Zerophilia...

I just ran across the following on IMDB... thought you might be interested...

Zerophilia

16 Oct 2006 8:12pm EDT - By Michael Rechtshaffen

Microangelo Entertainment Gender confusion is taken to the next, angst-ridden level in "Zerophilia", a quirky romantic dramedy about a young-adult male who develops a rare biological condition that triggers a highly unusual metamorphosis. Although writer-director Martin Curland deserves full points for originality -- not to mention avoiding those broadly sophomoric or campy sci-fi pitfalls that could have easily gone with the territory -- the admittedly thought-provoking results fail to make the full-blown transition from curious concept to substantial theatrical proposition. In the end, the film, which opened Friday in New York this weekend and expands to Los Angeles and elsewhere Nov. 3, feels more like an episode of "The O.C". with a chromosomal imbalance. Taylor Handley does thoughtful, committed work as Luke, a sexually inexperienced college student who "catches" the bizarre genetic virus after an anonymous one-night stand in a camper with a British woman (voiced -- talk about your weird science -- by Kelly LeBrock). While other hapless dudes might have run the risk of contracting the usual communicable diseases, poor Luke finds himself stricken with something that no dose of penicillin could cure: The encounter has set off a genetic condition that has begun to transform his body, both anatomically and emotionally, into that of the opposite sex. Understandably concerned, Luke's best buddy Keenan (Dustin Seavey) tracks down a zerophiliac expert, the decidedly loopy Dr. Sydney Catchadourian (Gina Bellman, who memorably played the part of the decidedly loopy Jane on the original British version of "Coupling"), who, for personal reasons, pushes him to go all the way and make the final transformation from Luke to Luca (Marieh Delfino). To add to Luke/Luca's confusion, in addition to finding himself attracted to the down-to-earth Michelle (Rebecca Mozo), his burgeoning female side is also starting to develop a thing for her brooding mechanic brother, Max (Kyle Schmid). Curland's script has some interesting, gender-blending observations to make about love and sexual attraction, but the low-budget production, while effectively cast and nicely shot (by Graham Futerfas), would have benefited from a more assured directorial hand -- one that might have been willing to venture away from those primetime small-screen confines and find the courage to play out some of the subject matter's inherently darker convictions. Visit HollywoodReporter.com for more ...

Don't read this...

I've gotten flak elsewhere for linking to this blog, on the grounds that it's too political and the content will start controversy. Well, it's SUPPOSED to incite controversy. That said, though, keep the commentary HERE. Don't go off into endless back-and-forth colloquy on other boards. First of all, it uses their bandwidth instead of mine. Second, many folks there don't care about political matters, vehemently disagree with all the expressed opinions, and don't want to see the verbal foodfights.

If you're going to respond or comment, do it HERE. That's kind of why there's a comment capability here in the first place. Second, I've asked you to do any commentary here. Posting it elsewhere is just rude.

And, if you don't care for political postings, well, don't read this blog. There's non-political postings here, but for now the political ones will dominate. After the election I suspect the political ones will be, for the most part, going away.

Trust in the system...

[WARNING: This is a somewhat political post. If you don't like reading political posts, what are you doing here? More to the point, you might want to skip this posting.]

The other day I went to see the new Robin Williams movie, "Man of the Year". The basic premise is that he's a late-night comedian who runs for president, and, through a 'bug' in the computerized voting machines, wins.

Good movie. Funny movie. But that's not the point. It's not hard to figure out that the voting machine company who knows of the software flaws and tries to cover them up for it's own advantage is a thinly disguised version of Diebold. The link back there gives a pretty good description of the outstanding issues with Diebold's machines.

It's been noted in the news recently that the white house, specifically George W. Bush and Karl Rove, has been blithely confident that, despite the recent scandals and the very unfavorable polls, the Republicans are going to retain control of both the House and Senate.

From the Washington Post: Amid widespread panic in the Republican establishment about the coming midterm elections, there are two people whose confidence about GOP prospects strikes even their closest allies as almost inexplicably upbeat: President Bush and his top political adviser, Karl Rove.

Some Republicans on Capitol Hill are bracing for losses of 25 House seats or more. But party operatives say Rove is predicting that, at worst, Republicans will lose only 8 to 10 seats — shy of the 15-seat threshold that would cede control to Democrats for the first time since the 1994 elections and probably hobble the balance of Bush's second term. ...

The question is whether this is a case of justified confidence — based on Bush's and Rove's electoral record and knowledge of the money, technology and other assets at their command — or of self-delusion. Even many Republicans suspect the latter. Three GOP strategists with close ties to the White House flatly predicted the loss of the House, though they would not do so on the record for fear of offending senior Bush aides.

Hubris? Refusal to face the likely reality? Or, possibly, do they know something about the upcoming results of the election in advance? Do they have good reason for their confidence? In ordinary times I'd consider the possibility of massive election-rigging in the U.S. to be ludicrous; but this administration has shown their willingness to violate accepted standards, any laws that get in their way, and even ignore the constitution when it's to their benefit. They've even got a history of suspicious election results.

It's a more-than-scary thought. I hope I'm wrong.

Nostalgia

I'm just sitting here, missing the days when I lived in central Florida. Yes, it gets hot and sticky in the summer, and you've got bugs, snakes, and (depending on where you live) alligators to deal with, but it was just about never boring.

Pretty much each weekend the first order of business was to decide on what to do. Visit a theme park? Which one? You had three from Disney (plus their water parks), Universal, Sea World, Cypress Gardens (pictured above), Boardwalk and Baseball (gone now), or Busch Gardens.

Shopping? Aside from the usual malls you had the Belz Factory Outlets, Flea World (don't ask!) and downtown Winter Park (comfortable AND Swank!).

Sightseeing places galore. Where to begin? Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (Where they launched the Mercury and Gemini spacecraft from)? Kennedy Space Center (launching point for Apollo, Skylab, Space Shuttle, and forthcoming Orion missions)? If you're not into space, there's things like Bok Tower Gardens, Wekiva Springs, Lake Eola Park. Beaches? Daytona, Cocoa Beach (don't forget to visit Ron-Jon's Surf Shop), Melbourne Beach, Vero Beach, etc.

The east coast gets much of the beachgoing visitors, and has the best surf, but the west coast has the better water. You're in the Gulf of Mexico, and the water is warm and crystal-clear. It makes for a much more relaxing day than on the eastern shore. It's all in what kind of experience you prefer. Mu favorite beach was Indian Rocks Beach, on the west coast, a bit north of Tampa. Friendly, not over-developed, and all-in-all a comfy place to spend time.

There's so much more down there that I couldn't begin to list it all. I liked the climate, the people (who, oddly enough, were almost all from the north), and the whole central Florida lifestyle.

Why'd I leave? My job went north, and I followed. Silly me. My first winter in Milwaukee we had a week of below -20 weather. You can imagine I was missing Christmas lights under the palm trees.

Bloody good fun...

There's a couple of books and a new TV series I'd like to recommend. The books are "Darkly Dreaming Dexter" and "Dearly Devoted Dexter", both by Jeff Lindsay. The series is Showtime's "Dexter".

It's kind of hard to describe the premise, at least in any way that will make sense. Short version, Dexter is a forensic specialist for the Miami-Dade Police, specializing in blood-splatter evidence. In his spare time he's a serial killer. He has a speciality there, as well. He only preys on "bad people" -- basically other serial killers.

It is kind of a "guilty pleasure" rooting for a serial killer, somewhat akin to a Hitchcock movie with their morally flawed protagonists. This takes that concept, though, and pushes it to it's limits.

Dexter seems a nice enough guy, until you realize that his nice-guy facade is just that, a facade. It's all posturing to convince folks that he's just a regular guy. Inside, well, he'd argue that he has no emotions or feelings for anyone or anything. In reality, though, he's got a lot more there than he'd ever be willing to admit.

This is somewhat of a genre cross. Dexter is simultaneously a thriller and black comedy, with a few horror elements thrown into the mix. If that's not your thing, you might want to skip it. Otherwise, go read the books, watch the show.

Apropos of nothing...

Things have been a bit worked up the past few days, so here are some pretty pictures of EXPO 67.

More angst later.

- Kim

Terrible swift sword...

I've been reading (and seeing) the weirdest possible defence of the house leadership in the past day or so. It basically goes that others knew about it too, otherwise how did they leak it? Therefore it's all their fault for not leaking it earlier, putting the kids at risk.

Um...

First of all, that "George Soros funded" organization that sat on it 'till five weeks before the election? They turned what they had over to the FBI back in July. Dick Morris? Anyone noticed that Bill Clinton fired him in 1996? That'd be, oh, roughly a decade ago. And Bill Clinton himself? What's his connection to the Foley transcripts again?

Oh, and don't forget the Drudge-reported story that the whole thing was a prank gotten out of hand. Give me a fucking break. This has got to be a new frontier in desperation:

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU OCT 5 2006 22:01:25 ET XXXXX
CLAIM: FILTHY FOLEY ONLINE CHATS WERE PAGE 'PRANK GONE AWRY'
**Update**

According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan Edmund, the now famous lurid AOL Instant Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, said he goaded an unwitting Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats.

The primary source, an ally of Edmund, adamantly proclaims that the former page is not a homosexual. The prank scenario was confirmed by a second associate of Edmund. Both are fearful that their political careers will be affected if they are publicly brought into the investigation.

The prank scenario only applies to the Edmund IM sessions and does not necessarily apply to any other exchanges between the former congressman and others.

The news come on the heels that Edmund has hired former Timothy McVeigh criminal attorney, Stephen Jones.

Late Thursday, Jones strongly denied the exchanges with Foley were a prank by the former page. Jones said, "There is not any aspect of this matter that is a practical joke nor should anyone treat it that way."

But those close to Jordan Edmund stand by their accounts of what Jordan told them.

As noted in the last two paragraphs above, the "prank" story has been refuted by the ex-page in question. Doesn't seem to satisfy the ever-partisan Drudge, though.

Okay, so the leadership has taken the position that the best defence is the proverbial good offense. Pure bullshit, but I suppose it's the best they can do, given the facts of the case. Even so, where exactly would this excuse them for burying the reports and pretending nothing was going on?

It's yet another attempt at cynically manipulating the public through misdirection and lies. This time (for once!) it doesn't seem to be working.

On their way to a much warmer place...

I haven't written much on the whole Mark Foley scandal. What's to be said? He used his position to proposition teenage boys, had cybersex with some, met at least one for drinks and 'whatever', and it's still unknown whether he actually engaged in sexual relations with any pages.

Yeah, Foley is gay. So what? That, as a factor, is akin with the Catholic Church blasting gay priests for the church's pedophilia scandals. Makes a great red herring, helps turn the inattentive against gays, and has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand.

My personal take on Foley and his acts: This man is slime. As an adult with a position of authority, he abused his position to proposition (and more?) teens for sex. His position implicitly put pressure on them to go along, or (at the very least) to shut up about it. We now hear that his activities have been going on for years.

The house Republican leaderships has been denying any and all knowledge of this -- taking the "nobody told us" route -- even though there's been a real laughable lack of anything like "getting their stories straight". Unfortunately for Denny Hastert (R - IL, and incidentally Speaker) there's three members to date who've 'flipped' on him. Every man for himself, I guess.

Now, Foley's former chief of staff (who, until today worked in the same role for Tom Reynolds) has gone public. Well, that puts the lie to that one. Lots of speculation out there that Dennis Hastert is toast. Of course, he's denying that he was ever told. Who's telling the truth? I dunno, though I have some strong suspicions. Things are happening fast, and I'm pretty sure truth will out, probably very soon.

How dumb do they think we are? The leadership has known for a long time about Foley and his extracurricular activities, but chose to do nothing. It's not that there was nothing to find. It's not that there was no basis to pry. Foley has been considered "creepy" by the pages for years, and every new class of pages has been warned about him. Seemingly EVERYONE involved with the house has known about this -- EXCEPT the republican leadership. Why didn't they know?

Simple.

THEY DIDN'T WANT TO.

Once ABC got hold of the story with the 'suggestive' emails, it took them a loooong time to find the damning IM's. Umm, it took at least 24 hours. So, what it basically comes down to is that the leadership could have know all about it with a minimum of effort, roughly equivalent to opening their eyes.

Why? Why didn't they want to know?

Politics. Purely politics. Under the Rovian system, you do anything to win. Anything. Whatever it takes. Ethics and morals have a completely different meaning than in the 'real world'. If it helps you to win, it's by definition 'good'. If it hurts your electoral efforts, it's by definition 'bad'.

So, stories of a pedasterist congressman reach the speaker. The congressman is from the speaker's party, so exposure of the congressman is 'bad'. (And if the congressman had been a Democrat, then exposure would have been 'good'.)

The short version is that Hastert (and the rest of the so-called leadership) blew off the danger to the pages, because doing something about Foley would have had a 'bad' effect politically. In their warped system of ethics, they did precisely the correct thing.

In the real world it's the kids that are important. You've got a pedasterist after their butts (literally!) and the top priority is to STOP HIM before he can do any more harm. It's not Hastert's concern, though. The scandal, now, that is a problem.

Priorities.

The ironic thing is that, if when he'd been put on notice that there was a problem, he'd done something about it, there wouldn't be a problem today. The scandal would have been long-since over, and there wouldn't be anything to distract the public from the was and terror.

Instead the house Republican Party is imploding, rumor has it that Dennis Hastert may be out as speaker as early as tomorrow (and, possibly, out of the house entirely) and there's speculation his won't be the only head to roll.

And, with everything going on, has anyone been doing anything to help the kids? At the end of the day, that's what this is supposed to be about.

"FoleyGate"

I'm sure I'll write much more about this, but here's a possible ultimate in cynical behavior.

Sheesh.

Those sons-of-bitches in Washington...

Jeezus! For THIS we've been at war for five years?

- Kim

Some adult language...

Um, yeah. Last week was eventful, and provided a LOT of reasons for a complete change of government in the US. At the presidential level, there's not going to be any change for two-and-a-half years. Not much to be done there but grit our teeth and bear it. At the congressional level, in about five weeks it is time to "throw the bums out".

I've attached a cartoon on the subject from Erin Lindsay's comic strip, "Venus Envy". She says it one hell of a lot better than I ever could.

What the hell happened to the country I grew up in? How has the public managed to let themselves be stampeded into giving up over two centuries of hard-won freedoms in just a few short years?

An act of provocation that succeeded beyond its wildest aspirations, a lot of big lies and a slew of smaller ones, and people hand over the keys to their lives. IF (and its a huge IF) the terrorist threat is ever totally eliminated, do you really think this government will return the power they've taken? Return to us the liberties we've docilely handed over to our masters?

WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK THE AL QAIDA BOMBERS WERE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH? You think it was about killing a few thousand New Yorkers? Destroying some expensive real estate?

Bullshit. The goal -- the ultimate goal of ALL terrorism -- was to create a political change. They wanted to change us into something that would help them in their battle against western civilization.

Ya think they succeeded?

Have they changed us? Changed our government, our society into something that wont -- can't -- effectively oppose them?

How do you fight fascists? By becoming fascist? I don't think so. The changes we've made in our government -- in our society -- by surrendering our liberty don't do a blessed thing to make us safer.

It's claims to the contrary, the government hasn't stopped or prevented a single terrorist attack in the US. The power the bastards in Washington have grabbed isn't about making us safer. It was never about making us safer. The purpose of unfettered power isn't safety. The purpose of unfettered power IS power.

Back in the saddle again...

I'm posting again. Can you tell its election season?

Actually, I've been planning to resume for a while, but between one thing and another, well, you get the idea. *sighs* On the good side, I'm feeling much better now. Seriously.

No, really.

Okay, I spent about a week in the hospital last month. Congestive heart failure. Not fun, especially when they were trying to purge the excess fluid from my system and overdid it a bit, and my blood pressure kept crashing. Not a bit fun.

Ah well, I'm back now, and mad as hell. More follows...