Avatar: A Humble Review

When I first saw the trailers for this in theaters (probably for Inglorious Basterds, Public Enemies, or District 9, I can't remember) I thought it was the Halo movie finally coming to production. Then there were blue aliens on flying birds and I thought it was something new. Then it said "AVATAR" at the very end and I was very very confused (thank you Kelcie Reid).

Regardless, it sounded pretty cool. Then Cracked.com wrote a review on the movie calling it "Horribly written, way too long, totally worth it." Quite frankly, the writing isn't as bad as has been said, and it's not nearly as long as Forrest Gump or The Shawshank Redemption, both of which are awesome movies. Besides, for the length of the movie, you are entirely entertained. Every. Fucking. Second.

You have no idea what's happening in this picture... neither do I.

1. Visuals

The human vehicles, again, make me think of Halo. And honestly, Halo rocks. The Na'vi make me think of StarFox, which also rocks. StarFox and Halo being completely awesome, the technology and opposing races in the movie are simply incredible... IMO. Although that's pretty much in everyone else's opinion as well. So far I haven't heard one bad thing about the visual effects which Cameron himself describes as 60% CGI. It's like a lot of Andy Serkises running around and being transformed into StarFox Adventure characters.

As for the moon Pandora itself... dear God. Dear God. Dear God.

Everything lights up. No seriously. The seeds from the trees are bioluminescent. The moss on the forest floor lights up when the Na'vi step on it. Even the Na'vi themselves have pinpoints of light on them! I'll be pretty much anything that the visual effects team was on acid when they were designing this world. It's pretty much a world made of light. Don't take the acid comment as a bad thing either. The world is AMAZING. You can't help but look and you freaking love it. Avatar would be a work of art simply for the effects in the movie that make you wish forests on Earth lit up randomly.

Sometimes, subtlety just doesn't work.

2. Story/Theme

I've heard two sides of this so far. The first side is that the theme is overused, albeit a good one. It's like Dances With Wolves. A heroic imperialist soldier joins a minority native tribe to learn their ways, reports back to military commanders, but suddenly feels a new-found respect for the tribe, joins them, and helps them destroy the invaders. The audience walks away a little wiser for not feeling as imperialistic as before. 'Twere this a average movie, then it'd be cliche and there would be nothing of note. But it's amazing to behold and a cliche theme that has a decent message is ok in my book. After all, "Stop being Imperialistic Swine" isn't such a bad message is it? It's basically an enlarged political thinking of "Don't Fucking Steal."

The other thinking is that the theme and story are liberal propaganda. As Hollywood is decidedly liberal, this really isn't a surprise, but c'mon, not killing the natives of a world just to take the shit under their houses is a step above polite. More or less it's kind of... moral. Imagine that?

Well I've heard the movie take flak because of the way they demean the armed forces by displaying them as trigger-happy pig-dogs.

Of course, being a history major the first thing that caught my eye was the parallel between European colonization of the New World and Avatar. It's basically the same idea in the future. Corporations (Virginia Company in America, RDA in Pandora) ask their governments (England in America, America [conceivably] in Pandora) to send ship on long voyages to take the resources and sell them at low rates at home. Of course, they encounter natives they need to take care of (Amerindians in America, Na'vi in Pandora) and the result is massacre after massacre (Wounded Knee in America to name one, Hometree in Pandora). The Na'vi, unlike the Native Americans, are physically more capable and have a weird bio-mechanical adaptation to Pandora that makes the sci-fi-ness much more awesome to behold.

Imperialism is bad.

Is that such a terrible theme?

If you have not seen the movie, you have no fucking idea how awesome this image is.

3. The Ass-Kicking

Story cliche. Theme simple. Visuals are as good as good can get. What's left? The preposterous amount of ass that is kicked. And I tell you, it is amazing. No seriously. Of the four movies that claim "Awesome" this year, Public Enemies sacrifices massive massive ass kicking for philosophical treatment and historical accuracy. District 9 is more scientific, and has realistic amounts of ass-kicking for taking place in urban South Africa. Avatar is right between District 9's realism and Inglourious Basterds' "HOLY SHIT" category. Of the four movies, Avatar is the only one with armies numbering in the thousands with aerial shots, ground movements, and giant robot knife fights.

Read that again.

Giant. Robot. Knife fights.

Human women don't look too bad either.

4. Conclusion

The point of Science Fiction is to bring us to new worlds to see things different. As I said before, not a lot about Avatar sees the world different if the point is to become another species and see the world through a minorities' eyes. District 9 does that from an alien perspective just as easily as Avatar does. One could argue that Peter Jackson did an even better job displaying the humanity from the prawns while making the prawns completely inhuman. Cameron on the other hand made the Na'vi on the other hand, are a cat/fox mixture with a lot of human thrown in. The Prawns are... bipedal insects. So... yeah.

But I think that's kind of the point. Cameron takes us back to earth by taking us to a new and entirely unbelievable planet... one you believe, frequently throughout the movie, that you're actually there. While you can argue that the Na'vi are more relatable than the Prawns because you can recognize the human in them by sight alone and thus less Science Fiction-y than District 9, it's beautiful to behold. All of it, the Na'vi, Pandora, and the strangely tasteful linked-up sex scene.

What?

Yes. Go see Avatar.

Gosselin Fan? You Need a Life...

I was originally going to do an article on the National Equality March. What's that you say? Well it's a mile stone in the gay right's movement. It's really not as important as people say it is. Granted, not discriminating against homosexuals is just as important as not discriminating against other religions even if it means violating the First Amendment. Still, it's a little overdone. I'd say give all 50 states a Proposition 8-style choice. The states that want gay marriage will have it.

You live in a state that doesn't allow it? Easy, just go to a neighboring state and get one. When you move back... you'll still be married! It's in the Constitution (Article IV, Section 1).

Anyway, what I'm actually doing an article about is John and Kate Gosselin: two people who need to shut the fuck up. Honestly, I don't understand the fandom that seemed to have materialized around these two completely normal people who managed to first have twins and then sextuplets. WOW. AMAZING. TELEVISION SHOW.

Honestly, I've never seen an episode of John & Kate Plus 8 so it probably detracts from my journalistic integrity... I guess I should take the time to do that now.

My Face Just before starting John & Kate Plus 8

OK, I'm still watching the show now. And I can honestly say that there are far more interesting things to do with my life. In addition to watching this incredibly boring show with a woman who has failed to realize that there are people in the world whose bodies refuse to have as many kids as she did and simply don't know how to handle kids as well as she can.

My face after watching the first video.

Kate takes her parenting like a woman who applied for the job of being a mother. John takes to fatherhood like a man who simply does not want to be there. For every word that John says, Kate says about 800,000 more. Her kids are like poor, little, money-making machines for the Gosselins. Kate seems to LOVE doting over her children... but I'm terribly sorry. There's no reason she gets to take millions of dollars from a bullshit TV show when my sister and her husband are an infinitely more interesting couple and my nephew is probably the cutest little boy to ever exist.

I have to say though, in this video (about 4:48 in), Kate is once again going on and on about her extraordinarily ordinary life with a bizzare number of kids when she talks about how "I told John which parts need to be brushed better."

She looks at her husband as if he actually gave a fuck. He promptly wakes himself up and then says, "Uh... the back... and..."

Kate then takes over and lists every part of her mouths. In other words, Kate is a controlling bitch and John was pretty much doing nothing beyond sticking the brush in his kids' mouth and just wondering where these mythical things called "teeth" were. I'm serious, this show could not have been John's idea. He takes no interest in the show and Kate is the least interesting human being I've ever seen on camera.

My face just before I decided to start watching Sunshine instead of John & Kate Plus 8

Being a person who's life has been destroyed by divorce, the Gosselin children will probably see it as the saving grace of their childhood experience.

In keeping with the new and improved policy of updating this blog daily, I will now talk about something very dear to my heart...

Downloading music ILLEGALLY.

If any of you know me, you will know that I have amassed a music collection of absurd amounts (38,209 song and counting) gathered almost entirely through "illegal" methods. (I do own around 200 cds though.) I am proud of the fact that I download illegally, and no government agency is going to stop me.

Wow, thanks Jon. Didn't know that. Can I come steal some music sometime? Sure, but I may have had a change of heart.

I have recently run into arguments against downloading music that challenge my belief in the free market system. A poster on the forum I frequent by the alias "Nolan" has lately left me dumbfounded with his statements. Here are couple samples...

Pinkk - "Hey guys, I just downloaded a Beatles albums, guess Paul and Ringo have to live on the street now."

Nolan - "Let's all steal a Ferrari because they are a successful company and therefore we have no moral obligation to trade value for value.

Anyone who claims to be for individual rights and the free market cannot honestly be okay with piracy.

Or better yet, Pinkk, let's just tax the rich more because they can afford it, right?"

---------------------------------------------

Nolan - "Why should all art be free (ie: valueless). Money is a store of value, it gives physical form and measure to the abstraction of value.

What defines art? To me, a Ferrari is a piece of art. I assume you're saying everything should be free... That is not idealism, that is, at best, stupidity, and at worst pure evil.

If an album is not worth $10 to you, then please don't listen to it."

----------------------------------------------------------

Nolan - "If intellectual property is not protected, we will enter a second dark age.

Why should someone, for example, spend thousands of hours and millions of dollars researching new medication, when they won't be able to get any return on their investment?

Whether you want to admit or not (or think it's right or not--it is right), people are driven by profit and the potential for profit. Stated in a different way: People expect to be able to trade value for value.

If I do something that other people enjoy, and they want to enjoy it, I expect value in return from them.

This is not "evil", but rather it is the greatest good possible."

-------------------------------------------

Most of these posts are taken from this thread and this one.

Some of his arguments are admittedly shaky, but I feel everyone should take what he says into consideration. I myself, one of the biggest 'stealers' of music anyone knows, will be taking this into account myself.

I will leave you with a humorous shirt of an era long ago.



But will this be true for illegal downloading?

Do comment on this post. Let's get some discussion going.

Other Nobel Peace Prize Winners

Hello all!

It's been an exciting few days in the world of Lawrenceville, NJ. No really, it has. But things are more exciting in Washington, D.C.! As I'm sure people have heard, United States President Barack Obama has been nominated and will be accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.

Let me congratulate the Nobel Peace Prize commission for finally dropping the standards of an award that is supposed to congratulate leaders who make significant progress toward world peace to basically an "eh, well he's trying."

For those that aren't aware, Barack Obama has been President for eight months. In eight months what he's done has amounted to virtually jack shit. I've seen him on advertisements for George Lopez's new television show*, acting like a fool on Jay Leno, as well as on the Colbert Report (while of course, that's mildly acceptable given he was supporting the troops, still... shouldn't he be busy governing?). In addition to all that, he went to Copenhagen to proposition his home capital of Chicago for the 2016 Olympics (an important Presidential function) as well as remained completely ambiguous in regards to the Gulf War II. Saying we need to stay at war "as long as necessary" does not qualify one for a "peace prize."

*I saw a commercial while watching The Office two nights ago. I haven't been able to find a Youtube clip yet.

Of course, this isn't a recent Nobel Peace Prize phenomenon. Al Gore was awarded the Prize in 2007. Which makes less (if that's possible) sense. Al Gore was awarded for "promoting awareness of Global Warming." Which makes as much sense as the basis that Obama gets one for "promoting nuclear nonproliferation."

To help out the Commission awarding these nonsensical Prizes, I've compiled a list of candidates that SHOULD have received awards...

Nikita Khrushchev (1894-1971)

Deserves the 1963 Prize for not engulfing the world into a nuclear winter.

Mao Zedong (1893-1976)

Deserves the 1959 Prize for trying extremely hard to help put China on the path of Stalinist prosperity. And succeeding!

Charles G. Dawes (1865-1951)

Deserves the 1924 Prize for marrying one of the least sightly women on the North American continent. Charles Dawes: the man who knows the value of charity.

Adolf Hitler (1889-1945)

Yeah, I went there. Deserves the 1938 Prize for not butchering the fuck out of Czechoslovakia and just taking it peacefully.

Fidel Castro (1926-Is it just me, or is he immortal?)

Deserves the 1960 Prize for overthrowing the vicious dictator Batista and liberating the Cuban people... wait, Castro's still alive! There's still time to give him the award! Hurry up Norway! Here's your prime candidate for 2010!

In other news: I now have a twitter. Don't ask what compelled me.

Tiglath-Pileser III, Shalmanesar V, and other cool names you learn in the Bible

Assyrian Kings have BADASS names. Seriously. Besides the two above, here are some other names you definitely should name your children after.

Sennacherib
Puzur-Ashur I
Shar-Kali-Shari
Ashur-Uballit II
Ninurta-Tukulti-Ashur
Enlil-Kudurri-Usur

Future generations should definitely consider using hyphens to add meaningless length to already absurd names.

Why do I know this? Because my Old Testament class has assigned me work which involves learning the names of EVERY CHARACTER IN BIBLICAL TIMES. I must have looked up about 200 names on wikipedia in the past hour alone. Thank god for Intro to the City.

Anyways, this blog has now earned me enough money to purchase a venti pumpkin spice latte at Starbucks. If you wish to indulge my obsession with Vanilla Bean Frappachinos, do continue to visit this blog. Follow it, bookmark it, click the hilarious ads, or just humor me with your response on Facebook once I post this.

I will leave you with a picture of me and my partner doing what we do best...



...act incredibly homosexual together. Cheers

Back. In Black... well Gray and Red.

Hey all, as my friend already said, yes it's been a while since either of us posted, but as you can see we have a wicked layout and tons of thought provoking professors (... kinda) to post new things about. Of course, while he's in the exciting world of New York City (Population: 8,363,710), I'm toughing it out at Rider University in the middle of Bumfuck, New Jersey (sorry, Lawrenceville, New Jersey. Population: 4,081).

Lawrenceville, New Jersey is honestly one of the worst places I've ever been. Actually, now that I realize it, I've pretty much hated anywhere north of the Mason-Dixon Line (this summer I went to Salisbury, Maryland for about 20 hours. It was gorgeous).

Seriously, I've been sick three times in the past month. One month. And this was after the doctor's appointment where the physician told me I'm one of the healthiest people he'd ever seen. It can't be just a coincidence... can it? I mean, how come I've only been sick once yearly, and now it's been the third time in a month? It just blows my mind.

So here I am, lost in the middle of New Jersey, attending a school that is trying so desperately hard to kill me. I finally realized why: I'm a writer. I'm doing anything I can to make a living doing what I do best: write. Technically, we're making money off this blog (like... .33 cents per click or something), and this Saturday I'll be competing for $500.00 at Rider's annual poetry slam. Meanwhile, I'm working on my novel that literally requires more effort than every one of my classes combined.

Unless one takes into account the effort it takes to stay awake for Science of Light and Color PHY-103. So far, I've stayed awake for two classes. One out of sheer will power and a good night's sleep. The other because we were taking a quiz and were allowed to leave as soon as we finished.

Speaking of which, can you believe there's an actual organization that's the "international authority on light and color." I'm dead serious. They're called the Commission internationale de l'éclairage, or CIE for short. To basically sum up what they do, they get to decide what's a color and what's not. Yeah, because that's not total bullshit or anything.

Whatever. Let the French have their colorful thought police and we'll do things our way. The American way. The Anarchist way.

Damn right. Justification is back, baby.

We're Back! (With a megalong book review)

Well it has been quite sometime since either me or my partner have written on this blog. A good 7 months has passed, and a LOT has changed for the both of us. I'll leave Louis to tell his own story but I'll gladly reveal mine.

In the space of a few months, I have graduated high school, worked all summer to save up money, and am now attending The King's College in New York City. I now reside in Midtown Manhattan, where Macy's and The Empire State building are literally less than a block away from my apartment complex. Studying Politics, Philosophy and Economics with some of the best professors I have ever encountered is truly a rewarding experience, but even more rewarding are the current students. Brilliant, bold, and innovative, I am constantly being challenged in ways I have never thought possible.

Since I rarely have free time to write anything personal of my own, I will take the liberty in posting a book review that I did for my Intro to Politics class. The Scandal Of The Evangelical Mind was one of the most pleasurable reads in recent memory, but I will let my book review speak for itself. As lengthy as it may be, do read it, as I got quite a high grade on it. Also remember this was done in a specific essay format, so it is NOT typical blog writing.



"The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (written by Mark Noll in 1994 and published by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing) focuses on the subject of declining intellect among the evangelical Christian population. Noll himself believes in evangelical Christianity, but he feels compelled to speak out on a subject that has bothered him for quite sometime. Throughout the book Noll devotes time to various parts of the scandal, the history of it, the influence it has on Christians, and whether or not evangelicals can hope to redeem the future of the movement. Above all, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind confronts the ugly past of the Evangelical movement in America, diagnoses its problems, and ultimately shows the path to restoring the movement back to its original glory.

As a professor of history and theology at Wheaton College, Noll holds nothing back in his opening statements. Perhaps the most biting comment of the book is when Noll professes that the main problem with the mind of evangelical Christianity “is that there is not much of an evangelical mind” (3).Also, Noll notes that despite the growing numbers of evangelicals, they have little to no influence on the culture of the country they inhabit. Noll has no qualms attacking fundamentalism, and he devotes an entire chapter to “The Intellectual Disaster of Fundamentalism.” Noll devotes his case chiefly to the fall of intellectualism through out the history of Christianity in America.

Accordingly, Noll builds his case chapter by chapter, much like a detective. He devotes the first part of the book to defining the scandal as it exists today and explaining why society cannot undervalue its importance. As the text progresses, Noll delves into the history of the evangelical movement from its beginnings with The First Great Awakening and an explanation of how Jonathan Edwards unknowingly paved the way for the future mentality of evangelical Christians. Noll reserves the third section of the book for the consequences this scandal has brought upon Western culture, especially with respect to science and politics. Finally, he dedicates the last portion of the book to determining whether or not evangelicals can resolve this situation. Noll masterfully writes all of these parts with great clarity and ease, though some would argue that he writes with an overly technical and heavy-handed style.

Ironically, though he directs his book towards an audience that has supposedly lost the majority of its intellect over several generations, Noll writes in such an intellectual manner that one would wonder if his style defeats the purpose of his work. Nevertheless, the book remains well written. Supplemented constantly by lengthy speech quotes, footnotes, and Scripture references, Noll’s arguments attack from every angle. He dismantles his opponents’ arguments with ease, and yet he has no problem admitting that evangelicals do have their intellectual strengths, though few. He praises and lifts up prominent intellectuals in Protestant history such as Martin Luther and Billy Graham but he looks down upon the right wing fundamentalists. Although Noll penned his book fifteen years ago, the text still remains relevant to today’s Christian culture. Although quite wordy at points, Noll never comes off as overly pretentious. In the end, Noll writes a well-supplemented, well-structured book.

Historically, Protestantism has fostered a long line of intellectuals. Arguably the most important theologian of the millennium, Martin Luther’s intellect served him well in his creation of the Protestant movement. The Anglican Church also played a key role in the pursuit of higher learning. And finally the Puritans, who laid the foundation for Jonathan Edwards and the beginnings of Christianity in America, were highly intellectual people, though some may question their methods and interpretations of Scripture. Noll describes that sadly, after Jonathan Edwards, the church declined into its current state. He argues that the emphasis on revivals in the church, something that Jonathan Edwards supported, spurred the decline of learning within the church. “Revivals called people to Christ as a way of escaping tradition, including traditional learning” (63), Noll writes. Noll argues that, through this gradual cycle of reliance on revivals for spiritual growth, evangelical tradition ultimately met its downfall.

Furthermore, evangelicals’ absence in science and politics troubles Noll the most. Noll outlines in great length the formation of modern creation doctrine and the theology’s relative newness. Unlike today, Protestants did not believe in the typical, seven-day account of creation for centuries. In the early twentieth century Seventh-Day Adventists invented the theology, which the evangelical movement gradually adopted into its own doctrine. In fact, Noll argues that "creationism has done more than any other issue except abortion to inflame the cultural warfare in American public life” (192). He also finds that evangelicals place far too much emphasis on moral activism in politics, while failing to see the implications and blessing of the separation of church and state. Noll also notes the absence of any evangelical college with the credentials to match the likes of Harvard and Yale, universities once devoted to furthering Christianity. Noll ultimately concludes that if we save the whole world, but do not save its mind, then we really have not saved anybody.

In conclusion, Noll’s book challenges both evangelicals and non-evangelicals alike. The challenges and arguments he makes to the evangelical community are not only inspiring but also stirring. Yet Noll offers great hope in his final statements. He maintains that evangelicals’ talk about Christ contains “potential beyond estimation” (252). Though evangelicals have abandoned intellect, Christ offers eternal hope and redemption. Overall, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind uses its thorough examination of the topic to greatly challenge the reader to think more critically about the intellectual level of the evangelical Christian movement."

Masked Vigilantism (Why So Serious Part 2)

When I was first asked to do the project on crime in America, I was excited. Why? Well I usually have one or two novels going at any given time. But recently, I was able to narrow it down to one story. This one had literally been in the planning stages for years.

Why? Well, many of the characters had names that I knew I wanted to use... but wasn't quite sure who they would be on paper. So a lot of scrap papers and bits of writing I have scattered all over my house and through my notebooks all contain extremely distinct characters... with the same names.

Other than that, I first got the idea for this story after seeing The Dark Knight. You can probably tell by now that I'm a huge fan of the movie. In fact, as soon as I can find out how to put video on this thing, I'm going to post a few Joker impressions (of which I'm told they are quite "banging").

Every time I see a superhero movie, it always gives me an edge to write something about a superhero... but I was never that good of an artist. However, my natural abilities include being very knowledgeable about history. So why not a novel with a historical perspective on superheroes?

Spiderman and Superman stories tend to concentrate on nothing more than the lives and the superheroes and their secret identities. They hardly go in-depth into the effects that masked vigilantes have on society as a whole. The Dark Knight was the first superhero film I saw that had that (Fantastic Four did too, but it was... just done wrong).

Another graphic novel that really showed the superhero world and the real world colliding was Watchmen. Reading Watchmen was as much of an experience as reading The Historian or The Bourne Identity (two of the best books you'll ever read).

Still, this superhero story hung in my mind for a long time... finally I picked up a pencil with a head full of 100 pages of notes, and just started writing. Soon after the first "chapter" (the story itself isn't divided into chapters, but the fictionpress account is), I wrote a seven page outline from the very beginning of the story to the end.

Eventually, I got a lot of my friends to read it. Only, I kept having to send it in an email as an attachment. And then I would get the email address wrong, yada-yada...

Finally, I decided to revive my old Fictionpress account and just post it there. So when my readers/reviewers want to check out the latest installment, I just hand them the link. If anyone's really interested, here's my take on the concept of masked vigilantism in the modern world.

The basic premise (the historical aspect) is that when the crime rate rises, so does masked vigilantism. The trend begins in the 1880s, during the period of mass immigration from southern and eastern Europe. The increase in immigration led to an increase in poverty which inevitably leads to more violent crime. More crime, more vigilantes wearing masks.

Why the masks? To avoid legal repercussions. To avoid any sort of fame or infamy attached to their names. Some would resort to killing criminals, others would beat them senseless and leave them for the police. Eventually, as crime went down and public opinion turned against the vigilantes, the mask rate would decline as well.

As it does, history would cycle. Crime rises in the 1920s and '30s, so do vigilantes. Another spike in the '60s, and a lull in the '70s and early '80s. And then of course, we have the crack epidemic. In our history, the decline of the crack epidemic could be attributed to Roe v. Wade (see below post, better yet, read Freakonomics). So say Roe never reached the Supreme Court. Abortion was left up to the states and the crime rate never fell?

Would the crack epidemic lead into the 21st Century? We may never know, but that's where my novel A History of Superheroes begins: September 28, 2000.

Note: Just to distance myself from making either Republicans or Democrats out to be the bad guys (which I would love to... but that would mean one of them would have to be the "good guys," which I don't want to do) I've replaced them with the Freedom Party and the Equality Party. Both have traits of the GOP and Dem, but you can decide for yourself which is which.

P.S. I would really prefer not to do this, but as a writer, I am very picky about authorship. If you're too crooked, too uncreative, or are just going to take what I write and claim it as your own, don't bother to click the link. I will prosecute you. Just respect the work and enjoy it.

Why So Serious?

Crime has been around since the dawn of mankind. And with crime, punishment was invented. In modern society, criminologists try to study crime trends. Using homicides as the standard violent crime, graphs from the Department of Justice make it clear where the trends lie:

(C) Department of Justice

I know the graph only calculates from 1950 to 2005, but the message is still there.

Basically, in the periods from 1920-1933 (Prohibition Era), 1963-1972 (Vietnam Era), and 1984-1993 (Crack Epidemic), the homicide rate spiked. In all three of these periods, the cause was obvious: reaction to the 18th Amendment, outrage over the frivolous war in Vietnam, fall in cocaine prices leading to the conversion to crack.

However, homicide and other violent crimes didn't disappear between those periods. It simply fell. Even though statistically, the United States is in a downswing in our crime levels, we're still the nation with the #1 homicide rate in the industrialized world.

Based on some observations, I've been able to narrow down three major sources of violent crime in Modern American Society:

1. Immigration

The FBI contains a list of most wanted murderers. Note, this is not the Top 10 Most Wanted, but this is simply a huge list of wanted murderers. Notice how at least 75% of them are Hispanic. Reading into their profiles, the majority of them are illegal immigrants who've murdered before coming into the US, murdered while in the US and are on the run, or murdered in the US and jumped back over the border to Mexico.

What makes illegal immigrants kill? Well, the majority of immigrants come here looking for cheap labor. Some aren't satisfied with the shoddy work and resort to dealing drugs. The underground drug world is a deadly game where oftentimes, desperate people will do desperate things.

2. Drug Use

About 30% of violent crimes are committed while the accused is under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

The solution wouldn't be criminalize alcohol. We tried that. It didn't work. But perhaps legalizing illicit drugs and regulating their trade could reduce the level of drug-related crimes and certainly bring down the amount of drug-trade related crime by some 90% just as it did bringing down bootlegging in the 1930s.

3. Homelessness/Poverty

This graph explains itself.

Solutions?

Now, it would be easy to say "If we could militarize the border, there'd be less crime," or "If people stopped using drugs, there'd be less crime," of "If there was no poverty, there'd be no crime." Unfortunately, those things are going to happen regardless of what laws are put in place. In fact, it's my firm belief that laws were made to be broken, and the harder the laws, the more people are going to do them.

But perhaps there are other solutions?

One item that people cite as a reason for the continuing drop in crime is the overcrowding of prisons. This creates an entirely new problem altogether, but with more murderers, burglars, vandals, and rapists behind bars, of course there's going to be a huge decrease in incidents. Of course, it also puts a greater strain on our already strained tax dollars.

What about thinking "outside the box" so to speak? In Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner's book Freakonomics (which I'm reading at the moment) they cite a very astute timing-related reason for the decline in crime at the time of the Crack Epidemic.

The average age for committing violent crimes would be 18-24. At the time of the Crack Epidemic, 18-24 year olds would have been born before 1973. In that year, a landmark Supreme Court case was handed down: Roe v. Wade. The plaintiff, Norma McCorvey (alias Jane Roe) was the poster-child for single-motherhood: drug abusing, no education, welfare using, and bitter. She fought hard for her right to "choose" but given the fact that legal precedings take too damn long, she ironically gave birth to the baby just before the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was legal in all 50 states.

Fastforwarding to 1993, the crime rate suddenly dropped while all the experts (including President Clinton who warned of a generation of youth who would terrorize America) said it would rise exponentially. No one considered the fact that those who were fostering the Crack Epidemic simply grew up... and the next generation who would be in prime condition for committing crimes (lower class, careless parents, drug-abusing families) simply didn't exist thanks to Jane Roe.

(Ironically, Norma McCorvey later converted to Baptist Christianity and became a firm Pro-Lifer dedicating her life to overturning Roe v. Wade.)

So, aborting babies who are more prone to a criminal life style is one option. Capital punishment is another option.

The graph doesn't lie. Capital Punishment was against public opinion in 1963 (just as homicide levels began to spike) so the courts struck capital punishment down, bringing the total numbers of executions to 0. As you can see, the result was that murder didn't seem like it was punished so badly any more. When Capital Punishment was reinstated in 1972, the number of executions rose dramatically, inversely proportional to the amount of murders being committed.

I'm being increasingly convinced that humanity is a problem that can't be cured... except through death. The only conceivable solutions to curing the homicide rate only end in... more death. If you can come up with a solution to begin curbing our homicide rate, I welcome the proposal. Otherwise I don't see how there could be another solution.

P.S. Based on the timing of the last spikes, watch out for the next homicide spike around 2020.

I'm Illy

Apparently T.I. is "Illy". Now I love hip-hop and rap more than most kids who listen to brutal death metal, but what is with modern day rappers taking old school lines and acting like they created the line and all of a sudden they have the flow to take over NYC?

"Wrist so frosty
Neck so chilly
All on my mind is to get more millies
Niggas talk shit that's silly
Shawty he ain't about that
Really? Is he?
Nigga I'm illy
Yeah! Haha haha, hey
I run this city
Clearly
Tell em get lost I’m busy really
Nigga I'm illy"


T.I. is at the top of his game here...

(I actually like T.I. and his new album Paper Trails. Check it out.)

Or we could look at Wu-Tang Clan, probably the best rap group to ever exist.

"[Verse Four: Ghostface Killer]

Slammin a hype-ass verse til ya head burst
I ramshack dead in the track, and that's that
Rap assassin, fastin, quick to blast and hardrock
I ran up in spots like Fort Knox!
I'm hot, top notch, Ghost thinks with logic
Flashback's how I attacked your whole project
I'm raw, I'm rugged and raw! I repeat, if I die
My seed'll be ill like me
Approachin me, you out of respect, chops ya neck
I get vexed, like crashing up a phat-ass Lex'
So clear the way, make way, yo! Open the cage
Peace, I'm out, jettin like a runaway slave"

Now I've certainly heard better lyrics in rap, but clearly Ghostface is more "ill" then T.I. In pretty much every aspect. Suck it commercial hip-hop.