The Trouble with The Pope....

Okay so we all know the story by now: Pope Benedict XVI went to Africa, and told the thousands of people that went to go see him that 'condoms don't help stop the spread of HIV, on the contrary, they only worsen the problem.' I'm paraphrasing, but you get the point: the Pope flat out said that condoms make AIDS worse.

What the hell.

You don't have to be a scientist to know that this is a completely false statement: condoms do not, in fact, make the spread of AIDS worse. Out of all the studies done, there have been no findings to support this idea . Every scientist on earth can attest to the fact that condoms help to NOT spread AIDS. Hell, everyday people could tell you that condoms help prevent AIDS. But apparently, the Pope didn't get the memo.

Now I understand that the Catholic Church has been against any form of birth control from the get-go. It's just something that you don't do if you're Catholic. Period. Its a sacred rule that's been around for 2000 years, and its probably not going to change any time soon. Why? Because the Catholic Church is terrified of change of any kind. Their religion is built upon a set of rules that were made up a very, very, VERY long time ago, and even the idea of tweaking a few of those standards to fit a modern 21st century life style sends them into paralyzing fear. The Catholics are all for pro-creation, which is why 'every sperm is sacred' in their eyes, and everything from the pill to condoms is looked down upon.

Now like I said, I understand all of this. There is no question in my mind that pertains to why the Catholics don't like birth control, it's an easy enough concept to wrap your mind around. Put into math this means:

condoms + Catholics

= less Catholic babies

= less members of the Catholic Church

= less money going towards the Catholic Church

= you know what hits the fan (religiously speaking)

Now sure it's pretty cynical to assume that the only reason why the Church is against contraception is because they need a lot of church-goers come Sunday, but it's a realistic one: for the most part, young people aren't really into being Catholic. There are a lot of codes and conventions that limit them from doing the 'fun stuff' like pre-marital sex, etc. This being understood, the Church knows that if a Catholic couple have a baby, that baby is going to be raised Catholic, and will most likely stay with that religion until they have kids of their own, and those kids will be raised Catholic, and so on and so forth.

Sure it's practically immoral and most people aren't bright enough to pick up on this fact, and yes it's a complete ploy that has (possibly) kept the Catholic Church on top for the past few hundred years, but despite all this, this isn't what I have a problem with.

I have a problem with the fact that the Pope, a man who is considered divine and is looked up to by millions of people world wide, made a false statement, and never bothered to correct that statement. Furthermore, he specifically said this to thousands of people who currently live in a country that is being slowly destroyed by a terrible disease known as HIV. The only thing that is cheap, easy to attain, readily available and helps protect against this deadly disease are condoms, which are the exact thing that the Pope 'bashed' (for lack of a better word). Now, the millions of people who look up to him are questioning condom use, even though they do actually help protect against AIDS/HIV. And even though what he said is wrong and technically speaking he lied, no one is really allowed to say anything about it. Why? Because we are brought up in a religion-ridden society that considers it taboo and wrong to even think about questioning religion or what a religious leader says or does. Even though these people may be just as smart as us, we're not allowed to say a damn thing because we're just everyday citizens who although (for the most part) are educated, we're not the head of a religion. And religion is the one thing in society that you are not allowed to make fun of, question, or mock. Why? Because it's religion that's why. This isn't right and it isn't fair, and because of this, the Pope gets off scott free without have to explain a thing. And that, my friends, is where I have a problem, and honestly, that's where I think you should have a problem too.

Who Watches the Watchmen? A Movie Review

Ok, so this past weekend was huge for you if you are 

a) A comic book nerd

b) A movie nerd or 

c) A Literary nerd

Why is this you might ask? Because the greatest graphic novel of all time, winner of the Hugo Award, one of Time Magazines 100 Best Novels of the 21st Century, the 'un-filmable Graphic Novel' was in fact, filmed. It's called Watchmen and it came out in theaters this weekend. And for the most part, it was great. 

For those of you that don't know what Watchmen is about, here's the short version: Its a series of 12 comic books written by Alan Moore (who also wrote such famous titles as V for Vendetta and The League of Extraordinary Gentleman, and YES both of those were movies and are also graphic novels, betcha didn't know that one). Anyways, here's the whole wikipedia link, but to quickly sum it all up, here's the plot:

The year is 1985, an alternative reality. Nixon is president still (for his...5th term?). The Americans won the Vietnam War. Masked vigilantes (aka superheroes) were around since the 30's and on, but a law called The Keane Act has outlawed them. The Death Clock is set at 5 minutes to midnight, and the Russians and the Americans are close to nuclear war. Interested? I know I was.

The graphic novel really is astounding, showing that comic books aren't just for kids. Alan Moore did for graphic novels what Ralph Bakshi did for animation in the 70's: he took a medium that was under rated and thought by all to be 'for kids' and made it a real art form that could be intelligent, thought provoking, mature, etc. In other words, Watchmen changed the industry, and the way that everything was made from that point on.

So of course Hollywood wanted it. And bad. The rights to make Watchmen had been tossed around for years, with different studios and directors clawing each other for the opportunity to make it, but nothing came of this, especially when Terry Gilliam himself (famous director and former Monty Python member) deemed it 'un-filmable'.

The person that DID end up directing it was Zack Snyder, who has also done the comic book adaptation 300 (wow, ANOTHER comic book movie? Who knew?!) and the recent remake of Dawn of the Dead. Many were critical of Snyder, due to his slow mo, over saturated way of filming things, and while that did come out in Watchmen it did little to tarnish the film. But ANYWAYS on with the actual review!!

With a running time of an astounding 2 hours and 45 minutes (with more bonus material and deleted scenes to be included in the directors cut edition of the DVD!!) it was obvious that A LOT of time went in to filming this sucker, and it really does show: if you've read the graphic novel, the film looks like Watchmen should. Though its apparent to veteran movie goers that most of it was filmed on a sound stage, they did a gorgeous job of using the right architecture, colors, etc to make it a visually appealing and comfortable film to look at. As for casting, it was pretty good (especially Jackie Earl Harvey as Rorschach), but my only problem is Matthew Goode as Adrien Veidt. For a guy who

a) rules the world (practically)

b) owns the world (again, practically) and can

c) throw 240 lbs guys all the way across the room...

he looked scrawny, and much too young. Seriously, he was frat boy material.

Also, they changed the ending. What. The. Hell. I knew this was coming, and I won't spoil either ending for those of you who haven't seen the movie OR read the novel, but I can tell you this: the graphic novels' ending is so much better. It makes more sense, it has more emotional impact, and its just plain BETTER. Trust me on this. Another thing that agitated me to no end was the fact that Snyder was bashing the audience over the head with the message of 'COMIC BOOK MOVIES AREN'T JUST FOR KIDS!! GET IT YET? NO?! MAYBE I SHOULD THROW IN MORE BLOOD AND MORE SEX SCENES!! THAT WILL SHOW YOU!!'

Really, Zack. It's okay. You can put down the fake blood and sit down now. We all understand, now please go off and just sit for a minute.

Other than those major complaints (which I could rant about for days) I didn't have any more issues with the movies. Sure, Dr.Manhattan is naked most of the time, sure the sex scene in the Owl Ship is the cheesiest thing to ever hit the big screen ( I laughed out loud, especially due to Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah playing in the background), and yes, some of the music as stated before was way, way WAY out of place. But I can forgive most of that.

Why? Mainly because of the fact that I liked it. I was never bored, I was entertained, the movie looked gorgeous, it was a great film, and an above average adaptation. But more over, this movie has shed so much light on the original graphic novel that millions of copies were being sold every day. This means that more people are going to take comic books seriously, and that this could be a big jump forward for the entire industry. 

To sum up, a 4.5/5 stars. I'll defiantly be buying the DVD (directors cut, extended version, etc). But please, if you want to see the movie, read the graphic novel too (ideally, read it first). This movie and the graphic novel deal with politics, morals, and complex ideas of society, human nature, and morality. Who watches the Watchmen? I do, and I'll continue to.

A+ For All

Personally, I think that the whole idea of this professor giving out A+'s to every student in his class at the start of the year is a brilliant idea. While some may say that its just a new wave, liberal teaching method that will die as soon as its inventor does, I feel that if handled properly, it could change the way that we look at education.

As I've already said, I think that this is a great idea. I know many students that worry too much about marks and what grades they get in school and because of this they limit themselves to one way of thinking. Too many of us just give the teachers what we think they want  to hear, and say what we think they want us to think, instead of voicing our own opinion. This ties back to Ken Robinsons idea of our great fear of being wrong, but we've already gone over that. All I'm saying is that by setting a grade standard, you're automatically limiting students and setting them up to become robots who only spit out the information and opinions they've been told to memorize.  By eliminating the grades, students are more likely to open up and really learn instead of just memorize and try to do what they think the teachers want them to do.

Also, this event took place in the University of Ottawa. Universities are supposed to be places of higher learning where people are allowed to project different views, ideals and methods off of each other, and then study and learn from them. Universities are also supposed to not just tolerate debate, but encourage it. Why is it then, that when a teacher chooses to try out a new teaching method he's automatically fired? Isn't this a bit hypocritical of the University to do this without first discussing with the professor the implications, pros, cons, etc of this new method?

To try and sum up, my thoughts are this: in a school system where the teaching method has been the same for hundreds of years, but within that same system, the concept of new ideas is preached like mad, shouldn't we be more opened minded towards new ways of thinking?

Oak Island

In a time when most 'mysteries' can be solved by modern scientific methods and few stones remained unturned, Oak Island continues to be the one case that can't be cracked. By now, we all know the story behind it, the history etc. so I won't bore you with that. I'm going to present another way of thinking...

Sure, there could be treasure down there, the Holy Grail, some Knights Templar Relic etc etc. Hell, some professor in Sweden probably based his thesis off the idea that E.T is somewhere down in the Money Pitt. What I'm trying to say is that the theories all take a large stretch of imagination to understand let alone actually believe in them, and so far there isn't really any hard evidence that defiantly supports one of them. There are only theories, not actual facts. We have to keep this in mind when inspecting Oak Island.

My idea is this: in a time when we have fiscal problems all over, global warming is suddenly starting to have a huge effect on us, and we need to be working on foreign relations and actually ending  a few wars instead of starting them, why are so many of us off playing treasure hunter? Sure its nice to escape from the worries of the world for awhile and give in to childish ideas about pirates and buried treasure, but we have to be realistic: if anyone high up on the scientific or academic hierarchy really thought that there was a great intellectual discovery to be made on Oak Island, then something would have been done to recover that discovery by now, instead of small time investors pouring money into it. Some grand Board of Science from a well funded country, etc would have come forth and devoted much more time and money into getting whatever is buried on Oak Island, so I think its safe to say that nothing of great importance is down there. 

We also have to take a look at where Oak Island is located. That's right, in CANADA. Last time I checked, not many people come to Canada, our tourism isn't all that great (we have Niagara Falls, the huge mall in Edmonton, and a few other minor attractions, but in the big scheme of things, we really have no revenue coming in from the Canadian Tourism Bureau). Its a definite possibility that this whole thing could've been made by some 'higher ups' in suits to get people interested in Canada. Now I realize that it was found a long time ago, but don't you agree that its possible that the Canadian Government could've come in at some point and made the traps, tunnels and pits originally made by pirates or vikings more complicated, so that more endeavours would be made, and Oak Island could get an extra 15 minutes of fame?

So to end, I think its all a waste of time. If something was down there, we would've found it, especially if it was someting that anyone thought was really that ground breaking and special. So far, nothings come up except for some chain, some paper, and some rocks. Wow. Real archeological breakthroughs, there. But all sarcasm aside, we should be turning our attention to something more important, like using that treasure hunting money to bail ourselves out of our fast sinking economy.