Breast Milk Baby — a doll for children with breast-feeding-zealot mothers or, possibly, adults with fetishes that really shouldn’t be indulged.

This isn’t the first baby doll to cause offense. Back in the 1970s the Archie Bunker’s Grandson Joey doll protruded his way outside of the box, being a cute little bundle of vinyl with an itty-bitty penis. Many people at the time were horrified and disgusted. I suspect the doll was purchased more for its novelty than the intention of letting little girls actually play with it. It seemed freakish somehow (in the junk-free world of dolls) to have a gender-specific baby doll. It’s much easier to make them all girls (implied by their clothing, not their privates). Today, compared to Breast Milk Baby, little Joey seems almost appropriate.

One of the most dangerous myths in the United States is the belief that governing is something anyone can do, and worse yet, something that only the ignorant can do. Thus we get people like Paul Broun who introduced a bill into Congress that would reduce the debt ceiling. But Broun has other things on his mind like the reduced consumption of luxury goods:

Who voted this guy into office? I’ll give you a hint: it was not people with expensive cars and country club memberships; there aren’t enough of them.

I have heard from many sources that Jewish scholars think that Jesus was a great man and profit, but not the messiah—not a god. This is very strange to me, because if Jesus was not the savior of the Jews—the son of God—he was at best highly deluded.

The issue is very clear, because Jesus made a point of telling people that he was a deity. If one is a god, it is perfectly acceptable—although admittedly arrogant—to tell people about it. Of course, in Jesus’ case, there is something childish about it. Much of what he said could be said by a boastful ten-year-old, “My father’s God and when I die, I’m gonna sit right next to him in heaven and I will be the ruler of everyone!” But if you accept Jesus is who he claimed to be, this is a minor point.

On the other hand, if Jesus was not God or the son of God or whatever (Christian theology is very complicated), he was what we charitably refer to as bat-shit crazy.

It isn’t as though there weren’t always indications of Jesus’ instability. He is highly inconsistent. I think everyone knows Jesus as the “Prince of Peace” and all that stuff about turning the other cheek. But he contradicted this statement, most notably in Luke 19:27:

I know that there have been 2000 years of apologists who have worked to smooth over all of the problems with the Bible and its numerous contradictions. This is perfectly understandable and legitimate if one accepts that Jesus is a deity. But for those who do not accept this, it makes no sense to hold Jesus in high regard. He might have been an inspired theologian. He might have been a great moral teacher. None of this matters, however. If he wasn’t God, he was a nut.

Update (21 July 2013 3:43 pm)

A good response to this is that Jesus didn’t specifically say that he was the messiah. By this theory, those are all bad translations when he answered in the affirmative as to the question of his divinity. Plus: maybe Jesus just meant that we are all God’s children. That more or less invalidates all of Christianity. It becomes, “There was this prophet and we got the idea that he might be the son of God.” That is a fair characterization, but it seems the whole purpose of the Gospels is to portray him as the son of God without making him look too arrogant. I guess that Jesus could have been something other than a god or a nut; he could have been a charlatan.

Eric Alterman often annoys me, but I think he is dead on today.

Unfortunately, I think Obama is addicted to seeing himself as “reasonable” and thus will continue to cut his own throat—and ours along with it.

Robert Reich wrote an excellent article that sums up what everyone should know about the current economy. As he says, this isn’t rocket science.

It is frustrating to watch as those in power repeat all of the mistakes of the Great Depression. I used to think that we would never have another because of what was learned; the Great Depression was kind of like Christianity: my grandparents suffered so that I would not have to. How naive I was.

Who coined the phrase, “coined the phrase”? Seriously. I’d like to know.

Earlier today, I decided—after much procrastinating—to see the movie The Beaver. You may be thinking, “But Frank, why would you procrastinate about seeing a film that’s primary appeal was that it had a puppet?” The answer is its secondary appeal: Mel Gibson. Nothing quite takes the gloss off puppetry like combining it with a sadomasochistic asshole. But went I did, and discovered I did—it being Friday—the films playing at the theater had changed and The Beaver was no longer playing. My options were pretty much reduced to reading the big scary science book I just got or going to see the film that had replaced The Beaver: The Priest. Given that I figured that The Beaver was going to be dreck, the fact that I held the same opinion of The Priest did not really enter into my decision. I went to see The Priest.

This was my second time going to the “$3 for all shows” 3rd Street Cinema in Santa Rosa. The first time was to see the new Pirates of the Caribbean movie, only yesterday. Let me only say of it, quickly, that I thought it was probably the best of the bunch. But I will have to see it at least one more time. There are obvious advantages to it: out goes Orlando Bloom, in comes Ian McShane; there was more Jack Sparrow than in any of the other films; and okay, I liked the bit between the Christer and the mermaid! More to the point, however: the 3rd Street Cinema put Pirates in its best theater. It even had THX sound, although after getting used to the Roxy Stadium 14’s sound system, it sounded pretty puny and pathetic. The Priest, on the other hand, was probably put in their worst theater. It had no THX. No Dolby. And it showed, if you will forgive me: even sitting at the front of the theater, I could make out a maximum of 70% of the dialog, and it was probably closer to 50%.

I actually had a rather good time watching The Priest because it was like a mystery. I kept trying to figure out if the filmmakers meant to make such a funny movie. I learned the answer about an hour into this just short of hour and a half opus.[1] That is the point at which the character “Black Hat”[2] pretends to conduct the vampire raid on Jericho. That was clearly meant to be funny—and it was. But it also meant that the rest of it was not meant to be funny. I suppose I should have know: I was the only one in the theater laughing.

I was not laughing because it was bad. It is just that the film is so unrelentingly serious about a subject that is just plain silly. But The Priest is not alone in this. Just about any post-apocalyptic film is. At first, it reminded me of Judge Dredd (also based on a comic). But Judge Dredd, despite its art direction, does have a sense of humor. It didn’t take long before I found a better match: Warrior of the Lost World. Or perhaps Mad Max.[3] I appreciate an artist’s commitment to his material, but that’s the thing about it: if it doesn’t work, people will laugh. And this film pulled out all the stops. I was in a good mood, so I felt entertained rather than assaulted. But it could easily have been the opposite.

But who can really complain for three bucks? Three bucks?! The 3rd Street Cinema in Santa Rosa. I can forgive a whole lot—and get a hot dog—for that price. Oh my!

[1] I kept thinking about the director’s cut of the film Kate & Leopold. At the beginning, Kate defends here profession of “market research” by saying, among other things, “We make bad films shorter!” The irony of this scene being cut from the film is priceless. In fact, the irony that the whole film was savagely cut is priceless, even though I would say the director’s cut is better (not saying a lot). Anyway, it is clear that The Priest was meant to be about a half-hour longer.

[2] This film is bad about character names. Another major character was named “Salesman” because, you know, he was a salesman. And the title character is named “Priest” because, you know, he’s a priest. Ditto for the priestess. I guess it is because this film is based on a comic book. It must be a kids’ thing. But this kids’ thing attracted a lot of talent: “Salesman” was played by Brad Dourif.

[3] This brings us full circle to Mel “cut off your arm with this hacksaw” Gibson. This makes me think that the reason I didn’t laugh all the way through Mad Max is the psychopath at its center. I am obviously not talking about George Miller—for God’s sake, the man went on to make Babe: Pig in the City. No, I am talking about that Mad Max guy: you could tell that the actor had more than an actor’s interest in the part. For the record, Mad Max is a dreadful film—just not one I would laugh at.

I just heard Monica Novoa of the Drop the I Word campaign on FAIR’s CounterSpin. The idea of the campaign is to get people to stop using the adjective “illegal” to modify human beings, as in, “He’s an illegal immigrant.” Frankly, I thought everyone had long ago given up that construction, if for no other reason than that it isn’t accurate: people aren’t illegal, acts are. Thus, we don’t refer to people who have been convicted of crimes as “illegals.” Thus, when speaking of non-citizens working in this country without authorization, we use the term “undocumented.” Here is what the website has to say on the issue:

There were two things that I was surprised about in this matter. The first was that even non-right-wing news organizations continue to use the word “illegal” in this way. The second was that the original usage of the I word was explicitly created by anti-immigration activists. Even the infamous Frank Luntz has been part of this. So just in case you were still doing it: stop calling people illegal. When you do so, you are not only speaking inaccurately, you are taking part in political theater.

On this 4th of July, I find myself thinking back to the Minutemen’s 1983 EP Buzz or Howl Under the Influence of Heat and the song “I Felt Like a Gringo” by Mike Watt:

I list them here, because they are hard to make out when D. Boon sings them, but here is an acoustic version of the song:

I always feel sad on nationalistic holidays. This is a great change from my youth when I looked forward to watching 1776 on the 4th. Now I think of Ben Franklin’s statement that the United States was, “A republic, if you can keep it.” It sure seems like a republic, at the same time I feel I am not represented. People with money are represented. Things with money are represented. But me? I don’t know. I am an outsider in my own country. I would feel far more relaxed in Mexico right now.

Happy Independence Day!

As regular readers of this site know, I very much like Kenneth Branagh and very much dislike Shakespeare, who I derisively call “That Bard.” It is wrong to say that I dislike Shakespeare; it is more that I just don’t think he is all that great. If no one liked him, I would probably sing his praises. But I commonly read such ridiculous praise for him that I can’t help it. As a poet, he’s okay I guess. As a dramatist, he is pretty good at his best, mediocre most of the time, and absolute rubbish at his worst. Today, I watched Kenneth Branagh’s 1993 version of Much Ado About Nothing—twice! The first time, I watched it with the play in front of me to see how close it is to the play. It is quite close. Branagh yanks out a couple of scenes, cuts some lines (although rarely his), moves a couple of things around, and adds purely visual material that is not in the play. But all in all, it is quite close to the play and so I have a few questions for Shakespeare.

1. Why do you think you can just make villains without providing any context? Why is Don John such a bastard (in both ways)? His first major speech sounds suspiciously like the opening of Richard III—a play where again we get a villain who just is a villain. (“And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover… I am determined to prove a villain”? Come on!) And while I’m on the subject of Don John, here’s a question for Kenneth Branagh: in what universe could Keanu Reeves be the half-brother of Denzel Washington?
2. Why, after Don John tricks Claudio regarding Hero, does he allow himself to be tricked again?
3. Why does Don John want to disgrace Hero and stop her marriage to Claudio? It is his brother, Don Pedro, who he hates.
4. Benedick and Beatrice are both highly nubile. Are we to believe that they just have to be tricked into thinking the other is in love with them for them to fall passionately in love? Don’t get me wrong, the scenes with these two (whether in or out of love) are the best in the play. It is good fun. It is also, unfortunately, totally unbelievable.
5. If Hero were unfaithful, Claudio and Don Pedro act disgracefully by shaming her in public. I’ll grant you that Hero is one of your air-head female characters, and so will put up with anything to get a husband. But what about the audience? Why is Benedick going to come up with some good punishment for Don John, while Claudio and Don Padro (who acted worse in many ways) live happily ever after?

These are just a few of my questions. If I held myself to the same standards of plot and characterization as Shakespeare, I’d be pumping out a novel a week.