George W. Bush Top Ten List

Top Ten Things George W. Bush Could Say to Shock the Nation in His State of the Union Address Tonight

10. "People always ask me, 'What would you have done if you hadn't been elected president?' I usually tells them that I'd probably follow my dream and teach either English or one of those speech courses somewheres."

9. "Bin Laden died. Yeah. About four years ago. The voice on the tape, that was, I don't know, some guy we picked up off the street. I don't even remember his name. I think it was Bob. But, even without Bob or Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda is still a very dangerous force, who we need to deal with now on their soil, so they don't come back and attack us on our soil."

8. "Well, America, you already know about the axis of evil. I've told you about it. I remember telling you about it. I think I told you about it. But, I'm telling you now, I've thought up a new axis, the axis of almost, close to, or near evil and this includes everyone except us, England, and Australia. So, to everyone else in the world, bring it on!"

7. "Anyone see that 'Fahrenheit 9/11?' That was a pretty good flick, don't you think?"

6. "I thought I'd wear my rainbow tie tonight to show support for the gay community."

5. "I went to this strip club the other night. I had never been to a strip club before. I didn't even know what a strip club was. They had some really good food there. I think all parents should take their little ones to a strip club sometime. It's good family fun and great food."

4. "You know, I'm getting so much heat because of the spying, but people don't get it. Spying is so much fun! I don't like reading books. Except for 'Playboy.' They have some good articles. But, I'm a very visual person. I learn visually. I like to visualize. I'm visual, you see. So, what better way to learn from the people than to use my eyes and watch them? To make sure they're safe, to laugh at them, to invite the friends over for a popcorn and cheetoh party."

3. "That reminds me of an old story. Back when I was doing coke..."

2. "I love America, but not as much as I love my wife Laura over there. You should've seen us last night. We were gettin' jiggy wit' it, if you catch my drift."

1. (drum roll) "You know, MLK Day was just celebriated. I have a great deal of respect for Mahaka, Muhaka, that Gandhi fella. So, from this day forth, I vow to walk on over to the Middle East and lead my troops to spread freedom and democracy without using a weapon, without even raising a fist."

"What was the point?"

Those were the exact words I heard today when discussing movies with someone. He brought up some films that he felt there was no point to, such as: "Lost in Translation," "The Life Aquatic," and "The Royal Tennenbaums." I was going to explain the "points," but he was reluctant on listening.

What's the point of any movie or work of art? To entertain, to bring out emotions, to provoke thought, open minds, bring out laughter and tears, to teach, to inspire, to let one escape, to provide a cathartic release, I could go on and on.

Now, after viewing a film so awful that it made your parents' home movies look like Oscar-contenders, is it logical to then ask the question, "What was the point in the making of that film?" Yes. But, is it logical to ask, "What was the point?" As in, what message is the movie trying to relay onto its viewers? No. Because, sadly enough, even the worst of films probably have some "point" to them.

But, the films he mentioned aren't the worst in cinema, not even close. Some people seem to need everything lined up for them and for the message to be s-p-e-l-l-e-d o-u-t in a very clear, concise manner to comprehend the "point." Some people are like that and hey, that's allright, but just because they don't see a "point" to a film doesn't mean there isn't any.

"The Life Aquatic" and "The Royal Tennenbaums" are very dark comedies, so, like any comedy, perhaps the point is to entertain the audience and bring out laughter. "The Royal Tennenbaums" has more of a "point" than just that, but I won't even go there right now. I've provided "points" for both films, so I'll leave it at that. The one film he brought up that has a clear and important "point" is "Lost in Translation," starring Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson. The title of the film and the setting in which the film takes place says it all. Murray and Johansson both find themselves in Japan, Murray shooting a commercial and Johansson accompanying her husband on a business trip. Both being from the U.S., Murray and Johansson are "Lost in Translation" in that they are the outsiders and minority, unable to communicate efficiently with the majority of people around them. At the same time, the film displays the difficulties both Murray and Johansson have in communicating with spouses (or ex-spouses). The film draws this parallel for the viewers. It compares the difficulty in efficiently conversing with a person from a foreign nation to that of someone very close to you. No matter what one's primary language is, how close they are in proximity to another, or how often they see another, the communication can seem like that between one who only speaks Italian and another who only speaks English. This is what makes Murray and Johansson's bond even more special. They both are "Lost in Translation" in where they are (Japan) and who they're with. The "point" is that communication is important and essential for any relationship, whether it's romantic or business. If a couple is "Lost in Translation," they will have some very troubling times ahead.

Parallels, symbolism, and motifs are three ways that directors and scriptwriters can get "points" across without s-p-e-l-l-i-n-g things out word by word. This may be frustrating for some, but it is rewarding for others. There are films out there for everyone. The "point" is knowing how to pick them out just by watching previews and reading reviews. That can be easier said than done, but if one is right about their movie picks 75% of the time, then that's pretty satisfactory.

"Match Point" Review

For those who have never been into Woody Allen films or cared much for his humor, his latest, "Match Point," is completely different. Nowhere can Allen be seen in this film and to be perfectly honest, there might be two light laughs throughout the movie. This movie has been compared by critics to "Closer" and Hitchcock. While I can see some very light resemblances to Hitchcock, it is more reminiscent of "Closer."

The story takes place in England with Jonathan Rhys-Myers as a tennis instructor. Myers played professionally, but got tired of it after a while. He doesn't want to teach tennis, but is uncertain of his goals or desires for the future. He claims to want to make a contribution, but doesn't know how. This is until he bumps into Emily Mortimer and everything falls into his lap. Her rich father gives him a job opportunity and he makes the most of it, until he gives in to the temptation of Scarlett Johansson and his marriage, his family life, his stability and security are all jeopardized.

"Match Point" deals with issues of infidelity, class, and the concepts of love vs. lust. When a person is caught in a pickle through his or her own actions, to what length will they go in attempt to undo their poor judgments? Myers has to answer that question in this film, which gives way to a very unexpected finale. The directing, acting, and dialogue are solid. The only area the film lacks is in the plot, but fortunately, even that part of the film picks it up for the final half hour. This may be very different from Allen's most recent efforts, but that's a good thing. "Match Point" is his most solid effort in years!

Overall Grade: 7.5/10

Just to let everyone know...

I will be continually updating the blogs "The Bush Quote Countdown"/"The Bush Quote Countdown Commentary" (both can be found in December, 2005) and "Foreign Flicks" (can be found in January, 2006). Every time I read or hear a Bush quote that is worthy of making the countdown, I will add it and every time I see a new foreign film, I will add that to the list. I've already done some adding and subtracting to all three blogs these past few days. In the two "Bush" blogs, I couldn't find a reliable source for five quotes, so I removed those and added five others. I've viewed three new foreign films in the past week, so I've added those to my previous list of 41 films. The newbies are: "Amor En Concreto," "Bright Future," and "Yellow Asphalt."

The Ghost of Bin Laden

Whether alive or dead, the bogeyman always makes his presence felt because of tales that have been told and spread about him. The majority have never seen this creature, been in the same vicinity as it, or even heard how it sounds, but that same majority believe this creature to be the face of all evil, the most dangerous thing known to man. This bogeyman for most Americans is Osama Bin Laden. When one even mentions the name Bin Laden, images of 9/11 are then displayed with the number 3,000 appearing. That image was first seen over four years ago and will never be completely erased from memory. But, every time that tragic day slips into the very back of our memory, we are reminded of it through speeches, video and audio tapes.

We were reminded again this last week, as a Bin Laden audio tape surfaced. Whether dead or alive, Bin Laden's ghost remains and that is enough to haunt most people. Whatever is transpiring in the world, all becomes a thing of the past when this ghost makes his presence felt. The debates between Republicans and Democrats become less heated. The only image that can be seen is that of 9/11 when the ghost made his presence felt, and that instills fear in the people that were most affected on that horrific and tragic day.

But, why have the tapes gone from video to audio? Why have many claimed that some of the tapes have been fake? Why has Bin Laden's name come up far less than it used to? Why have some inside and outside the U.S. declared that Bin Laden died? Would the U.S. government let the people know if Bin Laden did die? Do they have anything to gain by keeping Bin Laden's image alive to the American people?

Many are asking these questions and others and there are answers to all of them. Firstly, as mentioned, there are many who have stepped up and claimed some tapes to be fake. After studying the most recent tape, Duke professor Bruce Lawrence (AKA America's top Bin Laden expert) said that the tape was fake and "It was like a voice from the grave." Lawrence has just published a book entitled "Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden," where Lawrence analyzes over twenty of Bin Laden's speeches and interviews. The video from December 13th, 2001 has been the most widely scrutinized. It is now labeled the "Fatty Bin Laden" tape, because, as can be seen from comparison with older videos, "Bin Laden" appears to weigh around 50 pounds more in this one. Not only was there this difference, the larger "Osama" wore gold rings, which is disallowed in Islam and they wrote with different hands.
"Bin Laden" also praised two hijackers, but got their names wrong in the video. This was obviously a fake to expert analysts, although it was confirmed authentic by the CIA. A German television show noted that Washington's translations of the video were "manipulative" and "inaccurate." The next message was delivered in the fall of 2002 and this was done audibly. Swiss researchers at IDIAP (world's leading voice identification experts) said "The message was recorded by an impostor." The public also heard Bin Laden's name three days prior to the 2004 election.

Would the government have anything to gain by keeping Bin Laden's image alive? Many suggest that they would. Just as the color-coded terror alert provided for a while, Bin Laden's name instills fear in the public's mind whenever it's mentioned. As with the most recent tape, the others have come at critical times for the president and as was true with upping the terror-alert level for a while, the mention of Bin Laden's name has boosted Bush's approval rating within the first week after the tape was aired. A tape released in February of 2003 helped the U.S. make links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. The war began just a month later. Three days before the election in 2004, Bin Laden appeared, which lead to Bush gaining a six-point lead in the very next opinion poll taken. Walter Kronkite went on to say that it was Karl Rove's doing to secure a victory for Bush. This latest video has had perfect timing as well, with the Patriot Act not yet made permanent, the potential filibustering of Alito, and Bush receiving a lot of heat for the domestic spying without warrants. With this tape appearing, Bush can now say, "This is why we need domestic spying. What I did was to protect the American people." Bin Laden tapes have boosted Bush's ratings before, and the BBC thinks the same will happen because of the most recent tape.

The terrorist attacks were on September 11th, 2001 and there have not been any similar attacks on U.S. soil since. Bin Laden's name has been mentioned fewer and fewer times in speeches and press conferences. All we hear anymore is a voice claiming to be that of Osama Bin Laden. We no longer even see his face. So, who is this creature? Does it exist anymore? Many sources claim that it's just his ghost haunting us anymore, because Osama Bin Laden, the man, is dead. The before mentioned professor at Duke, Bruce Lawrence, says in reference to Bin Laden, "He has been dead for years, probably since 2001." Dale Watson, FBI counterterrorism chief, has also mentioned his belief that Bin Laden is dead. A Centcom General holds the same belief. Israeli intelligence reported on October 16th, 2002, that Bin Laden was dead and an heir for Al-Qaeda had been chosen. Afghan President Hamid Karzai informed CNN that Bin Laden is "probably" dead. Pakistan's president thinks likewise, because Bin Laden was unable to receive treatment for his kidney disease. Bin Laden's funeral was even written about in the Egyptian paper "al-Wafd" on December 26th of 2001. The translation reads as follows:

"Islamabad -A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement announced yesterday the death of Osama bin Laden, the chief of al-Qa'da organization, stating that binLaden suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death. The official, who asked to remain anonymous, stated to The Observer of Pakistan that he had himself attended the funeral of bin Laden and saw his face prior to burial in Tora Bora 10 days ago. He mentioned that 30 of al-Qa'da fighters attended the burial as well as members of his family and some friends from the Taleban. In the farewell ceremony to his final rest guns were fired in the air. The official stated that it is difficult to pinpoint the burial location of bin Laden because according to the Wahhabi tradition no mark is left by the grave. He stressed that it is unlikely that the American forces would ever uncover any traces of bin Laden."

All signs point to Osama Bin Laden existing no more. The man had a poor diet, diabetes, and kidney failure. There have been reports in Israel, Afghanistan, Egypt, and other parts of the Middle East and northeastern Africa that have reported his death. The CIA may claim that the latest tape is authentic, but they also claimed the "Fatty Bin Laden" tape to be authentic and it most certainly was anything but that. The ghost of Bin Laden is used as a scare tactic, a way to bring back painful memories and instill fear inside those who recall that horrendous day. The government will go to the ghost in times of need, in times when approval ratings decrease greatly, and in times when a scandal brews. It will be up to the American public to bring this to a stop. It will be up to them to shut their lights off at night and realize that the bogeyman is gone and will never make his presence known or felt again.

Links:
http://100777.com/node/1511
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/phony_bin_laden_tape.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape2.html
http://www.welfarestate.com/binladen/surprise/
http://www.welfarestate.com/binladen/funeral/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/842687/posts
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/200106Bin_Laden_Tape.htm
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=10544

Can't we move past this?

What am I talking about? Racism and interracial dating or marriage. I thought the new debate was on gay marriage. But, no, the debate on interracial marriage is still alive and well, as I've come to discover over the past week.

I would like to think of us as a color-blind society, but that would be my naivete getting the best of me. Although, I'm not the most naive' lad out there. I've heard many say that "racism" is no longer present in the country. As much as I want to say it's no longer present, it'll always be present. There will always be some people who believe that their ethnicity is superior to all others or that a certain ethnicity is inferior. While, I do think that the problem of racism is improving in this country, I also think it's becoming more hidden. Some people will just come out with their thoughts and feelings regardless of where they are or who they're with. But, with others, they tend to hide these thoughts and feelings until they're intoxicated with some buddies of the same ethnicity.

Whether it's shown on a regular basis, displayed off and on, or hidden, racism is still a large and ever present problem in today's society. Why else would I and others hear that "It's just not right for whites and blacks to be together?" I heard that said just a few days ago and all I could do was shake my head. I asked them why they felt this way and all they could muster was, "I don't know. I just do." So, for those naive' on the problem of racism, realize that it was an issue 25 years ago, is an issue today, and will be an issue 25 years from today. I just hope that even though there are and will be hateful and racist people, in the end, Martin Luther King's "dream" will be sought, reached, and fulfilled.

Bad Arguments

I don't mind getting into friendly debates, discussions, arguments, whatever you want to call them. But, I only find it lively and interesting if new thoughts and ideas are being shared. I find it dull and annoying when I share my perspective and another person rebuts that with a two or three word sentence. I find this to be most common when discussing the death penalty.

About three years ago or so, I dated a gal for about a month. In that first month, we got along pretty well and had no fights, arguments, or anything of the sort. Then, one evening, we got to discussing political issues. Abortion came up and I can understand both sides of the issue there, so there were no big arguments with that. Then, the death penalty came up and I articulately spoke for about five minutes on why I was against it. She came back with just this, "I say, just fry the b******s!" That was it. That was her logic, her reasoning, why she is for the death penalty. But, she then went on, saying, "You think you know everything. I don't think we can see each other anymore." It wouldn't have lasted much longer anyway, so I had no problem with that, but just because I had done more reading, deep thinking, and research than she on the topic, that meant I was a know-it-all? It was obvious she didn't know much when it came to the history of capital punishment and her statement proved that, but that's still no need to lash out against me.

The topic was brought up again last night and a friend of mine asked if I was for the death penalty. I said no. She didn't really leave much room for discussion either, as right after I said no, she started to talk. Her eloquent response was, "Well, you either let them live or get rid of them, so I say get rid of them. They're a waste of space." Then, she started listing people she thinks should be executed. She isn't much of a conversationalist when it comes to such topics, so I just kind of let it go.

Those are two responses that would get you kicked off a debate team: "Just fry the b******s" and "They're a waste of space." To be perfectly honest, I haven't heard many good debating points by those who support the death penalty. The majority of times, it all has to do with revenge and "an eye for an eye." Some claim that it deters crime. Others complain that they don't want their tax dollars spent on murderers spending their lives in prison. But, it should be seen clearly by now that capital punishment does not deter crime. Countries who've had it abolished in the not-too-distant past, such as Canada and France, have seen their crime numbers drop since the abolishment. States in the U.S. who use the death penalty have a higher crime rate than those who do not. Historically, the crime rate has increased in the following months of areas where a state execution (death penalty) was performed. The United States would also be saving at least $10 million annually if they were to abolish the death penalty. There have been many documented cases of innocents who've been killed by way of capital punishment and there are other cases, still up in the air, of individuals that may have very well been innocent. There's also been a history of racism with the death penalty. The only debating point that might be worth arguing is the biblical reference to "an eye for an eye." Even that reference can be countered by the new testament passage, "turn the other cheek." I am still waiting to hear a good logical argument from the pro-death penalty side that is not filled with anger and rage, like the before mentioned "Fry the b******s!" I love to use Gandhi's quote when discussing this issue, "An eye for an eye will only make the world go blind."

"The Matador" Review

"The Matador," starring Pierce Brosnan and Greg Kinnear, opened at theaters nationwide yesterday. I had the chance to check it out with a friend of mine. Even though my friend fell asleep during ten minutes of the film, because she claims she was tired, I was wide awake and enjoyed every minute of it.

Those who are used to seeing Brosnan as a hunk or a hero (or both) will need to be prepared for something different this time around. In this film, he plays the role of a hitman who begins to lose his touch with the multiple jobs he has to perform. With that come delusions, panic attacks, nervous sweats, blurred vision, and emotional breakdowns. How does Brosnan cope with all this? Alcohol and sex. But, even drinking and the horizontal mambo can't counter all of his troubles enough and he must look for something else to aid him in countering his inner struggles.

Greg Kinnear is a businessman who's been in quite the slump for oh, the past, couple years or so. He and his partner are sent off to Mexico City to make a presentation which could potentially end his horrendous cold streak. After the presentation, he and his partner are overly optimistic at what will result from their supposedly grand performance. Oddly enough, Brosnan is in Mexico City at this time, as well, to do what he does best (outside of drinking and getting busy in other ways), assassinating (or facilitating as he likes to call it).

That is where the two stars of the film meet, at a bar in Mexico City. For those that go see the movie will realize, Brosnan is not the smoothest of talkers in this film and does not impress Kinnear when they first meet. But, as time goes on, both characters see how the other may be useful to their endeavors.

What results is solid dialogue, a great performance from Brosnan, and unique one-liners that would put "Anchorman" to shame. This is probably the best I've seen Brosnan. He's quick, witty, and has some great lines. There are some punchlines in this film (particularly for Brosnan's character) that are so unique, I honestly don't think I've ever heard them before. On a couple of them, I had to think twice before laughing, thinking to myself, "Did he really just say what I think he said?" The supporting cast does a fine job, but Brosnan steals the show in the funniest film of the new year (thus far).

Grade (for comedy): 8/10
Grade (for overall): 7/10

Foreign Flicks

I'm pretty diverse when it comes to movies. I'll watch anything from a romantic comedy to a suspense thriller, from a satire to a dumb comedy. I'll even go as far to view independent and foreign films. That's about all I go to the video store for, because I can watch those mainstream movies in the theaters anytime. The majority of independent and foreign films aren't shown in theaters, so the soonest most people can view them is when they come to the video stores. I love American films, but feel there are excellent films made elsewhere and they should receive the credit and attention they deserve.

Below, I have listed all the foreign films that I've seen thus far. These will not include British, Australian, or Canadian cinema, because when I think foreign, I think subtitles. At the end, though, I will list a few films from those three countries. Below, I've listed the names of the films, the language the films are in, my rating or grade for the movies, and then I list off: What to like, what not to like, who should watch it, and who shouldn't watch it.

1. "Amelie" (French): 7/10
What to like- The mood. Even the Grinch could walk away from this one smiling.
What not to like- The mood. Sometimes it's too good to believe.
Who should watch it- Anyone looking to smile and feel bubbly inside.
Who shouldn't watch it- Bill O'Reilly.

2. "Amor En Concreto" (Spanish): 4/10
What to like- The storyline.
What not to like- The direction, plot, music, and acting.
Who should watch it- Those who picture themselves enjoying a Spanish "Blair Witch Project" with cheesy music and no scares or thrills.
Who shouldn't watch it- Anybody who owns a DVD player.

3. "Amores Perros" (Spanish): 8.5/10
What to like- The complexity. The intensity. The directing.
What not to like- The blood and gore.
Who should watch it- Those who like American cinema and aren't faint at heart.
Who shouldn't watch it- People who are obsessed with dogs.

4. "The Barbarian Invasions" (French): 6/10
What to like- The dialogue and humor.
What not to like- The lack of anything else.
Who should watch it- Anyone with a perverted sense of humor.
Who shouldn't watch it- Those who already think men are pigs.

5. "Blind Shaft" (Chinese): 8.5/10
What to like- The Hitchcockian-style suspense and tempo.
What not to like- The two men plotting against the kid.
Who should watch it- Anyone who enjoys a good old-style suspense thriller.
Who shouldn't watch it- Wimps.

6. "Bright Future" (Japanese): 7.5/10
What to like- The direction, acting, and picturesque finale.
What not to like- Storyline is a bit thin.
Who should watch it- Those who appreciate Japanese director Kurosawa's works.
Who shouldn't watch it- Anyone who can't stand any kind of symbolism in film.

7. "The City of Lost Children" (French): 6.5/10
What to like- The creativity and imagination involved.
What not to like- The dialogue.
Who should watch it- Those who enjoy sci-fi and unique films.
Who shouldn't watch it- People who have sticks up their you know what.

8. "Crimson Gold" (Iranian): 7/10
What to like- The dialogue and reality that is shown when it comes to class differences.
What not to like- The story moves a bit too slowly at times.
Who should watch it- Anyone curious about the affects of class differences.
Who shouldn't watch it- Rich upper-class folk.

9. "A Day Without A Mexican" (Spanish): 5/10
What to like- The satire involved.
What not to like- The acting.
Who should watch it- Anyone interested in viewing an average foreign satire.
Who shouldn't watch it- Those who want a border fence built between the U.S. and Mexico.

10. "The Devil's Backbone" (Spanish): 6.5/10
What to like- The ambiguous messages from the story.
What not to like- The lack of a chill as critics said there was.
Who should watch it- Anyone who likes ambiguity.
Who shouldn't watch it- Those that are very easily frightened.

11. "Distant" (Turkish): 6.5/10
What to like- The realism with which the story is told and acted.
What not to like- The pace with which that story is told.
Who should watch it- Those who like to relate to films.
Who shouldn't watch it- Those who suffer from depression.

12. "Dog Days" (Austrian): 4.5/10
What to like- Austrian scenery.
What not to like- The story and dialogue.
Who should watch it- Those who really like Austria.
Who shouldn't watch it- Everyone else.

13. "The Edukators" (German): 8/10
What to like- The excellent dialogue.
What not to like- The sometimes overloaded dialogue.
Who should watch it- Open-minded individuals.
Who shouldn't watch it- Those still living in the McCarthy era.

14. "The Eye" (Chinese/Cantonese): 6.5/10
What to like- The first half of the film.
What not to like- The second half of the film.
Who should watch it- Anyone who likes a good scare or two.
Who shouldn't watch it- Those who get scared by watching "Patch Adams."

15. "The Eye 2" (Chinese/Cantonese): 6/10
What to like- The noticeable differences between this film and its predecessor.
What not to like- The lack of good scares.
Who should watch it- Those who liked the first film.
Who shouldn't watch it- Anyone who sleeps with their lights on after viewing the first film.

16. "The Flower of Evil" (French): 5.5/10
What to like- The title.
What not to like- The familiarity it has with other films.
Who should watch it- French film buffs.
Who shouldn't watch it- Those who don't have much time on their hands.

17. "Good Bye, Lenin!" (German): 7/10
What to like- The storyline.
What not to like- I'm not sure.
Who should watch it- Anyone who likes good cinema.
Who shouldn't watch it- Those who have trouble reading subtitles.

18. "Human Resources" (French): 5.5/10
What to like- The film's message.
What not to like- How slowly it takes for that message to get relayed.
Who should watch it- Film critics.
Who shouldn't watch it- Average civilians.

19. "I'm Not Scared" (Italian): 8/10
What to like- The ambiguous storylines and multiple messages.
What not to like- The lack of scares.
Who should watch it- Anyone who appreciates a good flick.
Who shouldn't watch it- Those who rank "Dude, Where's My Car" as the top movie ever.

20. "Infection" (Japanese): 5.5/10
What to like- Some disturbing scenes and sequences.
What not to like- Some disturbing scenes and sequences.
Who should watch it- Anyone who is into Japanese horror films.
Who shouldn't watch it- Those who think "Vertigo" is a horror film.

21. "Intimate Strangers" (French): 7/10
What to like- The dialogue.
What not to like- There's not much else in the film.
Who should watch it- People interested in counseling and the female psyche.
Who shouldn't watch it- Those bored with psychology and the female psyche.

22. "Kitchen Stories" (Norwegian): 6/10
What to like- The interesting plot and storyline.
What not to like- Not much dialogue.
Who should watch it- Those interested in voyeuristic psychological studies.
Who shouldn't watch it- Those who can't stand Chaplin films.

23. "Kontroll" (Hungarian): 6.5/10
What to like- The rush of some sequences.
What not to like- The setting.
Who should watch it- Anyone who likes running on the railroad tracks.
Who shouldn't watch it- Kids.

24. "Kung Fu Hustle" (Chinese/Cantonese): 8/10
What to like- The action sequences and humor.
What not to like- The woman's monster scream.
Who should watch it- Anyone who liked Looney Tunes, Kill Bill, or the Three Stooges.
Who shouldn't watch it- People who get so involved in film, that they mimic everything that is portrayed on the screen.

25. "Look At Me" (French): 7.5/10
What to like- The story and how it's shown from a daughter's perspective.
What not to like- The father.
Who should watch it- Anyone who's ever felt unappreciated by a loved one.
Who shouldn't watch it- Britney Spears.

26. "Maria Full of Grace" (Spanish): 7/10
What to like- The realism with which the story is told.
What not to like- The realism is just a bit too real at times.
Who should watch it- Anyone interested in the drug trade.
Who shouldn't watch it- Those who are high at the time.

27. "Monseur Ibrahim" (French): 7/10
What to like- Dialogue.
What not to like- Lack of much else.
Who should watch it- Those who are slightly prejudiced against someone of another religion.
Who shouldn't watch it- Those who are extremely prejudiced against someone of another religion.

28. "My Father and I" (French): 7.5/10
What to like- The cleverness in how the story is told.
What not to like- It's slow-moving at times.
Who should watch it- Anyone who enjoys a decent murder mystery.
Who shouldn't watch it- Those who lack any patience.

29. "Noi" (Icelandic): 7.5/10
What to like- The story and scenery.
What not to like- The dialogue lacks at times.
Who should watch it- Anyone who has felt isolated or all alone at a point in their life.
Who shouldn't watch it- Those who are easily bored.

30. "Paradise Now" (Arabic): 8/10
What to like- The realism. The tempo. The dialogue. Learning about the two main characters, their histories and background.
What not to like- It will be too real for some.
Who should watch it- Anyone who has an interest to find out why people do certain things and what makes them tick.
Who shouldn't watch it- Religious extremists.

31. "Premonition" (Japanese): 6/10
What to like- How the story is told from a common Easterner's way of thinking.
What not to like- The silliness and corniness of some scenes.
Who should watch it- Anyone who liked "Injection" should like this.
Who shouldn't watch it- Those who demand their horror films to be realistic.

32. "Red Lights" (French): 6/10
What to like- The acting.
What not to like- The story and dialogue lack.
Who should watch it- Those who listen to film critics.
Who shouldn't watch it- Those who want to see a good foreign film.

33. "The Return" (Russian): 9.5/10
What to like- The acting, story, plot, direction, and ambiguity.
What not to like- Some will be confused by the ambiguity the story presents.
Who should watch it- Those who are attentive to details.
Who shouldn't watch it- Individuals that take smoke and potty breaks during the film without pausing it.

34. "Smell of Camphor, Fragrance of Jasmine" (Iranian): 6.5/10
What to like- The creativity.
What not to like- The pace.
Who should watch it- Those who appreciate Woody Allen's works.
Who shouldn't watch it- People who need a "Matrix"-style pace to keep them entertained.

35. "The Son" (French): 6/10
What to like- Seeing the progressing bond between the two main characters.
What not to like- The even and gray tempo throughout the film.
Who should watch it- Those who liked "The Weatherman."
Who shouldn't watch it- George W. Bush.

36. "Son Frere" (French): 6/10
What to like- Seeing how family stands by one another, especially in tragic times.
What not to like- The slow pace.
Who should watch it- Anyone who's had a family, friend, or loved one stick by them through a very difficult time.
Who shouldn't watch it- People who cry easily.

37. "Songs From the Second Floor" (Swedish): 10/10
What to like- Its uniqueness, symbolism, acting, direction, plot, and storyline.
What not to like- The symbolism may confuse some.
Who should watch it- Anyone who can appreciate something different in the cinema world.
Who shouldn't watch it- Those who tend to only like sequels and remakes.

38. "The Son's Room" (Italian): 6/10
What to like- The in-depth study of grief in the film.
What not to like- The grief being displayed throughout the film.
Who should watch it- Those who liked "In the Bedroom."
Who shouldn't watch it- Anyone who doesn't have a tissue box by their side.

39. "Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter,...and Spring" (Korean): 9.5/10
What to like- The poetic nature of the film, the scenery, and the beauty.
What not to like- It may be a bit too slow for some.
Who should watch it- Anyone with an open mind, especially in terms of religion.
Who shouldn't watch it- Pat Robertson.

40. "To Be and To Have" (French): 7/10
What to like- Watching a nationally renowned teacher work his magic with the kids.
What not to like- A bit slow at times.
Who should watch it- Anyone with an interest in teaching.
Who shouldn't watch it- Those who hated, hate, and will always hate school.

41. "Tycoon: A New Russian" (Russian): 5.5/10
What to like- The pace.
What not to like- The many flashbacks.
Who should watch it- Anyone into mafia films.
Who shouldn't watch it- Those expecting a Russian equivalent to "The Godfather."

42. "Up and Down" (Czech): 7.5/10
What to like- Observing people and what lengths they'll travel to fit in and feel love.
What not to like- The sad realities that are displayed.
Who should watch it- Those unafraid to admit the truth.
Who shouldn't watch it- Those who live in neverneverland with Peter Pan.

43. "Valentin" (Spanish): 6.5/10
What to like- The child actor in the film.
What not to like- His father.
Who should watch it- Those who like "cute" films.
Who shouldn't watch it- Those who only watch Oscar-worthy pictures.

44. "Vital" (Japanese): 6/10
What to like- The interesting manner in which the story unfolds.
What not to like- The disturbing extremism in some parts.
Who should watch it- Those obsessed with Japanese cinema.
Who shouldn't watch it- Those who gag when they're in a hospital.

45. "With a Friend Like Harry" (French): 7/10
What to like- The plot and storyline.
What not to like- It's not as Hitchcockian as some critics said.
Who should watch it- Anyone who likes a good mystery.
Who shouldn't watch it- Those who are expecting Hitchcock.

46. "Yellow Asphalt" (Hebrew/Arabic): 7/10
What to like- The intensity. The tempo. The realism.
What not to like- How greatly the three stories differ in depth and duration.
Who should watch it- Those interested in Israel/Palestine relations and conflicts.
Who shouldn't watch it- Anyone who only watches extremely fictional-based movies.

Others
"Brazil" (British): 7/10
"A Clockwork Orange" (British): 9.5/10
"The Corporation" (Canadian): 7.5/10
"Dead Calm" (Australian): 7/10
"Dirty Filthy Love" (British): 6/10
"Gandhi" (British): 9.5/10
"The Interview" (Australian): 6.5/10
"Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels" (British): 7/10
"Trainspotting" (British): 7/10
"Wilbur Wants to Kill Himself" (British): 6.5/10

To find out more about these films and others, go to http://www.rottentomatoes.com/ or http://www.imdb.com/. I personally prefer rottentomatoes, because it gives information about movies in theaters, on video, or movies that are still in production. It will give a synopsis of what the film is about, a tomato meter to illustrate how well-liked it is by the critics, and you can read any critique written, from the L.A. Times to the Chicago Sun.

They'll be remembered for...

There are many celebrities who will be remembered for one thing. Regardless of what they do during the rest of their career, they'll be remembered for one thing and probably one thing only. This could be due to the fact that they only had one hit song or one successful flick. It also could be due to a very odd role in a film that won them praise for a short time. Following, I will list these names, what they'll be most remembered for, and give some quick advice on how they can jump-start their career again. Here are the ten I've chosen, in random order:

Macaulay Culkin- Remember this kid? He's still doing films and he's my age. But, what will he be remembered for? What else? Being the kid screaming when he got left "Home Alone." My advice to Mr. Culkin is to grow a baby face, shrink some, and be in, what is it now, "Home Alone 5?" He hasn't found success in any other flick, so he might as well go back to what works.

Haley Joel Osmont- It doesn't matter what he does from this point on, he will always be remembered for this line, "I can see dead people." Sad part is that he's been in some solid films outside of "The Sixth Sense," but whenever I see the kid, I can only think of that line. What should he do now? Grow up and see if he can pull off an Elijah Wood as opposed to the previously mentioned Culkin.

Sir Mix-A-Lot- "Baby Got Back." What other songs did this guy do? Does it even matter? That song. That video. It will always be remembered. Parents hated him. Teenagers loved him. Now, he needs to get with the times and come out with an even more controversial video, for his follow-up to "Baby Got Back," "Baby Got Chest."

Sylvester Stallone- He was a pretty popular action star a decade or so ago, but there is one line that stands out from him. It came in the "Rocky" series, when he screams out, "Yo, Adrian!" Who could forget his facial expression and just how he says those two words? What should Sly do now? Well, being his age with "Rocky VI" on the horizon? I'm sure they could think up some dandy new quotes for Stallone to say while he's boxing with a walker, a wig, and a cane.

Right Said Fred- His song, "I'm Too Sexy" was his one and only hit. There was nothing else. When did that song come out? Early '90s, I want to say? The song was a hit with the kids. If there is any form of the word "sex" in a song, they'll love it. It's like the Beavis and Butthead syndrome, "He said sex" (followed by loud laughter). So, since Mr. R.S. Fred has not had a hit in years ever since that song and who knows what he's doing now, perhaps doing construction, I say he should come out with a new version of the song. But, this time, do it for the older folks, since he's older now himself. He'll attract a new crowd, and hopefully, keep some of those loyal devoted fans who've been waiting since the early '90s for another good tune.

Jessica Simpson- Will she be a legend in music 20 years down the road? Probably not. How about an Oscar-winning actress? If "Dukes of Hazzard" was any indication of what we can expect in future films, that answer is no, as well. What I hear more than anything about Jessica Simpson is her sounding stupid, especially on she and Nick Lachey's show "Newlyweds." One thing she said when talking to Nick was, "Is this chicken, what I have, or is this fish? I know it's tuna, but it says 'Chicken by the Sea.'" Here's a short conversation Nick and Jessica had:
Nick: "Want some buffalo wings?" Jessica: "No thanks, I don't eat buffalo."
Nick: "You know, buffalo don't really have wings."
Jessica: "Yeah, I know."
Even the guys that I've talked to, who think she's extremely attractive, will comment on her not being the brightest crayon in the box. So, forget music. Forget films. Jessica should have her own talk show. Give her a dictionary, a thesaurus, and a word of the day (a very lengthy one) to use throughout the insightful counseling session. Now, there's a comedy! That or make her a permanent contestant on "Jeopardy." That'd be humorous as well.

Janet Jackson- Haven't heard from her in a while, have we? I wonder why. I remember she had quite a few hits back in the day (meaning early to mid '90s). But something happened, just two years ago. What was that? Oh, yeah, now it hit me. She was exposed to the world during the Super Bowl halftime show. That's right. You ask almost any male, "If there's one thing you would remember about Janet Jackson, what would that one thing be?" He'd break out the picture on his cell phone and say, "I'll remember that! So will all my friends. One of my friends, Bruce, got this unbelievable shot! He was there, man! Up close and personal!" To be perfectly honest, I never saw anything. What I remember are the facial expressions on both Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake's face. Justin made it look like it was a first for him. He was probably saying to himself, "Oh, they look like that?" It's unfortunate, but unless Janet does something to top this (literally impossible, it being halftime of the Super Bowl), then she will be most remembered for this (especially by males). What should she do now? She could go three different routes: 1) Run far far away, never to return to the Hollywood life, 2) Keep up the exhibition with a new series of shows or films to display to the world things that we probably already saw during the Super Bowl (but, it won't hurt her anymore than before, because, we've seen that before and on local television), or 3) Go the direct opposite route, become a nun, perhaps get a face job (follow in her brother's footsteps), so not many can recognize her, and deny that it ever happened in the first place.

Jason Alexander- Unless something truly unexpected happens in the next few years, Jason Alexander (Don't even recognize that name, do you?) will forever be remembered as George Costanza, in the series "Seinfeld." Mr. Alexander attempted to be the star of a show a year or so ago, but that flopped harder than John Goodman diving belly first into a pool. Jason has done a couple commercials here and there. He was Jack Black's buddy with a tail in the film "Shallow Hal." That's all George, excuse me, Jason will ever be. He'll be the buddy, the sidekick, the man with a tail. What I really think George, dangit, Jason, should do is to be Rogaine's lead man. His baldness was always a topic on the show, so it'd be the perfect job for Mr. ::checks above:: Alexander. Although, seeing him bald all these years, it may look weird for him to have hair. Okay, so his other option is to be a motivational speaker for bald or balding people all across the country. George/Jason did it and so can you!

Michael Richards- Here's another man that had it made on the show "Seinfeld." Remember? Yup, it's Kramer! He hasn't done much since then. Richards was in a film, "Trial and Error," that flopped. I saw it and the film wasn't horrible, but I've never felt the need to see it again, if that tells you anything. I can't see Richards finding the success he experienced on "Seinfeld," anywhere else, in the movie and television industry, anyway. When he played Kramer, he wasn't graceful (which is one reason he was so funny) and did a little modeling on the side. With that combination, Richards should definitely do some runway modeling. They'd have to air that! I mean, a runway model who stumbles regularly, makes odd facial expressions, and has an odd ball of hair on top of his head? They had a reality show on the next top model. Why not make fun of that with another show, called, "Kramer Models?"

Alicia Silverstone- Her most successful film to date is "Clueless." I can't remember the last film I saw her in, perhaps "A Blast From the Past" with Brendan Fraser. Although, after seeing that movie, I had wished I could blast to the past to stop the making of the darn thing! All-in-all, she hasn't had a very successful run at the whole acting thang (yes, I wrote thang). What will I remember most about her? Being Aerosmith's girl for some of their "Livin' On the Edge" videos. There were three, as a matter of fact: "Cryin'," "Amazing," and "Crazy." "Crazy" depicted Silverstone and Steven Tyler's daughter, Liv, doing some pole dancing amongst other "Crazy" things. That's where it all started for Silverstone, being depicted as a sexy, naughty, rebellious gal, who wasn't afraid to try anything. After those videos, came "Clueless," and pun intended, I am pretty clueless as to where she's been ever since. Now, it could work out perfectly for both parties: Aerosmith and Alicia Silverstone. Steven Tyler and the guys aren't getting any younger (to be nice) and Silverstone could use a boost in her career to attract fans once again. Silverstone and Aerosmith should reunite. It'll be a symbiotic relationship at its finest!

Others that didn't quite make the top 10, but were considered:
Paris Hilton- Her videos
O.J. Simpson- The car chase
Michael Moore- "Fahrenheit 9/11"
Keanu Reeves- Neo
Anna Kournikova- Not her tennis

Chris Matthews

Well, I didn't see this for myself, but I just read a few articles about it. MSNBC's very own Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews, had something interesting to say in regards to the latest Bin Laden tape.

Matthews compared Bin Laden to director and author Michael Moore. Moore is probably best known for his past two documentaries, "Bowling For Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11." Chris Matthews said that Bin Laden was talking like Moore in the latest video. John Kerry had a few words to say after that, as have many media sources, stating that Matthews owes Moore and journalism, in general, a major apology.

I don't care if someone loves Moore's work or downright hates it. I don't ever remember Michael Moore's name coming up as a suspect for masterminding the 9/11 attacks. He's not responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans on that day. Just to put Moore's name in the same category as Bin Laden is ridiculous and wrong. I can't stand Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Bill O'Reilly, but am I going to compare them to Osama Bin Laden? No. I don't agree with the majority of their views and don't like how they treat their guests on certain occasions, but that still does not put them in the same category (or anywhere close) to Bin Laden or any terrorist like him.

The beauty of America is in its diversity of voice and opinion. Liberals can speak out with the likes of Moore, Al Franken, and the like. Conservatives can do likewise with Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and evidently, Matthews. We can disagree entirely with one person and agree whole-heartedly with another. Yet, at the end of the day, we can shake hands, head home, and live in peace. But, there is a line that should be drawn for both parties. Osama Bin Laden has been the figure, the icon, that most Americans have viewed as being responsible for 3,000 deaths on 9/11. Whether one is very liberal or very conservative, neither side should go on comparing Bin Laden to a member of the other party that they don't care for very much. Chris Matthews may have a thing or two against Moore and other liberal-minded folk, but Matthews needs to give a sincere apology, and fast, because what he said is a disgrace to journalists everywhere.

If anyone would like their voice to be known on this issue, feel free to go to MSNBC.com and write to the show hardball. Try to make the e-mails or letters as appropriate as possible. Even though Matthews' comments were very inappropriate, I doubt they'll take too kindly to e-mails reminiscent of Matthews' word-usage. Contradictory? Yes, but deep down there somewhere, they know it's inappropriate. It'd just be nice if they could admit that regarding some of his comments. Hopefully, with our help, they will be able to do that this time.

Born To Be...

Wild? No, not exactly. Nope, I was born to be a smart aleck. When I was 2-years old, I impersonated the likes of Jerry Seinfeld, Ray Romano, and George Carlin. Allright, so I wasn't that far along yet, but I started enjoying their comedy at a rather young age.

But, there's one incident that really stands out for me. I was 10-years old, in fourth grade, and we (the students) had just come in from our daily recess. We were rather noisy that day, so, the teacher said in a loud, stern voice, "No talking! Shhh!" She said this a few times before she finally belted out, "No talking! What part of NO don't you understand?" Without even thinking about it, I rose my hand with this grin from cheek to cheek. She called on me and I said, "I don't understand the O." She gave me this look like, "You little punk," but didn't say anything. That was my coming out party for being a smart aleck. From that point on, no matter where it's been: at school, at the doctor's, in church, on the street, at home, at my grandparents', my sarcasm is known, expected, and surprisingly (for the most part), people enjoy it. If someone in my family doesn't like it, they can't do anything but look in the mirror and shake their heads, because who do they think I got it from? Seinfeld, Raymond, and Carlin? They helped the cause, but the base and foundation of my sarcasm comes from my family. You should see us all around the holidays. It's one big smart aleck party. Pass the alcohol around and it makes for some good laughs.

"Reality"

The entertainment world is slowly coming to an end. What is the critical factor in this? The new obsession with reality, or what we like to call reality. Seriously, if this were truly reality, count me in anyday. Strand me on a tropical island with some strangers. I'll take that over Nebraska weather just about any day of the year (especially in the winter). But, reality television isn't the only form of entertainment obsessed with this notion of reality.

Video games are getting to be just as bad. I used to love video games, from Atari to Nintendo to Sega to the Playstation. It was nice to go to neverneverland, to the fantasy world, and escape reality. But, anymore, it's like going from one reality into a fantasy world that is just a bit too real to be much fun. We've gone from Pac Man and Frogger to Grand Theft Auto and True Crime. Some of the more realistic games are fun, but where are the more creative and imaginative games anymore? Kids are especially into video games. They should be encouraged to use that imagination of theirs, not the direct opposite. Now we have the X Box 360 and upcoming are the Playstation 3 and the Nintendo Revolution. When's it going to end? I saw some graphics for the X 360 and the PS3 and it was like walking downtown and interacting with people. In Madden '06, it was like watching a game on Sundays. Is it cool to an extent? Yeah. Visually, it's stunning. But, when is it crossing the line? Video games are an escape from the real world. After how much realism is inserted does it become to realistic to be a true escape from reality? Where do we go next? Virtual reality simulators in our own households? The graphics are breathtaking. It's amazing to see the progress from the Atari to the X Box 360 and Playstation 3. But, I, for one, have lost most of my interest in video games. They used to be a blast for me, because they were fun. They weren't very realistic and I was fine with that. Many films aren't intended to be realistic. They're made for entertainment value. Just look at films such as "Aliens," "Armageddon," or "Star Wars." These were not made for people to ooh and ahh at how believable the plots and storylines were. They were made to entertain the public. Some films are based off true stories, such as "Titanic" and "Gandhi," so the plots and storylines will reflect that level of realism. The same should hold true in the land of video games. There are games that should be made realistic and there are games that should not be. The problem is the obsession with the notion of reality and that doesn't leave much room for the games simply made for entertainment value.

I can't decide if it's better or worse in tv land. I may have to go with worse, because the public is much more exposed to television programs than video games. Most of these shows can be seen on local channels, as well, so it's not like one needs to get cable to see the majority of these shows. I can't even watch television anymore, because it's overloaded with "reality." There was: "The Real World," "Road Rules," "Survivor," "Who Wants To Be a Millionaire," "Joe Millionaire," "Big Brother," "Temptation Island," "The Apprentice," all the judge shows, "The Jerry Springer Show," "Daisy Does America," "Rollergirls," "The Bachelor," "The Bachelorette," "Wife Swap," "Nanny 911," "American Idol," "Making the Band," "American Chopper," "Miami Ink," "Blind Date," "ElimiDATE," "Meet My Folks," "Married by America," "My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance'," "Beauty and the Geek," "Rescue 911," "COPS," "Unsolved Mysteries," "Trading Spaces," "Extreme Makeover," "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," "Queer Eye for the Straight Girl," "Trading Spouses," "The Biggest Loser," "Supernanny," "The Anna Nicole Show," "The Osbournes," "Newlyweds," "The Ashlee Simpson Show," "Britney and Kevin: Chaotic," "Hogan Knows Best," "Totally Hidden Video," "The Jamie Kennedy Experiment," "Punk'd," "The Mole," "Fear Factor," "The Amazing Race," "Boot Camp," "Last Comic Standing," "America's Next Top Model," "Dream Job," "The Contender," and many others. I just listed 53 reality tv shows. 46 of the 53 I listed debuted in 2000 or later. Is there such a thing as originality anymore? As thinking up new classic programs like "Seinfeld," "Friends," or "Cheers?" You notice that after "Seinfeld," "Everybody Loves Raymond," and "Friends" said goodbye, that's when television became bombarded with "reality?" What's next? "Watch Debra and Roxanne Play Cribbage?" "Legally Have More Wives?" "A Garbageman's Duty?" "America's Next President?" I can about guarantee you, if you just set up a video camera in your house, record what you do all day, and send it in to a station to program, somebody is going to watch it. I don't care how boring the video is. Even if you're just clipping your toenails, stretching, watching television, somebody is going to watch your show.

There's nothing left. All creative ideas have about vanished. There are more sequels and remakes coming out in Hollywood than anything original. More and more garbage (AKA reality shows) are coming out by the week. Video games are becoming more real than some people's every day lives. It's about time the entertainment folk start over, because they have reached rock bottom and can't sink any further than they have (although, I shouldn't tempt them, because they probably would sink lower if they had the opportunity).

Celebrity Crushes/Obsession

Ever know a guy who seemed obsessed with say, Britney Spears? Or a gal who was really into Justin Timberlake? When I say "obsessed" or "really into," I don't mean they just say, "She/he's so hot" when they see a picture of the star in a magazine or on television. I mean, they have posters of this person all over their walls, collect everything that they've been a part of (CD's, movies, magazine covers, interviews, etc.), and talk about them like they're dating. Ever know a person like this? I have and I must say, it kind of frightens me.

When Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake supposedly broke up from their Hollywood romance, a couple male friends of mine immediately came over, smiling from cheek to cheek. They asked, me, "Craig, did you hear the news?" I thought that perhaps they were going to have a big party that weekend or an old friend was coming into town or something along those lines, but no, I was wrong. They continued on, "Britney and Justin broke up! You know what that means? We have a chance!" I patted them on their heads and smiled. We then proceeded to go bowling. The Britney talk didn't stop at the bowling alley. After each turn, they'd come back to sit down, with their eyes as wide as a child's on Christmas Day, and say things like, "Man, one night. That's all I ask. One night with her and I could die a happy man." I tried to play the nod and smile routine that afternoon, because I didn't want to bring them down from whatever cloud they were on that day. But, after a while, I couldn't help but speak out on the situation. Noticing that I wasn't ecstatic like they were about the whole predicament, they asked me, "So, Craig, would you want a piece of that? You can't say no. Who wouldn't want some of that." I shrugged my shoulders and said, "She's all yours guys. I'm not interested." They then, of course, came back with the infamous line, "What, are you gay or something?" When I said no, they just kind of rolled their eyes and went back to talking about their Britney fantasies. To this day, I will hear these fantasies, and they're both seriously involved with someone. But, they have broadened their scope some, from just solely Britney, to add the likes of Jessica Simpson and Paris Hilton.

Just a couple weeks ago, I was hanging out with some friends of mine and I was asked, "Craig, if you could do one Hollywood star, who would it be?" Both my friends had no problem listing off several stars that they wouldn't find fooling around with. I just said, "I'm not really interested in that whole thing. I've never been one to have celebrity crushes." They didn't seem to believe me and went on with the deep and philosophical conversation.

I've heard these stories and fantasies countless times and once in a while, I'll butt in with a, "But, you don't even know him/her." They'll give me an odd look, because the fact of the matter is, they'd want this person for one thing and one thing only, and that's sex. It's not like they actually want to sit down, get to know the person, and try to connect with them on another level. It can put a damper on my mood sometimes, because I'd like to hope that love and sex can be connected, but when people lay out these fantasies they have of someone they don't know in the slightest bit (only their stage name), then that hope meter of mine drops down one notch from where it was previously.

I'll be the first to admit that there are physically attractive celebrities. I'd be lying if I didn't say so. But, that's where it begins and ends with me. George Clooney, Cary Grant, Denzel Washington, Sidney Poitier, Catharine Zeta-Jones, Grace Kelly, Salma Hayek, Halle Berry and many others, are all physically attractive. It's like looking at a painting. I'll look at it, appreciate it's beauty and then, walk off to see the next work of art. But, I've learned to just appreciate celebrities for their talents. That's what they're there for- to entertain. Michael Vick is there to play the role of Houdini out on the football field. Barry Sanders was there to tap dance around defenders and make them look silly in the process. The Beatles were there to revolutionize rock music. Tom Hanks is there to make any film, no matter how poorly written it is, entertaining and watchable. Celebrities make a lot of money, spend a lot of time in the make-up room, and spend more life facing the camera in one week than most people do in a lifetime. But, in the end, they're people, just like you and me. They have their good days and bad days. They make mistakes. What makes them unique and beautiful is their talent, not their appearance. I'd last a lot longer as an English professor if I were to get notoriety for my efficient teaching methods than if I was just known around the school as a hottie. Even if I was known as the hot professor, if I couldn't teach worth a lick, then I'd get canned pretty quickly. It's good to appreciate beauty. All our senses allow us to experience a new side to beauty, but, appreciating that beauty and obsessing with it are two completely different things.

A Survivor

Ever see a film or read a book that was so similar to a previous life event, that it felt real? Ever felt that those events were actually taking place in that film or book? That you were the main character in the story? I, unfortunately, had this experience just last night, while watching the film "Mysterious Skin."

Because this film was independent, and therefore, did not receive much publicity, I will give a brief summary of the story. It revolves around two 8-year old boys, who are teammates on a Little League team. Neither kid has much of a father figure. The head coach sees that and takes full advantage of the situation and the boys. He sexually abuses them on multiple occasions and their lives are never the same because of it. One boy, Neil, who has already noticed his attraction towards the same gender before the incidents, goes on to be an 18-year old male prostitute. His feelings and emotions are numbed and sex becomes nothing but a business to him. The other boy, Brian, blocks out the incidents and starts to wonder if he was abducted by aliens. He keeps to himself, is asexual, and focuses only on his studies and on the five hours he lost when he was 8-years old. The only person Neil tells is his best friend Penny. The first time both Neil and Brian honestly admit what happened is when they find one another ten years later. The ending provides for some hope, but as the story suggests, some of these wounds will never fully heal.

It'd be a very difficult film for most people to sit through, but it was especially difficult for me. I could relate to so many things in the film, it felt, at times, that they were telling my story. As were the boys in this film, I too was sexually abused at 8-years old. Like in the film, the predator was an older male who knew the family. Just like the predator in the movie, the man who abused me lured me in by being the babysitter, playing video games, and attempting to make me feel at ease and comfortable with him. I could relate to both characters on different levels. I blocked out the incident for a few years after it happened. I was threatened if I told anyone, so I kept my lips sealed. I had constant nightmares about the event and the abuser for years, just like Brian, in this film, had. When I started receiving flashbacks in middle school, I took on the role of Neil and became numb and indifferent to the world. I didn't come out with it until just 2-3 years ago, when I was 22. Fourteen years lapsed between the encounter and my finally coming out with everything. Some family members of mine are still in denial about the whole situation, or perhaps, they just feel I'm making it up. But, even though that day was approximately 14 years ago, I can remember it like it was yesterday and it is something I will never forget.

Seeing the after-effects of the characters in the film was especially difficult, because I know all too well about these after-effects. The nightmares. The flashbacks. The numbness. The indifference. The fear. The paranoia. The isolation. I can see the effects it has had on me, 16-17 years later. There are reasons why I trusted females more than males growing up. There are reasons why I was not comfortable with being physical or sexual with another person. There are reasons why I always tried to put others before myself. I was only 8-years old, so I was too young to really know what was going on, but I knew what I felt- fear. My conscience told me something was very wrong. I shook. I became frozen. Being threatened, the only thing I worried about was my life, so I obeyed. After that day, I promised myself to always be there for others and to do all in my power to prevent it from happening to anyone else. This has had its pros and cons. While, I'm always known as the nice guy, the one who will be there whenever someone needs help, I'm also that guy who gets taken advantage of a great deal.

I have not seen the man since the incident, yet I can never forget his face. That afternoon back in the summer of '89, my innocence was lost and my childhood vanished. One reason why I love kids so much is the fact they bring back a piece of that childhood. Children are precious and it makes me break out into tears every time I hear that a child had to endure something similar as myself. I've told myself since the incident that if what happened to me was a sacrifice for another child getting the same kind of treatment, then I'd be willing to accept that. No child deserves that. Nobody deserves that kind of mistreatment, but especially an innocent, helpless child.

I waited far too long to come forward to others about what happened and that'll have its negative consequences. Anyone out there who has suffered from similar abuses (or know someone who has), please don't commit the same mistakes I did. Tell the authorities as soon as you can and get help as soon as possible. You were not at fault. You were the victim of a sick and odious crime. There are people out there who can help. You're not alone. For parents out there, please be very careful who you trust to take care of your children. Children deserve to be kids. They deserve to enjoy their childhood. Once that childhood is lost, there's never going back.

Cop Outs

We've all heard them, probably all used them- cop outs. These are especially prevalent when it comes to relationships, or I should say, the disinterest in a relationship. Now, some of these excuses may be genuine and honest once in a great while, but notice what I just said- once in a great while. So, for the most part, they're used as ways to either get out of a relationship or to prevent oneself from entering a relationship. Following will be some famous cop outs and what their interpretation can read as.

Let's just be friends. I don't want to ruin what we have.- This is used when one brings up the idea of beginning a relationship and taking the friendship they have established to another level. What this person is really saying is, "You can either have me as a friend or have me as nothing, because there's no way I'm going to be your boyfriend/girlfriend." So, instead, they take the nicer, less aggressive route. The only problem with this is the fact it may not get the point across quite so clearly.

You're too good for me. I don't deserve you.- This could come in the middle of a relationship or when one brings up the idea of starting one. It could come as a result of a new specimen that they've found an interest in, could be from a serious self-esteem problem, or it could be them trying to be extra nice out of subconscious guilt. Because, what they're really saying is, "Yeah, you may be too good for me, in some ways. Heck, I'm cheating on you, so unless you're doing likewise, you have me beat on the loyalty and honesty thing. But, guess what? An ex of mine is in town. We went out the other night, sparks flew, and I'll leave the vivid details to your imagination. So, good luck and goodbye."

I'm just not ready.- This would usually be said pre-relationship, when the potential couple would try to talk things over and come to the best conclusion. In some scenarios, I could understand this line. I mean, if someone just got through a 2-year relationship with a person and the next person in line asked them out right away, I could understand them using this line. But, that's usually not the case. Many times, it's just used as an excuse to say, "You know, I am ready. I'm just not ready to be with you. I wasn't ready then, am not ready now, and will never be ready to be with you." Harsh, I know, but the truth hurts sometimes, which is why many elect to use these cop outs, as opposed to coming at full speed with the brutal and honest truth.

It's not you. It's me.- You have to love this one. This could come at any time in a relationship. There are so many different ways to interpret this one, as well. What first comes to mind, though, is, "It's you and it's me. It's you, because you can't satisfy me and it's me, because I can't stop sleeping around with people who can do just that." Whenever I hear this, I envision the film "EuroTrip" when Scott's girlfriend goes up to him after graduation and says they have to break up, going to this very line, "It's not you. It's me." This is followed by her hopping up on stage with the Matt Damon-lead band, singing her national anthem of "Scotty Doesn't Know."

I just need some time to myself. I need some space- This usually comes just before the separation period and after he or she gets this time and space, the other will come back wanting to talk. But, what really goes on when this person has all that time and space for themselves finally? Anything and everything. What they're really saying is, "You know, I'm getting kind of sick of you. We hang out all the time and talk all the time. I need to go out and be with other people. After I do that for a little while, then I'll decide if I still want to be with you."

We're just not meant to be.- I love this one. Someone decides to play the role of God in the relationship by stating this. My question for them is, if that's the case, then what is meant to be? Who are you meant to be with? Who am I meant to be with? If it's all meant to be or not meant to be, why did we date at all in the first place? That's because it isn't that simple. What they really mean here is, "We had a nice ride, but, guess what? I found someone better. See ya."

Once in a while, these excuses are genuine and honest, but again, that doesn't happen all too frequently. Where there's a cop out, there's usually something hidden. So, when someone uses one of these lines on you, try to find a way to accurately interpret the truth from the BS. It's easier said than done, but if you truly try to read them- their facial expressions, hand gestures, eye contact (or lack there of), you'll be able to read them like a book. As Edward R. Murrow would state, "Good Night and Good Luck."

Nice Guys vs. Bad Boys

Ahh, here is a topic that hits home for me, as I'm sure many others can relate to it also. I remember hearing that old saying back in middle and high school, "Nice guys finish last." Back then, I simply pretended to believe in that saying, because I was one of those nice guys and at least in my case, it was true. Well, it was true in one particular area- when it came to the ladies. But, as I've grown up, I've gained a broader perspective on things and unfortunately, I still think that phrase holds true to a certain degree. I thought I was simply being biased back in junior high and high school, but perhaps I was on the right track with my belief.

Many studies have been conducted on the female attraction toward bad boys and for the most part, it is a phase in their young adult lives. It is almost a natural attraction toward rebellion and curiosity in the teenage and young adult years for some ladies. Who does daddy not want you to date? Well, that's who you're going to take home to meet the family. But, why does this carry on longer for some?

In many cases, the nice guy is like the best friend, the guy to go to when one is having problems or conflicts in their relationship with the bad boy. How do I know this? Like I said, I'm the nice guy, so I get to hear this stuff on a regular basis. It's always very confusing and frustrating, because many times, the female will tell me things such as: "He just won't listen to me," "We just can't communicate," "We can't even just sit down and talk like we're doing right now," or "I wish he was more like you." Okay, so why come to guys like me and complain about these bad boys, saying, "Oh, I wish he was like you," when you could probably date one of these nice guys who would actually listen, communicate well, and be more like your supposed ideal man? That always confused me.

But, whether some want to admit it or not, many like a challenge. What fun would a relationship be if it was 100% perfect? What fun would a boyfriend or girlfriend be if they were perfect every single day? Remember the film "Coming To America?" The Princess was brought up to love and serve Eddie Murphy, The Prince. She would obey his every command, do whatever he wanted her to do. To many guys out there, that sounds perfect, right? But, where is the challenge in that? The Prince would have to put forth no effort whatsoever to receive what he wanted from The Princess. Where is the genuine love right there? It's more like a relationship between a manager and a player in baseball. The manager tells the player to lay down a sacrifice bunt, so he does. If it's done successfully, then everyone is happy, especially the manager and the player who bunted. So, where's the challenge in that guy who is a great listener, is open-minded, flexible, adaptable, kind, considerate, sensitive, and open? Too good to be true? Too perfect to be fun? Do the bad boys present more of a challenge? A guy they think they can mold into a better person, they're ideal man?

Most times, the bad boy is considered more macho than the nice guy, as well. The nice guys may make the ladies feel safe and secure when having a quiet talk at dinner, but the bad boys make them feel safe and secure when in a crowded and potentially dangerous environment. However, being with the bad boy on a more constant and consistent basis than the nice guy probably carries more risks with it as well.

It may be a reflection of our culture and the American media. The bad boy is usually shown in a mysterious, sexy, and macho light. When is the nice guy ever portrayed in that manner? With the bad boy comes excitement and adventure. With the nice guy comes relaxation and boredom.

As with everything, neither extreme is ideal. There are pros and cons, goods and bads to both extreme. It seems that many ladies want that mystery, excitement, and adventure that comes with being the bad boy. Yet, they want that romantic, sweet, and sensitive side as well. So, what are the options? Attempting to broaden the bad boys' romantic and sensitive sides or to broaden the nice guys' wild and adventurous sides? So, as I've observed, many choose the bad boys, because even if things go wrong there, they have the nice guy best friend to talk to about problems in the relationship.

Do nice guys finish last, as the saying suggests? Well, through the early to mid 20's, it seems that this is the case, unfortunately. But, hopefully that trend changes. We shallst see.

"Brokeback Mountain"

I just got home from seeing the film "Brokeback Mountain," starring Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal. It's probably the best film I've seen this year. I can see it now, "And the Oscar for best picture goes to...'Brokeback Mountain.'" I called it for "Million Dollar Baby" a year ago. That was a fine film, with great acting, directing, dialogue, and plot. It was a very emotional film, especially in the second half of the flick. Well, if you want to compare the two films on an emotional level, "Brokeback Mountain" has "Million Dollar Baby" beat hands down. I usually don't get emotional with films, but this one got to me.

Now, okay, this film is not for everyone. But, honestly, unless you are 100% homophobic, I would recommend this film. There aren't too many "scenes." It's not some porno film. There are a couple brief kissing scenes and one very brief scene that is more physical, but most of the physical scenes are just of the two cowboys cuddling and being close to one another. There isn't a great deal of nudity. There's one scene where a woman's top half can be seen for a second and then another scene where Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal jump into a lake naked.

If that doesn't bother you a great deal, then I definitely recommend this film. It's very well acted. It's got to be Heath Ledger's break-out performance. He stole the show, acting wise. Jake Gyllenhaal gave a solid performance, as usual, but Ledger was outstanding.

I must warn everyone, that if you do decide to see this film, please bring some tissues. I'm not going to lie and say that it's a happy and cheerful film throughout. Once the final credits started rolling, I was emotionally drained. I still am and it's been a couple hours since the movie ended. There are more funny parts than I had expected, though. It's no comedy, but there are a few humorous scenes in the film.

My advice is to, if you're not homophobic, go out and see "Brokeback Mountain." I can't imagine there being a better film this year. The scenery is gorgeous. The acting is superb and the direction is brilliant. I went in to this film not truly knowing what to expect, but I exited the theater very happy that I saw the film. It was well worth my $6.50.

Bad Word Usage

We've all done this in the past, used a word that we probably shouldn't have in a sentence. It may have been profane, may not have made any sense, or it may have been so ambiguous that a person may not know what exactly it was you were saying.

A friend of mine did exactly this a few days ago. We were just chatting. I brought up a person who was getting into some trouble and she said, "His parents should have beat him as a kid. It may have done him some good. I was beat and look at me. I turned out allright." I had a very confused look on my face, I'm sure. So, I became inquisitive, and asked what she meant exactly by beat. When I hear that, I think of one thing- abuse. If someone were to tell me that a parent beats their child, I would immediately think that the child was getting physically abused. But, no, she then said, "No, I just meant light spankings." How can you say a child should get beat and then say all you meant was light spankings? I told her that when she said beat, it made it sound like something else- abuse, so she changed her terminology from getting beat to getting licked. I honestly don't know if that's any better, because, let's face it, "lick" is pretty dang ambiguous as well. Why not just say "lightly spanked?" That wouldn't be too difficult, I wouldn't think. But, obviously, for some, it is.

Stereotypes

Okay, so I've run into a few racist individuals in the past week and what bugs me most is after they make their racist comments, they'll say or write, "I'm not racist." I even read a post this weekend on this website, where a guy wrote about stereotypes, claiming they were funny. He continued on by saying that it's not him and those constantly speaking stereotypical jargon that are racist, but the people who complain about these stereotypes. So, let me get this straight. It's those that don't use stereotypes, derogatory, or discriminatory language, when speaking about people of different backgrounds than they, that are racist. But, those that continually use negative language to label these individuals are not. They are just finding the humor in it all. Ahh, yes, that makes sense.

If that is the truth, I could probably use that form of logic in other arenas as well, right? So, since Gandhi and Martin Luther King were anti-violence, does that mean they were the murderers and those who joked about killing were just being humorous? Those who speak out against war are truly violent, but those that joke around about it are in the right? How does this form of logic or reasoning work under any circumstance? It just sounds like a form of denial.

So, when can a person tell if another is truly racist? When that person truly expresses belief that a certain ethnicity is inferior to theirs, on a whole. Just like with individuals, there are generalizations about ethnicities having strengths and weaknesses and that's allright, but when a person just up and says, "So and so can't do anything" or "They're worthless" or anything else that makes it sound as if this group of people isn't good for anything, then that can definitely be classified as racism. What about when one just says jokes? Ever seen the movie "Guess Who?" with Ashton Kutcher and Bernie Mac? Remember the dinner table seen, where Bernie Mac keeps asking Kutcher to tell some "black jokes?" The first few he says, Mac and the family laugh. They are light-hearted jokes. But, the last one Kutcher says points to the stereotype that African-Americans can't get jobs and that didn't get any laughter out of Bernie and his family. So, when it comes to jokes, try putting yourself in Kutcher's shoes in this situation. If you have to think twice before saying it, then it's probably racist. If you could say it in front of Bernie's family with no hesitation, then it may not be so bad. If your gut or conscience is telling you not to say it, then again, I'd go with the gut. It's probably trying to tell you something.

Stereotypes exist. This, we cannot deny. Just because a person doesn't use them much and doesn't laugh at ethnic jokes, does not mean they're the racist. They're just trying to be courteous, considerate, and respectful. As they should, because even though there are bad eggs in every group, we can't let a component outweigh the whole. The whole is larger than the component and the whole deserves our courtesy, consideration, and respect.

Dependency

Ever know a person who was so dependent on being involved in a relationship, that they were either involved with someone or complaining that they weren't involved with anyone? I know some people like that, one in particular.

It's like, regardless of how well there life is going at the time, they can't feel any bit of happiness without a boyfriend or girlfriend. There's no middle or gray area here, either. When they're dating again, no matter how big of a jerk the person they're dating is, they're ecstatic. But, if they're single, it's, oh woe is me. Nobody loves me. I'll be single forever.

So, when they go on these tangents, I'll give a few words of advice and state, "You know, if you can't be happy with yourself and your life right now, what makes you think that having a boyfriend/girlfriend will make everything allright? You've got to accept and be happy with yourself first, before you can truly find acceptance and happiness with another." They'll come back with a, "Yeah, I know and I know I'm too dependent on relationships, but it's just who I am." Yeah, so if a person is too dependent on heroin or cocaine, then that's allright, because it's just who they are? Naw, if that's who they are, it's time for some changes.

I mean, let's face it, the people we start to seriously date are, many times, a reflection of us. There are typically many similarities: age, ethnicity, social class, political beliefs, religion, future goals, attitude, interests and hobbies, etc. It's even a direct reflection of us, many times, when it comes to our self-confidence. Those with lower self-esteem typically won't set the bar very high when it comes to the dating world and even though outsiders may view their date as not most worthy specimen, the guy or gal dating that person, may see them as the perfect fit.

I'll give you an example. There was this gal I met about a year to a year and a half ago. She had an interest in me, but I could tell from the get-go, that she lacked confidence and this was a turn-off. I was up-front and honest with her and didn't shy away from telling her what I felt, but she felt helpless to the extent that, she again said, "It's just me." A few months later, she started dating this guy she met off the internet. I joked around with her one time and asked to see the guy's profile. Under marital status, I kid you not, it said, "The loneliest guy in the world." I then had to have a serious talk with my friend. That's when you know you've hit rock bottom in the dating world. That's called desperation and not having an inch of confidence in yourself. Then, for the past few months, she's been changing her mind on a daily basis when it comes to what she should do about dating. "I know I shouldn't date right now, but I want to." "I need a boyfriend so bad right now." "I don't need boys." "I really want to date again." "I know I shouldn't have a boyfriend right now. I'm not ready." So, it's obvious that she misses some aspects of dating, but something deep down inside her, her conscience, is telling her it's not a good idea. As I've learned time and time again, go with that gut feeling, the conscience, because it's rarely wrong. But, until she is willing to break the cycle she's in by working on herself and her self-confidence, she's going to go against her conscience and that'll just result in an illusory time of happiness, where she can just be dependent upon another's attention for that happiness. Whenever the break-up takes place or she doesn't see him for a few days, those old single-life feelings will creep back in and she'll be right back to where she started.

Mistaken For a Woman

Yeah, that's right. It happened just last night. I was at a restaurant/bar with a friend of mine and she bumped into this gal she works with. This gal asked my friend if I was her sister. I can just imagine the look on my face when she asked this. I know the flat-chested, goatee sporting, deep voiced look is in now for the ladies, but come on!

I really wonder how hammered this girl was. Perhaps I'm just saying that in hope, but I'm going to believe it whether she was or not! Okay, I can understand if I had a large chest, wore make-up, lipstick, did my nails, wore attire commonplace in the woman's world, etc. But, none of those things coincide with how I present myself. Large chest? No. Make-up? Nada. Lipstick? None. Paint my nails? Not a single one. What kind of clothes did I wear? Jeans, sneakers, and a sweatshirt. Facial hair? A goatee. Voice? Deep. I'm quite confused on how she mixed us up.

At work today, I guess this gal apologized to my friend for the mix-up and then commented on how I was "cute." Hmm, now, I'm really confused! I'm just going to keep telling myself that she was drunk, high, and didn't get a good look at me until after she asked my friend if I was her sister. That, along with some intense therapy, shall do the trick.

Getting Pulled Over in the Driveway

I've heard all the stories before. A very old friend of mine was pulled over in her mom's van when she was 15. Because she was 15, she had nothing- no license or anything to show the cop. The cop let her go and just told her to head on home. A cop pulled a friend of mine over for doing 28 in a 25 and because he was concerned for our safety, as there were a lot of us kids in the car. A friend of mine tossed a large Wendy's cup out his window as he was driving at night and guess who it hit? A cop. So, the cop ticketed him for littering and for having bumper stickers on his back window, claiming my friend couldn't see behind him at all while driving. My bro was pulled over one time for doing 46 in a 45. I was pulled over and ticketed for doing 58 in a 55. My friend's father was pulled over for doing 56 in a 55. A friend of mine's uncle got pulled over for doing exactly the speed limit on the interstate, but he was slowing down traffic, so says the copper. I've heard of cops searching cars out for drugs and alcohol. I've even heard of some stories where a cop will pull a kid over and the kid is obviously intoxicated, but if he lives somewhere close to where he was pulled over, the cop will let him go unscathed. Why do I bring this up? Well, because I had an odd experience last night with a cop.

Last night, at around 12:15-12:30, I was cruising down the street I live on, doing about 22. There was a police car about twenty yards in front of me, going around 25, and a car in front of him going about the same. This cop was bored and on a mission to ticket somebody, anybody. So, he was following the car in front of him. The car put their right turn signal on, and just as they did, the cop did likewise. But, just as I pulled into my driveway, I turned my headlights off, so I didn't wake anyone up at home with my bright lights. The cop obviously saw this and right when I was getting out of my car, locking my doors up, and making sure they were locked after I shut the door, the cop was in my driveway. He asked me why I turned my lights off. I said, "Because you see that window up there? That's where my father sleeps and I don't want to wake him up with my lights being on." He then said, "Well, what about my lights? You think those will wake him up?" At this point, I thought this guy might've been a George W. Bush clone, and I responded with, "Yeah, if was up there sleeping, they probably woke him up." He then told me never to do that again and that he'd ticket me for driving without my headlights on if I did such a thing again.

Don't cops have anything better to do on a Saturday night? Drug busts? Robberies? Murders? MIPs? DWIs? But no, let's follow around every car in the area, in hope that one of them will mess up ever so slightly that we can give them a ticket. Ooh, let's pull that one over in his driveway. We can ticket him for not driving with his headlights for a foot. Yesssssssss! I should've just started throwing donuts at him. Although, that would've kept him busy for hours on my driveway, and the sooner he leaves the better, so forget the donut idea. Although, I could run inside, grab a gift certificate for a place like Krispy Kreme and that might get him off the driveway immediately.

So, what kind of tickets do cops give to people trying to be courteous to family, friends, and/or neighbors? I'm curious of this. I also turned the music down in my car as I entered the neighborhood. Could the cop pull me over for that too? "I'm sorry son, but I noticed you turned your music down and that made me very suspicious, so I'm going to have to give you a ticket." Alrighty then. I even asked a cop about the situation and he responded with, "That guy sounds like a total d**khead." There you go, the inside information with a cop's perspective on this particular cop.

Moral of this story? For those out there who constantly do twenty over the speed limit, go through red lights, don't stop at stop signs, don't use your turn signals, and don't obey many traffic laws, you don't have much to worry about. The cops seem to stray away from your group. But, for those of you that are a little more cautious while driving and tend to obey the traffic laws, keep your eyes open, from the time you leave for your destination until you get there and until you get back into you driveway.

Ever Feel Like a.....?

A b***h? Or, I should say, like someone's b***h? I've run into this dilemma of late and it's a very odd feeling, I must say.

This woman and I have been friends for over a year now, but over the past month, I've felt like nothing but her b***h. It's no longer, "I'm going to call Craig to talk." It's, "I'm going to call Craig to tell him about a favor he can do for me." So, we don't talk about school, work, love interests, family, friends, politics, hanging out, movies, or anything like that anymore. Now, it's just, "Craig, can you be here by 10am tomorrow? I need someone to help me get my treadmill and carry it in. So, I figured, you could do it." Uh-huh, and how much am I getting paid for this?

That hasn't been the only thing, oh no. It all started with her basically telling me I had to tutor her in math. I enjoy math and I enjoy teaching math, so I said sure. But, every time I brought up an appointment, she'd run somewhere else and I wasted a couple nights because of that, which I was none too pleased about.

Then, on two separate occasions, she invited me to go out to dinner with her and have a couple drinks. I said sure. So, we met up at her place and she then notifies me, "Yeah, Craig, I've got to do a bunch of shopping, so, do you want to come with and help me out?" What do I say there? I just spend 30 minutes driving there. It'd be a waste of gas and time to just drive right back, so through her manipulative tactics, I said sure. On the way back to her place from the stores, she even said this, "I figured you could be my b***h and help bring in all the groceries." She said this in a joking manner, but still, I think there's some truth to that.

Being someone's b***h is no fun, especially if they had been a pretty good friend for an extended period of time. It's like, one day, this switch in their mind goes from mutual, sympathizing, and friendly to commanding, controlling, and manipulative. How does that work? It's not going to make for a very good friendship if one person is giving their all and the other is maybe giving a quarter of what they have to offer. It then becomes the other person using and taking advantage of all the effort and work you're putting into the friendship, and in turn, they try to make you their b***h. If anyone out there is being treated like this, lay your foot down and put a stop to it! That's what I did last night, and I must say, it felt mighty fine!