"I'm two somebodies!"

Is there anything worse than TBS? The only contender I can think of off-hand is the Nazi party, but even that's a toss-up.

Very nearly everything they show on that channel is absolute garbage. Really, I can't even do justice to how much I hate their television line-up. With the exception of Seinfeld, it really is just an endless parade of misery.

But what really makes me furious is not just that their shows (and movies) are so unforgivably bad. It's that they just can't get enough of rubbing your face in it.
They can't just show terrible TV shows and movies. No, instead they have to flaunt their stupidity constantly, at every commercial break.

Even their slogan is infuriating: "Very funny."
"Very funny"? Are you kidding me? Isn't that really an assessment that the audience is entitled to make, rather than the network itself? How arrogant can you get?
And most importantly of all, it's not funny. It's actually dreadfully unfunny.

God, I hate it.

Ernest Saves Christmas

It's hard to find a more fitting Christmas icon than Ernest.

Actually, it's pretty bizarre that they decided to have Ernest meet Santa Claus in his second star turn in a feature film. Up to this point, the biggest excitement Ernest had seen on the silver screen was a trip to summer camp with a bunch of juvenile delinquents, and now here he was, not only meeting Saint Nick but saving Christmas.

Saving it from what? you may ask.
Actually, that's not made all that clear in the movie. The basic thrust of the movie is that Santa Claus has decided it's time to retire, since he's getting a little old for the job.
(Of course, he claims to be some 200 years old, so I would assume he's immortal... How, then, does he grow senile?)

Anyway, Santa needs to hand-pick his replacement, because the only way to become the new Santa Claus is for the current Santa Claus to grab you by the hand and transfer his supernatural divine essence into your body. And, evidently, in order for this to work, you have to be willing to take the job.
And just take one guess who he's chosen.

No, it's not Ernest, although that would have been great. It's a children's TV show host named Joe Carruthers, who has decided to take a part in an extraordinarily tacky holiday-themed sci-fi horror flick in order to give his career a shot in the arm.
This hardly pleases Santa, needless to say, but artistic differences are the least of his problems. He also manages to lose track of his reindeer (which have come into the custody of Gailard Sartain and Bill Byrge, Ernest's constant companions for all his early movies), get tangled up in the affairs of a teen runaway, and even find his way into jail.

Only one man is equal to solving all these conundrums.
Yeah, this time it is Ernest, who has lost his job as an Orlando taxi-driver after giving a cash-strapped Santa a free ride.
Along the way Ernest also dresses up in a variety of silly disguises, goes off on a series of wacky adventures, and meets a cast of crazy characters in order to set things straight so that a washed-up actor can gain unlimited magic powers.

There's not all that much to say about this movie, but as Ernest movies go, it's a work of art.
(As regular movies go, it's horrendous, but that's completely irrelevant.)
But what does it teach us about the meaning of Christmas?

1. It's wrong for children not to spend time with their parents
Yeah, they flipped it around on us this time. Pretty clever.

2. The world needs more old people with hearts of gold
I think that's straightforward enough.

3. There's a bit of holiness in even the most dimwitted among us
And there's no dumbass more divine than Ernest P. Worrell.

Jingle All the Way

I'm sure there is not a thing on earth that has ever put more pride into the heart of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger than his performance in this perennial holiday hit.

His Honor plays Howard Langston, a businessman who--surprise, surprise--doesn't spend enough time with his son. After breaking promise after promise, Howard assures the boy that this once, he won't break his word--he swears he'll get his kid a Turbo-Man action figure for Christmas this year.

The bad news is, by Christmas Eve, he still hasn't made the purchase, and every store in town is sold out of Turbo-Man!

What follows is a ludicrous jaunt that leads Howard all over the place in a desperate search for that coveted toy. Along the way, he meets the only other dad in the world who is still without a Turbo-Man for his kid: a postman played by Sinbad. The two begin as allies, but almost immediately find themselves turned rivals, competing with each other to get first dibs on an action figure, should one turn up.

Their plans are repeatedly thwarted by a curmudgeonly cop played by Robert Conrad, a radio host played by Martin Mull, and even Howard's philandering neighbor, Phil Hartman.

After a long succession of progressively more nonsensical misadventures, Howard somehow finds himself disguised as Turbo-Man himself, waving to throngs of adoring fans from his float in a Christmas parade. Finally his ship has come in, as he has the opportunity to deliver a special-edition Turbo-Man figure to a lucky kid from the audience. Naturally he chooses his son, but before son can forgive prodigal dad, who should arrive but Sinbad, dressed to the nines in the costume of Dementor, arch-nemesis of Turbo-Man!

At this point, things get really stupid.
Dementor--I mean Sibad... Well, actually the character's real name is Myron...--snatches the doll from the kid's hands and before you know it, the poor eight-year-old sucker is dangling from a Christmas tree decoration 60 feet above the ground. Fortunately, Howard's costume is complete with a jet-pack the likes of which I image NASA would love to get its hands on.

Thus, the movie comes to an upbeat conclusion where Howard reveals his true identity to his wife and son--you might have thought his out-of-place Austrian accent would have given him away from the start--and Sinbad is arrested for attempted murder.
Oh, and the little kid has learned a valuable lesson too, so he gives his beloved Turbo-Man doll to Sinbad, who we can only assume will mail it to his own son from San Quentin.

So what are the moral lessons of this happy tale?

1. It's wrong for fathers not to spend time with their kids.
I told you it wasn't over.

2. It's not toys that bring children happiness.
Well, actually it is. But what brings them even more happiness is seeing their dad dressed up as a giant toy.

Merry Christmas, everyone.

Well gang, the Holidays are less than a week away, so I think it's appropriate that we take this time to remember what this special season is all about.

So what exactly is this season about? I think we can get a good idea of it by reviewing a bunch of stupid Christmas movies, each of which makes an express effort to explain how wrong we all are about the spirit of Christmas.

Let's begin with the most obvious candidate:

The Santa Clause

The Santa Clause is an immortal tale of the unmourned death of an omnipotent saint.

Tim Allen plays Scott Calvin, a divorced dad who doesn't spend enough time with his son. Then, on Christmas Eve, Santa Claus falls off Scott's roof, dies immediately from massive internal injuries, and then vanishes on the spot--evidently Santa is translated into the hereafter, like Elijah or Muhammad.

So anyway, Scott is obligated by a deliberately deceptive "contract" to become the new Santa Claus. He journeys to the North Pole, where he is greeted by a legion of childlike elves who show no signs of grief for the passing of their previous master. Instead they are immediately prepared to embrace Scott as their new boss, and they expect Scott to be just as eager.

For the rest of the movie, Scott is made aware of the extreme physical toll this new job is to take on his body, as he grows about 40 years older and at least 60 pounds heavier over the next months. At the same time, he experiences tremendous personality changes, adopting a much greater level of benevolence (and omniscience), while not quite shedding his acerbic wit.

Over the course of the movie, as is very often the case in Santa Claus movies, the adult members of the cast all struggle with their loss of faith in the almighty.
Not God, I mean the almighty Santa Claus.

What sense does this make exactly? Who in the audience is supposed to relate to this? The way it seems to me, the kids are most likely not aware that real-life adults don't "believe" in Santa. As for the adults, this isn't likely to make sense to them either, since they are old enough to realize that you don't "lose faith" in Santa Claus--someone just flat-out tells you that he doesn't exist.

So I really can't make sense of Judge Reinhold's tale of his conversion to agnostisantanism, where he reports that he stopped believing upon not receiving the Oscar Mayer weenie whistle he so desperately wanted as a child. I mean, when I was a kid, there were about a million presents that Santa didn't give me, but that never stopped me from believing in him.
No, instead what stopped me from believing in Santa Claus was when my parents admitted that they were the ones who had been giving me the presents.

Here's a question the movie fails to answer: What do these parents make of the presents that inexplicably appear under the tree each Christmas? They know full-well, after all, that they didn't buy them. And what of the parents who stay up until 4 am on Christmas Eve in order to get things in order for the morning? How do they miss Santa Claus's arrival?

Well, actually, that last one is a stupid question, since the movie actually discusses the "time continuum" that is interrupted during Santa's journey, allowing him to visit some hundred million or so households in one night. So I guess the parents don't realize anything is amiss, because they've been frozen in time.
(Incidentally, this time-freezing concept was taken to preposterous lengths in the idiotic Disney Channel Christmas movie 'Twas the Night, starring Malcolm in the Middle's dad and the kid who Was a Teenage Faust in the movie of that name.)

Anyway, time continuum or no, the whole thing is riddled with inconsistencies. Now, you may say that it's stupid of me to search for plot-holes in a cheesy Christmas movie, but no, you're wrong. This movie, like so many others, tackles head-on the impossibilities of the Santa Claus story and pretends to explain the difficulties. But as I've just demonstrated, it doesn't explain anything! It just makes things even more confusing!

But that's enough of this talk--Let's just get back to our chief concern.
What does this movie teach us about the meaning of Christmas? Here are the morals I can draw from the story:

1. It is wrong for fathers not to spend time with their children
This is a popular one, as you'll see over the next couple of days. It's actually very difficult to think of any family Christmas movie that doesn't employ this theme.

2. Divorce is hard on children, and parents should endeavor to make it easier for them
This is not too common for Christmas movies, but for family movies in general, it's pretty typical. But this movie reminds us that supernatural adventures can ease the transition for kids and parents alike.

3. Santa Claus actually exists
Not much to say about this one.

So that's the meaning of Christmas.
...Or is it? We'll learn more tomorrow.

No bars here in hell!

This load of garbage first came down the pike when the mind-numbingly uninteresting celebrity athlete Michael Phelps was very much in the public eye.

It would have been easy enough to be lulled into the false sense of security that, when everyone woke up and remembered that Olympic swimming is a waste of television airtime, this ad campaign would die a quick and painless death at the same time.

Well, no. Of course not.
So they stopped showing the "Phelps phan" commercial (I'm in serious emotional pain having written that), but there was plenty more trash to take its place. Most relentless has been the Adventures of Ned, the knucklehead who got a little ahead of the game mentioning a merger at a business meeting in Finland.

Why would anyone ever show up to a business meeting wearing--on top of his shirt and tie--a stupid-looking T-shirt with the word "merger" written on it? Is this an actual practice among business executives? And what's with all these T-shirts anyway? First it was "Phelps phan" and now "Merger" Ned and his wacky antics in Finland.

Even more stupid is the awful gimmick where the person's "phone" is represented by a green-screened-in duplicate of the person, who delivers an idiotic monologue about how horrible it is to miss some call, supposedly because they don't have AT&T.

But what's stupidest of all is that the whole premise is frustratingly flimsy.
I mean... Are you kidding me? Do they think this is going to sway me to use their service? Well, I'm disgraced to admit this, but I actually do have AT&T, and I'm here to tell you, I sometimes don't get a signal. So I really don't know what they're going for.

Here's an idea for Ned's boss. If it's so damned important that Ned not mention the merger, because "It's not finalized yet, and everyone will freak oooouuuut... DA HER HER"... Then why don't you call his HOTEL? Hotels tend to have landline phones, which can be reached without difficulty!
Oh, and maybe shoot old Ned an email next time! Or you could fax the message to the meeting before it starts! Or you could make ANY EFFORT WHATSOEVER to get the message through once you find out that the cell phone won't work! How about that?

We live in the information age, ladies and gentlemen. There are plenty of ways to get a message to someone. It doesn't have to come to this.

And it shouldn't, because this is just unbearable.

Burger King makes the list

I have another one for you, gang.

Burger King has always tended to have really unenjoyable commercials, but they've really taken it a step too far with this trainwreck of a campaign.

Simon and Garfunkel are probably rolling over in their graves because of this. And yes, I know that they're not dead, but they'll probably commit suicide after seeing their likenesses used to such awful ends.
This is another one (like the Brooke Shields commercial--she's still not off the hook) that just plain confuses me.

I mean, of course it's incredibly irritating, but when I see this I just don't know what I'm supposed to think. Once again, I assume it's supposed to be funny--it's not--but let me just try to explain this to the best of my abilities: Even if this were funny, that wouldn't be a satisfactory justification for putting it on television.

But that's not even at issue, because this garbage is so far afield of being funny, I don't think anyone runs any risk of laughing at it, even the first time they see it.
God in heaven, it's just staggering! Why would you want to get a mushroom burger because your girlfriend dumped you?! There is just no connection here!

Please, for the love of Christ, someone just explain to me what thought process is supposed to allow me to connect the idea of two morons with a lute to a sandwich from Burger King.
Please. This distresses me. I just don't know how to deal with a world where someone thought this was a good idea.

But until someone has relieved my migraine-inducing confusion on this matter, I will not be spending any money at Burger King, and I expect all of you to do the same.

Oh, and Subway, your "five-dollar foot-long" commercial has you in serious jeopardy too.
But I really like the food there, so unless this gets much worse, they're safe for now.

And besides, Subway is taking enough abuse from every other corporate entity on earth lately. Why do all these horrible commercials have it out for Subway?!
Well, I guess this means my work is not over yet.

Don't you mean... Glade?

Why is it supposed to be so horribly embarrassing to have a Glade Plug-In? I really don't get this. Why are they making commercials about characters who will go to any lengths necessary to conceal the fact that they've got a Glade Plug-In in their home?

What kind of an advertising scheme is this anyway?
"Don't worry, everybody. No one will ever find out the horribly embarrassing fact that you've purchased one of our products. You can just make up some kind of story! Whatever you do, keep it a secret, and you'll be fine!"

And you want to know what's really weird?
Glade isn't the only company that tries to advertise based on the embarrassment it supposedly causes. Have you seen the match.com ad? You know, the one that reassures you that "It's okay to look."

...What?!
It's okay to look?!? Is that what they think is stopping people from using their stupid website?
"Gee, I want to log into match.com, but I just don't know if I could ever forgive myself for it. Is it okay to look on match.com? Is it okay?"

Oh, and I'm not done yet!
How about the Bud Light commercial where they claim that Bud Light has "drinkability"? Is that really the best they can do?!
"Hey guys, we know this beer isn't good, but it's drinkable. I swear to God you can keep it down."

Are they trying to win points with us by their humility? This is just outrageous! I miss the days when commercials made extravagant exaggerations about the quality of their products.

Oh, and while I was writing this, yet another Brooke Shields commercial came on. We've still got work to do.

It's not funny, Brooke Shields

Well, I'm sure you all realize by now that I can't stand the majority of television advertising.
Again and again, I'm just flabbergasted by the stupidity of the attempts advertisers make to try to convince me to buy things. I'm not an advertising expert myself, so I don't have the test-marketing and surveys these clowns apparently rely on to determine what stupid concept will work to increase sales.

So I can only speak for myself, but when I see a commercial like this, my immediate inclination is to dedicate myself to never buying the product on display, in the vain hope that I can drive down their profits and thereby prevent them from producing similar ads in the future.

I can tell that this abomination is supposed to make me laugh, but I can't imagine finding this funny. I just want it to stop.
It's not funny! The notion that people are having children so that they can buy a Volkswagen is just stupid--not stupid in a funny way, just plain stupid. And it only makes it worse that Brooke keeps calling the car "German engineering." Is this supposed to make me think of "genetic engineering" or something? I really don't get it.
I just know it isn't funny.

I'm asking all of you out there to join me in doing what we can do as consumers and as participants in the United States economy to put a stop to this.
If you see a commercial that is as infuriatingly stupid as this one, don't buy what they're selling you. Just say NO.

I pledge to lead the charge against marketing obnoxiousness, but I can't do this alone. I need everyone's help. Let's stand up for ourselves. We deserve not to be annoyed.
We live in a free society, so unfortunately, it wouldn't be right for us to ask the government to protect us from this terrible evil. Our only choice is to put the screws to these chowderheads ourselves. Annoying television advertisements have existed as a cancer on our society for too long already.

But these monsters, powerful though they are, need us for their very survival. Without the money we pour into their purses, they won't seem quite so big. We're the ones who call the shots.
DON'T BE PUSHED AROUND.

If we stand together and stand strong, one day those bastards will stop making bad jokes.

Oh yeah, and when did they stop using the word "Fahrvergnügen"?

This is what I like to see!

You know what the banner headline was on today's issue of the local newspaper, The Oregonian?

Bikers busted in raids

That's what it was. It's a story about how federal agents have arrested 88 members of a racketeering motorcycle gang called the Mongols, who traffic in illegal weapons.

This is what newspapers are all about! Enough of this "election" garbage and all this crap about "politics" and "economics" and "bullshit" and the like. What we need is more news stories about arch-criminals.

I ordinarily can't stand the news. I feel like all they ever talk about is either politics (which is boring and hopelessly stupid) or else trumped-up or downright made-up stories that wouldn't get printed if the journalists were doing their jobs properly.
(Yeah, there's nothing I love more than seeing a popular lie get exposed for what it is, and tragically, much of our "news" consists of just such fabrications, exaggerations, and misrepresentations--particularly if you watch Dateline.)

But for this kind of reporting, I make an exception. And I'll tell you why.
Because it's cool.

This is the kind of story Clark Kent would have covered for the Planet. I love hearing about evil-doers!

And that's one of the reasons that I truly love this great state. When I lived in Virginia, I dare say I didn't see half as much news coverage of super-villains as I do here.
This is the first time I've ever been genuinely excited about an election season. And no, I don't mean I'm excited about the political scene. I'm not. I'm just excited by the cast of wacky characters this sovereign state has produced.

Like the other story covered on the front page of this paper!

It's about Bill Sizemore, Oregon's most despised citizen. Sizemore runs Oregon Taxpayers United, a not-for-profit foundation that endeavors to get measures placed on Oregon ballots during election years. Of course, once the measures get set on the ballot, they engender a veritable firestorm of opposition from practically every human being who has access to political commercials.

Good citizen that I am, I have read these measures, and I frankly don't understand what the commotion is about. I'm certainly not going to vote "yes" on any of them (mainly because they're vaguely worded to the point of being useless, unenforceable or potentially harmful), but Jesus, these TV spots make it sound like the man is Lex Luthor!
Sizemore's legion of detractors claim that he is making enormous sums of money simply by putting measures on the ballot, knowing all the time that the measures will be defeated, and he'll be able to put them right back on the ballot next time. Supposedly, the "special interests" (especially those insidiously evil "out-of-state interests") are willing to pay this man top-dollar just to propose these hated initiatives.

Well, if this is true (and it seems very possible that it is), then Bill Sizemore is a super-villain of the highest order.

WHY CAN'T EVERY STATE HAVE THIS STUFF??

By the way, if you happen to live in Oregon, vote for my good friend Pavel Goberman. You can't make this stuff up.

I JUST DON'T GET IT, vol. 1

What's so great about... Lobsters?

Let me tell you something about me.
I always have the impression that, everywhere I turn, there is someone doing something that they seem to derive enormous pleasure from, but I can't for the life of me figure out why. I sometimes spend hours on end trying to figure out what's so great about all this stuff, and I just never come up with an answer.

So I've decided to take the next logical step and just pose the question to the world. Maybe if I can get enough people to read these impassioned queries, then one day someone will explain to me what I'm not getting.

So today I turn my attention to something that garners much more praise than it deserves: Lobsters.

Why do people like lobsters?
That is, why do people like to eat lobsters?

Now it's clear that there's more to this question than a simple matter of taste.
I'm saying that right up front, because I know that if I don't, someone will tell me that lobster is just an acquired taste, or that it's not for everybody, or that maybe I just don't like the way it tastes, but some people do, or whatever trite answer you want to throw at me.

Not good enough.
I don't really think that lobsters taste bad, I just don't like them. And call me cynical or closed-minded, but I just do not believe that all these people are really dying to get their hands on lobsters just because they like the way they taste.
It's impossible. No one likes any food enough to justify the kind of feverish devotion people have to lobsters.

And as far as I can tell, no one really likes the taste of lobsters all that much anyway!
Really, the way the thing tastes hardly ever garners any attention at all! And furthermore, everyone always puts all that weird butter-juice all over the lobster, so if they do like what they're tasting, it's the butter, not the lobster. So if this is really about flavor, then just eat a stick of butter and save yourself 30 bucks.

But I know this hasn't settled anything, because it's not about flavor. You'd have to be incredibly naive to even entertain the idea that it has one damn thing to do with flavor.
I'm quite certain that the real allure behind lobsters is that they're considered "fine" dining.

Well, that is not good enough either. First of all, fine dining is something else that I JUST DON'T GET, so I obviously won't be swayed by that.
And furthermore, how can anyone really consider the debacle that is eating a lobster to be anything resembling "fine"?

To begin with, a lobster is really basically a giant bug, when you get right down to it. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against eating giant bugs--I just don't think there's anything particularly "fine" about it. Quite the contrary, really.
People almost always take that assessment as some sort of a joke, or a silly remark that's true only in a trivial and amusing way.
It's not. It's just a fact. A lobster is a crustacean, which is just a hop skip and a jump away from an insect on the tree of life. Just consult any biology textbook; arthropods are arthropods.
And then people think, well, maybe they're technically related, but it's not as if the experience of eating them has anything in common.
Wrong again. People who think that ordinary bugs taste worse than lobsters are deluding themselves. I've never eaten any (non-marine) bugs myself, but I am told they just taste like vegetables, essentially. When you get right down to it, lobsters don't have much of a flavor either, so if it looks like a bug, tastes like a bug, and acts like a bug, it's a duck.
I mean a bug. (By the way, duck is no treat either, and is comparably overpriced.)

But to be fair, there's no good reason why eating bugs should be seen as inherently indigne... It is, but it doesn't have to be.
(Let me just apologize for using that French word in italics like that. I should be shot.)

So what more legitimate criticisms do I have?
Well, bug or no bug, eating a lobster is a sight to behold. You know you're in a fine mess when they actually give you tools that are specially tailored to the creature you're about to eat. It's not easy to eat a giant bug with an industrial implement, a dollhouse fork and a bib, all the while looking like a high-society blueblood.
Frankly, I can't think of any food that makes you look like more of a jackass to eat. Maybe there's something I'm unaware of that you eat with a croquet mallet or something, but barring that, the lobster takes home the prize.

Oh, and on the subject of the little lobster-cracking instrument they give you, I think it's my responsibility to point out the dishonesty in the way people euphemistically refer to the lobster's hard outer layer as its "shell." It's not a shell. A turtle has a shell.
A lobster is a bug, and as such it has an exoskeleton.

So now you see the reasons why I JUST DON'T GET why people love to eat lobsters.
But I do have a pretty strong theory.

See, it has to do with what people mean when they say lobster dinners are "fine" dining.
In the olden times, lobsters were abundant and cheap in New England, and people didn't much care for them. I mean, yeah, they ate them because they were hungry, but they weren't kidding themselves--They knew they were just staving off death by taking sustenance from a giant bug.
In fact, I've heard tell that poor New Englanders considered it a form of persecution if they were made to eat lobsters more than once a week.

But nowadays, lobsters aren't just hideous giant bugs. They're expensive giant bugs.
And when you really get right down to it, what is "fine" dining at the end of the day? It's just expensive dining. People like to eat lobsters simply because they have to spend so much money to get them.
It's the same psychology that underlay the infamous "flush your Rolex down the toilet" craze that swept America's yuppies during the 80s.

So, let me just conclude by saying that, if you really think that a lobster dinner at your local seafood slophouse is an elegant repast, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you, and I guarantee it will set you back a fortune.

I pretty much never write anything about politics in this journal, and there's a good reason for that.
If I wrote about my political beliefs, no one would agree with me. Seriously, pretty much no one. I actually have a lot of political opinions that I feel quite strongly about, and that I can defend very well with legitimate facts and with valid logical argumentation.
But I'm not gonna do that, because you idiots would still disagree with me. So let's not talk about that.

(By the way, if you want to know who's got my vote in this Presidential election, take one look at the face you see in my user photo. Sure, you can vote for a real person if you want, but don't kid yourself. My vote will make just as much of a difference as yours.)

Frankly, I think politics in the United States of America is hilarious.
I think it's hilarious that people (in both parties, thank you) can get so earnestly fired up about holding onto positions that are almost universally outrageous and silly. I think that just about all candidates for major national political offices are just plain ridiculous human beings, funnier by far than the 100 fictional characters I so famously lauded.

In election seasons like this, people rally behind these candidates as if they were Hollywood celebrities, and the truth of the matter is that, in the cultural climate we have in this country in this century, that's pretty much what they are.
Sure, people always act like it's all about the issues, but hell, listen for yourselves. How much of what gets said by "political analysts" is about issues? Very, very little.

Just look at what almost everyone is talking about lately. What's the number-one "issue"?
It's Sarah Palin.

Yes, Governor Sarah Palin of the great state of Alaska is damn close to the only political subject anyone wants to talk about.
I've got news for you, gang. That is just stupid.

Sarah Palin is running for the office of vice president of the United States. We might as well be debating over who's going to win the election for burgermeister of Sombertown.
If you're really going to base your vote even in part on who's running for vice president, then you've lost your mind. Really, you're psychotic. I'd rather you didn't vote.
(But please don't let me stop you; I don't have that authority. If I did, very few people would vote.)

And of course I know that you all have "very rational" reasons for caring who the vice president is. When I bring it up, almost everyone's response is some kind of joke like the following: "Well gee-whiz, she's only running for vice president, but heck! She'll only be one cardiac arrest away from the Oval Office! Golly day!"

HAW HAW HAW!

Good one! Yeah, that John McCain is such an old geezer! I heard he once ran against Abe Lincoln! I heard his social security number is 1! I heard...

That's enough.
Yeah, fine, he's an old man. I kind of doubt he's going to die in office, though. And if you're hedging your bet based on that scenario, you're still psychotic.
Seriously, try to give that response and not mean it as a joke. When someone asks you why you're interested in the vice-presidential race, look them in the eye and say you predict that John McCain has less than four years to live. Don't laugh when you say it.

The way I see it, being elected vice president is like being chosen as understudy for the lead in your high school production of Guys and Dolls.
Yeah, there is technically a chance that the guy playing Sky Masterson will get the flu the weekend of the performance, and if that happens, you've got a great part.
But really, the odds are overwhelming that he's not gonna get sick. And that means, in all likelihood, that the guy playing "GAMBLER #4" has a bigger role than you.

All that said, I think Sarah Palin is a scream.
But as I've already said, pretty much every high-profile politician cracks me up. She's a little funnier than most, mainly because she acts like she's eight years old, but I really can't figure out what the big deal is.

Anyway, I would never vote for her. But I would never vote for any of those jokers, so no big surprise here.

I'm all Advil!

Gee, I used to get a different pain-reliever for every kind of pain! I had a pain-reliever for my ankles, a different one for my back, a different one for my head...

And then I realized that THAT IS RIDICULOUS.

No one in the world buys a separate pain-reliever for every one of those things! I was never even aware that all these separate pain-relievers exist! What world are these advertisers living in?

Advil isn't unique because it relieves pain in all your body parts at the same time. Every single over-the-counter pain-reliever that I've ever encountered does that! That's the standard for pain-relievers!

Yeah, so when I had an ache in my right knee, I went to unimaginable lengths to locate an analgesic that exclusively affects the right knee. When nothing turned up, it suddenly occurred to me that I could just take the same damn thing I take for headaches, because THEY'RE ALL THE SAME.

Is everybody asleep at the wheel in these advertising companies?!
Hey, here's another big secret--Advil is exactly the same cheap crap as the Walgreen's brand ibuprofen that costs less than half as much and has identical effects!

That commercial makes me furious.

Fred Savage grows up, becomes Daniel Stern

HOLLYWOOD, Calif.

It's the moment fans of the popular sitcom The Wonder Years have been awaiting for many years, as actor Fred Savage recently transformed into Daniel Stern.

"We all knew it was just a matter of time," said Savage's Years co-star Dan Lauria. "I'm proud of Fred. I knew one day he'd become Daniel, and I'm just glad I can say I knew him when."

Not all of Savage's co-workers are quite as enthusiastic. Bob Brush, who executive-produced the show for most of its five-season run, thinks that Savage's acting career "can only hurt" as a result of this development.

"It's not that Daniel Stern isn't a good actor," said Brush. "We all loved Dan in City Slickers and Home Alone 2: Lost in New York, and we're even willing to give him a break on Bushwhacked, but the fact is, Fred's career was pretty slow already, and I just don't see how this could help."

Brush added that, while Stern's voice is easily recognizable, "he just doesn't have Fred's boyish face. Most people are going to see him and just think of Marv."

Savage/Stern himself was unavailable for comment, as he recently started filming on a project starring the kid from Smart Guy. One more of his co-stars managed to put a word in, however.

"A word of caution to Fred Savage," said Josh Saviano, who played Savage's best friend Paul on The Wonder Years. "I wish him the best, but I want to remind him that I took a lot of hell when I turned into Marilyn Manson."

Associated Press

OUTER SPACE: The Worst Place in the Universe

Man, I hate outer space. It has got absolutely nothing good going for it.
I'm sick of hearing nonsensical positive spin from outer space apologists who aren't willing to man up to the cold hard facts: Outer space sucks, and planet earth rules.

When I was a kid, like probably every other kid, I thought outer space seemed really cool. I used to go to the library about a hundred times a day just to take out books about planets and moons and the sun. And well, I guess I can't blame myself for my fascination.

Outer space certainly is fascinating; my point is just that it sucks.
I don't really think I should have to, but I'm prepared to defend this position and explain exactly what's so awful about space:

1. There's no air.
Well, I think that's pretty important. I breathe air on a daily basis. I think all you outer space enthusiasts will admit you have to think twice about going somewhere where you aren't allowed to breathe. And yes, I know they have air in the International Space Station and inside their tiny little space shuttles and all of those other monstrosities, but frankly, that's not good enough for me. I like to live in a world where I know there's enough air to go around and I'm not under any threat of running out of it.

2. You can't go outside.
This is a big one too. Imagine the smallest apartment or dorm room you've ever lived in. Now imagine that it's even smaller, and you're sharing it with two or three other people. Now imagine that you can never step outside the room even for a second.
Again, I know there are exceptions to this. I know you technically can go outside the space shuttle, provided you're wearing a cumbersome, ugly-looking suit that has oxygen in it and that can protect you from the extreme temperatures and gamma radiation in space. Great. That's really terrific. I guess that makes it all better, right? You can go outside after all, just as long as you're willing to put on a suit that makes you look ridiculous, and you have no problem placing your unwavering faith in the structural integrity of that suit. Remember--if the suit should happen to tear, just consult problem number one to see what you're up against.

3. The food sucks.
Do you know what astronauts eat? I sure don't. I've seen the awful "ice cream" things that you can buy, which are supposed to be just like outer space food. Well, if that's the best they've got, you can count me out right now. Those things look disgusting. And everyone knows they drink a lot of Tang up there in space. I hate Tang. I especially hate those stupid orangutans they had on the commercials.
Don't get me wrong; orangutans are cool animals. They just don't really instill confidence when they're shown in association with something that I'm supposed to ingest.

4. There's no gravity.
You know what's a beautiful thing about life on earth? When you jump up, you fall back down. That sure is something you can take for granted.
Some people think that being weightless is like flying. It's not. What Superman does is cool; what astronauts are forced to do by conditions beyond their control is absolutely uncool. Just give ten seconds' thought to what it would be like not to have gravity.
Walking is out of the question, needless to say. So is lying down. So are all the other activities we know and love from life on earth.
Then again, none of this matters, because even if there were gravity, there would still be no ground.

5. Apollo 13.
Overrated movie. Tom Hanks really isn't all that great.

I could go on here, but I don't have the energy.
I think it should suffice to say, as I often do without qualification, that outer space is the worst place in the universe. And that includes the moon.
It's hard to believe how much time and money they spent in landing on that piece of garbage. For zero percent of the cost, they could have stayed right here on earth! I know there was a space race going on, but all that really proves is that the Russians were just as stupid.
(Then again, Russia is pretty cold, so maybe outer space doesn't seem as awful from their perspective.)

Of course, there are crackpots who will tell you that the moon landing was a hoax.
Nothing but wishful thinking. It would sure be great if it had been a hoax, but I don't think we could ever be so lucky. All I can say is, thank God they had the sense to come back.

THE BEST MOVIE EVER MADE (vol. 3)

BATMAN 2

First of all, let's dispense with the silly formalities. Some people call this movie The Dark Knight, but I prefer to call it by a much more fitting name, Batman 2, it being the sequel, after all, to the 2005 film Batman 1.

I think I can come right out and say it. This is not only the best Batman movie, but the best superhero movie, period, that has ever been made. It narrowly edges out Spider-Man 2 and Iron Man for this honor.

Having said that, I feel like I should qualify it by comparing the three movies more closely, to demonstrate in what ways this movie is better.

Let's start with something obvious: How much ass does the main character kick in the movie?
Well, this is a tough one. I think it's a safe call that Iron Man kicks more ass than either Spider-Man or Batman, but this is biased in his favor, because he has a gold-titanium alloy robo-suit. As for Spider-Man, he has no robot suit, but he does have super-strength and spider-sense. It's only fair to give Batman extra points because he's the only one who relies almost entirely on his own wits to kick ass. Therefore, we should just let this stand as a tie.

Second criterion: Which movie has the coolest explosions?
I'm gonna have to give this to Batman, hands-down. Iron Man had some good explosions, particularly when the arc reactor blew up at the end, but in Batman there's stuff blowing up all over the place! Especially when the Joker took out a whole building. You don't even wanna mess around with a movie like this.

Point number three: How bad will the super-villain kill you if he catches you?
This one can only fairly go to Spider-Man. Yeah, I agree that the Joker is scarier than Dr. Octopus, but if you had a choice between getting captured by either one of them, you can't seriously tell me you'd pick Doc Ock. You'd have to be MENTAL to pick him. The Joker might cut your face with a knife, okay, but Doc Ock has FOUR GIANT METAL ARMS that he can use to annihilate you and everything you ever cared about. You do NOT want to get on this man's bad side. Just take it from me.

Last but not least: Which movie had the best depiction of third-degree burns to the face?
Batman.

So the winner by a tight margin is Batman 2. It's got everything you could possibly want from a movie. Batman, Commissioner Gordon, Harvey Two-Face, the Joker, Alfred...
Yeah, Alfred's pretty bad-ass too. For an old man, he's probably about the equivalent of James Bond and Vin Diesel put together and bitten by a mutant spider and shot with gamma rays. So if you don't think Alfred is that tough, be my guest and tell him that.

And Alfred is the LEAST powerful of these great men. So if even he could beat the hell out of you, just imagine what would happen if Batman, Commissioner Gordon, and Harvey Dent all teamed up against you.
This is what you're up against. So, just a little bit of friendly advice, I would recommend going to see the movie.

RATING: 50 stars out of 5

Oh, by the way, the Incredible Hulk will beat your ass even worse, but I forgot to do a review of his movie when it came out. It would have probably gotten about infinity stars--that's how strong he is.

What's the matter with Kansas?

The story of Clark Kent as a teenager, before he takes on the mantle of the Man of Steel? How could you go wrong?

Oh, you could go wrong.

But I don't want to be too critical of Smallville. It happens to be--all things considered--one of my favorite TV shows. I own all six of the as-yet-released DVD sets, and I have every intention of maintaining my collection... provided Wal-Mart puts them back on the dirt-cheap rack, priced at 20 bucks a season.

So what is the matter with Kansas?

The show started out great. The very first episode won me as a viewer (not a hard task for a TV show about a super-hero, but still good news), and the rest of the first season was at least above average. Some people would criticize the show for its "villain-of-the-week" format, but I object to those objections. I loved all the ill-explained, nonsensical super-villains they managed to concoct for those early episodes. It was a little ridiculous that every single bad-guy in town seemed to be a high school student, but that's ok. There will be time later for Clark to fight grown-ups.

Then they tried to make things more complicated for season two. Obviously they were running a little low on ideas for ways evil high school students might gain super-powers from Kryptonite, and besides, too much of the same thing is dull.
All in all, I think they did just fine with that season. They even managed to draw Christopher Reeve into the story, which is always fun to see.

Then that season ended with probably the coolest storyline they've made up so far. After Clark screwed around with the ghost of Jor-El of Krypton (Superman's biological father for you brainless idiots who aren't obsessed with super-heroes) one time too many, jeopardizing his family's safety, he decided to turn to Red Kryptonite to ease his guilt.
This resulted in a "teenaged" Clark Kent (Tom Welling was 26) under the evil effects of Red Kryptonite, turning his super-gifts into a life of crime in Metropolis.

That was pretty great. It was totally unexpected, but in a good way. This is the kind of unpredictability audiences like. It doesn't entail any out-of-the-blue story changes; it's unpredictable, but decidedly not unbelievable.
Sadly, that was not to be for long.

They made their third season a lot more heavy and "dark" than the others had been, but it was still an entertaining TV show about a young Superman, in the days before the cape.

So what in the hell HAPPENED the next year?
It really defies comprehension. Out of NOWHERE, they introduce an uninteresting, annoying, totally expendable new character, Jason, and his equally unnecessary mother, Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman.

But here's the really great part. Are you ready for this?
Jason and Jason's mom are really just part of a convoluted, embarrassingly stupid story-arc where Lana Lang is possessed by a 17th-century witch.

I have no words for that.

WHY in the name of God would you decide that a hit TV show about young Superman needs to have its female lead turn into a witch? Why? Why would that be a good idea? Why why why why? It's not right. It's just not acceptable. It's wrong. It's sick. It's not okay.
Maybe we should take as a glimpse into the story editors' diseased psyche an episode where Lana, Chloe Sullivan, and Lois Lane (who, by the way, shouldn't even BE in the show--Clark isn't supposed to meet Lois until he goes to Metropolis to work at the Daily Planet) all turn into 17th-century bitches.
(I mean witches, I guess.)
So yeah, three young sexy women in a network TV drama, all using magic spells and making woefully unfunny jokes. What does that remind you of? Perhaps THIS unforgivable catastrophe?

Okay, so that season really staggers to its end, where Clark ends up building his Fortress of Solitude.
Uh, wait a second. Isn't Clark Kent supposed to turn into Superman once he builds his Fortress of Solitude? That's sure as hell what happened in the movie, as well as every version of the comics I'm familiar with. So why isn't it happening here?
Clearly it's not happening because the show's creators swore that they would never actually depict Superman in the series. Well, that's fine. I don't expect or want them to. But if they don't want to depict Superman, then they'd damn well better not depict the Fortress of Solitude! Or Lois, for that matter.
Or, for Christ's sake, GENERAL ZOD?!

That's right. In season 5, Clark meets General Zod and his gang. Remember them? If you've seen Superman II, you should.
But if these guys were the antagonists from the SECOND Superman movie, doesn't it stand to reason that Superman ought to be well-established by the time they show their ugly (but actually pretty badass) heads?

All right, I guess it's fair to object that I should be a little less hostile to this. After all, my main complaint about the whole debacle with Lana becoming a witch was that it is so horribly out of place in a Superman show. General Zod, on the other hand, has every reason to be in a Superman show.
Truth be told, I'm a little ambivalent about this one. It is cool to see them incorporating villains and ancillary characters from the comics (also including J'onn J'onnz, Milton Fine, Bizarro, and even the Flash and Aquaman--yeah, he's still due a thrashing; I'm getting to it), but I can't help being annoyed that they're bringing these people in while Clark is still "young" (Tom Welling is actually 31, as old as Christopher Reeve was in the third Superman movie). Clark Kent isn't supposed to fight these people; Superman is. If they don't want to include Superman, they shouldn't be including any of those characters either.
Frustratingly, despite my immensely trusted opinion, they're only going further down the same road, with Doomsday slated to appear next season.

Oh, and here's some even more hilarious news. Michael Rosenbaum, who plays Lex Luthor, won't be a permanent cast member anymore.
I have no idea what they're planning to do about that.

That's about enough. I don't know why I'm possessed to go on and on about this show anyway. I guess it's mainly just that I do like it, as much as I like Superman in general, and so it bothers me to see it going downhill.

But what's REALLY the matter with Kansas?
Lana Lang and that damn witch. THAT was inexcusable.

The Kryptonite ceiling

Remember this classic character from the annals of really great popular culture icons?

This is Wonder Woman. And the degree to which she sucks is really the stuff of legend.

First let me tell you something about Dr. William Moulton Marston. He was a famous psychologist, who created Wonder Woman some years after his development of a key component in the polygraph machine. Sounds like a real winner, huh? The inventor of a useless lie detector also invented the polygraph.
Oh yeah, he also lived in some kind of love nest with his wife and a woman named Olive.

For some reason Marston was a firm believer in the educational value of comics, and so he wanted to invent a character who was a lover, not a fighter, and his wife suggested that the character would have to be a woman.
Thus it was that Diana Prince staggered into the world.

I find it kind of entertaining that Marston hadn't had the idea of making Wonder Woman a woman until his wife suggested it. I had always assumed that Wonder Woman is a woman because they really thought it would be in their interest to publish a female superhero comic.
I mean, God, what else has she got going for her? She's not as strong as Superman, she's not mysterious like Batman, she doesn't have a gimmick as memorable as Green Lantern's ring, and Aquaman...
Let's call that one a tie, actually. (I'll get to him another time.)

I think it's safe to say that had Wonder Woman instead been Wonder Man, he wouldn't have seen the light of his tenth anniversary, much less his 60th (with a 70th close approaching).
Wonder Woman is so unspeakably lame that the sheer novelty of being a woman in a world filled to the breaking point with super-men is her one and only hook.

All right, you say, so I talk a big game, but what's so lame about Wonder Woman?

Well, first off, what the hell is she wearing? Not that most superheroes of those days had particularly stylish outfits, but this is a little much, isn't it? Why does she have stars all over her body? Why is she wearing some kind of weird bathing suit?
(A lot of people claim that it's sexist the way comic book women are all so scantily clad, but I don't really think that's necessarily true, given that even comic book men leave precious little to the imagination. So if they're appealing to horny guys, they must at least be appealing a little bit to horny women--or horny gay guys.)

And let's consider Wonder Woman's super-powers.
For one thing, she has a magical lasso that makes you tell the truth. (This is why I called Wonder Woman a "useless lie detector," for those who didn't get that sterling witticism.) That's pretty stupid, right? I'm not out of line saying that that's idiotic, am I?

And here's another classic. Superman can fly, but Wonder Woman has an invisible plane. I'll let Wikipedia explain this:
Wonder Woman used an invisible airplane that could be mentally controlled. It was variously described as being either a creation of Amazon technology or the legendary winged horse Pegasus transformed into an aircraft. Its appearance varied as well, originally having a propeller and later being drawn as a jet aircraft, resembling a fighter plane.

Makes you wonder how they managed to draw an invisible airplane at all.
I know this isn't really a super-power, but it certainly is stupid.

She also makes use of a pair of indestructible armbands that she can use to deflect bullets or "energy blasts, including multi-vector attacks" (your guess is as good as mine on what that means).
Well, okay, this is a little bit of an improvement. That sounds like it could be of some kind of practical use. But why are they armbands? Why can't she have a bulletproof breastplate instead? Wouldn't that be vastly more effective?
Thank God Wonder Woman can't be injured by Tommy-gunfire or multi-vector energy blasts directed at her wrists.

Needless to say, Wonder Woman is pretty damn strong. And that's perfectly fine. I have no objection to this super-power. Quite frankly, I think it would have been much cooler to make that her only super-power (along with its standard company of super-speed and invulnerability), but no, I guess that would be too violent for Dr. Marston.
So instead let's have a comic book about a woman who can make people tell the truth by tying them up, is immune to all projectiles as long as her wrist intervenes, flies around in an invisible airplane (that really sounds like a joke, doesn't it?), and very occasionally makes use of her super-strength.

Wonder Woman was (tragically) the first "great" female superhero, and to this day she's the only one most people can think of, save for a couple of select girls out of the enormous cast of the X-men.
And it's equally tragic that, save for those same couple of X-men, pretty much all super-women are just as lame as Wonder Woman, and most are just girl versions of already-existing male heroes. Think about it: You've got Supergirl, Batgirl, the She-Hulk...

So what went wrong? Why do female superheroes have such a hard time at not sucking?
I'm sure there are plenty of reasons for it. Most comic book fans are guys, after all, and they probably find it easier to sympathize with men.
But good lord.

Forget the glass ceiling. There is no greater insult to women than the She-Hulk.

Still, I can't close without mentioning that I do rather enjoy the 1970s Wonder Woman TV show, but that's in spite of, not because of, its main character.

The world of books!
Have you ever wanted to be a pirate? Or an astronaut? Or a cowboy? Or a princess?

Have you ever wanted to travel to far-off lands, meet mysterious people, see and do things you never even dreamed of?

Well, you can!
All this and more is yours in the wonderful world of books! All you have to do is open up a book, and suddenly you're halfway around the world!

That's the power of reading!
...Provided you have a very tenuous grasp on reality.

Why in the hell do teachers and educational media constantly drag out this same ridiculous line every time they want to promote child literacy? Does any kid honestly believe that reading about pirates is the same as being a pirate?
Of course not. It's absurd.

I would really like to know exactly what interest group is behind this tripe. Is the children's publishers lobby putting the screws to our legislators and school boards to fund this campaign? Surely they wouldn't be that stupid. Besides, they know full-well that the garbage they publish is going to find an audience.

I mean, yeah, I know that literacy is very important, and yes, it is definitely necessary to find some way to motivate kids to read. But I have two objections to this method of motivation:
1) It's stupid, and
2) It can't possibly work!

I've really tried to get into the heads of people who spew this propaganda, and I just can't find my way. What in the name of God do they think they're accomplishing?
What's the goal? What is ideally supposed to result from this nonsense?
Are kids supposed to go to their local Barnes and Noble and buy up the entire "juvenile trash" section?

I hope that this tirade doesn't prompt anyone to think that I somehow object to reading. That would be stupid. I read stuff all the time, but when I do it, it's not because some boneheaded teacher told me at age eight that it would take me to new worlds, or that children's literature is the equivalent of mind-altering drugs.
No, I read books because I'm interested in whatever the hell the book is about. This actually works out remarkably well. And when I was a kid, I did the exact same thing.

All right, I know that lots of kids just aren't interested in reading. And so I've got something to say that's sure going to ruffle some feathers:

WHO CARES IF KIDS WANT TO READ OR NOT?

They don't really have a choice, do they? Their elementary school classes force them to read that Beverly Cleary bilge, just like they force them to do all sorts of other things that the kids (rightfully) object to as useless!
So the kids don't want to read in their spare time. Who could blame them? It's bad enough to be required to read 300 pages of James and the Giant Peach and Shoebag a month for school.

Okay, okay, I know I'm being a little harsh on elementary schools, but I think it's safer to err in that direction, rather than exonerate them for all the time they wasted from our young lives.
That said, yes, there is substantial value in making kids read lots of books. Knowing how to read for comprehension is an absolute necessity for any kind of higher education, and it certainly makes everyday life easier even if you don't go to college.
So yeah, banging kids over the head with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is (at least in part) for their own good.

But why can't the teachers just say that?
I mean, when you were a kid, and you asked your second-grade teacher why you needed to know how to carry the 4 in an addition problem, what did she say?
Did she say that carrying that 4 opens doors to whole new worlds of exciting and magical numerical wonders? Of course not. She said that knowing the basics of math were going to make it easier for you to function as an adult (or some kid-talk variation on that). And she was being completely honest with you.

So if a kid asks why he has to read the next chapter of Where the Red Fern Grows by Monday, what's wrong with just telling him the truth?
What's wrong with just saying that literacy and reading comprehension are going to make it easier for him to function as an adult?

I don't know about the rest of the adult world, but I remember being a kid. And I sure don't remember being an idiot.

THE BEST MOVIE EVER MADE (vol. 2)

INDIANA JONES and the KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL

I didn't really intend to make another volume of The Best Movie Ever Made so soon, but I just couldn't delay writing about Indy any longer.

I don't really think I need to explain to you why I'm honoring this movie with such an accolade. Indiana Jones may be past the age of mandatory retirement, but this movie proves that his ability to kick your ass has not in the least bit diminished over the last 20 years.
And if you think I would dare to consider for even a moment to deny this great man his dues, you're completely mental.

Let me explain something about Indiana Jones.
He can swing across chasms with a bull-whip. That's not even what whips are for, but he does it all the time. He also knocks Nazis and Soviets out of moving vehicles at a staggering rate. I dare say that no other archaeologist in the history of modern scholarship has slain an equal number of scoundrels as Indiana Jones.

A lot of people's initial reaction to this movie is a disappointed one, since they feel that the fantasy elements have departed too much from the way they were in the original trilogy.
Well, those critics speak at their own risk--foolishly, if you ask me. I would never say anything negative about a man who can survive a nuclear explosion by hiding in a refrigerator.

But that's just me.

RATING: 10 stars out of 10
(I would have said 5 out of 5, but I'm not taking any chances with that bull-whip.)

THE BEST MOVIE EVER MADE (vol. 1)

IRON MAN

Well, sorry it took so long for this expert review to make it onto my journal. I kept putting it off, but then I saw that someone had given Iron Man four stars out of five on a Facebook review (A Facebook review? Why does that exist?), so I decided that something needed to be done.

Four stars out of five? Four stars? What kind of a pathetic, pansy little review is that? You don't give a movie like this FOUR stars out of five and then just go on writing without so much as offering Tony Stark an apology. I have to say, the girl who posted this review does show some guts, because she's going to have some explaining to do one of these days.
I would never make such a foolish, easily avoided mistake.

Iron Man is the Best Movie Ever Made (vol. 1) for a very simple reason. Tony Stark will obliterate you if you say otherwise. He has a giant robot suit made of gold titanium alloy. Go ahead and try to take that on. Please, really. Do it. Try to beat Iron Man in a fight.
All intelligent readers are surely scoffing at the very suggestion. We all know that if you so much as hinted that you wanted to fight the Invincible Iron Man, his repulsor rays would make short work of you. Remember what Iron Man did to those bastard terrorists? They used human shields, but his guns were able to shoot around the civilians and hit only the terrorist scum.

And these people were battle-scarred, villainous, evil terrorists. I take it you're not, so Tony would have even less trouble with you.

Now, I know what some people are saying. "No, Tony Stark is a good guy, he would never harm anyone who wasn't a terrorist or a megalomaniacal captain of industry hell-bent on world domination."
Well, you're probably right. But frankly, if Tony Stark even pretends that he's going to try to hurt you, you'll probably have a heart attack. So just forget it.

RATING: 5 stars out of 4
(Yeah, try that on for size.)

Advertisement