Support your local video store!

In the days of ON DEMAND movie rentals, video rental stores seem to have become a thing of the past for a lot of people.  Video rental stores are really hurting with new things like Netflix and ON DEMAND.  I see less and less video stores in my city all the time (only a few years ago there were 4 or 5, and now there is only one).  The point is, video rental stores are dying, and we have to make sure they stay in business.  The selection offered by video rental stores is above and beyond anything ON DEMAND has to offer, especially when you're looking for older movies.  Plus, you get the DVD with special features and can keep the movie longer.  The price is usually about the same too, and most video stores now offer movies both in standard definition and in blu-ray.  And where do all those copies of new movies go when they're not new releases anymore?  They get sold to us a rock bottom prices at the store!  You can't get that anywhere else.  The point is, next time you're about to click "buy now" to rent a movie on your TV, think about how much you already pay to your cable/satellite provider, and consider driving a couple minutes in your car to support a dying industry instead.  

The "Freedom of Choice" Act

Personal freedom and liberty has always been the backbone of what makes America so great.  Patrick Henry's famous words "Give me liberty, or give me death!" are a testament to just how important personal freedom is to Americans.  But exactly how much are we willing to sacrifice for the personal freedom to choose?  

Enter the Freedom of Choice Act, a bill first considered in 1989, newly revised and being considered by many state Congresses across the country, including the Rhode Island Congress.  The Freedom of Choice Act would lift pretty much all state and federal restrictions on abortion, including:

- State abortion reporting requirements in all 50 states 
- Forty-four states’ laws concerning parental involvement 
- Forty states’ laws on restricting later-term abortions 
- Forty-six states’ conscience protection laws for individual health care providers 
- Twenty-seven states’ conscience protection laws for institutions 
- Thirty-eight states’ bans on partial-birth abortions 
- Thirty-three states’ laws on requiring counseling before an abortion 
- Sixteen states’ laws concerning ultrasounds before an abortion 

And one bill is going to overturn all of those laws.  Think about what's going on here.  I know the freedom to choose is incredibly important, but is the freedom to choose really worth so many innocent human lives that don't even have a say in it? 

There are so many laws in this country protecting the freedom of life.  There's laws against homicide, abuse, suicide,  etc.  So why are there no laws protecting human life inside the womb?  How is it that a human life inside the womb is worth less than a human life outside the womb?  Many would argue that a fetus inside the womb isn't technically a life at all.  Science seems to think otherwise:

"There is no more pivotal moment in the subsequent growth and development of a human being than when 23 chromosomes of the father join with 23 chromosomes of the mother to form a unique, 46-chromosomed individual, with a gender, who had previously simply not existed."--Dr. Fritz Baumgartner, MD.

Going by this definition of life, it is hypocritical to think that the government should be able to protect life outside the womb, but not be able to interfere with life inside the womb.  How is it worse if a mother kills her child still in the womb versus killing her child while outside the womb?

May argue that a woman should be in charge of her own body.  That's all well and good, but if the thing inside of her is truly another life, than it is no longer her body is it?  Many argue that it's a matter of viability.  Viability is defined as:

"having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus."

A child inside the uterus is completely dependent on the mother for its life.  I get that.  But what's the difference once the child is born?  If you give birth to a child and just leave it somewhere and ignore it, it will still die.  It is still just as "viable" and dependent on the mother as it was when it was inside her.  

And the Freedom of Choice Act would lift so many bans on partial birth abortion.  There are a few ways to perform partial birth abortion, but one common way involves turning a child around inside the mother so it is born feet first.  Because the child is still technically unborn when its head is still inside its mother, they can give birth to the baby up to its neck, and then insert a knife into the back of the baby's skull in order to severe its brain stem and quickly kill it.  The practice is disgusting and barbaric and should not be allowed in a country that holds the right to life so sacred.  But then again, if pregnancy termination is allowed during earlier stages when the fetus (still a life with its entire genetic makeup) what's the difference if it's allowed to be terminated at any stage?  

The Freedom of Choice Act also lifts laws requiring counseling before an abortion.  A decision as big as abortion should not be made alone, and the ability to just walk into a clinic without first talking to anyone about it and considering alternatives is definitely not the right way to go.  In this way, rash decisions that will likely be regretted later will be made.  

I know that was more of a rant against abortion in general, but since this bill pretty much attacks all laws regarding it, there's really no other way to address it.  Feel free to post your opinions on the topic.

"Holy Matrimony"

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote an article about my feelings on the legalization of same sex marriage from a very secular perspective.  Now I'm going to look at marriage from a much less political perspective.  I just finished reading an article by Diocese of Providence Bishop Thomas J. Tobin.  In this article, he takes a look at how religious marriages are viewed by our modern secular society.  The article can be found here (the rest of this is just going to be my thoughts on the article, so I would read it if I were you):

http://thericatholic.com/news/detail.html?sub_id=2350

I really think that Bishop Tobin brings up some fantastic points about marriage today.  Marriage today is a hollow shell of what it was intended to be.  Instead of marriage being the start of a fully committed bond between two people, marriage is just seen as an ages-old ceremony that you go through with the person you probably want to live with and have sex with for a long period of time.  "Till death do us part" has little to no meaning anymore as the divorce rate in the country, even among religious marriages, is in the 50% ballpark.  People do not see marriage for what it truly is: an undying commitment to your spouse, with an emphasis on commitment.  It's not a business deal, and it's not a sex permit.  It's a commitment that you make to someone in which you promise that you'll always be looking out for nothing but the best for them for the rest of your days.  It's a promise that you will help them live out their lives to be the best that they can be.  Just as priests take a vocation to their Church, a bride or groom takes a vocation to their spouse.  

The first, and I think biggest problem that the Bishop proposes is the fact that a huge number of couples live together and have sexual relations before marriage.  This already shows a complete misunderstanding of the marriage vow.  I'm sure that somewhere down the line, I'm going to write an article about my views on sex, but for now, I will say that in order to understand the commitment made in marriage, one has to understand that sex is something that should only be done within the boundaries of a commitment as strong as Holy Matrimony. Without the understanding of that, Matrimony has already lost most of its meaning.

The bulk of this article seems to focus on how marriages today on trying to be the Princess's enchanted wedding to Prince Charming.  It's a ritual that has lost most of its meaning.  It's all about how the wedding looks, and not at all about what it means.  There are so many Catholics out there who make their Confirmation simply because they "want to get married in a Church".  If that's all you care about in your marriage, than why even bother?  Weddings are so full of things that "have to be done".  Why does the bride always have to throw the bouquet?  Why do the bride and groom HAVE to feed each other with their hands and look like idiots?  While I'd argue that these are not bad things in and of themselves, they certainly prevent the wedding to be anything but going through the motions.  

One minor thing I will have to disagree with the Bishop on is his paragraph about how he feels that Catholics should only look to Catholics to date.  While Catholic to Catholic dating is certainly ideal, I do not feel like it is always necessary.  There are great people that can have beliefs that differ from your own.  What I believe is important in inter-faith dating/marriage is your ability to accept each other, and to never give up your beliefs just for the other person.  A strong commitment to God is always more important than pressure put on you by the person that you're dating or are married to.  I understand how having the same faith makes marital decisions much easier, but I think that a person who is committed enough to their faith and an understanding spouse will be able to overcome these obstacles and live out these vocations.

That's all I have to say for now.  Let me know what you think! 

Should Same Sex Marriage be legalized?

Ok, before I start writing, let's get the inevitable personal opinion out of the way:  I believe that marriage is, and always will be: a Holy Sacrament of total commitment made by three persons: a man, a woman, and God.  But my opinion on whether same sex marriage is morally wrong or right is not what this article is about.  This is a look on whether or not same sex marriage should be legalized. 

I view the legalization of same sex marriage as a freedom of religious practice issue.  Amendment 1 of the U.S. Constitution clearly states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Also, the general rule in America is that we have the right to do whatever we want as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.  Since same sex marriage does not infringe on the rights of others, and is also the exercising of one's personal beliefs, than I see no reason why the government can prohibit same sex couples from getting married.  

Even though I don't believe that a same sex marriage is a true marriage, there's nothing for me to stop people who do and I absolutely understand that.  However, my problem here is that we cannot simply redefine the legal definition of marriage to include members of the same sex.  Because if we can just wake up one morning and change the laws regarding the sex of each member of a legally married couple, why can't we just change the laws regarding, say, the number of people in a single marriage?  If we can change one variable in our definition of marriage (the sex of each member), why can't we also change another equally important variable (the number of people) at the same time?  If we can recognize same sex marriage as a legal form of marriage in this country, than why can't we recognize something like polygamy as a legal form of marriage?  If we can only redefine marriage in regards to the sex of each member, than all we're doing is keeping the same rigidly strict barrier we put on the definition of marriage in the first place and just moving it slightly.  That is still nowhere near true marital freedom, so what's the point of moving it in the first place?

What it all comes down to is this:  can the law define what marriage is or is this something that should be left up to individual belief?  If the law can define marriage, than there's no real reason to change anything, as no change of the definition of marriage will allow for true marital freedom.  If the law shouldn't be defining marriage, than people should be free to define it however they want, and practice it freely just as the constitution intended it.  But the middle ground argument that marriage should be limited to a couple of either homosexual or heterosexual persons really makes no rational sense, as all you would be doing is moving an old barrier and solving nothing in the process.

I know this is extremely controversial, but feel free to post your opinions on it!

Celebrity Deaths

I have no idea what is up this week, but 4 celebrities have died. 

I really don't have a whole lot to say about this, but I just find it weird that four very famous people all die within a week of each other.  Ed McMahon died at 86 on June 23 from a yet unknown "variety of causes", Farrah Fawsett died at 62 on June 25 after a battle with cancer, Michael Jackson died at 50 on June 25 after cardiac arrest (though there is new evidence to suggest that drugs were involved), and Billy Mays died today, June 28 also at 50 years old from what is now believed to be a head injury he sustained when his US Airways flight into Tampa blew out its tires upon landing.  Anyway, my best wishes go out to all the families of these celebrities.  Each of them has left their own legacy that will not be forgotten anytime soon.  

Random Youtube Video time

So all of you know who Billy Mays is, right?  That guy that yells at you to buy things like Oxi Clean, OrangeGlo, and Mighty Putty?  "HI BILLY MAYS HERE!" is how every single one of those commercials start.  Well I've seen the greatest thing ever--Billy Mays Ordering from a Drive Thru at McDonalds.  Check it out:



Also, anyone who has seen "David After Dentist" on Youtube will definitely love this hilarious spoof:



Also there's this really, really funny skit from The Whitest Kids You Know about a sure to be successful advertising campaign:



That's all the random Youtube videos I have for this time. Enjoy!

Movie Review: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Warning: Minor Spoilers

Ok so I saw Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen last night at midnight (at least, it was supposed to be midnight, but after the biggest line I've ever seen at a movie theater flooded in and found seats, it was at least 12:30 when the previews started).  And it was epic.

Transformers is one of those franchises that has such a huge following to begin with that a studio could almost slap any piece of crap together and throw it on the screen and make a killing.  But luckily, they didn't choose that route.  Instead, they manage to craft an incredible action movie with breathtaking special effects that should keep both fans and non-fans of Transformers well entertained.  

I'm sure the first thing you're wondering about with the new Transformers is: "How's the action?"  Well, I have to say, it was PHENOMINAL.  This movie seriously blew my expectations away with its intense action scenes.  Some of the action scenes are so well shot, animated, and completely breathtaking that it really has to be seen to be believed.  I know we've seen CGI creatures beating the crap out of each other in like every action movie for years now, but Transformers manages to take the whole thing a step further with some truly incredible blend of live action and CGI.  The shots are also great at showing off exactly how massive these giant alien robots are.  And I'm pretty sure this movie should hold some kind of record for most explosions in a single movie, because during the action scenes (which was about 90% of the film), the explosion average was about one every two seconds.  

As far as plot goes, it is pretty much what you'd expect from a movie like this.  The Decepticons are back and once again hell bent on taking over the Earth, and the Autobots are ready to try to stop them.  Meanwhile, the government is trying to pass a law that would make Autobot presence on Earth illegal, believing that their very presence is why the Decepticons are attacking.  It's all very standard for an action movie like this, and the whole government-making-autobots-illegal thing feels like a watered-down Watchmen ripoff.  But if you're walking into the movie "Transformers" for an excellently-written plot that will emotionally move you, then I'm not sure what rock you've been under for the past 30 or so years.  This movie understands what it should be--an action movie--and doesn't make any huge attempts to change that, which is perfectly fine with me.

But this movie is definitely not without its faults.  First off, this movie, like its prequel, suffers from some of the most badly-written, smack your hand into your forehead "love scenes" this side of Star Wars Episode II (and surprisingly, this wasn't the only similarity to Star Wars this movie had).  I have no idea who the person is who keeps approving of the writing on these scenes, but the dialogue between Shia Leboeuf's character and Megan Fox's character is so disgustingly bad written that it really makes you want to throw up.  Its such an obvious tarnish on this otherwise pretty well-written movie that you almost have to wonder why these scenes ever made the final cut.

Secondly, I will not argue with any man, woman, or child on this planet that Megan Fox is absolutely GORGEOUS.  But as absolutely stunning as she is, I can't help but feeling that a lot of her scenes were just way too over the top sexually explicit, especially for a movie rated PG-13.  For example, the first shot of her in the movie really makes you feel like you accidentally just walked in on her having sex with a motorcycle.  There's also a scene not far after in which she literally strips in front of the camera for no real reason at all.  The movie takes it so far that there's actually a tiny Decepticon robot humping her leg for a good minute near the end of the film.  I know sex sells, but I can't help feeling like some of the writers on this movie were a bunch of college frat guys who made every attempt they could to see Megan Fox in less and less clothes in the most sexual positions possible.  If you just took out every shot in the movie that Megan Fox is not in, you would basically have an hour long Megan Fox porno.  While this might be more acceptable in other movies, I felt this was way too over the top for a PG-13 movie based on a cartoon.

This movie was also really, really long.  I thought the movie was almost over at least four times throughout it, only for it to take another turn that felt like it was just to show the robots beating each other up just a bit longer.  Giant alien robots beating the crap out of each other is undeniably cool, but it's like a magic trick--it's really cool the first few times, but every time you see it after that it gets progressively less cool.  There were so many times during the last 45 or so minutes of this movie where I just wanted to shout "END!  PLEASE!!"  Though I have to admit, the final battle was nothing short of spectacular, but I wish that we had just gotten to it a lot sooner.

But in the end, Transformers is, at its heart, an action movie, and a great one at that.  It also managed to be downright hilarious at times.  It's absolutely a movie worth seeing, but I don't think it's one worth seeing again and again and again.  

I give it 3.7/5 stars (yes, I can give it 3.7 stars)

Anyone else who saw it have any comments?  Do you agree/disagree?  Feel free to post your thoughts under the "Comments" section.