Vondy

My Star Wars game has an Ewok slicer known as Fancy Bear. Just sayin'...

Which isn't saying much.

Speaking of action movie cliches and Star Wars: JJ Abrams. The man thinks the frenetic-kinetic breakneck pace of superhero films will translate to everything he touches. His technique is to hit the beats, tropes, and quips at 100+ mph without paying attention to anything else. Some stories need time for the story to breath, the characters to resonate, and the mythology to build. A movie can contain a lot of action and not be a cheeky formulaic action blockbuster. Abrams hand in Star Wars and Star Trek has been detrimental to both because there is something more to both of them. The worst action movie cliche I can think of these days is "Directed by JJ Abrams."

Not only slick paint, but on several bike lanes they put barriers and planters obscuring cyclists from traffic on the left side of the road, which means cars are making left turns across the bike lane, or pulling into the bike lane at the intersection and stopping, to make their turns not realizing they are blocking the right of way. I'm looking at you Seattle Police Department cruisers... On top of it, the westbound side of Dearborn (heavy fast moving traffic with a set of freeway on-ramps and off-ramps) is designed with parking spaces between traffic and the bike lane at one point, and with several cross-overs where cars pass-through the bike-lane to enter right turn lanes for sundry parking lots and side streets. You have people opening the passenger side doors into the bike lane when they park, and cars swooping through the bike lane and "right-hooking" cyclists for six blocks in a row. In one of those cases, the cross-over spot is right past the parking spots, which means motorists see the cyclist, completely misjudge their speed, accelerate past the parked cars because they just have to beat the cyclist to prove their honor, and then turn right into the cyclist's front tire because they lost sight of them. And, all of this is in a place where cyclists are going downhill. Bikes do not stop on a dime on a grade. I had 2-3 close calls a week when they first put that thing in. Never again. I watched a woman going 25+mph on her bike go right across an SUVs hood three weeks ago because of asinine design (and asinine driving). She went to the hospital. No, it is much safer to play in traffic than to ride in a bike lane in Seattle. Just get out in the middle, take the lane, and haul ass.

I like riding in traffic, but that's just me. Bike lanes are for suicide-jockeys.

Only if they are well designed! Several of the bike lanes in Seattle are more dangerous than riding in traffic.

It really depends on which state you are in. 19 states have universal helmet laws for motorcyclists. 28 more have laws requiring some motorcycle riders to wear helmets, but not all. Only 3 states have no motorcycle helmet law in place. In Washington, motorcyclists are required to wear helmets, but bicyclists are not. Like you say, it may be common sense, but its not legally required. Many cities, however, have bicycle helmet ordinances. For instance, Seattle where I work mandates bicyclists where helmets, but Bremerton where I live does not. And the ferry terminal is State property. So, technically, I have to have a helmet on between the Seattle-side gate to the ferry dock and my office, but not anywhere else on my ride. I do wear one 99% of the time, but.... sheeeesh! Some people need more spine!

If its half as good as the original it will be twice as good as most Marvel films. Looking forward to this one.

Bizarre and cynical misreadings and mischaracterizations of writer's whose work disagrees, even slightly, with the worldview of contemporary ideologues (irrespective of stripe) has become de rigueur over the past two decades. The method is: twist, distort, exaggerate, and cherry-pick to destroy a writer and their work. I much prefer accurate, balanced, and nuanced criticism. Ergo, actually discuss and engage the ideas. For the record, I am not a fan of Ayn Rand and have some philosophical and ethical objections to her strident and often inflexible "objectivism." She largely leaves me cold. But, most of the criticisms I've read of her, especially those delivered by progressives (including some board members here) are histrionic nonsense.

I've undercone a subtle tectonic psychological shift over the past year or so. I've come out of it weirdly zen in a lot of ways. I have no concrete explanation as to why.

Which is no longer true, really. From the MPAA: "If two-thirds of the ratings board members believe that multiple F-words are used in a legitimate 'context or manner' or are 'inconspicuous,' then the movie could still be rated PG-13." As society's mores about expletives evolves so does what is considered a 'legitimate context or manner' or what is 'inconspicuous.' PG-13 films with three or more f-bombs, or even f-cluster bombs, have become increasingly common. Probably because the parents sitting on the ratings board panels are now dropping f-bombs quite often themselves. For instance, "I have no idea what this f---ing clue movie should be rated!"

Factoid: I'm a bicycle commuter. So, yesterday afternoon it was super-low tide when the ferry docked. I had been standing on the dock for a while so I rode on with my helmet off (oh no!). One of the other cyclists comes up to me as I settled in up-top and said "I saw you ride onto the ferry." I said, "Oh, yeah?" He says, "You didn't have your helmet on." I say, "Oh, yeah." He says, "That's kind of dangerous, isn't it?" Riding in traffic is hairy as hell, helmet or not. Riding down a ramp onto a ferry with no cars around you? Not so much. I manage to keep a straight face: "Well, yeah. Born to be Wild. Easy Rider. Right here, man." After a pregnant and dour pause he recriminates: "You're dangerous." I smile: "Not to display outmoded machismo or toxic masculinity, but you and I appear to assess risk in radically different ways." He chews on that and gets suspicious: "Is that supposed to mean something?" I told him, "You should meditate on that somewhere else because this conversation is the riskiest thing you've done all day." He walked off in a huff. I admit that, in the words of a motorcycle commuter friend, I ride my bicycle like "a fighter pilot on a fat-boy," but.... really? Who is this guy? What alternate universe did he step out of? My wife rides like a demon out of hell. I mean, she makes me nervous the way she rides. Navy Seals cry for momma when she blows by. When I related this anecdote to her she grimaced and shook her head: "Gamma-male. Welcome to Seattle." Too much machismo can be a problem, but none at all? That's just plain tragic.

Considering how far modern standards have fallen, is this a reason not to do it?

I'm of the opinion we're suffering from Samuel L Jackson poisoning. I love Quentin Tarantino films and think he was brilliantly cast in them. I've enjoyed him in a lot of films. He can be very entertaining. But Samuel L Jackson plays Samuel L Jackson. He does not have a lot of range and often strikes a dissonant note when he can't rise to the role and material. Hollywood has this habit of taking popular actors and making them ubiquitous even when they casting them isn't appropriate for the role or film. One example: Mace Windu. He had no business being cast as a Jedi Master, let alone the head of the Jedi Order. It was idiotic. I mean, if you need an argument for why the Jedi had to fall and executing Order 66 was a patriotic duty, look no farther! WTF?

David Hasselhoff was the best Nick Fury.

I didn't love season one of Iron First, but it was still better than a lot of crap shows I've run across of late. I too am skeptical, but overall I've enjoyed the Marvel Netflix-Verse more than the mainstream MCU (there are a few movies I really-really liked). And, I didn't hate the actor. I just though the entire "this show is about setting up the defenders and not about presenting iron fist" aspect hamstrung it from the outset. I'm hoping for the best.

Did someone say Carcac?

There, I fixed that for you. ?

I mostly enjoyed the first season of Lucifer. That said, it really didn't need to be renewed. It quickly lost its mojo going into season two. But, then, I felt the same way about Game of Thrones. I gave up after the first episode of the second season. The writing was on the wall. Besides, the armies of newly converted and rabid fantasy "fans" proved utterly tedious. These were the same people who sneered at fantasy and denigrated the genres fans twenty years ago. Of course, I can't stand George RR Martin's writing, either. He's a cynical nihlist and sadist who finds catharsis in abusing his readers. I'm so glad that series is now done.

Nah, nothing like that.

I read boddice rippers.

You would be correct. Thriller as a genre is incredibly broad and crosses into multiple sub-genres. The legal thriller, spy thriller, action-adventure thriller, medical thriller, police thriller, romantic thriller, historical thriller, political thriller, religious thriller, high-tech thriller, military thriller. Ad infinitum. To reduce thrillers to "serial killer thillers" would be irresponsibly reductive and result in a meaningles and inaccurate claim. By definition thrillers are characterized and defined by the moods they elicit, giving viewers heightened feelings of suspense, excitement, surprise, anticipation and anxiety. The goal of the thriller is to keep the audience on the edge of their seats. Its about generating SUSPENSE. Noir cinema, for instance, is rife with films that qualify thrillers. One may or may not object to the femme fatale vs goodwife archetype that frequently appears, but these movies generally feature men in danger and men under threat. I've read hundreds of hard-boiled and noir supense novels, and watched scores of the films. Most of Hitchcock's films (excepting Psycho) featured men in danger. Rear Window and North by Northwest are significant examples. Thrillers do not shy away from male-on-male violence. In fact, violence inflicted on men in thrillers is so gratuitiously common as to pass without comment. Let's take Predator, for example. The chick survives. We just couldn't have her die. Its a bunch of men who die. The same is true in Alien. The chick surives. Most Tom Clancy books are thrillers. They're just military thrillers. I do not see a great deal of violence directed towards women because they are women inthat genre. Indeed, more often than not, the violence and torture in military thrillers is strictly male on male. If women are harmed its usually because they are bystanders or a part of "the public" the heroes are trying to protect. The protagonist under threat in legal-religious-political-tech-medical-spy thrillers can be male or female. In psychological thrillers Its not about violence towards women. Its about violence towards the protagonist. Unless you want no female protagonists, or protagonists who are never hurt or threatened, a woman will have to find herself in harms way at some point. That's equality, right? I've also read more than one best-selling thriller with a male stalker and a female protagonist that were written by women for women. Because, disturbingly, chicks dig that? What does that have to do with us menfolk? Now, it is true that the sub-genre of SERIAL KILLER thrillers almost always focus on violence against women and a sadly disproportionate number of badly mutilated female bodies hit the floor in these shows / movies. To some extent that may be because art mimics reality. Real life serial killers skew male and they mostly prey on women. Its a movie that is sensationalizing that kind of misogyny. It could also be because a movie about a serial killer who targeted men would not generate the same horror, shock, outrage, and fury. Because, Womyns. A notable exception is slasher films. A great many of those have a lone female survivor and an otherwise even distribution of male/female. Dudes die. Chicks die. Everyone dies. Except, typically, the good girl chick. She usually lives. The number of male victims tends to be female victims +1. But lets be fair: there is far more to the thriller genre than Hannibal Lecter. Oh, wait. He mostly ate men. With fava beans. Yum.

Firstly, you concede my entire argument when you say "As cultural artifacts they may not need our permission to exist nor our forgiveness." End of debate. They exist and they do not require our forgiveness. Rather, you introduce a fallacious premise "but to remain an active and useful part of our cultural paradigm today they certainly do." What does remaining an active or useful part of our culture, or whether we choose to engage with them or incorporate them in our own product have to do with forgiveness? Absolutely nothing. Forgiveness is irrelevant. You clearly do not understand the term. Psychologists generally define forgiveness as a conscious, deliberate decision to release feelings of resentment or vengeance toward a person or group who has harmed you. You do not have to release feelings of resentment or vengeance over a cultural artifact you find offensive to engage with it or have it serve a meaningful role in your life. Strong negative reactions and value objections are also perfectly valid reactions to art. I will even go a step farther and say refusal to engage with media that does not reflect contemporary values and offends personal sensibilities is brittle, cowardly, censorious, and petty minded. It is demonstrative of a person who is stunted emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually. I am a better person for having read Mein Kampf and listened to and analyzed every single one of Hitler's speeches. That I find him a vulgar and odious example of humanity who espoused ideas that were anathema to my own values does not change that. It should be required reading and, quite frankly, I don't give a damn if it triggers anyone. The censorious desire of critical theorists to identify objectionable aspects of a cultural product and then engage in reductionism while ignoring both its holistic content and historical context is the path of prideful and posturing counter-intellectual morons who wish to sanitize culture in the name of making it safe for adult child-beings who will never develop into mature, moral men and women. We are made better when we are confronted and challenged by things outside of our comfort zones. Indeed, the only way to test the mettle of our own values is through confrontation with ideas and art that exists beyond our moral horizons. What is more, you cannot jettison the cultural artifacts of the past. They are what the emerging cultural artifacts of the present find their roots in. You can pretend they aren't there, but then, what are you? An enlightened ostrich with its head in the sand? A moral censor pursuing Aristotle's love of lies? Is that a laudable goal? Our history is a part of our culture. All jettisoning it does is increase ignorance, and all that does is increase discord and hate. And, not to sound too trite, but one who does not know ones history is doomed to repeat it. Without the context and content of the past you cannot understand the context and content of the present. Nor can you evaluate whether things are better or worse today than they were then, or even to say why that is so. Without having done these things you simply remain a child living according to received theoretical moral tradition rather than a resilient full-fledged moral actor on the stage of life. We may find some cultural artifacts objectionable. We may decide some cultural artifacts should not be emulated in contemporary art. But how does one find that? Not by jettisoning it. Not by expunging it from the cultural record. No. One discovers that by engaging it. In that it continues to have paramount value. The current cultural trend towards historical sanitization, reductionist criticism, and politically narrow brittleness is both intellectually and morally degenerate. A strong person hailing from a strong culture can engage art beyond their contemporary, cultural, and moral horizons. They can engage art from other cultures, and other time-periods on their own terms and have their own individual emotional responses. In reflecting upon their reactions, their culture, and their values, they might even become more self-aware, better realized, and morally clarified beings. And it might all start with being morally aghast and aesthetically agape at Fu Manchu... whether they forgive Sax Rohmer or not. This discussion could do without the presumption that our forgiveness is meaningful or relevant.

History and its assorted cultural products do not require our forgiveness. The very notion is egocentric, ethnocentric, and benighted. Our contemporary approval or dissaproval is subjective and largely superfluous.

I recently re-read Red Harvest by Dashielle Hammett.