Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Disagreeing with movie-goers yet again

Have you seen "Lucy"? It's a sci-fi movie that came out in 2014 and it stars Scarlett Johansson as Lucy. Here's the rub: it got a 66% rating at Rotten Tomatoes. (Note that on the same page it says it got a 6.1 out of 10 rating, which doesn't translate to 66%. I'm just saying. RT is not a meeting place for smart people.) The rating isn't that bad, but I read a bunch of reviews when it came out and those people hated it. Well, they were wrong. It's totally fabulous. In fact, it's one of my favorite movies. I watched it three times in the last month.

It's the story of a woman who is forced to be a drug carrier, and I do mean forced. Five people are kidnapped, including Lucy, and a plastic baggie filled with a strange drug is inserted in their stomachs. They are then forced on planes to Paris, Rome, etc. to be met by drug couriers on the other end.

The drug isn't your typical dealer's favorite high. It's a wildly powerful substance that babies use to form their brains in the womb. But it's available only in tiny quantities. However, an enterprising criminal learned how to synthesize a relatively large quantity -- and that is what was placed into the victims' stomachs. Okay, that sets the scene.

Lucy, unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it) was in the custody of monstrous, women-hating thugs as she awaited transport on the plane. One of them tried to rape her and ended up kicking her in her stomach -- and perforating the bag. It's at this point that the movie really begins.

The drug has the effect of opening up the mind. The movie is built on the myth that says humans only utilize 10% of their brain-power. This is totally false but hey, it's only a movie. So as the drug courses through Lucy's system, she begins to evolve, quickly and madly.

The movie veers into fights, with Lucy able to lift people into the air with the power of her mind. She can do lots of other tricks, too. And all the while, her brain advances. At the climax of the movie, she reaches the point where she is utilizing 100% of her brain.

That's all I'll reveal, but I have to say I found the entire movie, and especially the conclusion, to be wildly wonderful and entertaining. The only reason some viewers gave it a low rating, I suspect, is that Lucy doesn't continue to fight people and blow things up for the entire movie. At a certain point, it becomes much more intellectual -- and that's the point at which you lose American viewers. Fight scenes and car chases? Love it. But intellectual stuff? Americans say "get me outa here!"

It's a fabulous movie. If you've seen it, chime in. As for me, I plan to watch it a few more times. You see, what Lucy discovers is in keeping with what I believe to be the true nature of reality. I won't say another word.

Monday, October 5, 2015

Illusion of gay-friendly pope collapses

There's not much more to say. Today's news confirms the anti-gay outlook of Pope Francis.
VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis opened a divisive meeting of the world's bishops on family issues Sunday by forcefully asserting that marriage is an indissoluble bond between man and woman.
The Roman Catholic church will never say that gay marriage is okay. The reason? It might interfere with the Catholic view of women as being far less important than men. Women aren't exactly full-fledged people, in the Vatican's view. And men are commanded by Jesus to lord it over the wimmenfolk. That is the true purpose of marriage: it is the perch from which godly males look down on their inferior female partners, presumably gathering holiness all the while.

Therefore, in the eyes of the Roman Catholic church, two men (or two women) cannot be allowed to marry. It would literally be impossible for they would be equals, which thwarts the god-given misogynistic power structure of Holy Marriage. The Roman Catholic god doesn't like that. End of story -- for all time.

The allegedly gay-friendly remarks of Pope Francis were just smoke and mirrors. But then, that's what religion is.

Thursday, October 1, 2015

The pope's BFF: Kim Bigot Davis

Really disgusting news from pope-land. I'll let Jerry Coyne say it for me. This is from his post, "Pope Met Secretly with Kim Davis":
I have yet to see a mainstream American venue, like the New York Times or the New Yorker, point out in an editorial the disparity between Francis’s words and his actions (or rather, his inaction in changing repressive Catholic dogma). Those who claim that Francis really is a liberal pope, committed to changing Church dogma, but moving very slowly because that’s the only way to do it, must explain this secret meeting with Davis as well as his encouragement of her actions. If he really wanted the Church to eventually deep-six its position on gays, the worst way to do it is to provide succor for those who want to deny gays their legal rights.

The Pope is not liberal: he still opposes women’s equality, abortion, and rights for gays. He won’t even mention population growth as a factor causing degradation of the environment. At best his values are those of a Reagan-era Republican. So let us not call the man “liberal”, for while he gives lip service to Enlightenment values, he secretly meets and encourages bigots like Kim Davis.
It really was disgusting. I have no other word for the pope's actions. And, in accordance with my longstanding suspicions, it turns out this was his anti-gay trip. He just did it "secretly". Ha. Secret my ass. He knew we'd learn all about it after he left the US. So it was not only disgusting, it was cowardly.

UPDATE: The gooey aftermath. I don't buy it. The pope knew who Davis was and what she stood for. He practically applauded her in his comments to reporters about conscientious objectors. I figure the pope was trying to send smoke signals to the conservative dingbat wing of the church, and got caught in the act. What do you think? 

Sunday, September 27, 2015

Lest you think

In case you thought I was off the beam in my expectation that the pope would trounce gay marriage in Philadelphia, know that I'm not alone in this.

Read this article in the NYT. Conservatives expected Francis to denounce gay marriage and stand up for every pinhead principle that the American bishops have identified in their hateful, pogrom-like reign in the United States. And to be fair, Francis did give tiny shout-outs to these principles, but in oblique language. He just wasn't having it -- at least not on this trip.
On a stage set for a blockbuster papal endorsement of the American bishops' religious liberty battle, Pope Francis didn't deliver. He side-stepped the bishops' most burning religious freedom issue — marriage — and spent more time greeting immigrants.
It's not just me.

UPDATE: Also, see this.

Maureen Dowd can write

It's stylish among many liberals to make fun of Maureen Dowd. I understand this, given that her columns often include descriptions of reality that sound like they were written by someone still in junior high school. But she can knock out a great column now and then -- and the woman can write.

Dowd has a column in the NYT today. It's called "Francis, the Perfect 19th Century Pope". It's terrific. Here's a bit, but I suggest you read the whole thing:
Francis preaches against the elites while keeping the church an elite boys’ club.

As he arrived to say Mass on an altar designed by students outside the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, the pope was surrounded by hundreds of white-robed male bishops, male priests and a sea of seminarians as he nonsensically canonized Father Juníipero Serra, a missionary agent for the Spanish empire in California, a man who flogged Native Americans who broke the rules of Catholic teachings.
And she notes a very strange thing about Francis (though admittedly she's quoting someone else):
As the noted religion writer Kenneth Briggs told me: “People here are ardently projecting a lot of things onto this pope, including a liberal new day for the church. But there hasn’t been any change in the moral teachings. It’s to Francis’ credit, I guess, that he gets credit for things he hasn’t done.”
Remind you of anyone, perhaps a certain president and his unearned Nobel Peace Prize? Francis still has work to do. But to be fair, I think he knows this. It's just that he works for a misogynistic church and he leans this way himself. This causes him to be unable to see women clearly -- and it also prevents him from confirming the rights of gays and transgender people. It's all about looking down on women, and on femaleness itself. Why would a man choose to be a woman?! Or even to be like one? Horrors. That's the official Catholic viewpoint, as far as I can tell. It verges on disgust toward all things female. But hey, that's just how I see it. Read the article and if you have the energy, drop a comment. How do you see this guy?

PS: Of course, the pope's intention of making this the Hate Gays Tour for the Ages was sidetracked by the migrant crisis. And more power to the pope for putting aside his personal bias and doing something by speaking up forcefully for kindness and for seeing the migrants as valuable, decent people who are simply avoiding danger -- just as any of us would. They are us.  

The pope is not a bad man. I just wish he'd work on the sexual issues. Straight men are not the only people on the planet -- and we are all equal and worthy. You'd think a guy like Francis would understand this simple concept...Oh, wait a minute. I just remembered that he works for an evil, misogynistic, death-worshipping cult. Okay, never mind. It's hopeless.

But I'm still glad he's speaking up for migrants and telling the world that it must address the threat of climate change. No one's perfect.

Saturday, September 12, 2015

The view from down here

If you follow this blog, you know I've tossed my bed in the garbage. I sleep on a cushion on the floor now. In part, this is because my new apt is pretty small. The only way I could have an office here was to take over the bedroom with my two large desks, which left no room for a bed. But that's okay because I like it down here.

The view from the floor has disappeared from modern lives, at least in America. Sure, rugrats hang out there but adults shun floors. Bad move. It's cosmic down there.

And yes, this comes from my hippie days. In the 1960s, when we budding hippies visited a friend's house we'd all sit cross-legged on large floor cushions assembled around a low, round table. One or two poor slobs would sit apart, in the torture machines we referred to as butterfly chairs. Poor gits. They missed out on the lower vantage point. It was great on the floor. It just seemed so damned friendly. When you're on the floor, everyone's equal; you can feel it.

Now I find that going to bed, since my "bed" is on the floor, gives me that same feeling (okay, minus the crowd and the marijuana). It just feels right down there. Try it. Grab a friend and sit on cushions on the floor. It's way nicer than up here.

That is all. You may resume your lives now.

Wednesday, September 9, 2015

Vatican remains evil despite Frankie

The Vatican recently stated that it is "impossible" for a transgender person to be a godparent. It's true, they really said this.
The Vatican's report says being transgender "reveals in a public way an attitude opposite to the moral imperative of solving the problem of sexual identity according to the truth of one's own sexuality. Therefore it is evident that this person does not possess the requirement of leading a life according to the faith and in the position of godfather and is therefore unable to be admitted to the position of godfather or godmother."
Can you imagine the sexual confusion that went into that Vatican statement? I mean, being trans is "an attitude opposite to the moral imperative of solving the problem of sexual identity"? If you're trans, switching genders is, in fact, the only solution to the "imperative of solving the problem of sexual identity". To turn the trans quest for normalcy on its head with this type of  statement is utterly bizarre. Seriously, what is wrong with priests? These old Vatican men are so hateful. They just had to reach out and slap trans people? Why? What did trans people ever do to them?

The linked article goes on to remind readers that Francis has condemned "gender theory". Uh, there are actually genders, Frankie. It's not a theory. And sometimes they get mixed up. It's seen in nature and of course it's seen in humans, since we literally are nature. We were born of this Earth, just as all the other creatures were. And this happened without the need for a magic man in the sky. (BTW, this means your religion is a pile of nonsense. I'm just saying.)

The Vatican cannot keep its greasy fingers off sexual matters. It just can't. These men in dresses are literally obsessed with penises and vaginas. It's what they do.