Marvel: Full of Fail

The original West Coast Avengers is probably what inspired Hawkeye having such a strong presence in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. In the comics, he was the leader of the WCA, which isn't bad for someone whose superpower is to hit what he aims at.

So, when Marvel brings back the WCA, I figure this is going to be awesome...

Then there's this.

What the flaming Hell is this BS, you ask? This is failure, my friends. Failure at the very core. Let us ignore rebranding it as "a team of young heros"... because that requires that they be heroes.

Let's start with the cover.... because nothing is happening. Nothing at all. Unless this collection of freaks and losers are going to be thrown at the reader, nothing is happening.

And good lord, what is going on with these characters. Well, I'll tell you.

See the lady in the pink / purple body suit? That's Hawkeye. Yes, really. That's what's Marvel has done to one of the more popular MCU characters. He was replaced with a Kate Bishop.

Now, originally, Kate Bishop was part of the Young Avengers, and looked more like a badass.

The original look for Bishop (right) was darker, sleeker, and she's more obviously mature. In fact, it's rather obvious that she's a flipping adult. She has more in common with Batman or Green Arrow than Hawkeye, being the child of a millionaire who shoots trick arrows. And apparently, her inciting incident that spurs her to being a heroine? Rape. Yeah. It's even on the Marvel biography page.

.... Ya know, even Jessica Jones, who started in the Marvel "adult" lines, was a slave of a mind-controlling psycho, and they explicitly stated that she had not been raped. But this is the "younger hero" line?

Anyway, at one point, Bishop was framed as the new Hawkeye... her book lasted 16 issues. Can we say fail?

Now she gets her own comic book. I don' t know where the purple body sock came from, but good God, someone should be taken out to the woodshed over it. Seriously, we go from the Young Avengers look to making her appear to be a rejected extra from the terrible Ghostbusters attempt from a few years back. What the Hell, people?

The one who looks like she's wearing a white body condom is "Gwen-Pool." Because we need a hundred variations on Deadpool, don't we?

The creature with the purple hair is a fellow named Quentin Quire.  He's a mutant, and his powers seem to be ... very lame. (Telepath, telekinetic, and "smart"). Apparently, his hair has always been purple. I don't even want to know whose bright idea it was to give him a makeover in San Francisco chic.

See the blond in the back? That's Clint "Hawkeye" Barton. Yup. The real Hawkeye. No, I don't know what happened to him. He looks like a rejected Archie character.

The person on the left is supposed to be male. At least, that's my conclusion, the artwork on this is so terrible I'm not entirely certain. According to press releases, this is supposed to be Kate Bishop's boyfriend "Johnny." Who has no powers. Why is he on the team? No idea.

Then there's America Chavez .... ugh. From what I can gather, her only characteristic is that she's "gay Mary Sue." Yup. That's it. Her selling point? She's a walking gay stereotype, and so is her author ... that was it...  Are we surprised that her comic book series was cancelled in 13 months? (March 2017 - April 2018).

So just to make this clear, this series has two-- count them, TWO -- characters that couldn't sustain their own comic book franchises and fell apart. The author who penned these failures (two issues of "America" and all of the "Hawkeye" attempt) will be the author of this new property, which is already full of fail, and I'm still just on the cover. They've even made Hawkeye look lame, but he's supposed to be the adult here.

Yeah, this sucks already.

One final observation: this sucks even worse because of the modifications made to the characters. If they tried to treat these characters AS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED, this might have made for an interesting collection of characters. Imagine the original design on Kate Bishop -- wealthy, classy, adult, serious -- then throw together an imperious "I'm smarter than you" mutant (Quentin Quire), a nutcase from an alternate dimension, and .... okay, no, America Chavez would still suck. Maybe it would have worked to try to get these people to work together, see how the personality conflicts result in some fun strangeness, but it's clear just from the cover that they've been made to look universally goofy, and uniformly lame.

This isn't a comic book, this is a still from the gay pride parade as interpreted through negative stereotypes.

Here, I'll give you a book where the men are men, the women are women, and even teenagers try to step up to become the line between good and evil.

While we're here, the Dragons are coming.

If you don't have your ballot filled out already (either IRL or in your head,) here's my list. It includes the lists of other people, so there are options.

Just remember to vote.

#NeverHydra and #GiveCaptainAmericaABoyfriend

I was originally going to do a blog post on how SJW leftist dirt bags were trying to suborn and subvert media.

First with Gillian Anderson claiming to be available to be James Bond (Not only is she 20 years too freaking late, but also, you know, a woman).... but you know what? I think Nikki Kenyon covered this.

Then there was the #GiveCaptainAmericaABoyfriend, where the LGBTQMOUSE slash fiction community on Twitter banded together to whine that Captain America wasn't gay, and that he and Bucky should have gotten together. Because, apparently, two men can't be best buddies without sex. Because, you know, everything's about sex now.

When it was reported by the NY Daily News, it was reported as "The Fans want this." Which is odd, because I notice they blame a lot of the crap they pull on the "fans" - like the obviously trans Ancient One, which  .... funny, when fans said that Agents of SHIELD sucked, we were told to sit down and shut up. Interviews with Forbes said fans should grow up.

And then, suddenly, what the "fans" want actually matters only when it matches up with a Lib agenda. I'm. So. Shocked.

I even had a conclusion.

Hey, you libtards in the LGBT community. Yeah, you. No, not the ones who want to just go on with their daily lives, the guys in front of you. The ones who scream and whine and carry on about how you want "gay heroes," but won't make your own, but would rather suborn and co-oped preexisting characters with a massive fan base. Yeah, you morons. I've quite had it with you idiots. If you want gay characters, go write some. Hell, make a comic book out of Chuck Tingle's work if you so desire. But put in some of your own effort, and do the work yourself.

But no, those people? The activist ones? They don't want that. They want Captain America suborned. They want someone who is good and pure and just and righteous to be gay so they can tag along to a 75-year history, and be attached to the good qualities around Captain America. They don't want gay characters, they want to co-opt the straight ones.

Normally, I'd say "that's what alternate universes are for," but no. They're apparently not content with that. Screw you people. With a hot poker. Thanks. But no thanks.

Then of course, nope, Marvel Comics had to see that and raise it. How?

BY MAKING STEVE ROGERS A HYDRA NAZI FROM THE BEGINNING.

So ... yeah. That actually happened. And no, that wasn't click bait. They’re making Steve Rogers, Captain America since 1941, into an agent of Hydra, the Nazi organization of the Red Skull. And no, they've explicitly stated that it's Steve Rogers, no tricks, and they're deliberately rewriting it so that he's always been a Nazi.

Yes, this happened.

Of course, I wrote a whole rant on this over at the Catholic Geeks.

I can't even write one lousy post without the real world becoming even dumber overnight. Really, people, what is your problem? Here is a character. Here is the way a character is written. This is the character's history over time. What's the matter with sticking to it.

And I wait one, just one lousy stinking fanboy to bitch that "Oh, they'll retcon it again with comic book logic somewhere down the line, it's not big deal. It's just a gimmick."

NO, FOOL.

It is a slap in the face to fans, and they have deliberately said as much. They know what they're doing. They're being iconoclastic for no good reason other than to be iconoclastic. In the name of being "edgy" and "different," they've gone out of their way to make the hero of the Marvel universe lesser than what he's always been.

Nope, can't have heroes. It might make someone feel like they're underachieving. Can't have anything to aspire to, because then, we might consider there's some room for improvement in ourselves. Heaven forbid that there's someone out there who is imbued with all good qualities ... you know, like the movie suggested. Can't have goodness, it might imply that there's a standard of "good" out there. Can't have that, now can we?

The long and the short of it is that the good liberals at Marvel can't seem to abide innate goodness. They don't want 'role models' - they want people so broken it makes them look good in comparison. And that's what's killing every bit of story telling libtards touch. And I'm sick of it.

Dear Marvel, your comics lost me at One More Day. Wake me when you take Joe Quesada, and most of his minions, and throw them out the front door, or off the roof. Either way, if you pull this crap in your films, you can ensure that you will never get another dollar from me ever again.

Can We Stop?

Fun Fact: homosexuals are somewhere between 2% and 5% of the US population, and about 1.85% of the entire planet Earth. Previous estimates were brought to you by the vile slander of a Doctor Kinsey, who had enough of his own problems that biased his research methodology as well as his results.

At which point, you have to wonder what the numbers of genuine "transgender" people are.

And now, we've got .... this.

The stupid. It burns. It burns so badly. I mean, look at this, these students have become so open minded that their brains have fallen straight out of their heads. Honestly, is there anything here that they won't "accept?" Because "acceptance"?

Look, the biggest number I've seen on the Trans population is .3% of the population of the United States, and that's from a study that strikes me as seriously, seriously off. I don't know if it's biased, the stats are bad, or the metrics are rigged, but looking at the rest of the "stats" in that study, I want to take that with a pinch of salt and a shot of tequila.

And heck, researchers from the American Society for Suicide Prevention, and from the Williams Institute, did a study on suicide attempts in transgender and gender non-conforming adults. The data was drawn from the National Transgender Discrimination Survey (NTDS). This survey was conducted by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and National Center for Transgender Equality.

Their conclusion?  That people who "transition" are TEN TIMES MORE LIKELY TO COMMIT SUICIDE THAN THE REST OF THE POPULATION.

So ... with these two facts, I have to ask some questions. Even assuming that there are that many Trans people in the entire country, why should we pass laws like "gender neutral bathrooms"? Doesn't that inconvenience an entire population for less than a fraction?

And if those who transition are more likely to off themselves, why are we hearing about more "rights" for them, and not about more screening and therapy? Because, really, it sounds like either these people were not mentally fit to have this surgery in the first place, or they were not sufficiently prepared for life as a butterfly. Yes, butterfly. Because I'm tired of this terminology BS. Aren't those people pushing for all transients to transient, then aren't they basically trying to rush them into a procedure that will more often than not lead to them murdering themselves?

Frankly, here's my thing: if you were born with two sets of genitalia, and the wrong ones get cut, then that's a genuine problem. Not even up for discussion. But obviously, that's not even being CONSIDERED. It's "You can be whatever you want to be." Yeah, well, I want to be a bestselling author, and that's something I have to work for, not wish upon a star and get it. If I want to be Batman, or anyone or anything else, also not going to happen.

And now, we've got Doctor Strange having gender bending -- I mean, hell, we're bending space and time, why not something else while we're at it -- and it's generally being shoved in everyone's face. And why? No real reason that I could find. Because ... "Oh look, gay marriage, now what's next"? Honestly, I neither know, nor care, I would just like the screaming to stop. I want the stupid "LET'S SHOVE IT IN EVERYONE'S FACE" to stop.

How about we make a deal, world? If I get in your face, feel free to punch me in the face. And if you continue to get in mine, I will do the same to you? Is that fair? Is that accepting enough for you?

And why the good ***damn do I have to accept anyone or anything? Is my accepting of who and what you are so vitally important to you? Do you know me? Do you respect my opinion so much that it is vital to your continued well being? Am I such a person of importance and veneration, that if I don't approve of your every single action, that you will fold like a house of cards?

No, seriously, I'm curious, why should I care? I mean, hell, on the one hand, imagine that a butterfly is going to use a public restroom ... if this person looks like the proper sex for that bathroom, who's going to check? Unless said person has had really lousy surgery, who'll notice? Anyone wearing beard or a mustache hair while walking into a women's bathroom will probably have trouble. Though to be honest, if a guy dressed like a woman used a urinal right next to me, I probably wouldn't even notice, I live in New York.

I reiterate, why should I care? And frankly, why should my apathy upset anyone?  But the refrain is that I, and people like me, will be made to care. Guess what folks, when people ram pamphlets into my face about saving the wales or decreasing our nuclear arsenal, my first thought is that we should nuke the wales as soon as possible.

I am a really cranky human being who has to force himself to not going into full-on misanthropy. Do you really want to force me to give you that much attention? Because it will probably not end well. Trust me, there are people who have asked for my signatures on petitions who know better. Then again, they were asking for signatures against "attacking ISIS" while I was wearing a t-shirt that says "waterboarding instructor," so that's its own joke right there.

I must ask, does this "acceptance" and "tolerance" go both ways? Hi, I'm Catholic, I believe that the Pope can make infallible decisions, that babies shouldn't be aborted and that violent criminals should be fed to sharks (dead or alive), and that torturing terrorists is no big deal if they're following Inquisition guidelines, and tyrannicide is still approved by the Catholic church. You must accept that belief, right? I'm sorry, do you not accept that belief? Why don't you accept that belief? How dare you NOT accept that belief. You SHOULD!! You MUST! Because TOLERANCE!! And ACCEPTANCE!!! And HAVE I MADE MY POINT YET, OR MUST I STICK IT IN YOUR EYE?

....

Anyway, can we all move on to something else now? Let the washout, has been music stars like Ringo Star and Bruce Springsteen have their temper tantrums, as long as the rest of us are left alone? Can we agree on that? Please?

And, no, for the record, I am not having trans, gay, lesbian, or bi characters in any of my work unless there is a damn good reason for it. If you don't like that, I invite you to attempt anatomically impossible acts upon yourself.  Unless there's a surgery for that too.

Right now, I would just love it -- love it-- if we could have news stories and controversies about something relatively important. What's ISIS doing? Has Baghdad or Damascus fallen? Has Putin taken Georgia yet? And frankly, if this LGBTQMOUSE stuff is your bailiwick, here's an easy one: people are being slaughtered all over the world for being anything less than straight, and we're having arguments over bathrooms. Maybe you can find something important about that.

But seriously, can we just stop?

Flashback Blog: Politics of The Pius Trilogy

This came up many, MANY moons ago. Now that I find myself hip-deep in politics all the time, I figure it's time to have this conversation again.




Irony sucks.

In my life, I have written nearly two dozen novels. Science fiction. Hostage novels. Comedy thrillers. Plain old, simple, straightforward shoot-em-up thrillers. One vampire novel. Murder mysteries set at a high school summer camp (title: Summer Death Camp -- now, also coming soon from Damnation Books).

And then there's A Pius Man. It was strange for a number of reasons. It basically took every single character I ever created and threw them together in a sprawling, two-pound, eight hundred page epic. There was theology, philosophy, liberty, love, marriage, death, and a fairly large war somewhere in the middle.

It was also the most political novel I had written.

Seriously, this book was all over the place with political topics. Racism, homosexuality, globalization, secularization, warfare, a just peace, when peace is just another word for surrender, torture, the International Community, terrorism, abortion … you name it, it was in the book.

Here's the irony: I hate politics. Hate 'em to death with a fiery passion. I think it's narrow-minded, more dogmatic than the Vatican, and more hypocritical than Voltaire saying “destroy the Church” on one hand, while taking daily communion in his private chapel.

Look at the list above: racism and homosexuality are political topics? It should be simple: racism bad; who cares who you have sex with, have a nice day. But, no, they must be politicized.

Like I said, I hate politics, and what it does to normal, sane people the moment someone brings it up.

So, of course, when I finally come close to having something published, it's A Pius Man.

Like I said, irony sucks.

Unfortunately, politics are unavoidable when looking at the discussion of Pope Pius XII during the holocaust. [For those of you just tuning in, the “discussion” is summarized here]

No matter what side of the Pius discussion one finds themselves on, politics follows. While not perfectly uniform, the discussion breaks down along political lines.

Leftists take the anti-Pius side, right wingers take the pro-Pius side.

Leftists use it to bash a centralized church with a strong hierarchical structure, with a goal of making the Catholic church like, say, the Unitarians (only a slight exaggeration, depending on which Leftist one is talking about).

On the right, you have a lot of conservative folks who make a case for Pius XII's sainthood.

I know what you're thinking: if this breaks down along political lines, you can tell exactly how the book will end depending on what my personal politics are. What are my politics?

That depends on where the jury is sitting.

Stupid Writing Cliches, the revenge: Political cliches

I seem to be going after a lot of cliches lately. First there was the Christian cliches from a few weeks ago, now this.

ILLEGALS.

Want to give this alien a work permit?

This pisses me off because I'm a New Yorker, and I know how the world works on this. At least in New York City.

The usual cliche is "Oh, illegals can't come forward on crimes because they might be deported!"

WRONG! When pigs fly. When this is pulled on tv, you know it's crap.

For the past 15 years, New York has been an "asylum" state for any and all undocumented / illegal immigrants. Deportation doesn't happen. Period.

If you want to make the argument "They don't trust cops in their countries, because it's all corrupt where they're from,"  fine. You can make that argument. It's even a valid argument.

But to suggest that anyone is sending any illegal back anywhere? That's just a joke in most of the country, since the federal government has to ship them back home, and they haven't even thought about it in six years.

But this especially rings false in New York -- which is where you usually see the cliche anyway.  Hell, we can't even ship back criminals who enter the country illegally. Some of them make Al Pacino's Scarface look like a documentary. (I prefer Paul Muni, myself)

Also, the good, pure and virtuous illegal? Don't believe it. In the last year, tens of thousands of the undocumented immigrants are members of gangs, like MS-13, who traffic in drugs and people. These are not nice people.

Now, if you want to give me a story of the men and women who come to America, put in the time, energy and effort to become legal citizens? That's a story I will happily read, and happily wallow in. Because that's a story worth reading. And one that's far, far more believable.

DADT, Gay Marriage: Who cares?

Last week wasn't very good as far as blog posts went. And I'm sorry for that. This week, I've got three posts already written.  This one is considered "timely," as my Examiner.com editors like to say.

A while ago, I wrote an article about gay marriage in New York.  It was entitled: Gay Marriage, so what?  I suspect you can guess what my general conclusions were.

I collect all sorts of weird articles, and magazines.  On the one hand, I could read Guns and Ammo, then the Spring catalog for a major publisher, then Time Magazine (until they went anti-Semite), the list goes on.

One such magazine is Salute, the magazine of the archdiocese for the military services, USA.

Yes, the military has their own archdiocese -- their Cardinal is the Cardinal of New York City.

In their Summer, 2011 issue, there was a statement from Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio, the Archbishop for USA military services. (An Archbishop is more hands on.)

His statement was two pages long, and here's an excerpt ...

"The church is unwavering in her commitment to the pastoral care of all persons in need, regardless of sexual inclination or anything else.  All people in need are served by Catholc Chaplains with zeal and passion for bringing the reality of the Risen Lord to all.  Whether Don't ask don't tell persists or not is immaterial to that bedrock principle.  The faithful .... must never forget that those with a homosexual inclination must be treated with the respect worthy of their human dignity."  [Typed by hand, any typos are mine]

In short: that's nice, we don't care if they're outed, it doesn't matter to us.

The message then cited Federal law (1 USC subection 7)... which I believe is commonly known as the defense of marriage act (DOMA).

So, "yes, you have DADT repealed. Who cares? We don't like it, but we're not going to marry gays, and you're not going to make us. We can continue, business as usual."  Everyone can move on.

Which is pretty much what I said the first time about gay marriage.

It's so nice when the Catholic Church listens to me.
[More below the break]

Week in Review:7-1-2011

This week was sort of busy for me. I'm not entirely certain what happened to encourage all sorts of strange things to happen at the same time, but it did mess with my schedule a little.

Monday

Monday was especially busy. So busy that I ended up missing the daily music blog. Something I hope w

My day started with a three-part examiner.com series on being mugged: how to survive a standard mugging, what to do if you need to defend yourself and the attacker has a gun, or if he has a knife.

And, just because I could, I mentioned the top ten points to pummel someone into a new and better incarnation.

I was having fun.  Which may explain a lot of how I got the job.

Anyway.

When it came time to work on the blog, I had the self defense discussion up and ready to post. I think I had been building it for the entire month. 

And then people started to do something stupid.

For one, New York decided to allow gay marriage.  I don't think that was stupid, though I think it may be ill-advised, because I suspect that there will be lawyers. No, not "there will be blood." There will be lawyers. Which are far, far worse. I hope I'm wrong.

The blog was so good, I got a shoutout on Axes and Allies, and compliments from resident artist/atheist, Matt. 

And, of course, Image comics decided to go all tinfoil hat brigade with "The Big Lie."  Conspiracy theories, meet comic books.  Now, this was seriously stupid.

Tuesday

My fighting and writing blog. Basically, why I use Krav Maga in my fight scenes.  What is it, and where did it come from? Other various and sundry details.

Oh, by the way, if you live in and about Eastern Queens or Brooklyn, you might want to seriously look into trying out Protection Fitness Self Defense.

Trust me on this.

The music blog was E Nomine and Doctor Who ... mainly because they were both sort of awesome.

Wednesday

This was almost a last minute save. I had tripped over the music of the aborted Babylon 5 video game .... and, going by the music, if it had been made, would have been awesome ... and I tripped over it quite by accident.

And I discussed a bit more of Krav Maga, mostly where to find it in New York.

Thursday

Just the music blog.  A bit of a B5 video game, and a bit of Tom Smith.

I will most likely be taking this Fourth of July off. Enjoy everyone.

Anti-theist complaints: Mormons, gays

When Lent started, I figured I would do a whole bunch of "Snarky Theology" blog posts, followed by "Evil Religion" blogs. And, while I was at it, I asked Matt, friend of this blog, artist, anti-theist, and a few other things, to generate a list of what he found to be problematic with religion. He gave me a few.

I promised him I would use it. And I keep my promises

This is the last week I'm doing what my friend Jason calls "high-intellectual" blog posts. They are time consuming, draining, a lot of work, and I'm not sure they are at all entertaining. They've garnered some response, much of it hate mail.

My replies are long-winded, so this may take a few posts.

If you find yourself here by accident, or have no interest in the topic, I invite you to look around. Our most popular blogs are in the sidebar, as are the short stories, what this book is about, and we have entries on why anyone can enjoy this book, any politics involved, spytech, and even a section for fans of Sherlock Holmes and science fiction. If we don't have something you like ... wait five minutes. :)

Anyway, onto the complaint ....

-Mormon (and other sects) mistreatment of homosexuals

Mormons, I hate these guys … I've been to Utah, and the Stepford Wives effect is creey as all hell.
However, I think that religion has nothing to do with the overall question...

Bear with me.

I'm going to define "mistreatment" rather loosely. I've heard mistreatment as being everything from stoning to simply not being married in a Catholic church. I'm going to go with the lightest definition of mistreatment, where you can define it as simply being considered "other."

Let's start by removing religion from the equation, shall we?

A Writing Rant: Cliches you may have never noticed.

I suspect that this, at the end of the day, qualifies as a rant. But it's a rant about writing, so I think this makes for an acceptable blog post. Comment if you think it doesn't.

*******

I live in a family of readers. We tend to write TV episodes as we watch them on television. Obviously, we record everything, otherwise we'd never hear a word. Sometimes, the writers out-think us, sometimes we like our endings better than the ones on the screen. And then, sometimes, we catch only an image, and we sigh, and we know exactly where everything starts to go downhill...

Have you ever wandered into a TV show, and without knowing anything of the story thus far, a mere thirty seconds can tell you more than you wanted to know? In fact, you know so much from that brief glance, you can, without any hesitation, write the entire episode?

This is pretty much how it goes in our house whenever we see almost any Christian clergyman on television. If it's some sort of religious figure, he's the murderer / pederast / psycho / bad guy. In fact, if there's a guest star who shows up as a priest, the only way my family is surprised is if the priest is not guilty of something. Also, if there's a choice between an old-fashioned, grouchy priest, and a hip, young good-looking priest filled with charisma, we know whodunit—the old guy, because killers are never charismatic, are they?

Now, unless someone can correct me, this rule only applies to some variety of Christian group, but, more often than not, it's a Catholic priest. Even on the television show 24, where Muslims terrorists were involved (literally) every other season for the first six years, no Imams were involved. I have never seen a Rabbi involved in a crime anywhere on television.

Under the heading of “these and other stupid things,” there are some interesting facts.

Snarky Theology 4: "Things that go boink in the night." Catholicism on Sex and Gays

This one may have slightly less snark.  We'll see how it turns out.

I hear from a lot of people that the Catholic Church is obsessed with sex.  I usually hear this from people who aren't Catholic, or Catholics who haven't been to church since they left their parents' basement.  I've been going to church every Sunday for about 20 years.  That's approximately a 1300 masses, with holy days ... and I'm adding this note at 2:30 in the morning, so don't nitpick my math ....

In all 1300 masses, I don't think I've never heard the priest talk about sex unless there was a reading that involved adultery, or someone begetting someone else.

This month, I turn 29. I believe I am one of the few male beings on the planet, and maybe the only person in New York City, who is deliberately a virgin.

I put special emphasis on deliberately, since being one involuntarily is not really that impressive for a nerd of my caliber. I've been given the option, and I have expressly said no.  I don't think this is a gloating matter, and I don't mean it to be "Haha, I'm more virtuous than you," I mean it more in the context of "Whew, I dodged a bullet."

My reasons for avoiding sex are numerous. For starters, I'm not married.  I have personal reasons (I've met too many people where sex has taken normal people with slight personality quirks, and turned them into full-on neurotic messes). I have practical reasons (my parents are both in the medical field, and I ask far too many questions when I'm at a microbiology conference--did you know that there are 25 difference STDs, 50 with varying mutations, and that condoms have an 85% failure rate against pregnancies, and viruses are many, many times smaller than a sperm cell? Oy!)

Also: I've got this strange notion from my philosophy and my faith that has said that, “Sex should be the perfect union of two people, so that they are linked biologically, psychosomatically, psychologically, and spiritually, making them one.  You don't do that with just anybody.”

Hey, I warned you I was a romantic sap. You should expect some of this tripe every so often.

But this is just me. What about the Church of Rome?

Oh, yeah, apologetics.

My last, "philosophical / religion" position, is the same position of the Catholic Church, which isn't half as obsessed with sex as the average American. To expand on that original premise, sex should be such a perfect union, only undertaken by two people in a committed relationship. And, sex should also fulfill all of its natural functions.  I briefly covered this topic before.

Thus, the Roman Catholic Church is the only one where sex is a sacrament.... Something blessed by Christ that gives god’s grace

Yes, you read that right. You get married, you are supposed to have sex. Children should be an end result, but timing is everything, isn't it? There are usually enough signs and portents in the average hormone cycle that self control is the best method of birth control available.

For the record: sterility doesn't really enter into the equation. The married couple having sex is doing everything right, it's just a matter of equipment failure.

And now you know everything about the Church's, um, position on sex … Tab A goes into Slot B.  The Church doesn't care where else it stops on the way, it doesn't care if whips, chains, exhibitionism, or anything else is involved, as long as the end result adds up to Tab A in Slot B.  It doesn't matter how it starts, it matters where you finish. 

And, personally, not only do I not care, I don't want to know.

In sum: sex that has no possibility of procreation is considered a deliberate violation of the natural order of things, and hence considered a sin.  Save sex for marriage, and after that, knock yourself out.  Have fun. Thank you, the end, goodbye ....

What? You mean I missed something?

Purple Only Works On A Ninja Turtle.

I'm a Born Contrarian.

People tell me that we need to be tolerant to all religions, I'm the first one to ask, “Does that include being able to blow yourself up in public?”


I'm told about Nike paying pocket change for someone to make their shoes overseas, and I ask “Is that comparable to local wages?”

Someone tells me that, “I'm going to burn this book!” All I can think is, “The bookstores are going to love you when you buy out their inventory.”


I like bumper stickers that say “Nuke the whales.” I've hated every Presidential candidate for the last twenty years. Green advertizements make me want to litter. Negative ads make me want to vote for the target. Vegans make me want to eat a porterhouse. Atheists who hate me for believing in God make me want to go to church daily. I believe in women's lib, and chivalry, and that Gloria Steinem is an idiot. If you gloat about the Yankees, I will become a Mets fan, even though I hate baseball.


In short, if you give me two sides of any issue, I will find a third alternative that will, somehow, be the same as telling both sides to go perform an impossible anatomical act on themselves.


This includes fads. Mentioning breast cancer month will earn a glare from me, and the fact that more women die from lung cancer than breast cancer.


Recently, there's been a few suicides of younger people, some who were gay, at least one who was questioning (I say this because I can't imagine that any fourteen year old knows what the hell they are).


My normal reaction to suicide is that “you get no sympathy from me.” (Keep reading, go with it.)


Not for any religious reasons. There is a strain of thought in the Catholic church that suicides are a coin toss: how mentally disturbed were they? Were there factors that someone missed in terms of mental health? What was the thought process going on in their brains? Were they trying a stunt they saw on “Jackass”?


Suicides rarely get sympathy from me because I was the nerdy fat kid. From Kintergarden to The start of college, I was that person with no friends. Over the years, I have been accused of being a future terrorist, a current terrorist, a soon-to-be mass murderer, or a future serial killer. I was a target of bullying for more than half my life. I have never given serious thought to suicide, or mass murder. However, I did come up with various and sundry ways to assassinate individuals who had earned my ire.


Only two types of people come up with creative ways to kill large amounts of people: terrorists and thriller writers. I hope to be the kind that pays better.


So, my first thought about teenagers and college students committing suicide is usually: I lived, what the Hell was your problem?



But, as a friend of mine educated me on details that the newspapers don't mention too loudly, I noticed some things. A lot of people have focused on the gay issue (“LGBTQ”). I believe I've mentioned before, I don't care who you sleep with, as long as you're not giving me the details.  You straight people, I'm talking to you, too.


[For the record, I'm using the word gay in substitute for LGBTQ … mainly because if we keep adding to the acronym to encompass everybody, we're going to run out of letters. And because not even Wikipedia is 100% certain what the Q is for.]



And as I look at the suicides of late, I'm more interested in the bullying aspect. While I went through it for over a decade, it was never organized. No one put so much energy into it that they formed moderate to large sized gangs of thugs to launch a campaign of harassment that drove someone to death.



I've come to a few conclusions.



1)  It's probably not because of who they're sleeping with / thinking of sleeping with / are suspected of wanting to sleep with.
I like to refer to it as the Freakish Individual Syndrome (FIS). If you look like you're out of place, if you're a brunette in California, the nerdy fat kid, the gay one, or even possess the random genetic quirk, you are a target.  The people in question were easy targets for the pack of jackals to gang up on.  I am told that sexuality is an easy subject to lock onto at any age from 13-22, mainly because development in that area is still ongoing.  If someone did an indepth report, I would lay money, right now, that the bullies in question had tried previous targets, and failed miserably.

Also, FIS will probably also mean that you'll be called some variation of gay as an insult—I went to an all male high school, and I heard the variations on a theme tossed around so often, I wasn't sure if it was a running gag, the insult of the day, or if half of my student body was thinking of making time with the other half. It's just one of a hundred random insults of teenager-dom; extend this into college for any large clique, because their IQ drops significantly in large groups.

The point: if you suffer, even slightly, from FIS, you have a bullseye on you. Because there are people looking for a target.

Why are these twits looking for a target? See #2.


2)Someone has too much time on their hands:
Hey, you. Not you, the one next to you. The one with the stupid brand name clothing. The one organizing the bully mob. You're a moron. You can't think of anything else to do? Nothing good on television? Really? Teasing people is part of growing up, so is being teased, and occasionally being made fun of. But organizing groups? Seriously, that's your idea of a pastime? You have no life. You're downright pathological...

And you're not even paying attention, are you? That's your problem. Your mother and I have been worried about you for a long time. And when you get into barfights because you think you're impervious to the consequences of the checks your mouth is writing, and someone sticks a shattered beer bottle in your guts, don't say I didn't warn you. Now be a good little moron and go torture some animals, and change your sheets, you wet the bed again.

3) Advice from a madman (me):
If being gay (you know what I mean) is the excuse someone is using to target you, you might want to take a page from my book. You might not, but it worked for me … no, I don't mean fantasize about mass murder, or shoving your adversary down a well, or introducing them to the finer points of piano wire, you don't want to become THAT much like me. However, you might want to become blatant. At least for their benefit.

For example: In college, I kept dressing in suits and ties … green jackets, yellow shirts, and green and gold ties. I had purple shirts for the season of lent, black and orange ties for October, shamrock ties for Halloween; if I was going to stand out by dressing professional, I was going to be as brightly colored as possible. I covered my mild FIS of being the nerdy fat guy by becoming the UBER-nerdy, overdressed guy.  It wasn'y a costume, or put on, I just exaggerated my natural tendencies, going from "overdressed" to OBVIOUSLY overdressed.  Also, it was the only time in my life I was color-coordinated.

Now, while I don't suggest dressing in lavender (it only works during Lent, Easter, or on a Ninja Turtle), the next time you hear “gay,” “queer,” “fag,” pick another insult word here, just smile at the men and tell them “I know our breakup was unpleasant, but I am not into S&M, see you at the bathhouse” or laugh at the women and say, “Don't worry darling, I wouldn't steal anyone you would date, honest.” Watch the tormentors change color.

I also suggest that this works for anyone who has insults on sexuality thrown at them, and the insult doesn't even come close to the mark.

Sharpen your tongue, and any campaign of harassment and bullying turns into a battle of wits, and they're the ones who have brought the knives to an artillery duel. They come to bully you, you use it as an opportunity to laugh at them.

4) If you're a target:
I have to tell you, you will live. Honest. I have learned to enjoy my freakishness. I may have far too much fun with it too. Then again, I had freakish qualities like being a gentleman, believing in chivalry, wanting to avoid sex until I got married, that sort of thing. You'd be surprised how badly such things go over around “normal” people. Normal people are a little weird.



Now, I don't know how much anyone should take my advice. I'm geared with a mindset that conjures up images of garotting my victims, feeling the life leak out of them as they struggle against the wire cutting off their air …

I'm also the person who thinks that a terrorist should be sent back to their homeland alive and relatively healthy … except they have their hands, feet and genitals cut off with a blow torch.

At the end of the day, targets of bullying certainly don't want to turn into me. While, despite my thought processes, I have yet to inflict malevolent harm upon a single mammal on God's Earth (killing insects does not count), I have come to enjoy and make use of my mindset, they may not.

So, as one of my ties says: non illegitimi carborundum.

Don't let the bastards grind you down.

The Politics of A Pius Man.

Irony sucks.

In my life, I have written nearly two dozen novels. Science fiction. Hostage novels. Comedy thrillers. Plain old, simple, straightforward shoot-em-up thrillers. One vampire novel. Murder mysteries set at a high school summer camp (title: Summer Death Camp).

And then there's A Pius Man. It was strange for a number of reasons. It basically took every single character I ever created and threw them together in a sprawling, two-pound, eight hundred page epic. There was theology, philosophy, liberty, love, marriage, death, and a fairly large war somewhere in the middle.

It was also the most political novel I had written.

Seriously, this book was all over the place with political topics. Racism, homosexuality, globalization, secularization, warfare, a just peace, when peace is just another word for surrender, torture, the International Community, terrorism, abortion … you name it, it was in the book.

Here's the irony: I hate politics. Hate 'em to death with a fiery passion. I think it's narrow-minded, more dogmatic than the Vatican, and more hypocritical than Voltaire saying “destroy the Church” on one hand, while taking daily communion in his private chapel. Look at the list above: racism and homosexuality are political topics. It should be simple: racism bad; who cares who you have sex with, have a nice day. But, no, they must be politicized.

Like I said, I hate politics, and what it does to normal, sane people the moment someone brings it up.

So, of course, when I finally come close to having something published, it's A Pius Man.

Like I said, irony sucks.

Unfortunately, politics are unavoidable when looking at the discussion of Pope Pius XII during the holocaust. [For those of you just tuning in, the “discussion” is summarized here]

No matter what side of the Pius discussion one finds themselves on, politics follows. While not perfectly uniform, the discussion breaks down along political lines.

Leftists take the anti-Pius side, right wingers take the pro-Pius side. Leftists use it to bash a centralized church with a strong hierarchical structure, with a goal of making the Catholic church like, say, the Unitarians (only a slight exaggeration, depending on which Leftist one is talking about).

On the right, you have a lot of conservative folks who make a case for Pius XII's sainthood.

I know what you're thinking: if this breaks down along political lines, you can tell exactly how the book will end depending on what my personal politics are. What are my politics?

That depends on where the jury is sitting.



In New York I'm a right-wing, blood-thirsty maniac because ... I think a blanket gay marriage license is a bad idea. Mainly because, in the first wave issued in the Northeast, there were a large segment that took the newly issued licenses, and went to their local church and demanded to be married –whether or not the church in question allowed gay marriage.

In the South, I'm a blood-thirsty left wing psychotic because … I think “marriage” is a religious term. Atheists go to a justice of the peace and enter into civil unions, NOT marriages. A civil union is a state function. Issue licenses for civil unions to BOTH atheists and gays, then the latter group can take it to a church that allows gay marriage, and they can all live happily every after and leave my church the hell alone. I'm not interested in burning gays at the stake, and I don't care if one is gay, straight or “flaming,” have a nice day.



In New York, I'm an evil righty because … I supported G.W. Bush going into Iraq and Afghanistan, and the war on terror in general.

In REALLY red states I'm an evil Leftist because … I would have supported Clinton going into Iraq. And I wanted someone to go into the Sudan before Darfur became a buzz word. And I hated almost everything else President Bush ever did.



In New York, I am conservative because … I think abortion and contraceptives are generally a Bad Idea.

In Pat Robertson's district, I am a bleeding heart Liberal …. because I'm not going to say “You had an abortion, therefore you are immediately going to Hell! MUAHAHAHA”


In New York, I am a psychotic Conservative … because I think the government should get the hell outta my life. Just protect my stuff, my neighbor's stuff, and leave me the hell alone.

In the more bleeding red states, I am an evil Liberal … because I'd want a Republican government to get the hell outta my life. Just protect my stuff, my neighbor's stuff, and leave me the hell alone.



My politics boils down to, “There are things I don't like, wouldn't recommend, but I'm not issuing automatic condemnations.”  Politically, I'm somewhere in the middle. Which, in politics, means I'm in the middle of the crossfire.

So, what does this mean about A Pius Man? Don't be mistaken, I do take a side. I believe my conclusions are obvious basic on the facts I have researched. However, the political portions of the book are discussions, not rants. And the politics are driven more by the characters than by me.

And the politics of the characters in A Pius Man?



Sean A.P. Ryan. Mercenary. Believes in the free market system, heavy weaponry, and grew up in Hollywood. When queried on his political affiliations, he would say, “I believe people should be able to own marijuana and machine guns. I will laugh at the marijuana crowd, but if I have my guns, I'm happy.”

Scott “Mossad” Murphy. He works for Israel, usually among Palestinians. Moved from America to join the Mossad after 9-11. His politics: “I believe in the power of waterboarding. But I'd sooner talk terrorists to death. It's more painful in the long run. When you can talk them into revealing everything they know, kill them, move up the chain of command. Repeat until they're willing to be peaceful, or they are peacefully dead.”

Giovanni Figlia. His father was blown up by a Red Army faction in the 1980s, so he has a grudge against extreme, gun-toting Leftists. Aside from that, his politics are: “I have to protect the most powerful religious leader on the planet, and he insists on pissing off nearly one-third of the world's population. Leave me alone and let me do my job.”

Pope Pius XIII (Born: Joshua Kutjok): Hard right-wing. Has all but declared war on the Sudan. Thoroughly dislikes tyrannies, which means North Korea and China dislike him right back. “I am against abortion, gays being married in my church, and contraceptives are against the religion. Then again, you should only have sex with the person you marry, so abortion and contraceptives shouldn't be needed. However, my homeland of Sudan is going through thirty years of religious and ethnic warfare, I have better things to do than deal with whining hedonists!”

Father Francis Williams, S.J.: “I'm a Jesuit who is trying to transfer into the Opus Dei. I speak six languages and I can kill people with my rosary beads … what was your question?”

Maureen McGrail. Interpol. “I'm too busy being shot at to have a political opinion. Leave me alone.”

Secret Service Agent Wilhelmina Goldberg: As a special adviser to anyone who wants the Secret Service to audit their security, she has been all over, and her political opinion is simple. “At the end of the day, America looks good by comparison.”

Hashim Abasi: Oxford Educated in global politics. Egyptian police officer. His name translates into “Stern Crusher of Evil.” His father died while tinkering with a vest for a suicide bomber. He mentions having a wife, but it sounds like she was stoned to death. No one asks what his politics are.



The above characters have more influence over how the political discussions go than I do. So, the topics will be... interesting.