Final Halloween Bash

I'm sorry to say I cannot offer reviews of the movies Black Christmas and Halloween, which I watched at the bash, as it was far too loud and chaotic to understand most of it - what a hell of a party! But here's some reviews of the other stuff I've watched since:

Dellamorte Dellamore - 5/5

Well, this is awesome. Dellamorte Dellamore is an Italian flick about zombies - but it isn't quite what you're thinking. This is an intelligent little film that blends in heavy, morose romance and some blackened comedy into the traditional George Romero mold.

It's really quite fascinating, the movie treading into dark waters with heavy political and social commentary squeezing its way into the fold alongside a well fit message of isolation and disappointment in one's career. Francesco Dellamorte is a very entertaining character to watch on screen, a sterling performance delivered by Mr. Rupert Everett indeed, and the side characters range from silly to agitating to downright creepy. There are a lot of small plotlines running through the first three quarters of the film, and it all makes for a package that is entertaining as well as stimulating, appealing to both those who love humor and those who love the dark, introspective side of film.

Another thing I like about this movie is the fact that it's marketed like one of those cheap 50s horror flicks. I mean, it's just great, paying homage to the classic shlock while also moving forward into the future. Dellamorte Dellamore packs a funny, gory, sexy and intelligent film that will knock all you Romero lovers off your seats. Highly recommended!

Halloween 2 - 4.25/5

Halloween was one of the best horror movies ever, and following it up would indeed be a difficult task, but Halloween 2 did the job fairly well. One thing I loved about the first one was how it captured the essence of Halloween perfectly, and this one is no different, just as Halloween-ish as ever, except now in a hospital instead of an old suburban home. The acting is good for slasher films especially, and the kills are cool, keeping to the spirit of the original. And I must also note how sleek and mature the whole thing is, compared to its companions at the time, with a sinister mood and a lot of black, completely hopeless moments that will leave you on the edge of your seat.

My only complaint here is the fact that they took away pretty much all of the mystique that made our slasher a horrifying enemy. Here they gave him a name, and a background, and with it he lost a lot of the mysterious allure behind him. The scariest part of the original Halloween was the fact that this was just some creepy mother****er going around cutting up teenagers on Halloween, and we just don't have that here.

It's still a good movie, though, so check it out if you want another film to satisfy your Halloween thirst.

Suspiria - 4.75/5

Colorful, ethereal, bizarre and sinister, Suspiria is a carnival of strange, bloody fantasy. Made by horror master Dario Argento, this movie has a cult following in many circles, and now I can see why. This is an extremely abstract little flick, with lots of bright, neon lighting covering up what would otherwise be a generic sort of slasher flick. Also doing the job is the mystique layered over the whole thing like whipped cream frosting. I won't spoil it for those of you who haven't seen it yet, but let me just say this is probably like nothing else you've seen before, with several downright ****ing scary moments!

The acting here is really atrocious, though, so that's why it didn't get a perfect score. Seriously, it's really bad, but the movie is good enough to where it doesn't matter.

If you want a suspenseful, unique romp through superstitions and urban myths, this will be your ticket. Pick it up today.

Happy Halloween!

Horror Review 4: Silent Night, Deadly Night

Silent Night, Deadly Night - 4.75/5

This is fucking golden, man. Silent Night, Deadly Night is a slasher film in the vein of Halloween, but only this time WITH CHRISTMAS INSTEAD! Filled with delicious bloody slashing (in the typical creative Friday the 13th/Nightmare on Elm St. fashion, making for a lot of fun), gratuitous nudity and cheap filmmaking (although strangely more effective here than on counterparts like Friday III or The Burning, with some genuinely creepy and dark moments that will stay in your head for a long time), this movie just sleighs (pun intended).

In addition to being slasher gold, it's also very funny. With lines like "Let's get shitfaced!" from the ever-lovable store manager character, "It's just your imagination, Mr. Simms" (listen to the way the older female employee says this; it made me burst out laughing), and the great scene in which the police bust in on the "Santa Claus," in addition to some of the killings themselves, this packs a gamut of laughs for everyone.

And, hell, it's a movie about a serial killing Santa Claus.

Process that for a few seconds.

This is gold for the bad movie fans. Highly recommended.

Next: Dellamorte Dellamore

Horror Review 3: The Wizard of Gore (1970)

The Wizard of Gore (1970) - 3.25/5

While its strange, mystical sense of suspense aids it, this movie is pretty mediocre in all other aspects, and yet I still find myself enjoying it. It's got terrible acting, bad picture quality and shaky, flawed transitions between scenes (and even stranger ones when it tries to demonstrate the Wizard's "power"), but it's still enjoyable. I wouldn't call this a horror movie so much as a strange combination of fantasy and gore, but it fits my Halloween bill well enough. The Wizard of Gore doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but then, like Phantasm, it isn't really supposed to.

There is a 2007 remake of this around, and I might just be inclined to check it out, to see what modern filmmaking could do for this little gem...

Next: Silent Night, Deadly Night (1984)

Horror Review 2: The Burning (1981)

The Burning (1981) - 3.5/5

Of all the Friday the 13th ripoff movies that came out in the early 80s, this one seems to get a lot of recognition, being a similar camp story with boobs, blood and gore all around, and a deadly killer who you don't see until the end. The acting is pretty shitty, but some of the characters are enjoyable to watch while they're on screen. The movie starts off a bit shakily, with an extremely sloppy and amateurish scene where a prostitute is murdered, but after that it gets better. Also notable is the strange soundtrack, featuring a wide variety of different types of music that don't always work perfectly with the story, but they are pretty cool anyway.

The real star here is Tom Savini and his special effects and makeup work. Seriously, some of the gore here, on this uncut version, is just awesome, with the standout being the raft scene, in which the killer bloodily dismembers and disfigures about seven people in a span of a few seconds - and then the scene later on in which the others find the raft and are subsequently grossed out. Gross? Yes. Cool? Definitely yes.

Another interesting thing about The Burning is how Friday the 13th IV, a much more popular film, got so much influence from it. Just look at the ending, and you'll see what I mean. The Burning is a pretty bad movie, but I liked it, and so will you, if you're looking for B-grade slasher glory.

Next: The Wizard of Gore (1970)

Mentally retarded teenagers and healthy teenagers together in schools

I've been thinking about an incident which happened to me some time during the beginning of the school year.

At the beginning of this semester, I was placed at a locker by the attendance office. Several other people were placed there, too, including a boy who I soon discovered myself was a "special needs" student who looked like he was Native or a weird combination of Portugese and something else. Before I knew he had an illness, I thought he was strange... he kept snapping at everything, slammed lockers all the time... even followed me and called me names like "babe" and "honey", which made me want to beat the living shit out of him. I was starting to feel a lack of safety when I was around him. I considered moving to a different locker, which was around the time that I found out he had a mental condition, and thus, he wasn't really accountable for his behaviour.

I still moved to a new locker. I lied to the school and gave them a bullshit reason which I cannot recall right now, but it solved my problem. I never see the guy following me anymore, and when I see him, I ignore him. It may make me seem like a jackass, but what if someone kept following you and called you names that provided for really awkward situations? And, this may make me seem like an even bigger jackass, but what if he tried to hit me? I think I'd have the right to hit him back in defense. But anyway, this thought is leading to our subject of the day:

There have been schools set up exclusively for special needs students in the past few years. Not only has this prevented awkward interaction between mentally retarded and healthy teenagers, but it has allowed for such special needs students to get an education more specific to them. Kind of like what women's colleges like Brescia (Canadian university-level college in London, Ontario) do for women. So, my question is... how would you feel about a system that permanently separates special needs students from regular highschools and regular elementary schools?

And by the way, don't say I don't understand the consequences of using the word "retarded." It's a word that's medically valid. If you think I'm insensitive for it, I'll tell you in advance that my brother is mentally retarded with Asperger's Syndrome, a form of Autism.

Horror Review 1: Phantasm (1979)

Phantasm (1979) - 4/5

This is a much-revered horror classic, and it's easy to see why. It's supernatural, it's edgy and it's also very dark and grainy, both in picture quality and mood! What they don't tell you is how this movie basically comes off as a long, elaborate crack fantasy, filled with bright lights, magic and...well, yellow mustard blood. But it is pretty creepy at times, with decent performances from all the actors for their respective genre and some very good atmospheric moments, like pretty much every time you see the Tall Man.

And speaking of Angus Scrimm, he is damned creepy here. Seriously, you would be running and screaming too if you saw this guy running after you. That's right, running. He puts the typical laughable horror stereotype of walking serial killers catching their sprinting victims down with ease. Great performance.

Phantasm doesn't make much sense, and it is pretty thin at times in terms of plot, but it is a fun watch, and essential if you're a B-horror fan. Get this one this Halloween, and make sure to keep the lights on...

Next: The Burning (1981)

Emile Durkheim - the life and times, told in a class presentation.

For a course I'm taking, Challenges and Changes in Society, I had to act as a social scientist. I was picked to act as the father of sociology, Emile Durkheim. Here is my ultra-groovy script:

I was born for this, right? Anyway, at the 3rd paragraph, I went up to my friend who acted as Karl Marx the previous day for his social scientist presentation, and he was quite... shocked, I guess? Everyone was laughing. We all had a good time.

Okay, okay.

Hi there, folks. Larry here. I don't know where Flora is in all of this, but I told her I'd be active at this, and time permits me to be so, right now. If this blog is going to remain active, then I'll continue posting stuff, and more regularly from now on. October is coming up, and that means Halloween, and although most of you don't know me, that means that I'll be diving into a gamut of pulpy, bloody, sinister horror movies, and with any luck, I'll be providing reviews for your consumption every week or so. If I don't post them here, you can find them at the following links:

--->http://www.metal-archives.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=39103&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
--->http://miscutopia.20.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=3

Will include reviews of the following:

The Burning (1981)
Suspiria
Opera (1987)
When a Stranger Calls (1979)

...and many more.

Until next time, all!

Boredom

Why do people get so goddamned bored so easily? I mean, sure, it happens every now and again, but in my travels across this barren Internet, I notice it happening WAY TOO OFTEN. Seriously, every day, it's "Man, I am so BORED," "I'm boooooooooooored," et cetera. I know not everyone has the means to travel around to places outside of their own homes - usually those who are under 18 and living with their parents - but hey, that doesn't automatically constitute boredom. There are plenty of things to do in the comfort of your own home. The only excuse you have for being so bored is if you're a sex slave locked in a basement, and in that case, if you have access to a computer, why not call for help?

Otherwise, no, there is no excuse. Read a book. Watch a movie. Go outside and take a walk. Too attached to your music? Bring the iPod or MP3 player along with you. Call a friend. Draw a picture. Write a story. Do some homework. Help a stranger. Pet a dog. Build some weapons of mass destruction. Educate yourself.

I mean, surely, there is something you can do, right? You can't be that uncreative, can you? Can you?!

It's been a while

So, I've decided to post again, yet I lack the inspiration. I guess I could just tell you guys pretty much anything that's been going on in my life, but that can be summed up in one word: nothing, and expanded into nothing. You can't really brainstorm on a topic about nothing, unless you're writing an episode of Seinfeld. And my life, it seems, has been going in that direction.

The music: this is all I have to say for my summer. Want to know what I've been doing? Listening to music. I've not even the inspiration to write my own, and haven't for a few months. I can't say I fully regret it though... I mean, I did discover some pretty cool gems. However, I've also, unfortunately, encountered albums like The Crucible of Man by Iced Earth. Avoid this like the plague, unless you're an insomniac who needs something to help them get to sleep. This will bore you into a coma.

Then there's the departure of someone I despise more than The Crucible of Man. Due to that, I've less reason to get angry, and more reason to be comfortable... with myself, with what is, rather than what isn't. A more peaceful state of mind was gained from this. And now I've learned he isn't coming back until October or November, but let's hope for next September, or possibly not until I move out. And I'll definitely be gone by next September.

But then there was the fact that I couldn't see my friends. You see, both of them have these problems... I won't go into it, but these problems did a fine job of disallowing them from seeing me. And these friends are two people. I have horrible trust issues, so I can't trust more than a few people. It's been lonely. My best friend's mom won't let me or her friends come to her birthday party, which is today. I can't say I liked my summer, but hey, read paragraph three again.

The metal circus is coming to town!

This is my review for A New Dimension of Might by Trail of Tears, which I originally made for Encyclopaedia Metallum, AKA the Metal Archives. The original page can be found here

I don’t know why there isn’t a review for this album yet. Seriously, it blows my mind that such a small amount of people would get a chance to enjoy it yet. Metal purists may not have the taste for such a piece of work, since it is a black/gothic metal album with electrogothic elements. However, said elements work together to an advantage along with the traditional Beauty and the Beast vocal style (though Ronny, the growler, does quite a bit of clean singing himself, and he is a stronger presence than the clean female vocalist Catherine throughout the album).

The opener is the track “Ecstatic.” It basically is the start of a wonderful showcase of talents between the choir that is used throughout the entire album, and the female and male vocalists. The emotionlessness of the choir and their use of the same notes, strangely, fits nicely with the more emotive side of this album like a piece of the puzzle that adds a bit more colour to an already colourful image. And by “colourful image,” I mean something that is different than what you’d hear with a lot of extreme gothic metal combo bands, though it is not rare: the electrogothic and odd circus-like elements added to the music, which is put together in perfect harmony with the metal elements. Seriously, if there was a metal circus, A New Dimension of Might would probably be the soundtrack. Look out, Cirque de Soleil! (Could you imagine metalheads headbanging at a circus? Anyway, back to the music).

We’ll skip over to the tracks “Denial and Pride,” “The Call of Lust,” and, “Splendid Coma Visions,” because they show the strongest relation between the music and the vocals used. Devious, full of a lustful energy that gothic music is known to have (which the second title fits with well), and memorable, there’s not much left to be desired here. I couldn’t help but accidentally shout “die!” along to the constant electronically modified growls of “die!” several times that were placed in one section, to my mother’s horror (let’s just say she started thinking I was crazy for a moment there). However, let it be known that much of all of the growls aren’t modified, and only modified in very sparse amounts and in tasteful places, where it would belong.

Next, the Faith No More cover at the end, “Caffeine,” or as I have it, “Pista 10” (don’t know why there was that name change). If you’re a Mike Patton fan and even the experimentation above wouldn’t satisfy you, you might at least want to check out this cover. It shows that even a serious band like Trail of Tears can have a bit of fun with their music and still make it feel like a perfect fit even when they didn’t write the song themselves. Ronny does a great job with clean vocals in this track, and Catherine supports him well with backup vocals. It felt like a Faith No More song, but at the same time, and I know this is really fucking cliché, they “made it their own,” and it ended the album so perfectly. Patton would be proud.

Lastly, the tracks in between “Ecstatic” and “Denial and Pride” were quite exceptionally good, but they didn’t stand out to me as much as the ones listed. It’s a worthy album to purchase. 87% is a really high rating, coming from me, and I wouldn’t mind if anyone else reviewed this album with a higher rating, so long as they do it with good reason.

Drawn to the Dark

A whisper sounds in the night as you exit the Publix at which you work the last shift. Your feet sound like the rolling thunder on the pavement as your heartbeat starts to grow. The trees rattle and the wind howls. You wish you were at home, safe under your blankets with the lights on, but your car seems so far away, and why have your legs turned to jelly? You are uneasy. With every step, you are drawn further into paranoia and blind, naked fear. You start to notice everything wrong with the scene: how the doors of your car are just so slightly ajar, how your head feels like a lead weight, the splotches of dark red blood staining the dry, reedy grass. The bent, rusted tricycle leaning up against the tree to your left, creaking helplessly in the wind. The mirthless, cold, high pitched laughter, ringing in your ears long after it fades away, still coming at you on all sides.

If you are anything like me, this sort of thing is exactly the kind of literature that quenches your thirst. That little blurb I wrote up there is a teaser of what would usually keep you interested. That sense of claustrophobia, of anxiety. Of fright, and especially of high-flying ecstasy. You probably also enjoyed the movie The Ruins, in which a group of innocent, if horny and sometimes jealous, young adults are left stranded atop an abandoned archaeological dig in Mexico, where they end up slowly tortured and bloodied, one by one. You found immense enjoyment in such movies as Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street, Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Hellraiser. You probably read HP Lovecraft and Stephen King. You find yourself fascinated by the strangest and most outrageous news tales. The darker, the better. No matter how perverse or twisted. You are repelled, but at the same time you are fascinated. You want to know more. You want to know why, every single little detail, every minute speck. Every reason behind the madness in the world.

For instance, this: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/07/31/greyhound-transcanada.html. A man decapitates a passenger sitting next to him on a grayhound bus. Surely this is a heinous act, so why do I find myself curious as to the circumstances? Why am I so morbidly fascinated? I mean, it's fucked up. It's really fucked up. It's an atrocity, plain and simple, but it's also fascinating. As I stated above, I want to know more, because the human psyche is an incredible thing. What possessed this man to do what he did, and how much of a danger is something like this to humanity? And then, being the demented creative mind that I am, I ask, how can I exploit this in a story?

Why are we drawn to the dark? It is certainly not normal or socially acceptable. We are certainly not raised that way. They talk against horror movies and darker literature in Sunday School. Don't read it or else your soul will go to the devil. You know. From birth, we're taught to fear the bogeyman and the grim reaper and other such creatures of the night. We're told innumerable bed time stories telling of why they should be feared, and it becomes imprinted into us to condemn these things and avoid them. We keep night lights on as young children. We don't look under the bed, or in the closet. When we see a dark room, we turn on a light.

Once we grow out of that sort of blind, obedient fear, we become curious. While it obviously varies from person to person, I would pinpoint this stage at around the latter half of the single-digit-number age years. You started to make more friends around that time, and with your friends you traipsed around the neighborhood like you were the kings of the world. Cops and robbers, capture the flag, hide and seek, all of it. But what about when you grew bored? The curiosity of a child is something boundless and wild. Did you ever take your closest group of friends and venture into places that you were told were dangerous? Did you go down into the woods and stay there, defiantly waiting to prove that you could stand up to the ghosties and goblins that lay within? Did you ever say Bloody Mary three times in a row in front of a mirror in the dark? Did you ever tell ghost stories sitting around in your friend's room, with the lights off and the curtains closed?

Now, some kids grow out of that eventually. They go on to become successful lawyers and doctors, or maybe they don't, and maybe they only amount to a janitor or a secretary in an office. Maybe they go home at night after a long day cleaning the shitty toilets and the spilled urine on the tile floors and the trash, and all other manner of discarded waste, to see their children sitting on the couch, munching Doritos and watching a television program so tastefully dubbed MASTERS OF HORROR MARATHON. They turn the TV off, exclaiming in disgust that those movies weren't good for the childrens' psyches. They send them to bed, where the creepy-crawlies sniff and scratch up to the surface to take them in their nightmares.

These nightmares? They come from those who are naturally drawn to the dark. They come from those who never grew out of the curiosity that blossomed in them as a child. We are drawn to the dark. Who really knows why? It varies from person to person, from sick mind to sicker mind. We aren't scared by what lurks under the bed or behind that dark corner, or in the attic, so we set out to find something that does scare us. We are like journeymen on an expedition, except instead of the tip of some faraway mountain, we search for something that can remind us what it feels like to be really, truly scared. We want to feel that old thrill, like we're going down a huge roller coaster - think Islands of Adventure, perhaps. We like that frozen chill running down our backs. We see talent and gusto in those who can scare us, because it is not an easy feat - and those of us with good taste, we appreciate that talent, and thus is born our lust for good horror stories. Those of us who write or direct, we make more horror stories not only to scare the uninitiated "normal" folk, but to impress those like us. Those who are also drawn to the dark.

In the end, a lot of the stuff that "normal" people find revolting and disgusting is just really damned cool, no other way around it. It's an acquired taste, but so are all cool things in life. It's a form of escapism, except it's for people who don't want to escape via dragons and dwarves or spaceships and aliens. Real life is trying and oftentimes droll and drab. You all come home at night, and we all turn out the lights. You all brush your teeth after the credits start rolling on Fresh Prince or Who Wants to be a Millionaire, and you all tuck yourselves into bed. But are you drawn to the dark?

Hello. [The Entrance]

Flora, upon deciding that she wanted to interview someone, and knowing that I could not come up with much to write here, decided to interview me for my introduction to this blog.

Flora says: So, Larry, please tell us some basics about yourself. You know, where you live, where you were born, how old you are, your interests, all that jazz.

Larry Griffin says: Okay, will do. I was born on February 2nd, 1991 in Florida, USA. I was the last person born on the busiest day of this brand new hospital - Arnold Palmer's, for whoever is in the area - and I was the first child ever to live in my current residence, which was basically an exclusively old folks' home. In my spare time, I write, exercise, read or watch movies. I also like long walks on the beach and romantic dinners by candlelight with a pretty lady.

Flora says: Okay so, why were you living in an old folks' home?

Larry Griffin says: Because that is where we lived, I guess.

Flora says: Well, I can just as easily say my family lived in a shit house when we came to Canada because that is where we lived, but it is because we were poor refugees that pretty much just came there. So, I'm sure there must be some reason why you ended up living in an old folks' home

Larry Griffin says: Well, really, there isn't one, aside from the fact that that's where my parents chose to live, perhaps for the fact that they just got a good deal, or that it is a safe place. As I've grown up, I've seen that there are barely any crimes here at all, and that it's easy to be able to walk freely in the streets without trouble. I think this might be a problem when I don't live here anymore.

Flora says: Why do you think there's so little crime where you lived? Also, you said you were the first child to ever live in your current residence. Do you have any brothers or sisters, or are you an only child?

Larry Griffin says: There is no crime here because it is a closed off gate community. I am the first child in my family. I do have a younger sister though.

Flora says: Okay, well you seem to like reviewing music a lot, and you seem to like music in general, a lot more than the average population. What is it about music that is so intriguing to you?

Larry Griffin says: I don't think I do so much, these days. I have been busier and more distracted with other things, as well as listening to some different stuff I haven't tried before. I review music because that's how I am, critical of mostly everything.

Flora says: Why do you find yourself to be "critical of mostly everything"? What aren't you so critical about?

Larry Griffin says: That's just how I am. I find that it lets me enjoy the good things in life more, if I can pick out what isn't so good.

Larry Griffin says: I'm not critical about...well, really, I don't know. I'm not too picky about movies a lot of the time, as is evidenced in my usually consistent ratings.

Flora says: Then what is your favourite movie, and why?

Larry Griffin says: Pulp Fiction, simply because it's very enjoyable and charming, if you will.

Flora says: Alrighty. Well, a writer always has his/her/whatever's starting point, and a good number of times, they regret their works made at this stage of their writing career. Do you have any regrets as a writer? Why?

Larry Griffin says: I don't think so, regrets as a writer...it strikes me as pretty stupid, frankly. Everyone has their starting points, and if you're ashamed of them or regret them, then it shows a good deal of insecurity on your part. Now, I'm not saying you have to like your past works so well, or that you can't be critical of them, but there's no need to be ashamed of them. Everyone has their building blocks.

Flora says: What are your "styles of writing"? And by styles of writing, I mean, for example... mine are politics, comedy, song-writing - lyrics and instrumentals, and stuff about the news.

Larry Griffin says: Interesting, interesting. I have dabbled in many genres as I've practiced writing, from superheroes to fantasy/action, to horror and mystery...but I only really got serious about it earlier this year, while writing a black comedy/satire called Around the Bend.

Since then, I have developed ideas for other stories along the same lines, mostly inspired by Chuck Palahniuk, author of Fight Club and Lullaby, among others. I am attracted mainly to the weirdness and eccentricity of it, while the stories themselves remain serious when you get past the weirdness.

I am also quite inspired by humor/comedy writer Carl Hiaasen, who writes books about Florida and satirizes the odd culture of the place. Interesting reads.

I am also influenced by more "nerdy" things, although I have never cared about such terminology, like comic books or B horror films.

The one road block I have is the fact that I am pretty much devoid of any real cultural knowledge, having never traveled outside of my native Florida, and barely even anywhere in the state itself. This hinders me, but I get by.

Flora says: I feel dumb, I don't know of any of those people (I'm a Time Magazine and news type, FUCK BOOKS! )

Tell me about your black comedy, Around the Bend

Larry Griffin says: Haha, do not feel dumb, I don't know many of the "popular" authors myself. I just discover as I go at my own pace.

Larry Griffin says: Around the Bend is, as I imagine would be written on the book jacket, "a high-octane, sex-crazed romp through the black curtain of normalcy." It revolves around a fireman who is generally tired of his life. He is a failed writer, lacking any creativity to make a real story, and he likes to spend his time by himself, reading and keeping up with his taxes, in his large, three story home, in which he lives alone.

One day, he decides to run into a fire alone to try and save a young girl who is trapped inside.

He falls to the ground and loses consciousness, later awoken in a hospital, saved by a colorful, energetic pimp who runs a skin club on the edges of the city. He becomes friends with the pimp, and the story is a recount of the events that lead to his current position, sitting on Death Row, spiced up with doses of black humor and bloody action.

Flora says: That's pretty fucking good. Better than the stuff I've been coming up with lately... you should put your comedy on DeviantArt, they have a thing where you can save text.... but anyhow.. what are your biggest inspirations to write?

Larry Griffin says: On Deviant Art? I don't think so

My biggest inspirations? Reading books, that is the secret to it. Just reading fills me with creativity and ideas to write.

Flora says: What is your favourite book?

Larry Griffin says: I'd say The Stand by Stephen King, bit of an odd choice, but then again I never had the most amazing tastes.

I merely write for those like myself, not those looking for literary masterworks.

I suppose another inspiration of mine was Quentin Tarantino's movies, actually, because they are just cool, despite often messy and silly. They are representations of what the man wants to see on film, and my writing is the same in that respect, except for paper, you get the idea.

Flora says: Fuck, I don't know what else to ask. Well, looks like we're done! Welcome to the team.

New writer!

Well, for some of you more observant folk, you'll have noticed that we have a new writer on our team of writers, Larry Griffin. He's done a lot of music reviews for metal, and I am confident in his ability to write about anything else. If you want, you can read some of his reviews.

Vegan Zealots

I'm not saying all Vegans are zealots, but my god, I read this today in Slate, and I have to say, some people need to get lives. According to this, Vegans have been fighting for insect rights for some decades, but mainly have been focusing on the rights of honey bees.

Talk about needing to get laid, eh?

Male Superiority Arguements

There are some men in this world, and some women in this world, that will go around claiming that their gender is superior to the other. Reasons vary from bodily advantages/disadvantages, emotional intelligence, academic intelligence, to societal contributions. However, let it be noted that none of these reasons are more tangible than the other, and thus, this makes it harder to weigh each of them out against each other in an objective manner. Though such claims of superiority are made by males, at least in North American society (because goddess cultures do not count with said male-dominant claims), said claims are also made by females. Since superiority claims are made more-so by the former group, we will take a look behind the reasons for it in the respect of males.

The most obvious first reason of all would be the fact that, yes, we, as females, are born as less of physically-strong specimens than men are. Because we’re born with about 10% less chance for muscle growth (or some shit like that, but you get the point), we don’t get stronger as quickly as men do. However, we have naturally more honed physical abilities than men… why do you see that the most famous dancers, skaters, gymnasts, etc are female? There’s that certain level of flexibility and endurance that match up brilliantly with the female body that we have. What we may not have in strength, we have in other physical abilities.

Secondly, there’s the “men have made more contributions” claim. This, however, seems like a sticky statement. Think about it: before the early 1900’s, women were basically put on the same level as an insane man. You weren’t allowed to get an education, you couldn’t get a job, and if you were married, you’d be considered your husband’s property, to put it plainly. Also, let’s say you were a chick in that time and you made the most incredible invention ever. However, a male friend or your husband decide to cash in on the situation and say that they did it. According to the customs of the time, no one would believe that the woman made the invention and would definitely believe the men over the women. Why not? They’re the ones with the education, and they’re not the ones who are considered property. Therefore, this argument is invalid because most of North American history and most other world history existed before the time that women were entitled to equal opportunities (which isn’t even established in lots of countries in the world to this day). It’s like this: it’s easier to master the guitar when you have a teacher and material to learn and study from, not when you have nothing at all besides the guitar itself.

The reasoning I hear less than the 2 listed above but still quite frequently with male superiority claim is what I like to call the academic claim. Yes, we know that men are more left-brain oriented than women, and thus, that’s why you see that a lot of math and science heroes are male (but we all love Madame Curie!). However, what men seem to have in academics, they lack in the ability to relate and communicate with people. It has been proven that this ability helps to increase one’s ability in academic performance and other areas of life, so is something that transcends merely having more friends or more sociability.

I’m not going to put some gay concluding paragraph with some kind of morale, because I’d rather hear from you and get some intelligent discussion started. If you have absolutely anything to say about what I wrote, or would like to add something, that’d be splendid. Thank-you for hearing me out.

Feeds and "rolls"

If you look at the menu to your right, the first item is a new feed option which you can use to subscribe to our posts or comments made in our posts. Secondly, our lame old-school style blogroll has been replaced with a new webroll. Enjoy!

Here, kitty kitty... (Dark Knight review plus inside scoop)

The Dark Knight was a very hyped movie, however, it deserved all the hype it got. Every part of it was wonderfully executed, especially the "Flora-shat-her-pants" part near the beginning where a fake Batman is smashed through a window. That absolutely scared the living shit out of me, and not because of my high level of lactose intolerance and usual gassiness.

However, let's get to the stars of the night: Christian Bale and Heath Ledger (RIP).

Christian Bale did an absolutely wonderful job, even though I felt he could've done a bit better. His new struggle in this movie was finding out where he was in justice. He asks himself, is he a hero, or, is he more than just a hero. This is the ongoing theme in the movie, and at the end, when the commissioner is narrating, you see that it ties in with the title quite nicely. He finds that his place is that of a silent protector... that, no matter what happens to anybody, he must remain hidden in the dark, for the sake of Gotham.

However, let's move on to my actual favourite character of the movie, Heath Ledger as the Joker. He wasn't dancing to a Prince album, this time at least (see: Jack Nicholson as the Joker). He was sinister, caniving, evil, fucked up yet at times, humorous in a dark way. He was so scary, that a kid in the theater started crying and had to leave. The story of his mother being beat down by his father all the while his father telling him to take it as a joke was sad, as well as when the joker's wife left him because he cut his face with razorblades to make it look as if she was smiling, since she'd always tell him how he never smiled. He's not just some crazy criminal in this movie; he's a crazy criminal because of his terrible past.

All in all, I enjoyed this movie very much. I can understand why some people are going to the theaters to see it for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th times. And now, a little inside scoop from superherohype.com:

I spotted a reference to a "Cat" in the movie when Lucious Fox provided Bruce with the new suit. Bruce specifically asked about whether or not it could withstand a dog bite and is told it could take a Cat. So with Rachel Dawes, his only love interest, out of the picture, I think it's a perfect set up for Cat Woman. Just a hunch though.

My sincerest aplogies

I think I owe it to you to tell you why I haven't been posting. I'll make it sweet and short, because I don't want to bug you with useless details.

Why I haven't posted in June: much stress due to studying for exams.
Why I didn't post after: I had a fucking shitty computer from like 1998 that would keep freezing up, so all of my work would be destroyed.

However, as you can see, I no longer have exams and I don't have a shit computer anymore. Actually, my new computer is pretty rockin', and you can look forward to many posts from me, using this computer. I'll even list this post as one of the site promises, under the Promises section, because I can now guarantee this.

Thanks for your undying patience, especially you, Buffalo!

Exactly a week ago, I had my first taste of local politics (as well as my first taste of gelato), live. It was at the last place you’d expect a heathen Atheist such as myself being: a Church.

Me, my supervisor (who is also the Christian Service Animator for the school which I attend), and my friend Chris went to a local Church, where several Ontarian MPPs (Members of Provincial Parliament) and many locals were present. Me and Chris were definitely the youngest people there, as we were surrounded by lots of elders, as well as the local university’s radio host who put the program on radio (who has Multiple Sclerosis) and a lawyer as the host of that day’s public forum. The reason why we were all there was to discuss poverty reduction, specifically within Ontario. Though there was a lot to be said about poverty reduction, there was one thing that stayed with me during the entire “production”; per se: the lack of professionalism.

Tatum Wilson, an MPP in Hamilton on the side of the Liberals, was a very brave man. He was that afternoon’s representative of the biggest target of the NDP (New Democratic Party) MPP’s, and he knew that he’d be, but he still attended. As the NDP MPPs Andrea and Paul “The Man In The Middle” (I can’t remember their last names), as I had called him before knowing his name, were discussing strategies on poverty reduction alongside Tatum, they focused more on attacking Liberals rather than discussing what their party has to offer the province on how to reduce poverty. Tatum was left to fend for himself each time, but he did so with class. It all too well reminded me of a time when I got a letter from the NDP party of Ontario, and how they kept attacking our current Premier, Dalton McGuinty. I actually counted, and the amount of times they attacked Dalton within just a few short paragraph amounted to about 6 times.

A strong benefit of being part of the event and not one of the people watching it in front of the TV set or listening to it on the radio was feeling the whole tense atmosphere. There was fire during the question sessions, especially when a man asking a question right before Chris did was making quite cliché statements that were just meant to piss Paul off. You could imagine the look on Chris’ face as he asked his questions after said man and made his idealistic and admirable yet somewhat naïve statements on homelessness and poverty in general. He was received with much applause and a “hear, hear!” from a man in the audience. Then came my question, but that wasn’t so significant, so I’ll skim right through.

After the whole production (okay, a little before it ended), I went to the Pilgrim Room and ate some food. They had delicious tea, coffee, donuts, cookies, you name it! Apart from the food, however, I had a really good time talking to the elders at some of the tables. It was really nice for me to have conversations on politics with people who actually cared for once, unlike my peers at school. I learned about all of the groups they’ve started within the city regarding different global issues such as poverty, homelessness, war, and the like. They all had so many personal experiences regarding the issues from their lives.

Someone who intrigued me very much at the Church was a man named Joseph, who had a very touching story. Joseph was a man who underwent poverty (according to him, not only physically, but spiritually and socially) after his business in England went down. He put 90,000 pounds into that business (approximately $200,000CDN according to him), only to lose it all during a stock market crisis. Worse came to worse, and he claimed his only salvation by coming to Canada to try to find work and stability. He did not find work, and was forced to go on ODSP, which provided him very little of his basic human needs. This was his story that led him there, to be involved in poverty reduction.

After this experience, I learned that there is nothing like politics living itself out right in front of your very own eyes. See it for yourself, live it for yourself. If you’re going to see your country’s future blossom, live it, don’t watch it on TV. If you’re going to see your country’s future destroyed, the same applies. There is nothing like the atmosphere of reality living itself in front of you as opposed to the reality that others are leading you to believe, because it doesn’t give you the same feeling. Tell me your stories of reality unfolding itself in surprising ways.

Buffalo wins! Here's some news:

Due to my not being allowed to use the computer on weekdays because of my dad (yes, I promised I wouldn't mention him ever again, but this reason is legitimate), my posting has been restricted by quite a bit. Also, the lack of inspiration due to outside projects. However, I am now well-aware of the fact that I do have people who care about what I have to say, and promise that I will return to my regular course of writing. No excuses. However, this post is not about me. It's about a 16-year-old "artist," and my best friend, Meaghan. I wouldn't say her art is necessarily complex, but it's entertaining and has its charm. Basically, what I'm trying to tell you is that we've now got a new contributer to ATWKS, who'll be posting her drawings onto the website. There'll also be times where I'll post them for her in the case that she can't do it herself, as her computer sucks ass as well as mine. I've already got several of her drawings, and plan to scan them in soon. Lily, I am so sorry to have left you behind in the postings, but may it be known that you are brilliant. And Meaghan, I am jealous of your art talent.

North Korean Nuclear Report

In meeting with the new South Korean president Lee Myung-bak, President Bush denied suggestions that his administration has been too lenient on the North Korean government and the military dictator Kim il-Yung in forcing them to declare their nuclear facilities. In declaring their nuclear facilities and various power plant and uranium enrichment centers, North Korea will give the international community information about where they exist and how many there are in the country. It will also pave the way for a comprehensive and detailed explanation of how these nuclear power plants operate and what their intentions are for this reactivated nuclear program. The established deadline for that declaration ended last year and the agreements that were paired with that declaration are now part of an uncertain, unprogressive aura that has seemed to stagnate any immediate action or plan to stop North Korea’s secret nuclear program.

President Bush is receiving criticism because of the possibility that he is predisposed to accepting a half-hearted and misleading declaration from North Korea. As a majoritarian foreign policy matter, public opinion is inclined to place the president as the dominant figure. Currently, public opinion generally disagrees with President Bush’s foreign policies, especially concerning this issue that deals directly with America’s homeland security. The majority of the public finds the president incompetent. They believe that he is not handling the situation with the assertion and the decisiveness necessary to disable North Korea’s nuclear reactors. President Bush stands firm that his administration will make a judgment on what appropriate diplomacy should take place based on whether or not North Korea has met its obligations to the international community in terms of destabilizing its entire nuclear program, including all of the nuclear reactors and facilities that are currently stated as “not operating”.

The National Security Council has agreed to lessen demands that have an unnecessary negative effect upon a potentially new negotiated settlement with North Korea. Furthermore, the Asian Affairs committee within the National Security Council has agreed for a separate negotiation to take place apart from last year’s agreement and this new negotiation will involve only the United States and North Korea. However, within the context of this negotiation, President Bush and his advisors are giving North Korea more time to make their declaration, although the administration has not specifically stated how much time they are actually planning to grant. President Bush and his conservative supporters within the executive and legislative branches do know that they will not allow “under any circumstances” North Korea to possess nuclear weapons. They also clearly state that a negotiated settlement is the most effective way in ridding North Korea of nuclear arsenals.

North Korea tested a nuclear bomb in 2006 and it is believed that they have the technology and the materials to produce several more major nuclear bombs. Immediately after the North Korean testing, the United Nations imposed numerous sanctions on North Korea as a way to punish the country for going against orders made within the Security Council and Resolution 1695 was drafted. North Korea seems to be relatively more defiant than the United States anticipated, but the United States and other allied countries are perhaps even more determined to keep North Korea from attaining potentially powerful nuclear arsenals.

Worlds in Collision~Tibetans and the Chinese

Farmers in Tibet find themselves subjugated by the Chinese people who have inhabited and who have sought to maintain control over the Tibetan's ancestral lands. The farmer's Buddhist temple, peasants point out, is blackened by the smoke of a big Chinese factory not far into the distance. Many locals agree that Tibetans are given the hard-labor, low-paying jobs while the Chinese are offered more sophisticated, higher-paying positions, even if they are no more qualified than Tibet civilians. Those people of Eastern China are known as the Han Chinese and they have begun to infiltrate the infrastructure, occupying the world of Tibet through prejudice and repression. China has not granted this many times violent segregation as official ethnic discrimination, but it still occurs, nonetheless.

While the media continues to maintain a heavy bias against Tibetans, Beijing further seeks to undermine Tibetan sovereignty with a project known as the Tibetan Autonomous Region, which has encouraged the settlement of the Han Chinese in the area and is intended to weaken the influence of Tibetan Buddhism. Ultimately, this Tibetan crises may become an issue revolving around religious independence, and thus political and social independence from China. At least among Tibetan peasants, the return of the Dalai Lama, who represents the rebellious and independent character of Tibet, means a voice given back to the people of Tibet.

In condescension and hostility, the Han Chinese believe that the Tibetans are being ungrateful and they adopt an almost victimized and meek attitude, sounding perplexed as to why the Tibetans should protest and riot when China has invested billions of dollars in the region. Whatever the debate is surrounding the common notion that TIbet is part of China, the reality is that the Chinese have the control and Tibet seems to continuously be fighting a lost cause.

While this may be entirely cliche, it is beginning to become apparent that the riots and the violence are not solving anything as war usually does not solve the world's problems. All the political bickering and civil war will not find resolve and certainly will not lead to an independent Tibet if this crises proceeds on its current path to nowhere. This is a case where I believe international intervention is needed because it does not look as if either the Chinese or the Tibetans will reach a resolution or compromise on such a divisive and contentious issue. International pressures (I, by no means, advocate the boycott of the summer olympics) and incentives (a little bargaining) may help weaken Chinese influence in Tibet and force these two regions to work out appropriate diplomacy measures. However, I am not one to think this will be such an easy effort, seeing as how invested China is in Tibet and how resilient China may be against outside efforts to end the crises, especially since the 2008 Olympics draw near and China wants to preserve some sort of clean, optimistic image. Then there is also that little task of convincing governments worldwide to confront the Chinese government of not only ending its bitter conflict with Tibet, but of also using its influence over Sudan to help end the Darfur crises.

More than anything, I am disappointed and frustrated over the lack of awareness and the distortions in truth among the Chinese people, although the international community is starting to pick up on it. No one is willing to listen to the other side and all that is left for these people to hold onto are their presumptions rooted in bias and their pride steeped in insecurity and intolerance.

Elitism and the consequences it breeds

Elitism:

1. practice of or belief in rule by an elite.
2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.
(Dictionary.com definitions)

Some consider it a hold-back toward open-mindedness, a form of snobbyness, for the "insecure," etc... but does it always apply? For our purposes, we'll look at it within a culture I'm most comfortable with, though it is not restricted to this culture: metal.

Is "metal" a culture? Isn't it just "any of a class of elementary substances, as gold, silver, or copper, all of which are crystalline when solid and many of which are characterized by opacity, ductility, conductivity, and a unique luster when freshly fractured" or the music genre which was argueably created by Black Sabbath (and which made Ozzy Osbourne a household name as a result)? Well, it's more than just music. You've heard in the past from your parents or friends about how some things go "hand-in-hand" - for example, if your mom really loves cooking more than she loves just eating the final product, she'll more-so lean towards the idea of being a nutritionist, while the final product lover just wants to eat. How does this pertain toward the metal culture and elitism in general?

Meet our fake character, Mike. Mike's a real troublemaker. His parents want him to cut his hair, so he grew it long out of spite. His family is totally Christian, while he's a Satanist who writes stories about burning Churches and pornography with lots of bondage involved. He primarily favours women in tight leather. He's also very open with his usage of racial slurs. He's very misanthropic in his own light. These "themes" in his life fit very well with the musical style of (sadly) many metalheads within metal fandom, so it is a culture within itself. Although, bondage and leather does sound kind of....

However, there are varying degrees of extremeties within the metal culture. This resulted as a desire for difference, which came from a type of open-mindedness. Sure, the first in a series will always heavily criticise the new (especially when a band "betrays" their original style). Hell, even the new will criticise the originals, and will say, "Hey, you're just still on this or you're criticizing that just because you want to look br00tal for the rest of your traditional metal buddies." Funny enough, that is a kind of elitism in itself.

Okay, now that we've established that elitism can be just as prominent within both extremes, we'll take a look at how elitism can breed positivity: creative rebellion. However, it does not breed it because of itself, but rather the obstacle that elitism breeds. As it has been said, those who paint new paths will be constantly scourged by those who only believe in some set ways.

To give you a good personal perspective from myself, I'll talk about a band that is very different from its peers: System of a Down. Yes, I'm quite against the genre which they are considered significantly part of. Nu Metal, a sin upon music and upon my ears during the early '90s, was made popular by one of the crappiest bands of all time: KoRn (who are WAY over-fucking-rated). Suffice to say, System of a Down took part of that style, mixed it in with others where elitists existed the most (Death Metal being one), and created something else. They pissed off a lot of people, but I enjoyed what they did. They took a risk. I have their entire discography.

So, the lesson of this entry is that negativity can create an environment for positivity (and an amazing debut album). Look in the future for a possible post on false eclecticism.

Issues surrounding genetics

There's plenty of issues surrounding genetics today, but 2 of the biggest ones are cloning (which includes tissue restoration) and incest. These issues of genetics challenge us heavily in our modern-day society to ask ourselves what is right and what is wrong. Some say such things are just "cultural taboos" and nothing more, but I ask you, are they really just that? We'll take a look at some of the reasoning behind the dislike towards such things.

Firstly, we'll start off with cloning and tissue restoration. There's a few ways that you can get the stem cells needed to go through the process necessary to provide the proper results. The first is destroying an embryo, the second is taking stem cells from an adult's bone marrow, and the third is taking the stem cells from fetal tissue (stem cells are very prevalent here because the fetus required many stem cells to develop, but things got kind of "half-way" since they were aborted during their most important period of growth). When Clem Persaud came to St. Jean De Brebeuf Catholic Secondary School (Hamilton, Ontario, Canada) in 2008, he discussed the differences between these different methods of extracting stem cells.

The first method of extracting stem cells, according to Clem, is the most unethical at all for these reasons: if women are creating these embryos just to be destroyed for medical purposes, they will be thought of as "egg carriers," which is demeaning. Furthermore, stem cells extracted from embryos can be cancerous.

The second method of extraction is very ethical, because you can take the cells from an adult, have them divide and divide, and give back the necessary amount of cells to the adult. These cells taken from the adult can help repair an injury in one month rather than several months. It's also key to note that they are not cancerous at all.

The last method is moderate; in between the ethical levels of the second and first methods mentioned. The reason being is that there's the possibility that some women will abort their babies due to bribes for the baby's stem cells. However, if there's sufficient enough evidence that this wasn't why the abortion was finalized, then taking the stem cells would be ethical, though some would find it debateably unethical.

Now, onto incest.

Sometimes, 2 people from the same family have sex. Let's say they had a child together, just for the sake of this explanation. Within families, there is usually a few diseases that are recessive, meaning that those people don't suffer from the disease but carry it, and will send it to their future children if their partner carries the recessive gene as well. It actually doubles the chance that their offspring will develop these genetic weaknesses, such as cancer, diabetes, etc... and also, quite early.

I've just provided you with a bit of background on some of the reasoning behind the anti-incest and general genetic ethics. I would love to hear what you say, but don't provide me with irrelevent crap.

Rockstars get to do it...

Sorry I haven't posted in a while. I guess, at times, one can lose inspiration. Kind of like rockstars, right? Except I'm a rockstar behind a computer. Just kidding... sort of.

Okay, some serious business: I'll be posting again. I was just having some personal quarrels, and academic ones at times. Seems Flamenco has had her fair share of them, too.

Why women should rule the world

As I was running down my usual routine of internet "check-up's" (Facebook, Hotmail, EthicalAtheist, ArmenianGenocide, and some others), I bumped into MSN's main page after logging out of my Hotmail account, and discovered an interesting article. It's called Why Women Should Rule the World, which is an exerpt from the book with the same name by Dee Dee Myers. Now, before I discuss this article in more detail, I have some questions pertaining to the title of this article: what does it mean to rule the world? Is it political power; the power to influence; military power; the power to kill; or is it the power to prevent the conception of children; to prevent human life on Earth as we know it from ever existing? Is it easier to kill, or is it easier to prevent life from entering into the world? Another thing we must note is that Dee Dee is a woman, who admits within the article itself in one of the bolded points below that she has a pretty good chance of being biased toward "girl power." Apparently, it's all a matter of leadership styles.

A Matter of Leadership Styles

All of which begs the question: Do men and women lead differently? Is there such a thing as a "female style"? A recent analysis of forty-five separate studies addressing the question found that the answer was "yes." Women are slightly more likely to be "transformational" leaders, collectively setting goals and empowering their teams to achieve them. And men are more likely to be "transactional" leaders, letting subordinates know what is expected, rewarding them for their successes and holding them accountable for their failures. Not surprisingly, most leaders did not fit neatly into one or the other of these categories, but there was, nonetheless, a measurable difference based on gender.

This is the common knowledge pointed out here: men tend to lean more toward being brutes than women do, and women are more sociable. However, women tend to be "soft" because of this sociability, and at times, softness isn't a good thing. Once people know you're easy to step on, they'll walk all over you. Perhaps this level of softness is what lead us to being more into helping others, and we all know that when you help somebody, they're more likely to do something for you. With that being said, people listen to us because there's an emphasis on closeness and warmth, and we give that. But, would that work in the military? I'm not going to imply that it wouldn't, because certainly, no military has applied caring and understanding as part of their policy on how they treat their recruits, soldiers, combatants, whatever the names are.

Now comes the kicker: Research also shows that transformational leaders --
especially those who also reward good performance, a positive aspect of
transactional leadership common among women - tend to be more effective,
particularly in the less-hierarchical, fast-paced, and innovation-driven
contemporary world. So not only do women have a somewhat different style; it's
more likely to be successful.

The point made here is that people will want to feel appreciated. Women give that feeling of appreciation.

To me, what's most important about that finding is not that women rule (though I obviously have a soft spot for studies and statistics that put us girls in the most flattering light). Rather, it's further evidence that there is more than one way to bring home the bacon and fry it up in a pan, that different leadership styles -- regardless of their gender bent -- can get the job done. And that gives everyone more options; it creates a more flexible, more adaptive and ultimately more productive workplace.

Sum: different strategies work best in different situations. Diversity increases productivity in the work process. I've no arguments with Dee here.

"By valuing a diversity of leadership styles, organizations will find the
strength and flexibility to survive in a highly competitive, increasingly
diverse economic environment," says Dr. Judith Rosener of the University of
California, Irvine.

Again, diversity rules.

Bringing up the topic of diversity, I have a scenario for you to think about: let's say the whole world was 100 people. You've got 30 women, who tells everyone what goes - they're the leaders. Then you've got 35 women who listen to them, as well as 35 men who listen to them, too. Is the leadership they're undertaking really diverse? Or, what if it was 30 men ruling everyone? Or better yet, let's say there are 15 men and 15 women leading the 70 others, who are also 50% women and 50% men. According to Judith's lean toward diversity, would that not make things better? Would that mean one group is better than the other at leading?

The answer to that question is no. Because there is an equal split, and because the leaders are as diverse as the subordinates, the needs of everyone, or at least the majority, are met as best-suited as possible. Now, back to the article.

Sally Helgesen, a leadership development expert, believes that because women
have rarely fitted easily into corporate molds not designed for them, they have been "forced to pioneer policies and strategies that are turning out to be exactly suited to the conditions of the new knowledge-based economy. In the end, women's greatest contribution to our changing world may be their insistence upon breaking the mold rather than just fitting in."

Challenges create struggles. Struggles create needs for solutions. The creation of solutions needs creativity in order for solutions to be created in the first place. Now, looking at this again, this seems to apply more toward a European or North American viewpoint. As a lady once discussed with me, there have been societies in time's past where men have been considered to be below women (like in several Native tribes), and thus, had more to struggle for.

Among other things, the line between work and home is fading, and people --
especially women -- are learning to invent their own positions. I more or less
invented my current "job," which I sometimes describe as "stay-at-home pundit."
It's an interesting and flexible mix that has included contributing to Vanity
Fair, giving speeches, yakking about politics on television, consulting on
politically themed-movies and television shows, and writing about stuff that
interests me. I work out of an office in my house, which saves me time commuting
(and I confess, on some days, showering). My children have (mostly) learned to
respect my closed door, and when they don't, I escape to the local public
library, conveniently equipped with free wireless Internet. The technological
innovations and cultural transformations that allow me to do what I do came
together just in time for me. While I realize that it can't work for everyone,
there's no question that opportunities to define a career path will continue to
increase -- a trend that I believe will be led by women.

It probably will be led by women, considering there's been, historically, more challenges, and thus more need for creativity for women rather than men.

The biggest downside to my current arrangement is the anxiety that I feel when I
face the "occupation" line on a school form or loan application. I usually write
"consultant" -- and then hope I don't get busted for I'm-not-sure-what. There's
also a certain guilt that comes from not having to leap out of bed before dawn
to unload the dishwasher, fold the laundry, shower and blow-dry and apply
makeup, get the kids ready for school, and burn rubber backing out of the
driveway at 7:45 a.m. I recently saw a cartoon that summed up my life. A couple
is sitting at the kitchen table in their bathrobes, drinking coffee. As the man
taps away on his laptop, his wife says: "You've blurred the boundary between
working from home and being unemployed."

This increasingly less structured, more flexible workplace suits women's
lives -- and their skills. "When you put together a thirty-person project team
[in the past], it was all people from Raytheon," explains Tom Peters, the
management consultant. "Now, the thirty-person project team involves people from eleven companies, seven countries, and three continents. There's no formal power or hierarchy. So we need a different set of relation-driven skills."

Again: women understand people better than men. Women have also been proven to be better at multi-tasking than men, so the range of flexibility works better for them than it does for men.

"This is why you want to hire women," says Pat Mitchell, a pioneer in
broadcast news and the current president of the Museum of Radio and Television.
"They are consensus builders. They really do look for different ways to resolve
things. They are innovative and creative thinkers. And they do act on instinct
and intuition."

Ending off on this article, it basically implies that women should rule the world. Well, should we? Do you feel appreciated when someone's ruling over you? And why don't women rule the world? Or, is this implying that we're subordinates, and we shouldn't be subordinates, but the superiors? In the end, it all comes to this: do you feel better being someone's subordinate, or having a subordinate of your own? Considering that people listen to others when they have a relation of warmth and closeness, having one over the other might diminish that warmth, and thus, make the idea of women having to be superior or men having to be superior worth as much as nil.

1 In 100

More than one out of every hundred American adults are serving time in jails or prisons for their crimes.

The incarceration rates have been reduced in several states (such as in California, but still remain high in this state and in Texas), but the Justice Department and the Pew Center on the States have shown, through statistics, that there is a national increase. However, many do not see a real problem with the current situation and are not affected by the statistics because they simply cannot relate overcrowded prisons with decreasing violent crime rates.

I question whether the debate ends when one comes to the realization that, obviously, higher rates of incarceration will lead to lower crime rates, but perhaps only temporarily and with a diversion away from what may now be the real issues at hand that have to do with rehabilitation, the excessive indictment and persecution of nonviolent offenders (or known more implicitly as punitive incarceration), and prison reform. What about the seemingly racial divide within the judicial and penal systems? 1 out of every 15 black male adults are behind bars, while only 1 in every 355 white women are in jail. Is discrimination truly at play here or is it a combination of many cultural and social factors that have been ingrained in American society? Can we continue to afford a system in which it costs the American public $24,000 to keep one prisoner in jail for a year?

Incarceration should not be the only answer to crime, especially for nonviolent or minor crimes or juvenile misdemeanors. If only I could speak of viable alternatives that would make me look more credible. Many argue for more correctional facilities and more education so that prisoners who are released can have the opportunity to be productive citizens. Would cost-benefit analysis show that, in addition to lower crime rates, these prisoners would contribute to society and give back more than what they took from the system and tax-payers?

I understand the difficulty of proposing new public policies that would simultaneously reduce overcrowdedness and crime rates, while also reducing costs, or increase costs, yet reaping the benefits of proper investment such as education? It will be hard to address every issue that the prison system entails, and fixing the problems that surround the system may require fixes in many other areas of our communities. Various facets of society play a role and we have to ultimately ask ourselves what we should do to prevent crime, in general, and what provokes people to commit crimes on a communal basis so that we can better address the root of the criminal problem.

I cannot help but think that the current conditions are creating more burden and have greater ramifications than many would like to believe. What is most disconcerting is the fact that the United States is currently spending more on the prison system than on our education system. How ironic and unfortunate.

Women's History Week

It was the big WHW - Women's History Week. A big topic of discussion during this week is generally is how women overcame oppression and rose above all obstacles. Speaking of "overcoming", this year is historic in it's significance to all women - a woman, for the first time, is running for the US presidency. My theory is that, since it's also historic because of the first black man running, some will choose to place a dualistic comparison of the Civil Rights Movement (famously led by Martin Luther King Junior) and the Women's Suffrage movement (led by Nelly McClung in Canada, and by Susan B Anthony in the US, both of whom worked closely together). But we'll stop at comparisons here, and take a look at some of the women whom I've personally found most memorable. I can't, however, guarantee that you'll recognize all of them.

Nelly McClung

Susan B Anthony

You should recognize these women, as they're the reason why the Women's Suffrage Movement existed, which, in turn, brought women to the level of equality. Okay, I know that was a bit of a lie, but we're almost there.

Cristina Adriana Chiara Scabbia

Cristina Scabbia is the female leads of Lacuna Coil. She's a lady in the male-dominant world of metal, which usually works at undermining women. However, not only was she noticed in such a world, but she is also the reason why Lacuna Coil has sold millions and millions of record to date.

Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone

What's there to say about The Material Girl that hasn't been said? She is the ultimate icon of confident femininity, a style legend who's style has been emulated heavily by the likes of Gwen Stefani, Brittney Spears (or however you spell the bitch's name; I honestly don't know), and is the best-selling female artist of all time at over 200 million records sold world-wide to date.

Benazir Bhutto

Pakistan's bravest lady by far. In a place where women get in large heaps of trouble just for practically existing, and even more for speaking, she said it all, and without regret. She was a great ally inthe fight against Islamic terrorism within Pakistan and the fight against terrorism in general. RIP Benazir Bhutto.

Madame Curie

Madame Curie is a landmark lady and one of the most celebrated chemists of her time. Not only did she discover radiation (also known as radium), but she is one of the few to have 2 Nobel medals, and the only one to have 2 Nobel medals in 2 different science fields. To try to sum up her life and her accomplishments for women in one paragraph would be immensely hard, so I'll leave it be here.

Well, that's it, really. Those are just some personal favourites, and since my attention span gets short at times, I wanted to make it shorter for all of you, since I know you're all probably too fucked up to read much longer during the March break. To all of my ladies out there - never deny who you are or feel bad about it. Like the women listed here, make the world your playground and surprise it with each coming day.

A vicious circle and a promise to our readers

Today was quite an annoying day. Me, my brother Samir, my brother Rafi, my mom, my aunt Shukria, and my dad Ramzi Gorgees were all downstairs. Yes, I'm revealing his last name because I am that fucking pissed off. Here's why:

While we were all downstairs, my brother had a fight with my dad. Ofcourse, it was all my dad's doing. My dad was actually trying to get him to pay back all the expenses my brother had incurred on the family just for practically existing. He was yelling at my brother and acting like he could just take his money at any time, and he'd get to make Samir pay for existing if he didn't abide to his rules. So basically, the thousands of dollars Samir earned for himself was part of what he owed to our dad just for living.

What pissed me off the most though, is the way he undermined my mother when he talked to her like she was some concubine in Iraq. He was malicious with his words, and undermined her wholly even though she's the one making the money that allows him to manipulate my brother psychologically. My mom not saying anything about it all pissed me off almost as much. It's honestly like she's lost her will to voice herself.

Later on, me, my mom, and Shukria were talking to each other. My mom was crying, and I kept trying to cheer her up with some success to show for it. I finally got her happy, and then we started talking about Jamile (my great uncle and Shukria's now-dead husband). I only knew since today of how he committed physical and mental abuse on her over the years, which enraged me. Now I'm glad I didn't go to his funeral.

This all calls for a new category called "Promises" - basically what we promise to abide by on this site. We'll also have "Goals" to see what we can go without talking for at least a certain period of time. So, here's for my promise: I promise not to talk about my father ever again on this site. Consider him erased from every corner of ATWKS. He's just become too much of a negative presence in my life, even to write about.

Bush's medicare cuts delayed

(RE: "Bush's Newly-Proposed Budget Plan That Contains Medicare Cuts")

That's right, they've been delayed. That's the good news. The bad news is, now you have to wait until July 1st to see if the plans will be terminated entirely. Thanks to all the petitioners and those who have signed petitions. You've made the delay possible. No, that wasn't sarcasm, either.

Your ass contributes to global warming

That's right, your ass contributes to global warming. How is this so? Well, your ass contains fart. Fart contains gases. These gases are oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and methane. Methane is a radioactive gas. Radioactivity contributes to global warming. When unifying together, the effects of methane and carbon dioxide are drastic on the environment.

Where'd I get my ingredient list? From KidsHealth! I was actually very surprised but happy to see that little kids have an outlet to learn about this stuff on the internet, as opposed to that croc-o-shit of Barney or Sesame Street or whatever it is that little kids watch.

Further reading: Methane's Effect On Climate Change May Be Twice Previous Estimates

Feel very guilty about your next flaytus release.

A Change of Heart

Meet Chris Johnston, a 49-year-old ex Minister who now works as a Loan Officer in the banking industry. We had an interesting interview on his move from faithful to faithless.

Hello, Chris Johnston! I believe you mentioned at some point that you were a minister for 15 years, but suddenly had a change of heart and turned to Atheism. Why did you pick Atheism over Christianity?

Wow, let's jump right in! Okay! Honestly, it's not like I put Christianity on one side and measured it against Atheism. The two are not in that kind of competition. And it was hardly sudden.

I became a Christian at the age of 14, and "answered the call to preach" at 15. It was one way to be different, to get some attention for a geeky, skinny kid. My first sermon took hours to prepare and the whole thing lasted ten minutes! I spent the next few years preparing for the ministry. I started out as a Southern Baptist (largest protestant denomination in the country at that time) but switched to independent Baptist after my first year of college. That meant I was no longer affiliated with Southern Baptists, but was a member of a church that was very loosely associated through a common string of doctrines. This was extremely fundamentalistic. In fact, to us, Jerry Falwell was quite a compromiser, the worst insult you could give to another Christian, in our eyes!

I spent some time at a now-defunct bible "college" in Tennessee where I met my first wife. In time we had two children, I finally graduated from an accredited college with a bachelor's degree in Theology and a minor in history. During that time I pastored a rural Mississippi church. As it turned out, the church members were so bigoted, they not only didn't want blacks, they also didn't want poor whites!

Following my graduation, I matriculated at a Southern Baptist seminary. About one year into my accelerated program, I realized I was in the wrong line of work. Somehow they were all talking about a relationship with Jesus as if it were actually a personal friendship, and I realized that I had never had that and didn't even know how it worked. I had been seeking for years for a deeper emotional and spiritual understanding, but somehow, there were no answers to prayer.

All this conflict gave me a great deal of difficulty with my personal life, so my wife took the kids home to momma and daddy, and we eventually divorced.

I continued as a seeker for some time, trying to find what I felt I had missed out on. I eventually discovered "Atlas Shrugged," by Ayn Rand. This led me to begin thinking about the nature of belief, faith, and evidence.

I realized that since 95% of the worlds' Christian church members actually live their daily lives as if there were no god, I would stop living the lie. I finally fully embraced atheism just two or three years ago, and came out in the last year or two.

How was it a way to get attention? Did you feel alone, and decided that, by becoming Christian, you'd at least have God to "keep you company"?
Tell us more about how you feel about Jerry Falwell, please.
How are "95% of the worlds' Christian church members actually live their daily lives as if there were no god"?

Good questions.
I was a geeky high schooler, 6'1" and 150 lbs, and didn't really fit in, in a small town where I had not been born. I had no athletic ability and our school was so small there was really only the "in" crowd and the hoodlums.

So my best friend and I were the "preacher boys," which got a lot of attention from the church and the older crowd. And no, it really had nothing to do with loneliness, I never really felt lonely growing up.

I didn't care much for Falwell and his "silent majority." This had more to do with what we considered his "doctrinal weakness" than anything else. We were more in the Bob Jones University crowd, although the "uppercrust" pretensions of that place were a little offputting for country boys who liked country and bluegrass music.

With time, I came to appreciate Falwell and others for what they are (were). Evangelicals who believe that it was their job to bring about Christian law. They pushed Scientific Creationism (that was its name in those days, not ID) and wanted to elect their kind of Christians to school boards and local, state, and national office. Eventually Falwell's popularity faded and I hadn't thought about him for years by the time he assumed room temperature.

Most Christians live their lives as if God did not exist. How else can you explain the response to Matthew 6?

25"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? 26Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life[b]?
28"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' 32For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

And yet Christians go about their lives working, saving, paying for health insurance, etc. because it's STUPID NOT TO! It is against human life to take no thought for tomorrow, and this is what the Bible is teaching here.

There are a great many more passages that come to mind. Remember how Jesus is reported to have said things like "turn the other cheek," and "blessed are the meek?" When was the last time you went on a Christian web forum and identified yourself as a satisfied atheist? Lots of love there, usually about the time they realize they cannot win the argument!

Certain In-Laws who shall remain nameless are a good case in point. They love their church. They take discipleship classes. She fills in on piano. He teaches Sunday School. If we go to the lake to visit with them, it's always us disrespecting them because we won't go to church with the. In fact, you could say they never miss a Sunday.

Unless the Chiefs are in town (season tickets). Or they have a trip somewhere. Then they are blissfully unaware that churches exist and are in session on Sunday morning! Is it just me, or is something missing here?

This is a fun thing. It feels good to say some of these things. I just tried to access your blog, though, and got an error message. Let me know when you start posting some of it.

Good answers, Chris.

What is Falwell's "silent majority" and "doctrinal weakness," in your opinion? What's the "Bob Jones University crowd"? How do you feel about Scientific Creationism being pushed into schools?

I'd also like to add something. Would you say that the lack of dedication to Christianity on the part of Christians was a comparatively strong influencing factor in your move to Atheism, or was it comparatively minor as opposed to other factors?

Wow, did I say "silent majority?" That was a term coined by Richard Nixon in a speech from Novermber 3, 1969 at the height of the Watergate scandal.

What I meant to say, was "Moral Majority," an evangelical-leaning-toward-fundamentalist political organ founded by Jerry Falwell in 1979. Wikipedia has an excellent article concerning the Moral Majority. We were of a stricter stripe, doctrinally speaking, than Falwell's church. We thought he was a "compromiser," the worst thing our crowd could ever call someone who was, in truth, as close to us doctrinally as anyone could be. However, we were a little closer to "Hardshell" baptists than anything. A Hardshell Baptist is one who believes in Calvinist predestination, that God's plan all along was to create the world and everything in it, and plan from the beginning to redeem only his chosen few. Today I recoil at this idea of a god more than almost any other. It makes him seem like a petulant child as well as a sadistic thug.

Had I continued in that type of church, I shudder to think what may have happened. We were close to endorsing abortion provider murders, clinic bombings, and the like. In those days, a very slick and well-done video series was making the rounds: Francis Schaffer's "How Shall We Then Live?" He popularized the notion that abortion was a new Holocaust more terrible than the slaughter of six million Jews, not to mention millions of retarded, handicapped, homosexuals, and others.

Bob Jones University was founded in the 1920s by, of all people, an evangelist by the name of Bob Jones, Sr. Go figure! It's a fundamentalist institution which has added a veneer of classical culture. BJU (the University where you are likely to get a BJ but not tell anyone) graduates tend to have a condescending attitude toward graduates of other Christian schools, even fundamentalist ones. They liken themselves to Harvard. They look down on all manner of popular culture, including country and bluegrass music, preferring classical, etc.

Presidency of the university has passed to the fourth generation Jones under Stephen Jones, son of Bob Jones III. Of course god approves of this particular method of passing the mantle in order to ensure continuation of the legacy.

I'd rather think about it than feel about it. Feelings about it simply elevate emotionalism to the place that faith occupies in religionists. That being said, I am passionately against anyone attempting to appropriate a place akin to science for their mythology.

http://www.venganza.org/ is an excellent answer for the push to instill "Intelligent Design," (ID) which is "Scientific Creationism", which is the creation myth dressed up in scientific language. ID was being pushed in Kansas by the Kansas Board of Education. The method they were using was insidious. By redefining science, they hoped to make room for supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" was an attempt to show how silly it was to take one supernatural explanation over any other. It has since become a cultural phenomenon, and you can see one of its posters at the top of my blog, http://faith-in-action.blogspot.com.

This was proven in court in the case of the Dover, PA school board. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones ruled that ID is not science and cannot be used in the public school. All of this is fascinating reading and should be required.

And I would say the lack of dedication on the part of Christians was simply an aggravating factor. I spent many years defying that trend, looking into mysticism, spending hour after hour praying for something more than I had experienced. I know now, that the prayers were never heard outside that room.

Speaking of Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority, how do you feel about Pat Robertson's revival of the group under the name of the Moral Majority Coalition? How do you generally feel about Pat Robertson? Would you liken him to a terrorist such as Osama Bin Laden, like Ethical Atheist did, or not? Why?

Hmm... you said you were close to "endorsing abortion provider murders." I'm sure you meant "endorsing abortion-provided murders"? What'd you mean there?
Here's some things I'm going to assume about the BJU crowd, given the time and Christian standing:

Definitely an all-male university. Since they weren't allowed to have sex before marriage, that's why they'd commit homosexual activity "under the table," in reference to your BJ pun. They were tied up in the past, possibly with Gregorian music, and always deemed tradition to be better, even though they never gave modern music a chance.

Am I correct? Please tell me what I got wrong.

Anyway, back to the questions... can you give our readers an example of ID "preachings" dressed with science?

I think it's specious at best to lump Pat Robertson, who engages in offensive religious speech, with Osama bin Laden, who murders innocent men, women, and children in order to creat terror and achieve his political or religious aims. Do I think he would like to see a theocracy here in the U.S. under his own brand of Xianity? (Wow spell it like that and it sounds eerily like insanity) Of course he would. Would he stoop to terrorism to achieve it? Well, the man isn't stupid or crazy. Religiously, I believe he's about at the same level of fanaticism, except that Islam makes men like OBL heroes and the New Testament is a more passive document.

No, I meant what I said. At that time, killing an abortion providing doctor was being likened, in more extreme churches, to an act of defending the defenseless, where we would use lethal force to stop someone from raping a baby, for instance. It was a scary precipice.

Almost all of it. *Laughs* It's a co-ed christian university started in the 1920's by fundamentalists. Their hatred of folk, country, etc. is simply an affectation of culture. It's very off-putting. And the blowjob thingy has nothing to do with homosexuality. It's just that the culture is so very strict, it's easy to see where hypocrisy can creep in.

A Google search on "Intelligent Design" should yield plenty of instances.

So, Flora, I am enjoying this interview. I am curious to know more about you, too. I understand you are in high school in Toronto? And that you were born in Iraq?

What can you tell me about your life so far? Are you truly atheist? And I see a great deal of difficulty in your relationship with your father. Do you feel more free to resist since you live in Canada, instead of a Muslim country? And how has the tube of lip gloss thing gone? Did everything come out all right?

Can you give the readers a reason as to how it's not passive?
What do you mean by "an affectation of culture"? Do you mean a false hatred or dislike of sorts?
Seriously, Chris, that ID search almost made me throw up. Ramen!

Yup. Born in Iraq. No, I'm not taking school in Toronto, but very near there.
My life's going quite good. I'm working on a lot of social activist projects with a Christian service animator (believe me, she's a great lady), and a buddy of mine, who also happens to be named Chris. We're hoping to get our projects known on a global scale someday. He's really such a great guy, and he's only in 10th grade!
Yes, I am truly an Atheist. Funny thing is, people thought I'd be depressed after giving up my strong beliefs in God. But let me tell you, that was when my depression decreased on such a large scale. I've learned to live life to live, not to live life to hide. I can just be me, and go through life helping others without having to worry what's going to happen to me. And I can't wait to see the impact I have on other people's lives.
I do feel more able to resist. It wasn't about whether I'm a female anymore when we came to Canada - it was about the individual. Though women still have a path to walk here, it's way fucking better than being most places in the Middle East.
The lip gloss thing has gone well. Wow, I post everything about me at ATWKS, haha. But I thought it was funny and so I'd share it. But wow, it really was a drag. I don't want to go into details about HOW I managed to get it out.
And Chris, I'm really enjoying the interview too!

Modern terrorists take an active role in trying to achieve their aim. For the Islamist, I believe that aim is total Shari'a domination of the world.

Pat Robertson would like the same thing (except with his interpretation of the moral code, his brand of Xianity in charge) but would never stoop to blowing up innocent people to achieve his aim. I attribute that partly to the nature of the New Testament (even though he twists it when it suits him) but mostly to the secular society the United States has always had. We have always believed that we had to convince someone, not threaten them, to get them to truly convert.

The New Testament is a very passive book. In fact, it's pacifist. When jesus simply tells his followers to turn the other cheek, and pray for those who "despitefully" use them, it's obviously a pacifist book. How neoconservatives and the religious right make Jesus into some sort of warrior god is beyond me.

Funny, the differences between the teachings of Jesus (whose existence I tentatively stipulate as a holdover from so many years of indoctrination) and the teachings of the modern evangelica churches.

Jesus on public "righteousness"(Gospel of Matthew chapter 6):

1"Beware of practicing your righteousness before men (A)to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.
2"So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they (B)may be honored by men (C)Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.
3"But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
4so that your giving will be in secret; and (D)your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

Church practice: big deal about giving, huge deal about good works, everyone goes to church to see and be seen. Many churches preach about a success gospel that says if you are successful it is evidence God has blessed you.

Jesus on Prayer (Matt. 6):

5"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to (E)stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners (F)so that they may be seen by men (G)Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.
6"But you, when you pray, (H)go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and (I)your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.
7"And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their (J)many words.
8"So do not be like them; for (K)your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.

Church practice: oral prayers in public, prayers written down and read at public gatherings (including a recent Barack Obama gathering I attended)

Jesus on wealth (Matt. 6):

19"(Y)Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.
20"But store up for yourselves (Z)treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal;
21for (AA)where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Church practice: back to the success gospel, plus for instance the Roman Catholic church being the wealthiest nation (Vatican City-state) per capita in the world, amassing fortunes in gold, art, etc. looted from around the world (through the demanding of tribute from its churches and the looting of the new world gold in the 16th-20th centuries)

Finally, Jesus on the use of force (Matthew 5):

38"(AZ)You have heard that it was said, '(BA)AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.'
39"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but (BB)whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
40"If anyone wants to sue you and take your [g]shirt, let him have your [h]coat also.
41"Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
42"(BC)Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
43"(BD)You have heard that it was said, '(BE)YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR (BF)and hate your enemy.'
44"But I say to you, (BG)love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

Church practice: lawsuits, articles of incorporation, the preaching of armed conflict, even though Jesus specifically said a Xian should not defend themselves. Making Jesus to be some kind of avenging angel who leads armies on America's behalf. In this way many Xians are more rooted in the god of the Old Testament than in the New Testament.

What's the difference between the God of the Old Testament and that of the New Testament in your eyes?

Wow. Big question. I won't go into chapter and verse citations, but here are some high points.
In the Old Testament, he is an angry God, jealous and petulant about his followers' attentions. This is a basic cultural ideal from millenia ago, "Our God is better than your god." Many places in the OT, Yahweh is considered the best god, but the existence of other gods is not called into question. He smites unbelievers, conquers his enemies, and calls for wholesale slaughter of men, women, and children when conquering. This is still cited in evangelical churches as being a healthy thing for Israel.

Where God's power is wholesale in the OT (parting the Red Sea, making the sun stand still, flooding the earth, etc.), in the New Testament, his miracles are retail, through Jesus (healing the sick one at a time, making fish and loaves feed a multitude). One wonders why, if Jesus could do these things, he didn't just end suffering altogether.

Where the OT God is very similar to other gods of the time, i.e. warlike and with a great deal of human failings (anthropomorphism), the NT God is a "God of love." "God is love." In the NT, the claim is that Jesus paid for the sins of the entire world, including all in the past and everything going forward until the end of time. Kind of an odd deal. God makes the rules that we cannot keep, which makes us evil and sinful, then pays the price for us. Hmmm sounds like a gospel sermon but the oddity of it all just makes me wonder what I was ever thinking to be involved with it.

If it had to make sense or require evidence, it wouldn't be faith, would it?

Interesting answers.

Any last words for our readers?

I guess my final word would be an exhortation to reason. We must, in the final analysis, think for ourselves and make our own decisions. One great way to do this is to ask better questions. What if I haven't necessarily been taught the truth? What would happen if I changed my mind?

Demand evidence. Think it through. Make up your own mind.

Flora, thanks for the opportunity to vent!
Chris

Chris has a blog called Faith In Action and a website on bonsai.