Spore: Universal Perfection

The genius of Will Wright has struck again.  This past weekend saw the release of the instant classic computer game "Spore".  There's only one thing to be said about this game...

Best. Game. Ever.

Spore is jaw-dropping in scope, simple yet deep, infinitely random, beautiful and amazingly modifiable... frankly you can play this game as was said for 60 *real life* years, and you'd never have seen it or done it all.  There's always a new species to make, a new species to find, new wars to be fought, new allies to be had... there is simply so much here, it's like three full games packed into one, where the third game is ten times as complex as the first two (because once you get to space mode, and see all the stars- then realize ALL of them have planets and creatures and artifacts to play with...well, your jaw WILL be on the floor.)

The professional reviewers are giving it perfect or near-perfect scores.  So everyone's loving it, right?  Nooooooo. Of course not- this is, after all, the Jaded Generation.  If you wander about online, you'll need to put on your moron hat and try to translate the vitriol currently spewing forth about Spore.  The primary complaint is that Spore uses SecuROM, which is a tough DRM.  In this case, the complaints are coming from "users" claiming to be legitimate owners who have burned through their three installs you're allowed by license.  In truth, there is no such limit-  if you own the product, you own unlimited installs... you simply need to be an adult and contact the company with your proof of purchase and request additional installs added to the account.  That is, only if you've messed up and not used the "unauthorize" feature that allows you to "re-add" an install prior to taking it off your machine.  In other words, you have unlimited, infinite installs unless you are computer illiterate and brain dead.

Oddly enough, I've had the game and have only installed it once.   Odd that others can install a game three times in two days.  It's clear to anyone that these are the "pirates", people who have downloaded the cracked version, and are whining because they can't keep the game burned to disc to drag out when desired.  Of course, their opinion on the game is moot, since they are missing all of the constantly user-generated content (that happens in the background as you play) that makes this a truly amazing experience that transcends other gaming experiences.

So, keep in mind, if you wander the net, you need to ignore the reviews - as always- because the level of facts and valid advice in them is somewhat next to nil (I'd reckon -1.  That's next to nil.)  The whiners have mobbed and are giving it 1 star ratings, which is like giving The Dark Knight a 1, or any Prince album a 1, or the Lord of the Rings movies a 1, or Lost a 1.... well, you catch my drift- it's laughable.

Lastly... GO get this game.  If you are a true PC gamer, this will be a staple in your library for years to come.  If you're one of the younger jaded generation gamers, well... you're the one missing out, but I don't really feel sorry for you at all.

For fun- here's one of the highly useful and easy to use tools provided by EA for sharing your creations... take a glance at some of my first efforts (keeping in mind I've spent amazingly little time in creature, building and vehicle creation as I've wanted to experience as much gameplay as possible before slowing up for detailed design.)

Jon Stewart Shows the Warpublican Hypocrisy

Following up on the counter spin from yesterday, just look at the hypocrisy found by Jon Stewart with three typical Warpublican figureheads... people need to understand how absolutely political of a party they are- Sarah Palin was picked ONLY because she was a woman, period, no more thought involved. End of debate. They are for winning at all costs, including the costs to the nation.

Here's the awesome Stewart totally owning these Warpublicans...

Countering the Spin

Well, thankfully this week is over. Unfortunately, even a perfectly-timed (heaven sent?) national disaster in the form of a massive hurricane couldn't stop the Warpublican National Convention from proceeding forward, lining up rich out-of-touch white person after rich out-of-touch white person to utilize the greatest talent of the Warpublican party: spin. The "right"'s speeches were so full of spin I thought I was actually sitting on a Sit-and-Spin.

Thankfully, our nation has wisened after witnessing and experiencing the past 8 years of having Warpublican policies in place- never before have they had both the Presidency and the Congress (for the majority of the terms) and never before have we been so quickly set back as a nation. Smart people are here to fight the never-ending stream of lies, and so I do my part in helping get the message out.

Let's start with an official response
Don't waste time arguing with a Warpublican- they only have talking points from Rush Limberger- tell them to educate themselves with the facts
Now, let me address a few of the Warpublican talking points I keep hearing and set the record straight for those who get easily confused.

Warpublican Spin) We're "winning" the war in Iraq.

Truth) You. can. not. win. another. nation's. religious-based. civil. war. Yes, even when you brought it to a head. We did not start the war there despite our illegal invasion and occupation, and we won't be the ones to end it.

Warpublican Spin) The "surge" worked!

Truth) Anyone who has any common sense understands that if you bring in 20,000 troops, the "insurgents" (normally known as "Iraqis" to the rest of the world) will lay low until you remove the 20,000 troops. Guess what hasn't happened yet? We haven't pulled out of Iraq. We have to at some point. We will NEVER fix the issues there through military force, despite McCain wanting to stay 100 years. Guess what's going to happen when we do leave?

Boom. Doesn't matter if we leave the country spotless- as soon as we reduce our forces, the fighting will ramp up accordingly. Common sense.

Warpublican Spin) Sarah Palin was a Mayor! Obama was a Community Organizer! She is more experienced than he is!

Truth) Mayor of a town of 6,000, where your job entails such work constructs as "Sits in town meetings and may or may not participate, but can not vote" isn't highly impressive as far as things go. But Ms. Palin has never lived in Chicago like I have- perhaps if she had, she'd understand exactly how difficult a role it is to serve a MUCH larger population of people she did in getting them back on their feet. After all, Obama didn't have an energy company to help give those he was working with $4,000 per person like Palin did. Advantage in the Mayor vs. Community Organizer argument? Obama. If it had been in Podunk, Iowa with a population of 1,200 then it wouldn't be impressive. Chicago? Whole different ballpark than anything in Alaska.

Warpublican Spin) Governor is more important than a Senator.

Truth) Are you frikkin' kidding me? Basic government 101, kiddies: A governor runs a state. That's it. No more. In Palin's case, Alaska- with one of the nation's tiniest populations. A senator, such as Obama, makes the laws that govern our land AND serves as part of the system of checks and balances to the President AND serves on numerous committees that have world-wide impact.

Don't agree? Explain why the only person out of the four candidates who did NOT have security clearance for their first Secret Service intelligence report was Palin? Because governors have lower security than a senator.

So as good ole' President Bush would say, "edumacate yourself":
"Mayor < Governor < Congressman < Senator < Cabinet < V.P. < President"

It's quite simple to understand. Unless you're spinning like a record.


I could continue for days on end with the lies, falsehoods, incorrect statistics, made up facts, false science, forced morality, forced religion and other tactics the Warpublicans use, but frankly I don't have time or interest.

Anyone who's capable of thinking for themselves, and not relying on speaking points sprinkled with spin from "right"-wing radio is able to see who's in the right and who's in the wrong in this election. The entire world wants Obama elected. What does that tell you about how the world views the Warpublican party, and America, after the past eight years?

Oh, that's right- the Warpublicans don't care about the rest of the world's views. Just ruling it.

Prince: Fighting For Artist Rights, and Suffering Abuses

If you're into the world of all things creative, then you probably spend a fair amount of time online, and listening to music. If you're a motivated type of person, you might use your own creativity to try to express yourself online for others to see. However, there's a severe problem happening, and it's coming to light thanks to the efforts (once again) of Prince at the forefront, leading the fight for protection of artist's rights.

What's at issue is the fact that consumers are confused in today's push-button, instant action internet age that they have the right to use their media in any way that they deem appropriate. They believe that if they bought an album or MP3, they can use a particular song as the background material for their picture slide-show, or YouTube video they wish to share to others.

This is simply against copyright law. You do not own the right to the creative property, and therefore you do not have the right to choose how that particular property is portrayed to the public. Only the artist should have the right to choose how his efforts are used- in all forms. To think otherwise is to take all creative protections and rights away from the artist. In this particular example, you're trying to say that someone has the right to take a Prince song and present it to others in a way that is against the vision Prince has for said song. That, to anyone with a modicum of IQ, is obviously wrong.

The quick defense of people online is "fair use"- but their interpretation of fair use is often incorrect and pointless. The slope is far too slippery in dealing with fair use. So, you put a video up of your babies dancing around the kitchen to a Prince song- it's "fair use". No- it's not. Prince probably doesn't envision that song being used in such a fashion- and only he has the right to decide that, not you. Where things get slippery is if you apply "fair use" to that instance, then what's to stop someone from putting up a "silent" movie, where they just "happened" to have Prince music playing in the background? The concept is too open to abuse. The real issue at stake here is a lack of respect for the rights of the artist's work. And trust me- this is a serious issue, because if you disrespect the artists, they will stop producing- and our society cannot survive without quality art. It's an impossibility.

Already because of the actions of so many online ignoring copyright law, damages have been done to consumers. Prince has withdrawn his presence from the internet (pulling down his 3121 homepage)- which stops consumers like me from having access to one of the most important things in our lives. Because of other's actions, I lose the ability to find official merchandise to buy (it's illegal to be selling it on eBay, you don't have the rights), I lose the ability to have affordable, guaranteed front row seats to concerts- my next concert I'll probably have to spend up to 500 percent more for a ticket to guarantee I'm in the front. And that's not my fault- it's the fault of those breaking the laws, and then blaming Prince and his companies for doing the only appropriate thing- nicely asking to stop breaking the law.

The biggest misconception- actually, lies- that are being told/reported/spread throughout these cases is that Prince, due to his ego and desire for money, money and more money, is suing his fans. Flat, bald-faced lie. Prince contributes more to charity than most other artists combined. He is not taking action based on "greed" or gaining financial leverage. Also, Prince has not sued anyone. A DMCA takedown notice is not being sued. It is a polite notice informing the copyright law breaker that they are in violation. In fact, the woman that broke the law in the first place with her dancing babies video is the one suing- SHE's the one being vicious despite being wrong in this matter. This is the type of person that we should be railing against, calling her out for her negligence of the laws or her unwillingness to comply when educated.

Yet instead the worst elements of our society are at work- the vitriol is being spilled out upon Prince- name calling, homophobia (despite Prince being heterosexual), demands for boycotts- things that only children or those with children's minds would espouse. These people are welcome to stop buying Prince albums- their actions won't impact his legacy as the greatest artist in the whole of human history- that fact is established through his work to date, awards and contributions to society. There's a reason Prince is in the Smithsonian's "national treasures" exhibit.

In fact, the actions of this vocal minority, mostly consisting of kids and the uninformed, won't even begin to dent the sales of his albums as they continue to come out each year. Prince has a built-in sales pool of millions of buyers who recognize the genius present- any album he sells automatically sells -at worst- more than any the majority of other artists on the charts, on their best days- despite being "blackballed" by the recording industry and radio industry as a whole. While the bands of today will be forgotten in twenty or thirty years (if not sooner), new Prince albums will be coming out for up to the next 100 years or longer. Prince's music will continue to be studied in leading universities of music even 500 years and longer from now. In a thousand years, there will still be Prince music played. There's only a single handful of bands or musicians for which this is true.

And at some point in the future not too far down the road, artists are going to look back at Prince's role in standing up to the recording industry, radio industry and lawlessness of the internet and say, "without him, we'd be screwed."

So thank you Prince, for your leadership and genius- some of us are smart enough to recognize and appreciate it- and want you to keep on fighting for your rights, so we can all win in the end.

Effect 37's Ultimate Entertainment List

Everyone has their own favorite entertainment products, and there are countless top five or top ten lists to find everywhere online. Sounds like a great idea- but I'm not satisfied with silly lists that leave any room open for debate. No, I want something monumental- something that chisels the point in concrete, and records it for all time as a fact of existence!

Therefore I present to you... Effect 37's Ultimate Entertainment List!



Category: Best Movie of All Time

Winner: Lord of the Rings, Return of the King

Why: Seriously, there's simply no denying the sheer brilliance of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Since this category is a single movie, I'm forced to choose Return of the King- but in actuality, the whole trilogy is one long movie filmed at the same time- the whole trilogy should win. But, if you have to choose one of the three, this is the end-all-be-all. Perfect acting, perfect casting, perfect plot, perfect dialogue, perfect action, perfect special effects... I give up- everything about it is perfect. What could you change to improve it? Absolutely nothing whatsoever- this is the bar for which all movies aim- if you can pull off art this great, you've done something truly amazing. And no one has yet to do it since its release. (Relax, Dark Knight- box office doesn't tell the whole story.)

Where critics are wrong: Comparing movies to their source material, in this case the books, is pointless. They are two different interpretations of the same universe, and have nothing to do with one another. Therefore purists complaining of plot changes or character issues in relation to "how they should be" are wrong- there's no "should be", as the movie universe is its own telling of the story.

Also, the movie is not too long. Movies that are an hour and a half are rip-offs. Movies that are 3 hours are epic, and when they are this good- worth more than your ticket price. Even the extended version isn't too long when captured in such a genius way. Each "finale"/good-bye sequence is necessary, and touching. Again- you're wrapping up an epic tale... if they all looked at each other and said "good job", then went their own ways, it would be a major let down.


Category: Best Television Show of All Time

Winner: Lost

Why: Is an explanation really necessary? Never before in television history has there been a show so unique, so original or so thought-provoking. It is television's first true active television viewing. The brilliance of the character stories, the depth of the mysteries, the edge-of-the-seat/can't wait until the next episode suspense- not to mention the mind-melting twists that no one, anywhere, sees coming. This show redefines what is possible when genius produces a product and is given the support it needs from its network- enough time and money to tell the single best story that's ever been told, in any format.

Where critics are wrong: Sorry, "Heroes" (which everyone must admit, is simply "Lost, Jr.") doesn't cut it. Copy the same elements as the hit Lost, then remove the thing that makes Lost so brilliant- the active participation. Instead, Heroes provides a mystery, and before your brain can register it, the mystery is resolved- so you don't strain a brain cell. No, intellectual minds need not apply here. Heroes is fun, but there are countless shows far superior.

Lost drags on too long without answers? Nonsense. One of the most common misconceptions of the show is that there are filler moments or episodes. Let me make this clear: There is NOTHING in Lost that is filler. No character. No scene. No moment. Everything is a clue (or a red herring), everything fits into the overall scheme, and everything is necessary for the answers to make sense at the end.

Oh, and speaking of answers... two things: Lost will not have one simple, neat "answer" to the show's mysteries. You're talking about matters of time, space, theoretical physics and spirituality here... the answers will require thought and understanding. And to top it off, the only appropriate way for Lost to end is with some mystery remaining. Mystery is the soul of the show, and to have nothing to wonder about left is not likely to occur.


Category: Best Computer Game of All Time

Winner: Spore

Why- wait, WHAT? It's not out yet! Tough cookies. I never said something needed to be touched to be the ultimate winner. And in this case, Spore takes the prize. Simply based on gameplay footage, awareness of game design, and a taste of the creature editor provided this past summer... it's clear that thousands of people are going to spend years on this product. This is one of those few games that come out that you will be playing when you're another ten years older. Probably even twenty. You're talking about a product where you could spend 60 years *in real life* playing and not see everything. 60 years! That's gameplay value! Infinte creatures to create and encounter... I'll probably spend no less than 3 months off the bat creating creatures over and over before even getting into the gameplay. Add in a perfect multiplayer system- grab everyone's creations, but take away the annoying people and turn control over to the AI... the perfect single player game! Have fun making a community that shares its creatures, but no juveniles to ruin your gaming experience. Perfection!

Where the critics are wrong: Sandbox games do get boring, after time. You're not wrong there. It is true that after playing Spore for a while, you will get bored and look to other things. That is true of all games. The difference is- you will always, always come back to Spore, because it will always be new when you return. Even more so than classics like Civilization IV and Diablo 2, the gameplay will be more unique upon returning, as there will be so many options in what you do each time, and how your creatures evolve into their society.


Category: Best Musician or Band of All Time

Winner: Prince

Why: The God of Music is the whole deal, more so than anyone ever has been in music's history. He has the genius of Mozart, the business chops of Donald Trump, and the creativeness of Picasso or Monet. His albums never contain a single filler song, and his "worst" effort isn't far out of the same league as his nearest peers. Despite single-handedly leading the charge to combat the corrupt recording and radio industries in fighting for artist's rights to control their music, he is still given award after award, lifetime achievements hand-over-fist, and sells all his albums by the millions- each and every year. He was one of the earliest pioneers of musicians dealing with fans, music and sales on the web, and even now continues to fight for artist copyright protection against the lawlessness of the internet. He's got enough music in his vault to continue to release a new album each year after his death for 50 to 100 years (based on the date of his death, of course.) As they do now, future generations will study his music at leading musical schools long after many of the bands of today are forgotten.

Think Prince hasn't impacted your listening choices? Think again- 60 percent of the music you hear has direct influence from him... a large chunk of it may even possibly be songs he's written for others. Master of dozens upon dozens of instruments, he's one of the only artists out there who does the whole process- writing, recording, playing, mixing, marketing, packaging and selling- always to critical rave and financial success. His sound is always strong, but also always changing- many people are stuck in 1984, but Prince has proven he's been progressing as an artist all along. He's won an Oscar, had an award-winning Joffrey Ballet performance run nationally to sell-out crowds, sold billions in concert tickets, setting records for his ticket sales, and even recently managed to perform in the most critically and fan-acclaimed Superbowl halftime show, ever.

Where the critics are wrong: There's people's taste in music, and then facts about musical abilities. You can't deny the talent, the awards and the actions he's taken. The amount of charity he raises is extraordinary, often anonymously donated. A true rags-to-riches story, he is an ultimate role-model, worthy of emulating unlike so many other artists out there. His music skills have only improved over the years- there's no finer guitarist that's lived, he surpassed Hendrix a while back. While other bands and artists have more global fame or sales, just like in all cases- sales and income aren't the full story. No one has come before or since that has come close to measuring up- and perhaps never will.


Category: Best Album of All Time

Winner: Purple Rain

Why: While it is a touch cliche to choose- this album hardly is unused to winning the highest prizes. Even a recent Entertainment Weekly chose it as the best album of the past 50 years, and countless other books and magazines have labeled it the best ever or best of the 80's. As with all his albums, there is no filler material- each song is top-of-the-charts quality and truly memorable. There is a timeless quality to the music that few albums succeed at achieving. Most albums of the 80's sound dated, and yet this work sounds as appropriate today as it did 24 years ago. Anthemic, fluid and simply pitch perfect, you could spend five lifetimes as an artist trying to achieve a work this ideal, and most bands and artists will never come close to such success. While Purple Rain is by no means Prince's best overall work, the sales, timelessness and worldwide popularity of this album require it to beat out his other potential throne takers such as Sign O' The Times.

Where the critics are wrong: For the thousandth time, sales are not the only measure of success. There are countless albums and bands that will always be known by all, yet they never achieved something of this magnitude. The Beatles are sound, but the music is always dated- you know you're listening to something old and dusty. Elvis has his hits, but is a running impressionist gag- and his one-trick singing style simply doesn't match the unique range that only Prince has. You can show me who's made more money... but you can't show me who's done it better, and more successful than Purple Rain.


Category: Best Book/Book Series of All Time

Winner: The Shannara Series by Terry Brooks

Why: The only other possible winner is Tolkein's legendary Lord of the Rings epic- but Brooks' Shannara takes the Rings stakes and ups them to epic times ten. With unforgettable characters even more memorable than Lord of the Rings, the Shannara quests are monstrously good reading that simply dares you to ever come close to putting the book down. Evolving over the years, continuing to stay fresh yet within the amazing universe he's' created, Brooks has managed to create a tale that even those who hate fantasy can not only relate to, but love. Combining all of the best elements of storytelling into such riveting plots and unforgettable moments is not an easy task, yet he pulls it off without a hitch- each and every book of the series. If you haven't read this series yet, you are missing out, period.

Where the critics are wrong: Shannara is indeed less known than Lord of the Rings, that's a given- but remember the golden rule: sales and popularity doesn't equate to better. Shannara does everything a step higher- and is so much more deep of a universe. Helping it win is the fact that Brooks is still releasing new efforts into the series as we speak- continuing to progress the work while maintaining the excellence of the original that started it all.


Category: Best Ultimate Entertainment List

Winner: Your own!

Why: The above list is only my own "Ultimate List"- there's no other person on the planet that could create the perfect list for me, but myself! Same for you- don't let others tell you what's the best... think for yourself and come up with your own Ultimate list- let the world know what you think! Why don't you share your "Ultimate List" below (don't worry, you can give the short version!)

Where the critics are wrong: Who cares what critics are saying? They can't speak for you- nor should you let them. They don't know what you like!

If you're not claiming your list to be "Ultimate" for anyone other than yourself, how could anyone possibly disagree? There's simply no being wrong when you declare your love of your favorite entertainment sources for the whole world to hear!

"Clone Wars"- Hated by Many, Loved by Me!

I'm used to being the only person to seemingly like most everything that comes out now. I've mentioned on numerous occasions how jaded the younger generations are nowadays.

It's no surprise to me then, that such useless critic sites such as "Rotten Tomatoes" (or as I refer to it- "Waste of Bandwidth") give the new Star Wars movie a lowly 18 rating.

I don't give ratings, nor presume that my opinions on any entertainment product have any relevance to another person- I simply am giving my opinion on the item in question as a source of entertainment and interest, rather than attempting to claim expertise over others and/or stop them from participating in an entertainment source that they might enjoy quite a bit.

The new Star Wars- Clone Wars movie, as you may or may not know, is simply a big screen showing of some episodes from the upcoming television show edited into movie format. The good news in my world is that this movie was great! Why? Let me break down my reasons...

1.) Action from beginning to end. Not an exaggeration- the longest scene with no action in it lasts perhaps 30 seconds. You go from war to more war to lightsaber battle to more war to more lightsaber battles to yet more war.

2.) No "cheesy" dialogue. While I don't agree this was true of Episodes 1-3, the plot (which seems kind of stupid at first glance, Anakin and a Padawan need to rescue Jabba the Hutt's kidnapped son) makes total sense and is actually exciting. The banter between Anakin and Asohka is great and the story is well constructed.

3.) The voice acting is superb. Mace, 3P0 and Count Dooku are all voiced by the actual actors, but if you can convince me that Obi Wan is not a clone of Ewan McGregor (pun intended) kudos to you.

4.) The action sequences are classic Star Wars. Epic, hairy and fun. Typical Star Wars fare- lots of action with humor thrown in.

5.) Asohka is a great character and her banter with Anakin is outstanding- she's a great role model for younger female Jedi-wishfuls in the audience.

6.) None of the things people hated about Episodes 1-3 are present in this movie- and therefore are unlikely to appear in the TV series when it makes its way to TV soon.

7.) The animation style is very, very cool.


Yet despite me obtaining these beliefs after viewing the show, others are having the exact opposite opinions. Frankly, I can't speak on their behalf, but in my opinion (again) on the matter, what is occurring is two-fold.

Part one of the issue is that people (particularly younger ones), find out what is "the word" on things- The Matrix was awesome, until "The Word" came out that the two sequels were bad. Upon leaving the theater for "Revenge of the Sith", I heard no less than 12 people gushing about how amazing the movie was... two days later, "The Word" came down that "it sucked", and therefore the opinions changed. It's just not a fun place to be in, when you're in the minority- so it's a safer choice to follow the crowd and rip on things that you enjoy than it is to stand on your own and speak up against the majority.

Part two of the problem, specific to Star Wars, is that people aren't using their brains when it comes to the recent movies. What is it Star Wars fans want? They want repeats of 4-6. They complain that Anakin and Padme had wooden dialogue, and the story was sappy, and so on, so forth.

Yet, the time the movies occur in is different. Padme is a former queen and eventual senator- she's not a "lowly" Princess from a casual world- she's been bred to be a formal statesman, and therefore would speak in such a clipped and proper fashion. She's not going to be as loose and free as the fiery Leia is years later. Same for Anakin- this is the era of Jedi's still. Anakin is raised in the caste-system of the Jedi, very formal and etiquette based. He's not going to speak or act like Luke- who is nothing more than an adolescent farmer. It would make no sense!

Therefore, much of the complaints of poor dialogue and/or acting really don't add up- we know from other movies that Natalie Portman and Hayden Christiensen are great actors... We know Lucas is a great director. How can you take three great people and create something subpar? I don't believe you really can... I think it becomes an issue where the audience is longing for the past, and unwilling to set aside their stubbornness and move into the future.

So, I personally loved this new Clone Wars movie- and look forward to the TV series when it hits the airwaves. Obviously others aren't going to follow, so it looks like what would have been another quality television show will end up cancelled early- but of course, this is the price that is paid when living in a society of jaded young things who aren't going to find entertainment that will ever please them.

The Difference Between Nerds, Geeks and Dorks

"One of the most frightening things about your true nerd, for many people, is not that he's socially inept- because everybody's been there- but rather his complete lack of embarassment about it."
~Neal Stephenson

Labels are a sign of a mentally weak mind, but as a society, we're simply brainwashed into thinking it's an acceptable process. While I'd like to present something here that would help to make people think twice about the usage of labels upon others, I realize the futility of such an act. Instead, I'm going to address a pet peeve of mine- the constant incorrect use of these terms, often interchangeably- and that is a crime of the language!

What we're going to tackle are the three labels known as:

• Nerd
• Geek
• Dork

Everyone's certainly heard and/or used these terms (shame on you and I) but there's actually a trend in today's world of claiming one of these titles for yourself. Let's find out more about what the actual truth of each one is, so you know what to call yourself- if you so wish to claim one of these roles in society.

The nerd is a book-smart, socially inept type of person. Nerds are never capable of understanding or caring about how to properly fit into society in a "normal" manner, and this is most apparent in their inability to dress themselves in a societally proper way. You've certainly seen the stereotype picture of the nerd- dark, broken glass held together by tape, pocket protector in shirt and so-on, so forth. As with all stereotypes, many nerds buck some of these trends, but ultimately to be a nerd there must be some level of social ineptitude- a disconnect with how the rest of us act within society. However, at some level within us all, we have a trace of nerd- so don't get too high and mighty in picking on nerds... you are one yourself, in some way or another.

A geek is anyone who is passionate about a particular topic (or multiple topics). You can be a computer geek (like me), a Lost TV show geek (like me), a Prince geek (like me)... if it exists, and you are beyond passionate about it to the point your knowledge puts you into territory that other people don't normally hold, you're a geek. Unlike nerds, though, geeks do not have the element of social ineptitude. The most stylish dresser amongst us may in fact be a geek concerning something they hold interest in- you won't identify a geek by looks, but rather by passionate discussion or actions.

Lastly, we have the label of dork. This is commonly misused as another term for nerd, but that is incorrect. Anyone, at any time, can be a dork- but only for a limited time. You cannot be a dork permanently- it is a temporary state. One does or says something dorky, then reverts back to their normal state of being. Therefore, it's incorrect to say "he's such a dork"- it's only correct to say "he's being such a dork".

Now you have a better idea of how these labels are properly applied, so if you wish to use them you'll have a correct approach to the matter. Again, if you wish to be a wise and enlightened person, you'll learn that people always tend to break out of predefined labels- often in ways that will surprise you- so you'll try to learn to break you societal brainwashing and not use such terms. But, in the meantime, if you so choose you now know how to correctly use these terms properly- and if you're so inclined, you can choose one for yourself.

I only bring this up because my inner nerd demanded it. You see, I'm an English language geek, so I really had to get this off my chest. I guess in the end I'm just being a dork for bringing this up!

Where's the U.S. Spirit of Creativity Gone?

We're in the middle of a very vicious political season here in the United States the outcome of which will have extreme consequences for not only the country but the entire world. This being the case, it's really important to keep up to date on what's being discussed- this is one election that we can't let slide by without caring about.

The current topic of the day as everyone in the country should know is the "energy crisis"- gas is up to around $4.00 per gallon based on where you live and this is putting a major crunch on everyone's budget. Unlike Europe, which has a sound mass transit system, in the United States you really need a car to function unless you're in Chicago or New York, for instance. Trying to equate the prices between the U.S. and Europe simply doesn't make sense- it's apples to oranges.

The current solution rallying cry led by the conservative right wing is "drill for more oil, now, off the coasts (and everywhere else possible)". And the majority of the country has signed on to the spin- nearly 70 percent want offshore drilling to take place, even though it has been shown that in the best of cases, the earliest we'd get any of the oil in use is at least five years from now, probably eight to ten. Yet, the price may dip some in the immediate short term just for announcing our plan to drill.

So our nation, concerned over paying the difference between $3.00 and $4.00, is willing to continue down the path of oil reliance that is destroying us. Time out- I did not say a single word about global warming or climate change. That's a debate for another time, but global warming is not necessary to bring up in order to say that being an oil-based society is destroying us. It is a fact how much pollution our cars, factories and other oil-burning endeavors emit. Pollution that is causing cancers, shortening life spans, and destroying the environment (again- not discussing the notion of global warming, just the obvious damage pollution does to nature). Why is it that a large majority of the people in this nation are so willing to continue down a damaging path, rather than strive for something better- even if it will be a challenge?

How is it that in the 60's, our president could turn to America and tell us we'd land on the moon by the end of the decade- an impossible task- and we banded together and accomplished it? Yet now Bush aims for a manned flight to Mars or Gore pushes for us to eliminate our dependence on oil in ten years, and not only are they lambasted with vitriol, hatred and name-calling- but the general mood of the people is "eh, we can't do that."

This is why America is quickly slipping from its singular world-power status- given another decade or two or this creative death, China, India and other rapidly progressing nations will easily overtake our superiority. Not military superiority, but the most important superiority of all- the burning spirit and passion to excel in all things that we had just a few decades ago.

How about you? Where's your desire gone? Are you hurting matters, by looking to continue to harm us and the environment to save a dollar on gas per gallon? Or are you helping by standing up and saying "There's no reason we can't be a green-powered nation in ten years!" or "We have to be the first to land men on Mars- it wouldn't be right if America didn't do it first!" Do you truly believe in ten years not one of our think-tanks or brilliant scientists could create a valid alternative energy source that's affordable and easily mass produced for our vehicles to run on? Of course they can- but it's not about spirit and ingenuity currently, or doing the right thing, it's about money and only money. The oil business will not let us kill it off. Do you mean to tell me you feel right letting it stay this way for weak excuses? "Well, even if we change here in the United States, we can't stop them from using oil in China." So what? If we lead the way, and the way is better- others WILL follow, period.

We used to have the strongest spirit. Now we're simply wallowing in a divisive swamp of lethargy and sloth, as we ruin our present and our kids' futures.

You may not like him or be voting for him- but as an American, we should ALL be embracing Obama's campaign slogan...

"Yes, we can!"

Because we always used to be able to in the past. Why not now- and the future?

Gaming- The Maligned Hobby

"It is in games that many men discover their paradise."
~Robert Lynd

Consider all of the potential activities each individual can engage in for entertainment. Imagine the millions of different types of fun, each fitting into different categories, aligning themselves with the unique personalities of each individual. Now ask yourself, if someone was talking about your friend's personal choice of hobby and said, "Joe? Oh, he'll grow out of that hobby." What is the first activity you think of in which Joe might be participating, that his age or maturity should cause him to cease enjoying at some arbitrary point?

Gaming- particularly computer gaming- is the only mainstream hobby where people (even some gamers themselves) feel others should arbitrarily stop doing due to age. Even in today's technologically advanced society, there's still the misconception that games are for kids, and when one "matures", they will "grow out" of gaming and move on to more "appropriate" hobbies.

Where does this flawed mindset stem from?

In large part, it's a relic of the stereotypes of the past. While most people in touch with modern trends are aware of the diversity of gamers (we come in all shapes, ages and sizes), there is a large portion of the population still relying on 20 year old stereotypes of gamers being nerdy, male, socially inept booksmart types living in mom's basement, dreaming of their first chance to touch a real woman someday!

Are all gamers socially inept virgins incapable of adult thought and activity? Of course not. As with all stereotypes, they are terribly flawed generalizations that false more often than true.

Gaming is an intellectual and creative hobby that stimulates the brain, sharpens reaction times, improves vocabulary and reading skills and can be (based on the game type) highly social in nature. But that is entirely not what the stereotype says! After all, Joe is going to "grow out" of gaming, right? How come no one goes around asking those in their 60's when they're going to "grow out" of watching television? After all, it's a hobby that was born and came into its own as that generation grew into adulthood! Should they not have moved on to more age-appropriate activities? Should they not "grow out" of watching television and go outdoors and do something "better" with their time? Obviously, that is a silly notion, just as it is when applied to gamers and gaming.

Anti-gamers will have you believe gaming is a mindless, thoughtless activity that causes anti-social behavior and once you're out of your teens, you should be "grown up" enough to move on to "better" things.

I ask anti-gamers: define "better". Is gardening "better"? Customizing cars? Riding a bike?

Yes, someone will surely say... if you're riding a bike, you're getting exercise, you're outdoors, it's healthier for you!

Who has determined these things are "better"? No one has the authority to judge what activities are better than others. Who says being outdoors is "better" than being indoors? You can provide just as many studies indicating you're healthiest indoors as you can outdoors. This is simply an artifact of old-fashioned thinking, as those who had no indoor activities are now parents and grandparents. When they were kids, they had to go outdoors. So of course, to these types, it seems unhealthy that people spend so much free time indoors in front of the TV or computer screen playing games.

No one hobby is capable of being labeled "better" than any other hobby. Each person chooses a hobby based on what fits them best- customizing cars might be "manly" to some... but to others, it is a colossal waste of money and energy. Judging another person's hobby to be better or worse for them is an improper activity.

The bad news for the anti-gamer crowd- the folks constantly seeking to purge, penalize or otherwise ruin the gaming industry- is that the average age of gamers continues to rise each year. Currently, the average age is around 34. Notice that is not a teenage year? And if the average is 34- that means people are gaming well into their 60's! This trend is only going to continue- on a more rapid pace. Those who have grown up as gamers, such as myself, will continue to game until we die. And with the introduction of more powerful gaming consoles, as well as casual-gamer friendly systems like the Wii, more and more people will jump into gaming, only to be hooked for life. The average gamer age is likely to be 40 or 45 within a scant few years.

Eventually the stereotypes of yesteryear will fade away, and no one in their right mind would insinuate that someone will "grow out" of gaming, just as they wouldn't think of presuming they know of another hobby to be "superior" to gaming. Gaming will not be considered any different than jogging, going sailing, reading books, mixed martial arts, or watching television. In fact, the truth that gaming is an active, rather than passive, activity, will become common knowledge.

For now, though, gamers are stuck with the burden of putting up with outdated and inaccurate stereotypes. Those who continue to perpetuate the fallacies of these stereotypes, keep in mind- the gamers you're maligning aren't kids. We're everyone you know- younger and older, male and female... and we're tired of your smug judgment. You enjoy your hobbies- we enjoy ours. Keep your opinions on our fun-time to yourself, because...

We're proud to be known as gamers.

This Post Sucks!

"Most of the younger people I knew didn't seem to have a handle on things; they hadn't found their place, they didn't understand how the world works, they didn't understand how to treat other people, and they didn't know how to stop thinking about themselves."
~Kristin Hersh

It sucks.

What, you ask? Nearly every entertainment product that is released nowadays. Mind you, this is far from my own opinion- rather, this attitude seems to seep throughout our entire culture in today's world. And this attitude is growing stronger by the day.

I can't truly recall the last entertainment product- movie, TV show, computer game, video game or any other imaginable creative production- where I've heard a vast majority shower the new release with overwhelming praise. Even "Dark Knight" started an online war of words. Obviously, you're always going to have to ignore the 0.01 % that deliberately take the opposite side of every issue as some form of attention whoring. But setting that aside, ultimately there should be something out there that everyone agrees is great, right?

Does this just come down to personal preference? Is it that what is great to one person is terrible to another, and therefore a consensus within society is not feasible? Will there always be a large group of people standing outside the theatre after a movie saying, "That was boring. That director doesn't know what he's doing. They should have taken out the car chase scene and put in more of the monkey. I easily could have done it better."

I think that is the case. People will always differ on entertainment, as it is art, and art is subjective. However, I submit that there is a growing trend, particularly in the younger generations- the under 30 crowd, with exceptions (there are always exceptions)- who are adopting an attitude only best described as jaded.

As I roam the internet, I find source after source of people making highly vicious attacks on creators of our entertainment. And yet, at the core of these arguments is nothing whatsoever but personal opinions! There are no facts provided to back up the reasoning of the attacks or why the entertainment products being attacked "suck" so much.

And guess what? There's a simple reason there are no facts.

Pretend you've landed in an airport and are disembarking from a plane. Have you ever heard anyone on the way out ripping into the pilot for how he flew the plane? Not complaining about a bumpy ride, or bad flight attendant service, but that he should have gone up to 30,000 feet for the first hour, then changed direction to catch the jet stream? Or, consider this: you're in the hospital, and you pass by a group of patients standing around yelling at a brain surgeon. How could he have made that incision the way he did? Why didn't he use a different approach to his tumor removal method? Or perhaps complaining about his choice of stitching when closing up his last surgery?

It sounds ridiculous, no? Of course it does! Yet- have you ever heard someone tell you exactly how the local professional basketball team's coach should have handled the substitutions for the game last night? What trades must be made for the team to make the playoffs? How the team's all-star player isn't trying anymore, and should just drive to the hoop each time down the court, which will guarantee victory every game? Of course you've seen this- repeatedly, and in regards to countless topics.

Here's the most common thing I'm sure you've seen, if you're an online gamer- legions of message board posters telling game developers (in extremely petty and vicious language) how uncaring they are for not playing their product, and for deliberately trying to ruin the game for the players. Or complaining for all to hear that the company that makes the game is only out for money, and they simply do not care about the players' experiences. And my personal favorite- have you ever seen a post on a game's forum telling the developers how that person could, in a matter of weeks, reprogram the game into perfect balance and make everything "fun" again?

The difference in these situations is obvious, but almost never considered. The reason no one gives a brain surgeon or airline pilot grief on their jobs is simple- the average person has no experience in performing these actions. You don't casually fly a plane around as a kid, or slice open someone's skull just to see what you can do. (I'm really hoping you don't, at least.) Yet almost every single person has picked up a basketball in their lives. Many have seen basketball on television, and learned the rules (somewhat) by which the players play. There are countless young adults who are fluent in multiple computer programs and languages- they know how to create programs or scripts, sometimes quite impressively.

This is the crux of the matter. When people have personal experiences to draw from, it is easier to judge the performance of another based on your perception of how things should be done. However, there's a fundamental flaw in this that most don't take into account.

Let's take computer game development, in particular, World of Warcraft. Massively Multiplayer Game Services (MMGSs) are highly complex, detailed programs of massive scope and scale. There are countless aspects in development of the product that you would require a short novel describing all of the individual tasks required to create and provide the service. Yet, if you grab any one of the majority of the players who've played the game, they will give you a list of faults with the product and how they would fix them. Most will complain about how nothing is ever done to fix the flaws within the product, and anger is expressed when something is altered that makes the experience more difficult for their character to succeed than before. Almost every thread on the forum concerning the game will have countless complaints on how poor the service is run, and how to fix these errors. Many of these threads even have information where the poster claims to have multiple years of experience in developing computer games, or other similar products, and therefore how qualified they are to point out how to fix the problems.

That is the flaw that people don't understand, and why none of these suggestions are factually based. You see, unless you have worked on the exact entertainment product being discussed, any criticism on your part is simply your opinion on the matter. Only the people who have been part of the development of a product have most of, or all, of the information necessary to make factual commentary on the matter. You could be the world's best brain surgeon, but you would never criticize another brain surgeon off-the-cuff because they killed a patient. Instead, you would have to familiarize yourself with all aspects of the case- everything to which a person uninvolved is fully unaware.

You see, you can't truly tell Blizzard how to factually "fix" World of Warcraft... because you don't know how World of Warcraft works. You might think you do, but you don't. You haven't been in the meetings. You haven't manipulated the engine. You don't know Blizzard's policy of handling art changes and the procedures involved in adjusting the timeframe of the project. That is, unless you work for Blizzard, and work on World of Warcraft. You see, without having all of the information, you don't have enough information. And without enough information, you're simply guessing.

That's why all criticism beyond the creators of entertainment products is pure opinion only. However, since people are familiar with aspects of the entertainment product, they feel like "experts". They are using their personal knowledge of programming, as if they are now on even ground with the developers. They are using their understanding of how to make a movie, to judge the latest sequel to hit the movie theaters.

So where does this new jaded attitude come from? This belief where "that sucks" is so often repeated? It's coming from familiarity. As the world continues to get more technologically advanced, the younger generations are growing up with personal video cameras, and learning computer programming languages. The younger gens are tech-savy, and are using this experience to judge the world around them. They've seen it all before, and the more they see the same thing, the more jaded they become. Unfortunately, no one has ever stopped to tell them that casual knowledge and experience are not replacements for professional knowledge and experience on the actual development of a product.

Experience is not interchangeable. It is unique.

There is every right for the gamers and movie watchers of the world to speak up and voice their opinions on why they dislike their entertainment sources. However, there is no reason to hide behind the bravado of internet anonymity, insulting and attacking the people creating these artworks.

So when you're on your favorite game's message board, and the uber-programmer with all the answers is telling everyone including the developers how to fix the product in three easy steps of programming, call them on it. They don't know, they aren't the developer. If you're chit-chatting with your local team's sports fans and someone's calling out the coach for how poorly he substituted during the game, call them on it. They don't know, they aren't the coach.

Remind these people that they're only providing their own opinions, and their own personal experience has no factual relevance in regards to judging the entertainment. Ideally, if we can all start reminding each other that other people are giving their all in the production of these sources of enjoyment for us, we can begin to agree more readily that most things don't "suck". In fact, we might all begin to calm down and see that everything around us is really pretty great.

Or, do I just suck for writing this?

Get These Five Women Leading Roles, Already!

There are obviously a large number of actresses in the world all vying for a limited number of roles... but it is a real shame when great talent is being bypassed while others are landing coveted leading roles.

Here's Effect 37's top five list (in no particular order)... you may know just a few or all of 'em! Give some love to your top five in the comments!

1.) Emilie de Ravin- We see her on the already-legendary television show "Lost", and some became fans during her stint on "Roswell"... I personally fell for her goddess-like looks (and those eyes!) when she was a young demon on "Beastmaster" (hey... at least one or two other people watched that!)

While I'm thrilled she's part of the Lost legacy (and an important part, at that)... once she's done it's far past time for her to be the lead- I think she'd be an amazing new (less "crazyish") Sharon Stone in film, taking on some adults-only roles- she could easily hold her own sexual chemistry against any leading man on screen.



2.) Brit Morgan- This absolutely mouth-watering blonde has a large secondary role on the new ABC Family show "Middleman"- and while the leading lady of that show Natalie Morales would have been on this list if she didn't already have her own show, Brit seems to steal almost every scene she's in! With her looks and talent, she would fit into any role offered- and such an offer should be made a.s.a.p.!



3.) Lake Bell- You've seen Lake, possibly on Boston Legal or on the short-lived sci-fi series "Surface" (which shouldn't have been canceled, but I digress...) Her performance on Surface proved she is fully capable of leading a show- and just because that particular show failed, she shouldn't be ignored for other possibilities. With her striking looks, she fits into sexy roles easily enough- but this is one woman smoothly capable of playing smart just as easily. Get this woman a doctor, scientist or lawyer show, stat! (Preferably one where her character enjoys modelling lingerie in her spare time, though- we don't want to hide that body! =P)



4.) Claudia Black- One of the current queens of sci-fi, there's no reason whatsoever to buck this trend. Claudia became famous here in the U.S. for her role on the beloved and classic Farscape series, and has since delved even further into the hearts of sci-fi geeks everywhere with her addition to the end seasons (and new movies) of Stargate: SG-1. She's proven she's fluent in the genre, she's got killer comedic chops and is beautiful to boot- get her into the lead in another sci-fi show, before I shoot you with my Ion gun. (My Death Star's in the shop.)



5.) Jill Wagner- While currently laughing her ass off on the sidelines of (the quite admittedly funny) summer popcorn show "Wipeout", this is a criminal underuse of her talent. Lately she's done some guest stints, particularly on Stargate: Atlantis as a tough and sexy challenge for the leading male. (Bring her back, and more often, Atlantis!)

Jill did have her own leading shot before on Spike TV's "Blade" effort, and was a true delight- this show should never have been canceled... it was just the right amount of sexy and had interesting characters. Still, it's all proof positive she needs her own leading spot... give me an interesting action show with her able to use her body to maximum effect and I'm there.

After all, there's a reason just about every single guy in the country has at one time or another asked "Who's the Mercury girl?" (Yep- that's her making you subconciously a Mercury fan!)

An Accurate New Name for "MMORPGs".

If you're a gamer, you've heard and used this phrase countless times. Even when it first became widespread in its usage, jokes flew with its lack of brevity. You know the name... "MMORPG": "Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game".

That name has to be changed.

Why? Certainly some will agree it's a pain to say, but you can just call it an "MMO" instead, right? Unfortunately, that doesn't reach the crux of the matter... it's inaccurate. My first question to you is: Name one massively multiplayer game that is not online.

I'll wait while you rack your brain. Football isn't massively multiplayer. Golf isn't. Baseball? No. A marathon isn't a game. There is no game which exists offline that has thousands upon thousands of simultaneous players!

We've just started, and we've already found that part of the title isn't necessary!

• First change to the genre name: The O's gotta go.

So, we've whittled "MMO" down to "MM". What about the "MM" portion of the title? What defines "Massively Multiplayer"? Thousands upon thousands of players all within the same game universe able to freely interact in game at the same time.

Some games that are often considered massively multiplayer fall short due to design and gameplay considerations. Let's examine Guild Wars. Great game! Fun times. A solid title to own for most gamers. Guild. Wars. Is. Not. Massively. Multiplayer.

What? Everyone says it's an MMO! That is nothing more than a case of people being stubborn when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The actual developers of Guild Wars have themselves proclaimed it not to be an "MMORPG", but instead call it a "CORPG": "Competitive Online Role Playing Game". I refer to it as an "OCG"- "Online Computer Game", like Diablo 2, for instance.

Still, when you are discussing a game with the proper design to allow simultaneous mass-gaming, "Massively Multiplayer", or "MM" works well enough to describe the genre.

What of the final part of the title: "RPG", for "Role Playing Game"?

Role playing can be defined in gaming purposes in two different ways- the act of role playing one's character, or in the design of the game mechanics.

If you log into World of Warcraft (or any other "RPG") on a "Role Playing" designated server you will find only a small portion of players are actually role playing their characters. The majority of players are simply playing the game, ignoring the basic ideas of role playing.

Considering the design standpoint, many of the latest genre offerings are moving away from role playing concepts- the market is saturated already. When every offering available is not of a role playing design, it's inaccruate to declare the entire genre to be "RPG".

• Second change to the genre name: The RPG's gotta go.

So we've reduced the name to "MM", which is obviously missing something.

One of the most common discussions on all massively multiplayer message boards regards the cost, which ususally consists of the retail price and a monthly fee. If you're offering a massively multiplayer game for profit, you must have a monthly fee or other means of income (perhaps ads), or the project will lose money.

Why do products like Guild Wars work with no monthly fee? The design, functionality, infrastructure and operational expenses change all of the cost variables. This simplified system does not require the resources a true massively multiplayer game requires, and therefore can be sustained on expansion packs or advertising alone. Full massively multiplayer games are far more complex and require a full service.

Ah-ha! We've come to the final element we're seeking. These products are Gaming Services.

We now have a shorter, less awkward title than the original mouthful that is "MMORPG", but more importantly- something accurate.

• An accurate title that should be used instead of "MMORPG" is "MMGS": "Massively Multiplayer Gaming Services".

I've done the hard part here- it's now up to the gamers out there to take the next step and be part of the cutting edge in using the new name to support our favorite MMGSs. After all, why continue to use a name that isn't accurate?

What is Happiness in an Afterlife?

"Happiness is just an illusion caused by the temporary absence of reality."

~Unknown

For the sake of ease, let's assume that it is a given that there is an afterlife (regardless of your normal beliefs on the matter).

The traditional Christian view is well known: The "good" go to "Heaven" and the "evil" go to "Hell". In Heaven, everyone is basking in happiness simply by being in God's presence. You are greeted and surrounded with previously deceased family and... well, bask, apparently. In Hell, you are burned and tortured in flames and agony. Both locations are considered eternal.

Let's ignore the above concept of Hell and strictly focus on the above interpretation of Heaven- since we're aiming to discuss happiness, and I'm not thinking many people are going to find tons of joy doing their best imitation of a campfire marshmallow.

If the source of your entire happiness within Heaven is simply the presence of family and friends, combined with an Earthly-unknowable love from God, would everyone truly be the same person that they were in life? What of the joys each person holds within life- some of which make a person who they are?

For instance, those who know me are quite aware I am an enormous Prince fan. If you insert me into the Heaven we're describing, and yet I never again experience the joy of his music, but instead am entered into a state of bliss from hearing God's voice (for example), how would my soul truly be considered unaltered? I suggest that such a state is in essence a form of brainwashing, for lack of a better word.

Certainly some people's greatest joy on Earth is worshiping God, and so this existence would not be an alteration of what made them themselves in life. That is not the case for me, however- my spirituality is more subtle- and I'm not even Christian. If you take away my Earthly joys and force a feeling of bliss upon me, am I still me? I would say no- you've taken away critical aspects of what makes me- and therefore my soul- unique. Yes, my personality, beliefs and morals are a large part of what makes me "me"... but I would say a large part of my personality comes from the things I love in life- Prince, games, writing and all sorts of other creative outlets.

In essence, the traditional Christian view of the afterlife envisions your existence as a brainwashed member of a mass of identically individuality-suppressed souls. It doesn't matter what you were like in life, or what you were passionate about- all of your uniqueness is gone, and you become one of a great mass of energy-forms bathing in a bliss drug known as God.

Given the horrors of such a generic and bland afterlife when examined as above, it reinforces my belief that the afterlife is much more than we can imagine it to be- even beyond what seems logical. While we may not take our physical bodies with us when we pass- that is not to say that we will not have access to another form with physical attributes.

This would mean that a chef would not have to give up their passion of cooking- rather they would have access to all ingredients imaginable, as well as all other chefs and cooks of historical note to learn from, share knowledge with and cook whenever they wish! My love for Prince and his music will be accommodated with both large and intimate Prince performances- perhaps even the ability to be trained in music by Prince himself, so that in another life I will have inherent musical skills passed on by the legend himself! And yes, sex will be possible- how can we have an afterlife devoid of the singularly greatest form of happiness on Earth for most people?

In short, we are unlikely to be denied our passions- the things that make us who we are.

I believe that it is impossible for us to comprehend the afterlife here on Earth, but we can arrive at some reasonable beliefs of what does not await us. After all, any God capable of creating such a vast and complex state of being is not one that will force you into a false form of being upon your death. If you are not given the ability to retain the aspects of life that create the full you, there would be no reason you would be given a taste of being your own self while you live now.

So I don't know what your plans are in the afterlife, but I fully expect to to have access to all of the Earthly joys I experienced... because none of us should be denied our passions lest we be denied our individuality.




R.I.P. Grandmother... who, if I am correct in this post, is quite happy while playing some epic games of Bingo right about now.

X(-Files) Marks the Spot

I've always wanted to believe.

Believe that they never canceled the X-Files, and that each week a new one was waiting for me to enjoy. From its deep mythology that everyone can associate with, to the wonderfully deep and eerily detailed creepy characters fliterring about in the shadows up to who knows what nefarious deeds.

Thankfully us X-Files fans have the upcoming Fringe by the already-legendary J.J. Abrams (Alias, Lost) soon to arrive on our TVs in order to fill the gaping hole we've felt since Chris Carter's show left the airwaves (or, depending on whom you ask, once David Duchovny left the show- I personally enjoyed the show after his departure well enough.)

But before we move on to Fringe, we get another treat to the team that started it all with the release of "X-Files: I Want To Believe" in theaters this week. I'm sure if you're a fan, you want to believe it's good. Is it?

Certainly that question is always up to each individual- leaving the theater today I heard someone mumbling about how bad The Dark Knight was... and I can't comprehend the mind that can interpret the Dark Knight as "bad". But, everyone has their own tastes! What of the X-Files, though?

The thing I like best about the movie was that it is in essence a movie-length stand alone episode of the show. Roughly 7 years have passed since the first movie, and as such life has moved on. I'll leave it to the movie to fill you in on what's going on with Mulder and Scully (I'm anti-spoilers, always) but suffice to say if you have never seen the X-Files, you really wouldn't be in the dark whatsoever seeing this film. It is clear enough who these people are and the relationship they have through the story. This is a necessary move for many shows that make the leap to the big screen, as you can't assume someone is going to know every last detail. Plus, it's been years- who remembers other than the truly diehard fans? (I don't remember what I had for dinner yesterday!)

The story itself is what you'd expect on any week of the X-Files- nothing more, nothing less. This being the case, I anticipate the "casual" fans of the X-Files (those who love the show and have seen most or all of the episodes) will enjoy it just fine. It's not going to rock your world, or leave you thinking "that was the most amazing thing ever!" You'll should still feel like you got your money's worth- the acting alone is well done enough to cover that cost.

If, however, you've never seen the X-Files, while you will understand this movie (as I mentioned, it's quite clear for the newbies) you probably will think you've seen better "cop"/suspense movies. On the same hand, I feel like X-Files diehards- those who tape X's in their windows and/or have written Mulder and Scully slash fiction will likely be disappointed. It's a hard call, but with the level of jadedness in today's entertainment crowd, I am guessing the fanboys are going to feel the film is too "mundane".

In fact- the one thing you'd think would be involved in an X-Files plot would be aliens/ufos to some degree... nothing of the sort in this case. The plot is actually something not too far-fetched from what goes on in real life. In a way, this makes it all the better for me, as Mulder and Scully's relationship drama seems to hit home with more impact. By showing them in a less science-fictiony styled world, it makes their travails all the more potent and touching.

Should you see it? As always, your call- only you'll know for sure if this is going to appeal to you. And I can't tell you if you'll like it or not. For this X-Files fan, it was a happy trip back to a beloved story franchise that is missed dearly. Seeing Mulder and Scully up on screen just felt "right", again.

And I certainly hope there's more to believe in in the form of more X-files movies to come.

Batman Defeats All Records... And Starts an Online War.

Unless you live in a cave, you are fully aware that the newest entry in the current Christopher Nolan-directed Batman franchise swooped into theaters this past weekend, sweeping every record imaginable under its long, dark cloak with more likely to follow in the coming weeks.

Time article on Dark Knight's Record-Breaking Weekend

Yet, even when a movie of such critical and public acclaim comes along, it seems there in no pleasing some people. Certainly not everyone is going to like the same things, nor should it be demanded that they do. But there's a level of hatred in the critics that makes one stop to scratch their heads and wonder why these people are so far off the page from everyone else.

Case in point? Examine film critic David Edelstein's review of the movie.

Now certainly Mr. Edelstein is entitled to dislike any particular movie he desires. And, as his "job" (and I use that term loosely, as I find "Critic" to be just underneath "Supervisor of Watching Paint Dry" in terms of usefulness to society) he is entitled to put out a negative review, warning the ten people that will makes their film viewing choices based on his comments not to go see the film and instead revel in the glory that is "Space Chimps".

No, it's not about David Edelstein that I'm referring to when I say "critics". It's about the people in the comments. All of those people at the bottom of any discussion online concerning the new movie, hidden behind the anonymity of netnames, cyberspeak and devastatingly broken grammar. Take a moment and read some of the comments on his review and others across the internet. I'll wait here, promise.

There are a "large" amount of people online speaking up in support of Mr. Edelstein's view that the movie is too dark and societally bleak. Yet the converstaion goes farther than that- people are bringing concepts into their view of the movie as if it relates to real life. That's right, some are blasting the movie because it's too reflective of the times we live in, and that this desensitizes (younger) viewers from the horrors of killing people, regardless of whether you are wearing clown makeup or not.

Anyone coming to the defense of the movie, say, by pointing out it is in fact a movie and not, in fact, reality, are being grouped into the ever-popular "fanboy" grouping and dismissed as not worthy enough to discuss the film.

I certainly don't know what's in the water that's causing this level of hatred online, but is it not possible to hold opposing views without viciously attacking each other? While I cannot personally comprehend what someone would not like about "The Dark Knight", I am not about to label them an idiot or begrudge them their choice. Yet, I'd like to see some compromise from their side as well in not dismissing the opinions of those who loved the movie simply as frothing drones who serve at the whim of the Batman marketing department.

Want proof of this phenomenon? Check this blurb out on IMDB.

One thing is for certain- love it or hate it, Batman is the new Knight of the box office, and where his records are set, more of the same will follow in an attempt to recapture the largest opening in movie history.

Though it may have been dark, it was a very dark green for Hollywood.