New blog now up.

My new blog is up and running. Check it out: The Big Blog of Lists.

If you have any comments about the content of my blog, please post 'em there.

New blog in the works.

How's it going everyone? I haven't blogged in awhile and for the three of you that actually read this blog it must be very painful to not hear from me in so long (hardy har har). Anyway, what I currently have in the works may excite some of you: I will be starting a new blog that only focuses on lists! Yay! You know, top 10 lists? Some lists will be purely entertaining while others will be informative and/or serious. It's something I've been thinking about for some time. I've got a lot of great ideas for lists and just need to write it down. More deatils (hopefully) soon.

The most dangerous book ever!

So I was visiting one of my favorite websites the other day. I won't name the website because the guy who runs it posts a lot of smart and entertaining material there and I really don't feel like disparaging him by name. Anyway, as I was digging through the archives, I came across a list of what he thinks are the books that most messed up the world. I was cheering through most of the list as he named such despicable works as Mein Kampf by Adolph Hitler, The Pivot of Civilization by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (author unknown) , and The Manifesto of the Communist Party by Engalls and Marx. Wow, I was thinking, this guy gets it.

And then I saw the book he thinks has messed up the world more than any other book (including the ones I mentioned).

Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe.

For those of you who aren't aware, Michael Behe is a scientist (a biochemist, I think) who believes in Intelligent Design. Broadly stated, intelligent design is the theory that one of the three pillars of Darwinian evolution, random mutation, cannot account for changes in macro-evolution (that is, one species changing to another) so an intelligent designer (God) must be involved in the process. The reason the author of the website lists this as the most dangerous book ever written is because (and I'm paraphrasing) it fuels attacks on science by religious fundamentalists who have a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Are you serious? Darwin's Black Box fuels attacks on science!?! Dude, the belief that the world is only 6000 years (a belief Michael Behe does not share), while silly, is completely harmless and doesn't affect science one whit. Only a morally confused dimbulb would list Behe's book as the most dangerous book ever. Marx and Engalls gave us communism whose followers murdered over 100 million people in the 20th century. Hitler's Nazism resulted in the Holocaust and WWII and 50 million dead. Sanger's organization Planned Parenthood has had a hand in millions of abortions. And The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has fed Jew hatred for decades.

And Darwin's Black Box is more dangerous? I want to vomit.

I don't care if you don't buy into Intelligent design. I don't care if you believe in Darwinian Evolution. I don't care if you have the harmless belief that the world is only 6000 years old! It doesn't matter! Science isn't damaged and people won't be murdered in the millions because of it. Frankly, if you believe Darwin's Black Box is the most dangerous book ever written or, Hell, dangerous at all, you're a fool.

Buy some damn wisdom, please.

It's a boy!

Yesterday (July 27th) at 3:46 AM my wife gave birth to our third child, Elliot. He weighed 8 pounds, 4 ounces and was 20 and 1/2 inches long. He's healthy, squeaky and grunty. He has semi-dark hair and is the first of our three kids that actually looks like me. He has blue eyes which is rather odd because my eyes are greenish-brownish (hazel) and my wife's eyes are brown. I know his eyes could change color but my mom has blue eyes so who knows. My oldest two kids, Bobby (seven) and Mary (four) are in love with their new sibling and want to hold him all day.

It feels so good to hold my new son. It's a special feeling that's hard to explain. I am very grateful that he is here and a part of our family.

Who is the best Pixar director?

So I saw Up a couple weeks ago with my wife and kiddies. It was typically Pixar which, of course, means it was a very good movie. While not on the same level as Toy Story 2 and The Incredibles, it was still quite enjoyable.

This got me thinking about the directors of the Pixar films and directors in general. I don't know about the rest of you, but when I hear about a new film and it sounds interesting I always look up the director. If the director has a good track record, it will be a movie that I might just see (assuming I like the director). If it's a piss-poor director or even one that's good but isn't my thing, I'll definitely pass on the flick. There are a handful of popular directors that I will absolutely not see anything from like Michael Bay (Transformers, Pearl Harbor, Armageddon) and Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, Stargate, 10,000 BC). I see those guys attached to a movie, I know the movie ain't worth seeing. On the other hand, if Clint Eastwood is directing a film, there's a pretty good chance it will be darn good.

That brings us back around to Pixar. Who is the best Pixar director? There are a total of ten movies, most of which were co-directed by two or more directors. Let's break 'em down:

Toy Story - John Lasseter
A Bugs Life -John Lasseter & Andrew Stanton
Toy Story 2 - John Lasseter, Lee Unkrich, & Ash Brannon.
Monsters, Inc. - Pete Docter, Lee Unkrich, & David Silverman.
Finding Nemo - Andrew Stanton & Lee Unkrich
The Incredibles - Brad Bird
Cars - John Lasseter & Joe Ranft
Ratatouille - Brad Bird & Joe Pinkava
WALL-E - Andrew Stanton
Up - Pete Docter & Bob Peterson

We can throw out guys who only co-directed one Pixar film simply because, well, they only co-directed one Pixar film. It isn't enough to rate 'em fairly. So Ash Brannon, David Silverman, Joe Ranft, Joe Pinkava, and Bob Petersen are out. That leaves us with five directors: John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, Lee Unkrich, Brad Bird, & Pete Docter.

How do we rate them? Well, let's break down the Pixar movies.

To me, there are three levels of Pixar flicks: Great, almost great, and darn good.

The great: Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Monsters, Inc, The Incredibles. While very few of you would argue with my choices of Toy Story, Toy Story 2, and The Incredibles, I know there are many of you who don't feel Monsters, Inc. is one of the great Pixar flicks. You'd probably put Finding Nemo or Up (or both) in it's place. Fair enough. But it isn't your list. It's mine!

The almost great - Finding Nemo, Ratatouille, Up. Like I said, Nemo and Up would be in the great category for many, if not most, of you out there. And you'd boot Ratatouille down to the darn good category. But, hey, my list.

The darn good - A Bugs Life, Cars, WALL-E. Other than throwing Ratatouille in this category, I don't think too many of you disagree with what I have here.

Brad Bird has The Incredibles and Ratatouille to his credit. Not bad. That's one great one (in my opinion, the greatest Pixar movie is The Incredibles) and one almost great one in Ratatouille (a film I quite enjoyed).
Andrew Stanton has A Bugs Life, Finding Nemo, and WALL-E to his credit. He's a good director but, looking at my list, that's two darn good Pixar films and one near great one. Brad Bird is number one so far.
Lee Unkrich co-directed Toy Story 2, Monsters, Inc., and Finding Nemo. Two great ones and one almost great one. Okay, as a Pixar director, Unkrich now overtakes Bird. But just barely.
Pete Docter co-directed Monsters, Inc. and Up. Unkrich is still in the lead, Bird is second but barely ahead of Docter.
John Lasseter directed or co-directed Toy Story, A Bugs Life, Toy Story 2, and Cars. Two great ones and two darn good ones. I still think Unkrich wins with Bird and Lasseter tied for second.

Now I know Unkrich "only" has co-directing credits on all three of his Pixar movies while Bird and Lasseter have sole directing credits for The Incredibles (Bird) and Toy Story (Lasseter). I suppose I could come up with a points-based system that would give those who have directed more consideration over those who have co-directed but, hey, isn't that a bit much? Do I need to go into it that deep? Maybe. If I just look at who directed and co-directed what, I gotta go with Bird and Lasseter over Unkrich. So maybe it's a three way tie, really. Do we need some sort of tiebreaker? Yeah. We do. It's called Toy Story 3 to be released in 2010 and it's directed by Lee Unkrich.

How do you rank the Pixar movies? Who is your favorite Pixar director?

4 movies that I used to think were cool but now realize are retarded.

4. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom - In Raiders of the Lost Ark, the humor flowed naturally out of the action. It was organic like when Indy shoots the guy with the big sword; it was natural, not forced. In Temple of Doom, it seems like all the elaborate action sequences are done so Indy can make a crack or two. And who the hell builds a roller-coaster in the middle of a mountain? Over yawning lava pits? Oh yeah, we had to have that mine-cart racing sequence to set-up Indy's funny crack about water. And he gets too much of it! Hilarious. I suppose one can still enjoy the movie if you see it as a parody of the previous film. Just view it like Spielberg's career since Raiders: it's not to be taken seriously.

3. Born on the Fourth of July - There's a lot of stupid things I believed when I was younger; that Vietnam was an unnecessary war and Tom Cruise could act were two of them. As many of you are aware, this Oliver Stone movie follows Ron Kovic's journey to Vietnam as a Marine, his subsequent injury that paralyzed him from the waste down, return home, fun with Mexican whores, and eventual anti-war crusade. As I've studied history, I've became aware of a few things about Vietnam: we were fighting the most evil ideology in the history of the world in communism and Ron Kovic (as portrayed by Oliver Stone) is a friggin' retard! The war was a noble one, mishandled by politicians, yes, but still noble. The defeat of America in Vietnam not only hurt us globally for decades to come but it cost the lives of literally millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians many of whom were tortured to death. Maoist communism is particulary vile and anyone who was against our efforts in Southeast Asia is either stupid or ignorant. Probably both. When I was stupid and ignorant, I loved this movie. And then I grew up.

2. Independence Day - I can't believe I used to love this film. I mean, for crap's sake, it's directed by Hollywood hack Roland Emmerich (who would later give us crapfests like The Day After Tomorrow and 10,000 B.C.). I like a good alien invasion story and I guess my hopes for the film along with the special effects blinded me to how bad this film really is. Repeated viewings only magnify the film's flaws. It's another big summer blockbuster that dazzles us with big explosions and alien motherships but gives us nothing in the way of character development.

1. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home - Most Star Trek movies are retarded: that's just a matter of course. But The Voyage Home reaches new depths of retardation by playing the weenie greenie, tree-hugging, self-righteous, holier-than-thou card (it is Star Trek after all). It's bad enough the crew have to save whales but, they tell us in the movie, those humpbacks are upset at humans for all those years of poor treatment. And while I agree that humpbacks have every right to be upset at humans, there isn't a whale in the oceans that thinks about this. Just like Klingons, whales are animals. Whales are only concerned with eating, reproducing, and trying not to be eaten. They don't swim around pondering existence (or anything else for that matter). I mean, I used to love the movie for it's humor. Now, with it's heavy-handed messaging, it's about as funny as Al Gore. Plus there's too much Chekov. Always too much Chekov. And yes, he is retarded.

Good arguments against same-sex marriage.

The main reasons to oppose same-sex marriage (incorrectly referred to as gay marriage by just about everyone) are:

1. Same-sex marriage will do irreparable damage to male/female distinctions. The great thing about marriage is that it combines a man with a woman. Women and men are very different and, since most marriages result in children, a child should have the best chance possible to have both a mother and a father. A mom and a dad each give something to children that two men or two women can't. But if the distinctions between male and female are torn down, then legally opposite sex couples cannot be favored by adoption agencies. Children who are put up for adoption should have the right to go, if at all possible, to opposite sex couples. The argument that denying same-sex couples from marriage is the same as denying inter-racial couples from marrying is silly. There is no difference between a black human being and a white human being; male/female differences, however, are huge.

2. No civilization in history, secular or religious, has ever recognized same-sex marriage. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, the secular men of the Enlightenment, none of them have ever recognized same-sex marriage. And a "handful" of lefties think they are more wise than every civilization that has come before? That's hubris, folks. Conversely, every major religion in history have recognized inter-racial marriage. When many parts of the US banned inter-racial marriage, they were at odds with Christianity, Judaism and every other religion on Earth.

3. What do you think will happen in sex education classes if same-sex marriage is allowed? By law you will have to not only explain what a man and woman do sexually, but you will now have to explain, in graphic detail, what men and men do sexually and what women and women do sexually. Kids are confused enough about sexuality. This would only make it worse.

4. Religious freedom will be in jeopardy. Sooner or later, if same-sex marriage is allowed, someone will sue a religious institution because it discriminates against same-sex marriage. Heaven knows how such court cases would be decided. So much for the so-called wall of separation if this happens.

The media and leftist groups tell us homosexuals can't marry unless we redefine marriage. It isn't true. Homosexuals have never been prevented from marrying in this country. Any homosexual man can marry a woman (provided she's willing) and any homosexual woman can marry a man. When you go and get a marriage license, they don't ask your sexual orientation.