http://search.deviantart.com/?q=by:street-howitzer&section=today deviantART RSS for by:street-howitzer en-us Copyright 2010, deviantART.com Tue, 05 Jan 2010 21:12:51 PST deviantART.com http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss http://s.deviantart.com/minish/widgets/apple-touch-icon-precomposed.png http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/28396269/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/28396269/ Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:30:40 PST all the money we had in the world, and that we could not afford to spend it on a hotel room forever.

We had to negotiate with an apartment complex heavily before they'd let us rent with them. They wanted $1200 up-front--first and last month's rent, plus a deposit--on a studio apartment that simply wasn't worth the price they asked. But, being poor, we didn't have much choice. They also wanted a co-signer on the lease, so we had to wait even longer for approval. While we were waiting, we were buying food from Pike's Place (more on that in a second) and basically living for days at a time off a single piece of cheese, a small jar of jelly, and a loaf of bread.

Those days in that hotel room were spent preparing to spend a few nights on the street. We couldn't afford to keep paying for a $60/night room when we also had a $1200 bill coming up. We counted ourselves lucky that the landlady decided to let us sign a lease. When we moved in, we had a pile of towels and sweaters to sleep on, some clothes and a couple of books. Nothing else.

The first couple of months we lived there, we kept asking people to point us to a "grocery store". No one seemed to know what that was. We later found that in the North, "grocery store" is not in the lexicon; all such stores are called "supermarkets". Instead of getting directed to places where food is sold, we had to resort to local convenience stores. We bought cookware and a sleeping bag from a camping store because we couldn't find anyplace locally that sold these items for cheap.

When we became aware of local supermarkets, we found, to our delight, that they were an impossible trek away. We couldn't afford a car in Seattle, not on our pathetic budget. Often, especially in the early months, we couldn't afford bus fare, and the buses never ran the correct routes anyhow. To get groceries, we had to walk, a walk that was about 45 minutes to an hour one-way. We could only buy what we could carry home.

Later, when we had a roommate who actually paid her bills, we counted ourselves lucky that we could afford $30 for a taxi.

Now, the cost of being poor did not end with the problems of buying food. My partner had to walk to and from her school (a two-hour round trip). She also walked to and from her jobs, which added another 45 minutes of exhaustion. For most of my jobs, I also walked--most averaged an hour- to an hour-and-a-half round trip. One of my jobs required that I take a bus. This bus's schedule was just enough out-of-synch with my usual shift that I'd end up arriving at work early and sitting around late at night, waiting for my ride home.

After a miserable shift serving rich people food and cleaning up rich people's messes, nothing makes your day better than knowing you have to walk another hour in the dead of night, gritting your teeth to keep from panic-breathing, your hand always on the pocket-siren your father sent you for safety, flinching at every shadow and panicking at the sight of another person, your back seizing up from all the overloaded trays of filthy dishes you had to sling, your nose full of the unique scent of swill that always follows you after a shift... and, knowing that after you get home, you have to walk to the grocery store, bring home what you can carry, and try to cook/eat it without just falling the fuck asleep into the saucepan.

But, you know, we had a television*, so we must not have been poor at all. And we were just stupid and making bad, lazy choices when we spent our money on processed food from a convenience store less than a ten-minute walk from our apartment, cigarettes, and beer. Right?

_{*A television with a ten-inch screen that was gifted to us by a maintenance worker at our building. But it was a TV, so clearly, we were not and never have been poor.}

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/28295249/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/28295249/ Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:40:54 PST
The bishop's response:

"I consider if someone is homosexual, it is a provocation and an abuse of this place. Try to go to a mosque if you are not Muslim. It is abuse of our buildings and our religion because the church interprets our religion that it is not ethical. We expect respect of our church as we expect to respect that a person does not have to belong to the Catholic Church. If you have different ideas, go to a different location."

Here, Kaleta demonstrated all kinds of ignorance--for example, falsely claiming that non-Muslims cannot enter mosques. Or his clear assertion that the Catholic Church does not even want gay people to step inside of their buildings, which probably comes as a surprise to many Catholics. Or the morbidly-amusing fact that he portrays the very presence of queers as "abuse" while participating in a government-barely-pretending-to-be-a-religion that actively protects, to this day, its leaders who like to pin down small, helpless children and viciously rape them inside of those same buildings. Fascinating, how my very presence in a Catholic building would be "abuse", but the presence of costumed men who rape (you know, abuse) children is not.

However, really, I just have two questions for the good bishop:

1. Will you please give back all of the artworks and buildings in Vatican City that were crafted/decorated by queer people? Seeing as we aren't good enough to even enter your country, why should our work be good enough to be there?

2. Once you give it all back, how will you keep up that heterosexual-only tourist trade when there's nothing left in Vatican City but barren fields and a bunch of costumed kid-fuckers to look at?

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/27464744/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/27464744/ Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:57:53 PDT
And this is so much worse than I originally heard that it's untrue.

Here's what happened. "Monk" is on its final season, and USA Network felt that there should be another lighthearted, quirky detective, someone who's very Monk-ish, to keep those "Monk" viewers tuned in to their network. USA's execs figured that Nichols is a perfect Monk substitute, whereas Goren is too dark to take that role. (It didn't hurt that Dick Wolf apparently prefers Jeff Goldblum's character to Vincent D'Onofrio's, either.)

So, they're going to take the show apart and put it back together in a Monk-ish fashion. Goren, Eames, and Ross are therefore all being jettisoned. Goren and Eames will hand off Major Case to Nichols in the two-hour season premiere in March '10. It's not clear to me whether Ross will be leaving at that time or later in the season. In addition, Wheeler will be jettisoned sometime during season 9, because Julianne Nicholson reportedly is tired of being on the show.

My understanding is that they're going to drop the whole "Partner A/Partner B" format, since the show will now revolve around Nichols. Nichol's new partner will be played by Saffron Burrows.

You know, I was distinctly unthrilled with Nichols when he was added to the show, and deeply disappointed with what a poor character he was (especially considering that Goldblum is normally a great character actor). Now I really have no choice but to hate him. He's ruined my fucking show. And even worse, he's the reason why they're now changing my show into a "Monk" knockoff. I hated "Monk" when it was first on, and I see no reason why I'd like it now that it's infected one of my favorite programs.

There aren't enough curse words in the world.

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/27410127/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/27410127/ Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:43:14 PDT What's the fucking point of watching it anymore?

Not that I'm surprised. But I'm already having a bad year.

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/27276062/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/27276062/ Fri, 18 Sep 2009 07:22:16 PDT
Those people told us that, by the laws of our state, we were the legal owners of the cats because we fed them. And that we could therefore legally surrender the animals to the SPCA. The wife spent all of yesterday trying to contact the person we were told to speak to at the SPCA to arrange the surrendering.

The wife also begged me to let her bring the mother-cat and kittens home. I told her no. I told her that we'd lose the apartment if we got caught with them (we already have three). I told her we couldn't afford them. I pointed out that we might not be able to get them all homes. She sighed, then finally agreed with me and left them alone.

Today, she went to go feed the cats. And they're not there anymore. She called for them; she laid out food for them. Their nest is empty. There is no sign of them anywhere. None of her co-workers adopted any of them. They don't appear to have been attacked. They're just gone.

And the selfish part of me is killing myself over it, because I know that if I had been compassionate instead of selfish, it would have worked out better. If I had lived up to my own principles I would never have suggested that leaving innocent kittens outside all alone was a good idea. I really hate myself right now and I don't even have a right to--it's not like I'm the one who's probably in desperate trouble, is it?

I haven't stopped crying. I don't deserve to stop.

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/27204949/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/27204949/ Mon, 14 Sep 2009 07:45:55 PDT
How many of the people who are getting the vapors over a black man insulting a white woman didn't notice or care when a white Representative* insulted a black President in the middle of an address to Congress?

_{*In my original journal, I referred to this odious member of Congress as a Senator. I really should have just typed "congresscritter" or "idiot", since either would have sufficed. I regret the error.}

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/27032441/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/27032441/ Sat, 05 Sep 2009 10:00:54 PDT Torture apologists certainly require a little of it.

What still amazes me is how people like ~talespin think that swearing is more morally objectionable than insulting American soldiers. American conservatives like her are a pathetic bunch.

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/26876851/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/26876851/ Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:49:29 PDT
As an example: when you drink alcohol, your brain works differently, and its output (including brain-waves) are different. Listening to an iDose for alcohol causes your brain to behave as though you have consumed alcohol. You become drunk without ever having to take a sip of alcohol.

Because iDoses are sounds, not substances, it is theoretically impossible to become addicted to them. It's also possible to create effects apart from that of drugs (although the drug options are obviously the most popular ones). There are iDoses meant to help you meditate, to generate "out of body" experiences, to help you sleep, and to alleviate sadness or fear.

I decided to try the iDose called "Inspire". Being a writer who frequently suffers from constipation of the word processor, I thought it would be the most relevant. It is supposed to recreate the mental state of being creative.

The first time I tried it, I made a big mistake. Ideally, you listen to iDoses in a dark room with your eyes closed, or with an eye-mask on. I did not cover my eyes; in fact, I read a book while I took it (some people say that this helps, but in my case, it doesn't). I'd also been told that this iDose gives feelings of euphoria; I didn't get those. Afterwards, I felt a little weird, but not that different, and I didn't get any writing done at all.

I gave it a couple of weeks, then tried it again. This time, I took the iDose with an eye-mask on. I kept relaxed, although my hands were in a weird position and started getting pins and needles after a minute. It was hard, but I sat through the whole thing (about twenty-five minutes or so). When I was done, I laid still for a few more minutes, until I could no longer hear ringing static in my ears.

When I first sat up and took off the mask, I was disappointed again. I felt no different--certainly no euphoria. I commented to the wife that I didn't think it had worked. I went to grab some water, and along the way to the kitchen, I found myself thinking whoa, wait a second, I might've spoken too soon.

The Inspire dose does not cause you to hallucinate, but it does have a mild magnifying effect on the eyes. Looking around, I felt as though everything I saw was slightly more third-dimensional than before. Everything seemed more defined, somehow. Thinking that it had worked, I sat down and started to write.

Inspire does not (in my limited use of it) make you more creative the way I thought it would. Ideas do not suddenly come tumbling out of your head, as though Morpheus was cursing you for stealing a muse. And it doesn't gag the inner Editor. I tend to edit as I write--a bad habit that's one of the reasons why it takes me so damn long to finish anything. I did it about as much while Inspired as I do any other time.

What it does, apart from the visual clarity, is make you unafraid.

I have a lot of anxiety when it comes to writing. If I make a mistake, I will sometimes stop entirely, just because I'm so frustrated and angry with myself for screwing up. I obsess over word choice so much that I've ceased working on stories because I couldn't figure out how to express what I wanted. I'm often too afraid or disgusted to even look at some of my old failures in order to polish them off and finish them.

And I felt none of that while I was on the Inspire iDose. The story I worked on is pretty much the definition of a story that'll be impossible for me to finish: an explicit fic for a pairing I haven't written before, in a tense I don't normally write in (third-person present). I didn't finish it, but I got a lot farther than I normally ever would. And I felt none of the usual negative emotions that bog me down. I didn't question myself, and I didn't panic. I just wrote, and the only reason why I stopped was because I had to run an errand.

I have no idea how much of this is a placebo effect, and how much is a legitimate experience; but it works for me. Has anyone else tried it?

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/26832772/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/26832772/ Wed, 26 Aug 2009 08:56:01 PDT
This isn't surprising. I knew he was going to die last week, when he was begging Massachusetts politicians to replace him as soon as possible so that someone could vote "yea" on health care reform in his stead. I knew it, and I still hoped that he'd get to live long enough to see something he'd fought for come to fruition.

And he didn't.

The ghouls are out in force already. It's probably not a good time to be on the Internet and into politics.

This, on the other hand, was worth risking the Intertubes: [link]

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/26419645/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/26419645/ Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:20:04 PDT like this, I wonder how it is that Republicans and conservatives held power for so long without accidentally (or purposefully) blowing up the entire planet.

God. What insipid children.

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/25690629/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/25690629/ Thu, 02 Jul 2009 08:41:21 PDT Rictor and Shatterstar of "X-Factor" kissed for the first time.

A relationship between them had been hinted at in previous issues; this was the first confirmation that they had hooked up. Their kiss is one of the first same-sex kisses in a mainstream Marvel Comic.

There's a lot of bad things you can say about Marvel, and I wouldn't quibble over a lot of it. But Stan Lee loves the gay. In '03, IIRC, Marvel did a reboot of "Rawhide Kid" where the eponymous hero was re-imagined as an admittedly-stereotypical gay man. It was notable not only because the comic portrayed a gay cowboy before "Brokeback Mountain" ever came out, but because Stan Lee himself gave at least one interview defending the change. (Not that the Rawhide Kid was the first gay hero--there were many minor queer characters in Marvel Comics, and naturally, there's Northstar--but changing the Kid's sexuality was extremely controversial.* Remember that, for six months of the year 2003, it was still illegal to be homosexual in the United States.)

Something Stan said then has always stayed with me: there are so many superheroes that, logically speaking, at least one of them must be gay. And who can argue with that?

As someone who owns quite a bit of the "Ultimate X-Men" series, I'm still disappointed that Colossus and Northstar never got more than a hug (and that they broke up because of that fucking moron from "Heroes" being hired as a writer for the series). But even so, I'm happy that Shatterstar and Rictor got their moment.

*~BlinkPink reminds me that "Rawhide Kid" was also controversial, and ahead of its time, because one of its characters was a caricature of then-President George W. Bush. In '09, it's hard to appreciate just how brave that sort of thing was in that time. It was, after all, a time when even mild critique of the President was met with accusations of treason.

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/25268530/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/25268530/ Fri, 12 Jun 2009 07:50:41 PDT WerewolfOfTheWater commented on my journal regarding the terrorist attack on Dr. Tiller with this:

I mean, what would happen if I had to get an abortion someday, and some pro-lifer found out, would they shoot me?

I thought it was a good point--one I wanted to discuss more in depth.

The short answer: I wouldn't worry about it.

Consider their propaganda and actions as regards, let us say, Dr. Tiller. To my knowledge, no one stalked or harassed his patients the way that the doctor and his staff were stalked and harassed. No one followed these women to their homes and trespassed onto their property to anoint it with holy water. No one sent postcards to these womens' neighbors explaining that they murdered their babies. No one walked up to small children who lived near these women and said "You see her over there? She killed her own child!". No one found out these womens' husbands' places of work and threatened to picket there. No one firebombed their homes or their jobs. No one hunted them down and shot them in their places of work or their churches.

True, pro-lifers like Bill O'Reilly claimed that the women who needed Dr. Tiller's services were silly, empty-headed twits--women who would obtain a third-trimester abortion because they were "mildly depressed" or had sore feet. Yet even when O'Reilly mentioned the patients, he always did so in conjunction with the doctor. Dr. Tiller, you see, was the true monster. He manipulated these poor, stupid, clueless women into giving him thousands of dollars and letting him murder their innocent babies.

In order to understand what truly motivates pro-life terrorists like Scott Roeder (presuming that he is guilty--he has not yet been convicted of that crime), one must correctly see what the object of their hatred is. Many liberals, for example, cannot correctly see what motivated James von Brunn to open fire in a Holocaust Museum when they falsely insist that von Brunn was a Christian/Christianist terrorist. von Brunn is an avowed atheist who hates Christianity because he believes it's part of the Jewish conspiracy. It is important that one does not lie about someone's religious views in order to fit one's own prejudices on religion and terrorism.

Roeder's spite and loathing was not directed at women who obtain abortions--for surely if they were, he would have attempted to assassinate Tiller with a firebomb during opening hours of the clinic. His target, the object of his hatred, was not the patients, but the doctor. That is no small coincidence.

It has been mentioned by pro-choicers that, if abortion were to be declared murder and made illegal, the only logical way to implement such a law would be to imprison women who obtain abortions. After all, they would have, in essence, hired a hitman to murder their child for them. Paying someone to commit a murder is a serious crime, is it not? Yet if you mention this to the majority of pro-lifers, they do not eagerly anticipate the jailing of such women. Most stammer, shift from foot to foot, refuse to make eye contact, and mumble that of course women shouldn't be jailed.

Rather than being a sign of humanity and charity, though, this response is precisely the same as what men such as Roeder would have (and here I'm pretending that I have psychic powers, I know). Here's the thing: Roeder didn't target the patients because he does not believe that women are responsible for choosing to abort. Women cannot consciously make that decision. They can only be manipulated into doing so by evil, money-obsessed doctors--doctors who are almost invariably male.

Women are, in pro-life propaganda, most frequently portrayed as victims. It's not the woman's fault that she got a D&E for mild depression*. It's Tiller's fault entirely. The old stereotype of the Slut Who Should Have Kept Her Legs Closed is alive and well, true. But for example, the pro-life focus on "black genocide"** shows the strong tendency for shaming women (which used to be what pro-lifers were all about) has been replaced by patronizing sympathy.

These sorts of pro-lifers--particularly the terrorist wing of the pro-life movement--aren't anti-choice because they believe in the sanctity of human life. They are anti-choice because they believe that women are constitutionally incapable of making decisions. The whole of their beliefs can be described thus: "Women should be forced into giving birth because otherwise, some other man will force them into aborting."

I believe that women who need an abortion do not need to fear them. After all, women aren't real to them.

*By the way, just to make this clear, this never happens anywhere outside of pro-life pro... ]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/25213489/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/25213489/ Tue, 09 Jun 2009 09:36:39 PDT women and their doctors.

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/25152450/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/25152450/ Fri, 05 Jun 2009 22:11:06 PDT is still better than you.

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/25011331/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/25011331/ Fri, 29 May 2009 08:15:25 PDT
1. It is uttered by a conservative or Republican;
2. Said conservative or Republican does NOT admit that s/he has never read about any but three of Sotomayor's cases (and demonstrates that they have, in fact, made themselves aware of more than three cases) ; and
3. The critique does NOT amount to the following: "She's hot-headed and testy", "She's stupid", "She's Che Guevara in robes", "She's Hispanic", "She might be a lesbian", "Obama appointed her", "She's too nice", "She's the Affirmative Action Nominee".

(Yes, I have seen many mutations of all of the above. On conservative blogs, and spoken by conservative pundits and Republican elected officials. Occasionally by "liberal" newspapers, such as the New York Times.)

Alternatively, could someone explain to me how heaping racist and sexist derision on the first Latina to ever be nominated to the Supreme Court is supposed to win any women or Hispanics over to the conservative/Republican side?

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/24980578/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/24980578/ Wed, 27 May 2009 14:14:35 PDT If they had gone for this alternate ending for "Terminator: Salvation", I would have personally seen it so many times in the theaters that I would have single-handedly made it the #1 movie in America.

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/24346030/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/24346030/ Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:43:46 PDT (I'm not the only person to make these observations, but I wanted to vent about them. So, y'know, cut me a little slack here.)

I saw the "Twilight" movie recently.

I watched it to be ironic, mostly--the wife told the cashier ringing us up at the BlockBuster that we were not, in fact, renting this movie because we thought it would be good. There was a little, eternally-hopeful part of me that wanted to find something to like about it. Not that I want to be one of those fangirls, but because I want to understand why people are so excited about these books.

Unfortunately, watching it has only confirmed that people who like these books need to improve their taste in reading. The movie is crap, in a way I haven't yet encountered in a film. Nothing. Ever. Happens. Since everyone already knows that Edward's a vampire before they even crack open the book/DVD case, the one "surprise" in the story's done with before one even begins. The only twists and turns in the film involved the director and scriptwriter(s) expertly ducking and weaving to avoid anything remotely interesting ever happening. Whenever something seems like it may happen, such as the Vampires Playing Baseball scene, you may take it on faith that the director and scriptwriter(s)--like Stephanie "Stephen King Is Just Jealous Of Me" SMeyerS before them--will swoop in at the last moment and bravely prevent any true action from taking place.

What I didn't expect from "Twilight" was how disturbing Edward Cullen is. When people whimper about how they want an Edward to sweep them off their feet, I know that I am dealing with someone who is either insane or an emotional infant. He's not romantic; he is a textbook abuser-in-waiting.

I think that this glamorization is a deliberate theme in the book and the movie; and that Edward's vampirism (such as it is) can be interpreted to fit in with this theme. That some of Edward's behavior can be explained by his vampirism makes no difference to me. All abusers can explain their actions, and having an explanation does not make the actions acceptable or understandable. And the point here is that the book/movie is glamorizing behaviors associated with domestic abusers--what better way to make it seem acceptable than by giving the "but he's a vampire" excuse?

1. The #1 sign that someone may abuse you in the future is "past actions"--they have committed similar acts of violence in the past. Edward has killed people in the past.

2. Abusers often come from families where abuse and violence are commonplace. They "learn" how to be abusers by seeing that self-same violence play out day after day between their parents and/or siblings.

Edward's "family" is composed of quasi-incestuous couplings (incest being either abuse or a sign that extreme abuse is taking place). He was initiated into this "family" by being murdered on his death-bed by his "father"; rather than resenting this violence, he accepts it as a good thing--perhaps something he deserved. Their "family" life relies on everyone living an elaborate deception, thereby instilling in the "children" the idea that lying is a virtue. (Lying for the Lord, perhaps.)

3. Abusers typically get their start by harming animals. Edward kills animals for their blood.

4. Abusers refuse to take any responsibility for their actions. They can always find someone to blame for things that go wrong for them: "I got fired because my boss is a bitch", for instance. This comes into play later, when the abuser blames his own violence on his partner.

Edward blames all of his negative impulses on his vampirism. He refuses to be responsible for his thirst, or for its consequences. When he meets Bella, it is not his own fault that he wants to kill her: he repeatedly blames her for existing, and takes it out on her accordingly.

5. Abusers suggest violence as solutions to their problems, often as 'jokes' in the beginning. After Bella tells Edward that she knows he's a vampire, they have a long conversation about his violent urges. During this conversation, he brings up the fact that he'd only be truly satisfied by drinking her blood, then laughs, as if he's made a funny.

6. Abusers often vacillate with confusing speed between cruelty and kindness. They will beat their victim, for example, then burst into tears and try to apologize for what they've done. This is a classic form of manipulation that results in Stockholm's Syndrome. It is also due to most abusers having extreme mood swings, often referred to by victims as "Jeckyll and Hyde" personas. During the movie, Edward flips between being nasty to Bella (and telling her that his meanness is "for the best") and being nice to Bella. Nothing will have really changed from scene to scene except for his mood.

7. Abusers are not... ]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/24162420/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/24162420/ Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:01:56 PDT teabagging protests due to take place on April 15. There are a few things I've thought over--like congratulating the participants for choosing to participate in a protest, rather than taking their licensed guns and opening fire on police officers and unarmed citizens. Or claiming that I'm joining the protests because, as a queer American, I don't believe in paying taxes to a government that discriminates against me. Or just driving by, pointing, and laughing. You know, the usual childish stuff that people rarely actually do.

But then, I remember: April 15 is a Wednesday. And, unlike the teabaggers, I have what is called "a job" and must therefore do what is referred to in some circles as "work". It must be nice to have enough vacation days to get the day off, just so you can spend the afternoon teabagging away in the hot sun; or, alternatively, it must be nice that your parents drove you to the protest and gave you a bag lunch. Whichever.

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/23999971/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/23999971/ Wed, 01 Apr 2009 07:24:19 PDT Fuzzy-Grinch - This is another entry on The Movie We Don't Speak Of. I know of your allergy to Stupid Shit, so now is your chance to click the back button.)

Regarding this idiocy, ~neffinesse correctly pointed something out: "I'm fine with playing around a little with Holmes, adding little nuggets of behaviour to the text; Brett did that awesomely with his occasional little hyperactive quirks."

And it is true. Brett's Holmes, while my personal favorite, does have some additions to the character. So why get pissed off about what Guy Ritchie and Robert Downey Jr. are doing with their crappy movie?

The answer should be simple, and one that should be paid attention to by actors and directors alike. There's a difference between making small, realistic additions to the character while preserving the overall original intent, and taking the original canon and standing it on its head in order to make yourself seem edgy and cool.

Brett's Holmes was grounded firmly in the Canon. Anything extra he brought to the role was just that--extra. He didn't radically deviate from what Doyle had originally written, and any additions (like his hyperactive outbursts) were completely believable in the context of Canon.

Downey and Ritchie, on the other hand, aren't just putting in extra stuff. They're taking shit away. As just one odious example, they're saying that Doyle was wrong (for lack of a better way to put it) to write Holmes as a sexually repressed Victorian who showed no interest in women. Because there's no way that a modern audience could possibly be interested in a hero who isn't obsessed with chicks. There's no way that it would be, you know, interesting and funny to have a prude as a central character in a story.

That's insulting to the character, the original author, AND everyone who's a fan of both. I mean, Sherlockians are fans of Holmes as he was presented in the Canon, and telling us that the Holmes we like isn't good enough makes me wonder why they'd fucking bother making a movie about him in the first place. No one's stopping Guy Ritchie from writing an original film set in the Victorian Era about a violent, horny action hero. (Well, no one person may be stopping him, but I know why he can't do it: because he's a talentless moron whose claim to fame is that he's made the exact same goddamn movie three times and tricked people into paying for it each time. And I say that at someone who thinks Snatch. is one of the best movies I've ever seen.)

This is the same sort of disrespect that literature fans who are not also Harry Goddamn Potter fans have come to expect from movie-makers. See, the sheer number of Harry Goddamn Potter fans necessarily meant that the movie-makers had to pay at least partial attention to their canon, or else they'd be picketed at their homes by cosplaying, pitchfork-wielding tweenies. Everyone who isn't a Harry Goddamn Potter fan, though, can expect things like this to happen to their beloved stories. Since there are far fewer of us, so far as directors are concerned, we can go find a fire and die in it.

What pisses me off about it is that I don't see why movies like this can't be made for two audiences: the Jane Moviegoer who hasn't read any Sherlock Holmes stories, but is curious about the film; AND the die-hard Sherlockians who'd camp outside a movie theater to see a good rendition of a Holmes-centered tale. Often, trying to strike such a balance can have positive effects: it can make more people interested in the source material, thereby creating new fans of the book. When you deviate this far from the Canon, though, you're not going to create new fans of Doyle's work. You're going to create an unstoppable legion of zombie fangirls who think that the Holmes in fiction is boring and dumb, and liek so lame and not near as hawt and awesum as the one in the movie. Instead of generating interest in the books, it'll draw the sort of viewer who will become less interested in them after viewing it.

Say what you will about Jackson's Lord of the Rings--God knows I've heaped a metric shit-ton of scorn on his head for his many goofs and poor decisions with those movies--but Peter Jackson put righteous effor... ]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/23990165/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/23990165/ Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:10:25 PDT the upcoming Sherlock Holmes movie:

WHAT THE FUCK IS THE MATTER WITH YOU.

HERE'S A BAG OF DICKS.

EAT THEM ALL. PLEASE.

Love and kisses,
~street howitzer~

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/23304561/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/23304561/ Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:06:41 PST
The tragic part about this list is how little has actually been accomplished, and how many story ideas have simply been deleted unwritten. I don't mean to be a lazy bitch, but it kind of comes naturally to me. I can't tell you how many times I've tried to restart "Theft of Destiny", or any of the fragments that are listed below (only 110 words? really? is that all?). Or how many times I blew those stories off in order to write Bibleslash and really skanky "Pitch Black" fanfiction.

The other depressing part (because, damn, there's a lot) is that, as the wife observed last night, I tend to dry up when it comes to writing in late November and not really get going again until February or March. By that time, my focus has nearly always shifted to something completely different, so anything I was working on beforehand falls by the wayside.

But wait! There's good news. Well, sort of.

I have actually (as noted below) started working on one of the pieces listed below. The original idea was conceived two years ago. But I'm going back to it anyway, because it makes me happy, and I will not permit anything as petty as "but it's old as hell" to get in my way. So there may be hope for me after all.

- new addition

LO: SVU

~Munch/Fin undertones. Fin opening up to John and talks about his issues with his son.

Historical slash

Tombstone, AZ

~What Big-Nose Kate witnessed in Doc Holliday's room, after the OK Corral shoot-out. Doc/Kate.
~Holliday's arrest for the stagecoach robbery-murder on Kate's testimony, and his trying to deal with betrayal.
~One last meeting, one last time. Wyatt/Doc.
~Morgan's read a new religious book, and is trying to persuade his brothers to come along to Utah. Gentle chiding of Mormonism to take place within. (started, 180 words in)

Elizabethean England

~Paying for the right to sit at Kit Marlowe's table. Kit/Shakespeare.
~"Write one single line, just for my eyes..." Thomas/Kit.
~Nothing is quite as frightening as a jealous Christopher. Thomas/Kit.
~A now-successful Will Shakespeare finds the ruined husk of Thomas Kyd on a road-side. He takes him in for a good meal and a rest, and Thomas despairs of his part in Kit Marlow's demise, and the loss of his own livelihood. On Thomas's death, Will resolves to do his poor, deceased comrades a few final favors, and enlists the help of both Ned Alleyn and Thomas's mother. Thomas/Kit.

Star Wars

~Obi-Wan practices his Force-push skills, and Qui-Gon teaches him the difference between revenge and punishment. Also, I love picking on Mace Windu, who rules worlds.
~Different kinds of love. Qui-Gon/Obi-Wan.
~Some people will do anything for luxury. Pre-Episode 2, some implied Kit Fisto/Aayla Secura.
~The Force never loses its power to surprise even its more seasoned practitioners. Pre-Episode 1, OCs, multi-chapter, sequels in the works. (started, chapters 1-4 finished, 31,000 words in)

Pirates of the Caribbean

~"Theft of Destiny": On the tribulations of becoming a pirate Lord, and the difficulty of forgetting one such as Captain Jack Sparrow. Violence, implied Barbossa/Jack and Bootstrap/Jack, prequel to "Curse of the Black Pearl", spoilers for all three films. (started, two chapters in)
~Barbossa's stories scare people. Implied Heck/Jack, inspired by The Decemberists' "The Mariner's Revenge".

Sherlock Holmes

~One of the trifling incidents which led Victor to praise Sherlock's deductive abilities so highly to his father in "The Gloria Scott". Sherlock/Victor, and a lead-in to another story that will follow the great tradition of blackmail stories in Holmes-slash.
~Watson tries his hand at solving a mystery during the Great Hiatus. Features Watson/Mary and Watson pining distantly for Holmes.

Tin Man

~There's one political prisoner stashed in the tower who, no matter how she tries, Azkadellia can't remember putting there. An attempt at redemption ensues. Azkadellia/Airofday.
~What happened to destroy Raw's life? Pre-series, Raw-centric, lotsa postulation on what the Viewers might have been like, socially.
~DG is tired of hearing Glitch and Cain spat. Based off the many arguments that the Tin Woodsman and the Scarecrow had... ]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/23037436/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/23037436/ Fri, 06 Feb 2009 09:36:33 PST
The government likes to tell you, me, and anyone who will listen that smoking marijuana is Bad For You.

Mind you, there is no scientific evidence that smoking pot--whether casually, experimentally, or to the degree that you'd be called a pothead--is any worse for you than many legal drugs. And in fact, most of the scientific evidence I've read indicates that pot is far less harmful than long-term abuse of alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, or sugar. Furthermore, if you look at the history of anti-marijuana efforts, you discover that it was perfectly legal to possess and sell in the United States until roughly a century ago, when Mexican immigrants who smoked it made white people go into a panic. After all, if brown-skinned people do it, it must be bad.

That doesn't mean that pot is safe; I would personally argue that no one under the age of 21 should smoke it. Before that time, the neurons in one's brain have not fully formed, and THC can retard that development. (This is why a lot of people who start smoking out as teenagers appear to become stupider over time.) If one waits until after those neural pathways have fully developed, then no damage occurs.

This is all why the government's newest anti-marijuana ads no longer focus on its (nearly non-existent) adverse health effects. Instead, their recent campaigns amount to:

1. Don't smoke it because only stupid people do it. (See: ads comparing smoking weed to being kicked by a pony; ads in which people who smoke weed end up having incestuous gay make-out sessions.)
2. Don't smoke it because it makes you lazy. (See: ads depicting teens going into pot "cocoons" and emerging fat, balding and middle-aged; ads depicting teenaged pot users as wearing over fifty T-shirts, making them seem fat and slow.)
3. Don't smoke it because everyone is doing it, so you should be unique. (See: a plethora of ads depicting "peer pressure" and implying that it makes you somehow special/better if you refuse.)

Then began the Michael Phelps controversy.

Michael Phelps, in case you lived inside a monastery during 2008, was the only reason I considered rescinding my boycott of the Chinese Olympics. He is an incredible athlete who won a record eight gold medals at those Olympics. As some people on the Internet observed, that boy wouldn't need a fishing-pole if he wanted to catch a fish.

All the adoration he earned is over. He has committed the unpardonable sin: a photograph of Phelps putting his lips to a bong was discovered and published in a tabloid magazine.

Now, because a photograph of him putting his lips to a bong was published by a tabloid, Phelps is getting raked across the coals:

~Kellogg is not renewing its contract with him as a sponsor.
~He has been suspended for three months from competitive swimming (even though he did not break any anti-doping laws according to USA Swimming's own rules).
~During this suspension, USA Swimming will withdraw all financial support from Phelps.
~The Richland County sheriff (in South Carolina) is investigating whether Phelps actually smoked anything in their jurisdiction. Remember, the only thing that has been proved is that he put a bong to his lips, not that he smoked anything--although I'll grant that he most likely did. If he did, then they will file charges.

Now, Phelps was arrested in '04 for driving under the influence (most likely for alcohol). Since he's 23 now, he would have been about 19 when that happened. In spite of his pleading guilty and being sentenced to probation for that incident, I note that no one has ever suggested that doing something that might actually kill other people, something that was completely illegal on several levels for him to do, should have disqualified him from going to the Olympics or being on a box of Wheaties. Yet doing something that harms no one, if he did in fact actually take a hit of marijuana, is enough to take his face off those boxes of Wheaties forevermore.

What everyone--from the news to most Americans--seems to be missing is that if Phelps does smoke pot, and if he does so on a regular basis, then it has completely rendered the government's anti-weed campaign useless. Michael Phelps does not fit into anyone's definition of "lazy". He's not some idiot slacker who sits on a couch and watches TV for ten hours. He's an eight-time Olympic champion and world-class athlete. And he may smoke weed. What was that about pot making you stupid and shiftless, again?

Oh, and for anyone who wants to argue with me about how he's an athlete, so there's no... ]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/22116541/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/22116541/ Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:16:55 PST Enjoy celebrating the birth of Heru-sa-Aset. Have a wonderful HumanLight celebration. Or, if you prefer, get trashed and have a good old-fashioned Festivus Airing of Grievances.

It's my understanding that the tradition of a winter festival began back when humans believed that the sun was disappearing. We would gather together and feast, ignite candles, and decorate our homes with fragrant fruits and flowers--all in the hopes of charming the sun into coming back for another year.

As with most stories, whether or not it is true has no bearing on whether or not it is good. I like the idea of us humans, all gathering together against the dark and the cold, in order to break out the rich food and the liquor. In the face of possible doom, we most often react with paranoia, dread, or violence--but in this case, we reacted by surrounding ourselves with family, friends, and desserts. Would that we did that more often.

Personally, I don't care which God you are celebrating, or if your celebrations are of humanity. Enjoy your celebrations. I'll be around next year.

(Also, for those few interested parties: my Christmas gift this year was a letter from the Mormon Church confirming that my name was removed from their records.)

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/21644471/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/21644471/ Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:29:07 PST
I've had a number of people approach me on various deviations in order to comment on things I'd said about Obama, or McCain. At last count, five different people have left fairly/extremely negative comments, one of whom went on to post multiple comments on my userpage. (A different commenter, *ReturnToWaldenPond, was very respectful towards me--I'm not lumping her in with these flamers/trolls.)

For about a week after the election, responding to those comments was kind of fun. But now, I'm just getting sick of it. I do have other things to do than field comments from some random idiot who's decided to spam me with copy-and-pasted talking points.

It's tiresome. I mean, technically speaking, I did invite it onto myself; I left public comments on a public website, and I do expect for other people to see them and reply to them. But, even so, it is kind of annoying--especially when I want to move on to other topics.

Then again, the next story I post will probably be the biggest piece of flamebait I've composed so far. But it's not about Obama! That counts for something, doesn't it?

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/21418174/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/21418174/ Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:12:34 PST [link]

[link]

Since the Mormon Church was so kind as to make itself a political entity (regarding its lobbying for Proposition 8), let's help the Church make the transition from "tax-exempt religious group" to "taxed lobbying group".

EDIT:

To the Mormon (who shall remain nameless, so as not to give him a gigantic ego) who has told me that he thought it was "good" that gay people and their children suffered under Proposition 8; who considered asking him how he would feel if Mormon marriage was banned "disrespecting (his) religion"; who called adoption "not natural"; and who said he "felt good" about how 18,000 marriages were destroyed because of Prop. 8's passing:

I am going to send a letter to my local bishop, reminding him that it has been four months since he received my resignation. I'm going to demand that he process my resignation immediately. And when I do, I am going to inform him that the reason why I'm contacting him is you. I will tell him that if he wants to know why the Church lost (yet another) member, he has you, and people like you, to thank.

Thank you, sir, for reminding me (again) why I should have left your Church years ago.

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/21312945/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/21312945/ Tue, 04 Nov 2008 07:06:01 PST
[link]

[link]

[link]

[link]

[link]

[link]

[link]

Well, maybe one of them is.

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/20440631/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/20440631/ Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:46:22 PDT When Sarah Palin was the mayor of Wasilla, the police chief she hired charged rape victims for the cost of a rape kit/medical exam?

When Palin was the mayor of Wasilla, her poor planning skills cost her town millions of dollars?

Palin CC'ed her husband on over forty government-related emails, even though he is not in any way employed by the Alaskan government? And that she conducted official, government-related conversations over a non-confidential Yahoo! mail account?

Palin fired a public safety commissioner because he wouldn't fire her ex-brother-in-law?

Prior to her firing of the commissioner, Palin filed multiple false complaints against her brother-in-law to get him fired--and that her behavior around his children was characterized twice as "a form of child abuse" by the judge overseeing her sister's case?

And since then, she has been accused of undermining the investigation into whether she violated any rules in the firing of said commissioner?

Sarah Palin now claims that she fired said police commissioner is because he supported a program that would have helped Alaskan police investigate rape cases, including cases of child rape? (added 9/16)

Palin and John McCain have repeatedly lied about Palin's support for the Bridge to Nowhere?

And both have repeatedly lied about Palin's inability to sell the Alaska Governor's jet on eBay?

John McCain and Palin are both opposed to teaching kindergartners how to protect themselves from pedophiles?

Sarah Palin is so clueless that she doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is? (added 9/12)

Sarah Palin lied about the amount of oil Alaska contributes? (added 9/15)

Sarah Palin says that she has foreign policy experience because Palin "can see Russia from parts of Alaska"? Did you also know that being able to see the moon from Earth does not qualify a person to be an astronaut? (added 9/15)

http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/20391718/ Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:42:09 PDT My clubs:


x. posted at my LiveJournal.

This didn't help: A ruling has been issued in the case of "Harry Goddamned Potter" author JK Rowling bullying suing a fan for producing a lexicon.

The judge has (shockingly) ruled in favor of Rowling and Warner Bros. He generously awarded one of the biggest movie production companies in the world and the richest Briton in the world $6750 in statutory damages, to be paid by the evil, overwhelming, copyright-thieving empire, represented by the small independent book publisher RDR Books.

He also has made it legally impossible for the lexicon to ever be published, period; the ruling will also, I imagine, make it difficult or impossible for anyone but Rowling herself to publish any such lexicon. It did, after all, accept Rowling's own phrasing--that Van Acker was a wicked "thief".

The judge specifically ruled that the lexicon "appropriates too much of Rowling's creative work". He went on to say that "reference works that share the lexicon's purpose of aiding readers of literature generally should be encouraged". How, exactly, people who publish such references are supposed to feel encouraged when they will have to worry about what constitutes using "too much" of an author's creative work is not mentioned.

Regular readers know that I strongly disagreed with Rowling's decision to file the lawsuit in the first place. The phrase "goddamned whiny bitch" has come up at least once. That she won the lawsuit doesn't change my opinion: in fact, it makes it stronger.

Look: I understand maintaining a certain level of control over one's own creations. I get that. I would certainly file suit if someone published, say, a novel based off of one of my original works. But Van Acker wasn't trying to publish a novel with the "Harry Goddamned Potter" characters, and he certainly was not arguing that he owned "Harry Goddamned Potter" or any of the information contained in his Lexicon. He was publishing a fucking reference book. Reference books on fictional stories are published all the time.

Rowling only got her granny-panties in a tangle over this because she intended to publish a "Harry Goddamned Potter" encyclopedia, and she was terrified that her book(s) might have to compete with someone else's. As if there's truly any doubt that if her slavering, mindless zombie fans have to pick between a book written by Rowling and a book written by anyone else, they'd ever opt for a non-Rowling source. As if people who would buy the lexicon would, naturally, not buy her encyclopedia. As if it's really rational for the person who has composed the most popular series of novels ever written to bitch about unfair competition.

As if to prove my point--that it's all about obsessive control, and has nothing to do with Rowling's so-called integrity as a writer--Warner Bros. is now suing a Bollywood production company for producing a movie titled "Hari Puttar: A Comedy of Terrors". The plot has absolutely nothing to do with anything like "Harry Goddamned Potter". "Hari" is a common name in India. And "Puttar" is the Punjabi word for "son".

But, because the title kind of sounds like "Harry Goddamned Potter", Warner Bros. has just got to send forth their lawyers.

Whiny fucking bitch and her whiny fucking legal teams.

P.S.: I do not care what "Potter" fans have to say about this. Honest. I'm one of those evil people who was glad--glad, I say--when I saw Potter fans bitching, weeping, and moaning about the late... ]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/20284650/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/20284650/ Tue, 02 Sep 2008 06:12:45 PDT My clubs:


During Gay Pride Month this year, I commented on a few forum threads regarding the celebration. I encountered a couple of people who pulled out the old, tired falsehood about how gay pride is inherently unfair, because "there's no straight pride parade".

Leaving aside all the rational arguments I made at the time, I have now found yet another very good reason why we don't have straight pride parades:

When they do take place, no one shows up for them.

Y'all had your shot. Now quit your bitching.



in these silences, something may rise. ]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/20217867/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/20217867/ Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:58:53 PDT My clubs:


Almost a year ago, I deleted a couple of stories from my dA account. Both stories were lemons--one graphic, and one not so much--which I removed because I was worried about them violating deviantArt's rules on pornography.

Now that I'm looking my current gallery over, I think that one of those deletions (a Sherlock Holmes fanfic, titled "The Other Companion") was probably unwarranted. The intimate scene in my Danny/Rusty Ocean's 11 fic is more graphic, and I still think that one skirts by dA's rules just fine. I'm still debating it, but I'll probably be reposting that one on deviantArt. I'm sorry for spamming people's inboxes with stuff they might have already seen. ._.;

I am also sorely tempted to post my Pitch Black fanfic on here--but that one is extremely graphic, regarding both sexual content and a fair amount of violence. And, well, no one cares about Pitch Black on any site but y!gallery. If I did, I'd have to put it up in an extremely watered-down version, especially in the third section. Opinions? Anyone else have to practice self-censorship of this type when posting on dA?

Finally, I really, really, REALLY need to work on some of my incomplete little mini-series. I'm looking at Tin Man and Pirates of the Caribbean in particular. I think that I'll try working on an 'interlude' chapter for "Theft of Destiny" to get my ass back in gear on that one. It's all plotted out in my head; I just can't ass myself into writing it. I also need to review what I have for the next chapter in the "Suspense of Memory" series and either retool it or finish it up.

I recently got rejected by another literary agent. This was the agent on whom I was pinning almost all my hopes, actually--she's new, but very good, and I honestly thought I had a good shot at getting her attention. Not so much, though. I was really depressed and crushed about it, in a way that I haven't been since I started collecting rejection letters from agents. Hopefully I'll get over it, but that did deal me a major psychological blow, especially when it comes to how I feel about my writing in general.

Whining over. You may resume your scheduled Internetting.



in these silences, something may rise. ]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/19684393/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/19684393/ Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:28:06 PDT My clubs:


As I've written before, I am trying to get my name removed from the list of members of the LDS/Mormon church.

I expected for the church to disrespect a few of my requests--for example, I knew they'd ignore my request to waive any waiting periods, and I knew they'd also ignore my asking them not to contact me, except to let me know that my name had been removed. I expected, and received, the "An Invitation" pamphlet. I expected, and received, a letter warning me of the "eternal consequences" of my actions. I also expected for this letter to be sent in such a fashion as to delay the processing of my request as much as possible. They received my first letter on June 30, but did not type a reply until July 18. Meaning that I'll have to wait even longer for it to be processed.

All things considered, it's gone as I was told by various websites that it would go. Until today.

Today, I received a "letter" from the Relief Society President from the local ward. (The Relief Society is an organization for adult women in the Mormon church.) This letter was printed on cheap, thin, colored paper. The paper was cut so that only half a sheet was in the envelope--they apparently need so many of these letters that they print two on a page, then cut the sheet in half. The letter referred to me as "My Dear Sisters" in the salutation. It welcomed me (such as it is) to "my" ward, and informed me of the times that the ward meets on Sunday. The writer offered to visit me if I would rather meet them in person than meet them at church. It concluded with "We Love You" as the last line before the signature (and the writer's email address and phone number).

The letter arrived today, but it was postmarked for July 28. That gives me a vague idea of when the local authorities probably got my letter, at least.

The correspondence I have received from the church, if nothing else, has shown what a sham the entire enterprise is. The two letters I've gotten were sent to me after I said I wanted no such contact. They were both impersonal and designed to tug at all of my emotions, yet their impersonality (and in the case of the Relief Society letter, the obvious cheapness) puts the lie to all the guilt-tripping. It's very hard for me to believe someone who says that they love me when they address me as "Sisters". It is also hard for me to believe that the church wants me back when their pamphlet issues a blanket "We're sorry if we offended you"--instead of sending a personalized response that actually addressed the ten points of contention I mentioned in my resignation letter.

Most of all, they are sending me these letters when I'm no longer a Mormon. I officially stopped being Mormon on June 30, 2008, at around 10 in the morning, when a church member received my letter and opened it. They have no religious or legal right to treat me like a Mormon, anymore than they'd have the right to try and excommunicate someone who hasn't been baptized. That Relief Society president has no right to try and invite herself over to my home. I have no idea which member of the local priesthood received my resignation, but he didn't have the right to pass on my information to anyone, in the church or otherwise (I specifically asked for my request to be handled with confidence).

I'm not angry; I'm just resigned. So long as they don't try to call me or stop by my home, they can send as many damn letters as they want. Just as long as they go through with taking my name off the rosters.

http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/19643828/ Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:28:06 PDT My clubs:


Rules

* Choose a singer/band/group
* Answer using ONLY titles of songs by that singer/band/group
* Tag 6 more people (let them know they've been tagged)

I choose, of course, Pink Floyd.

1. Are you male or female?
"See Saw"

2. Describe yourself.
"Outside the Wall"

3. What do people feel when they're around you?
"Run Like Hell"

4. How would you describe your previous relationship?
"Wish You Were Here"

5. Describe your current relationship.
"Celestial Voices"

6. Where would you want to be now?
"Ibiza Bar"

7. How do you feel about love?
"Us and Them"

8. What's your life like?
"The Show Must Go On"

9. What would you ask for if you had only one wish?
"Bring the Boys Back Home"

10. Say something wise.
"Careful With That Axe, Eugene"



in these silences, something may rise. ]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/19585391/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/19585391/ Fri, 25 Jul 2008 06:32:30 PDT Wicked--either the book or the musical--so much?



in these silences, something may rise. ]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/19124151/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/19124151/ Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:05:03 PDT
I have Delivery Confirmation on this letter, but I still like to guess. I would figure that Member Records will receive it by no later than Tuesday.

The moment that some office flunky breaks the seal on the envelope and reads its contents, I will no longer be a Mormon. It'll probably take two or three months for them to take my name off the records, but ditching my actual membership is my choice, not theirs. Everything afterwards will just be a formality.

The act of sending the damn thing in, and having it read, will mean that I am waiving any and all chances of salvation within the Church. I will have seen The One True Church™, and I will have rejected it. Mormons like to rank their sins, and the only sin worse than sexual impurity and murder is the sin of apostasy. In the eyes of the Church, I will be morally more repulsive than pedophiles, rapists, gay people, torturers, war criminals, and killers--all because I honestly thought about what the Church taught, and eventually, decided that it's not for me. Hitler will be allowed into one of their heavens, because he was given a posthumous baptism; I will, according to the Church, receive nothing but second death.

This is but a single example of how the LDS Church has serious issues with priorities.

Now, I don't happen to believe a bit of what Mormons believe regarding the afterlife (it's more complicated than that, really--I'd go into details here, but any explanation I give would be incredibly boring and personal). The threats about revoking my baptism, or any blessings of the Church--as if the Church has done a damn thing for me to make me value such things--don't trouble me.

What has, and still does, concern me is that my mother and three of my brothers are all still faithful Mormons, in varying degrees. I don't think it'll be possible to keep my lack of membership a secret, but I'm also concerned with how the Church teaches people to treat apostates. We are described by Church members as "wolves" who will try to seduce faithful Mormons into leaving the religion; often, we're characterized as being miserable perverts who want to inflict our financial and emotional ruin onto everyone who still wishes to Choose The Right. Essentially, the LDS Church wants for current Mormons to shun and ignore ex-Mormons as much as possible, up to cutting them out of your family.

While I don't relish the thought of half my family never speaking to me again, I have to be honest with myself. I'm not a Mormon, and I haven't been one for years. It was far past time that I get my name off their records, and for the Church to no longer include me in their bogus membership numbers.

It's almost over.

EDIT:

As it turns out, it was probably already over by the time I posted this journal.

The Church officially received my resignation at 10:14 in the morning.



in these silences, something may rise. ]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/19015881/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/19015881/ Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:19:43 PDT
"If there isn't a straight pride month, then there shouldn't be gay pride. Setting queer people apart from straight people is discriminatory against straights."

Now, there are many reasons why this argument is the rhetorical equivalent of horse apples. Straight people have not been discriminated against because of their sexuality for the whole of human history, and for the whole of American history. Straight people cannot turn on a television and find someone on the national news, proclaiming that all gay people are pedophiles, rapists, or murderers. Straight people have never had the quality of their existence challenged by churches, state governments, the federal government, and conservatives all acting in concert. Straight people have never been used as political dog-whistles to frighten people to vote Republican. Straight people do not have to memorize the patchwork laws in every state, just so they'll be aware of which states they're legally married in and which they're not, or which states they're legally allowed to keep their children and which states will try to take those children away. Straight people were not arrested due to sodomy laws, and straight people get far more lenient punishments under Romeo and Juliet laws than gay people.

I hate to be a downer, especially when part of Pride Month is celebrating everything that the gay community has accomplished. But I'd like to add the following points to the ever-growing list of Reasons Why We Don't Have Straight Pride Month (thanks to Box Turtle Bulletin and Ex-Gay Watch) :

1. Straight people don't have to worry about being beaten unconscious by men screaming anti-heterosexual slogans at them, solely because of their straighthood.

2. Straight people have never had leaders of the Anglican Church condemn them for their heterosexuality, but refuse to condemn the people who have tortured or raped them.

3. Straight people have never been arrested for having consensual sex in the confides of their own homes, five years after all laws against having consensual sex in their own homes were deemed unconstitutional.

4. Straight people don't have to listen to the leader of the Mormon Church ordering all Mormons to "do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment [against heterosexual marriage] by donating of your means and time".

5. Straight people are not told by political leaders across the world that being straight is "something that God abhors, absolutely abhors... so distasteful, so disgusting...". They are also not told that those leaders think that heterosexuality "is disgusting", "should be loathed", "makes (them) nauseous", "shamefully wicked and vile", an "abomination", or that being heterosexual is exactly like being a murderer.

6. Straight people do not get to watch as men who murder people solely for being heterosexual are allowed to flee the country. They do not have to watch as men who start fights that lead to people's deaths are charged with "simple assault and disturbing the peace". And they do not have to watch as juries become hopelessly hung over whether or not killing someone because of their sexual orientation constitutes a hate crime.

People who seriously argue in favor of so-called "straight pride" have egos so large that they are at risk of collapsing in on themselves and becoming black holes. Their sense of entitlement to their own superiority is vast, but it is also more easily bruised than an over-ripe fruit. They have no idea what it's like to be gay, bi, transgender, or queer in America, and more importantly, they don't care. All they know is that this talk of "pride" and "equal rights" does not feature them. The discussion of granting gay people the same rights as other tax-paying citizens is not about them. Gay pride parades do not feature them on floats. And, frankly, what seems to make them angry is that they find it offensive that other people can have conversations that do not revolve around their greatness--much less holidays that don't pander to them, or parties that aren't thrown in their honor.

More than that, these heterosexists (and they are heterosexists, in the truest sense of the word) believe that anything that... ]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/18996267/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/18996267/ Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:06:29 PDT
I've been playing with the preview of version 6 for deviantArt. Beta users have the ability to turn version 6 "on" and check out the new functions, features and layouts.

Overall, I have to say that I really like all the changes. Version 6 has a much higher level of customization than any other version of dA I've used. Users are simultaneously given a great deal more options and information, and the ability to hide any of that information if it's unnecessary or unwanted. You can also customize your own user toolbar, so that the functions you use are only a button-click away, but the ones that you don't can be deleted entirely. (I, for example, have "Post Deviation" and "Post Journal" up front and center, and have removed the "Chat" function entirely from my toolbar.)

Several of the menus have been collapsed together. Home, Browse, and Search have all been collapsed into the Home page; and, as I'd noticed before getting my subscription, the Edit Profile and Edit Settings pages have been officially united under one page. Not only that, but a feature I've heard about, but (to my knowledge) has never been implemented--the ability to perform Searches on journal entries--will be a new toy for us to play with.

I don't know how much of this customization is only available to subscribed users, which is the main thing that really bothers me about version 6. I'm a simple creature, and I prefer having as few images cluttering up a page as possible. If unpaid users are going to be forced to deal with all the new features, but don't have the ability to customize or hide them, then I think it'll be a disaster. That much of a load-time would drive me up a wall.

I suppose we'll have to wait for the roll-out in a few weeks and see, though.

Also, I had friends in from out of town, and so, I missed "Criminal Intent" this week. I'm still pissed. It looked like Goren and Eames were going to unite (even if reluctantly) over a common 'enemy', so to speak, and that Ross was going to be the heel I always hoped he would be. It won't be re-airing until Saturday at 10. I are depressed.



in these silences, something may rise. ]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/18888495/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/18888495/ Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:45:36 PDT
This means that, very roughly speaking, about 88,000,000 American citizens live in a state that has some form or fashion of recognition of their rights as citizens. Put in other terms, almost 30% of Americans live in states that practice gay acceptance of any sort.

That's something to celebrate.



in these silences, something may rise. ]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/18867737/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/18867737/ Mon, 16 Jun 2008 06:57:06 PDT
I rate whether or not a horror movie is good or bad by a different set of standards than you. I do not look back on the previous work of a writer/director and compare every single new movie to his or her first film. I do not expect for his or her new film to be an exact duplicate, right down to the startling twist ending, of their first movie. I do not, if I can possibly help it, judge a movie based on whether or not I personally like the writer/director.

No, I judge movies based on that old-fashioned, out-of-style method: watching them and judging how people, myself included, react. I also judge horror movies in that outdated fashion: by whether or not they actually scare people.

When I saw "The Happening", my girlfriend almost wrenched my arm off on multiple occasions, and hid her face against my arm a few times. At one point, I hid my face, and only peeked through my fingers when I was looking above my glasses (so that I could see what was going on without seeing the details). I plugged my ears on a few occasions, too. And, except for when I saw "The Village" in theaters, I have never heard more people scream in panic and terror at a movie than when I saw "The Happening". I have also never heard more people laugh hysterically, at appropriate and inappropriate moments, in order to relieve the tension than in "The Happening".

"The Happening" is not "The Sixth Sense", but that doesn't mean that it wasn't scary, and it doesn't mean it was a terrible, unscary movie. Suck it up and deal with it.

-s.h.-



in these silences, something may rise. ]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/18796304/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/18796304/ Thu, 12 Jun 2008 05:23:05 PDT "Why, oh why, isn't there a straight pride month? Surely, the oppression of straight people because of their sexual orientation over history deserves recognition!"

"Pride? I can't imagine being proud of being gay, especially for an entire month!"

"No way! You can't make me even recognize that there is a gay pride month!"

"Gay pride? They should only be proud if they're two hot lesbians."

"God, you fags aren't oppressed. We allow you out in public with only a minimum of staring and jeering; what the fuck else do you want? Civil rights? Oh, now, you're just trying to steal our God-given heterosexual rights and make 'em all queer!"

Ah, the month of June comes flitting by, bringing with it hotter weather, summer vacation, weddings, and straight people's bloated senses of entitlement and heterosexism. It's like this every year.



in these silences, something may rise. ]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/18766953/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/18766953/ Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:11:00 PDT
The only people permitted to use the word "faggot" without looking like heterosexists are gay people themselves.

Unless you're planning on coming out of the closet, calling a friend of yours a faggot--even if you happen to have been really drunk when you did it--is really fucking stupid of you. You're the star of several big-time films, the most recent of which is still playing on the silver screen. That normally means that people are paying extra-special attention to you. What--did you think that footage of you using a heterosexist slur somehow WOULDN'T make it onto the Internet? Are you a goddamned idiot?

Love and kisses,

-Street Howitzer-

PS: Lay off the fucking sauce around video cameras, you stupid chump.

PPS: Even if I buy what your PR people are now saying--that the video is several years old--it does not change the fact that you were apparently extremely drunk at the age of, what? Sixteen? Seventeen? Seriously, get help. Oh, and fuck you for the non-apology you issued, you douche.



in these silences, something may rise. ]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/18743968/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/18743968/ Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:54:38 PDT Spoilers for last night's Law & Order: Criminal Intent episode, and crossposted to my LiveJournal. Ya been warned.

Right now, my little het-slasher's heart is broken.

In retrospect, I'm glad that Goren and Eames's blow-out happened. I've often felt that Eames's character has been overlooked at the expense of Goren, and I know I'm not the only one who thinks it odd that the junior partner is the one who gets all the attention and unspoken authority. One of the more interesting things about Eames has been her apparent lack of resentment over this situation. I place emphasis on the word "apparent", because last night's episode made it fairly clear that she does, in fact, resent her position as Goren's water-carrier.

This is almost surreal for me, as I'm used to Eames accepting and even reveling in her position as the Watson to Goren's Holmes. I like it, though. It makes her a more complicated character.

Besides, the fight they're having actually makes Goren a bit more Holmes-like. For the last seven seasons running, Goren (and the viewers) have taken Eames's support and reliability on faith. It's been made clear that he does his best thinking when Eames is around for him to bounce ideas off of; some of the saddest parts of the show have been when Bobby was struggling with how much he missed her during her maternity leave. I think he fell into a kind of complacency about her presence and her support, and he deserves to get bitten on the ass for it. Being inconsiderate and not valuing the intelligence of others is an arguably Holmesian trait.

Not only that, but Eames was exactly right when she pointed out that she has lied on multiple occasions to save Goren's career. She's done a lot to cover his ass, including lying about inappropriate, unethical or occasionally-illegal things that Goren has done in the name of a case. This is the first time in my own memory that he cut her out of a scheme of his entirely. That exclusion has to be painful for her, on a professional and a personal level.

That Goren did not even think of her feelings either means that he's an insensitive prick, or (more likely) he was so desperate to get back his shield that he would even run over Alex. I understand that. Goren's not the type of man who easily deals with change, and not having the anchor of his job must have been disorienting and frustrating as all hell. Even so, he should have thought it all through more clearly. He didn't, so he deserves to have to deal with the fallout.

Finally, it was good to see the guy who played Cassidy from "SVU" again, and I liked the reference to "Law & Order: Original Recipe" via Dr. Olivet.

Also, I caught the ad for next week's episode, and I am excited beyond all belief. Megan's back! Mary from "In Plain Sight" is making a guest appearance! I can't handle that much greatness all at once. While I did like Fallaci, I missed all hell out of Wheeler and I am quite glad to see her returning.

Speaking of "In Plain Sight", wow. What a great show. I haven't even seen a complete episode yet and I know it's a great show. Aside from it being funny as hell, it was obviously made by people who know me and appeal to my breed of nerdiness.

See, in last night's episode, Vincent Ventresca made a guest appearance. I also noted that Paul Ben-Victor plays a regular character, Stan McQueen, on the show. Both actors were in "The Invisible Man", an old Sci-Fi series I used to be in love with. I was curious about whether this was coincidence or not, and consulted the Almighty IMDB. IMDB tells me that one of the producers on "In Plain Sight" also produced the show "Prey"; Vincent was a main character in that. I'm guessing that both this producer and Paul are the reasons why he got to play a minor role in the show. Either way, it was awesome, and I cannot wait to watch, um, a full episode, especially since "In Plain Sight" apparently takes place in the "Law & Order" universe.



in these silences, something may rise. ]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/18332132/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/18332132/ Thu, 15 May 2008 06:55:09 PDT
I've seen it more times than I can count, both on my other handle and on this one. The pattern goes like this: A user uploads a picture or story that is pornographic and features characters who are underage (such as Stephanie from "Lazy Town", who is eight, or the "South Park" characters, who are almost all nine). The story/pic is reported, and subsequently deleted by staff. The user then posts a whiny journal that always features the following assertions:

1. "I swear, the nine-year-old character I drew naked wasn't really nine!"
2. "My style just happens to make people look younger!"
3. "Why is it that other users can post pictures of naked women masturbating, but I can't post stories about prepubescent children being raped by their parents?! They're totally the same thing!"
4. "The dA mods hate me/are picking on me for standing up to them!"
5. "Whoever reported my story/pic is a closed-minded, mean, stupid, homophobic douche-bag who clearly hates gay people and sexuality. An open-minded, nice person wouldn't have reported my drawing of a naked prepubescent boy in an erotic pose."
6. "I WILL HAVE MY REVENGE, DEVIANTART ADMINS!! I WILL KEEP REPOSTING THAT PICTURE FOREVARMOAR!!" Alternatively: "WHATEVER, DEVIANTART MODS, I DON'T EVEN CARE THAT YOU'RE JERKS! WHADDAYA SAY TO THAT?!"

Look: it has been my experience that deviantArt admins do not simply delete things without due cause. I have a more conservative interpretation of their rules than they do, for example. There are plenty of images I've reported that the staff hasn't taken down--stuff that I would have deleted myself, at first blush. However, once you get a few "Invalid report" responses, you start getting a better feel for how the admins work. And the fact of the matter is that they don't like deleting something unless it is a flagrant and obvious violation.

For instance, the rules of the site say that you cannot 'age' an underage character in order to draw them nude/in a sexualized way. That sounds like you can't post a picture of, say, grown-up!Naruto, but it actually means that you can't post a picture of Naruto as he looks in the manga/anime, then claim that he's supposed to be 18. So there are many pictures of Naruto in sexual poses on dA that the staff won't take down, simply because he actually looks like an adult in them. I've also seen "South Park" slash art that shouldn't be deleted, because they depicted the characters in a way that made them look 18, instead of 9.

That's all fine. The admins want to err on the side of caution, and not merrily deleting everything that they don't like. Which means that, generally speaking, if they do delete something, there was an actual, serious violation taking place.

Another thing that these people don't seem to get is how invalid Claims #3 and 5 really are. Regarding Claim #5, get the fuck over yourself. I know plenty of people who are gay, open-minded, and who are passionate supporters of gay rights (and not just because they post gay porn on the internets--some people, you know, actually give time and money to the cause! Can you imagine that? Doing something other than posting fetish-laden porn filled with stereotypes about homosexuality to actually advance the cause of gay rights? What a concept!). And they don't like seeing stuff posted on dA that's against the rules, especially stuff that features prepubescent children. Not liking shota or loli =! not liking gay people. If you think they are, die please.

Regarding #3, there's a very simple explanation for your problem: you aren't reporting those pictures. See, there's no unsigned, unspoken agreement among devianTarts that, if you don't report a pornographic image, the Angel of Death will recognize your mercy and also pass over you. You do not get brownie points for refusing to report pictures of naked women masturbating, or nudes that don't have Mature filters on them, and you cannot put said points towards preventing one of your own rule-breaking pictures/stories from being deleted.

If you don't report it, then the admins will never know it's there, and they can't do anything about it. If naked women really bother you that much, then actually do something towards making sure they're behind filters. However, please stop pretending like a photograph of an 18+ model in a sensual pose is exactly the same as a drawing of a naked prepubescent girl. Whenever I see a journal claim that, I can't help but wonder whether or not oxygen exists on the planet these people live on.

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/18084396/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/18084396/ Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:32:52 PDT How do I end up attracting the drama whores? Did I push Ghandi in front of a bus in my last life or something?

I will say, though, that confusing the story of the Tower of Babel with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah has got to be my new favorite mistake made by a gay-basher. What's funnier than someone who's so Biblically illiterate that they can't tell the difference between the two? Especially someone who claims to use the Bible as their primary religious text?

EDIT:

Wow. Just... I don't know what to say.

SECOND EDIT:

After claiming (as cited in my first edit) that all gay people are rapists, *naturesounds has said that she will not argue with me anymore. She then continued to argue with me, although she spent the rest of her comments threatening me with "revenge" in some unknown way.

I'd report her for making threats, if I wasn't already positive that the dA admins would reply with a "That doesn't sound serious to me". And it doesn't: her "you'll get yours" has all the threatening power of a newborn kitten. I do have some lovely screen-captures of her comments, though, just in case something should go wrong with my computer. Insurance, and all that.

Also, it looks like someone's trolling her comments. I really wish they wouldn't do that; persecuting people like that tends to give them a bigger victim complex, and little else.

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/17781068/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/17781068/ Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:32:18 PDT
First of all, Audrey Hepburn is the most beautiful human being who ever lived. Ever. Don't argue with me on this, because you know that I'm right.

Second, as adorable as Jeremy Brett was, I still prefer him as Sherlock. He was only 31 when he was Freddie, a good twenty years younger than when he was in the Grenada series. But he was so much more charming as Sherlock. I guess it doesn't help that Freddie was a dunderhead.

Third, while I liked it overall--it's a clever, funny musical, and the post-Victorian costuming is enchanting--I was driven into mental hysterics over the ending. The feminist in me reared up, outraged, and roared that it was thirsty, and only the blood of Rex Harrington could quench its parched throat. Seriously, if the writer of the original play conceded that there was no way in any Hell that Eliza and Higgins could ever be romantically happy together, why fool around with that? It simply makes Eliza look less like she's in love with him, and more like she's suffering from an acute case of Stockholm's Syndrome.

Still and all, not a bad movie. I'm quite glad I finally got around to seeing it.

Also, I hate writer's block.

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/17161651/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/17161651/ Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:13:10 PST Irenthel can tell me what to do.

Three Things You Want To Do Before You Die:
1 : Get published.
2 : Get married.
3 : Visit a country other than America.

Three Names You Go By:
1 : K********
2 : Um, I've been called "Howie" before on here.
3 : Nah, that's pretty much it.

Three Screen Names You Have Had:
1 : Oh, god help me, I am so embarrassed about this, but okay. vashnomiko79
2 : xxjustrazorxx
3 : mormon-tea

Three Physical Things You Like About Yourself:
1 : My hair.
2 : My eyes.
3 : My boobs. :3

Three Parts Of Your Heritage:
1 : INDIAN PRINCESS. No, seriously, Scottish.
2 : Irish.
3 : Way, way back, Nordic/Viking.

Three Things That Scare You:
1 : Watching someone's eyes get cut, mangled, operated on, ripped out, or even touched in any way.
2 : Alzheimer's.
3 : The monsters that live under the bed and in the dark corners of my bedroom.

Three Of Your Everyday Essentials:
1 : Food.
2 : The wife.
3 : Occasionally, clothing.

Three Things You Are Wearing Right Now:
1 : A devil trap.
2 : Ankle boots.
3 : A shirt. I am such a conformist.

Three Of Your Favorite Bands/Musical Artists:
1 : Muse.
2 : Pink.
3 : Tom Waits.

Three Of Your Favorite Songs: (currently)
1 : "Starlight" by Muse
2 : "Who Knew?" by Pink
3 : "Help!", by the Beatles

Three Things You Want In A Relationship :
1 : Trust.
2 : Mutual support.
3 : Compatibility.

Two Truths And A Lie (in no particular order):
1 : Writing isn't hard on me; it's finding the courage to rewrite that's a bitch.
2 : I'm an Independent.
3 : I go to bed between eight and nine o'clock almost every single night.

Three Physical Things About The Preferred Sex That Appeal To You:
1 : Lips/mouth.
2 : Hips.
3 : Hands. (Standards here vary between the genders.)

Three Of Your Favorite Hobbies:
1 : Writing.
2 : Fanwanking.
3 : Playing with my cats.

Three Careers You're Considering/You've Considered:
1 : Author.
2 : Artist.
3 : Professional bohemian. (Me and work, we've never gotten along.)

Three Places You Want To Go On Vacation:
1 : Ireland (it's research, really)
2 : India (technically, that'd be a pilgrimage, but also a vacation)
3 : Italy.

Three Names You Like:
1 : Jack.
2 : Morgan.
3 : Camille.

Three Ways That You Are Stereotypically A Boy:
1 : I almost never wear a skirt.
2 : I hate flower prints. For anything.
3 : Oh, yeah--I have sex with a girl almost every night. Nearly forgot about that one.

Three Ways That You Are Stereotypically A Girl:
1 : I would like to be a housewife.
2 : I like wearing jewelry.
3 : I'm generally obsessed with how people think and feel, and less with what people actually do.

SEVEN People That I Would Like To See Take This Quiz Now:









]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/16547793/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/16547793/ Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:51:22 PST Xiao-Feng-Fury deserves every inch of the reputation she's gotten with her ED article. I haven't even seen it yet, but I know that those truth-hating liberals at ED probably did a number on her. That number is very well-deserved.

=Xiao-Feng-Fury is a classic fundamentalist, in the sense that she is more than willing to dish out the sort of vicious, hateful bullying that she can't take herself. She is likely schizophrenic, if the "testimony" she gave to ~RejectedDreams is any indication (in there, she says "I literally heard voices in my head to became lesbian again and to hate God... I heard these voices everywhere. One even told me to kill myself").

=Xiao-Feng-Fury is a repressed homosexual who is blindingly furious at anyone who will not cower in the closet along with her and engage in her games of "Let's Pretend the Voices In My Head Are God And the Devil (Because They Have Nothing Better to Do Than Talk to Me)" and "Let's Pretend I'm No Longer A Lesbian (I Keep My Thirst For Female Genitals A Secret Now, Which Is Like Not Being Gay, Right?)". Like all "ex-gays", she spends most of her waking hours talking about, and thinking about, gay sex. She arguably talks more about yaoi and yuri than people who actually like yaoi and yuri. She pretends as if her inability to stop talking about homosexuality is because she wants to save all of Teh Gheis from a lifetime of sin and an eternity of feeding the flames of Satan's back-porch grill, as if anyone with two brain cells to fire together couldn't see that she is obsessed with gay sex.

Here's something I will never get: why is it that so-called "ex-gays" label themselves by what they used to be (hereafter labeled as WTUTB)? Ever noticed that people who identify themselves by WTUTB tend to suffer from a combo of blinding pride, leaden self-loathing, and poisonous anger directed at anyone who symbolizes WTUTB? For example, no one despises smokers like someone who calls themselves an "ex-smoker"--the type who loudly coughs and sneers "That's disgusting!" in the faces of people who go to smoking sections to light up, but who secretly dream of snatching that cigarette from the other person's lips and sucking down more sweet nicotine. A non-smoker is someone who's moved on; an ex-smoker is someone who's still hung up on WTUTB.

Any so-called "ex-gay", then, should not call themselves "ex-gay". If they truly are only attracted to people of the opposite gender, guess what: they're straight. And if they had the slightest shred of honesty, they would call themselves straight. But--shockingly!--they don't. They build their identity based off of WTUTB, because they still are. =Xiao-Feng-Fury can't stop talking about gay people and gay sex because she is still gay. She claims to be "free from homosexuality", but in her testimony, she admits that "the temptations would still arise at times". I doubt that they have ever stopped.

=Xiao-Feng-Fury first harassed me by trolling my comments on the "true rainbow" stamp (which, by the way, was made by a total idiot who is ignorant of history). After attacking two of my comments on that stamp, I checked out her deviations and her history. When I realized that she was, in fact, going to pro-gay deviations and leaving idiotic comments on them, I decided that if she felt free to comment on my comments, I should be free to comment on hers.

Over our conversations, I had to:

~Explain to her how diseases are spread, twice
~Watch in horror as she literally argued that AIDS "is caused by anal sex", and later, attempted to get her to provide a single case where a gay person who was not exposed to the HIV virus developed the disease (which, naturally, she didn't, because she's a moron)
~Illustrated to her the fact that HIV/AIDS is now a heterosexual epidemic (note: this was actually the second time I did this)
~Disprove her insistence that a new strain of MRSA is onl... ]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/16522263/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/16522263/ Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:34:37 PST
Heath was not one of my favorite actors. However, he was one of those consistently good actors, the kind of actor who, honestly, I can't think of a role I've seen him in that I didn't like. He made me weep with his portrayal of Ennis in "Brokeback", of course, but he made me laugh in "10 Things I Hate About You", too.

It's just... ugh.

I remember when "10 Things" first came out; I remember being of the conviction that Heath was going to be the Brad Pitt of my generation. He was unconventionally, ridiculously handsome, and charming. And now, he's dead.

Please pray/spare good thoughts for him, his ex, and his baby girl.

Also, as a random aside: the first person who suggests that Heath died of an OD/committed suicide/died because that's what happens to godless sinners who promote the homosexual agenda will get a stake through their heart. It's my understanding that that's how you deal with unholy, life-sucking monsters.

EDIT:

James Hartline is a blood-sucking, evil ghoul. No, seriously. Read his blog entry about Heath's passing, and tell me that you wouldn't believe that this man is capable of eating non-Christian children.

SECOND EDIT:

While we all expected Westboro Baptist Church to attempt to picket Heath's funeral, I'm not sure I expected this.

John Gibson, the man who wrote an entire book on the War on Christmas (and who looks like Senator Kelly from the "X-Men" movie), spent most of his radio show yesterday making fun of Heath Ledger's death. In spite of the fact that it was, in all probability, an accidental overdose and not a deliberate suicide, Gibson spent his show bringing up current events and suggesting that Heath killed himself over them:

"He was depressed about yesterday’s downturn in the world stock markets."
"Apparently Heath Ledger was suicidal and his friends saw it coming. I think he watched the Clinton-Obama debate last night. I think he was an Edwards guy, cause he saw his Edwards guy was just completely irrelevant."

Gibson also called Heath a "weirdo", and claimed, absent a speck of evidence, that Heath had "a serious drug problem". The real kicker (by which I mean that I feel like I was kicked in the stomach when I read about them), though, was when he broke out a couple of audio clips from Brokeback Mountain.

Gibson played the famous clip where Jake Gylanhaal says "I wish I knew how to quit you"--then stated, quote, "Well, he found out how to quit you."

He then played a clip of Heath Ledger saying "We're dead". Gibson laughed, mockingly repeated the line himself, and then played it again.

In case you are interested:

Fox News Radio
Phone: (212) 301-3000
Email: foxnewsradio@foxnews.com

The John Gibson Show
1211 Avenue Of The Americas
18th Floor
New York, NY 10036-8701

Phone: (212) 301-3000
E-mail: gibsonradio@foxnews.com

No, it won't do anything.

Keith Olbermann named Gibson the Worst Person in the World last night for his callous and disgusting "commentary".

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/16457530/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/16457530/ Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:09:00 PST RejectedDreams finally banned me from his page, after a long bout of ignoring my attempts to get him to explain or defend his faith.

In response, I plan on praying for him (so to speak). When I get my lotus-seed mala beads, I will recite a mala's worth of chants for him. As I chant, I will think about each of his beliefs--that homosexuals are sinful and going to hell, that the earth was created in six days, that God made most of us to go to hell. I will think about his anger, his cowardice, and his small-mindedness. I will imagine all of this dying off and rotting away, leaving behind a smarter, happier man.

I, personally, have no idea if mantras do what they are supposed to do. But I don't have a problem with trying. If nothing else, wishing the best for him can't hurt.

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/16433536/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/16433536/ Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:53:14 PST
When he speaks, he brings up his Wiccan faith as often as possible. He talks about how wonderful his life is, and attributes that wonder to Wicca. He even goes so far as to post artwork and blog-posts on the Internet which extol the virtues of his religious faith.

You with me? Okay then.

Now, let's say that Joe is a terror on the road. He never uses his turn signal. He cuts in front of people and slams on his breaks. He flips people off with no provocation. You know the type. And here's the extra hazard: if you saw Joe's car being driven insanely, and you see all those "ISIS ISIS RA RA RA" bumper stickers on the back of his car, you're going to make a mental connection between "drives like a maniac" and "Wiccan".

If Joe, bedecked in his pentagram-studded jewelry, steals something from you, you are going to associate Wicca with theivery.

If Joe praises his own religion, but refuses to allow anyone else to ever discuss their own or critique his, then you are going to associate Wicca with being a closed-minded jerk who can't handle hearing disagreement.

If Joe, with his nifty pentacle avatar and his "Pagan4ever" username, makes it his business to attack other people who have a different religious belief than his, you're going to associate Wicca with being a hateful douche-nozzle.

The fact of the matter is this: when you represent yourself as an open and avid adherent of a certain religion; when you arrange your entire identity around that religion; when you make absolutely sure that everyone and their cousin knows what faith you are... congratulations, you are now a representative of that religion in the eyes of pretty much everyone who meets you. When you act like a snobby jerk, when you're a hypocrite, when you're judgmental and hateful, people are NOT just judging you: they are judging the faith you now represent in their minds.

And when that religion is Christianity, a faith that makes evangelizing a major tenet of worship and belief? You're making it even worse on yourself. If you're truly trying to help people and save them from Hell, then do not act like an utter dick-head while you're doing it. You might not like having to be nice to the many anti-Christian people out there, but if you're an asshole, you do nothing but confirm everything they already believe about Christians.

Copying and pasting boilerplate evangelical phrases to people, and then reacting with anger at their stupidity when people are not immediately swayed by your McConversion attempts, does not count as evangelizing. If Yeshua has that power, he will not just judge the unbelievers: he will judge your laziness, your rage and your pride.

Also, a point regarding the drama that spawned this journal: this is the reason why I don't rub my religion in people's faces. A cursory study of my favorites will tell anyone what they need to know about my faith, but I try very hard not to make it obvious in conversation. This is because I don't want to be seen as a representative of my religion. I'm not; I'm hardly an expert. I certainly am adverse to trying to convert people--I think that we all know what we believe, and if I tried to change someone's mind, that's nothing but telling them "Hey, I think you're a moron, and here's why!". That's a horrible thing to do to another being.

I will say, though, that a lot of the anti-religious sentiments that have sprung up due to this drama make me sad. I know wonderful Christians. Everyone does, I think. It makes me sad that they're unfortunately lumped in with the hate-mongers and cretins, and I'm even more saddened to know that a lot of people would lump me in with them, too.

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/15493892/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/15493892/ Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:53:37 PST .

1. What time did you get up this morning?
Roughly 6:20 a.m.

2. Diamonds or pearls?
Diamonds. I'm a bit superstitious about pearls.

3. What was the last film you saw at the cinema?
Bork. Um. "Hot Fuzz".

4. What's your favorite TV show?
Right now, it's a tie between "Ghost Hunters" and "Ninja Warrior".

5. What did you have for breakfast this morning?
Two pieces of toast and a cup of coffee. I'm so old.

6. What's your favorite cuisine?
Japanese. Spanish tapas are a very close second, though.

7. What foods do you dislike?
Anything mushy or gelatinous: some kinds of whipped cream, Jell-o, that kind of thing.

8. What is your favorite chip flavor?
Salt and vinegar.

9. What's your favorite CD at the moment?
The Division Bell, Pink Floyd.

10. What kind of car do you drive?
I can't drive.

11. Favorite sandwich?
Hard salami, swiss cheese, dark rye bread, dijon mustard, little bit of mayonaise, and toasted.

12. What characteristics do you despise?
Poor or no sense of humor, bad hygine, trying to fit oneself into a predetermined mold.

13. What is your favorite type of clothing?
Baggy/belled jeans, nerdy T-shirts, fucked-up jewelry (like my new claw-ring), and occasionally, a bowler hat. So, um, random.

14. If you could go anywhere in the world on vacation. Where?
Madrid.

15. What color is your bathroom?
White. With posters of wet anime characters on the walls.

16. Favorite brand of clothing?
Cheap.

17. Where would you retire to?
Savannah, GA.

18. Favorite time of the day?
Evenings.

19. What was your most memorable birthday?
I actually lost all attachments to birthdays in general on my 16th, when literally no one but my family even remembered that it was my birthday. I was really embarrassed and upset because I'd assumed that my friends would all remember, but they claimed that I should have reminded them a few times before the day actually arrived. So I had no party at all, aside from the one with my family.

20. Where were you born?
Macon, GA.

21. Favorite sport to watch?
"Ninja Warrior" is my sports show, dammit.

22. Who do you least expect to do this survey?
Everyone.

23. Person you expect to do it first?
No idea.

24. What fabric detergent do you use?
Shit. I actually can't remember.

25. Were you named after anyone?
My great-aunt.

26. Do you wish on stars?
Not anymore. I never see them.

27. When did you last cry?
A couple of weeks ago, when Becca and I had a fight.

28. Do you like your handwriting?
Yes. It's slightly eccentric, but still legible.

29. If you were another person, would YOU be friends with you?
Not being another person, I really can't say.

30. Are you a daredevil?
Shit no.

31. Do looks matter?
Yes. I'm not going to be able to date or marry someone who I do not find myself attracted to, or who I'm not sexually compatible with. That's a set–up for a bad relationship. But looks don't trump everything. I think my girlfriend is beautiful, but her personality is also marvelous--to the point where even if she weren't beautiful, I'd still adore her.

32. How do you release anger?
Killing characters.

34. What were your favorite toys as a child?
Any tiny little doll or figurine. I preferred dolls that were less than four inches in total height, because these could easily fit in my pockets, I'm guessing. I was notorious for "walking" my dolls across walls and doors, creating an obnoxious rapping sound that drove my sister right up a wall.

35. What class in High School was totally useless?
My photography class. The teacher was so lax that I've forgotten everything he ever attempted to teach; he spent most of the year showing us films and letting us fuck around.

37. Favorite movies?
"Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang"; "Black Sheep"; "Hot Fuzz"; "Snatch"; "Lucky Number Slevin"; "Fried Green Tomatoes"; "Shaun of the Dead"; and "Pan's Labyrinth".

38. What are your nicknames?
Kat.

39. Do you untie your shoes when you take them off?
No.

40. Do you think that you are strong?
Depends.

41. Wh... ]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/15187333/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/15187333/ Sun, 04 Nov 2007 15:59:13 PST
"No, no, no--my brain is in my head!"
"It'll have to come out!"
"All of it?"

Second, an FYI to my watchers. I'm going to clean the smuttier stuff out of my gallery within the next few days, because I'm going to (finally) move everything over to my LiveJournal account. If you've got something racy faved or whatever, do save it to your hard drive, or bookmark my LJ.

Also, I'm really not dead. I'm just busy as hell at the moment.

EDIT:

So, yeah. The two raciest stories are gone from here, and have been safely posted to my LiveJournal, if nowhere else. If any get deleted from here involuntarily, I'll be surprised, but whatever--dA's gotta do what dA's gotta do.

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/14529512/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/14529512/ Fri, 07 Sep 2007 11:49:23 PDT Maleleine L'Engle, the author of "A Wrinkle In Time", "A Wind in the Door", "A Swiftly Tilting Planet", and over sixy other fantasy and sci-fi books, died yesterday at the age of eighty-eight.

"Time" is one of my favorite fantasy/sci-fi books of all time. IT was one of the nightmare creatures from my childhood.

May we walk upon this earth once again,
Once again beneath the same blue sky.
Then may our lives again entertwine,
And may we remember, you and I.

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/14254354/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/14254354/ Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:45:58 PDT

In May 2007, the MPAA announced that smoking would be considered a factor in movie ratings from then onward. Specifically, its press release noted that smoking had been a factor in movie ratings in the past (specifically, when a movie showed teenagers illegally smoking), but now, any films that "feature pervasive smoking outside of an historic or other mitigating context" are to be considered depictions of drug usage. Specifically, a movie that "glamorizes" smoking will get a ratings bump.

Now, of course, for a person like myself, the questions begin to arise. See, I'm one of those sticklers who wants to know what, exactly, qualifies as "glamorizing" smoking. Will any movie that features a character who smokes and who doesn't end up with a stoma in their throat, emphysema, or lung cancer be considered glamorizing? Or does a smoking character have to verbally advocate smoking? Does the actor/actress simply have to look cool while they're puffing at a coffin-nail, and if so, will only unattractive actors be permitted to smoke? Would that thereby send the message to our tots that the Beautiful People do not imbibe in something so terrible as smoking?

While the ruling allows for historical context, how historical does something have to be before it gets to squeak by? I'm sure that, for instance, soldiers in the Civil War would be allowed to light up, but what about soldiers in World War 2? Or Vietnam? Does this mean that in fifty years, movies which depict soldiers in the Iraq War will be allowed to show the soldiers smoking without worrying about a ratings bump? Is Sherlock Holmes considered to be historical enough to qualify? What about the various chain-smoking gumshoes of the 1940s? If cigarette smoking can bump a rating upwards, would that push some movies that were formerly rated R, like "Sin City", to an X or NC-17 rating? And does this mean that further depictions of Winston Churchill will get a higher rating slapped on them because of his well-known addiction to cigars?

Will the ruling apply to accouterments associated with cigarette smoking (as their anti-drug censorship policies also apply to drug-related equipment)? If so, will a character who uses a Zippo to light their way down a dark alley or cavern inadvertently inflict a higher rating on a movie?

Speaking of Sherlock Holmes, how is this going to affect children's fare? Will "The Great Mouse Detective" retroactively get a higher rating, or does its "historical context" let it squeak by? What about the brief scene of Victor smoking in "The Hunchback of Notre Dame"? "Pinocchio", "Alice in Wonderland", "One Hundred and One Dalmatians", and "The Sword in the Stone" are just a couple of the Disney movies I can think of which might, if released in the here and now, get their ratings changed (and would this make "Pirates of the Caribbean" the first Disney movie to get an R rating?).

There's also the matter of degrees. The MPAA ups the rating on a movie according to how many times the fuck-word is used, and according to context--a sexually-based usage ("I want to fuck") gets a higher rating than a non-sexually-based one ("I want to fucking kill you"), regardless of which usage might actually be more offensive. So will there be a certain amount of cigarettes that must be smoked before the rating goes up? Will one to five constitute a PG, seven a PG-13, and eight or more an R? Will certain ways of consuming tobacco count more--like, say, chewing a plug of tobacco, which is more dangerous than smoking, counts for five cigarettes? And smoking a hookah, which is less dangerous than cigarettes, might only count for half of one? How many clove cigarettes will it take to equal one normal cigarette? How much is a cigar worth, and does it count if you don't actually smoke the cigar (some people, after all, prefer chewing on them, as depicted in "To Kill A Mockingbird")? And will showing characters taking snuff be glamorizing, or since so few people take it anymore, will that be permissible?

Moreover, does anyone else think that this is going to be as arbitrarily imposed upon films as any other MPAA rule? After all, movies like "A Clockwork Orange" and "Midnight Cowboy" got NC-17 ratings, not just because of violent or sexual content, but because they presented challenging, thought-provoking and taboo storylines. I can't see this rule being exercised without seeing ca... ]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/13897227/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/13897227/ Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:22:53 PDT

I have only successfully rolled an R twice in my life. When I was really little, I used to be able to do the "Rrrrruffles have rrrrrridges!" commercial pretty well. The second time was yesterday, when I was talking to the wife while she was on break. She'd been telling me about the Granada series for Sherlock Holmes and how I must see "The Greek Interpreter". I watched a few other episodes first, but last night, I finally hunkered down to watch it.

When Mycroft first appeared, I immediately knew that I recognized him, but bugger if I knew from where. It bothered the hell out of me, so I paused the video and IMDB'ed the episode to see who played Mycroft.

"Charles Gray?" I thought. "What's he done? I know that name..."

So I looked up Gray, and by all appearances, he'd been in nothing I'd ever seen--nothing from the '00s, the '90s or the '80s rang any bells. Then, suddenly, I noticed a certain film from the '70s in which he had a distinctive role.

When the wife got home for her lunch-break, I asked her if she'd recognized him. When she answered in the negative, I cleared my throat, and began to recite one of his most famous lines:

"It seemed a fairly ordinary night, when Brad Majors, and his fiancee, Janet Weiss--"

I got two victories in one: I rolled the R in Brrad, the way that Charles did, and I got her to throw her arms in the air and squeal with laughter. Good times, good times.

I have so many movies in the house right now that it's sick. "300", "Hot Fuzz", "Renaissance" (Daniel Craig is made of butch and sex), and "The Master Blackmailer" are all waiting for me at home. "Blackmailer" in particular is calling to me--I've been dying to see that one for the last week.

Warning: this journal had no point at all.



"Oh, you give a fuckin' asprin a headache, pal!" - The Duke, L4yer Cake"

~Things I need to start and finish
~My LiveJournal
~My Fanfiction.net account
~My Ficwad account
~My y!gallery account
~My FictionPress account

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/13588760/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/13588760/ Tue, 03 Jul 2007 06:30:10 PDT like this one, would it be better to write it in plain English, or with the same sort of Elizabethan slang and structure?

Yes, I'm going to write more one day. No, I don't care if you think it's blasphemy.



Cassidy: "Oh, sure, rain on my parade."
Munch: "I don't want to just rain on it, I wanna blow up all the floats."

~Things I need to start and finish
~My Fanfiction.net account
~My Ficwad account
~My y!gallery account
~My FictionPress account

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/13444156/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/13444156/ Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:57:59 PDT For posterity's sake--things I need to start and finish.



So it looks like this might actually be happening.

For those who don't want to read the article: George Lucas has announced that a Star Wars live-action TV show will be aired sometime in 2009. The show will be set in the timespan between "Revenge of the Sith" and "A New Hope"--the "dark times", as Obi-Wan called them. If it succeeds, more shows may be in the making, set at different times in the Galaxy's history. It will feature formerly-minor characters in starring roles, with the big dogs--Obi-Wan, Yoda, and so forth--set to make the occasional cameo.

Thus far, the actors and actresses who played Yoda, Palpatine, Vader (that'd be Hayden Christensen, of course), Bail Organa, Grand Moff Tarkin, Obi-Wan (and that'd be Ewan McGregor), and Chewbacca have all expressed an interest in showing up at random points in the show.

It's also been theorized that Quinlan Vos (one of Qui-Gon's Padawans, and Aayla Secura's Master) will be figuring into the show. Thus far, Quinlan's only appeared in the Star Wars "Republic" comics, but his constant struggles with the Dark Side have made him an overwhelming fan-favorite. This earned him a throw-away mention in "Revenge of the Sith", when Obi-Wan explains to Anakin that "Master Vos has moved his troops" at one point. Moreover, George Lucas himself specifically told the writers of the "Republic" comics not to kill off Quinlan. I'm not sure who would play him, but I could get behind him being in the show.

It's all but confirmed that Boba Fett will be a more-than-minor cast member. The little boy who played him in "Attack of the Clones", Daniel Logan, has already got an offer to reprise his role in the TV series.

Personally, as I said to the wife, I'm pegging my feelings as "cautiously optimistic". What I'm gunning for--the thing I'd love to see--is the stories of Jedi who're still on the run from Order 66. I love the Jedi; it's the entire reason why I started getting hard-core into Star Wars, and anything that explores them more is worth investigation to me. (I'm the type who's planning on buying and reading the Jedi Apprentice books, even though they suck, because they have Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon and Yoda in them. I'm also the type who wants to get Star Wars comics for Mace Windu, Kit Fisto and Aayla Secura. Homgz.)

So, yes. I'm an enormous nerd, and I'm loving every second, damn your eyes.

Barbossa fanwankery to be posted sometime today.



Cassidy: "Oh, sure, rain on my parade."
Munch: "I don't want to just rain on it, I wanna... ]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/13226932/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/13226932/ Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:35:20 PDT For posterity's sake--things I need to start and finish.



The casting changes and such swirling around "Law & Order" grow moderately more interesting today.

In an unauthorized leak (the squealer's anonymous, because, apparently like the Mob, Dick Wolf will have you whacked for releasing unauthorized info about his shows), it's been revealed that Sam Waterston may be resolving all of the issues surrounding "L&O: Original Recipe". He's jockeying for a promotion for his character, Jack McCoy, from Executive ADA to District Attorney.

Now, so far as I'm concerned, this is the best damn idea for recasting that the original series has had in some time. Hang 'Em High McCoy's been getting old of late, and most of the show's fans don't seem to like him too much. In addition, it looks like Fred Thompson, the actor who plays the current DA, is actually going to bid for the Republican ticket in 2008. As a result, Thompson's officially resigned from working on the series. Ding-dong, the witch is dead, and all that.

In any event, I caught the season finale of "Special Victims Unit". I still haven't written about it because oh my God it was so good that I still feel a bit stunned when I consider it. It was amazing. I was happy to get to take back most of the complaints I've had about the show in recent weeks.

First of all, the episode was Fin-centric, for the first time in a very long time. Second, I felt that it actually maintained a good balance between all the cast. Even with introducing the new detective, I didn't feel that anyone was being particularly deprived of face-time.

Basically, the finale was all about tying up loose ends. Mutliple former storylines were re-introduced, which would make it hard for non-fans to grok all the was going down--but hey, finales are for the fans, so it's all good. They dug into plotlines that were introduced as far back as 2005: Stabler getting his daughter off scot-free on a DUI, Fin's son's half-brother going to trial and airing out all the Tutuolas' dirty laundry, and Benson's brother were all factored in. Everyone was roundly punished and humiliated for the things that they'd done wrong, and more so. Karma was in full effect.

Ludacris as Darius Parker was one of the best villians I've ever seen on an "L&O" show. The only two who approach that level of nasty, cunning malevolence were Whoopi Goldberg's evil mom and Nichole Wallace/Elizabeth Hitchens, both of whom shone on "Criminal Intent". Darius was searingly evil; I found myself hating him easily and willingly, all thanks to the marvelous writing and Ludacris's masterful performance. He was like an elevated subway train that's derailed, and goes plummeting through the air, turning everything in its wake into blood, rubble, and pain.

The episode ended, as it should, with three of the characters' jobs held in question. Stabler got to watch his daughter get hauled off to the clubhouse to serve her sentence, too. On top of that, it happens that he managed to get his wife with child, which is, according to her, going to force them to stay married. Personally, I think that's weak; as a Catholic, she shouldn't have tried to divorce him, either, so why birth control or an abortion should be out of the question is beyond me. (No, I'm not that blithely cynical in real life, but we're discussing fictional characters, here.) Novak's under fire for incompetence, because she lost the case against Darius--not her fault, exactly, but at least she's actually a character again. Ditto Cragen. Papa Bear's in trouble, alas. Benson, meanwhile, is being raked over the coals for giving her brother Simon money while he was still a fugitive.

Meanwhile, Munch and Fin. Oh, my poor d... ]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/13172686/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/13172686/ Fri, 01 Jun 2007 05:34:00 PDT
Also, although my new story's definitely posted, I can't see it in my gallery. It's starting to drive me up a wall.

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/12962110/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/12962110/ Tue, 15 May 2007 06:41:06 PDT
So yesterday, I found out that "Criminal Intent" has been renewed for a seventh season. Instead of airing the new episodes on NBC (where the show loses out to big-time heavy-hitters like "House", which, admittedly, is usually a better watch), the show will be aired on USA, making it the first in history to skip to cable while still airing new episodes. Or so I've read. "CI" has stronger ratings on USA anyhow, so hopefully it will be better for the show overall.

It happens, purely by circumstance, that I saw an ad yesterday informing me that "Criminal Intent"'s season finale would be on that night, rather than on Tuesday. Again, a move I'm guessing was meant to counteract the fact that it runs against "House". I was curious as to how it would go, since Goren apparently chokes someone in the ad, so I took the time to watch it. The wife and I have been saying for some time that Goren's going to lose his shit, and it seemed like our predictions would finally come to pass.

If you didn't see last night's episode, then boy howdy did you miss out.

A lot of the DRAMA!!!11! of this season has focused directly on Goren's family life, or lack therof. Thus far we have seen Goren's mom develop lymphoma; we've seen a scare where Goren thought his brother was dead. Last night's finale was the culmination of all of those storylines, crammed into one steaming pit of awful, soul-bending angst. In a way, it's almost like an angst-whore fangirl's taken over the writing responsibilities for the show, but I digress.

Basically, last night, Goren and Eames were investigating a serial rapist and murderer who claimed to have a lot more than the seven victims he'd been convicted for. The guy continually taunted them by promising them the names of more victims. Naturally, they have to accept his challenges and try to name all the vics--think of how many unsolved cases that would cover, after all.

At the same time this investigation is going on, Goren's dealing with his mum, who's decided to stop taking medication entirely. His brother, Frank, actually shows up, and it's implied that the only reason Frank showed at all was because he thought that his mom might have some money she'd be leaving to him. The mom, Frances, keeps digging into Goren almost every time she opens her mouth--"The prodigal son!" she said when he showed up midway through the episode, as if he didn't call her once a day and visit once every few days. I like to think she's a horrible bitch because she's also insane, but that doesn't make it easier to see how much she hurts Goren.

Eventually, while going through the pictures that the rapist took of his victims, Goren sees one that looks like it could be his mother. If you thought his life was going downhill already, then this is the point where he actually stops rolling downhill--because he's just dropped off a cliff.

Bobby's had a lot more emotion in the episodes I've caught this season than previous. He used to be much less emotionally attached to his work. But then, in this season, we've seen a fake-out about his brother maybe being dead; he's watched his mother dying slowly of cancer; and his partner was kidnapped and almost killed. It hasn't exactly been easy on the poor bastard, but actually seeing Bobby on the edge of crying...? That's still something that rattles my cage.

All's I have to say is that if last night's episode doesn't prove to be fanfiction fodder then I will lose faith in the Internets.

]]> ~street-howitzer http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/12908344/ http://street-howitzer.deviantart.com/journal/12908344/ Thu, 10 May 2007 06:53:21 PDT
"Seraphim Falls" is a post-Civil War story, about an ex-Union general who's relentlessly pursued by an old foe of his, an ex-Confederate bent on revenge. It is full to the brim of men dressed as cowboys, who, as "Brokeback Mountain" taught us, are all gay.

It also stars Pierce Brosnan, and (drumroll, please) Liam Neeson.

This can only end in tears, my friends.

Also, I had problems sleeping last night. Partly because the wife wasn't there. Party because one of the cats kept meowing and waking me up. And partly because "The Sun dog" scared the living bejesus out of me. I don't know if that makes me a wimp or not.

]]> ~street-howitzer