On Future Expatriatism

I look ahead to the next major step in my life, should I live so long, and it is known as "putting down roots". This, to me, is defined as establishing a permanent residence somewhere with the intent of buying a home. While I haven't lived anywhere else for any significant amount of time, I was always fairly confident that my choice for such endeavors would be New England, where I live now. There's a lot I love about New England, despite the outrageous taxes, sky-high housing costs, and piss-poor job market. I like the weather which is as it should be: hot in summer and cold in winter. I like the fact that I get snow during the winter months and I like the fact that I can get fresh seafood year-round. I take for granted that I live next to the ocean and I can't imagine living somewhere like Kansas (no offense to any Kansas folk-Kansasites? Kansasians?)where you're completely land-locked and in the middle of everything. (Possibly related: I can't sit in a seat in the middle of the row in a movie theater-I HAVE to be on the end, near the aisle. Draw your own conclusions.)

But I'm not so sure I want to live in New England anymore.

The other day I read that Bill Maher was called "treasonous" because he made a comment on his show regarding the difficulty the Armed Forces are currently experiencing recruiting for the War in Iraq. His exact comment was that they "already picked all the low-flying Lynndie England fruit, and now we need warm bodies." Lynndie England, for those who don't know, is that charming gal in all the Abu Ghraib prison photos holding leashed Iraquis and giving the thumbs-up sign.

Whether or not you agree with Maher's assessment of the military, the fact is that military recruiting is way, way down, a natural by-product, I would think, of being in a war that not everyone in the country is thrilled about. The Armed Forces have recently come under scrutiny for not being particularly selective in their screening process-there have been cases where people with known mental health issues have been accepted and practically rushed through before being halted when word got out to parents and relatives. Bill Maher is a comedian (with outspoken political views, granted) and it's his job to make jokes that not everyone will find funny all the time. But treasonous? You gotta be kidding.

Is Bill Maher sending copies of secret government plans to the enemy? Is Bill Maher deliberately giving our military misleading information so the enemy will have the upper hand? Is Bill Maher in a foxhole in Iraq with an RPG actively fighting against US forces? No. When he's not banging playmates at the Playboy Mansion, he's on TV, lampooning and criticizing the government and talking about issues no one wants to talk about. More important, he's giving voice to both sides of the issue, whatever it may be, by having people with differing viewpoints hash it out, unlike Bill O'Reilly, who basically calls everyone who doesn't agree with him an asshole.

But Congressman Spencer Bachus (R. Alabama), wants Bill Maher off the air, for remarks that he believes border on treason. Can someone do me a favor and tell me where the fuck I'm living nowadays?

It used to be ok to disagree with what people in power say, as long as you don't actively foment rebellion. Michael Moore couldn't get studios to release Farenheit 9/11 because of pressure from the government. Howard Stern was hit with more fines than anyone in the history of broadcasting last year, AFTER he started bashing Bush, then they practically went on a crusade to get him off the air, even going so far as to threaten fines for things he said YEARS ago. Trent Reznor (who I'm not a big fan of, incidentally) won't play the MTV awards because his latest song is a protest of American policy and he wanted a picture of Bush on stage, and they said no way. Whether or not artists should be touting their political views during performances is up for debate- personally I say it depends on how they do it. And to be fair, MTV has the right to refuse any political protests if it's supposed to be all about the music, but how long has it been since MTV was all about the music?

To quote a guy who wrote for the Phoenix a few weeks back (whose name escapes me), just because the Republicans won a close election last year doesn't mean they get everything their way. There ARE other voices. What's disturbing to me is the general policy of silencing anything that doesn't tow the party line by calling it unpatriotic and now, "treasonous." Disagreement is not a crime, and certainly doesn't equal treason by itself. I don't support our decision to go into Iraq but that doesn't make me unpatriotic or sympathetic to terrorism. I backed going into Afghanistan all the way. Just because I don't support the war doesn't mean I don't support the troops, who are sacrificing their lives over there for something they may or may not believe in. They're a hell of a lot braver than me, every single one of them, and I hope to Christ they all come home soon.

An American friend of mine of Scottish descent is considering moving to Scotland when it becomes a Commonwealth. I never thought I'd ever say it, but I'm considering putting down roots somewhere else too, because in a lot of ways this country, though I love it and have known no other home, is beginning to scare me. Nova Scotia looks to be the best place for my climate preferences (cold) and general interests (bagpiping and solitude).

Anyone know what Canada's policy is on emigrating? How about Free Speech?

Growing up and eBay.

Recently I decided I don't want to live where I live anymore. Actually, it wasn't all that recent a decision, there's just way too much I hate about my building and my neighborhood- enough to outweigh a very cool landlord and cheap rent. I currently live in a 3 bedroom place and only use 1 bedroom for its intended purpose. The other 2 are filled with what I affectionately call "my shit." I was looking around my place recently, wondering what's going to make the cut, because I definitely won't be able to afford a 3-bedroom anywhere else and will have to move into a smaller place. And so, for better or worse, I need to grow up a little and put away childish things. At least some of them.

First up on the chopping block and by far the biggest pain in the ass to find a home for: my comic collection. I have 40 long boxes of comic books. The long box is designed to hold 300 comics, but almost all mine have more than 300 in them, so we're talking about more than a few comics. I've been collecting since my friend Tom let me read a copy of X-Men in 7th grade and I'm now 32. They currently take up a good portion of one of my 3 "bedrooms." Ideally I'd like to keep about 10 boxes of stuff I either spent a great deal of time aquiring or stuff I really like, even though it may be monetarily worthless.

Secondly, I need to divest myself of my toy collection-most of it, anyway. I, too, fell victim to the collectible toy market of the late 80's through the 90's, and while there are some toys I won't sell for sentimental and/or greedy reasons, there are a lot I'll happily part with for monetary gain and the space they'll leave behind. Mostly these are action figures, but would also include much of my roleplaying stuff, including vintage games they just don't make anymore. Even though it kills me to do it, logically I know I will never play them again, certainly not to the degree I once did. (I recently revived TSR's Star Frontiers for one game session, just for a laugh, and it wasn't as well-received as I would have liked. It was supposed to go for two sessions but I think I was the only one who felt the stirring of nostalgia for a game with a good premise but a horrible system. Sic transit gloria.)

The vast majority of my books are coming with me, although from time to time I'll sell some online, particularly if I have a rare edition of a book I don't value, or I acquire a nicer edition of one I already have. I had to make a decision between my books and my comics-the books won, mainly because I realized I don't want most of the comics I own, and the stuff I do care about I'll keep.

I've been spending a lot of time on eBay as a seller over the past year or so; my feedback went from 121 to (currently) 244. I've enjoyed some success, but I've also found that eBay is paradoxically my best friend and worst enemy, and I haven't even made a dent in my comics yet.

It's my best friend because without it I certainly wouldn't be selling things as quickly. It's nice to post something obscure and find someone in Podunk, Alabama who wants it more than anything. It's my worst enemy because I've had to let things go for less than I would have liked. This is especially true of my comics, because one thing I've learned on eBay is there's always someone selling it for less than you. Technically, if I unload something for more than I paid for it it's a profit. But it's tough to swallow letting a $20.00 comic go for $6.00, despite the fact that I paid $2.00 for it.

And nobody-I mean nobody- wants Aquaman comics.

Batman and Frank Miller

Throughout childhood, 4-5 of us would cloister ourselves in my best friend's basement playing one of the many incarnations of the Marvel Super Heroes roleplaying game (the one we played was the classic, and still the best, TSR version in the yellow, and later, blue box),acting out comics in our head that would never see print, and often wondering aloud "Why is it that so many movies based on comic books SUCK?" It seemed no one was capable of making a decent superhero movie, with few exceptions.

It wasn't until the late 80's with the release of the blockbuster Batman that this would change. The 1988 release of Tim Burton's movie would usher in a renaissance of superhero films (certainly not all of the same caliber, as proven by Batman's many craptacular sequels) and show the Hollywood execs that super can sell.

Despite months of hype, Burton's Batman came as a surprise to many whose sole exposure to the Caped Crusader was the 1960's TV show and various cartoons, including Superfriends, and that long-overlooked classic of animation, Scooby-Doo meets Batman and Robin. Burton took his inspiration from the Batman comics of the decade, most notably Frank Miller's Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, and Batman: Year One. Miller's was a much darker version of Batman; as a result the mid-80's saw Batman change from a crimefighter to a vigilante. Gone were the days of Bats being a team player-his was the image of the solitary hero. Fans approved of this revolutionary change and Robin disappeared from the comics scene soon afterwards, a casualty of the Joker in one of the darkest Batman stories to date: A Death in the Family. This story has the distinction of being the only tale in which the readers themselves were given a vote on the outcome; they overwhelmingly voted to have Robin die. While I didn't vote, I would have held my thumb firmly in the down position too, as this Robin (Jason Todd, the first was Dick Grayson, who later became Nightwing)was far too annoying. Robin is back in a third incarnation, Tim Drake, for those who don't know; it seems Bruce Wayne has a soft spot for orphaned young boys who look just like him.

Towards the end of the 80's and throughout the 90's, a floodgate of darker Dark Knight stories saw publication, among them: Batman: Son of the Demon, Batman/Dracula: Red Rain (in which Batman is a vampire), Batman: The Killing Joke (in which the Joker abducts and tortures Commissioner Gordon after crippling his daughter, Barbara, aka Batgirl), and the Andrew Vachss novel Batman: The Ultimate Evil, in which Batman uncovers and destroys a child pornography ring (a long way from Adam West, old chum).

Comic books as a whole owe a debt to Frank Miller, for without question he was one of the first to write material for mainstream comics that wasn't just for kids. From his work in the early 80's on Daredevil and the original Wolverine limited series, Miller staked a claim on the gritty style of storytelling he would epitomize in The Dark Knight Returns and later, Sin City. It would be enough if he was simply a great writer, but Frank Miller is a comic artist as well, and while he has always been good, his stuff nowadays, particularly his Sin City work, is nothing short of amazing. Miller's style is a paradox of simplicity and complexity; anyone who has seen his Batman, for example, can remark how few lines he uses to sketch an uncanny depth of realism in Batman's facial expressions.

The Daredevil movie, while based almost entirely on Miller's run of the comic, really didn't come together very well. It tried unsuccessfully to cover 3 years of storyline in 2 hours. You can actually see Miller himself in the film, a casualty of Bullseye's uncanny aim with a pencil. Sin City, in contrast, is a masterpiece of Film Noir, due in large part to Miller's involvement from the start. Miller is no stranger to film, he wrote the screenplay for several, including Robocop 2 (hardly a great picture I know, but it's the only one I remember).

As with everything good and different, Miller's success writing gritty comics caused a glut of similar stories to choke the comics industry with the sad result that while comics weren't just for kids anymore, now there aren't any for kids anymore. Perhaps that's an exaggeration, but not by much; if I had children, there aren't too many comics I'd want them reading today. Miller shares similar views to myself, namely that the parents should be the first and last line of defense when it comes to censorship, but he's a bit more militant about it than me. I, for one, support a ratings system for comics like the one we have for movies, because I don't feel that a parent needs to read every page in a comic to make a decision and a ratings system gives information at a glance. I don't think a "parental advisory" label is a bad thing, it lets parents know there's material in the book they may not want kids to see. Miller opposes this system for one of the same reasons I gave for opposing DVD sanitizing: who is to decide what is offensive? Miller is very active with the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, an organization dedicated to protecting the rights of creators and retailers in the comic book industry who are the targets of censorship and "indecency" lawsuits.

You can hear Frank Miller on National Public Radio's Fresh Air from time to time. Check WBUR.org and do a search for Miller under the Fresh Air archives. In his most recent appearance he discusses Sin City from comic to film, his inspirations and his ideas. In earlier shows he discusses his work on Batman and talks about the comics industry. Check him out-he's an interesting guy.

Sting

Those who know me know I'm all about three things: books, bagpipes and big girls (pretty much in that order), but believe it or not, I do listen to other types of music. In fact, my heirarchy of bands would go something like this: at #1: The Police, and by extension, Sting. #2 Seven Nations (yeah, I know...bagpipes-but 2 out of 3 ain't bad) and #3 P.J. Harvey. I've been fortunate enough to see all of these artists live more than once. Last night I saw Sting for the third time, and musically speaking, it was the best Sting show I've seen yet.

While I think Sting has assloads of talent on his own, I've always been a bigger Police fan. I always wished I could have seen them play, but they unofficially broke up in 1983, and I was into "feeling the noize" with Quiet Riot back then. By the time I actually possessed musical taste (some would say I still lack it) I was in college. Suffice it to say I'd crawl through a mile of broken glass and fishhooks to get tickets for The Police should they ever reuinite. Last night was the closest I think I'll get.

Sting's new tour band consists of 4 members including Sting: a rhythym guitarist, a drummer (both of whose names I forget) and of course, Dominic Miller on lead guitar. No keyboards, no background vocalists...just the essentials. He played more Police tunes than Sting tunes, and while Andy and Stuart weren't there, it was almost like they were.

One has to assume the current state of world politics played some role in the set list: Spirits in the Material World, Demolition Man, Driven to Tears, and Invisible Sun all were included. He also played Synchronicity 2 ( I used to really think this song was about Nessie. I was in 6th grade. Cut me some slack) and quite possibly my favorite Police tune (So Lonely is a close second): King of Pain, which I, in my more melodramatic moments, have been known to refer to as the anthem of my life. He even played Next To You as an encore...for crap's sake, you can't get any more early than that!!! It was a great show, and if you get a chance to see him on this tour, I would highly suggest you do. Unless you hate The Police and Sting. In which case don't go, seek professional help instead.

On an unrelated note, when someone writes a book about a big girl bagpiper, I am so there.

Cheers.

Censorship

In general, I don't watch much television. I'm more of a reader. I do own a TV, however, and I do occasionally use it, most often in the morning to see what the weather's gonna be like. The only shows I make a point to watch regularly are The Shield and Lost, and now that it's back, Family Guy. I also appreciate HBO's Deadwood and Carnivale, but I don't pay for HBO and I have to watch them on tape or go to a friend's house. Basically we're talking about 2-3 hours of TV a week for me, not counting the news and the occasional Kojak (because Ving Rhames is so cool I can deal with the shitty show).
What I saw the other day, however, frosted my nuts so much I feel compelled to write about it and see what you all think. I stumbled across a show on Bravo that profiled the latest in moral censorship (and make no mistake, that's exactly what it is no matter how much you dress it up with pretty, non-threatening conservative words). I refer to the latest efforts of companies that sanitize DVDs and films so that they're more "family-friendly." Anyone else out there get chills when they hear those 2 words spoken together?
For those who don't know me personally, let me make clear my bias: I am a single guy with no kids. Therefore, I watch whatever the hell I want to watch without worrying about what my kids see, because I don't have any.
What these companies do is take popular DVDs and films and clean them up...as in get rid of all the naughty bits like sex, violence, bad words, boobies and excessive gore. The actual method is by having a team of morality experts sit down and screen these films, flagging the parts that are too offensive for family viewing, and then re-recording the DVD with these flags in place. Now all you have to do is buy one of their special DVD players and their cleaned-up DVD and you can set it to recognize the flags and play the movie without all the bad stuff. Now your kids (or you, if you're a prude) can sit down and enjoy the film with the family unit,and the need to explain any potentially awkward moments in the film ("Mommy, what does motherfucker mean?") is completely and mercifully eliminated. In other words, it lets parents off easy.
I have a big problem with this, and I'll get to it in a minute, but before I do, imagine if you will the personal issues the directors and creators of these films have, particularly as these "sanitized" versions are offered for sale, and the creators don't get diddly-squat from the proceeds. That's right. Not a dime.
Here's a good analogy: Let's pretend Charles Dickens is still alive. You want to read Charles Dickens's A Tale of Two Cities, but without all the nasty beheadings. Never mind that it's set during the French Revolution and heads were flying like rice at a wedding, and one of the main characters meets his eventual fate on the Guillotine (although, to be fair, the book ends without describing it). So, I, being an impartial third-party "morality expert", decide to take care of that for you. I get myself a copy of the book and take a big black magic marker and cross out all references to and descriptions of the Guillotine and its handiwork. Aside from dramatically cutting down the size of the book (and I'm sure making it completely nonsensical), I do something worse. I completely misrepresent the work of Charlie himself, who claims (and justly so): "Holy Crap on Toast! This isn't the book I wrote!!!! It's ruined!! HOW DARE YOU????!!!!" Then, I do the most unforgivable thing. I turn around and SELL YOU the sanitized version and pocket the money. Dickens gets nothing for his trouble except a heapin' helpin'of outrage. Get it?
Without getting too much into Dickens here, we have the added problem of the author's point being completely lost with the removal of this material. I won't go into the centrality of the Guillotine to this particular work, or what it represented in the novel and to the people of France at the time....but suffice it to say that a key part of the story would have been removed (some key characters would be unnecessary as well) and the rest of the book would be just another Victorian romance which would suck out loud (just my opinion).
Don't think that's such a big deal? Or maybe you think I'm exaggerating the depth of the censorship by focusing on such a glaring example? Consider, then, some of the movies edited for "gratuitous violence" by ClearPlay and companies like it at the behest of a group called Focus on the Family (FoF): Gladiator. The Bourne Supremacy. Saving Private Ryan.
Can anyone please tell me why you would want to watch material like this if you weren't prepared to deal with violence? If the movie is entitled Gladiator and is about a gladiator, what are the chances you'll see some violence? The first half hour of Saving Private Ryan was some of the bloodiest footage ever filmed, and that was the fucking point!!!! Spielberg, if I may speak for him in this case (and he's not around to say no, nor do I think we'd disagree on this) set out to show that the D-Day Invasion wasn't the way it was in John Wayne films. It was horrible, gory and appalling in its brutality. One of the problems Spielberg was trying to address is that there are young people who have no idea what veterans of WWII, particularly Normandy, endured over there. And without getting too soapboxy, the lesson in the film is clearly not that war is cool (a la Rambo). It's that war (all war-including the one we're in right now) is pretty horrific.
ClearPlay wants to make it more family-friendly. In other words, make it into the John Wayne version, which lessens the emotional impact of the film conveyed through the violence, and diminishes the director's vision. Then, because the Spielberg's name is still on it, it promotes the product as if it was his film. I'm aware of authors,Harlan Ellison for example, who have taken their name off something they wrote that had been butchered by a third party because it wasn't true to the original script. Of course, he always put a pseudonym on it so he'd still get paid, but in this case, directors aren't even getting that. It's not too hard to see who's pulling FoF's strings if you look hard enough...we'll see if The Passion of the Christ, one of the most violent films ever made, makes it onto their to-be-sanitized list. I'll be surprised.
Now that they realize their crackdown in the wake of the Janet Jackson boob exposure hasn't got rid of Howard Stern, and he plans on going to satellite, the FCC wants to regulate satellite radio and cable TV, making sure they remain clear of indecency (which they have yet to define). So far the only thing stopping them is that they're pay services...the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans watch and listen to (and enjoy)things the FCC considers indecent doesn't carry any water. I like Howard Stern when he's not ranting about lesbians and porn, and believe it or not he DOES talk about other things, but some people like that stuff too. If you don't, turn the dial.
Now, I'm all for making sure the kiddies don't see stuff they're not ready for. So here's an idea if you have kids: DO YOUR FUCKING JOB AS A PARENT. Don't rely on morality groups to do it for you. If you don't think your kid should be watching The Shield, you're probably right. That's why there are rating systems on TV to clue you in to all that stuff. Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure they have them in the movies too. The V-Chip is available for those who know how to use it (although most people don't have the technology available-point taken). Of course, back in my day, there wasn't anything like a V-Chip or ratings systems. To be fair, TV wasn't as permissive as it is now, either, but the censors were my parents. I wasn't allowed to watch The Dukes of Hazzard when I was a kid, primarily because it was on at 9 and my bedtime was 8:30, but also because my Mom felt it sent a crappy message to kids that cops were idiots. Now I'm older and I don't agree with her that the show was a bad influence (it was just a bad show), but my point is when my parents thought something wasn't right for their kids, they stepped in and said uh-uh. The problem now is parents wanna be their kids' buddies and don't want to take a stand on anything.
"You can't watch what your kid is doing all the time..." You're right. You can't. And like it or not, they're gonna hear the f-word on the playground and they're gonna see naked people ( we had the neighborhood stash of porn in a garbage bag in the woods. All the kids knew where it was) and they're gonna watch stuff you don't want them to watch, somehow. You can't be responsible for what happens at their friends' houses...but you can be responsible for what happens in your own. If you're concerned about the neighbors, maybe you shouldn't let your kid play with them, but don't punish the rest of us by trying to regulate what is on TV by banning material. If my friends were over on a Friday night, they weren't watching the Duke boys, regardless of what they did at home. The Shield is on at 10pm. If your kid is staying up that late watching TV, maybe you should take more than a passing interest in what he's watching and turn it off. But for Christ's sake, don't tell me I can't watch it either.
A lot of this would be made easier if we could pay for only the channels we want. That way, if all you want is Nickelodeon and TV Land, you could get that and not have to worry about FX and MTV. You can't do that yet, but you can certainly block channels and there are rating systems already. But this isn't really about that. It's about parents not wanting to have to step up, either because they're too lazy, or because they wanna be their kids' pals. It's about a small group trying to decide what EVERYONE should and should not see. If I were to impose my own views on what is offensive on the rest of the world, Carrot Top would not exist. Who are you to tell me what I can and can't see? You're not my mother, ClearPlay, and I'm not a kid.
When I was in college, Brett Easton Ellis's American Psycho was published. I never read the book, nor did I see the movie with Christian Bale. From what I understand based on reviews I have heard or seen, both weren't exactly terrific. In fact, some of those that didn't enjoy it found the story...well, offensive.
Like the UMass Campus Store manager (although I seem to remember he was one of the people who never actually read the book). He refused to sell the book at the Campus Store, and guess what? The students, most of whom could give a fat, floating shit about anything most of the time, got downright uppity about this. This was censorship. This was One Guy deciding what the entire student body would have access to, or more importantly, what they would not have access to. I did not go to a Catholic University. I went to a State school, as did everyone else there. Of course, we ( I include myself even though I personally could have given a shit about the book) could have just walked over to the mall and bought American Psycho, but that wasn't really the point. The point was that one man's view of morality should not dictate what others, particularly tuition-paying students at a State Institution, should be able to buy on the bookshelf. In the end, the students protested so much that the manager was forced to sell the book and he sold way more than he would have if he had just shut up and carried it in the first place (but isn't that always the way?).

I'm sure Ellis appreciated it.