Pennsylvania: why did you elect Eichelberger?

This is a little dated, but I feel like I need to comment on Pennsylvania State Sen. John Eichelberger (R) statements on a June 19 radio debate. Especially seeing as I haven't heard anything about it in mainstream news.

Eichelberger, in an interview with WHYY Radio about a month ago, talked about his upcoming constitutional marriage proposal and said that gay marriage was "dysfunctional" and would eventually lead to "polygamy, marrying younger people."

But the best part was when the senator decided to add this jewel to the conversation:

"They’re not being punished. We’re allowing them to exist, and do what every American can do. We’re just not rewarding them with any special designation."

Now I'm not the biggest fan of any long-term relationship, but I've always been taught that two people who love each other have the right to have their relationship legally recognized. This, of course, gets into a sticky situation - religion VS politics.

I have also been raised to believe that marriage is a religious institution. And as much as I hate to admit it, marriage should be dictated by religion. Ergo, marriage shouldn't be a political issue whatsoever. As a supporter of the separation of church and state, marriage should be kept in the churches (or mosques, or temples) and the government (federal and state) should issue "civil unions" to peoples wanting their relationship recognized.

This results in a somewhat simple solution to the problem with the debate of gay marriage. If there is no longer a government supported religious institution, then anyone wishing to have a legal merger between two parties can have a civil union. This, in turn, leaves the religious organizations the right to include (or exclude) whomever they see fit for the "holy right" of marriage. And ultimately, people can choose they're own way to define their relationships (wife/husband or partners).

It's actually kind of funny to me. Religious organizations tout on that marriage is something dictated by God, but they are wanting it to be dictated by the government - which is about as far from God as I can imagine.

But most importantly, if we were to actually do what the Constitution exists for and SEPARATE church and state, we could keep idiots like Eichelberger from spreading unnecessary hate and ignorance that only blind-sight his constituents and piss everybody else off.

CLICK HERE to hear audio experts and see a video response from Eichelberger.

Don't use Internet for Hate

It's a pretty simple concept for the majority of technology users: don't use the Internet to hurt other people. Everybody gets angry, everybody needs to vent, and the Web gives us the ability to express our opinions in a relatively safe environment.

And everybody knows that there are certain things that we do not, under any circumstances, ever do - the most important being post personal information.

But it seems a New York social worker forgot the rules on Internet etiquette last week.

On July 3, CNN.com reported about Long Island mother Margery Tannenbaum, who allegedly posted a sexual personal ad on Craigslist.com about a 9-year-old girl.

The ad did not inform the reader that the girl was underage, but it did give her home number and e-mail address for interested men to contact the child. CNN reported that the advertisement read: "I need a little affection... I'm blond, I'm cute and I'll be waiting."

Margery Tannenbaum is a sick, demented social pariah who deserves whatever public backlash she will receive. We've already seen this behavior once before - with Lori Drew and the "MySpace Hoax" debacle that resulted in the suicide of a 13-year-old girl.

Like Drew, the situation with Tannenbaum is the same old song - her daughter and the 9-year-old victim got into a fight. To get revenge, Tannenbaum posted an ad under the personal's section of Craigslist. The victim's mother told CNN that "she received 22 calls in one day, in all around 40 calls from various men who saw the ad, including some seeking an escort service."

Drew had her misdemeanor conviction thrown out by an appellate court judge, but hopefully Tannenbaum won't get off so easily. It's time we start sending a message to "adults" who think that endangering minors is a respectable way to reap revenge.

Apparently, Tannenbaum has never heard of WhitePages.com and the "reverse lookup." Just because she only put a phone number doesn't mean that one of these men couldn't have looked up the victim's home address and showed up looking for sex.

When Tannenbaum's lawyer was questioned, he said, "I think this has been blown out of proportion to what the actual alleged act was."

Tannenbaum posted a sex ad with information leading interested suitors to a 9-year-old girl. What exactly has been blown out of proportion? How does the mind of any adult not process that posting a sex ad with personal information about someone else is not a reckless, irresponsible, immature and dangerous act?

It doesn't even matter that the girl was a minor. Posting that kind of information about anyone can lead to devastating consequences. It is an absolute breech of personal privacy and perpetrators should have any access to the Internet immediately suspended.

But then again, Tannenbaum probably doesn't think she did anything wrong, which is probably the biggest crime of all. Too bad a lack of common sense and social decency isn't punishable by law.

See the original article at: www.mtsusidelines.com (click the link, it'll take you right to the column)

Pride and Predjudice and Zombies oh my!

I've never been a fan of delivering a review for something I haven't completed, but then again, that's never stopped me.

Right now I'm reading a book called "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies: The Classic Regency Romance - Now with Ultraviolent Zombie Mayhem!" The basic gist is Seth Grahame-Smith takes Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice" and tweaks it with zombies (and the occasional ninja).

As a forewarning, I have to say that this book is absolutely hilarious. But it is only funny because I love the original. For those who skipped "Pride and Prejudice" in their sophomore English class, go back and read it. It's better than watching a marathon of reality television.

The zombie-fied version of P&P is so well put together - mostly because Grahame-Smith only changes around some words of Austen's original text and adds in a few scenes or two. Essentially, the original story is the same. The events progress in the same way. Elizabeth and Darcy eventually overcome their complicated problems and express their love to each other - they just do it while defeating a hord of zombies!

It even has artwork! In the words of our beloved former President W. "The best thing about books is sometimes there are fantastic pictures!" The artwork is amazing, but sparse. It's only there for extra amusement, but well done nonetheless.

I'll update with another entry as soon as I am done reading it. As for now, go out and find yourself a copy of "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" and get ready to laugh yourself to death - then rise once again to walk among the land of the living.

Speaking out should be a choice

On Monday morning, 20-year-old Chris Brown pleaded guilty to the Feb. 8 felony assault against 21-year-old former girlfriend Rihanna.

It was announced that Brown would go to trial in March, shortly after Rihanna was subpoenaed to testify. The estimated punishment ranged from probation minimum to four years in jail maximum.

The final outcome on Monday resulted in 180 days of community service and five years of probation for Brown. The court also administered a “complete stay away” order in which Brown and Rihanna must remain 50-feet away from each other. The only exception is at industry events where both are present. The limit is then lowered to 10-feet.

It would be nice to say the media frenzy surrounding the R&B artists is over, but we know that it won’t be until everyone hears Rihanna’s version of the events. And with Brown’s plea agreement, her subpoenaed, public-record testimony was not needed.

Before the scheduled court appearance, celebrities, media and fans alike all clamored for Rihanna’s version of what transpired. Everyone wanted to know what exactly happened.

We then started to receive details via hospital photos and police reports, but still nothing from Rihanna. And despite the fact that we know the basic premise of what happened and have seen the results, people still want Rihanna to talk.

I would like to think that this strong moral outcry comes from a need to publicize the truth about abusive relationships – but really I think the majority of people just want to hear the juicy dirt. If we were really interested in teaching people about how to prevent abuse, we would – with or without Rihanna’s testimony.

In fact, here’s a little lesson on domestic abuse. The May 2000 “Intimate Partner Violence” report by the Bureau of Justice says 20 percent of dating couples between 16 and 24-years-old report some type of violence in their relationships.

This makes Rihanna’s unfortunate situation not uncommon. But instead of trying to reach out to those one-in-five victims, we’ve too busy trying to get Rihanna to spill the gossip about what happened to her. We forget that the important lesson in this situation is starting a dialogue, not rehashing the assaulted pop star’s wounds.

Crimes like assault, rape and abuse need to be talked about – but it’s a heck of a lot easier to talk about them when we aren’t the victims. These are crimes that people – especially teenagers – need to know about, know how to spot and know how to stop. But speaking out about a personal experience as a victim should be viewed as courageous – not as a requirement.

Maybe Rihanna will eventually talk about what happened to her – and hopefully inspire others to stand up and talk about their experiences. But she should also be allowed the opportunity to heal in her own way before she is comfortable enough to relay her experiences with others.

One less distraction for drivers

I've got terrible road rage. I blame my father. He has it too.

Over the years, I've tried to fight the urge to yell at drivers who can't hear me, chase drivers who cut me off and deliver a well-placed middle finger to drivers who piss me off. I'm usually good about not doing the last two, although I can't seem to curb my appetite to yell obscenities at people who obviously slept through driver's ed.

But thanks to the Tennessee General Assembly, there's one less thing drivers can now do to insight my road rage. Gov. Phil Bredesen signed the "texting while driving" bill into law early last month. It prohibits a person from writing or reading text messages while driving a vehicle.

Like any good legislation, there are people who are above the law. Exemptions include police officers and medical workers - when both are "in the actual discharge of their official duties."

The law does not apply to people who are in a vehicle when it is not moving. So if you wanted to text it up with a friend, make sure you do it at a stoplight. Entering a telephone number to call someone is also allowed. So texting is bad, but flipping through your contact list is a-OK.

Tennessee is not the first state to take a stance against cell phones on the road. Many other states actually prohibit the use of cell phones while driving all together. Some prohibit handhelds, but allow speakers and headsets. Comparatively, Tennessee is actually pretty chill on cell phones and driving.

While flipping through coverage on the texting and driving legislation, two sides became very clear. One thinks the legislation is unnecessary. Tennessee already has a "driving while distracted" law that allows officers to ticket someone who is obviously impaired - perhaps by a text message.

The second group applauds legislatures for protecting our roads - one less evil to distract people while operating a 5,000-pound death machine.

Honestly, I just think it's a sad day when we have to make common sense law. I've texted and driven - on empty roads with no one around or while sitting in traffic. Texting while driving is dangerous if you put yourself in a dangerous situation.

It has gotten to a point where people seem more preoccupied with doing everything but driving in their cars. I've seen everything from eating morning breakfast to putting on makeup. On one occasion I saw a woman driving with her knees so she could text.

Technology is amazing, but we are starting to use it more like an idiocracy rather than a society full of intelligent individuals. It takes very little effort to visualize the negative ramifications of texting while driving - just think about ramming your car into a tree at 70 mph.

But for those who still want to text and drive - fear not. The law does not take effect until July 1. So enjoy your last month of being able to text and drive without a $50 ticket.

ORIGINALLY POSTED: www.mtsusidelines.com on June 3, 2009.

Watchmen amazes; perfectly portrays graphic novel

“The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout ‘Save Us!’

“…and I’ll look down, and whisper, ‘No.’”

And so opens Watchmen, based on the graphic novel by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. The character Rorschach delivers the above lines about fifteen minutes into the movie and the theme resonates through the remaining two hours.

Seeing Watchmen on opening night was one of the most enjoyable movie-going experiences I’ve had in a while. Spectacular is only slightly befitting of a description.

The movie excels in all aspects.

Character development is the shining beacon of this movie. The story mainly concentrates on six characters: Jon Osterman (Dr. Manhattan); Dan Dreiberg (Night Owl); Adrian Veidt (Ozymandias); Laurie Jupiter (Silk Spectre); and Edward Blake (The Comedian).

Six characters and only about two hours are allotted to properly develop those six plus a plethora of supporting characters. And yet, the story moves seamlessly, providing expediential growth, changes and insights into all the characters – even The Comedian whose death sparks the movie.

Cinematography was beautiful. There were times that I looked at the screen and felt like I was reading the graphic novel. The scene when Dr. Manhattan is standing on Mars with the starlit sky background was one of the best shots in the entire film.

As with any superhero movie, fight scenes can be difficult. Too much and it becomes cheesy. Too little and it becomes stagnant. The greatest weapons used by the superheroes were their actual talent as fighters. In fact, the only real character with any supernatural power is actually Dr. Manhattan. Fight scenes were intricate but to the point. Sound effects were modest but still gave the air of traditional crime noir.

I won’t get into the deeper meanings of the story and characters, but it is worth noting that I left the theater dissecting and examining Moore and Gibbson’s creation equally as much as when I read the novel version. But as I said, I’m not going to discuss the metaphorical meanings in this review.

But the best thing about Watchmen is that it stays true to the original comic.

In fact, the only thing that unfortunately omitted is background information provided in depth about the particular universe that the world resides in.

The only particular plot-hole I found somewhat distracting is Richard Nixon runs holds the president’s office for five terms during the span of the movie. Term legislation was passed during the time of Franklin Roosevelt and limits a person to only two consecutive terms in office.

Overall, I would definitely splurge on the outrageous and overpriced fees of the local movie theater to see it again. But a word of warning, if you do not like the crime noir genre of superhero fantasy – do not see this movie.

It is not a requirement that you read the book, you will understand everything that is going on. But I highly recommend picking up a copy and reading it when you can. Like I said earlier, it help to fill in some of those slight plot-holes.

Before wrapping up, a few interesting things to note: when I said they stayed true to the book, I do mean that Dr. Manhattan does appear nude in a number of scenes. By the end of the movie, you are used to seeing the computer-animated penis graphed onto the glowing blue body.

Another thing, the credits are wonderful but there is no “special” scene at the end of the movie. If you are waiting through the credits to see an extra – don’t. It isn’t there.

As I give Watchmen a 10 out of 10, I leave you with these final words from Dr. Manhattan:

“But the world is so full of people, so crowded with these miracles that they become commonplace and we forget – I forget. We gaze continually at the world and it grows dull in our perceptions. Yet seen from another’s vantage point, as if new, it may still take our breath away.”

Human teeth found in Walmart accessory

According to the Associated Press, a man shopping in a Falmouth, Mass. Walmart found teeth in a wallet.

The man was looking to purchase the pocket accessory but upon unzipping a compartment, he found the ten adult teeth. According to officials, the man turned over the teeth and wallet to store employees and then left the scene.

The AP writes: "Police investigating the incident told The Cape Cod Times that the teeth belong to an adult, but since there was no blood or gum tissue on the teeth, they would be unable to perform DNA tests."

Walmart spokespersons have said that the incident is "isolated" but will investigate.

I guess you really CAN buy anything at Walmart, whether you want to or not.