers of Serenity for only offering one scene of Mal shirtless, and then only shooting Nathan Fillion from the collarbone up. But for two seconds you see Mal lying on the bed, tousled, sleepy, and shirtless and that might actually be the best thing ever. Even better than that though is Mal. Wounded but still deeply ideological, Malcolm Reynolds is a space pirate after my own heart. Not to mention he’s a cowboy, a pirate, AND a space captain. Does it get any better than that?

2. Han Solo (Star Wars)
“I love you.”
“I know.”

1. Bigby Wolf (Fables)
If you don’t know who Bigby Wolf is go to the nearest book store/comic book shop and pick up Fables. It is imperative that you do. He’s the big bad wolf, literally, but now he’s also a man. A wounded, honorable, noir man who just can’t help but love a woman out of his league (Snow White). I consider making a crass joke on huffing, puffing, and blowing things down but I’ll refrain. Instead I will simply ask, is it considered bestiality if you marry a werewolf? Even if it were, I’m not sure that stop me from loving Bigby Wolf.

North American Union, Myths, Facts, and Information.



Hopefully this video turns out. After watching it I was understandably upset and set about discovering as much information as I could as to the validity of it's claims. While I am a conspiracy theorist, I try not to be a ridiculous conspiracy theorist. To that end I offer two links with helpful information. The first is from the Seattle Times News Source here
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003713518_rumor19.html and was helpful because it offered not only the myths with some clarification, but also some of the reasons that the myths have caught hold. The second is the website for the SPP, or Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. The SPP seems to be where the belief of a North American Union comes from. While it is not what the video protrays it to be, it is still important to understand. I particularly suggest clicking on the fact sheet for the avian pandemic information. The idea of there being factors in place to handle a disease that hasn't struck yet, but that they are sure will strike (or one like it) unnerves me. Not because we shouldn't be prepared, but because it is one more terrifying thing for the people of our country to worry about. One more terrifying thing they have to rely on their government to handle. Make of it what you will.

The information on the microchip was significantly more disturbing. The first site
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6237364/ is from my dear old friend msnbc.com and made me more than a little sick to the stomach. I don't think I need to express why this is so very, very bad an idea. The second site
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20041013-4305.html is an opinion from another fellow who offers his opinion and also some background information.

Why is this not all over the news? The video might be more frightening than true, but it's premise, that people are kept unaware and scared by the government, is more real than fiction. And the idea that people willingly allow their families and themselves to be "tagged"...I don't have words. I suppose that while I thought Brave New World might happen someday, I didn't think it would be in my lifetime.

Bad idea. Very, very, very bad idea.

Today’s blog is brought to you today courtesy of Jem and the Holograms. I am sitting on my bed watching the Dvds and grading papers (yes, I know how cool I am, that’s why I work to share that coolness with all of you) and I noticed some significant themes in the show. First of all Rio, Jerrica’s boyfriend and Jem’s undisclosed something, is so loyal to Jerrica that no one can tempt him away except, Jerrica. And, he is so darn in love with her that he just can’t resist her alter-ego. This, of course, prompts the question: is it cheating if you cheat on me with myself? And is it entrapment if I lure you into cheating on me, with myself? I will return to these questions, as they do deserve an answer.

I also noticed, however, that Jem is constantly in mortal danger. Rio trips and all the sound equipment starts exploding around her, singling her off from the group she had been standing in. She helps a man out of a pool and manages to fly ten feet through the air only to land in the path of a runaway bulldozer. A thief knocks the lamp out of Kimber’s hand and the fire rages out of control in mere moments, shooting across the floor as if it were fueled by the devil himself. And this is only in the first half of the story.

So it got me thinking, maybe if I too were in a constant state of near death someone like Rio would save me, love me, and perhaps cheat on me with myself. But then I looked around at my grading, my super girl t-shirt, and my unwashed self at 1:00 pm and decided that were I ever to be in mortal danger I would probably just die. Doubtless, however, my bloated, decaying corpse would be found by someone appropriately hot and spy-like who would feel an inexplicable drive to solve my murder and honor the memory of me whom he didn’t know. In the course of honoring that memory he would fall in love with someone who looked a little bit like Jessica Rabbit and the last image of the story would be them putting flowers on my grave before walking off into the sunset to make sweet, sweet love. I would still be dead.

Maybe that’s a bit defeatist, but judging from my history and my luck I feel a realistic expectation. But, that’s why I’m not Jem. And I don’t have truly, outrageous pink hair. Maybe if I get the hair it will change my story…I’ll get back to you on that one.

Now, back to the topic of cheating and if it counts if you cheat no me with myself. I don’t know. Because, what if you can’t help but be attracted to me because I’m just so me? My appeal is so strong that even when you don’t know it’s me you still can’t resist? That’s hot. But you sleeping with someone you don’t know to be me isn’t. But if you show an appropriate amount of guilt, and just couldn’t control yourself…this isn’t an easy question to answer. And what ethical responsibilities do I have when seducing you? Am I allowed? Can I hold it against you? Am I allowed to be angry if you say no and if you say yes? I really feel like the cartoons of my youth prepared me for a philosophical life. I mean, to imagine a young girl grappling with the complexities of a two-sided love triangle. Jerrica, Rio, and Jem (Jerrica). It’s beautiful. No doubt my love for all things abstract has arisen from Jem and the Holograms.

Should I ever win a Nobel Prize I’m so going to thank Jem in the speech.

Top Ten Swords...hehe.

So, I began this list awhile ago and intended on finishing it long before this. However, school, social consciousness, and life got in the way and have kept me from sharing it with you until just now. Hopefully you will forgive me and enjoy this light-hearted, but still quite serious, list I am presenting you. It might be the first of my top ten lists…we’ll see how it goes. In the meantime, I encourage all three of you that read this to post your thoughts, agreements or disagreements, and suggest any names you feel should have made the list.

And so, I present to you my Top Ten Swashbuckling/Sword-Wielding Heroes Whom I Would Like To Marry And Make Babies With! (I could make the title shorter, but I like to be clear about my intentions.)

10. Ash (Army of Darkness)/Lion-O (Thundercats)
Okay, no Ash doesn’t actually wield a sword, it’s a chainsaw, but it is handheld and Ash does kick ass. To make up for it I included Lion-O in this spot for any who might disagree with Ash as a choice. But, frankly, Ash is the only man ever, imagined or born, who can utter the words “Gimme some sugar baby” and make you want to say “yes.” For those not in agreement with Ash I offer Lion-O, King of the Thundercats. His large, he’s in charge, and his sword gets bigger when he whips it out. I think that’s worthy of notice.

9. Wesley (Princess Bride)
“As you wish!” Oh my sweet Wesley, if you would fight the good fight for my love like you did for Buttercup’s I promise I would do anything you wished, exactly as you wished it. And I would let it be known that Indigo is definitely worth loving as well, but I tried to restrain myself to one character from each movie/book/world and Wesley had to be my choice.

8. Etienne Navarre (Lady Hawk)
Was there ever a man that brooded more hotly? Maybe Batman, but Etienne Navarre made me long for a curse--I was so willing to be a hawk during the day as long as he made sweet, sweet love to me forever after we broke the curse. Not to mention he turned into a wolf at night, and that makes him slightly werewolf like--just another factor that contributes to his appeal.

7. Obi-Wan Kenobi (Star Wars)/Aragorn (LOTR)
Yes, this is another two-fer. I include Obi-Wan (young, not old) because Ewan MacGregor made my heart do a pitter-patter in my funny places. But a lightsabre is not exactly a sword. Aragorn so deserved to be on the list and I didn’t know where else to put him so it seemed a good solution. I should say that Aragorn comes in as a tie for 7, because while he is hot I find his brooding more a deterrent than an aphrodisiac. There’s just something about the way he keeps putting Arewyn off that irritated the piss out of me. I’m willing to fight for my man, but I’d just as soon not have to keep fighting while he walks off time after time. Even if he is going to save the world as we know it. Perhaps if Tolkien had ever shared just what Aragorn did to earn her sweet love I would move him up in the list. But as it stands, his brooding ranks him at number seven.

6. Kull (Kull the Conqueror)
I know, I know, Kull? Over Aragorn? It’s a travesty of taste, but my funny places, they make me think funny things. And Kull the Conqueror does wield a sword, even he is better at wielding an axe. And he is so, so very hot while he does it.

5. Leonidas (300)
Uh, yeah. I justify not my choice of Leonidas on this list, but I will explain he is at five instead of one, not because he lacks in appeal--good lord he jumps and thrusts and sweats all in itty-bitty, teeny-tiny, little, leather panties--but because being a Spartan wife would be difficult for me. If I had to pick an ancient civilization Sparta would be it, but I’d rather a world where I have equal rights. And it speaks to Leonidas’ unforgiving hotness that he stands at five when we all know what a crazy, liberal, feminist I am. And he treated his wife with respect and equality in their relationship--if ever there were a mental trait that surpassed a physical one that would be it. But, of course, it doesn’t. It’s the leather panties. Nothing beats that.

4. Will Turner (Pirates 3)
No, I’m not normally an Orlando Bloom girl, and I certainly wasn’t before the third Pirates. But the first time you see him he’s all tied up, and wet. And then he stays wet for most of the movie. And then he goes all swashbucklery. All the while loving Elizabeth with the firey passion of a thousand suns. The ending was a bit annoying, but I blame it not on my swashbuckling seaman. Instead I say, “yes, please.”

3. Zorro (Mask of Zorro)
So, three and two were really hard to decide on. In actuality they are probably a tie since it really just depends on which movie I watch at the time. But I went with Zorro as three because he’s hot, he loves you, but he’s always running off to save the world. This isn’t a bad trait, but as he doesn’t have any super powers he might die doing it. The logic is a little bit circular because those traits I am chastising him for right now are exactly what makes him number three instead of not on the list. No, I don’t always make sense and yes, I know it. But it’s the best I can offer. I’ll placate you by saying I would gladly marry Zorro in a heartbeat…cause he’s Zorro.

2. Madmartigan (Willow)
He’s wounded; he’s a ruffian, and he’s the greatest swordsman that ever lived. What you have there is a recipe for hotness that did not go wrong. It was baked to perfection and served in Willow. I blame Madmartigan for my obsession with bad boys, and my obsession with the idea that they might one day stop being a bad boy and love me. Stupid wounded bad boys. At least this one probably wouldn’t kill me while I slept.

1. He-Man (Cartoon)I don’t really feel I should justify this one. He’s large, super strong, incredibly moral, saving the world, and runs around in fur panties. While they aren’t leather they show off an appropriate amount of sculpted everything. I don’t even care that he’s a cartoon. He is, in many ways, the best of everything. And I will never, ever, ever, forgive Dolph Lundgren for letting them give him a mullet when he played the part. Ever. The mullet truly is mightier than the sword. Not even He-Man can persevere in the face of that. But I have my cartoon. And the silly bowl cut doesn’t matter cause frankly, I’m not going to spend a lot of time near his head.

I want you all to know that I had planned on a funny entry happening next. I even began my compilation of a few top ten lists with which I would entertain you. But, it’s not to be.

I’ve begun a little research. I looked up Ann Coulter’s new book on Amazon and thought I would see what people were saying about it. And then I found a list of the top ten must read Conservative books and I started looking through that. I stopped on Sean Hannity’s book Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty Over Liberalism. I read the excerpt; I might even go the bookstore later, hunker down and read a little more. Why, you ask? Not just so that I can fire myself up for an angry rant about the evils of Conservatives in this blog, but because I had a thought. What exactly is being said in these books? What do all of these people keep saying that others find so true? I know what they say on their talk shows; I know what they are reported to say on the news, but what beliefs are being espoused in print that make me not a Conservative and are so very different from mine that I’m as hated by them as they are by Liberals?

I thought maybe I was wrong, you see. Maybe I had missed something. Maybe there was some fundamental difference of belief that I shared with all of these people that I just hadn’t realized in all the media fuss of Liberals vs. Conservatives. I’m an American. I’m a patriot. I want America to be safe and wonderful and happy. I want the ideals of our Constitution to be upheld. So do they. So I wondered, what makes us so different?

The difference, I’ve decided, really comes down to basic fundamental beliefs. Government with Church vs. government without Church. Refusal to accept powerlessness vs. refusal to abuse power. Monologism vs. dialogism. Need to control vs. need to be free.

All of those sound like very polemic statements I know, especially the last. My students spout the same information splayed across the media--liberals are trying to strengthen governmental control while conservatives are trying to fight them. Conservatives are trying to uphold our freedoms, keep America free, fight the good fight, stop evil, and Liberals just want to hand the country over to Hillary a.k.a. the anti-Christ. These are the sound bites. But the truth is so very, very different.

While our country was founded on Christian principles, we were never meant to be a “Christian” country. If we were, it was only because the founders could not comprehend a situation where Christianity was not the base religion of all. I say Christianity instead of Puritan, Protestant, Catholic, or Mormon because at the very least all possible sects of Christianity were to be tolerated, and all other religions allowed. At the very least. That hasn’t really been the case. We’ve discriminated against Catholics, Quakers, and Mormons. We have used Christianity as justification for slavery, women’s subservience, and denial of marriage to homosexuals. This isn’t an attack on Christianity, it’s merely an elucidation of what abuse of the religion has justified, and keeps justifying. The reason we have separation of church and state is so that these things don’t happen. When you justify societal changes with religion rationale can get a bit touchy. Meanwhile, all the people who believe in the faith and disagree with those who are abusing it get a bad name and are as frustrated as those being discriminated against. Some people believe wholly that The Bible justifies their actions while others believe wholly that The Bible would never justify such atrocities. No one can agree, no one can prove the other wrong. There’s the rub in faith. That’s why it isn’t part of our Constitution.

But the Conservatives use religion as a fear-mongering tactic. Look at the evil Liberals trying to cut religion out of school, out of government, out of your life. 9/11 was an attack on our very way of life, it is the start of a war “between good and evil; between right and wrong; between the Judeo-Christian values upon which this country was founded and the violent nihilism of radical Islam.” (Hannity, 6) But it isn’t that easy. Nor is it that simple.

Radical Christianity is the author of just as many atrocities throughout history as radical Islam. The KKK uses the Cross as a weapon, the witch trials used The Bible as justification, the Spanish Inquisition used Christianity as reason, and the Crusades believed the Holy Land should belong to the West. Radicalism might be evil, but it isn’t a simple evil. It isn’t something we can snuff out. And it certainly isn’t a sign of an evil person. It’s a sign of a zealot. A person who has no room for other belief. Those people scare me. I dread the thought of every meeting such a person again. But every religion, every country, every age has them. They aren’t unique to Islam. This isn’t something that just popped up with Al Queda. We aren’t the holy righteous gunslinger who’s going to have a shoot out with the bad guy and save the day. And this is where the fundamental difference of belief happens. This is why I’m not Conservative.

The ends, sometimes, justify the means, but never by any means necessary. We were attacked on 9/11, but our fundamental way of life didn’t change, at least, not because of Al Queda. It changed because we got scared. It changed because we believed a) that we were under some new, horrible, looming threat all the time and b) there was something we could do about it. Terrorism has been around a long time. Terrorists have tried before, and sometimes they have even succeeded. But we aren’t being invaded. The thing about zealots is, they can wait. They can wait as long as necessary and do whatever it takes to hurt you. There is no deterrent that will stop them. So as the government passes the Patriot Act and other legislation that is designed to “keep us safe” and all it is doing is stripping our rights. So as the government “fights for freedom” it does so by taking ours away.

It isn’t easy to admit that maybe we’ll never be able to get Al Queda back. It isn’t easy to admit that maybe nothing we do will stop them. Some would call that cowardly, but I call it the truth. I call it that because they will always find a place to go. The Christians, while under suppression by the Roman government went underground--people find a way. Meanwhile, we sit here, spinning our wheels, because we want to feel powerful. We want to feel like we can control the situation. And we feel that way by holding more control over our citizens at home. We feel that way by saying the ends justify the means by any means necessary. That we are right, good, holy, and they are wrong, bad, and evil.

So no, I’m not Conservative. I’m not Conservative because life is never so simple as the plot of a movie. There is rarely an obvious bad guy, and even more rarely a correct course of action to deal with him. I’m not Conservative because I feel there absolutely should be a separation of Church and State. I feel Churches should have the freedom to run their congregations as they see fit, and people should have equal rights under the government. I feel that women have to be allowed the choice to have or not have babies and that when they choose abortion they should be allowed to do so in peace. And when they choose to have it they shouldn’t be left, alone, poor, and hungry, by those same people who congratulated them for not having an abortion. I think that regardless if you believe the people of New Orleans deserved Katrina or not, it is more Christian, more humane, to do whatever you can to help them, not judge them. I think that each person should be left alone, and free, to live her life as she wishes, so long as it abides by our societal laws. And I think our laws should be based on a system of societal ethics, not religious morality.

I’m not saying that all Conservatives are like Hannity, nor am I saying that all Liberals are like me. But I am saying that it is more American to welcome dissent than it is to squash it. And I am saying that if you really want to have a free America you need to take the tag off the end that reads “only if you’re just like me.” And I am saying that sometimes there isn’t a solution. You can’t make people agree with you. And sometimes they hurt you because they don’t. But freedom doesn’t ensure safety. If we have a right to be free, then we will never, ever be truly safe. That’s a horrifying, freakish idea, but a true one.

So I will keep reading articles and looking at books of people who disagree with me. I’ll keep doing it because it is important I know what they are saying, not just what I think they are saying. And all I hope, all I can ever hope, is that some of them will do the same for me.