Things that I don't just understand

(How sweet is that poster? that basically sums it all up. when kids are shooting up malls to "become famous" and when the shit that you can see on "Prison Nation" is a reality, that poster speaks for itself.) So I saw "No Country For Old Men" the other day. and well, it's really, really fucking sweet. you know i love cold blooded bastards, and this one's got the best (worst?) one of all (or at least since Bill the Butcher). longtime Spanish actor Javier Bardem is a revelation as murderous psycho Anton and Josh Brolin is having himself quite a little 2007, first as the smarmy dirty cop in American Gangster and now this turn as the opportunistic, headstrong blue collar Llewelyn (sp?) Moss. i like what he has going on. plus, i love the 'stache. the flick was tense as hell, i bit like all of my nails down to 'nubs, and honestly had no idea what was coming next, which is a rarity for me. tommy lee jones is perfect as the worldweary sheriff who's troubled by what he sees. i've heard lots of people exclaim that its the Coen brothers' first serious movie, but i disagree. i don't really think it's that serious. i mean, woody harrelson is doing nothing but being a clown, and basically all of the assorted Texans throughout the film are providing nothing but comic relief. besides, bardem is too outrageous to be legitimate, he does his character in an almost farcical manner. great pace, beautiful scenery, it succeeds on many levels for me. is it a western? not really. is it a crime drama? sort of, but it's so much more. a morality play of the highest sort. at any rate, beautiful cinematography, it all works. i dig it and i'm pissed i waited so long to see it. 9.5/10, best movie i've seen in 2007.

on that note: best movies i've seen in 2007 (sadly, missing the Darjeeling Limited, Rescue Dawn, Grindhouse, Michael Clayton and the Bourne Ultimatum, all of which i somehow managed to miss when they were in theaters... where does all the time go?)

1. No Country For Old Men
2. Superbad
3. 3:10 to Yuma
4. American Gangster
5. Eastern Promises

we've got finals here coming up... which is completely garbage. the whole law school philosophy is completely off-target and doesn't serve its intended purpose in any way shape or form. so lets get this straight. you're supposed to read legal nonsense all semester, sit in class, and then you're supposed to prove your proficiency for an entire class over the course of one 4 hour exam that's graded on a curve? great, great idea. throw in open book exams, unequal distribution of students between classes, and yeah. i'm glad that my future financial well-being is hinged to my success on these random tests that may or may not be tied to anything that was actually learned in class, but probably wasn't. that's great. it's probably fair to give out people that go to your office answers to your test. oh, btw, anyone with a fake "learning disability" like ADD gets double time, as well as adderall. how is that fair? you're telling me that just b/c they actually went and got diagnosed with a fake disease that was made up by drug companies that everyone has, you get 1.) a quiet, isolated room, 2.) double time, and 3.) adderrall. wtf? what world is this? give me any one of those three advantages and my class rank would be at least 20 spots higher. hell, give me one hour and adderall and i'd be at the very least the same, but probably better. that shit is like the "magic do schoolwork pill".

today is Pearl Harbor day, which i think is underappreciated as a day in general. pearl harbor was, i will argue, the most important/significant day in American History, a day which forever altered America's place in the world and her approach to global affairs. if there's any wonder as to why the US spends so much on her military, look at Pearl Harbor. why do we protect Taiwan, Kuwait, Israel and all the little pissant countries that we protect? Pearl Harbor. sorry Ron Paul, but America will never again be isolationalist, and that's b/c of pearl harbor, directly. history has a way of punishing those that don't learn from their mistakes.

so my life is about to fundamentally change, in a big way. which... is completely crazy, kind of terrifying, but in a completely good way. like, you've got to grow up someday, and i guess that's kind of what's going on... and i like it. so 2008 figures to be a big year with the g/f moving down here and all. nothings going to be the same, that's for sure.. and i think thats a good thing.

This is going to be just a general rant, b/c well, hell, who doesn't like one of those every now and again? I know I do. So there are many things in this world that just don't compute, like, I'll sit and think about them, but they won't make any sense, whatsoever... I'm going to start talking about them, and wherever I end up, well... that's where I end up.

why do people rave about Bill Parcell's proficiency as a coach and Brett Favre's proficiency as a quarterback? you've got one ring each. one. nice job. news flash, if you play/coach forever, chances are you're probably going to win the big one, at least once. Ben Roethlisberger has the same number of rings as Brett Favre. Brian Billick has the same number of rings as Bill Parcells. Roethlisberger is not in danger of being considered a QB guru any time this century, same (as far as coaching is concerned) for Billick. so why the hoopla? what is it about these two gentlemen that causes sportswriters to flip the fuck out like they're in the presence of all time greats? who knows, personality probably. after all, Parcells does give a great press conference and Favre is liable to do some shit that will make sportscenter, either b/c its an amazing throw... or the worst throw/punt you've ever seen. favre (besides being the longest lasting public mispronunciation in recent memory) has great career numbers, sure, but that has more to do with the fact that the dude always plays recklessly at best and had the good fortune to never get seriously injured. is he a warrior? absolutely. is he a gunslinger? sure. but is Favre in the top 5 QBs of who i'd want to win a big game for me if my life was on the line? hell no, he's just as liable to have a 4 INT game as a 4 TD game. sure, he'll go out and have a monster 29-38, 383 & 4 game, but he's just as likely to have a 19-31, 233, 1 & 4 game, throw 3 punts and basically lose the game for his team. when we talk about all time greats, we shouldn't be talking about guys that make rookie mistakes as a 38 year old future hall of famer. i mean, how many times this year have you heard announcers exclaim "Brett has finally started to play within himself, stopped forcing the deep ball and taken what the defense gives him"... um, isn't that the kind of shit we should be saying about Jay Cutler or Phil Rivers? Not someone who has been in the league since i was in elementary school and is being crowned GOAT before our very eyes. whatever, it makes me feel like i'm taking crazy pills. and what about Parcells? all he did was screw over team after team by leaving prematurely and being a general ass to everyone. he won one title in NY and then ran roughshod over the rest of the league b/c he has (for some unknown reason) a ridiculously good reputation as a "winner". yeah bill, it looks like it, since Wade "music city miracle" Phillips is coaching the team you compiled to their best ever record. good thing you're a consensus all time great coach. that would almost make sense if there was any evidence to back it up. people talk about how Favre "would have won more" if the 49ers and Cowboys weren't in his way in the 90s. um. news flash, the great ones overcome that shit. all that means is that Favre wasn't good enough to be crowned GOAT. if he were really the best of all time don't you think that he'd have a win at Dallas in his career? oh, that's right. he got lucky to never tear an ACL, plays at Lambeau (the Packers have a great homefield advantage), and has had a decent career. nice job Brett. way to be sportsman of the year for having an actual ok season. "good job Brett, congrats on not leading the league in INTs this year". should you really be sportsman of the year for actually having a decent season? that's when you know you aren't really good. when you have a season that matches how you SHOULD be playing, given your supposed all-time great status, and its so much of a surprise to everyone that you get mentioned in the same breath as Brady for MVP and somehow win "sportsman of the year". Favre is leading the "most likely to be in a viagra commercial in 10 years" poll by a landslide. don't think you're getting off the hook Bill. 1st, you've got a FUPA (fat upper pussy area) and the most fat old-lady esque body this side of Charlie Weis. 2nd, your former "disciple" Bellicek, has proven to be 10X the coach you ever were or could ever be. you're an idiot Bill. sure, you can get to the playoffs, nice work. this just in, half the NFL goes to the playoffs, it doesn't make you good, it makes you average. nice super bowl ring Bill. you can't claim Tony Romo either, he only played b/c your "boy" aka shitfest Bledsoe didn't work out. you're a joker.

why do so many young people get random ass tattoos? like, granted, i can understand getting a tattoo if it's meaningful or you think of something really fucking cool to get. don't get me wrong, i'm not opposed to tattoos in the least, i'd have one if i could think of anything significant enough / not gay enough to be worth permanently etching onto my skin... but, i mean, why do chicks have random trampstamps and why do guys have random bands on the bicep? to look cool? great. good call, permanent body modification is probably the route to go to attempt to achieve "coolness", brilliant. you know what i did last night b/c i was tired of being so ordinary? i cut off my pinky. fuck it, i'm an individual. probably the worst thing is when you talk to someone about their tattoo and they're like "oh, i don't know, i was drunk/high/hungover/whatever and it just seemed like a good idea at the time". call me crazy, but i've been pretty fucking drunk in my day, and "lets go to the tattoo parlor and make some horrible decisions that can permanently be etched into my tissue" never seemed to be an option. i mean really, i'm sure your initials/last name/that butterfly/that tribal/that star (what is it with the star tattoos? did i miss the care bear reunion memo or what?) seemed like a terrific idea at the time, but why don't you just go and grab a funky tshirt or something? b/c really, look at what people looked like in the 90s. just google "dishwalla" or something and look at how horrific the 90s were. and that's only 10 years ago! just consider how horrible that tat is going to look in 20 years? why would you get anything permanently etched onto yourself that you didn't have a great fucking reason for doing so? just a word of advice: if you've seen a tattoo on say, a celebrity, or someone around, and you think it looks cool, don't get it yourself, b/c chances are some other plastic-minded tool is plotting the same thing right now. wearing the same shirt as someone else sucks. just think when you're at the beach with the same chinese character tats for "honor" and "faith" as half the tools in attendance dudebro. who knows. maybe i don't watch enough MTV or hang out with the UFC/band crowd to understand the whole "casual permanent body modification" thing.

why do hot chicks do porn? I never have and never will understand this. Like, granted, I know that sex sells, obviously. I just don't get why anyone would subject themselves to the kind of shit that is going on in the commercial sex industry. Some of the stuff that is going on is, well.. ridiculous. Like, to think that this chick started out quasi normal (granted, i'm sure that some/most of them were probably sexually abused as children or seduced by some smooth talking dirtbag as teenagers, but that can't possibly explain all of them given the pure volume of porn in existence) and she ended up wearing ridiculous heels and fishnets with the trashiest possible makeup, tattoos and worst hair dye-job of all time getting railed by a 6'4 hairless German bodybuilder dude with acne and a baby's arm holding an apple swinging between his legs. like, honestly, there has to be a better way. some of these women are legitimately very attractive, like, on a completely objective standard. couldn't they land themselves a low level celebrity, professional athlete or other rich douchebag to provide themselves with the same comfort level without all of the embarrassment? (don't even give me that women's lib nonsense, pretending that the porn industry does anything but chew people up and spit them out when they're done is ridiculous.) sure, porn pays pretty well, i'm sure, but you're also plastering yourself all over the internet and robbing yourself of the opportunity of having any normal relationship at any point in the future. (i mean, for me, no matter how attractive and otherwise appealing a woman is, if a porn history comes out, i'm hitting the door, no discussion, no nothing, just not acceptable) no doubt drugs and alcohol has a lot to do with the obviously horrible decision that banging a dude on camera for $5,000 is, but still, it just doesn't compute. like, couldn't you turn high class tricks for the same price and a shit load more anonymity? i just cannot understand and will never understand why a legitimately attractive girl would have sex on camera for money with the knowledge that it's going to be sold for money, it makes no sense whatsoever.

how is there a "crisis" with the subprime mortgage thing? um, national news media (who all somehow have college degrees), if someone gets themselves into a jam, it's not the government's job to bail them out. it's called personal responsibility and its pretty much the basis of a successful society. if you're enough of an idiot to assume that the housing prices were going to continue to raise indefinitely and that interest rates would remain low enough to enable you to afford your house that you paid entirely too much for, in what way does that concern the government? the answer is, of course, that it doesn't. if someone defaults on their loan because they made a horrible decision in agreeing to the loan in the first place, that's their own fault. plain and simple. what's next? the federal government planning to help gambling addicts who lost $15,000 in a weekend at blackjack? you gambled, you lost. tough luck. i simply cannot understand the logic behind the thinking that predominates now that every problem concerns the government and therefore the government should get involved in /is the solution to every single societal wrong. you do realize that the government can't do anything right, don't you? this is the same government that brought you Vietnam, the Warren Commission, the Iraq War, Welfare, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, Hurricane Katrina relief and the Veterans Administration (you know, Walter Reed military hospital?). yeah, great call, we should probably put them in charge of everyone's health care too. that's just what we need. the soviet union failed for a reason, and that is plain and simply that the government has no incentive to succeed/no consequences in the case of failure. congress passes a shitty law and what happens? maybe it gets repealed, more likely the courts just neuter it, and 90% + of the congressmen responsible for it keep their plush jobs b/c running for congress costs too much money if you want to unseat an incumbent, so most of the seats go without being seriously contested in nearly every election. meanwhile, businessmen make a shitty decision and what happens? oh, they lose their jobs and/or go out of business, b/c the private sector has actual consequences for things. the less shit the government can get involved in, the better.

why do people that are older than 17 still say "i can't drink beer, i don't like the taste of it"? um, newsflash. no one likes the taste of beer at first, it's an acquired taste.. it's not like every 15-16 year old kid cracks open a natty and is like "damn, this is better than a pop-ice". quite the opposite, you just man up, and learn how to drink it, b/c beer is far and away the most fun kind of booze. this individual is quite possibly the most obnoxious partygoer, b/c you're acting like you're special. you aren't special, you're just ignorant and missed the memo. many a high school night are spent by kids bitching about/chugging beer b/c it tastes like shit. you, however, are always female, and for some reason, never went through this stage. it will take you a month, tops, and then you won't have to be annoying anymore. go, buy some beer, and sit and drink it. dont complain about how it "tastes bad", of course it tastes bad, its fucking beer. if you want taste, go grab some kool aid or something... put down your vodka cranberry and actually turn into a fun person.

that's all i've got for today. i'll post more often. i promise, this "once a month" shit just isn't cutting it.

Theories on Actors; Arguing.

so i saw American Gangster on Saturday. good, solid film, although really, there wasn't any way it couldn't be. i mean, you've got Ridley Scott, Russell Crowe, Denzel Washington, they aren't going to combine for a shitfest. it's really interesting, in that Denzel and Russ are each the leads, like, it's not a cop movie, it's not a gangster movie, it's basically a character study of two extraordinary men and the determination they bring to what they do. good stuff, flawed? absolutely. but still very, very solid. i give it an 8.5/10. my primary criticism is that the film is actually too short. like, it's 2:37 as it is, but i want to know more about the two main characters and what makes them tick. we're given hints, but it's not enough. maybe it should have been two movies, like the first one being focused on Frank Lucas' rise as a kingpin and the second focused on Roberts' investigation and bringing Lucas down, that would have been sweet. two sweet and drastically different movies, with the same cast, like, the last 30 minutes of both movies would have been the same. i don't know if anyone other than me would have liked it, but i would have fucking loved it. i'm sure the director's cut will be around 4 hours long, it is Ridley Scott after all, so hopefully we'll get more of that, my fingers are crossed.

p.s. i can't wait to see No Country For Old Men. it's official.

i hate movies that are rated PG or PG-13. there's no reason for any movie that's geared towards people older than 8 to not be rated R. life is rated R, honestly. grow up and grow a pair, watch a movie that reflects reality.

so if you didn't already know, i'm basically obsessed with movies, and probably the most important aspect of movies are the actors that make the shit you're seeing on screen believable. so on that note, i'm going to give you my favorite actors, and my least favorite actors, and some problems that i have with actors that are otherwise popular. without further ado, here goes.

first, the Favorites (i'm listing as my favorites younger actors, in order to give other people a chance, if i included everyone, it'd obviously be Al Pacino, DeNiro, Jack, Sir Anthony Hopkins, et al):

1. Russell Crowe: my main man, he brings intensity and believability to his varied roles. i'll see anything he's in, and probably love it. my only criticism is that he can't really pull off a contemporary American accent, but that doesn't really matter. highlights include: Gladiator (obviously), L.A. Confidential, The Insider, Cinderella Man, 3:10 to Yuma, A Beautiful Mind and American Gangster.

2. Daniel Day-Lewis: unbelievable. if he worked more often he'd be widely hailed as the best actor in Hollywood. go youtube "there will be blood", if you aren't immediately excited for that film, you probably should stop reading. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ml2Ae2SIXac&feature=related) highlights: Last of the Mohicans, The Unbearable Lightness of Being, The Boxer, Gangs of New York, In The Name of the Father.

3. Christian Bale: he's exploded onto the scene in the past few years, which is definitely a very good thing. highlights: Rescue Dawn (i'm just assuming b/c i haven't seen it yet), Batman Begins (far and away the best Batman), Equilibrium (if you haven't seen this movie, check it, it's like the Matrix + 1984), The Prestige, 3:10 to Yuma, American Psycho, The Machinist, Harsh Times, The New World. basically, every movie i've seen of his. oh, including Empire of the Sun, when he's like 6.

4. Leonardo DiCaprio. it took me a long while to come around on this dude, due to his whole "teen heart throb" thing he had going on there for a while, but let's be honest, the dude can act. he's our DeNiro. there, i said it. highlights: The Departed, Blood Diamond, The Aviator, Gangs of New York, Catch Me if you Can, The Man in the Iron Mask, What's Eating Gilbert Grape

5a. Clive Owen highlights: Children of Men, Sin City, King Arthur
5b. Liam Neeson highlights: Rob Roy, Michael Collins, Kinsey, Schindler's List
i couldn't choose between these dudes, so i chose both.

other favorites: Chris Cooper, Matt Damon, Jamie Foxx, Colin Farrell, Val Kilmer, Forrest Whitaker, Eric Bana, Tom Hanks.

the second group are the fundamentally flawed actors, i.e., those that i can't quite bring myself to love and/or they get on my nerves because there is just something wrong with them:

Denzel Washington. he always plays the SAME character. how does no one else realize/notice this? he's always angry as hell and intense/fiery as hell. seriously, he does it all the time. his best roles are the films where his anger/intensity doesn't matter, b/c it's part of the character - Man On Fire, Training Day, American Gangster. but he seriously makes the same faces in every single film he's in and does the exact same things.

Owen Wilson. same deal. he does the same things and plays the same person in every movie. he doesn't actually act, he just is Owen on camera, and people love it b/c he's cute/aloof. sure, you changed your accent for the Royal Tenenbaums and the Life Aquatic, but you aren't fooling anyone any longer.

Johnny Depp. i know, i should love him. people that like movies like i do usually do. buuut, you're just a little too weird for me john. your schtick isn't working. oh, and you had to go and do all three "pirates" like a fuck. you're good John, you're just too weird. oh, and people that do $100 million disney movies aren't friends of mine. i'll always love Donnie Brasco though.

now, the worst of the worst. the "hated" group.

1. Nic Cage. what a hack. i hate nic cage with all of my being, i hate what he stands for, i hate what he's all about, and i hate how he got famous/why he is famous. nicolas cage's real name is nicolas coppolla. he's francis "godfather/apocalypse now" coppolla's nephew. i hate hate HATE nepotism. and i hate you for having no talent, but being a multimillionaire nonetheless. he took his stage name b/c he was a huge fan of the marvel comics character "Luke Cage", who is basically a blacksploitation muscleman. great nic. way to continue to be a fuck. will i always love the rock? absolutely, the rock suceeds despite of nic's douchebaggery, but in general, cut it out. you've got ticks up the waz, and you're a spaz. please, just go away. everytime a nicolas cage movie makes $100 million 1 million third world children come down with HIV. it's true, i read it on wikipedia.

i was going to rant about Ben Stiller, but then i realized i already have on this blog. but anyway 1.) you're a LITTLE too ripped to be an "everyman" ben, oh, and you're a spaz who gets cheap laughs off of toilet humor in literally every movie. grow up and learn how to actually be funny. what a talentless hack.

3. Paul Walker. why are you famous? oh, you're good looking... and that's it. great job paul. why do i even know your name? why are you a millionaire? why are people in hollywood refusing to let you go be a waiter and bang chicks b/c you used to be in movies?

4. Martin Lawrence. who in the hell keeps giving you work? you aren't even kind of funny. there are like 15 TOO many martin lawrence movies, and that's offensive to me. i can't think of a single time when Martin lawrence made me laugh. i like bad boys and bad boys II despite of his ass, and that's saying a lot. i once watched "Black knight", and i kind of threw up in my mouth. (by "kind of", i mean "a lot")

honorable mentions: Keanu Reeves (only saved because of Point Break), Kevin Costner

phew. ok, now onto the arguing.

now, for those of you that don't know, i'm in law school. which means, people like to argue. now, don't get me wrong, i like to argue as much as anybody, but, there are certain things that should just not be argued about, b/c they cannot possibly be resolved. so therefore, i'm going to lay out a couple of ground rules for healthy debate and set some limits on what can and cannot be debated under these ground rules. first: don't do the "i know someone" thing, b/c that can go on forever and isn't really an argument. like, if you're arguing in favor of welfare, don't say "my aunt was on welfare and she needed it to get back on her feet". you cannot justify an entire social program by highlighting one emotional story. that's what the mass media does, and that's why the mass media is garbage. the fact remains that anyone can trot out one individual to make any point they want to make, b/c people are infinitely varied. i could probably go out and find individuals that fall on both sides of every issue b/c of their experiences, that doesn't make either one right in and of themselves. you have to think of what is best for the largest group of people, b/c every decision helps and hurts some people some of the time. focus on the macro, not the micro, unless you're writing literature. if you're arguing public policy, you have to think of the big picture, not of the one kid you met. in general, stay away from emotion. emotion is the opposite of logic. so you don't think it's "right" that people in Africa are starving. explain to me some way in which the idea that you're presenting is going to work in real time. use "facts" and "logic", i know both aren't even taught anymore b/c the world is so wishy-washy, but that's what actually helps you make a point, if anyone even cares about such a thing anymore. stay clear of insults and broad overgeneralizations. avoid demonizing the person you're arguing with, it's childish, dramatic, and over emotional. you know what i'm talking about. it's the main reason why people in the United States no longer enjoy freedom of speech, b/c so much of our society overreacts to everything. everyone should be able to state any opinion they want to without people freaking out and causing that individual to lose their livlihood. no one has any authority other than what the listener assigns to the speaker, so why the hoopla over shit that non-authority figures say you ask? simple. because it allows the individual oppossed to the statement made by the now villified speaker to avoid the statement entirely by dismissing the speaker. that statement is never confronted with logic or fact, but rather with emotion. i believe this unfortunate fact of american life explains in large part the decline of american society. there are large swaths of american life that simply cannot be fully and rationally discussed because doing so is "racist" or "homophobic" or "anti-immigration" or [insert verbal hyperbole here]. the freemasons had it right, with their "no politics, no religion" rule for discussion, b/c really, you aren't converting anyone on either one of those points, especially in today's day and age, when politics are indistinguishable from religion. George W. Bush is vilified to an extent that no political figure ever should be in the public sphere, as was Bill Clinton, as will the next president. that's just the name of the game in a world where logic and reason have taken a back seat to name calling, emotion, overgeneralization/simplification and hyperbole. i mean spare us the verbal hyperbole and acrobatics. anyone who leads the world's most powerful military and economy is going to make some bad decisions, which are of course amplified by the stakes at issue as well as the sheer resources involved. that doesn't make them a moron, it doesn't make them evil, it makes them human. and the fact of the matter is that everyone would get along a lot better if we stopped approaching every issue as a matter of dogma, and approached it rationally, with real world solutions and remedies readily at hand. i'll give you 2 issues as an example. 1.) israel/palestine. 2.) immigration. what's the point of "debating" these issues? does it ever end in anything other than a shouting match? it's impossible to "debate" something that isn't broken down in rational terms for either party involved, but is rather an emotional issue to be approached as a matter of utmost importance. someone that's pro-israel sees it as israel's right to exist as a country, someone that's pro-palestine, as the palestinian's right to have a country amid the injustices that they've incurred. neither side gives two shits about the other. now where's the resolution there? clearly the jews aren't just going to leave, and clearly there's no where else for the palestinians to go. ergo, the solution requires them to work together, which they are unable to do b/c of the sheer emotion involved. so what's the point in debating it? you aren't debating anything, you're invoking emotional pleas concerning who suffered more and who deserves more. that's so removed from reality to be comical, so what's the point? if an issue can't be approached logically, why talk about it? immigration, same deal. for those that are anti-immigration, it's about maintaining the status quo, about keeping law and order, about securing the borders, about saving jobs. for those that are pro-immigration, it's about rights and "this is a nation of immigrants" and equality and so on. once again. apples and oranges. so why debate? unless something can be framed in the same parlance, there's no point, b/c no agreement or compromise can possibly be reached. unfortunately, we have the sensationalist media to thank for this. in order to make every news story sound as tantalizing as possible, every issue is broken down to emotional absolutes, so that's how the public understands everything. illegal immigrants are "criminals" for one side and "victims" for the other, rather than something to be discussed and understood. no one wants to understand anything, they want to be right. and seriously, when was the last time that someone's poorly informed initial opinion turned out to be correct? i'll give you a hint, it starts with an "n" and rhymes with "clever". i'll argue "Goodfellas" vs. "the Godfather" all day, or something else that can be framed as an actual discussion, but you can keep the abortion debate to yourself, b/c it cannot possibly be approached in a logical and responsible manner. this is 2007, and the United States of America has been reduced to squabbling children.