The Infraggable Tony-Man reviews the Royal Rumble 2013

Finally... the Rock has come back!

Okay, so anyone who knows me knows that I am a fan of the WWE.  And why wouldn't I be?  I'm a fan of role-playing games, Fantasy settings, card games, comic books, and stories that features good guys, and bad guys.  So if anything, the world of wrestling (when it comes down to it, is very much like a comic book, in that it features colorful characters battling each other in boots and underwear) appeals to me.  Last Sunday, was just another soiree into the world of wrestling that was exactly that.  Just a bunch of guys beating each other up in a twenty by twenty foot ring.  This year's Royal Rumble was one of the better ones, though it was not without complaint from my view.

 The thing that really made this Royal Rumble special to me; however, wasn't the event itself, but it was one of the first times in many long years, that I was invited to do something with friends.  Many people who read this former Facebook exclusive ranting (since I hardly call this an official review blog) knows that I tend to keep to myself.  Sure I go out on Wednesdays to the bar, but other than that, I really don't have much to contribute to anyone or anything; so the fact that I was considered for invitation, was something.

Granted I was invited by Facebook proxy, but whatever.  So really, this was really the first time I got to do anything with people that didn't include... being at a place where alcohol is normally served. (Though alcohol was there.)   Which brings me to the Royal Rumble Pay-Per-View itself.  While there were several matches, the two that I was really invested in, was the actual 30-Man Royal Rumble Match, and the WWE Championship Match between CM Punk and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson.  I suppose, before going on to do this review, I should mention two wrestling terms, that while most wrestling fans should know; is good to learn, since these terms are going to appear in this post from time to time.  The two terms are "Face" and "Heel."  And while I could go on into the history of these terms, and spit out some other wrestling jargon... the concepts of Face and Heel are, relatively simple.

Face - A wrestler within a story angle that is traditionally perceived as the "good guy"
Heel - A wrestler within a story angle that is traditionally perceived as the "bad guy"

The first match was the World Heavyweight Championship match between  Champion Alberto Del Rio (face), and The Big Show (heel).  While Alberto Del Rio won, he did not do so with traditional face tactics.  Mind you that up until a few weeks ago, Alberto Del Rio has spent his entire 3+ year WWE tenure as a heel.  And thanks to contrived, and somewhat lazy story lining, Alberto Del Rio has become a face.  And while I've been waiting for the face turn, I honestly didn't like the lazy way of how Big Show was just harrassing Alberto Del Rio's personal ring announcer, Richardo Rodriguez, and all of a sudden Alberto Del Rio became a face.  But to offset that, the Big Show, who is this 7 foot tall 441lbs giant has been wrestling in WWE for almost 15 years, and had tenure in the now defunct WCW, and yet they give him the lamest heel turn several months ago.  Apparently he's under contract by a former General Manager by the name of John Laurinitis, that he has an "ironclad" contract, which supposedly allows him to run roughshod over anyone he feels like.  And that made him a heel.  It's less inspired, but I can by it, because I feel that the Big Show makes a good heel; regardless of how it came to be.  This match was meant to be a Last Man Standing Match, which means that there are no disqualifications, no count outs, no rules.  The person who is knocked down and stays down until a count of ten is the loser.  Alberto Del Rio beats the Big Show, when Richardo Rodriguez duct tapes the Big Show's legs to the bottom rope, which means that Big Show can't get up.  It's semi-clever, but it's been done before.  And while I'm happy that Alberto Del Rio won the match, I'm less happy that it happened in a somewhat anti-climatic way.

The next match was Team Hell No (Kane and Daniel Bryan, face) vs. Team Rhodes Scholars (Cody Rhodes and Damien Sandow, heel).  Personally, while one of my favorite wrestlers of all time is Kane; I really couldn't get into the match.  I don't even remember if there were any notable highlights.  The whole Dysfunction vs Dystopia storyline has been thin from the beginning, and while Team Hell No in my opinion has been one of the funnier things to witness in WWE in a long time, I feel that the novelty is wearing off.  Needless to say, Team Hell No beat Team Rhodes Scholars, but it's clear that this was the weakest match in the Royal Rumble.

Which brings us to the Royal Rumble Match itself.  The rules of the Royal Rumble Match is as follows.  Two men will start the match, and every ninety seconds, a new wrestler joins in on the fray.  Pins, and submissions don't do jack shit.  The only way a person can be eliminated is if they get tossed over the top rope, and both feet hit the floor.  This goes on until each of the thirty participants have entered.  The last man in the ring after twenty-nine wrestlers have been eliminated is the winner, and headlines Wrestlemania.  This year, John Cena won the Royal Rumble.  I don't have anything against John Cena.  2012 was admittedly his worst year in his career.  But he's still more or less the golden boy of WWE.  They give him opportunity after opportunity.  And while he's a good wrestler, he's not a great one.  Story angle wise, I get it.  He's the one with the most to prove so far as story angle goes.  But there are many hungry wrestlers who needs to be pushed, to me, Cena has run his course, and its time that he begins to step down from being the golden boy, and allow new blood to showcase their potential.  Of course, this won't happen for a while, but I am hoping that soon the long-lived veterans will step down and allow the new blood some time.  I don't like the fact that he's become this self-righteous boy scout.  I could go on about John Cena.  I respect what he does in the ring, and for WWE, and for Make-A-Wish, and all these other things.  But I do not like John Cena the wrestler character.  Say what you want about him, that's my opinion about him.

Which brings me to the final match.  WWE Champion CM Punk (heel) vs. Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson (face).  Let me clear the air here for a moment.  Everyone loves the Rock.  I love the Rock.  There are few people in the world who doesn't love the Rock.  But, why is the Rock back in WWE?  What reason should he be given a title shot opportunity without working for it.  Yes, I know that he's a one-of-a-kind Hall of Famer Legend who brings in money to WWE by spouting off catchphrases and "layin' the smackdown on those candy-asses."  And that's all well fine and good.  But, come the fuck on.  Meanwhile CM Punk has held the WWE Championship for an unheard of 434 days.  He has the sixth longest reign in WWE History.  The Longest Reign of the last 25 years.  Granted he started off as a face, and began the revolution with his infamous "Pipe Bomb" speech way back in 2011; but let's be real.  The Rock leaves the WWE for 10 years to be a movie star, and when he comes back, he beats John Cena at Wrestlemania 28.  And isn't seen or heard from again.  And then he casually just waltzes in and gets a title shot, just like that.  No number one contender's match.  No long thought out storyline... just a smattering of a few weeks to throw verbal salvos at each other.  Urrrgh!  Okay, I get it.  The Rock remains one of the highest money-draws in WWE history.  The Rock is only 40 years old, and is in great shape.  And only he really seems to know what the Rock is cooking (to which I hope is burgers, or steak) but... just because the Rock is "the most electrifying man in all of entertainment," doesn't give him the right to have a championship match without going through the channels that everyone else does.  To top it off, The match gets interfered with, by this faction known as "The Shield" (an uninspired name for should-be decent wrestlers) and the match gets restarted, and the Rock wins.

Point:  I'm glad that the Rock won.  I'm pissed off that this could have been a story angle that could have been epic, but they were just far too lazy with it.  The Shield could suck my left nut, and fondle my right.

Another Point:  CM Punk is a great heel, but I felt that his credibility floundered ever since there was a Shield.  It started to go south when  Paul Heyman became intertwined with CM Punk.  CM Punk is one of my favorite wrestlers.  He, The Undertaker, Rey Mysterio, and Sheamus are my top four favorites... so why did they half ass his story angle with the Rock?  Why would they do that?

All in all, obviously, I found a lot wrong with this year's Royal Rumble.  But, even so... it was a very strong Pay-Per-view, with genuinely awesome moments, and awesome people.  This year's Royal Rumble will be remembered for a while.  Who knows?  Maybe one year, I'll get to actually go to one of these sporting events.  .......one day.......

The Infraggable Tony-Reviews reviews his new blog.

Ladies and gentlemen.  Nerds, geeks, and freaks.  Or whatever else you decide to label yourself, since I really don't have words to label each and every person who reads this.  Starting today, 22 January 2013; this is the first blog that wasn't hastily copied and pasted from Facebook.  I'm not sure why, but I thought that having my own blog would be better than just posting on Facebook, not that there's anything wrong with the website itself.  But, I feel that I can do more things with this blog, than I ever could.

I can now Bold, and underline, and italics, and other things that I couldn't before, so that's pretty cool.  I will eventually allow guest blogging into this blog, and maybe do some co-reviews.  I still need to figure out how to do a lot of things, so I do expect the quality of this blog to steadily raise.  Until it's something that I can personally be proud of, but until then.  This is the new format, and this is the new place that I will do my reviews.

So, I just had an idea a few hours ago about what I wanted to review for my first ever non-Facebook dependent review.  Quite simply, a review of the Infraggable Tony-Reviews of the Facebook Era.  So, just like a second helping of Sloppy Joes, here's the review of the Infraggable Tony-Reviews.  After all, a sandwich is a sandwich, but a Manwich is a meal.  (PS; I fuckin' love this new format.  Italics, bitch... italics.)

So, while this review won't be all encompassing, I will do my best to be comprehensive.  Considering how I started The Infraggable Tony-Reviews with my review of "Wreck-It Ralph" by the evil Disney Empire (Star Wars, not withstanding) and had ended it with details of my 30th birthday, I think that really all of my focus could use... more focus.  I'm not a professional review.  I like to type cock-donkey or scrotum scab, because these are buzz words that I like to use.  I feel that it tends to grab at people better than "YOLO" (Which for those who don't know, is actually Carpe Diem for mental ward rejects.)  Or whatever dubstep is supposed to be.

But, people seem to enjoy reading it, when they can.  I think really that The Infraggable Tony-Reviews has the potential to actually be a thing.  Who knows, maybe a way I can become, semi-professional, and perhaps from there, I can make this into a job.  Maybe that's where my future lies.  And if not, then at least it's something fun for me to do whenever I have a mind to do something.  And I'll probably do more nerdly things like Deathmatches between comic book characters, and other things like that.  But really, this is just me doing what I do best, and that's to share my view of the world to others like- or un-like minded as myself.  Anyway; I suppose this should do for my first non-Facebook'D Infraggable Tony-Review.

Who knows what the next topic will be; I hope it's a good one.

The Infraggable Tony-Man vs His 30th Birthday

{Original Post Date 15 January 2013}

With my 30th birthday now a week behind me, it's time for me to really face the facts. My developmental pre-teens are a distant memory, many of which I cannot remember. My impressionable teens have gone, and the things that I once thought were advents to rebel against, really have shaped me up to be what I was in my twenties. And my twenties... they've really left a lot to be desired. Here I am now, on the cusp of my thirties, and I wonder a lot of times if I've learned anything. Or if I just constantly make life mistakes for the sake of making life mistakes.

No longer do I really have the luxury of saying that I didn't know any better. No longer can I blame my mistakes on a world in which I still feel unprepared and unequipped for. There are many things that used to excite me, that I feel disillusioned to... and I still find myself asking the same question I have been since I was old enough to understand why I'm asking it. Who am I? Obviously, I'm Tony. The Infraggable Tony-Man but, is that moniker really a name of a person... or is it the title of a story that has random occurrences, in a chronologic yet happenstance order?

After 30 years, I wonder what it is that I'm really meant to do, or to be. I wonder what it is that I want, why can't I have it, and why should anyone give a shit. Obviously, I'm no where near where I thought I would be when I got to this stage of my life. Then again, I suppose part of the reason why I'm here, and not further along, is because I never really gave much thought to where I wanted to be. I still don't give much thought to the unseen future, or even in the near future. When does living day to day become an inefficient way to live? When does looking years into the future take precedence for living in the moment?

There's no instruction guide for life. There are only benchmarks of success, and obviously for failure. And even these aren't set in stone. Everyone's measure of success is different, but most would agree that a successful person is one that is mentally, physically, socially, financially, and spiritually sound. These are things that I don't feel like I've met. These are things that I feel sometimes I can grasp at some of these points, but others slip away from me. I'm imbalanced, and because of it, I don't find myself feeling successful.

I'm sure that people will look at this and just think that I'm complaining, and I'm bitching, and they wouldn't necessarily be wrong. But really this is just an introspective on where I am after having hit the third decade benchmark. I wonder if I could recognize internal happiness if it kicked me right in the teeth. I don't really know what is next for me. Perhaps year 30 will end up being the best year of my life, and it will allow me to appreciate the often disappointing teens and 20s. Or, this will be the year that I break down entirely and start selling crack, and becoming a he-bitch for some guy's man stable. The odds are pretty much even.

Whatever the case is, I just hope for an interesting year 30. If the past week has been any indication; maybe, just maybe it could be. Next time on the Infraggable Tony-Reviews, ....I'm not sure. Just watch out for it.

The Infraggable Tony-Man vs New Year's 2013

{Original Post Date 4 January 2013}

Okay, so we're four days into 2013, which means that we're a scant 361 days until 2014. And really what can I say? For a lot of people, these four days of 2013 have probably been some of the best. But for me... they've been filled with uncertainty, and in many ways, hopelessness. Here's my current situation: I've got no job, no girl, no place to call my own. I'm four days away from being 30, about ­¾ tank of gas in my car... and each day, I find a little less motivation to get out there and turn my life around. Ultimately, while I could point fingers at a bad America, a do-nothing Augusta, and a demeanor of a job market that feels more like mayonnaise than it does an economy; ultimately, I have to take responsibility of my piss-poor choices, my "fuck-it" attitude, and that inevitable feeling, that I'm getting old, and I still don't really know how the world works.

Oh, I mean, I know that as sure as the sun rises, it sets. I know that no matter what, America lives in a temperate zone, and will have four seasons. I know that the sun is roughly 92 million miles from earth and it takes about 9 minutes for light to travel from the sun to earth. But I know very little about the infrastructure that humans have placed upon itself. I don't really know how credit cards work, or what their basis on a score is. I don't really know why it is that crappy waiters should be tipped 15% for a 3% job. I don't know why it is that 20 years ago, Republicans and Democrats were more likely to find compromise, when all it takes is for Islam extremists to crash into a couple of buildings before America looks at itself as its own worst enemy. I don't get why people make Resolutions on the first day of the year, when a resolution is the end product of a problematic means when what one actually does on the first of the year is set a goal that is to be resolved before the year comes. I don't really get why we have different denominations for Christianity, yet none of them seems to know what's actually going on. (Spoken as a Christian Liberal myself). I don't really get how some people can drink Coke or Pepsi, and yet complain when forced to drink the competition's doppelganger. I don't get why "Y" is either a consonant or a vowel, and yet children are indoctrinated to remain consistent. I don't really get such buzz words as YOLO, or dubstep because they're stupid. I don't really get why every single cartoon since the mid-2000s are either Anime rip-offs, or crappy CGI. I don't really get that it seems like that all the really hot chicks wear baggy sweaters, or clothes that hardly flaunts their bodies, while the most pug-ugly girls wear the clothes that are revealling, but makes me want to puke my soul out of my chest. I don't get why the opinions of snot-nosed children, and this whole political correct movement has become so big that no one can ever say what they want. I don't get why women complain about every little naunce of existence since the dawn of women, that all they do is bitch, and bitch, and bitch, in this day and age, when it was their ancient foremothers who were so fucking passive and then in the last forty to fifty years all of a sudden became so resurgent about women's rights, and expect to be taken seriously. I don't get why it is that people don't realize that reading a book about self-help isn't self-help. If you read a book written by someone else, that's not self-help; it's Help. Pay more attention to the language you agreed upon. I don't really get why it is that America is ran under an Electoral College. Especially since we know all of the states that usually lean Democratic, and those that lean Republican.

Oh. And I don't really get the concept of a birthday, especially if you're Pro-Life (which, I'm not; but it's still a valid point). If life begins at conception, and the baby's already 9½ months a living being... wouldn't the infant be 9½ months old by the time the mother squeezes that baby out her vagina? People need to think that they are already 9½ months older than what their supposed birthdays are.

Anyway... there's literally tens of thousands of other things here in the US, much less in the world that I don't understand. And perhaps I'll run through more of those things at a later time... I guess this really wasn't a review about New Year's than it was a rant about things I simply just don't quite understand.... hmm....

Happy New Year's my little New Yearvians. Next time, I'll review my birthday. 30 years of Dignified Mediocrity.

The Infraggable Tony-Man reviews "Jack Reacher"

{Original Post Date 27 December 2012}


It's review time once again, my little ones, and before I get into the review, allow me to set the scene for you. I am not a fan of Tom Cruise. Personally, I think he's overrated. Don't get me wrong, he's a decent actor, but he's not the hot shit that everyone makes him out to be. And this has nothing to do with Katie Holmes or anything like that. I've just never really been a fan of his. So, unlike my last review, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey," this review will be somewhat short.

Currently, "Jack Reacher" is second at the box-office, behind the aforementioned "Hobbit" as in its first week it only took in half of what The Hobbit did, even though The Hobbit is beginning its third week. And there is good reason why it's in second place. It's a Tom Cruise movie. And if Tom Cruise is a part of the movie, you know it's going to shit gold. Tom Cruise stars in the movie as the titular character Jack Reacher. Who was a former Army Police Major. Jack Reacher pretty much became a ghost after he got out of the army. As he has no cell phone, no e-mail, no files in the government system... so he's pretty much this "ghost" who wanders the United States for purposes that is never actually really defined. And he's investigating the murder of five seemingly random civilian victims. And without giving anything away, the entire murder set up is just odd, but that only adds to very set-up to the rest of the movie... since these murders take place at the within seconds of each other in the same area.

But that's all I'm going to talk about as far as the set-up of the movie goes. The action scenes are pretty well constructed, the dialogue is engaging, and it doesn't try to dumb itself down, nor does it always talk out of its own ass... well, except for one fight scene were Jack Reacher is fighting at a bar. Here, Jack Reacher is talking completely out of his ass... and even though it kinda works in the context of the scene, it's the usual Tom Cruise pedantic that you expect from Tom Cruise.

Still, surprisingly for me, the biggest strength that "Jack Reacher" has is it's unexpected humor. There are some genuinely funny moments. But even better than that were moments that I'm not sure the movie was trying to be funny, but the deliverance of certain lines that Tom Cruise had made me laugh. And there is a completely hilarious fight scene, that I won't spoil, but will have you laughing when you see it.

Which brings me to its biggest flaw... and maybe this is just my bias against Tom Cruise, but I feel that over the years, Tom Cruise has been typecast to movies like this. Not once during the entire movie did I believe that Jack Reacher was a different person than Ethan Hunt. Personally, I think that someone else could have portrayed Jack Reacher. And again, I feel like Tom Cruise was waxing pedantic to the other characters when he really had no reason to for the majority of the movie. There's a line between being a badass, and being whatever it was that Jack Reacher was being... and while he does do a good job in most scenes that calls for it... the bar fight scene made me groan.

If you can get over the fact that this is another Tom Cruise action film... and the fact that there was nothing really new in this movie that Tom Cruise hasn't done in some other action movie... or if you just worship Tom Cruise, and feel that he could do no wrong in your eyes, this is definitely a movie you'll want to check out. If however, you're tired of the Tom Cruise action movie, just know that there is a lot of good stuff to see... especially it's unintentionally funny moments, I would probably wait until it comes to HBO, or perhaps watch it on Netflix when it gets there.

For me, while I wouldn't say this is an awesome movie for my bias against Tom Cruise... I would venture to say it is a good movie.

And that my little ones, is my review. Tune in Next time, when I review New Year's.

The Infraggable Tony-Man reviews "The Hobbit"

{Original Post Date 26 December 2012}

Allow me to caveat a few things before I get into the review. First, I hope everyone had a good Christmas. For me, this one was sort of meh, for the most part. Second, I am a complete and utter fan of Tolkein's work. From the Hobbit, to the Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, to so many other things. I've read most of his books, and I've seen the Lord of the Rings movies no less than seventy times, but was waiting nine years from Peter Jackson's "The Return of the King" (2003) to "The Hobbit" (2012) really worth it, or has the magic of Middle-Earth faded with too much time. That's what we're going to take a look at now. So, Blow your horn of Gondor, allow me to have your sword, and your bow, and your axe, as the Infraggable Tony-Man takes you on this review of Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit."

As most of you may know, Peter Jackson returned back to New Zealand back to the site of where the Lord of the Rings Trilogy takes place. And before I get into anything else. Perhaps the biggest strength of the Hobbit is its massive set pieces. The scenery and the lighting and colors are beautiful. Very spot on. Even with this being a fantasy world, never for a moment did I think that there was any place that the characters went were ever out of place.

And just like "The Fellowship of the Ring," "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" starts off with a disembodied voice describing and setting the mood for the rest of the movie, along with telling the events that has lead up to where the movie begins. But the best part about this, is that the one who is speaking is none other than Old Master Bilbo Baggins himself, played by Ian Holms, who was Bilbo in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. This is very clever, indeed. And a wise choice. As it kind of leads up to a cameo by Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Old Bilbo just moments before the events in "The Fellowship of the Rings." We get to see the No Admittance except for Party Business sign, and we get a good look at Hobbiton, and of Bag End. This alone is a nod to everyone who loved the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. And it certainly brought nostalgia back to me. But I'm jumping ahead of myself a little here.

The introduction tells of the village of Dale, and of the Dwarf Kingdom under the Lonely Mountain known as Erebor. Here, they speak of how the Dwarves under the mountain lived, and that their leader, named Thror ruled. The Dwarves began mining for gold and jewels, and riches and precious metals... but one day they found a gleaming jewel called the Arkenstone (which if you've read "The Hobbit" you know becomes increasingly important), which Thror takes as a symbol of his divine rule. Even such to the point that Men and Elves pay homage to the King Under the Mountain. With the Arkenstone in Thror's possession, he begins to get gold sickness... and soon afterward, bad things begin to happen. Which of course, introduces us to the dragon Smaug. There really is little motivation on why Smaug has come to Erebor in the books, and thankfully Peter Jackson doesn’t give us some bullshit motivation in the movie. That is something I’ve always appreciated with the Lord of the Rings movies. And finally, the Dwaves have to vacate their homes because of Smaug, when no help came from the Elves. Thranduil, the King of the Greenwood Elves did not come to the aid of Thror and his people. Here, I was a little disappointed that there was no Legolas cameo. People who have not read Tolkein’s material would not know that Legolas is Thranduil’s son. But since it’s never mentioned in “The Hobbit” itself, I can excuse this, and hope to see a cameo of him in one of the later movies. And the intro to the movie is as solid as one could come to expect from Peter Jackson.

Having said that, I think the biggest weakness that this movie suffers, is it’s pacing. “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” is 2 hours and 46 minutes long or a total of 166 minutes long. With Peter Jackson deciding to make The Hobbit into a trilogy, it’s clear, that he will have to put a lot of padding into the movies. So just how does Peter Jackson pad this movie? Well, the first hour or so into the movie, it deals mostly with the main character, Bilbo Baggins, played surprisingly well by Martin Freeman, sixty years before the events of The Lord of the Rings. Here Bilbo meets Gandalf the Grey (with Sir Ian McKellen reprising the role to my great elation!) and Gandalf pretty much choosing (much to his chagrin) Bilbo Baggins to accompany him on an adventure. When Bilbo flat out refuses, he is met by thirteen Dwarves, and that crafty Gandalf the Grey. The thirteen dwarves are Dwalin, Balin, Oin, Gloin (who is the father of Gimli… again, no Gimli cameo… but again, not mentioned in “The Hobbit” so it’s excused), Ori, Nori, Dori, Bifur, Bofur, Bombur, Fili, Kili, and the leader of the Dwarves, Thorin… Thror’s grandson. So, there’s a lot of antics, and a fun little musical number about how Bilbo Baggins hates how these dwarves are eating all of his food, and how they were going to bend the forks and blunt the knives, and that goes on for a while. But when Thorin gets to the house, everything gets serious again, and with a lot of talking, there’s very little that actually gets done, until they decide that they’re going to go off on an adventure, once Gandalf gives Thorin a map and key. Both very vital to get back into Erebor. And once it’s decided, they sing a more mellow and quite frankly, catchy tune that many of you guys can hear from the trailers.

I get it, really Peter Jackson wanted to slow this down, and allow the audiences to get to know these dwarves, and sort of lay the plot down. But when he compares this to the rest of the movie, the pacing here just seems awkward. Most of these characters are forgettable anyway, and only a few of them really have relevance to the books, much less to the movie. But, for what it’s worth, I really liked how Peter Jackson doesn’t try to give each dwarf equal screen time, when again, many of them really don’t have significance to the overall plot. But here is where things get a little clunky, and a little trite. The Company of Dwarves, Gandalf, and Bilbo eventually do get underway on their adventures, they go through some wacky adventures with the Trolls… which by the way sound like a couple of Orcs from “The Two Towers” (Really listen to their voices, and you’ll agree), we get to see Gandalf’s sword, Glamdring again… and the origin of Sting (which is faithful to the book, by the way), but before I go on any farther… there is something that really sort of got under my skin.

Rhadagast the Brown. In another effort to pad the movie, Rhadagast the Brown was given far more screen time than he should have. But… at the same time, his inclusion in “The Hobbit” is also pretty vital. Well, not to “The Hobbit” itself, but this sets in motion the White Council… to which I will get to later. Basically, Rhadagast’s part in the Middle Earth ethos, is that he’s the one that goes to the abandoned Elven fortress of Dol Goldur and discovers the evil works of “The Necromancer” (who is Sauron). This prompts Gandalf to think in bigger terms, than just returning the Dwarves back to Erebor. Finally, through trickery, or through cunning planning… Gandalf leads Thorin and company to Imladris, or better known as Rivendell. Here we meet up with Elrond (played by the always talented Hugo Weaving… who was born in New Zealand) who is able to read the map properly. We get to see Galadriel (played by the lovely Cate Blanchette), and we see Sauraman the White (played by the always nasty Christopher Lee).

They have what is known as the White Council, which is not spoken of in the Hobbit book, itself… but I feel is quite an important thing that Peter Jackson included, because it speaks of the possible re-emergence of “The Enemy” (which is Sauron). Gandalf and Galadriel thinks that the quest for Erebor has set in motion dark things that has to be dealt with, while Sauraman believes that Gandalf is looking for trouble where none exist. And this is a key point in the Middle Earth ethos, though it does not have much bearing to The Hobbit itself, and hopefully not for the movie trilogy. While I appreciate that Peter Jackson saw fit to put the White Council in this movie, it’s grossly inaccurate. But for what it’s worth, I applaud the effort here.

There are many more wild and wacky adventures, and while they’re all highly interesting, and they are all stunning and immerse, ultimately they accomplish nothing. Which, is more or less how the book paced it. But I would be remissed if I didn’t speak about my favorite part of the movie… the riddles in the dark scene. And to Peter Jackson’s credit… there is little that he left out. Gollum meets Bilbo for the first time, and the One Ring is found. Each riddle that Gollum and Bilbo ask each other are straight from the book. And you could just feel the tension that Bilbo feels. Not only that… the tone and voice that Gollum has, when he realizes “What does Baggins have in his pocketses…” is perfect. This scene is probably the best scene of any of the Peter Jackson Middle Earth movies. In fact, I would be so bold to say that it’s probably one of the best movie scenes since the Return of the King.

I could go on and talk about the orc Azog and his contribution to the movies, but the Azog character is grossly inaccurate, and was pretty much just put here in the movies so that there would be a main antagonist for this movie. Azog in the books actually died in Moria before The Hobbit. He’s not really that interesting, he’s sort of a bland character… but so far as begin an agent of conflict for the Dwarves, he’s a pretty good adversary for Thorin and Bilbo. Take him for what he’s worth… but he’s grossly inaccurate.

Last point I want to make, and it goes back to the movie’s pacing. With the adventure, so far as the books go, just about halfway over, and with two movies left to go, Peter Jackson’s really going to have to pad much of the remaining two movies. I already know that the other two movies are going to be as long, if not longer than “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” This was fine, since the Lord of the Rings Trilogy was three movies one for each book. But now that Peter Jackson is trying to make a trilogy for one book, which… honestly wasn’t nearly as immersive as any of the trilogy’s books. I wonder how the remaining two movies will hold up. “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” has pacing issues. It sometimes feel clunky, and the first hour or so, while very interesting did feel a little stretched out, while the rest of the movie felt a little too contracted. But despite all of that, there are little gems here and there that keeps this movie from being one that I would criticize (more than I have). If you can look over its clunkiness… and the fact that sometimes it almost looks like it’s going to trip over its own feet; I would call this a great movie. Did it capture the Middle Earth of nine years ago? No, not really. Is it a movie that you’re hoping to get an extended edition of? Hell yes. Did it ruin the Middle Earth experience for me? No. And that’s the most important thing. I will probably see this movie again, when it gets to the cheap theater. And I’m obviously going to pick up the DVD for it when it comes out. “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” is a great movie, and that my little Shirelings, is my review.

Next time on the “Infraggable Tony-Reviews” I will review Tom Cruise in “Jack Reacher.” Until then… I’ll see you guys later.

The Infraggable Tony-Man vs. "The End of the World"

{Original Post Date 22 December 2012}

Dick Clark, Twinkies, Gangnam Style, Mitt Romney, and Mayans. With all of these signs in place... one would think that the signs were evident that the end of the world would have been for real this time, right? Well, not since the Y2K bug have we the people of Earth been so let down for another hoax concocted by evil-genius douche canoes. As a Christian Liberal of sorts, there is a passage of scripture that says that only God knows the hour in which the world will end. And take it for what its worth, but whether you believe in the Christian God, Buddha, various Hindu Gods, or a billy goat; whatever your beliefs are for the end of the world. I seriously doubt it will be on a day that's publicly broadcast.

Having said that, I do find it ironically hilarious for the people who did die yesterday who truly believed that they died because it was the "end of the world." I could only imagine what the conversation would be like once these saps reached the gateway to their higher plane of enlightenment. But, I'm admittedly sort of a dick that way. In this world of ever changing standards of what beauty and grotesqueness is... I find my brand of humor also evolving to show the cynicisms of the situation. To the point that it becomes parody. After all, observational humor really is just the truth as if put in front of a fun house mirror. It's distorted, it's stretched and twisted a bit. It expands or contracts, but at the heart of it... it's still the truth.

So, the end of the world didn't exactly pan out like most people were thinking. The world didn't erupt in some fireball as a divine promise from the heavens. The world didn't turn into zombies and began to devour itself. (Though some could say, that this happened long before yesterday, and will continue until there's nothing left.) It didn't even freeze over. In fact, for me, yesterday was rather uneventful. I continue to search in vain for a job, I continue to wonder when I'll catch a break from life, and I continue to wonder if I'll ever meet a woman to settle down for a few weeks, before she decides that a relationship isn't what either one of us wants, then proceeds to date a guy who's no good for her. (Which... seems to be a recurring issue.)

Still, I continue to wonder about America, and the end of the world. We have churches teaching it's congregation that God hates the gays, God hates the military, God hates the blacks, the whites, the Latinos, the Asians, God hates the sinners, the children, the whatevers. I simply don't believe that. I believe that God (or whatever higher power you believe in) is an equal opportunity God. I think that hate is not something that he practices. And while I'm on the subject; I'm sure before the beginning, when God was writing his final draft of God's plans... you know spell checking, and making sure that his grammar was correct, and that trying to decide whether his plan should be in active voice, or passive... you know, the nit-picking little shit that we all have to concern ourselves about when we make up our papers... God decided that he's going to sweat the big stuff, like the rotation of the Earth, the moon and the tides. The temperature of the Earth and the other planets. The rate of universal expansion. The creation of men, and animals, and mountains and all that other crap... he has little time to worry about Fatty McGee's weight problem. Little Johnny's masturbation addiction, and the small stuff. With millions of prayers going up to him every hour, you'll have to excuse him if most prayers seem to go unanswered. If your prayer isn't answered... it probably means that he doesn't want you fucking with his plans.

I believe in God. I believe he cares about the things he creates. I believe that he's mostly a benevolent God that wants great things for us, and wants us to figure out what happiness is. At the same time, I also feel that God is far more passive when it comes to individual lives than most would like for him to. God gave us the ability to learn, and reason, and figure shit out for ourselves... and that means that we should know better than to think that he will advertise the end of the world. So you think you're fat? Then put down the fork, and go to the gym, and work out, fat ass. You think that you're not sexy enough? Then change your appearance, make yourself more appealing, and stop blaming the whores around you, who apparently know how to land a person of whatever gender that they want. You think you're not going to amount to anything? Find some motivation, get help, and do something with your life. Life's problems that you take to God, or Santa Claus, or Satan, or who ever will rarely be solved by these deities alone... or ever. The end of the world is not an excuse to fuck off.

And now, I believe I'll get off my hypocritically high horse, and renew my search to find a job. I believe this will be the last "charged" issue for me, at least for a little while.

Next time on The Infraggable Tony-Reviews; The Infraggable Tony-Reviews vs. The Hobbit - Why the movie isn't as great as everyone says it is.... and why it's better.

The Infraggable Tony-Man vs Gun Control Laws

{Original Post Date 21 December 2012}

Okay, so I told myself that I wouldn't speak more on Public Shootings, but just like the turd in your party's punch bowl... it seems inevitable that I would have to talk about gun control laws.

Of course, the right to bear arms is one of our nations time-honored Amendments of our Constitution. Our Second Amdendment, so obviously back during the age of our fore-fathers, slightly more than 200 years ago, it was decided that all Americans had the right to have weapons. Fast foreward now only 237 years to 2013 (since it is pretty much 2013 now). Americans have more or less forgotten why the Second Amendment was put in place.

Back then we had real enemies that were contrary to our fledgling nation's interest of self-determination. We had brothers, sisters, sons, husbands, and wives that were loyal to what was perceived as an oppressive and tyrannical government, known then as Great Britain. These were people who insisted on taxation without representation. The British were taxing the colonies, yet their government would not allow us seats in their Parliament. They taxed us on firearms, they taxed us on cotton, they taxed us on every conceivable import and export that we had. It was strangling the fledgling economy of our young nation. Eventually, the separatist colonist gradually decided that enough was enough, and the only way the conflict would end was to go to war. For the first time in the Colonies' young existence. These battles would not be fought in the wilderness, but within cities. They would be fought on streets, in people's backyards. In their homes. The forefather's recognized that future wars within the nation's existence would be fought this way. Hence, with good intention, the Second Amendment allowed people to own guns, so that their enemies could not overtake the home so easily.

The Second Amendment was meant to be for the militia, and for good honest folk to defend their own homes. It was never meant for anyone to take it so far out of context that some whack-a-doo kid could shoot up a school. It was never meant for some disgruntled postman to shoot his workplace up. Or some overzealous pissant God-worshipper to shoot up a church, just because of his skewed notion of what God's will was for some guy, who would never amount to anything. The morals of the late 1700s are long gone. The notions of truth, peace, and justice deteriorated. As a nation, not only have we grown complacent in ourselves, but we're a shining example to other countries how the proud and mighty can fall so low.

I support America. There is no place I would rather be, than here, and I have been lucky enough to visit many countries, and I have been to 5 out of 7 continents, in my less than 30 years of life. I highly endorse the intentions of America. But what I don't endorse are these putrid trouserstains who want to fuck America so far up its ass, that we can't even tell what country we're living in anymore. What America needs isn't a tighter gun control law. What America needs to do, is enforce the thousands of gun control laws that it actually has. Screen people. Make them go through a psychiatric evaluation. Tell them that they can only own a gun if they've reached a certain level on an IQ test. Sit down with these people and interview them. Look for certain key buzzwords. Put these gun enthusiasts through a rigorous screening process. And also... certain weapons tend to cause more damage than others. Limit these weapons. Don't give someone an assault rifle, if it doesn't meet their needs. Don't give a guy a shotgun, if he obviously only wants it for the "impending zombie apocalypse" (We're all zombies to the American consumer cult anyway). And most of all, have common sense. Guns kill people. I fully believe that. But it's not like Guns can kill people by themselves. It requires a person competent enough to pull the trigger. It doesn't take much, a monkey can do that.

I fully believe that should guns be taken away from people, it would be a grievous infringement of our Constitutional rights. I fully believe that even if law is put into place, and is actually carried out, there will be another Columbine, or Virginia Tech, or Sandy Hook Elementary. And the saddest part will be, that it will be done by some fucktard who wants to prove a point. Tragedies are rarely executed by the law-abiding citizen. They are rarely instituted by the non-fanatical. They are rarely carried out by non-motivated people. In fact, you show me some overweight guy eating cheetos, watching game-shows and stroking his penis, and I'll show you a guy who isn't causing any fucking problems.

But until we can all aspire to be that guy, we're going to have issues in America. We're going to always make big deals over these completely avoidable issues. We're going to have military members fed up and can't handle the stress anymore, suddenly calling himself the Angel of Death, and shooting up his should-be battle buddies. We're going to have Law Enforcement, who can't handle the mean streets of whatever city or town he's in, before shooting that guy who only had two days left until retirement. We're going to always point our fingers at video games and movies, who seem to just praise violence and extol it as the greatest thing since sex. And on that subject, I don't ever recall the news ever doing a story of children and adults dying because some guy in overalls crushed their skulls in by jumping on them. Say what you want about video games and movies. Ultimately, there is a majority of humans who can distinguish what is right, and what is wrong. That's why they have ratings on movies and video games. That why they're required by law to describe the nature of the nature of WHY these movies and video games are rated the way they are. Maybe instead of blaming video games and movies, we should point fingers at horrible parents who decide to use the TV as a babysitter.

America is not the same country it was ten years ago. That America is not the same country it was back in the 90s. And that America is not the same country it was back in the 80s... and so on. In ten years, the tragedies of today will seem minor in comparison to the sadness we'll feel when the 2020s roll through. This world, and America in particular will answer for its crimes on humanity. And we will be judged sooner or later on how we treated our fellow man. In my opinion, we're all going to shit our proverbial national pants, when that day comes.

The Infraggable Tony-Man vs. Tragic School Schootings

{Original Post date 14 December 2012}

You know, I never mean to be this guy. I know that what happened is a terrible tragedy, but when is it that a terrible tragedy becomes an every-day event? I don't know about any of you, but I'm tired of having my life stopped for an insignificant amount of time, just because some jag-off decides that his life is so terrible, that he has to be some self-righteous whack-a-doo and blow people's brains out, all in the name of making this country stop its fuckin' already fucked-up catasthopies to spare time for these idiots.

I'm not unsympathetic. But people shooting each other has been a tragic thing since the day gunpowder was invented. The only thing that makes Columbine, or The University of Virginia, or Sandy Hook Elementary different, is because it happened at a school. Or at a movie theater, or at some public place where children are present. Fucking wake up, America! Yes, grieve for these people, and those directly affected by it. Grow a fuckin' soul and teach these fuckstains of society the difference between right and wrong, and for fuck's sake, have some pride as a nation, and let's keep the advertising of just how fucked up we are to a minimum. Especially since few nations in the world still takes us seriously.

People want to know how we're better than the barbaric nations and clans and tribes who we proclaim as the enemies of terror? ...yeah, get back to me once you find a non-bullshit answer. For fuck's sakes, America. If we're running around pretending to be big brother, then set a fucking example... and stop being a snobbish teenager still trying to look up the skirts of our debauchery and deviance.

Really, I'm just tired of people getting themselves all twisted, and religious about these tragedies. Half of these morons are saying "Where's God?" the other half saying "It's God's design." Well, I say that both sides are a bunch of morons. This, like most tragedies isn't God's plan nor the absence of God, but a relatively small ramification of the infinite coincidence that is chance. Life's a spectacle of great and terrible things as it is, and yet the omnipresent media gobbles this shit up and spins it however it wants to to get those all mighty ratings. And it's bullshit. The media creates just as many if not more problems then it should ever have to. And because that media loves to put every problematic insignificant little blurb of a thing into the world's eye, no one can be left along to it's own insignificant meandering.

People die from hundreds of cancers. A man beats his wife because his steak isn't cooked all the way, a child starves and dies in an alleyway. Food shortages, natural disasters destroys thousands of homes, and tens of thousands of families. Politicians accept millions of dollars of blackmail bribe money to cover up affairs they have with under aged prostitutes with the clap. And decent people with qualifications cannot even land a decent job despite their years of college, or service to their government military. People die, or lose their livelihood every seven seconds in America alone, most of them for no good cause such has life expectancy. Wake up, America! The end of the world probably won't happen... but we've sold our souls long before now.

What happened is a tragedy... but is it too much to ask that we should allow the affected area to handle this with dignity and respect, by not thrusting bullshit like this into the world's eye? Or are we as a nation so incompetent that we cannot even recognize just how we're treating our nation as little more than a sideshow that says, "Hey we're America! We don't care what we do as long as you see us."

A reckoning is coming America. Whether you believe in God, Gods, the Zodiac, or some other equally valid; but ultimately unhelpful higher power. America will only find itself wallowing in its own squalid wastes until finally, we're wiped off the face of this earth. I can only hope that when it finally happens, I'll be dead. And hopefully by irony.

The Infraggable Tony-Man vs The Christmas Season

{Originial Post date 22 November 2012}

I have never been a fan of the Christmas season. Well, okay, to be fair; I have never gotten into the hype of the Christmas Season as a large number of people fall into. Personally, for me Christmas has usually been just another day. A day that people get presents, kiss under the mistletoe, drink eggnog, sing increasingly obnoxious Christmas Carols, and allow their inner douchebag to come out. (Unlike me, who’s inner douchebag pales in comparison to my outer douchebag.) Originally, when this Christmas thing started, it was a purely religious holiday surrounding the birthdate of Jesus; which some are speculating that he was actually born sometime in August, but let’s not get all semantic about things. Christmas is meant to be about the goodwill of all people, peace on earth, and all of that. But, now I’m wondering and I have for some time, when did Christmas become about the bastardization and commercialization of said religious holiday? When was it that Jesus was no longer doing well with our young demographic, ages two through eleven? Instead now we have the epitome of what America has become: fat, old, judgmental, and all-world consuming.

Okay, let me be clear. I have no qualms or problems with Christmas itself. December twenty-fifth is all well fine and good. It’s the months that come before it that I simply cannot stand. Of course, it probably doesn’t help that this particular year, I have had no job, no real social life, no money, and very little drive to improve myself; so admittedly, this year I may be a bit more bitter than most years. But, I will try to put that aside in order to review the Christmas season, in my usual flair of sophomoric terms, and colorful catch-phrases that still makes you think. So without further adieu, let’s get this train wreck a’-rollin’.
 
It probably wouldn’t bother me so much, if the Christmas season didn’t start just as Halloween finishes. Hell, I went to a store at the mall on October twenty-third, and they were already doing the Christmas music. I mean, what the hell?! But for all intensive purposes, I will say that the Christmas Season starts on November first. Given that, there are fifty-five days between Halloween and Christmas Day. That is a long time. But if you want a statistic behind that, fifty-five days is just a little more than 15% of the entire year, dedicated to this crap. Fifty-five days of commercialism, of marketing, of trying to empty your wallet, for gifts and things that your kid, your significant other, your friend, your dog, your whatever will probably get tired of by Martin Luther King Day. Not everyone is like that, I get it, but the return rate on that sweater, or that other “it’s the thought that counts” gift is significantly high. If it’s the thought that really counted, then stop and think about it a little more.

Another thing that I’ve always been annoyed with, are the incessant Christmas carols that you hear everywhere. In the stores, on the radio, at the bar with your drunken friends, at work, at the movies. Wherever you go, that fucking drummer boy isn’t far behind, and Rudolph exclusion from reindeer games is mentioned so many times, you couldn’t give a rat’s ass if you tried. Again, I would probably be fine with it if it didn’t go on for fifty-five fucking days! Oh, even more annoying is when people sing Adam Sandler’s “Hanukkah Song.” I’m a huge fan of Adam Sandler, and I like all versions of the song that he sings. But, Adam Sandler mentions in his songs that there are only eight crazy nights. That’s it. I don’t need to be reminded for twenty or so days that William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy are both Jewish. Not a fan of Christmas Carols.

Along the same lines are the Christmas Specials that come on every year, draining the life out of me. Listen, people who believe in the magic of Christmas, and listen to me well. Just because a Christmas special is a classic and is timeless, it doesn’t make said Christmas Special any good. It’s a Wonderful Life is not a very good movie. If you sit there and watch it objectively, and not nostalgically; you’ll come to find it’s a pretty crappy movie. Now, just to let you know… and call me a hypocrite on this, if there’s one Christmas Special that I’ll watch every single time, it’s got to be the animated version of “How the Grinch Stole Christmas.” Nothing says Christmas like breaking and entering, theft, dishonesty, cruelty, and later on redemption, and acceptance. And really, I don’t blame the Grinch for wanting to steal Christmas. The guy was lonely, feared, and hated, and in return, the Grinch felt resentment, and angry. But I digress. I won’t even try to schedule time to watch it. If it’s on while I’m flipping through the channels, then I’ll stop flipping and sit down to watch. But, I digress. People who insist on telling me that these classics are what make Christmas so special should be lobotomized. Trust me, with most of these people, you wouldn’t tell the difference.

Oh, and with TV… I am getting increasingly annoyed with the Christmas “inspired” commercials. It’s not enough that we have commercials, so that they can shove products down our throats. No, now they have Christmas-themed commercials to cram things down our throat with. Again, this probably wouldn’t bother me so much; if it weren’t for the length of time that they do so. I’m a single man, not dating, no job, no money, with no prospects. I cannot stand these commercials. And they usually cater towards children or for women. Because let’s face it, Christmastime is kind of crappy for the single man. This is the time when depression, suicide, self-bodily harm, and dangerous thoughts are most prevalent in single men. I; myself, have been dealing with these things this year, and the year before, and every year before that since I entered into this funny little muddle called adulthood. It sucks being and feeling alone during Christmastime. Yet, I press on, always thinking that next year would be better, and it never does. Then I see this crap on the TV, and it annoys the hell out of me. As I’m sure, if for different reasons it does any of you.

I could go on and on about why the Christmas season sucks. I could go on and on about my own Christmas season experiences. But I’d lose what objectivity I had going into this train wreck. Anyway, here it is, Thanksgiving; which personally has never made much sense to me. But that my friends, is a review for… … …probably later today; since it is Thanksgiving.

The Infraggable Tony-Man vs Veteran's Day

{Original Post date 11 November 2012}

Because of its inevitability, The Infraggable Tony-Reviews will tackle Veteran’s Day 2012 in its review/opinion like ways. November 11, holds a special place for a majority of Americans, especially in this day and age since we’re only now kind of revving down from the post-9/11 hysterics that has gripped our nation for the last 11 years. That’s not to say that 9/11 wasn’t a game-changer for America, or indeed the world, but that’s another review for some other time. November 11 is Veteran’s day. It is a day that honors the men and women in uniform, past, present, and most certainly the future. It has been bought with the sacrifice, blood, lives, and limbs of those who came before, who have always protected the special interests of America. It also signifies that even for one day, the most staunch of anti-military protestor can take a break for one day and let us have a day to be appreciated.

But, I find myself asking why do veterans of American military wars get one day, while costumer service has a week? Why do black people get a month, while service members get just a day? Why does the Commercialism of Santa Claus last from November 1 to About January 7 or so? Okay, let me clarify myself before I go on any further. The Knight family has had three consecutive generations of soldiers, within the U.S. Army. My grandfather, Robert Knight was field artillery, and served at least twenty years. He was great at what he did, and he loved the military. He made it to Staff Sergeant before he decided that he had done everything that he felt was necessary and then retired. My father, Bobby Knight started off as a TOW gunner, before getting himself into the medical field as a technician. My dad loved the military, and made it to Sergeant First Class and had a Warrant Officer packet in. He did twenty years, retired as a Sergeant First Class, and did what he thought was necessary. And then there’s me. I entered as a Communications Combat Support Specialist. I did six and a half years; went to Iraq, and decided that I wasn’t going to do twenty years. I got out as a specialist promotable, and couldn’t reach sergeant because there was no room for a 20 level, and that my promotion points were maxed out. Not only that, but I was never even considered for a promotion. While all three of us are veterans, whether like my predecessors, retired and became veterans, or like myself who was actually deployed to a combat zone; I feel, personally, that Veteran’s Day does feel overrated.

Perhaps it’s the fact that while my grandpa, and my dad started off as combat MOS’s, and I chose strictly combat support, that makes me feel the way I do. Over in Iraq, as a Communications soldier, and more specifically, 3rd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division’s only communications asset that had mobile capability, I had to move around a lot. Which is pretty standard for a signal soldier, but while others had to move only maybe once in their entire deployment. My team which consisted of only me, and another specialist, had to move no less than five times, all over Iraq. But ultimately, with the job we had, all we had to do was set up the equipment, and then babysit it. That was it. I’d hardly consider it hero-work. The military looks different when that’s you’re main job. I can’t really give an accurate picture of what an infantryman does, or a fighter pilot, or even a cook for that matter. I’m not saying that in my reasonably admirable time in the military, I wasn’t proud of what I did. I was a reasonably vital part of the mission that my company had at that time. I just wonder if I deserve to get Veteran status, because of the broad definition of what a Veteran is.

Veteran’s Day in this age has pretty much expanded to include anyone who has ever been in the military, past and present. And to me, in my opinion, I feel that such a definition for a Veteran is too broad. With the definition that we’re operating under these days, why not just call Veteran’s Day, “Service Member’s Day” or “Military Appreciation Day.” That really would make more sense to me, than just Veteran’s Day. I don’t mean to complain, or go through the semantics. I’m glad that we have a day where Americans, and indeed the world can look to us guardians of freedom, us fingers of justice, us protectors of the oppressed and say “good job.” I’ve always sort of felt like a Veteran is “a service member who has completed no less than ten years; a service member who has fought in combat against a threat, foreign or domestic; that is a suspected or confirmed enemy of the United States and its territories; or a service member that has been honorably discharged for non-bullshit reasons, i.e., retirement.” I know, this is still a little vague, and even with that criteria, I would still be considered a Veteran under the third criteria, but I still don’t feel like one.

I am just shy three years removed from the Army. While I didn’t enjoy my time in the Army, I still look back to it with mixed emotions. One thing that I will miss is the camaraderie with my “battle buddies” and that is something that I allowed to slip from me. They were true people that I suppose, if we weren’t in the Army; I probably wouldn’t have liked. But that is the strange thing about the military; is that they sort of force these people on you, and you either hate them and distrust them, at a moment that is critical, or you adapt, you tolerate them, and you may even come to like some of them. It’s not quite the same with civilians. But has three years honorably discharged after only after a six and a half year contract with the military, give me the right to call myself a Veteran? I honestly don’t know, nor do I really care. Take Veteran’s day however you feel like. Me, I’m going to crack open a beer, watch some damned YouTube videos, and say a very empathic Happy Veteran’s Day, bitches!

The Infraggable Tony-Man reviews "The Man with the Iron Fist"

(Original Post date 10 November 2012)

It’s that time again, time for the Infraggable Tony-Man to give one of his reviews. This time on Quinton Tarantino’s* “Man with the Iron Fists.”** While it was a good movie in its right, and I’d even go to say that it was a better than average movie, I found that there were some elements that posed itself to be somewhat weak. Here with some minor spoilers, is my take on the movie.
The movie has a pretty strong cast; with Russell Crowe (Gladiator, Master and Commander), and Lucy Liu. It also has RZA, Jamie Chung, and a lot of other Asian actors. This movie also has the movie debut of David Bautista; from WWE fame. This Kung Fu action flick has a lot of the same mantras that Tarantino is known for; such as flashbacks, and over the top violence and gore. The movie takes place, probably sometime at the back end of the American Civil War, and it involves Chinese gangs. And right here, is the first issue that I have, is that it really doesn’t make it clear what time period its set in until roughly the end of the movie; so it was hard for me to put the entire movie into context. Not really a breaking point of the movie and it’s certainly something that can be overlooked. The entire premise of the movie is the leader of one of the gangs, the Lions, is betrayed by one of his own gang and it begins dissent between the leader’s son, and the rest of the gang.

The biggest problem I have with the movie, is the characters and more specifically the motivations behind why the characters behave in the manner that they do. Starting with one of its main characters, Zi Yang, or as I’m just going to call him, the Shredder. He is the son of the killed leader; Gold Lion. He’s a pretty straight forward guy. Father gets killed, and he swears vengeance on his father’s murderer. This is about as straight-forward as one could get as far as motivation, yet since it never speaks about the relationship between father and son, I admit that I couldn’t really feel sympathy for this character. I really wasn’t invested in his actions, or why he turned to the life that he lived. He’s really a stock Asian character, and a little bland. His fight sequences were phenomenal, and his armor does sort of remind me of the Shredder in several ways, but otherwise, he’s a rather forgettable character.

The next character is Jack Knife, played by the always regal Russell Crowe. He’s an English Colonel, fighter, and womanizer. In my opinion, he’s the most memorable character from the movie, but he’s not without his flaws. He’s sent by the Emperor of China to retrieve lost gold. He has several funny scenes (though probably unintentionally funny), and he comes off as kind of a jackwagon. There’s also a scene that involves him that kind of threw off the atmosphere of the entire movie when he has a semi-sadistic moment, and then screams about how he’s on vacation, that seems almost out of character for Russell Crowe. There’s completely no backstory for this character, and even though it’s Russell Crowe, I just couldn’t seem to have any kind of investment in why his character was the way it was.

The next main character is the blacksmith. I’m not sure if it was just Hollywood’s decision, or if there’s any relevance to this, but he’s the only brotha in the movie. Yet, the blacksmith is the central character. It’s his story, he’s the one who is telling it through voice-overs and flashbacks. He’s the one who is creating weapons for everyone, including the poison darts that killed the Shredder’s father, and he’s the one who created the weapons for everyone who pretty much has a weapon in the entire movie. And due to events that happen with the movie, he becomes “the man with the iron fists.” We learn through flashbacks, that he was once a slave in America (the only time where time period is established) and that he was given his freedom by his white slaver. We also learn that he became a practicioner of Bhuddism, and eventually became a blacksmith. Out of the main characters, he’s really the only one of them that I really gave a rat’s ass; because he’s the only character that I felt was really fleshed out.

Other notable characters are Mistress Blossom, played by Lucy Liu, who as always gives a phenomenal performance. She runs the Pink Blossom Geisha House, and plays a very caring, if not authoritative mistress. She seems to care about her … uhm… whores, because she was once one of them. Again, maybe I just have a soft spot for Lucy Liu since in my eyes she could do no wrong with her acting. I could watch her just standing still for 2 hours, not say a damned thing, and just take everyone’s abuse, good-natured or not, and I would worship her in a non-sacreligious way. It’s fuckin’ Lucy Liu, I mean come on. The other notable character is “Brass Body” played by David Bautista. I gotta say, I kind of expected a little more, since he’s technically the big villain of the movie. He’s the nigh-invincible uber-badguy that the main characters must face. But again, like most of the characters in this movie, I felt was sort of just there to be there. He does present a huge problem to the heroes, but then again, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson was much like the uber-badguy in “The Mummy Returns” but had little reason to explain just WHY he was the badguy. The only real thing that we know about Brass Body is that he was hired to kill the Shredder (Zi Yang) and that he was paid a large amount of money to do so. Other than that, we don’t see much about his aspirations, his motives, or even how he became what he is. Really, I couldn’t figure out why as a movie watcher, or a reviewer I should give any fucks for this guy.

Still, even with its characters and motivations lacking for the most part, “The Man with the Iron Fists” does turn out to be quite a good movie; one that I would put up there with “Kill Bill”*** volumes one and two. If you’re looking for a movie that philosophically thought-provoking, emotion jerking, or even intellectually compelling… this is not a movie that will achieve that. If you’re looking for decapitations, blood, gore, and implied sex… then this is a treat for you, as this movie has no shortage of it. This is probably not a movie you want to shell out and see in the theatre; but it does make a good rental to watch by yourself, or like I did, with good friends. Which of course, is much of the movie-going experience; it’s definitely not “Wreck-It Ralph,” but it does have its charms. Just don’t expect to find it in its mostly bland and trite characters. This is Tarantino doing what Tarantino does; I’m just here for the ride and review.

*I didn't realize that Tarantino didn't actually direct this movie, which may also explain why it was crap. [15 January 2013] 

**I think it's sad that the best part of the movie was "Asian David Bowie" and even that got fucked up because he didn't sing "Dance Magic Dance" [15 January 2013]

***Except unlike Kill Bill, this movie lacks any sort of cohesive "give a fuck" story. [15 January 2013]

The Infraggable Tony-Man vs Bad Dates [Part 2]

(Original Post date 9 November 2012)

Now for part two of “What makes a bad date?”

So, I could go on and on about tardiness. And I really can’t stress enough how important actually knowing WHAT a date actually is, and if you’re about to expose yourself to one. There are also a number of other irksome nuances about the dating scene that drives me insane in the membrane (insane; got no brain)! Again, I’m really speaking as an outsider, looking in on this crazy world that I don’t understand. But I think other than exceptional tardiness, and date status… the biggest thing that turns me off is attitude. Trust me; no one likes an overly snarky bitch. I get it, Meredith Brooks taught a generation of women that you’re a bitch… and I think that’s mildly cute in a Fem-Nazi sort of way. But leave that shit with someone else. I’m not trying to say that “women should be a cook in the kitchen, a janitor around the house, and an acrobat in the bed,” (though it couldn’t hurt) but it’s simply not attractive to me when all you eat is eight slices of Bitcheroni, and drink only Carnation’s Instant Bitch. Some guys might go for it, but I simply just don’t want that impending migraine. If I gotta suffer, a lot more people will suffer vicariously.

And as I said, I don’t want to date some sexy zombie, only manufactured solely for my pleasing. I want a woman who can make me think. Who doesn’t mind sharing in my juvenile methods of thought, and isn’t afraid of dick and fart jokes from time to time. I want a girl who can also draw that line for me and try to keep me from crossing it. As long as that line is drawn pretty far out there, and allows me some running room, so to speak. Quite frankly, if I had the opportunity to date some girl with a stick up her ass, I’d more likely date the stick. At least it’s doing something mildly interesting. Our conversations might not be earth-shattering, but I bet I’d be more invested in the stick than the chick. …that sounded a little off; but oh well.

Something else that irks me, is appearance. Yes; I’m something of a shallow person. I expect the woman that I’m dating to have a certain sort of physical attractiveness to her. Show me a guy who says that a lady’s looks aren’t important, and I’ll show you either a gay guy, a closet gay guy, or someone who enjoys beating his dick like it owes him money. (Caveat: I have no issues against the gays, the lesbians, the bisexuals, the trans-sexuals, or even the shemales. As far as I’m concerned; heterosexual divorce is at about 53% in the United States; if anyone could truly appreciate the supposed sanctity of marriage; it’s these fuckers. If they try to come onto you, chances are; you just tell them that you’re not whatever they happen to be, and they’ll leave you alone.) I have to say that I think that I’m an average looking person. I’m not great looking, but I don’t think that I’m a total dumpster fire. With that said, I don’t want to date someone who would make the hideous witch from Snow White and the Seven Dwarves look like Beyonce. But it’s not just physical appearance, but how you represent yourself, through clothes, make-up, the way you use your words. Okay, let me explain. On a typical day; I wear a t-shirt, I wear black jeans, I don’t dress-up very nicely, because I’m not trying to impress anyone. I don’t have to. I will occasionally miss showers, I don’t always groom my hair. I’m not going out to impress people. Hell, most days I don’t go out, because I currently just don’t have the money to flaunt. But if I find myself on a date, or at an interview, or some sort of important soiree of sorts; you better believe that I clean myself up nicely, I shower, I shave, I use deodorant, Axe body spray, use Listerine, dress up as nicely as I can. I want to shove myself in the best light that I possibly can; for whatever purpose. So; if a guy like me who doesn’t like to dress up can take the time to do so (provided the venue of said date is appropriate for it), then my date damn well better do what she can to look her best. And she better look better than me. There’s something wrong, when I’m considered the cute one of the couple.

I could hark about appearance forever and still not say everything I really think about appearance. Suffice it to say that appearance and presentation on a date is very important. So, to sort of wrap up this two-part exposition into the look of my psyche and the dating world, I’ll just say this, and it’s a touchy subject.

Sex. (Get it, touchy? ….wokka wokka…) Some could argue that the purpose of dating, is to fling DNA at each other within the third or fourth date. Having never been on an honest to goodness first date; I couldn’t tell you what sort of criteria the daters must meet within the third or fourth date to get to that inevitability. I can’t tell you where the checkpoints are, nor could I tell you the physical signs that lead up to such a moment. Really, if you’re really just in it for putting out, and to get your knob-slobbed; buy the services of your “Friendly Neighborhood Hooker.” Some of these women are kind enough to allow you to negotiate prices, and you might just find yourself a sale at the bargain bin, for waaaay less than the cost of gas, food, entertainment, groceries, tickets, whatever it costs for four dates. If dating is just a means to justify the ends. Buy a hooker. No questions, no sharing of backstories, no real time investment. Sure, you may have to double wrap; but no path is perfect. But on the flipside, maybe a little sex is what you both need, and if you’re both okay with it, and it only takes 1 or 2 dates to figure that out; then go with it. I’m certainly not going to stand in your way. Personally, that’s not the way I look at things; but to each their own.

So that’s a very general look at what I expect from the dating world, and what makes a bad date. Take that with a grain of salt; certainly those of you who have liked and subscribed and all that crap are certainly able to comment me what you think. No comment will be screened or deleted, and no voice will be silenced, whether the comment makes you look like a cock-monger or whatever.

Next update will be a review of Quinton Tarantino’s “Man with the Iron Fists.” I plan on watching it tonight.

The Infraggable Tony-Man vs Bad Dates [part 1]

(Original Post date 9 November 2012)

Okay; here's an opinion column/review that was actually brought up to me by Candice M. Litsey.

Yesterday, on her facebook she writes, "What makes a bad date?" While the answers to her query prompted many answers; some good and some not quite so good, I have given it a lot of thought over the last 18 hours or so. Not counting when I was either drinking, or sleeping. So... maybe more like ten hours...give or take.

I have never been on an honest-to-goodness date. I have never done dinner and a movie, in semi-formal, nice clothing. I have never had the joy and the headache to make sure that every word had been brain-checked, or mouth-filtered. I have never had polite dinner conversations at some fancy-schmancy overpriced elitest restaurant where the only thing worse than the food, was the inevitably and unenviable task of waiting an hour for a fifteen-minute, sixty dollar meal. In fact, I don’t even know if that’s really what a date, even is. With the turn of the millennium, and traditionalism being pretty much obsolete; I find it strange to even define what a date is anymore. I can’t just walk down the street and point out a man and a woman who are dating, and who are just friends with “exclusive gold-membership benefits.” (And by the way… where can I get one of those?)

Given my ignorance, I can only express what constitutes a bad date in my own opinion. And while I think that my opinions are somewhat universal, and while it’s true that I can’t hit on everything; you might find that I may have a different look at things. As usual, these things are just reviews and opinions, but if you feel like you have something to contribute here; Comment me. Also take note that I am a single male who has never been on a date-date (like anyone knows what the fuck that means anymore; date-dating sort of declined right around 9-11... which may or may not be a coincidence), some of my opinions may sound misogynist in nature; but I promise you I love the womens. I just don’t understand them.

The thing that irks me the most about dating; is quite simply the validity of said date. Quite namely, is the gathering of me and this chick that I’m vaguely-to-moderately interested in at a neutral location; such as dinner, or a movie, or whatever we’ve agreed upon to go at a certain hour (primarily at night), in fact a date? Women, in my experience, have a tendency to be vague on this simple, yet all-important facet. So now, I have to be Super Sleuth to try to figure out what I should wear, how I should act, whether to take two showers or if I can scoot by with just one. Or would it even matter since we’re going to a place where there’s smoke and drinking, and dancin’ and sweating. And if it’s not a date, but the woman makes it sound like that it is, and I show up overdressed while she comes with like… holes in her jeans, and a spaghetti-type tanktop, or whatever they’re called. It makes me look like an undeniable cock-donkey. If both parties can establish that either “Yes, this is a date.” Or “No, this isn’t a date.” Then I can prepare to enjoy myself in the context of the status of the gathering. Trust me, I have no problems firing off a couple of knuckle children after the gathering if it isn’t a date, once the event is finished.

On the same token; I’ve always sort of thought that a date implies that the relationship between the two date partners is meant to strengthen and slowly transform into something perhaps a little more intimate. (Provided everything goes 90-95% well.) I’ve never understood the need to date someone, if the relationship is not going to change. That’s not a date; that’s hanging out and overspending on something you could have just stayed home to do. A date, to me implies that there’s some sort of investment there on the ends of both partners. That you both have put up with each other’s bullshit to such a degree that you both want to see if there’s anything more there. If you have no interest in strengthening, deepening, and redefining your relationship… don’t call it a date. Call it hanging out, or chillaxin’, or call it something that’s definitely not dating. Call it window shopping for all I care. Make the distinction beforehand.

Now that we’ve established that this train wreck is, indeed a date, (and here’s something that I can attest to personally, since it happened with me,) is don’t ever be obscenely tardy. I get it, sometimes situations come up where you have to be tardy. Life happens. And if so; have the decency to call and say that you’re going to be late. Now, here’s my example of what happened to me on the one time that I thought I was going on an actual date. We had been seeing each other for a few months, as friends. Talking, laughing, being nerdy and stupid… the whole she-bang. Finally I asked her out on a date, and she said yes. Talk about score, right? Well, she tells me to be at Olive Garden, on a Thursday at 4:30PM. So… maybe here in Augusta; the Olive Garden is considered fancy; if not cliché. But fuck it, I’m on a date! So that Thursday rolls around, I get there at 4:15. You know, to get a table, to be there early, to impress her, and all that. So what happens? 4:30 rolls around, she’s not here. No biggie, I figure she wasn’t going to be so punctual that she would be here on the dot. Besides, I’m still waiting for a table. Here I was, in a nice long-sleeve shirt that has frickin’ buttons. (HUGE for those who actually know me.) I wore some slacks, some nice comfortable shoes. I had to admit, I was looking G-E-W-D gewd! Which is a total change from what I’m like now, or more specifically, what I look like usually. 4:45 comes by, I’m still waiting for a table, she still hasn’t arrived. I’m a little concerned, and a little hungry, but traffic at that hour just draaaaaags on by. Five o’clock comes and goes, and without a phonecall or a text or anything, I begin to think she’s stood me up. Five-ten comes by, a table’s opened up, and I go and get seated. I look outside the window and I see a car that looks like hers pulling up to the parking lot. I’m thinking that maybe in female-talk 4:30 really means 5:10; and that it was my fault for not doing the conversion right. But no, it turned out to be some family I had never seen before. And so, I decide that she’s not coming at all. Still no phonecall, no text, no tingling Spider-Sense, no nothing. By the time I get finished eating it’s nearly 6PM, I pay for my food, get up, and get ready to leave. I get into my car to leave, when suddenly my phone goes off, and I get a text message. It says “Hope to c u there, b there 15min.” ……really? Is this vagina scab really texting me an hour and a half after the time SHE set down? Of course I responded “You’re late. Hope Someone stands you up bitch.” Okay, so that might seem harsh, so I asked her why she was so late. She responded that she had to take her mom to the hospital, so I called her mom, because at the time, I was really tight with her family. And when I called, her mother said that she’d been at work until 5:30. …so, yeah. Maybe I did something or said something to make this chick think I was a douche-canoe, but I don’t think that I did.

Okay, next update; will be part two of “What makes a date bad.” hours...give or take.

The Infraggable Tony-Man vs Abortion

(Original Post date 4 November 2012)

This review is actually from a question that my Cousin Kristy Johnson posted, just sort of wanting some clarification and opinions from her friends about whether abortion is murder. Her question was...

I'm reading an article that I'll post a link to later, but it's brought about a question that I find quite interesting and would like to take a poll on. In the Bible Genesis 2;7 God breathes life into man "then the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathes into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living soul." The presence of breath is used to determine life...

As one who believes in Pro-choice; this was my answer to her.

Personally, while I consider myself Christian; I also consider myself to be quite liberal in my religious views. Having said that, I don’t really refer to the Bible as the de facto source of all things Christian nor do I believe that it is a very reliable source for answers on many subjects. My reasoning behind this is that there are many instances within the Bible where answers seem to contradict itself. The role of Government is one such thing, and with it is the distinction between Government, Religion, and Abortion. Therefore, my answer to this conversation will have little to do with politics or religion (but they’ll pop up).

To further understand whether or not abortion is murder, or if it isn’t, I find that a lot of people are confused with what exactly is murder. While I’m hardly an expert on the material, I find that a definition of murder is probably necessary to understand what it is. Dictionary.com defines murder as Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder). Since some types of abortion is considered legal and protected under state or federal law, this is not murder. Is it gruesome, yes. Is it questionably unethical, sure. Is it murder? No.

The Bible teaches us that all men; Christians and Non-Christians alike should be subjective under their government, and that Governments must be Divinely Ordained. But here in the United States, we have a nearly complete separation of Church and State. So, at what point should we, be subjective under our government? And if indeed the State is separated from God, does that make any law passed by the United States ultimately wrong in the eyes of God? If that’s the case, should Christians, and even non-Christians be forced to follow the will of a government that is separated from the Church.

The bottom line is that God supposedly has a divine plan, and assuming that his divine plan is going exactly according to his plan; abortion must be a part of his plan. The fact that we get to talk about the ethical implications of abortion, or racism, or terrorism, or fundamentalism is really just an aside from God’s plan (and really, a distraction). As for me, I’m going to keep on with my belief that Pro-Life is Anti-Woman. I’m also going to continue to believe that God’s plan is going to happen no matter what we think, and what we do. And I’m going to continue to believe that abortion is not murder until the law of this government says that it is.

The Infraggable Tony-Man vs Election Time

(Original Post date 7 November 2012)

Okay, as promised… as if anyone really cares what I think. Here is my review and opinions on this election year; available now ONLY on Facebook.

I have kind of a confession to make, before I go any further. The majority of my family view themselves as Republican. Many of my family feel that Republicans are usually more steeped in Christianity and tend to have a stronger moral code than Republicans do. And that’s probably a valid point, if it wasn’t for the fact that I have never believed that a person’s religion meant crap when it came to a Presidential, or even a Congressional election. My family has always sort of been contrarian, even in the face of evidence that points toward the merits of the opposition. I, on the other hand have also leaned Democrat. I’m not saying I’m Pro-Democrat; but what I am saying that in my 29 years of life; we’ve only had one other Democrat president, and personal flaws aside, I think Clinton did a hell of a job.

As stated, I’m twenty-nine years old. I was born in 1983; which would make me a “Reagan baby” or more commonly known as Generation X… or the “MTV generation” (look it up. Back then, MTV stood for Music Television; shock and gasp, right?) So, I was born when Ronald Reagan was president, secretly fighting Altzheimer’s and threatening to tear down the Berlin Wall, while having his finger readily available on the button to nuke the Soviets, and all those other urban myths we had about him. Unfortunately, I was too young to really remember him, nor to give a crap. So, I admit that the only presidents that I can really speak about are Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama. What I want to tell you in this opinionated review, is that it’s admittedly narrow-minded.

With four presidents to take a look at; two Democrats, and two Republicans; it is hard for me to be really objective since I was not old enough to vote for either Bush Sr., or Clinton. To make even more of a point here, I was not old enough to vote for Bush Jr., on his first term. So I can only really compare the last term of Bush, with the first term of Obama; which I’ll get to a little later in the review. Now, as said before, this review is rather narrow-minded, and when I think about the Bush duo, the first thing that comes to my mind that explains both of them, is Iraq. Other presidents before them had the Cold War, and the World Wars; and America in general usually averages a Major war, once every twenty years or so, I can’t help but to think that we had two major wars in Iraq in roughly about a 12 year span. Or maybe to be fair, we had a major war, and a much talked about conflict, but still. It’s pretty big considering. This alone made me lean Democrat. Clinton was never involved in a major war, and Obama pulled us out on two fronts. I understand he probably only did so, because Bush Jr., said that. But then Bush Jr., was quite premature in saying that the mission was accomplished in Iraq.

I didn’t vote during Bush Jr.’s second bid for the presidency. In 2004, I was in Germany, just waiting for orders to fight. And eventually they came in 2005, and again in 2008. As a soldier, you’re not really protected by the Constitution, you’re not protected by the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment was a joke for us. We didn’t have the right to say what we want, or to protest peacefully. We were zombies, really more than anything. And here I was, in the desert, fighting Bush Jr’s. war. I get it, it’s what I signed up for, It was my duty to protect the special interests of America. I am a warrior, and part of an integral team who blah, blah, blah. But let's be honest. A Global War on Terrorism? Terrorism is an ideology. We have terrorism right here in Augusta, or Columbus, or DC, or wherever the hell you are. Even now, as I type, people are being murdered all over the world, people are blowing up one another because someone’s God has a different opinion about how many dead virgins they’re going to have when they get to the afterlife. Someone’s wife is getting their eye punched in because their steak was overcooked. This shit happens.

But, none of this really has to do with this year’s election. A lot of people like to bring in the fact that Romney is Mormon, and Obama is supposedly a closet Muslim Islamic Radical Fundamentalist. Or some hokey crap like that. And of course, when that happens, people always talks about “Separation of Church and State.” Here’s my view on that. If you really, truly, honestly believe that there really is any separation of church and state, then this is what we really need to have happen. None of this half-assing crap that America has pretty much built its reputation on, sometime after the Korean War. (Maybe Vietnam War, you know, credibility and all that.) From now on, ALL of our elected officials MUST be Athiest. Not Agnostic, not Scientologist, not Satanic, or Muslim, or Jewish, or whatever other religion is out there. They must be Athiest, period. Second, no government official, may worship in a church on anyday for any reason, so long as they are a government, or political figure. I could go on; and rattle off several more “Separation of Church and State” reforms, but suffice it to say, that saying that whether one president’s religion made the difference over the other is complete crap. Nationally, Romney’s game plan for the presidency was weaker than Obama’s.

In closing, since I’m sure I’m going to take heat from all the leftists out there. You want to stop Obama from “destroying” America? Then do it in the Congress. Congress has been pretty notorious for deadlocking anything that Obama’s wanted to do, even so much as to threaten to default America on its debts anyway. But I have an idea. Now, I know that it’s human nature to be contentious towards radical change, but hear me out. Why don’t we try out some of Obama’s domestic ideas? You Republicans always seem to be on the trolley, when Obama gets the idea to dole out punishment to Non-Christian Special Interest groups… is it so wrong to think his domestic ideas are also good? Oh, and by the way… for those of you who thinks that Obama’s the reason why the national debt has doubled under his administration, it’s not like he just writes checks, and they get approved like that. Obama proposes spending this much on whatever, SOMEONE has to approve it. Check and balances, people. Hell, if Obama can do, just whatever the fuck he wants, without someone stepping in and say, “stop being a cheeky dickwaffle” we wouldn’t have this issue. And honestly, if someone… like his wife, or children would actually say those exact words to him, then we wouldn’t have so many contentious arguments in Washington. Anyway, in four years, if America’s gone further down the toilet; feel free to tell me “I told you so.” For now, I’m sticking by my vote; if for nothing else, just to see how it plays out.