dapper_dan | Recent Entries

This post is a parody/response to this article that is getting a lot of notice around these internets.

Should "Skeletons" Get a Closet? (Even on TV?)

October 28, 2010 2:00 PM by Dan Foley

The other day, my conscious asked me, "Do you really think people feel uncomfortable when they see anorexic people making out on television?"

Because I hadn’t eaten yet that week, I felt a little disoriented. I’ve had this hallucination before, but rarely have I found myself actually talking to it out loud.— I'm not much of a TV person — I find it difficult to remain conscious for an entire 30 minute sitcom, but I’m told that these starved unnatural freaks are practically everywhere. In what felt like some hunger induced fever dream I stumbled across this US Weekly article, about the CW drama Beverly Hills 90210. As Us Weekly explains, "I know in discussions at ABC and CBS that ‘too skinny’ is no good. They talk about it as a minus point. But at The CW it’s a different story. They’re trying to pull in the Gossip Girl audience and that’s the image: hyper-skinny models.”

My initial response was: Hmm, being skinny is one thing — those people are downright skeletal! And while I think our country's obsession with physical perfection is unhealthy, I also think it's at least equally crazy, to imply that being rail thin is perfect! Yes, being obesity is sick, but at least some overweight people are simply naturally heavy. No one who is as thin as Shenae and Jessica can be healthy. And anorexia is costing our country far more in terms of all the related health problems we are paying for, by way of our insurance. After all, why would I want to appeal to your sensibilities as a moral human being who could be concerned with another person’s health and survival when I can sensationalize my point with hollow rhetoric about wasting money in this difficult economic climate.

So anyway, yes, I think I'd be grossed out if I had to watch two characters with xylophone-like rib cages clanging together while they made out... because I'd be grossed out if I had to watch them doing anything. To be brutally honest, even in real life, I find it aesthetically displeasing to watch a flesh covered corpse simply shamble across a room. I would find myself wondering why the person didn’t move like some creepy marionette or why I was unable to see the strings — just like I'd find it distressing if I saw a very blonde person wandering across a library or a person with glasses standing on a football field.

Now, don't go getting the wrong impression: I have a few friends who could be called bony. I'm not some size-ist jerk. And I also know how tough it can be for people with eating disorders to psych themselves up for the long process of taking in a balanced meal. (For instance, the heroin addicted prostitute and part time model I see on the subway has talked to me a little bit about how it seems worthless for her to even try eating real food, because she’d just end up puking before her body was able to absorb any nutrients from it.)

But ... I think anorexia is something that most people have a ton of control over. It's something they can change, if only they put their minds to it.

(I'm happy to give you some nutrition and fitness suggestions if you need them — but long story short, ice cubes are not a meal, six ounces of water is not the same thing as a nine ounce porterhouse with a side of mixed vegetables, five walnuts is not a well balanced breakfast, get some kind of exercise for 30 minutes at least five times a week, and do everything you can to stand up more — even while using your computer — and walk more. Becoming so physically drained that you pass out should not be a common occurrence. I admit that there's plenty that makes getting over 100 pounds tough, but YOU CAN DO IT! Trust me. It will take some time, but you'll also feel so good, physically and emotionally. A nutritionist or personal trainer will help — and if you can't afford one, visit your local YMCA for some advice.)

Then again, I guess these actresses and models likely have drug addictions that will kill them way before starving to death wil. So ... why not make a race out of it? Take bets or something?

Then again, I tend to think most television shows are devoid of any nutritional value for the mind and body. The boob tube gives us an excuse to turn off both our brains and our bodies and probably does a helluva lot to take our minds off those incessant rumbling and gurgling noises coming from our stomachs, over all. So ... I don't know.

What do you guys think? Skeletons making out on TV — are you cool with it? Do you think I'm being an insensitive jerk?

Current Mood: cynical
Current Location: Nova Cite
Current Music: The Skeleton Dance

I may have gotten Ali to like Buffy, and all it took was one RPG book.

Now if only there was away to watch episodes that aren't the way gay ones they show on Logo.

Current Mood: accomplished
Current Music: Reel Big Fish - Cannibal

I love this thing. It's so true, even if some of the little side sketches are weird and go on way too long. Parts 2-7 should be pretty easy to find. The truly sad thing is that many of the shortcomings highlighted by this review are things that people learn in basic storytelling class. Seriously, what happened?

My sleep schedule has been a bit off lately and a few nights I've contemplated writing a similar review of the Twilight film. So far I've been able to resist the urge.

Current Mood: amused

Current Mood: excited

Today Ali and I made the mistake of watching Twilight. (Insert a record setting chain of expletives and other phrases not safe for work or children) It was the biggest piece of shit I've seen in a long time. It wasn't even the complete castration of anything remotely resembling vampire mythology, It wasn't the terrible narrative whose protagonist's does nothing for herself, and antagonist doesn't even appear until three quarters of the story have already passed.

I couldn't wrap my head around the most chest hair I've ever seen on a seventeen year old boy. Or the white make-up caked on over his stubble that was so obvious we didn't even need HD to see it. That is just shoddy film making. The actress that played Bella seemed to struggle getting words out of her mouth and when having to play flustered (hey people, flustrated is not a fucking word!) appeared to become nauseous and was practically puking out her words. Combine those things with the obvious wire work and the lame blurry super speed effects and the weak prismatic sparkle effects and you're just a computer generated monster away from a SY-FY Original Movie. Which means Ali's mom will love it.

So here we are, at the monster. Say what you will about the pro-abstinence allegory or the teen love story, this tale uses one of the oldest and most widely known monsters in modern mythology. Because these creatures are so widely used, their mythology has become quite flexible. However, in this tale; they can survive just as well on animal blood as they can on humans. They have reflections. They cook Italian food (which almost always has garlic) for their house guests. They don't seem worried about wooden stakes, holy water, crosses, or fire. And sunlight just makes little rainbows shoot out of their skin. Why even call these things vampires, because they are strong fast and live forever? That's not a vampire, that's Wonder Woman. It's probably because even before this goddamn debacle vampires were the subject of the majority of Hollywood scripts. They are a gold mine, but this watered down version is akin to saying that werewolves are people who turn into Yorkshire terriers with little silver ribbons in their hair every second Wednesday afternoon in the spring time. Oh and did you hear about the Loch Ness Monster? It's a golden flying unicorn from Peru that brings toys to children on Earth Day. Scientists in Norway have uncovered the tomb of the Mummy. Mummies are robots from the future who serve tea out of their fingertips and have a hard candy shell over a core of salt water taffy. Look at me, I could be the author of an international sensation!

Seriously, the best vampires are the ones that are actually monsters. They are seductive, but not because they love you. It's because they are hungry. They don't have normal human emotions because they are not normal humans. They are hungry. Even after they kill and drink a person's blood, the first thing on their mind is who the next meal would be. They are predators. A vampire truly falling in love with a human is as likely as a butcher falling in love with a cow. Not only that, but they are dead. Death is commonly associated with cold detachment. Not eternal loving protection. A vampire, should then find it very hard to care about anything the mortal world has to offer, especially its food. Especially when it is always so very hungry. How does that sound, pretty monstrous? I know, why would you fall in love with a creature like this? It is because they can make you, because they are predators. That is what they do. That is why the traditional stories about vampires work so well, because they make love so very dangerous.

Current Mood: annoyed

When I arrived in CT on Saturday night... Hey, this reminds me of a ren faire song. I'll start over.

When I got home on Saturday night, as drunk as drunk could be,
I saw a piece of mail where my own mail ought to be,
When I called Ali and said to her, would you kindly tell to me,
Who owns the mail on the counter, where my own mail should be.

The letter was from Livonia Michigan, which struck me as odd because that's where 90% of my sister's college friends are from. This made me double check that the letter was indeed for me. It was. It was an invoice from a collection agency asking for payment on a traffic ticket I got in Florida back in march. If have any familiarity at all with the Florida law enforcement system, you know this story is about to get very stupid.

Back in March, while on vacation with Ali, I was pulled over in Florida for having an expired registration. Why Florida police care about my Connecticut vehicle registration is still an issue I can't seem to wrap my brain around. The officer then told me I lived in Florida (something I haven't done since 2005) and worked at Disney (which I haven't done since 2000). They were also upset that when asked for my license, I presented them with my totally valid Connecticut card. They asked for my Florida license and when I told them I got rid of it when I moved they became very suspicious. Their imaginations began to run wild with ideas of an elaborate scheme to lure innocent young (though legally adult and allowed to make their own decisions) women from New York to run away with me to Florida, go to Disney World, and buy souvenirs. Just writing this makes me feel so evil I'm contemplating posting this with my villain icon.

I attribute this insanely retarded conspiracy to the officer watching too much CSI Miami. What they finally totally nailed me with is the expired registration sticker. If only I had known then that I had a valid sticker on my windshield.

Our story continues with me getting back to Connecticut now fully aware of the valid registration adhered to the windshield. I called the clerk and was told that if I had proof of valid registration for the date the ticket was issued I could fax it to them and everything would be fine. I did, and now we are back to the beginning and my awesome song.

My first thought was that they never got the proof that was faxed to them three times. After an afternoon of attempting to call them again to clear this up, only to get a busy signal after jumping through the requisite automated hoops, I decided to check Orange County Florida's website. Their breakdown looked like this.

March 31 - Ticket issued.
April 30 - Proof of valid registration received.
May 4 - Driver's license suspended.
May 4 - Late fee charged
July 7 - Account sent to collection.

Clearly, in the sunshine state, stupidity knows no bounds. Why on any plane of reality would it make sense to suspend someone's license five days after they proved that they had done nothing wrong? Is this an ego thing? Were they so upset by the exposure of their folly that they decided to retaliate in a manner that shows the same lack of composure you would expect to find in a toddler roughly around nap time? How dare he say that we did something wrong, let's rip up his license! There's just one problem, since I doubt that these actions would occur without mailing out any explanation. (Even Florida can't be that dumb, right?) I think that the notice of my late fees and suspension were sent to my Florida address (which I still haven't had since 2005) and my nonexistent Florida license was the one suspended, which I just find hilarious.

I'm going to the DMV tomorrow to check my license, I'm trying to get a ride there, just in case.

Stupid things like this are the reason I left Florida in the first place, hopefully I can get this cleared up so I can go back there on vacations. Until then, I need some cheering up. What have you got for me Tenacious D?

Current Mood: annoyed
Current Music: The State of Florida by Less Than Jake

Thanks for nothing, internet.

I'm guessing that when you're a Disney teen singing sensation (and also when you wish upon a star) that you eventually have to do your own version of a Disney standard. It makes sense. Disney gets to resell songs that they probably don't have to pay any writers for to entirely new audiences. Lizzie Mcguire... uh, what was her real name? Oh yeah, Hillary duff, did, In the Tiki Tiki Tiki Tiki Tiki Room. Back when she was the idol du jour, but times and tastes have changed and as weird as her remix was, it is not the point of this post.

Nay, people who are already bored and confused by this entry, This post is about The Jonas Brothers of all people, who have their very own version of, Yo Ho, (A Pirate's Life For Me). If you're in a particularly masochistic mood, here's a funky-fresh fan-vid I ganked off ye olde you tube.

"Have no fear of evil curses says you? Properly warned ye be, says I.

If you're familiar with the original song you may notice a few subtle differences between that one, and this omg so punx rawk! version by the brother's Jonas. The first thing that stuck out to me was that they never actually say the, "Yo ho, Yo, ho" part, but more important is how, much like the ride itself, this song has been sanitized for your protection.

The Brothers Jonas encourage you to, "Stand up me hearties, yo ho!" while the original lyric is, "Drink up..." Clearly this is because we can't have those clean virtuous Jonases encouraging our children to drink. That would be disastrous. I find this really odd. Given all the other unchanged lyrics in the song, drinking is, in my mind the mildest thing being advocated. Let's take a closer look shall we?

"We pillage" - to strip ruthlessly of money or goods by open violence
"We plunder" - to rob of goods or valuables by open force
"We rifle" - to ransack and rob
"And loot" - to carry off or take (something) as loot
But we do NOT drink alcoholic beverages!

"We kidnap" - to steal, carry off, or abduct by force or fraud, esp. for use as a hostage or to extract ransom.
"And ravage" - to work havoc; do ruinous damage.
"And don't give a hoot" See, they don't even have the slightest bit of remorse.
But boozing is out of the question.

"We extort" - to wrest or wring (money, information, etc.) from a person by violence, intimidation, or abuse of authority; obtain by force, torture, threat, or the like.
"We pilfer" - to steal, esp. in small quantities.
"We filch" - to steal (esp. something of small value)
"and sack" - the plundering of a captured place
But not one drop until we're 21.

"Marauder" - to roam or go around in quest of plunder; make a raid for booty
"Embezzle" - to appropriate fraudulently to one's own use, as money or property entrusted to one's care.
"And even hijack" - to seize (a vehicle) by force or threat of force.
Remember to do all this sober, kids!

"We kindle" - to start (a fire); cause (a flame, blaze, etc.) to begin burning.
"And char" - to burn or reduce to charcoal.
"Inflame" - to set aflame, ablaze, or afire; set on fire.
" And ignite" - to set on fire; kindle.
But we be using no rum to be starting any of those fires. Yar!

"We burn up the city, we're really a fright" - in case there was any confusion about whether or not we actually mean arson and not that we're really passionate. We totally mean arson.

"We're rascals" - base, dishonest, or unscrupulous people.
"Scoundrels" - unprincipled, dishonorable people
"Villains" - cruelly malicious people who are involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime.
"And knaves" - unprincipled, untrustworthy, or dishonest people
But not alcoholics.

"We're ~~devils~~ jokers" - Ah, another lyric that was changed. The Jonas brothers can be vandals, thieves, and arsonists, but they are good Christian vandals, thieves, and arsonists!
"And black sheep" - a person who causes shame or embarrassment because of deviation from the accepted standards of his or her group.
"Really bad eggs" - a person who is bad, dishonest, or unreliable; a good-for-nothing.
But we go to church every Sunday and don't even drink the communion wine.

"We're beggars" - a wretched fellow; rogue.
"And blighters" - a contemptible, worthless person, esp. a man; scoundrel or rascal.
"And ne'er do well" - worthless; ineffectual; good-for-nothing.
"cads" - an ill-bred man, esp. one who behaves in a dishonorable or irresponsible way toward women.
How much worse would we be if we drank, though?

"Aye but we're loved by our mommies and dads!" - And that's really what's important, isn't it?

I'm not saying the Jonas Brothers are actually advocating vandalism, robbery, arson, and mistreating women. I just find what they (or their Disney/Christian overlords) chose needed to be cleaned up. I assume that the majority of the song was left as is because they figured that people who listen to the Jonas Brothers wouldn't actually do any of the destructive behaviors listed by the song's lyrics, but there was a real danger of them raiding their fridges for their dad's cans of Natty Ice if the Jonases said it was cool.

Clearly pirates are a big thing among the preteens these days, (almost as big as sparkling vampires) so a fresh version of this song is a no-brainer. However, if your group is trying to maintain an ultra squeaky clean Christian image, like the Jonas Brothers are, this song is a bit counter to everything you stand for. Admittedly, it would be even stranger for them to change all the lyrics to things like, "We do all our homework and get to bed on time, stand up me hearties, yo ho!" but this halfway business is almost just as odd.

It reminds me a bit of how a portion of the ride was changed several years back from pirates chasing women, to women chasing pirates for stealing their food. Evidently it was deemed not politically correct to depict pirates chasing women. Also, as is evident by the recent update to Spaceship Earth in Epcot, it is not politically correct for a renaissance statue to have a bare female breast (it used to be there but is now covered up)

I think this is going just a little too far with the politically correctness. I don't think that kids got off the boat on Pirates of the Caribbean and immediately started chasing the first female they could find. Nor was anyone jumping out of their vehicle on Spaceship Earth to begin feverishly humping that statue.

In the latest re-release of Pinocchio, there is a "Don't smoke, kids!" warning at the beginning of the film, which I feel is redundant because if you actually watch the movie and have half a brain, you'll notice that everyone who smokes (with the exception of Geppetto in one tiny scene) is either an adult and a bad guy, or a child and turns into a donkey as a direct result. Do people really think that the message of, "Hey kid, if you smoke, you're a jackass!" wasn't getting through?

All This begs the question of why these changes were made. Were droves of people really complaining about these scenes? Or is Disney really that overly cautious about not offending anyone? Either way, when Disney has to be sanitized, political correctness has gone way too far.

Current Mood: frustrated

Not too long ago I watched Lilo & Stitch for the second time. I also got to watch Pinocchio when I wasn’t dead tired and could stay awake through the whole thing. I’m of the opinion that one of these movies is wonderful and the other is a complete piece of crap. It took me watching the documentary on the Pinocchio DVD to completely understand why.

Stitch, as a character meant to entertain and influence children is horrible. Not only is he completely unsympathetic, but he’s also a horrible influence on impressionable young minds. Let us now compare the messages that one might take away from Lilo & Stitch to the ones in Pinocchio.

Stitch	Pinocchio
A creature made with the sole purpose of causing mass destruction is cuddly.	“A lie grows and grows until it’s as plain as the nose on your face.” This happens quite literally.
Spitting, slobbering, and other crude behavior is comic gold.	“Give a bad boy enough rope, and he’ll soon make a jackass of himself.” Also literally happens.
“O’hana means family, and family means that nobody gets left behind, or forgotten.” So no matter how destructive you are to the other members of that family, or everything and everyone around it, as long as you stick together, everything will be OK.	“A boy who won’t be good, might just as well be made of wood.”

I tried really hard to find something good to take from Stitch, but there really is nothing.

Perhaps it's kind of a shame that I went to the writer's block well for my first post. It's not that I actually have writer's block I just wanted something to put up while I fiddle with this journal thing and make sure it functions properly and looks all purdy. Besides, this is something I wanted to write about anyway, so now's a good a time as any. The big blame here goes to Ali and Jovis for nagging me into getting this thing.

I forget what I was watching today. It was some youtube clip from fox news. Probably Hannity & Combs or something, but that much is irrelevant. On the ticker at the bottom of the screen was a story about someone being shot (big surprise) and the possibility of using the wording of the second amendment in an attempt to create stricter gun control laws.

Somewhat shocked that attempts were still being made to abide by the constitution, and unimpressed by the shouting match on the rest of the screen, I read on. As written the second amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The argument that was being made was that because of this wording, The United states could restrict guns from everyone who is not a member of their state militia. However appealing this proposal may seem to your redneck registered gun nut psycho, it won't work. Restricting arms to the militia would actually do very little to restrict arms. This is because, by definition, The United States militia consists of all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45. This is how we once had a draft, and potentially could again. The law hasn't changed. The numbers of volunteer servicemen and women have been high enough to presently make a draft unnecessary and I thank those brave men and women for their service. However, there is nothing to stop the federal government from reinstating the draft should it become necessary.

If interpretation of the amendment as written is really to be the basis of an attempt to restrict the availability of firearms in this country, we should not be examining who our forefathers intended to be able to keep and bear these arms. After all, the amendment states that it is a right of the people, not the militia. Instead, we should be looking at the term "arms." Since I first examined the second amendment and gun control as an assignment for 10th grade English, I noticed a very easy way to outlaw guns entirely and I've yet to hear of anyone come to my same conclusion.

Back in 1787 when this amendment was written, The most sophisticated firearm was the musket. Perhaps there were a few early rifles, but the musket was the standard rifle that most people would be familiar with. Not only did this thing take about a minute to load and fire, it was also extremely inaccurate. Back in those days it wasn't very likely that some thug would walk into Horton Dundershire's Fine Liquor Shoppe and demand the proprietor empty the contents of the till. As you can imagine, concealing a musket is next to impossible, and though pistols did exist, their short barrels made them even less accurate than the muskets. I'm sure this portion of my argument has been made before. Guns back then were slow and inaccurate and despite the brilliance of our forefathers, they had no way to know that in a few hundred years a person would accurately be able to fire thirty rounds a second.

What I was hoping to see on that ticker was that someone had finally noticed that nowhere in the second amendment does it mention that American citizens have the right to keep and bear firearms. It simply states arms. When I saw this back in 10th grade, outlawing guns became instantly simple. Congress passes a law that bans any civilian from owning a firearm. After that, people can buy all the swords, knives, crossbows, flails, maces, axes, and catapults they want. Sorry Johnny America, Your constitution doesn't say you can have guns. It doesn't say you have the right to be armed with sophisticated or contemporary weapons. Just that you have the right to arm yourself somehow. As long as you are able to do that, the second amendment stays intact. Heck, if the government wanted to, they could outlaw everything except spears and shields. It'll suck for the gun nuts, but the person who wants to stab some perceived enemy combatant in the chest and scream "THIS IS AMERICA!" can still make his dreams come true.

This came out a lot longer than I expected. Thanks if you read the whole thing. I think I'll head out now. Perhaps start practicing with my atlatl.

Current Mood: thoughtful
Current Music: Guns and the Young - The Mighty Mighty Bosstones