Friday, April 28, 2006

Dude, where's my god?

People always seem to be finding god. As though god is like a set of keys that can be misplaced.

The thing is, the people who find god are always these desperate people who are on the brink of being held accountable. Prison inmates always find god, to which we can only be thankful that god is an intangible object that can't be whittled into a shiv or a shank and used to harm other inmates. Intangibility is also convenient because inmates like to tell everybody that they found god. If god could be smoked this sort of proclamation would be dangerous because other inmates would be inclined to steal god.

You never hear about happy, successful, law-abiding people finding god. Spouses who cheat seem to find god right around the same time their affair is discovered. Drug addicts find god right before they get busted for kiting bad checks and pedophiles seem to find god three seconds after they realize that the 12 year-old boy they were instant messaging is actually a 29 year-old cop. But nobody seems to find god until they need a miracle to get out of a jam.

Too bad keys aren't like that. We've all had one of those mornings where everything seems stacked against us. We slept through the alarm, and woke up to realize that all of our work clothes are still in the washer because we forgot to put them in the drier before bed. Somehow, we manage to overcome these obstacles and find ourselves in a fine position to make up lost time by speeding to work, only to discover that our keys are gone. Eventually we find them, too often in the ignition of the car, but not until we have lost our opportunity to get to work on time.

If keys were divine, we'd only lose them when it didn't matter. Like on one of those Sunday mornings when you get a craving for an Egg McMuffin, but settle for a bowl of Captain Crunch because we couldn't find the keys. It's disappointing, but not enough to fret over. The keys will turn up. But come Wednesday when you can't miss that sales meeting those keys are hidden better than Jimmy Hoffa.

God's exactly the opposite of keys. I've looked for him, even though I really didn't need him. I didn't need those Almond M&M's either, but when I found them I still ate them and very much enjoyed their chocolate goodness. I don't know if god's as satisfying as candy-coated, chocolate-covered almonds, but I'd love to try. If only I could find him.

I suppose I'll have to wait until I shoot a nun or run over a cop, then I can only imagine god will be right there in my jacket pocket. Just like my keys.

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Baby Cruise destined for trouble

It's a shame that Scientologists can't avail themselves of psychiatric care. Tom Cruise is clearly in need of serious mental therapy. Isn't it obvious that he's a danger to himself an others? He could have seriously hurt himself hopping up and down on Oprah's couch, might have crushed several vertebrae in Katie Holmes' neck when he grabbed her for one of those very public I'm not gay kisses and anybody who saw his glare down with Matt Lauer knows that Cruise was inches from snatching Lauer's heart right out of his chest. Speaking of Lauer, does his vanishing hair have anything to do with Katie Couric leaving for CBS? And why would CBS hire a talking head with no lips? But I digress.

Now they let Tom Cruise have a baby. That's just wrong. Instead of trying to brainwash co-stars, Cruise can focus on building a Scientology drone from scratch. Why can Tom Cruise have a baby with a mindless bubble head when they won't let Angelina Jolie have one? I know she's pregnant but clearly authorities stepped in to stop the madness forcing Jolie to escape to a non-extradition country to have her baby. Namibia? I didn't even know that was country until she went there. Why didn't somebody do the same with Cruise? The country would be a better place if he left. Well maybe not better, but certainly a little less frightening. Every time I reach for my lithium I'm terrified Tom Cruise will leap out of my couch cushions to yell at me. I'd feel a lot better if he were in Africa somewhere preaching Scientology to cannibals. They might have good placenta recipes.

I know, the placenta thing was supposed to be a joke. But how can we be sure? Did he say it in all seriousness and then back off when he realized that it was just a step or two over the edge? And what kind of joke is that anyway? A joke would be threatening to sell the placenta on e-Bay. That's funny. But eating it? Not funny. Especially when you have already proven to the entire world that you're insane. Comedy is clearly not one of Tom's strong suits.

And what was up with Tom Cruise doing all the talking. Katie Holmes was pregnant, but yet it was always Tom talking about what kind of delivery it would be. When does the man ever have any say in the actual delivery? Most men are smart enough to shut up and be supportive, because they know what's coming. Since we don't have to squeeze something weighing around 8 pounds out of our nether regions, we know better than to pontificate about the miracle of child birth.

But not Tom. He was just as chatty as you please, talking about a drug-free and silent delivery. Eight pounds Tom! Katie weighs in at about 120 pounds and she's about to squeeze something the size of a watermelon out of an orifice that might provide a snug fit for two fingers (we can dream right?) and Tom's talking about silent deliveries? HA. No wonder he backed off those statements. Oprah probably called him and gave him a lecture on the subject.

Now that the baby has arrived, the real circus will begin. Will Cruise have the child's brain removed and modified at a scientology assimilation clinic or will he count on intensive daily instruction to mold his baby into the second coming of L. Ron Hubbard? Who knows? The only thing we know for sure is that this child is heading for one disturbing childhood.

The best part about this, is that we won't have to hear about this anymore. Now that Tom and Katie have squeezed forth their spawn, the press will focus attention on Angelina's baby. Since she's in Namibia, it's going to be hard to get information out quickly, but the preoccupation with it will distract the masses from Tom Cruise and his brat. Then of course we'll have to get Jennifer Anniston's reaction to Brad being a brand new father and we'll learn of Vince Vaughn's dark secret of impotence at the hands of mechanical bull riding contests. The point is, there is enough going on to distract us that we won't have to obsess over Tom and Kate's new baby as if it were our own.

Which might be exactly what Tom wants. He'll carefully mold his child into a Scientological warrior and before we realize the evil he has unleashed on our world it will be too late. Our planet will be overtaken by angry thetans.

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Jesus vs. Easter Bunny

Easter is a confusing time of year for kids. And even some adults. On one hand they're being told the story of the resurrection, which is really quite creepy, while on the other they anticipate the arrival of a giant bunny who delivers colored eggs, gifts and chocolate effigies. A quick review of the Bible does not reveal any scriptures depicting the existence of a giant bunny any where in Jesus' time. So where did he come from?

I thought the answer might be in those religious texts that theologians study but never discuss because they confuse people. I searched the web and made some calls but there were no stories that connected the dots between the Easter Bunny and Jesus Christ. Clearly the two must be connected because churches around the world sponsor Easter Egg hunts.

Knowing what I do about Christianity and how it has a long history of commandeering other deities and holidays (how else do you explain the saints and the correlation between Christian holidays and pagan rituals?) I decided that the Easter Bunny might actually be an ancient god from a forgotten religion. Clearly the Easter Bunny's powers were impressive and the Catholic Church could not successfully remove him from parlance so they found away to allow Jesus and the Easter Bunny to coexist.

But which one is better?

Jesus walked on water, healed the sick and turned water into wine (I hope it wasn't the water he walked on). Clearly he had some pretty impressive tricks up his sleeve and people loved him. They loved him so much that 2000 years later he is worshipped as a god. Until Elvis came along there was nobody who had such an enduring following. In another 1500 years Christianity might evolve to incorporate Elvis into its theology, or Elvis might end up being the cornerstone of a new religion.

On the subject of Elvis we should carefully watch how the cult around his legend develops. I remain convinced that the fact that the letters in his name can be arranged to spell "evils" is not a simple coincidence. Anyway, Elvis didn't perform any miracles. Tom Parker did by turning somebody so cool into a punch line before the Elvis was out of his prime, but Elvis wasn't a miracle worker. Jesus performed miracles.

But the Easter Bunny is a miracle worker too. First of all, the image of a giant bunny is impressive. That's a miracle in itself. Jesus was a guy. Sure his mom claims she was a virgin, but how many women have tried that one? Come on. And even if she was, is that really a testament to Jesus? Maybe Mary was exceptionally fertile. Maybe she got hammered one night at a frat party. Who knows?

Regardless of birthright, the Easter Bunny is a giant rabbit carrying around a magic basket. No confusion on who he is. Jesus had to tell you who he was. Even if you don't know the Easter Bunny you would be in awe if you saw him. Or terrified. Jesus was an average guy with dirty feet. So on the first impression scale the Easter Bunny wins hands down.

When it comes to miracles Jesus was impressive but Jesus didn't have to contend with billions of children. In one day the Easter Bunny manages to deliver eggs, gifts and goodies to children all around the world. Jesus did his thing in an area not much larger than Massachusetts. More important is the fact that the Easter Bunny is still performing his miracle every year. Jesus has been laying low for a while. Points go to the bunny.

As for the lessons they teach I have to call it a draw. Jesus told people to treat others the way you would like to be treated. Even though some do bad things and justify it by saying they'd like to be treated that way, most people don't dodge this issue with semantics. Jesus had some good ideas. But so does the Easter Bunny. If anything the Easter Bunny might be more effective in encouraging people to behave responsibly because you don't get any gifts if you're bad. Only good boys and girls get a basket from the Easter Bunny. If you're bad that giant bunny will eat your hostas. I've seen evidence of that.

The thing that troubles me about Jesus is that I think he might have been a vampire. He told the apostles that they could enjoy eternal life if they drank his blood and ate his flesh. That's pretty gross. I've been told that this is a metaphor, but if you go to church and take communion you drink wine and eat a piece of a wafer that supposedly represents the flesh and blood of Jesus. That's just weird. The term communion in itself is just creepy. Aside from church the only time you hear that word used is in movies where the planet is being invaded by alien pod people. And the way people commune in churches is eerily similar to the way they commune in movies. Like their minds are being controlled by a slimy brain leech from another world.

The Easter Bunny doesn't ask you to eat him. Which is a shame because bunnies are tasty. They taste like chicken. Now a giant bunny who is thousands of years old and travels around the world would be a little tough, but a slow simmer would yield a tasty stew. Throw in some carrots and some garlic and you've got a great dinner. It's not weird or gross. People eat bunnies all the time. I would not try to take down a bunny the size of a Kodiak bear but he would be yummy if one was so inclined.

Having eaten the Jesus wafer I can tell you that he is not a very tasty savior. He's dry and bland. They really could use a little Ecumenical cheese or at least a little disciple butter. Sometimes I think that cheaper churches cut costs by breaking off little chunks of styrofoam and I know that they water down the wine. Some churches use grape juice... and not a brand name either. I've seen many a jug of cheap grape drink in the church dumpster on Monday morning. Did Jesus have high fructose corn syrup coursing through his veins?

When it comes to eating your messiah, the bunny wins. You see, the bunny never told anybody to eat him, which makes his love unconditional...as long as you're good. Jesus wanted people to eat him. Which makes me wonder if he was being literal, or simply expressing his frustration with the people he was talking to. I've told quite a few people to eat me (or at least certain parts) but I didn't mean it.

If you do eat the bunny you are rewarded with a delicious meal that sticks to your ribs. With Jesus you get a stale cracker that has no taste and a little half-shot of a mystery beverage that doesn't quite wash it down. In some Catholic masses they actually drink out of the same goblet. With herpes and mad cow disease running around out there I think I'd rather enjoy my Jesus in a plastic shot glass, if you don't mind.

When you break it down the Easter Bunny is the better deity by a long shot. He's more impressive, more powerful and more interactive than Jesus. If Jesus would take the time to deliver gifts to people around the world once a year, he'd have a shot. At passing Santa Claus. Yeah, that's right, Santa Claus. We didn't compare him to Jesus today, but if we're being honest Santa holds a narrow edge over Jesus. I don't think either of them has a chance of passing the Easter Bunny. Santa tries by giving more gifts, but everybody knows that his exploitation of wildlife and guest workers is what makes him the commodity he is. Besides, that fat SOB not only demands good behavior in exchange for gifts, he wants cookies left out at every house. No wonder he's such a fat hog in spite of being so allegedly busy. But at least he delivers gifts! Jesus is still telling people to eat him 2000 years later.

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

Sharon Stone's Vagina

After almost 15 years, Sharon Stone's vagina has come back to reclaim the career that Sharon Stone herself derailed. Basic Instinct was a steamy pseudo-thriller that stunned audiences with it's graphic content. Actually, it wasn't the graphic content that stunned audiences so much as the hype that promised us stunning graphic content. What was actually released was a watered down version of soft core porn. The best part of the whole movie was Wayne Knight lecherously gobbling up Sharon Stone with his beady little eyes. That was the best acting in the whole movie. Newman!

Aside from Knight, the acting wasn't even that good. Stone and Douglas were over the top and the bit players desperately mugged for the camera in hopes that audiences might remember that they were in the movie too. The plot was as thin as something Ron Jeremy might have starred in. Sadly, nobody in Basic Instinct had the talent or charisma of Ron Jeremy. If it hadn't been for all the hype, nobody would have watched.

Even so, Basic Instinct gave us 14 years of Sharon Stone who played the vixen a few more times before people realized she wasn't exceptionally talented and moved on. Didn't she start to look a little too much like Hilary Clinton? For a while, anyway. After a string of forgettable movie parts and embarrassing television appearances, Stone took a look in the mirror and realized that cosmetic surgery wasn't doing what it used to and that she had one last chance to cash in on her looks. Either that or it was doing some cheesy movies on Lifetime.

Enter Basic Instinct 2. The movie opened to less than stellar reviews and limited box office interest. Perhaps people didn't buy the hype this time around. Why would they? Back in 1992 audiences were led to believe that the sex in Basic Instinct was going to leave people gasping for air, what it did was leave the entire country with a case of blue balls. We got all worked up for the sex we were promised and got a slowly paced attempt at a thriller with way too much of Michael Douglas' butt.

Sharon has hit the interview circuit talking about how she insisted they put in steamy sex scenes. Apparently she realizes that her big mistake since Basic Instinct was trying to be a real actress. By the way, I read some article that said Sharon Stone's IQ tested over 150. Can that be right? Because on this press tour she's been on she seems a little stupid. Was that score really an SAT result? I'm not kidding, the woman sounds like Butthead in every interview. She just giggles and says the dumbest things.

It's quite clear that this is an aging starlet's last grasp at her sexual vitality. She's getting older and her fame is dwindling. Stone has even hinted that this film is much deeper than people realize. She has tried to pawn it off as some sort of rally cry for Hollywood to realize that older women are still sexy.

Of course they are, Sharon. Especially when they have spent millions of dollars on the best cosmetic surgery in the world. Plastic Surgeons around Hollywood are less like doctors and more like meat cutters trimming hunks of flabby skin off the slabs of celebrity meat on their tables. News flash, to Ms. Stone: You're actually part of the problem. When you go to great lengths to look 29 again, the only point you prove is that there really is no room for 50 year-old women on the big screen. At least not playing a femme fatale.

Shame on Sharon Stone for pretending that BI2 is about anything other than her pay day. She found herself on the A-list when she spread her legs in Basic Instinct, so logic would dictate that doing it again 14 years later would get her back into prominence. At least back on the B-list.

But she's wrong. Nobody wants to see her vagina anymore. Vaginas just don't change that much and if they do it's typically not for the better. It's not mean, it's the truth. We've seen Sharon's goodies. That's why actresses who rely heavily on their looks don't last long. Once you see what they've got, you lose interest. It's like reading a mystery. Once you finish the book, it's just not the same if you go back and read it again. Jessica Alba would be wise to take note.

And it's not fair. It's ridiculous that Harrison Ford can still play the leading man at 64 while Virginia Madsen has to play his house Frau at 20 years his junior. Or how about Kevin Spacey casting 20 year-old Kate Bosworth as his love interest in Beyond the Sea? He's older than her dad! It's preposterous that Hollywood will try to pass septuagenarian actors off as forty-something and then pair them with a love interest who just turned 21. What about the women? Karen Allen was good enough to play Harrison Ford's love interest when she was 30. Why can't she play his wife now? She's still 10 years younger than he is. Totally unfair.

But honestly, women do it to themselves. Seriously. Read the polls. Women still find Harrison Ford, Sean Connery and Robert Redford sexy. Paul Newman's closing in on 90 and women will still give him credit for being hot. Who's sick?

And men aren't really as picky as you think. Honestly, I think women find older actresses in romantic leads objectionable. Men usually want to skip the romantic scenes and the gratuitous sex so they can watch the special effects and artfully crafted violence. I think it's the female viewers who cringe at a mature actress playing the damsel in distress. Men take what they can get. Did you see American Pie? MILF? Says it all.

Besides, men are pigs. We get our skin from real pornography. We don't need to watch some almost-rated-nc17 movie to get our jollies. We can go online or grab a Hustler from the local magazine rack and get hard core porn to satisfy our need for visual sex. No. The mainstream movies are for women. Sharon Stone isn't baring her vagina for the men of the world, she's doing it for all the ladies. And the money.