Review: Akira (1988)

Classic movies do not come about too often. Classic movies are the ones that belong in your DVD collection. Katsuhiro Otomo's Akira is certainly one of them. Now, the year is currently 2009. This astounding masterpiece was made in 1988. This is perhaps one of the most advanced movies for its time. This gem has it all; action, thrills, a great story, great music, and a deep meaning throughout.

This is set many years after Tokyo had been destroyed by an unknown force that consequently began WWIII. Tokyo has been rebuilt and is now refuge to cults, bike gangs, etc. Shotaro is the leader of the bike gang that is prevalent throughout the movie.


Without giving too much away, it is a classic story about an older friend and a younger friend who begin to have issues with each other as they get older. The younger friend, Tetsuo, is sick and tired of his older friend, Shotaro, saving him when he is in trouble. He wants to be able to take care of himself without any help at all. Later on, he develops powers and is somehow connected with Akira, a powerful being that has been locked away by scientists many years ago. The music is fantastic and as I mentioned before, the visuals are spectacular for 1988 and still hold up pretty well in 2009.

The manga version of Akira had much more information that could be shown in the movie. The movie was forced to jam everything together early in order to support the plot. This was my main issue with it, but overall its still a very enjoyable movie. This contains some nudity. It’s a definite watch in my opinion, one of few classic anime movies to ever come out. 10/10

Review: Spirited Away (2001)

One of my many interests is anime. I've watched them since the days of Pokemon and Dragon Ball Z. However now days I prefer a more serious form of anime, along the lines of Elfen Lied. Serious, cerebral, and contreversial anime draws me in like a misquito to a bug light.

Recently, I watched a few anime movies. (Don't ask where I got them) Here's what I thought on the first:

Spirited Away
Directed by Hayao Miyazak

This movie is about a little girl who goes on a journey of self-discovery. It begins with her in the backseat of her parent's car. They are apparently moving to a new community. Her father is driving, and goes up to a mysterious tunnel. The little girl, Chihiro, is apprehensive as to what dangers might be in this tunnel. In a strange sequence of events, they all discover an old abandoned theme park. The two parents find a stand that has hot food and begin to eat viscously. Once again, Chihiro is apprehensive and does not eat with her parents.

From there, the story goes into an 'Alice in Wonderland' type journey. I won't give away anymore of the plot, but what I will say is that this was an excellent film, especially for the light-hearted humor and subliminal messages throughout.

The biggest problem with this anime is the same with Alice in Wonderland; it's hard to follow at certain points. It can be very frustrating to not be able understand what is going on, especially when you invest time to watch the movie. One other issue that I had was the music. The tunes in Spirited Away are sub-par at best. Perhaps I'm just use to masterpieces from anime's like Cowboy Bebop, but I digress.

This movie's strength is obviously the creative imagination of Hayao Miyazak. Some of the scenes were absolutely breathtaking in their beauty and originality. I only wish he could have figured out a way to meld this creativity into a more concise, understandable plot. Nonetheless, the movie is very interesting and easy on the eyes as far as picture goes.

Overall, this movie is about a 9/10. Those with open, imaginative minds will want to see this for sure. For children, I recommend 100%. If you are neither of those, give it a try anyway. You may be surprised.

*Up next, the review of the anime thriller "Akira".

Feminism’s Effect on Dating, Marriage

*Note*: Of course feminism is not responsible for EVERYTHING wrong with marriage and society today. I am writing under the assumption that people who read this are fair minded individuals that respect opinions even if they disagree with them. This is how I see it. If you have a different opinion, thats fine with me, I have no problem with it.

If you talk to any sociologist, they will all agree that feminism is responsible for breaking up the traditional, stable family. Whether or not this was for the benefit of women is up for debate. I would argue that destroying families is worse than the grievances of women at the time.

Back then, there were virtually no divorces. Today, divorces are the norm. Statistically, women are the ones who initiate the divorce most of the time.

Back then, there was less of a chance that a woman would cheat. Women were faithful and gave themselves to their husbands. They actually could cook, unlike now days. I've never met a girl who could cook. So back then it made sense because women would actually stay with them.

Many feminists claim that they do allow men to pay for them on dates. Well, while most women who identify as feminist benefit from the equality and specific laws protecting women, they have not given up the custom that men should pay for them. So they keep the benefits of feminism, but don’t give up what is necessary for them to become truly equal.

There is less of a reason for a man to do all these things for women. Think about the dating process:

1. The man must approach the woman who he has never met. This takes courage and confidence. He must be completely over himself and willing to lower his value and self-esteem. Right off the bat, he is in the L column.

2. He must say the right things, and be interesting enough for her to give him the number. She could just use him for free drinks, who knows. If he is good enough to her pleasing, he may get the number.

(So far, she has contributed absolutely nothing. Standing there looking pretty does not count. And he must do the most in terms of contributing to the conversation, such as figuring out topics to talk about and what-not. She certainly is not going to do anything that would make her seem too interested. She will only help the conversation along, so she can further judge the man.)

3. He must call at the perfect time. If he calls to early, she'll think he's a stalker and tell all her friends that he is a "creepy" stalker weirdo.

(So far, she still has contributed nothing)

4. The date. He drives her around in his car, on his dime. He pays for movie tickets. He pays for dinner. All the while, he must be on his A game and say the right things. He can't be too boring and can't be too aggressive.

(She has contributed nothing. A stuck up, selfish woman might say something like "Well just my presence alone is enough." This is how some women think, I have heard them say it myself)

5. Sex, or a kiss. After all he did, he is still expected to initiate the kiss or sex. Of course, he must do this at the right time for HER and to HER liking. Its all about HER pleasure. If its sex, he is expected to have protection with him.

(This is where she finally contributes something. She sleeps with him. But does this mean she has actually matched what he sacrificed? No. In fact, this doesn't even count, because sex benefits both men and women. So she still hasn't done any independent thing on her part to contribute to this relationship. He has done over and above anything she did. At this point, the best she possibly did was help the conversation along or maybe help keep the talk interesting, throughout the date. That is still little in comparison to what he has done.)
What has the woman done through all of this? Look nice? That’s it. She may contribute to the conversation, but he is expected to lead the talk and do everything else.

So the whole dating system is rigged top to bottom and the advantage is almost all women, from the very start.

This is why feminists should shut up. This is why they are radicals. If you are a feminist in America today, you are selfish and ungrateful.

I try all the time to rationalize this. I try to figure out where men get their share of the pie. I try to see where women actually contribute something meaningful to the relationship. But the more I analyze it, the more I come to the same conclusion: the entire mating scene is rigged. Perhaps, as I've said above, back then it was worth it. Women didn't cheat or leave their husbands. Women cooked and cleaned and actually raised the children. But today, I have yet to meet a woman my age that could cook. Feminists have demonized housework. So basically, women have kept all the benefits of the sacrifices men had to make in order to be with them, and thrown away all of the contributions that they once had to do.

This is why feminism is bad for our society. I do not hate women or wish them harm. But I'll be damned if I have to bow down to this matriarchal society that beats down the male and wants to feminize everything.

Rape, The Wage Gap, and Domestic Violence

First of all, allow me to proclaim that I do not hate women. I will debunk all of the feminist's faulty arguments starting with rape.

My argument is that any modern feminist should be considered a radical. Feminism started off innocent enough, but at this point, women not only have equal rights but they have the advantage over men. Women are the majority in this country. Women go to college and graduate more than men. If women are being held back in any way, it is their fault.

Let's talk about rape. Of course more men rape women than vice-versa. This is for many reasons. One is, men are physically stronger than women. Men are also sexually attracted to women, so naturally their victims will be women. It is nearly impossible for a woman to rape a man. If women could, some women would. It has nothing to do with sexism, but rather our biology.

Next up, domestic violence. This also has nothing to do with sexism either. Again, men are stronger than women. Naturally they will beat them up if they lose their temper. And if you are one of those women who say men and women are equal, do me a favor and petition the government to get rid of domestic violence laws, which are there to protect women. If women could, they would beat the shit out of men as well. It has nothing to do with hatred of women. It is biology, which I have studied myself.

Another bullshit feminist argument is the "wage gap". This is a myth. There are no groups of men that sit around and figure out how to weed women out of jobs. According to www.ncpa.org/, women simply choose different lifestyles. Men are more productive. Men are more likely to respect deadlines. Men are more willing to take risks on jobs. According to the department of labor, over 90% of work-related deaths happen to men and men alone.

Women take more days off. Men work more hours for the same jobs. The point is that women simply do not work as hard as men and therefore do not get compensated for it. These are the reasons for a wage gap. It is not sexism or misogyny. Women are responsible for this mess, and if they want to clean it up, they will have to do it themselves.

Christian Hatred in America Today

In this country, religion bashing has become the norm in the media and Hollywood. Whether it’s a biased news story or a jab by a lowly comedian such as Sarah Silvercunt, religion is constantly sneered at and looked down upon by elitist liberals.


However, what is meant by “religion bashing”? Are these people bashing random religions for humor? The answer is no. Religious bashing in America seems to only include Christianity. Jesus is the constant butt of every joke and Bible believing Christians are ostracized daily by the likes of Bill Maher, Larry David, and Sarah Silvercunt. (Sarah Silvercunt, the comedian that relies on her Jewish heritage to garner laughs. Sarah Silvercunt, the lanky woman with no body to speak of.)


What is this fascination with Christianity? Why not Islam? Why not bash Hindus? It is well known that this country was founded upon Judaea-Christian values. Christianity can be observed everywhere in the heart of America, from the homes of the citizens to the constitution.


The vast majority of this country identifies as Christian. Yet, when one turns on the television, all they see is Christians being depicted as dunces and fools. The atheists are apparently smarter than any believer. Anyone who is an atheist is accepted as smart and reasoned; anyone who has faith believes the earth is flat.


It is socially acceptable to attack Christians in this country. It is now part of our culture.


The latest example of this was in an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm. Larry David, the main character of his own show, urinates on a portrait of Jesus. Even worse, the Christians, meant to look like chimps, are led to believe it’s a miracle because Jesus appeared to have a tear coming out of his eye.


I like Larry David. He is a funny comedian and his show is one of the best on television. But urinating on Jesus is over the top. It is highly offensive, yet he does not seem to care. HBO claims that the material was simply “playful” in a recent statement released by the company.


Or maybe one of the recent episodes of Real Time with Bill Maher, where the terrible female comedian bashes Catholics yet again. That video is below.

Abortion: Not A Woman's Issue

Abortion is by no means a woman's issue. Liberals and the feminists have brainwashed America to believe that it is somehow wrong to tell a woman what she can't do with her body. It may be her body, but at the time of conception there is an actual living human.


Do parents own their children? Or are they simply responsible for them? The arrogance of women never ceases to amaze me. The unborn child inside of her has it's own dna, it's own genes. It is a individual.

In this video I made, I lay out the argument for outlawing abortion. I also point out the hypocrisy and arrogance of women who are pro-choice.

Origins: Why Do We Even Exist?

If you watch tv and absorb information from the government-media complex daily, you may be led to believe that most people are secularist atheists that have no need for religion. Religion will be seen in a negative light, just an excuse for old men to molest children. Religion will be seen as a gateway to war and destruction. Religion will be seen as a leech on society, a belief system that is thousands of years old and is outdated.



While religion is responsible for death and crime, that does not validate atheism or discredit religion entirely. Religion is also reponsible for much good in the world that constantly goes over looked. Whether the essence of each religion is true is irrelevant to me.


Our universe is complex and diverse. Simply by looking up into the sky, we can all see it. The question is not, "Did God create the universe or did the universe create itself?" The proper question is, "What is the more probable scenario?"



Probability


Once you strip everything away, what is left? Once you accept the fact that we as humans know nothing, what is left? Humans can only understand those things which can be observed within time and space. Probability is all that remains.


Let's use a simple analogy in nature. There are two wild panthers in the jungle. One panther is a few years older than the other and has more experience in hunting and survival. The other panther is still of age to catch prey, however. Now let's say they both spot a racoon. Which panther will capture and eat the racoon first? Sure, it is within the realm of possibility that the younger less experienced panther could in fact get lucky. But the more likely explanation is that the older panther with capture the racoon first because of it's experience. No one can know for sure which would get to the racoon first, but any rational person would put their money on the older one.




Both atheism and theism are false (in the sense that neither can be empirically proven here and now). The existence of a god cannot be proven. The inexiestince of a god cannot be proven. Once you accept those two statements, what is left? The only truth in this world is that we know nothing for certain. Probability is all that remains and must become the primary system of thought and belief.



Here are my proofs that end the debate on whether or not it is rational to believe in God. #3 is the one that is most questionable by atheists. The reason it is there is simple: every cause has a causation. The only one that isn't explained is the origin of the universe. Therefore, it is more probable that the universe, to, had a cause. To say that the universe did not have a cause goes against this logic. Moreover, it is also worth noting that this causation would have to of been of a higher intelligence, given the complexity of our universe.




1. Neither theism or atheism can be proven.
2. It is possible that the universe either always existed or simply came into existence for no reason.
3. It is more probable that a deity or deities created the universe.
4. Therefore, theism is the most plausible, logical, rational and reasonable explanation for our existence.