I've finally finished and released Tetsuya, now available on amazon for kindle readers and kindle apps. It took several years longer than I had anticipated, but oh well... it's done!
Here is the link:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07HVY4HG5
Monday, October 1, 2018
Sunday, September 21, 2014
Religion, the final word
I have long tried to explain why I am an atheist/agnostic/whatever-you-wanna-call-it.
So far, that has usually led to long, convoluted discussions or even arguments with friends or co-workers, simply because i failed to somehow get my point across.
So here it is, another, and hopefully final, attempt:
All religions have the same inherent flaw: they all derive legitimacy from only one source, their god. but this god only exists in the sacred texts of that particular religion. So the Christian god tells his followers in the Bible that he is the only real god, but his followers made up the Bible in the first place. How can a fictional character you created give you any sort of authority in the real world? It's like saying that Gandalf is real because Tolkien has him say that he is real in the Lord of the Rings, and then in the next chapter Gandalf declares Tolkien to be his pope.
All religious works were of course written by men, and not by gods. men invented the gods, and then these inventions declared that they were real and that we should serve them. It is beyond absurd.
A god in the biblical sense (or in the sense of any other religious work) simply does not exist. Period.
But is there a god in the sense of a creator? An entity that created the universe?
I am not going to pretend to be intelligent enough to carry on a discussion about how a creator could have created the universe out of nothing, or whether there was simply never a beginning to the universe (thus eliminating the need for creation), but I do know one thing: the existence -or lack of existence- of such an entity has absolutely no impact on my life.
So why spend time thinking about it?
Curiosity, of course; just as I would like to know who Jack the Ripper was.
But would knowing change my life?
Hell, no.
So far, that has usually led to long, convoluted discussions or even arguments with friends or co-workers, simply because i failed to somehow get my point across.
So here it is, another, and hopefully final, attempt:
All religions have the same inherent flaw: they all derive legitimacy from only one source, their god. but this god only exists in the sacred texts of that particular religion. So the Christian god tells his followers in the Bible that he is the only real god, but his followers made up the Bible in the first place. How can a fictional character you created give you any sort of authority in the real world? It's like saying that Gandalf is real because Tolkien has him say that he is real in the Lord of the Rings, and then in the next chapter Gandalf declares Tolkien to be his pope.
All religious works were of course written by men, and not by gods. men invented the gods, and then these inventions declared that they were real and that we should serve them. It is beyond absurd.
A god in the biblical sense (or in the sense of any other religious work) simply does not exist. Period.
But is there a god in the sense of a creator? An entity that created the universe?
I am not going to pretend to be intelligent enough to carry on a discussion about how a creator could have created the universe out of nothing, or whether there was simply never a beginning to the universe (thus eliminating the need for creation), but I do know one thing: the existence -or lack of existence- of such an entity has absolutely no impact on my life.
So why spend time thinking about it?
Curiosity, of course; just as I would like to know who Jack the Ripper was.
But would knowing change my life?
Hell, no.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
Another "Tetsuya" update
I have decided not to pursue a specific schedule with "Tetsuya" anymore. It will be done when it's ready. Period. Anything else would be dumb, because I want this book to be good. So you'll have to be a bit patient, alright? Anyway, here is a tiny little update, not much really, but I hope you'll like it.
"There are some problems that stay with you. Forever. You
run and you run and you run... and then you run some more," he almost
whispered the last words. "But they stay with you. And all you can do is
pretend that it doesn't matter, that everything is alright; but at night, when
you're tired and you can pretend no more and you're filled with this cold and
grey emptiness... then, all you can do is numb your pain with whatever medicine
you have. Some drink. Some put needles in their arms. I kill. It's what I do. It
makes me feel alive."
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Half Distance
I feel alone in the world, with no real friend
I hate people, or is it myself I cannot stand?
Music and whiskey are welcome distractions
But dear Mister Daniel: I need a stronger blend
Lived through 3 dozen years of misery and pain
Half distance reached, but do I want to do it again?
Another 3 decades worth of failure and regret
No matter when I go, the ending's always the same
Wouldn't have made it this far without rock n' roll
If I had one I'm sure it would've saved my soul
Sabbath, Maiden and Priest make me live in the now
When the past mercilessly threatens to take its toll
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Tetsuya: an update and a preview
Well, for some time now (about 3 years, actually), I've been working on my first novel. It's a vampire story set in Japan, and it stars a samurai, Tetsuya, who is turned into a vampire during a fateful battle. Faced with the prospect of eternal life, he travels the world in search of answers, as he also tries to deal with his own need to kill people in order to live.
I am now in the last stages of rewriting and proofreading all the material I have, and I believe that I will finally (!) be able to complete this thing by January. So, here's a little preview for you. If you like it, be sure to share this post with your friends, because I could always more fans. :)
TETSUYA
Hiroshima,
1672
I am now in the last stages of rewriting and proofreading all the material I have, and I believe that I will finally (!) be able to complete this thing by January. So, here's a little preview for you. If you like it, be sure to share this post with your friends, because I could always more fans. :)
TETSUYA
Hiroshima,
1994
It was a cool October night in Hiroshima.
The leaves had begun to turn, the days had become shorter. It was cold outside.
Inside the massive Hondori mall, a young woman named Keiko has just finished
her shift in a small but upscale shoe store. Hondori was Hiroshima’s
signature shopping mall; a unique construct in what was in many ways a typical
Japanese city. Hondori did not consist of a single, large building; it was an
entire city street that had been covered with a richly illuminated and
beautifully decorated roof. It was always filled with shoppers on foot or on
bicycles, and many tourists browsed through the varied shops. The small shop in
which Keiko sold fashionable footwear to the wives of office workers who wasted
away the hours in the nearby office towers was located toward the east of the
long shopping street. She herself was now headed west, to the Hondori station
of the Astram train line. The train would bring her to Ozuka, to the west of Hiroshima.
Downtown Hiroshima itself was
located on an island in the Ota River,
but Ozuka was on the mainland. Ozuka station was only 8 kilometers from
downtown, but the Astram line’s commuter trains circled the city: first the
line went north, and then in one giant half-circle it came down again on the
western mainland. Keiko walked briskly toward the train station, she longed for
a warm meal, a warm shower and an even warmer bed. Tomorrow was Saturday, and
she could sleep in. She smiled. In her hurry, she did not notice the tall, thin
figure that was silently following her. This was not the first night on which
she’d had a stalker; the creature had been watching her for some time. It had
noticed her slender frame, her small yet perfectly shaped breasts, her elegant
face, her graceful demeanor. It had noticed all these things from the safe
anonymity that the crowds in Hondori afforded it, and it had grown hungrier
each day.
It followed her to a small noodle shop. It waited patiently
near a bike rack until a small bespectacled man handed her a bag containing
soup. She continued on her way, hoping to catch the 9:21 PM train. The station had only opened a few months
before, and she was glad that she no longer had to take a bus to get back to
her apartment. The train saved her a lot of time, and it was usually on time.
The creature followed her onto the platform, blending in perfectly with the
myriad other travelers. Once a long time ago, it had preferred to approach its
victims directly, fearlessly. These days, the police made it ever harder for it
to satisfy its hunger, and it was forced to stalk its prey carefully. It had to
be careful not to leave fingerprints. It had to be smart. But it also had long
lost the nerve to look into its victim's eyes when the moment came; it needed
drugs to calm its nerves. If Keiko had turned her head toward the creature, she
would have seen the two enormous teeth it bared as it smiled at her. But she
was looking in the other direction, hoping for the impeccably clean gold and
black train to appear soon. The ride to Ozuka would take about half an hour,
and she'd walk a few minutes from the station to her apartment. She saw the
light of the train approaching and readied herself to fight for a seat with the
other passengers as it slowed down in front of the platform. She waited for the
hiss that signified the imminent opening of the doors, and pushed her small body
inside. She found a seat, and after scanning the other travelers she closed her
eyes, tired from a long, boring day at work. The creature, meanwhile, stepped
into the very same wagon as her, but she still didn’t notice it. It was dressed
in the smart businessman uniform that so many Japanese office workers wore: a
black suit, a white shirt, and an unremarkable blue tie. It had a clean-shaven
face, a shiny bald head, and was quite tall. It gave no indication that it was
anything other than a typical Japanese office worker, at least not to the
casual observer. Had Keiko given the creature more than a passing glance, she
would have noticed that it never blinked. She also hadn't paid any attention to
the ice chest the creature was carrying. It was filled up with ice cubes and
was quite heavy, but the creature seemed to handle it as easily as if it were
made of paper.
The train began to move, and the
creature managed to find a seat. It bore no ill will toward Keiko, but knew
that it would have to kill her. It was going to drink her blood and eat her
heart. That's just the way things were. The way things had to be. Why Keiko?
Why not someone else? Well, that was complicated. Back in the old days the
creature could have simply taken a victim in the night, and no one would have
suspected it. Life -and death- were easier back then. These days its need to be
careful had driven it to seek out people who lived alone because it was easier
to kill loners, and because no one would miss them for a while. It had to
subdue its instincts, and perform clean kills. It had to be methodical,
precise. This didn't prevent it from enjoying its victims in other ways, which
was exactly why it almost always chose young women to be its plaything, but
there was something else about Keiko, something that it couldn't quite
understand, and that unsettled it. As the train pulled out of the station, the
creature thrust its index finger into its inner jacket pocket. When it removed
the finger it was coated with a fine white powder, which the creature quickly
rubbed onto its gums. Soon the drug would be flowing through its veins, soon it
would feel lighter... it wondered what Keiko's blood would taste like and,
knowing that it still had some time before the train reached its destination it
let its head fall back against the window. Its thoughts drifted back to a time
before cocaine, before trains, before ice chests, before shopping malls,
before, before, before...
Tetsuya hated early mornings with a passion.
"Procrastinating is of no use," his wife said
without an ounce of compassion. He smiled at her as she handed him his armor. They'd
been married eight years now, and he was as much in love with her as he'd been
back then.
"I know, Emiko, I know. Asano
wants us all to be there early, so I've got no choice. I'd much rather stay
here with you... " Emiko glanced at her husband. He was handsome, his
thick black hair framing a face that at
the age of 26 had lost none of its boyish charm. She hated for him to leave her
so early as well, but he was right: he didn't have a choice. His daimyo, or
Lord, had declared war on a rival, and as his master’s soldier he had to go
into battle. ‘Why do we always have to do these things early in the morning?’
he wondered as he drank some water. He splashed the remaining water on his face
and then he opened the thin bamboo door that separated his humble dwelling from
the world outside. His look fell upon the courtyard right in front of his hut;
usually it was bristling with activity, farmers selling or trading their wares,
warriors bragging about their exploits, women gossiping… but not today, and
certainly not this early. The sun had yet to rise. Presently the courtyard was
overfilled with soldiers; samurai, who illuminated their gathering place with
torches and waited silently and patiently for the arrival of their master.
Tetsuya left his home and mingled with the other samurai, each of whom was
accompanied by his most prized possession: a magnificent sword. A few quiet
greetings here, a few nods of the head here, time to find a good place to
stand, and then daimyo Asano was there: a short, stocky man, maybe about 45
years of age. He wore a scar on his face, in witness from a past battle. His
armor was far more exquisitely detailed than Tetsuya's. His sword was the
biggest here, truly befitting his station, for a daimyo was a rich man who
owned a lot of land and employed the samurai who lived on his property, and he
never let them forget that he was their master and benefactor. The samurai, in
return, protected his lands and his people from rival daimyos. Daimyos often
fought each other for more land or political advantages. In theory they were
all citizens of the greater Japan,
under the control of His Majesty, the Emperor; but he was just a figurehead, a
boy of barely 7 years, and the real power lay with the Shogun, the Imperial War
Lord.
Asano stepped onto a small platform
in the center of the courtyard, and addressed his warriors: “Men! Samurai! Our
honor has been insulted! A daughter of our clan has been violated” – Tetsuya
knew that she had not in fact been violated, she had merely decided to see
someone from another clan, but the truth didn’t matter when a lie could be
exploited for political or financial gain- “and it is our duty to avenge this
infamy! We will begin at once! We will march toward Akinakano, encircle the
main houses, and assault the town from all sides at once!” The perhaps two
thousand men assembled in the courtyard of Hiroshima
Castle erupted into cheers and
began the trek toward the forest, from which they would stage their assault.
About an hour and a half later
Tetsuya glanced over at his friend, Shigeru. They were in position on the far
side of the village they were about to attack. Their force numbered about 800
men, and Asano had remained with the main force of about 1200 on the near side.
The daimyo would signal them when it was time to commence their assault.
“Nervous, Tetsuya?” Shigeru
inquired.
“No,” Tetsuya lied.
Shigeru smiled knowingly. Soon
their lives would be on the line, and no matter how well prepared they were, no
one could ever foretell the outcome of a battle. They had an advantage now, in
the darkness, but once that was gone the enemy would fight back.
The signal came, a burning arrow
splitting the night with its fiery glow. Tetsuya, Shigeru, and the rest of
their force lunged forward, swords drawn. They were a fearsome sight, with
their facemasks sculpted to resemble wild beasts and demons. Their tough
leather armor protected them from the simple weapons of the villagers, but Tetsuya
felt uneasy as he ran toward the first row of houses. Too often he had lost
friends in battle; too many times the blood of boys who were barely old enough
to kiss a girl had been spilt. ‘Why do we keep doing this’, he asked himself
under his helmet as he ran. ‘Why can’t we all just live in peace, there’s
enough land here for everyone.’ He knew the answer: because the daimyo had
ordered it. Of course his power was merely based on people’s beliefs that he
did in fact have power; if people stopped believing then he would stop being
their leader… but alas, the masses always swam with, and not against the
stream, and if they perceived the majority to follow the daimyo then they
would, too. His thoughts were rudely interrupted by a villager who had appeared
out of nowhere; he had undoubtedly been awakened by the commotion of hundreds
of armored men running through the narrow streets. The man was dressed in the
simple garb of a farmer, and was wielding a pitchfork. He screamed at Tetsuya
and his comrades, and Tetsuya skillfully danced around him, turning his back
towards him, and plunging his sword into the man’s neck in the same movement,
neatly severing his head.
The battle had begun.
********
I'd appreciate any comments and suggestions!
********
I'd appreciate any comments and suggestions!
Saturday, November 30, 2013
Random musings about cars
So, I'm finally getting around to getting my driver's license. A bit late, I know... but better late than never. Or so I keep telling myself as I cry myself to sleep each night, thinking about that empty space in the garage.
Completing the driver's training program here in Quebec takes a whole damn year, so that gives me time to contemplate what kind of car I want. Not being rich (you bastards need to buy more of my books), I will have to get either an econobox or something used. Since I'm not a fan of things that scream "poverty" at the top of their lungs, a Hyundai Accent or Chevy Spark are out of the question. So a used, bigger car it shall be then.
But what?
I only have a short commute to work, but I'd like to travel a bit. I need reliability and legroom (being 6'3"). I want something good-looking, and preferably something that not everybody else has. No Accord or Camry, please. Gas mileage is also of concern; what good is a car when you can't afford to go anywhere in it?
So I began looking at Prii. A decent late-model Prius can be had for less than 12 grand; they look different, the interior has a nice sci-fi feel to it, and mileage is impressive. But they have no soul. They are appliances, like a microwave. Very impressive pieces of engineering, but there is no joy in them. Why would I want something that makes it decidedly difficult to enjoy driving?
Many people of course do buy a Prius, and then can't shut up about how they are so much better than the rest of us because you know, they are single-handedly saving the environment. That, however is a lie. Even if a Prius consumed no gas at all and were powered by the hot air escaping from its driver's mouth, it would never make up for the tremendous amount of energy and resources that are spent building any new vehicle. If you were to buy a used Hummer, a vehicle that already exists out there in the world, you'd be doing much more to save the environment than a guy who just bought himself a new Prius. A Hummer driver might indeed have issues with the size of his penis, but a Prius driver has issues with the size of his brain as well.
Of course, used Prii already exist and the gas savings would be nice, but I wouldn't want to be mistaken for an enviro-moron. Luckily for me, my casual browsing through various car auction sites revealed that one can now buy a Corvette C5 (1997-2004) for well under 20 grand... And Mustangs (2005- and up) go for below 10 grand... Why would I buy anything else? Why would anyone? I mean, if you've been afflicted by the terrible illness known as "kids", then you need something bigger. That is the price you pay for having cheaped out on rubbers.
Another option I looked at is hearses. Not newer ones, but older, body on frame, early 90's Cadillac monsters with rear wheel drive and big engines. They are only lightly used (the trip from church to the cemetery is usually a short, slow one), offer lots of space, and they're bloody cool. A black Caddy hearse, lowered, with a sound system and a mattress in the back (for uh, napping on those long trips) would be niiiice. But they're terrible on gas and difficult to insure. And spare parts for the bodywork are very hard to get, since they're low-production volume cars.
Ah, decisions, decisions. I got another year before I pick something.
Got any suggestions for me?
Completing the driver's training program here in Quebec takes a whole damn year, so that gives me time to contemplate what kind of car I want. Not being rich (you bastards need to buy more of my books), I will have to get either an econobox or something used. Since I'm not a fan of things that scream "poverty" at the top of their lungs, a Hyundai Accent or Chevy Spark are out of the question. So a used, bigger car it shall be then.
But what?
I only have a short commute to work, but I'd like to travel a bit. I need reliability and legroom (being 6'3"). I want something good-looking, and preferably something that not everybody else has. No Accord or Camry, please. Gas mileage is also of concern; what good is a car when you can't afford to go anywhere in it?
So I began looking at Prii. A decent late-model Prius can be had for less than 12 grand; they look different, the interior has a nice sci-fi feel to it, and mileage is impressive. But they have no soul. They are appliances, like a microwave. Very impressive pieces of engineering, but there is no joy in them. Why would I want something that makes it decidedly difficult to enjoy driving?
Many people of course do buy a Prius, and then can't shut up about how they are so much better than the rest of us because you know, they are single-handedly saving the environment. That, however is a lie. Even if a Prius consumed no gas at all and were powered by the hot air escaping from its driver's mouth, it would never make up for the tremendous amount of energy and resources that are spent building any new vehicle. If you were to buy a used Hummer, a vehicle that already exists out there in the world, you'd be doing much more to save the environment than a guy who just bought himself a new Prius. A Hummer driver might indeed have issues with the size of his penis, but a Prius driver has issues with the size of his brain as well.
Of course, used Prii already exist and the gas savings would be nice, but I wouldn't want to be mistaken for an enviro-moron. Luckily for me, my casual browsing through various car auction sites revealed that one can now buy a Corvette C5 (1997-2004) for well under 20 grand... And Mustangs (2005- and up) go for below 10 grand... Why would I buy anything else? Why would anyone? I mean, if you've been afflicted by the terrible illness known as "kids", then you need something bigger. That is the price you pay for having cheaped out on rubbers.
Another option I looked at is hearses. Not newer ones, but older, body on frame, early 90's Cadillac monsters with rear wheel drive and big engines. They are only lightly used (the trip from church to the cemetery is usually a short, slow one), offer lots of space, and they're bloody cool. A black Caddy hearse, lowered, with a sound system and a mattress in the back (for uh, napping on those long trips) would be niiiice. But they're terrible on gas and difficult to insure. And spare parts for the bodywork are very hard to get, since they're low-production volume cars.
Ah, decisions, decisions. I got another year before I pick something.
Got any suggestions for me?
Sunday, September 1, 2013
A poem
The River
Still hurts when I see your face somewhere
Thoughts of your grace still linger in the air
No other woman has quite the same flair
Your cruel absence drives me into despair
Sitting alone in this cold, empty place
Wondering who could fill this space
You left in what seemed like a race
And you disappeared without a trace
You found another and you moved on
My sorrows I drown in Walker's
John
Oh where, oh where has my love gone?
I used to have joy, but now I have none
My life must go on, as hard as it seems
Though I still see you in nightly dreams
But no longer I cry and painfully scream
For new love I look in life's raging stream
- This poem is an excerpt from my forthcoming book, "Reflections", which will be available on Amazon, Apple's iBookstore, and other online bookstores in the next few weeks. Follow me on https://www.facebook.com/officialsvb for release info!
- This poem is an excerpt from my forthcoming book, "Reflections", which will be available on Amazon, Apple's iBookstore, and other online bookstores in the next few weeks. Follow me on https://www.facebook.com/officialsvb for release info!
Sunday, July 14, 2013
The verdict is in
The verdict in George Zimmerman's murder trial is in: not guilty.
Celebrities (always quick to grab the spotlight), civil rights leaders (just as quick) and ordinary folk are outraged.
How could Zimmerman get away with murder?
Well, he didn't. He's free because he's legally innocent.
A lot of people will stop reading now and write angry rebuttals and personal insults in the comments section; but to those of you who can control their emotions long enough to finish reading this article: I congratulate you.
Emotions make people upset, and they forget facts. They exaggerate rumors and hearsay, and then believe in the lies and myths that they helped to create and spread.
A common myth is for example that George Zimmerman is a racist. People believe that he called the police on that night to report a "black man" walking through the neighborhood. This is actually how NBC first aired a recording of the police call, but they edited it so that it would show Mister Zimmerman as having a racist motive. The actual, unedited police transcript shows that Zimmerman reported a suspicious person, was then asked if that person was white, black or hispanic by the police dispatcher, and only then answered that the person in question was black.
Zimmerman himself has black family members, identifies as hispanic. His neighbors and coworkers have nothing bad to say about him; and a black acquaintance - Joe Oliver, TV news reporter- said "I'm a black male and all that I know is that George has never given me any reason whatsoever to believe he has anything against people of color."
It is also known that Zimmerman was unhappy with how the Sanford Police were treating the case of Sherman Ware, a black homeless man, who was beaten by the son of a Sanford police officer in 2010. On a recording of a January 2011 community forum (well before the Martin shooting), Zimmerman can be heard condemning the Sanford Police Department and its former chief Brian Tooley. Zimmerman said that Tooley had engaged in a cover-up and should lose his pension. Later in 2011, Zimmerman distributed fliers with details of the case in the local community to get more people involved.
These are not the words or actions of a racist.
Another fact, verified by one of Martin's friends at trial, under oath, is that Martin referred to Zimmerman as a "creepy-ass cracker." If anyone was racist here, it wasn't George Zimmerman.
Yet another fact is that only Zimmerman suffered wounds during the struggle with Martin; only he had cuts and bruises. these were on his face and on the back of his head. Martin meanwhile suffered no wounds, except for the fatal gunshot. Does that not make it obvious that Zimmerman was being beaten up by Martin, and not the other way around?
So does this mean that Zimmerman's actions were reasonable? No, not in my opinion. He should have stayed in the car. He should have waited for police. And if he hadn't had a gun, he might just have done that. But in a country where people take 9mm pistols with them when they go to buy milk, "reasonable" isn't something that you expect. Zimmerman had apparently only bought a gun (in 2009) to fend off a pitbull that sometimes ran through the neighborhood. Seriously, the man bought a gun because there was a dog running around in his neighborhood! Now, dogs have never been friends of mine, but I think pepperspray or a taser might have done the trick, don't you? Imagine what would have happened if Zimmerman had tasered Martin? He'd still be here, and Zimmerman's life wouldn't have been ruined by a very public trial.
And if you can imagine that, imagine a situation that you could reasonably face in America where a taser would not be enough. Dark parking lot. Bank robbery. Break-in. Do you really want to kill somebody?
Think carefully, because if you answer "yes" you might find yourself in the same position as George Zimmerman one day. A position that you'd deserve.
Celebrities (always quick to grab the spotlight), civil rights leaders (just as quick) and ordinary folk are outraged.
How could Zimmerman get away with murder?
Well, he didn't. He's free because he's legally innocent.
A lot of people will stop reading now and write angry rebuttals and personal insults in the comments section; but to those of you who can control their emotions long enough to finish reading this article: I congratulate you.
Emotions make people upset, and they forget facts. They exaggerate rumors and hearsay, and then believe in the lies and myths that they helped to create and spread.
A common myth is for example that George Zimmerman is a racist. People believe that he called the police on that night to report a "black man" walking through the neighborhood. This is actually how NBC first aired a recording of the police call, but they edited it so that it would show Mister Zimmerman as having a racist motive. The actual, unedited police transcript shows that Zimmerman reported a suspicious person, was then asked if that person was white, black or hispanic by the police dispatcher, and only then answered that the person in question was black.
Zimmerman himself has black family members, identifies as hispanic. His neighbors and coworkers have nothing bad to say about him; and a black acquaintance - Joe Oliver, TV news reporter- said "I'm a black male and all that I know is that George has never given me any reason whatsoever to believe he has anything against people of color."
It is also known that Zimmerman was unhappy with how the Sanford Police were treating the case of Sherman Ware, a black homeless man, who was beaten by the son of a Sanford police officer in 2010. On a recording of a January 2011 community forum (well before the Martin shooting), Zimmerman can be heard condemning the Sanford Police Department and its former chief Brian Tooley. Zimmerman said that Tooley had engaged in a cover-up and should lose his pension. Later in 2011, Zimmerman distributed fliers with details of the case in the local community to get more people involved.
These are not the words or actions of a racist.
Another fact, verified by one of Martin's friends at trial, under oath, is that Martin referred to Zimmerman as a "creepy-ass cracker." If anyone was racist here, it wasn't George Zimmerman.
Yet another fact is that only Zimmerman suffered wounds during the struggle with Martin; only he had cuts and bruises. these were on his face and on the back of his head. Martin meanwhile suffered no wounds, except for the fatal gunshot. Does that not make it obvious that Zimmerman was being beaten up by Martin, and not the other way around?
So does this mean that Zimmerman's actions were reasonable? No, not in my opinion. He should have stayed in the car. He should have waited for police. And if he hadn't had a gun, he might just have done that. But in a country where people take 9mm pistols with them when they go to buy milk, "reasonable" isn't something that you expect. Zimmerman had apparently only bought a gun (in 2009) to fend off a pitbull that sometimes ran through the neighborhood. Seriously, the man bought a gun because there was a dog running around in his neighborhood! Now, dogs have never been friends of mine, but I think pepperspray or a taser might have done the trick, don't you? Imagine what would have happened if Zimmerman had tasered Martin? He'd still be here, and Zimmerman's life wouldn't have been ruined by a very public trial.
And if you can imagine that, imagine a situation that you could reasonably face in America where a taser would not be enough. Dark parking lot. Bank robbery. Break-in. Do you really want to kill somebody?
Think carefully, because if you answer "yes" you might find yourself in the same position as George Zimmerman one day. A position that you'd deserve.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Star Trek Into Darkness Review
I've been a Trekkie since I was a kid in Germany, and I can proudly say that I've seen every single episode of TNG, DS9, and the original series; plus most of Voyager. I thought of "Enterprise" as an unfortunate misstep for the franchise, although those Andorians grew on me; and hey, bad Trek is better than no Trek, right?
Then along came J.J. Abrams to helm the franchise. I was shocked. This is the same genius who created "Felicity", a show so deep and intelligent that when the star cut her hair, people stopped watching. He made "Lost", a series so convoluted and pointless that I'd rather watch paint dry. He was nominated for a Razzie in the "Worst Screenplay" category for "Armageddon", created the silly "Alias", and was responsible for the last two "Tom Cruise in lots of random stunt sequence" movies, erm, i mean, "Mission Impossible." And this person was put in control of Star Trek? Who made that decision?
Well, 2009's "Star Trek", the first Trek film by Abrams, was a disappointment. The charm and the stories of old Trek were replaced by lens flare and a plot that made so little sense that it had to be explained away by saying that this new Trek now takes place in an alternate timeline. It was embarrassing. Sure, Trek movies have never been as good as the show (sorry, Wrath of Khan); after all, the studio needs to try and get mainstream audiences into theaters to recoup their money. But no Trek film was ever quite as bad as Abram's first outing.
Thus, I didn't have high hopes last night when i went to see Into Darkness; Abram's second (and hopefully last) Trek movie.
If you don't want spoilers, you should stop reading now.
The film opens with the crew of the Enterprise trying to save a species of aliens without announcing their presence to them, as that would violate the prime directive ("do not interfere with other civilizations"). But Kirk is soon forced to reveal his ship. It rises out of the ocean, a magnificent behemoth, stunning the natives with its sheer size. So how did they get it into the ocean without anyone noticing it? The movie is full of plot holes and logical errors like this one.
That is not its most egregious fault however. The real problem is, once again, that the film has no heart. Star Trek is about people and the way they deal with problems, and the spaceships are only there for decoration. Star Trek is about difficult questions and difficult decisions; it challenges us to ask ourselves what we would do if we had been placed in a similar situation. "Into Darkness" is merely about lens flare, explosions, and a nonsensical re-telling of the reawakening of Khan (from the original series). It is a story about revenge, plain and simple. This guy did something bad to me, so I am justified in doing something bad to him. The logic and motivations of an 8 year old who got into too many schoolyard fights. We see Kirk punching a man in the face, over and over again, we see Spock doing the same. Why? Revenge. Oh, and it allows the actors to portray how deep their emotions are, because apparently real men display loss and anger by punching someone in the face. And yes, Spock has emotions here, because you know, this is totally an alternate timeline where Vulcans aren't really Vulcans anymore.
There is no sense of right and wrong here, no morality. the bad guy -Khan- wasn't really all that bad; he was turned into a baddie by one of Kirk's superiors, who dies rather horribly, but is never really criticized for his actions. His warmongering was all in the name of the Federation, aka "us", and so it's all good.The secret "Section 31" organization is never questioned for its role, and after the bad guy dies, all is well. The crimes committed in our name are alright, while the bad guys are horrible people for doing the exact same things.
Henry Kissinger once said "The problem with Castro is not that he's an asshole, but that he's not our asshole." The movie seems to follow the same mantra.
Well, and in addition to all that, it's also pretty boring and derivative. You can see plot twists coming from a mile away, and some scenes are simple re-imaginings of scenes from much earlier Trek films. This time Kirk saves the Enterprise by going into the reactor core, poisoning himself fatally in the process. And Spock is left outside a transparent door to exclaim "Khaaaaaan!" Seen it before. So many scenes in this film borrow ideas from earlier, better movies that we are way past "homage" territory, and deep inside "we've run our of ideas" land.
So are there any good things I can say about this film? Well, Zachary Quinto's Spock is well-acted, even if he is much too emotional (the script's fault, not Quinto's). And Benedict Cumberbatch as Kahn was intriguing, although he lacked the charisma of Ricardo Montalban.
The most positive thing I can say is this: maybe this film will get a new generation interested in Star Trek. And maybe this generation will want to check out the show, and learn why Trek has been so popular all across the world for over 40 years now. They'll find out that there aren't millions of Trekkies on this Earth because of lens flare and CGI explosions. They'll discover the real Star Trek.
Here's a list of some episodes you might want to watch instead of Abrams's mindless explosions:
The Original Series
The Next Generation
- The Measure of a Man (season 2, episode 9)
- The Defector (season 3, episode 10)
- The Drumhead (season 4, episode 21)
- Chain of Command (two-parter; season 6, episodes 10&11)
Deep Space 9
Duet (season 1, episode 19)
Improbable Cause (season 3, episode 20)
The Dies Is Cast (season 3, episode 21)
In the Pale Moonlight (season 6, episode 19)
Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges (season 7, episode 16)
This list is by no means exhaustive, but it ought to get you started. :)
For those of you in the United States, you can watch teh entire original show on CBS for free:
http://www.cbs.com/shows/star_trek/
Then along came J.J. Abrams to helm the franchise. I was shocked. This is the same genius who created "Felicity", a show so deep and intelligent that when the star cut her hair, people stopped watching. He made "Lost", a series so convoluted and pointless that I'd rather watch paint dry. He was nominated for a Razzie in the "Worst Screenplay" category for "Armageddon", created the silly "Alias", and was responsible for the last two "Tom Cruise in lots of random stunt sequence" movies, erm, i mean, "Mission Impossible." And this person was put in control of Star Trek? Who made that decision?
Well, 2009's "Star Trek", the first Trek film by Abrams, was a disappointment. The charm and the stories of old Trek were replaced by lens flare and a plot that made so little sense that it had to be explained away by saying that this new Trek now takes place in an alternate timeline. It was embarrassing. Sure, Trek movies have never been as good as the show (sorry, Wrath of Khan); after all, the studio needs to try and get mainstream audiences into theaters to recoup their money. But no Trek film was ever quite as bad as Abram's first outing.
Thus, I didn't have high hopes last night when i went to see Into Darkness; Abram's second (and hopefully last) Trek movie.
If you don't want spoilers, you should stop reading now.
The film opens with the crew of the Enterprise trying to save a species of aliens without announcing their presence to them, as that would violate the prime directive ("do not interfere with other civilizations"). But Kirk is soon forced to reveal his ship. It rises out of the ocean, a magnificent behemoth, stunning the natives with its sheer size. So how did they get it into the ocean without anyone noticing it? The movie is full of plot holes and logical errors like this one.
That is not its most egregious fault however. The real problem is, once again, that the film has no heart. Star Trek is about people and the way they deal with problems, and the spaceships are only there for decoration. Star Trek is about difficult questions and difficult decisions; it challenges us to ask ourselves what we would do if we had been placed in a similar situation. "Into Darkness" is merely about lens flare, explosions, and a nonsensical re-telling of the reawakening of Khan (from the original series). It is a story about revenge, plain and simple. This guy did something bad to me, so I am justified in doing something bad to him. The logic and motivations of an 8 year old who got into too many schoolyard fights. We see Kirk punching a man in the face, over and over again, we see Spock doing the same. Why? Revenge. Oh, and it allows the actors to portray how deep their emotions are, because apparently real men display loss and anger by punching someone in the face. And yes, Spock has emotions here, because you know, this is totally an alternate timeline where Vulcans aren't really Vulcans anymore.
There is no sense of right and wrong here, no morality. the bad guy -Khan- wasn't really all that bad; he was turned into a baddie by one of Kirk's superiors, who dies rather horribly, but is never really criticized for his actions. His warmongering was all in the name of the Federation, aka "us", and so it's all good.The secret "Section 31" organization is never questioned for its role, and after the bad guy dies, all is well. The crimes committed in our name are alright, while the bad guys are horrible people for doing the exact same things.
Henry Kissinger once said "The problem with Castro is not that he's an asshole, but that he's not our asshole." The movie seems to follow the same mantra.
Well, and in addition to all that, it's also pretty boring and derivative. You can see plot twists coming from a mile away, and some scenes are simple re-imaginings of scenes from much earlier Trek films. This time Kirk saves the Enterprise by going into the reactor core, poisoning himself fatally in the process. And Spock is left outside a transparent door to exclaim "Khaaaaaan!" Seen it before. So many scenes in this film borrow ideas from earlier, better movies that we are way past "homage" territory, and deep inside "we've run our of ideas" land.
So are there any good things I can say about this film? Well, Zachary Quinto's Spock is well-acted, even if he is much too emotional (the script's fault, not Quinto's). And Benedict Cumberbatch as Kahn was intriguing, although he lacked the charisma of Ricardo Montalban.
The most positive thing I can say is this: maybe this film will get a new generation interested in Star Trek. And maybe this generation will want to check out the show, and learn why Trek has been so popular all across the world for over 40 years now. They'll find out that there aren't millions of Trekkies on this Earth because of lens flare and CGI explosions. They'll discover the real Star Trek.
Here's a list of some episodes you might want to watch instead of Abrams's mindless explosions:
The Original Series
The City on the Edge of Forever (season 1, episode 28)
The Menagerie (two-parter; season 1, episodes 11&12)The Next Generation
- The Measure of a Man (season 2, episode 9)
- The Defector (season 3, episode 10)
- The Drumhead (season 4, episode 21)
- Chain of Command (two-parter; season 6, episodes 10&11)
Deep Space 9
Duet (season 1, episode 19)
Improbable Cause (season 3, episode 20)
The Dies Is Cast (season 3, episode 21)
In the Pale Moonlight (season 6, episode 19)
Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges (season 7, episode 16)
This list is by no means exhaustive, but it ought to get you started. :)
For those of you in the United States, you can watch teh entire original show on CBS for free:
http://www.cbs.com/shows/star_trek/
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Jeff Hanneman and the Westboro Baptists
Jeff Hanneman, founding member of metal band Slayer, died on May 2, 2013; probably of liver failure related to alcohol abuse. It was a sad day for me, just like it was a sad day for millions of other metalheads around the world.
But the fanatical idiots that constitute the Westboro Baptist Church were happy.
Nothing new, after all they are also happy when innocent people die, they regularly picket funerals of soldiers killed overseas, and they make their young children walk around with large signs that read "God hates Fags" and "Jews killed Jesus" and other such nice messages. Of course this racist, homophobic, misogynist, openly anti-American group of morons would rejoice at the death of a popular musician, if only for the publicity their picketing of his funeral would get them.
I was pissed at them. They have no respect.
I visited their website to see if their lunacy could somehow cheer me up. I know, laughing at the deranged isn't a nice thing to do; but maybe I'm not a nice guy. I watched a video narrated by a guy called Steve Drain. Drain explained that Hanneman was somehow related to the devil -not a metaphorical one, but the actual person, the devil- and that his death was deserved, because he had apparently led millions of children down a path deemed "wrong" by Mister Drain.
Did this piss me off more? No.
It is very difficult to stay mad at Mister Drain and his fellow cultists because it becomes obvious very quickly that they are very poor and desperate human beings. Nothing on their entire website is positive; everything is about hate, hate, hate. There is nothing else in their lives, only hatred for those who do not share their very specific and peculiar beliefs. That means that they hate about 7 billion human beings, and that explains why they have nothing positive to say about anything, and must fill the emptiness in their lives with even more hate. Perhaps it makes them feel important somehow, perhaps they believe that spreading hatred and intolerance somehow gives their existence meaning. Or perhaps they have realized that they are incapable of contributing something to society and are thus setting out to destroy it; a tiny man angrily brandishing a toothpick at the well-armored giant that is the rest of humanity. How can one be mad something so pathetic, so insignificant? How can one take them seriously?
I can't answer those questions, but there is one more thing I would like to say. On the off chance that one of you WBC nutters reads this, please take this genuinely well-meant advice to heart: to fill the void in your life, chase away the dark cloud, and free yourself from the unbearable hell that must be your life, you do not need Jesus. You need a psychiatrist.
Sincerely,
Sascha von Bornheim,
Metalhead
Jeff Hanneman - Wikipedia
Westboro Baptist Church - Encyclopedia Dramatica
The WBC homepage, for your amusement
But the fanatical idiots that constitute the Westboro Baptist Church were happy.
Nothing new, after all they are also happy when innocent people die, they regularly picket funerals of soldiers killed overseas, and they make their young children walk around with large signs that read "God hates Fags" and "Jews killed Jesus" and other such nice messages. Of course this racist, homophobic, misogynist, openly anti-American group of morons would rejoice at the death of a popular musician, if only for the publicity their picketing of his funeral would get them.
I was pissed at them. They have no respect.
I visited their website to see if their lunacy could somehow cheer me up. I know, laughing at the deranged isn't a nice thing to do; but maybe I'm not a nice guy. I watched a video narrated by a guy called Steve Drain. Drain explained that Hanneman was somehow related to the devil -not a metaphorical one, but the actual person, the devil- and that his death was deserved, because he had apparently led millions of children down a path deemed "wrong" by Mister Drain.
Did this piss me off more? No.
It is very difficult to stay mad at Mister Drain and his fellow cultists because it becomes obvious very quickly that they are very poor and desperate human beings. Nothing on their entire website is positive; everything is about hate, hate, hate. There is nothing else in their lives, only hatred for those who do not share their very specific and peculiar beliefs. That means that they hate about 7 billion human beings, and that explains why they have nothing positive to say about anything, and must fill the emptiness in their lives with even more hate. Perhaps it makes them feel important somehow, perhaps they believe that spreading hatred and intolerance somehow gives their existence meaning. Or perhaps they have realized that they are incapable of contributing something to society and are thus setting out to destroy it; a tiny man angrily brandishing a toothpick at the well-armored giant that is the rest of humanity. How can one be mad something so pathetic, so insignificant? How can one take them seriously?
I can't answer those questions, but there is one more thing I would like to say. On the off chance that one of you WBC nutters reads this, please take this genuinely well-meant advice to heart: to fill the void in your life, chase away the dark cloud, and free yourself from the unbearable hell that must be your life, you do not need Jesus. You need a psychiatrist.
Sincerely,
Sascha von Bornheim,
Metalhead
Jeff Hanneman - Wikipedia
Westboro Baptist Church - Encyclopedia Dramatica
The WBC homepage, for your amusement
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Is Kim Jong-Un a pacifist?
Kim Jong-Un (aka Kim), dictator of North Korea, has been threatening the South Korea, the US, and Japan with nuclear war.
The world is upset and frightened, anti-missile batteries are being installed in Tokyo, pundits are analyzing Kim's every word...
But what if he is actually trying to surrender?
It sounds absurd, but read on. Kim was educated in Switzerland, where as a teenager he witnessed what the west is really like. There is no famine in Switzerland, people well-fed and happy, and their freedoms have not led them to execute their democratically elected government. The country 'just works.'
North Korea, on the other hand, is a mess.
So now we have Kim threatening nuclear war. But what are his chances?
If North Korea were to attack South Korea with conventional weapons then most of the South's casualties would come from their soldiers laughing themselves to death at the sight of thousands of skinny North Koreans storming into their homeland, using museum-grade weapons to strike fear into local schoolchildren and the odd chicken. The North wouldn't stand a chance; not against the South's well-trained and well-equipped army. Plus, there's support from the US which maintains a permanent presence in South Korea. Oh, and then there's the fact that entire battalions would defect to the South if given the chance. Nobody wants to stay in North Korea; even Kim himself lived in Switzerland for a decade or so...
And what if he attacked using a nuke or two? Well, there'd be heavy casualties in Seoul, but in response the US would wipe North Korea off the face of the Earth. That much is certain.
So why does Kim pursue this strategy of provocation? He knows full well that he cannot win a war alone against the rest of the world -even China is calling for him to be more reasonable at this point-, and negotiations have become all but impossible in the current climate.
So once again, what could his reasoning be? And then it hit me: maybe he's trying to provoke a war he knows he will lose.
If he actually cares a bit about his country or his people, then reuniting them with the South should be at the top of his list of things to do. But he can't just tell his generals to throw in the towel. These are men who were trained to hate and distrust the South and the Western world, sworn to loyalty to North Korea. The entire population has been taught to hate the South for 60 years now -several generations of schoolchildren who have never heard anything else but their government's propaganda- and they're not going to give up just because Kim tells them to. He recently executed several high-ranking military and party members, probably in an effort to show strength and unite the military and the party behind himself. If he is so scared of then that he has to execute them, what does he think they would do to him if he were to ask them to lay down their weapons? How would the farmers in the countryside react, would they just accept that everything they have learned in their lives was false? Or would they rise up and create militias and defend their beliefs?
Thus, starting a war that he knows to be lost from the get-go might be the only way to unite the two Koreas. Following the defeat of the North, the SOuth and the US will occupy the North, deliver food aid, and slowly show people what the world is really like. And they, the defeated, will have little choice to accept it, once they see that their ideology has proven to be the inferior one.
What will happen to Kim in this case? A trial for the crimes his short reign caused and condoned? Life in prison, or in exile?
Of course, that is all just my imagination and fantasy talking.
Maybe Kim is just plain old-fashioned nuts, and wants to mount lasers on the heads of sharks.
The world is upset and frightened, anti-missile batteries are being installed in Tokyo, pundits are analyzing Kim's every word...
But what if he is actually trying to surrender?
It sounds absurd, but read on. Kim was educated in Switzerland, where as a teenager he witnessed what the west is really like. There is no famine in Switzerland, people well-fed and happy, and their freedoms have not led them to execute their democratically elected government. The country 'just works.'
North Korea, on the other hand, is a mess.
So now we have Kim threatening nuclear war. But what are his chances?
If North Korea were to attack South Korea with conventional weapons then most of the South's casualties would come from their soldiers laughing themselves to death at the sight of thousands of skinny North Koreans storming into their homeland, using museum-grade weapons to strike fear into local schoolchildren and the odd chicken. The North wouldn't stand a chance; not against the South's well-trained and well-equipped army. Plus, there's support from the US which maintains a permanent presence in South Korea. Oh, and then there's the fact that entire battalions would defect to the South if given the chance. Nobody wants to stay in North Korea; even Kim himself lived in Switzerland for a decade or so...
And what if he attacked using a nuke or two? Well, there'd be heavy casualties in Seoul, but in response the US would wipe North Korea off the face of the Earth. That much is certain.
So why does Kim pursue this strategy of provocation? He knows full well that he cannot win a war alone against the rest of the world -even China is calling for him to be more reasonable at this point-, and negotiations have become all but impossible in the current climate.
So once again, what could his reasoning be? And then it hit me: maybe he's trying to provoke a war he knows he will lose.
If he actually cares a bit about his country or his people, then reuniting them with the South should be at the top of his list of things to do. But he can't just tell his generals to throw in the towel. These are men who were trained to hate and distrust the South and the Western world, sworn to loyalty to North Korea. The entire population has been taught to hate the South for 60 years now -several generations of schoolchildren who have never heard anything else but their government's propaganda- and they're not going to give up just because Kim tells them to. He recently executed several high-ranking military and party members, probably in an effort to show strength and unite the military and the party behind himself. If he is so scared of then that he has to execute them, what does he think they would do to him if he were to ask them to lay down their weapons? How would the farmers in the countryside react, would they just accept that everything they have learned in their lives was false? Or would they rise up and create militias and defend their beliefs?
Thus, starting a war that he knows to be lost from the get-go might be the only way to unite the two Koreas. Following the defeat of the North, the SOuth and the US will occupy the North, deliver food aid, and slowly show people what the world is really like. And they, the defeated, will have little choice to accept it, once they see that their ideology has proven to be the inferior one.
What will happen to Kim in this case? A trial for the crimes his short reign caused and condoned? Life in prison, or in exile?
Of course, that is all just my imagination and fantasy talking.
Maybe Kim is just plain old-fashioned nuts, and wants to mount lasers on the heads of sharks.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Please share
"Greetings Citizens of the world, we are #Anonymous, we are #KnightSec.
On December 23, 2012, we released a video detailing the story of a young
rape victim in Steubenville Ohio who was attacked by the Big Red High
School football team and raped and kidnapped carried party to party
unconcious and intoxicated. Only 2 members were charged with the actual
crimes, when everyone present was guilty."
Please share the link on your websites, blogs, facebooks... the more people know about this, the better. Thank goodness for anonymous.
http://stopbigred.com/
https://www.facebook.com/OpRollRedRoll
Please share the link on your websites, blogs, facebooks... the more people know about this, the better. Thank goodness for anonymous.
http://stopbigred.com/
https://www.facebook.com/OpRollRedRoll
Sunday, October 14, 2012
I'm Spartacus!
I've been watching a lot more TV lately, shows like Boardwalk Empire, Breaking Bad, and especially Game of Thrones. TV used to mean lousy acting, low budgets, and cheesy scripts, but those shows have raised the bar considerably. Strong actors, budgets that allow the writer's vision to come to life, and scripts that are unafraid to experiment a bit have all done their part to make TV worth watching again.
In a shocking twist, I am now going to say that I watch porn. Perhaps I shouldn't talk about such private things here, but let's face it: porn rakes in billions of Dollars each year, and that's not me and Charlie Sheen alone. That's hundreds of millions of people, and if recent studies are to be believed, the percentage of women viewers is increasing.
What does that have to do with HBO?
It's quite simple: I recently came across a film that has done for porn what Boardwalk Empire has done for TV: Spartacus MMXII - The Beginning.
It's a pretty straightforward title I thought, a porn parody of Spartacus, the TV series. But I was wrong: the actors are really just that, actors; the sets are utterly convincing; the costumes are worthy of a Hollywood production; and the story is great! So great in fact that the movie has a running time exceeding 3 hours, but I never once felt bored. I never thought I'd ever say this, but I actually watched a porn for the story. Weird, huh? Apparently they even brought in a professional stunt coordinator for the sword fighting scenes!
Aside from the sword action, the "other" action is also great, and watching porn shot with the same type of high-speed cameras used in big-budget TV shows is a different type of experience. It approaches the look of something like Game of Thrones, but with sex. What's not to like?
The trailer below does not feature any naughty stuff :)
These links however are NSFW:
Adult DVD Empire
Official Spartacus MMXII Blog
Enjoy.
In a shocking twist, I am now going to say that I watch porn. Perhaps I shouldn't talk about such private things here, but let's face it: porn rakes in billions of Dollars each year, and that's not me and Charlie Sheen alone. That's hundreds of millions of people, and if recent studies are to be believed, the percentage of women viewers is increasing.
What does that have to do with HBO?
It's quite simple: I recently came across a film that has done for porn what Boardwalk Empire has done for TV: Spartacus MMXII - The Beginning.
It's a pretty straightforward title I thought, a porn parody of Spartacus, the TV series. But I was wrong: the actors are really just that, actors; the sets are utterly convincing; the costumes are worthy of a Hollywood production; and the story is great! So great in fact that the movie has a running time exceeding 3 hours, but I never once felt bored. I never thought I'd ever say this, but I actually watched a porn for the story. Weird, huh? Apparently they even brought in a professional stunt coordinator for the sword fighting scenes!
Aside from the sword action, the "other" action is also great, and watching porn shot with the same type of high-speed cameras used in big-budget TV shows is a different type of experience. It approaches the look of something like Game of Thrones, but with sex. What's not to like?
The trailer below does not feature any naughty stuff :)
These links however are NSFW:
Adult DVD Empire
Official Spartacus MMXII Blog
Enjoy.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Really?!
Recently I read that Voula Papachristou, Greek triple jumper, was banned from competing in the Olympics because of a racist tweet she posted on Twitter. Here is the offending remark:
"With so many Africans in Greece… At least the West Nile mosquitoes will eat home made food!!!"
This, after a recent outbreak of the West Nile virus in Greece.
Now how on Earth is that racist? If I were to say that mosquitoes on Mallorca frequently die of alcohol poisoning due to all the drunk German tourists there, would that be racist? No, and besides, it's probably even true.
But if one involves black people in a joke, all hell breaks lose. Blacks themselves don't complain, mind you; it's retarded white people who are so afraid of being seen as intolerant that they apply political correctness to everything and everyone. They instantly accuse you of being racist as a measure of preemptively defending themselves against similar accusations, probably mentally masturbating to the self-image of helping out the poor blacks, who, after the end of slavery, the civil rights movement in the US, the forming of the African Union, and the end of Apartheid apparently are still in dire need to be saved by some Greek asshat. And then they wonder why black people don't like them.
This asshattery was justified with the excuse that her conduct wasn't in line with Olympic ideals. What ideals would that be? You mean this global sporting event, at which amateur athletes compete for nothing but glory while the International Olympic Committee makes hundreds of millions in sponsorship money has ideals? The same IOC that decided to hold the games in China, where thousands were displaced by the government to make room for new stadiums? They have ideals? Since when?
And so now we have an athlete, probably one of few people in Greece who actually work hard at their job instead of just whining every day that they don't get enough free money from the rest of Europe, being kicked out of a competition she has worked to participate in since she was a teenager.
And all because of a joke that the likes of Jeremy Clarkson make every week on their TV show (which still airs, proving that the BBC do have a sense of humor, bless them).
βλακας
"With so many Africans in Greece… At least the West Nile mosquitoes will eat home made food!!!"
This, after a recent outbreak of the West Nile virus in Greece.
Now how on Earth is that racist? If I were to say that mosquitoes on Mallorca frequently die of alcohol poisoning due to all the drunk German tourists there, would that be racist? No, and besides, it's probably even true.
But if one involves black people in a joke, all hell breaks lose. Blacks themselves don't complain, mind you; it's retarded white people who are so afraid of being seen as intolerant that they apply political correctness to everything and everyone. They instantly accuse you of being racist as a measure of preemptively defending themselves against similar accusations, probably mentally masturbating to the self-image of helping out the poor blacks, who, after the end of slavery, the civil rights movement in the US, the forming of the African Union, and the end of Apartheid apparently are still in dire need to be saved by some Greek asshat. And then they wonder why black people don't like them.
This asshattery was justified with the excuse that her conduct wasn't in line with Olympic ideals. What ideals would that be? You mean this global sporting event, at which amateur athletes compete for nothing but glory while the International Olympic Committee makes hundreds of millions in sponsorship money has ideals? The same IOC that decided to hold the games in China, where thousands were displaced by the government to make room for new stadiums? They have ideals? Since when?
And so now we have an athlete, probably one of few people in Greece who actually work hard at their job instead of just whining every day that they don't get enough free money from the rest of Europe, being kicked out of a competition she has worked to participate in since she was a teenager.
And all because of a joke that the likes of Jeremy Clarkson make every week on their TV show (which still airs, proving that the BBC do have a sense of humor, bless them).
βλακας
Monday, February 27, 2012
Fuck Hollywood
So it's Oscar night again, or, as I call it, Sunday.
Hollywood's greatest and brightest toast themselves; congratulate each other on their fantastic achievements, and some idiot host makes slightly risque jokes at the expense of people the rest of the world has long stopped caring about.
But do these people deserve to be congratulated?
I remember, a few years ago, the academy (as these well-respected scholars of uh, nothing, call themselves) refused to invite Larry Flynt, even though the movie that Hollywood made about his life was nominated by that same academy for several awards. Their problem was that dear ol' Larry's business is pornography, and that's a big non-no.
Aside from the blatant truth that Hollywood has always used sex to sell its movies, the thing that makes this really ridiculous is the fact that the academy nominated (and awarded) Roman Polanski's films several times. Sure, he lured a thirteen year old girl to the house he was staying in, drugged her, raped her, and then fled to France (where he struck up a relationship with a fifteen year old); but hey, it's not like he prints pictures of naked ladies in magazines, right?
Then there's The Hangover: the producer's apparently didn't want to have Mel Gibson in the second part because he left some nasty messages on his ex-wife's answering machine, but they had no problem with Mike Tyson being in the first film. Tyson is a convicted rapist, but unlike Gibson of course, he's still bankable. And that is what really matters.
They try to criminalize the whole world for downloading a movie, "lobbying" (aka buying) politicians to introduce ever-more idiotic legislation, which only ends up costing honest customers more of their hard-earned money, while the pirates continue to laugh at Hollywood's technological incompetence.
They routinely take money from the Pentagon to make America's wars more palatable to the public, yet claim to be liberal pacifists. See the following link for an excellent example:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/may/15/iraq.usa2
Turns out Jessica Lynch wasn't really a hero. What a surprise, right?
And then you kinda think, why am I bothering to watch these people? What makes them better than the rest of us? Well, nothing really; except maybe their awesome acting skills.
But have you ever thought about what acting really is? Is not every five year old who has ever managed to convince his parents that the did not take a cookie out of the jar when he in fact did, a better actor than 90% of the people attending the show tonight?
At least with the Grammys, you can wait for Tom Petty or indeed the Foo Fighters to do their thing and then go to sleep.
But why are we watching the Oscars then? To see if Jodie Foster's tits will fall out of her dress? Well, if you wanna see that kind of thing, you could just save yourself three hours of watching friends of child rapists shake hands and buy a Hustler magazine.
Hollywood's greatest and brightest toast themselves; congratulate each other on their fantastic achievements, and some idiot host makes slightly risque jokes at the expense of people the rest of the world has long stopped caring about.
But do these people deserve to be congratulated?
I remember, a few years ago, the academy (as these well-respected scholars of uh, nothing, call themselves) refused to invite Larry Flynt, even though the movie that Hollywood made about his life was nominated by that same academy for several awards. Their problem was that dear ol' Larry's business is pornography, and that's a big non-no.
Aside from the blatant truth that Hollywood has always used sex to sell its movies, the thing that makes this really ridiculous is the fact that the academy nominated (and awarded) Roman Polanski's films several times. Sure, he lured a thirteen year old girl to the house he was staying in, drugged her, raped her, and then fled to France (where he struck up a relationship with a fifteen year old); but hey, it's not like he prints pictures of naked ladies in magazines, right?
Then there's The Hangover: the producer's apparently didn't want to have Mel Gibson in the second part because he left some nasty messages on his ex-wife's answering machine, but they had no problem with Mike Tyson being in the first film. Tyson is a convicted rapist, but unlike Gibson of course, he's still bankable. And that is what really matters.
They try to criminalize the whole world for downloading a movie, "lobbying" (aka buying) politicians to introduce ever-more idiotic legislation, which only ends up costing honest customers more of their hard-earned money, while the pirates continue to laugh at Hollywood's technological incompetence.
They routinely take money from the Pentagon to make America's wars more palatable to the public, yet claim to be liberal pacifists. See the following link for an excellent example:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/may/15/iraq.usa2
Turns out Jessica Lynch wasn't really a hero. What a surprise, right?
And then you kinda think, why am I bothering to watch these people? What makes them better than the rest of us? Well, nothing really; except maybe their awesome acting skills.
But have you ever thought about what acting really is? Is not every five year old who has ever managed to convince his parents that the did not take a cookie out of the jar when he in fact did, a better actor than 90% of the people attending the show tonight?
At least with the Grammys, you can wait for Tom Petty or indeed the Foo Fighters to do their thing and then go to sleep.
But why are we watching the Oscars then? To see if Jodie Foster's tits will fall out of her dress? Well, if you wanna see that kind of thing, you could just save yourself three hours of watching friends of child rapists shake hands and buy a Hustler magazine.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Am I evil?
I've been doing a lot of reading about serial killers, Nazis, you know... and with all the bankers and politicians in the news, you could say that I've gotten my fill of evil people for the month. And it's only the 11th...
So this got me thinking, who is the most evil person in the world? Hitler? Ted Bundy? The people who ran over that little Chinese girl a few weeks ago? Or maybe those who saw her bleeding to death, and chose to continue shopping rather than help her?
What is evil? Am I evil?
Well let's start with Uncle Adolf, shall we? Was Hitler a bad, bad man? Why yes, he was, you get 5 points! But he didn't really get up in the morning and said, 'Alright folks, I'll have a bowl of cereal please, and after that I'll do some evil!' I really doubt that. I think in his own mind he was doing humanity a favor, and if he had won the war he would have been a hero; simply because he would have been judged by people who shared his worldview.
But he lost, and was judged by people who had different views- and so now he is considered evil.
Don't get me wrong; I think he was quite the little asshat as well. But this shows that the definition of what is right and what is wrong changes with time. Slavery is a big no-no right now, but the Romans, whom we Westerners generally admire, were really rather fond of it. Does that make all Romans evil? Or was slavery OK for them, in their time?
And does that mean that the Holocaust was then alright from a Nazi point of view?
Was the genocide of American natives alright from a conqueror's point of view?
Yes, it was.
The fact that we no longer agree with the rightness of these historical events seems to show that we create evil- not by our actions, but by our reactions. The action of shooting a Injun was considered normal a hundred years ago; but today we react by saying that it's murder. It is merely our opinion that this is evil, and not an established universal fact. There is no huge stone tablet in the sky that tells us right from wrong. Our opinions and attitudes are products of our time and our society. And therefore, what is evil and what is not changes quite often.
What about Ted Bundy, though? Murdering all those women, and then trying to manipulate the media until the last minute before your execution by trying to blame pornography for your actions instead of apologizing to the victim's families, surely that is evil, right?
Yes, his actions seem evil, but Teddy was psychologically ill. He felt a compulsion. He couldn't help himself. That does not excuse what he did, but it explains it. He too, did not get up in the morning specifically to commit evil. He was simply being himself, as fucked up as that might seem.
So what about the people who failed to help the little girl in China who was run over by two vans on a busy street? Evil, apathetic... if I think about it too long, many unkind words enter my mind. She was only two, and she was crying and screaming and holding her head the whole time, and they just let her die there, in the middle of the street, like roadkill. I wish I could strangle them all, slowly. But would that make me evil? Is some violence justifiable?
Well, is apathy?
Society, by and large, has always been shaped by religion, or religion-like system. The Chinese system, which devalues girls, seems to be at least partially to blame for the little girl's horrible fate. Nazism and its version of Jesus, Hitler, are most definitely to blame for the Holocaust and World War II. Christianity played a large role in the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the subjugation of Latin America's people to invading Europeans... all of these things were or are considered 'right', and not evil.
So how is one to know what one should and should not do in today's world? How will history judge us and our actions? Will hindsight be kind to us?
I think the only way to ensure that we do more good than harm during our stay on this little planet is to try to separate our thinking from the norm. Forget about religion, forget about society, forget about politics. Base your actions on humanism rather than on the philosophy du jour. Be accountable for your actions, don't hide behind the shield of religion or the excuse of peer pressure.
I'm beginning to sound terribly preachy there, I know. It's been a long day. Just one more thing:
"This above all: to thine own self be true."
-Shakespeare. I think if you keep that in mind, and act accordingly, you'll be alright.
Good night.
So this got me thinking, who is the most evil person in the world? Hitler? Ted Bundy? The people who ran over that little Chinese girl a few weeks ago? Or maybe those who saw her bleeding to death, and chose to continue shopping rather than help her?
What is evil? Am I evil?
Well let's start with Uncle Adolf, shall we? Was Hitler a bad, bad man? Why yes, he was, you get 5 points! But he didn't really get up in the morning and said, 'Alright folks, I'll have a bowl of cereal please, and after that I'll do some evil!' I really doubt that. I think in his own mind he was doing humanity a favor, and if he had won the war he would have been a hero; simply because he would have been judged by people who shared his worldview.
But he lost, and was judged by people who had different views- and so now he is considered evil.
Don't get me wrong; I think he was quite the little asshat as well. But this shows that the definition of what is right and what is wrong changes with time. Slavery is a big no-no right now, but the Romans, whom we Westerners generally admire, were really rather fond of it. Does that make all Romans evil? Or was slavery OK for them, in their time?
And does that mean that the Holocaust was then alright from a Nazi point of view?
Was the genocide of American natives alright from a conqueror's point of view?
Yes, it was.
The fact that we no longer agree with the rightness of these historical events seems to show that we create evil- not by our actions, but by our reactions. The action of shooting a Injun was considered normal a hundred years ago; but today we react by saying that it's murder. It is merely our opinion that this is evil, and not an established universal fact. There is no huge stone tablet in the sky that tells us right from wrong. Our opinions and attitudes are products of our time and our society. And therefore, what is evil and what is not changes quite often.
What about Ted Bundy, though? Murdering all those women, and then trying to manipulate the media until the last minute before your execution by trying to blame pornography for your actions instead of apologizing to the victim's families, surely that is evil, right?
Yes, his actions seem evil, but Teddy was psychologically ill. He felt a compulsion. He couldn't help himself. That does not excuse what he did, but it explains it. He too, did not get up in the morning specifically to commit evil. He was simply being himself, as fucked up as that might seem.
So what about the people who failed to help the little girl in China who was run over by two vans on a busy street? Evil, apathetic... if I think about it too long, many unkind words enter my mind. She was only two, and she was crying and screaming and holding her head the whole time, and they just let her die there, in the middle of the street, like roadkill. I wish I could strangle them all, slowly. But would that make me evil? Is some violence justifiable?
Well, is apathy?
Society, by and large, has always been shaped by religion, or religion-like system. The Chinese system, which devalues girls, seems to be at least partially to blame for the little girl's horrible fate. Nazism and its version of Jesus, Hitler, are most definitely to blame for the Holocaust and World War II. Christianity played a large role in the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the subjugation of Latin America's people to invading Europeans... all of these things were or are considered 'right', and not evil.
So how is one to know what one should and should not do in today's world? How will history judge us and our actions? Will hindsight be kind to us?
I think the only way to ensure that we do more good than harm during our stay on this little planet is to try to separate our thinking from the norm. Forget about religion, forget about society, forget about politics. Base your actions on humanism rather than on the philosophy du jour. Be accountable for your actions, don't hide behind the shield of religion or the excuse of peer pressure.
I'm beginning to sound terribly preachy there, I know. It's been a long day. Just one more thing:
"This above all: to thine own self be true."
-Shakespeare. I think if you keep that in mind, and act accordingly, you'll be alright.
Good night.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
OMG
I recently watched an old interview with Jeffrey Dahmer, the serial killer. He is a bit different from most others like him, in that he tried to express some remorse for what he had done, and stressed that his parents were certainly not to blame for the many murders that he committed. He himself took full responsibility for what he did, and I think that's great. No, really. No 'blaming the voices in my head' for ol' Jeff. Except for one little thing; something he says to the interviewer:
"Evolution just devalues life."
Jeffrey, who had only been minimally exposed to religion throughout his life, had found Jesus in prison. He told the interviewer that if he'd had a more religious upbringing, he wouldn't have become a serial killer. All those boys would still be alive. So he blamed the lack of religion , at least partly, for what he had done.
What bothers me about this assertion is that it's complete bullshit. Science, which we advance by using our (supposedly God-) given brains, devalues us? Is not the opposite true? Does not a belief in a God, who controls every facet of our predetermined lives in a rat's maze he carefully crafted for us, devalue us?
I resent the notion that I am nothing more than a master's plaything, without free will or options as to my fate.
Is not the very concept of a religion dehumanizing? That we should believe that we are worthless little creatures, just graciously being allowed to live by an omnipotent creature whom we must worship, lest he floods the planet and kills us all, is that not dehumanizing?
All religions seem to share one trait, their contempt for humanity and its development. Free and independent thought is something that all churches seek to curb or ban, because they know that once we truly begin to think for ourselves we will no longer have a need for them.
But what about the morality that religion instills in us, you ask? Well, what morality would that be? Would a church that condoned slavery, colonialism, and countless other crimes really have prevented Jeffrey from becoming a monster? And let's not forget that Jeffrey was a homosexual, and that his chosen religion -Catholicism- condemns homosexuality.
Condemns! How does an organization that claims to live by the teachings of Jesus have the gall to condemn another human being? And they don't stop with gays; they also condemn anything and anyone else who fails to live up to the arbitrary and ever-changing standards the church sets.
And why exactly does an organization that is currently being led by an old Nazi who systematically hides child rapists from the police think that it has the moral high ground on any issue?
No, Jeffrey was wrong. Religions change, society's values change, and we change. God is as much or as little as we make of him, and your own personal beliefs -or lack thereof- cannot and should not be used as an excuse for your behavior.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Amen.
"Evolution just devalues life."
Jeffrey, who had only been minimally exposed to religion throughout his life, had found Jesus in prison. He told the interviewer that if he'd had a more religious upbringing, he wouldn't have become a serial killer. All those boys would still be alive. So he blamed the lack of religion , at least partly, for what he had done.
What bothers me about this assertion is that it's complete bullshit. Science, which we advance by using our (supposedly God-) given brains, devalues us? Is not the opposite true? Does not a belief in a God, who controls every facet of our predetermined lives in a rat's maze he carefully crafted for us, devalue us?
I resent the notion that I am nothing more than a master's plaything, without free will or options as to my fate.
Is not the very concept of a religion dehumanizing? That we should believe that we are worthless little creatures, just graciously being allowed to live by an omnipotent creature whom we must worship, lest he floods the planet and kills us all, is that not dehumanizing?
All religions seem to share one trait, their contempt for humanity and its development. Free and independent thought is something that all churches seek to curb or ban, because they know that once we truly begin to think for ourselves we will no longer have a need for them.
But what about the morality that religion instills in us, you ask? Well, what morality would that be? Would a church that condoned slavery, colonialism, and countless other crimes really have prevented Jeffrey from becoming a monster? And let's not forget that Jeffrey was a homosexual, and that his chosen religion -Catholicism- condemns homosexuality.
Condemns! How does an organization that claims to live by the teachings of Jesus have the gall to condemn another human being? And they don't stop with gays; they also condemn anything and anyone else who fails to live up to the arbitrary and ever-changing standards the church sets.
And why exactly does an organization that is currently being led by an old Nazi who systematically hides child rapists from the police think that it has the moral high ground on any issue?
No, Jeffrey was wrong. Religions change, society's values change, and we change. God is as much or as little as we make of him, and your own personal beliefs -or lack thereof- cannot and should not be used as an excuse for your behavior.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Amen.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Saudi Arabia?
People in Germany are all upset now, because Angela Merkel and her cabinet of assorted idiots have decided to sell tanks to the Saudis, which previous administrations had always refused to do.
People are saying that the Saudis will use the tanks against their own people (using them against someone else's people would be so much nicer, right?). They're saying that this move on Merkel's part really surprises them.
Really? It surprises them?
Have they already forgotten the Angela Merkel who, as leader of the opposition, apologized to George W. Bush when then-chancellor Gerhard Schroeder decided that he wouldn't help with the Irak invasion? The leader of our opposition apologized for a decision our government made to a foreign head of state?
And then the people went ahead and voted for her. Wow. Retards.
And it's not as if the others in her cabinet are any different: from Guido Westerwelle, who probably qualifies for a spot in the Special Olympics, to Wolfgang Schaeuble, who once famously uttered that "The Irak war was a mistake, but it's better than the United States losing face." Yep, he prefers thousands of people dieing -on both sides- to Bush saying "I was wrong, let's get out of here."
And now you people are surprised to see that Merkel acts like the neo-con puppet that she is? Kissing Washington's ass and doing what the White House tells her to do comes as a surprise to you? What a short memory you have.
The problem of democracies is that in theory, the cream should rise to the top so that the best people may govern society; but the reality is all too often that we are nothing but a giant ocean, in which endless waves of collective amnesia always bring the same excrement back to the top.
The good people have long gone into economics, and only those too stupid for something better get stuck in politics, where these dime-a-dozen bureaucrats masquerade as statesmen and diplomats. And we keep voting for them, for lack of credible alternatives.
And then we act surprised when they act like the unconscionable, morally corrupt embarrassments to the human species that they are.
One can only shake one's head.
People are saying that the Saudis will use the tanks against their own people (using them against someone else's people would be so much nicer, right?). They're saying that this move on Merkel's part really surprises them.
Really? It surprises them?
Have they already forgotten the Angela Merkel who, as leader of the opposition, apologized to George W. Bush when then-chancellor Gerhard Schroeder decided that he wouldn't help with the Irak invasion? The leader of our opposition apologized for a decision our government made to a foreign head of state?
And then the people went ahead and voted for her. Wow. Retards.
And it's not as if the others in her cabinet are any different: from Guido Westerwelle, who probably qualifies for a spot in the Special Olympics, to Wolfgang Schaeuble, who once famously uttered that "The Irak war was a mistake, but it's better than the United States losing face." Yep, he prefers thousands of people dieing -on both sides- to Bush saying "I was wrong, let's get out of here."
And now you people are surprised to see that Merkel acts like the neo-con puppet that she is? Kissing Washington's ass and doing what the White House tells her to do comes as a surprise to you? What a short memory you have.
The problem of democracies is that in theory, the cream should rise to the top so that the best people may govern society; but the reality is all too often that we are nothing but a giant ocean, in which endless waves of collective amnesia always bring the same excrement back to the top.
The good people have long gone into economics, and only those too stupid for something better get stuck in politics, where these dime-a-dozen bureaucrats masquerade as statesmen and diplomats. And we keep voting for them, for lack of credible alternatives.
And then we act surprised when they act like the unconscionable, morally corrupt embarrassments to the human species that they are.
One can only shake one's head.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Endlich!
Bin endlich mit der deutschen Uebersetzung von 'Methods of Suicide' fertig geworden.
War ein ganzes Stueck Arbeit, hoffentlich wird sich das auch lohnen. Jetzt bin ich dabei, das Marokko Buch zu uebersetzen, aber das wird dauern. Patience, patience....
Methoden des Suizids
War ein ganzes Stueck Arbeit, hoffentlich wird sich das auch lohnen. Jetzt bin ich dabei, das Marokko Buch zu uebersetzen, aber das wird dauern. Patience, patience....
Methoden des Suizids
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)