Getting off my ass!

So, as I alluded to in my last post, I have been thinking about doing a webcomic for some time; actually, that's a half-truth. I've been thinking of doing quite a few things for some time now. I have my own podcast, but I've wanted my own radio show; my own series of comedy vlogs, featuring graphics and incediary commentary; a series of short animated features, perhaps showcasing my daughters comedic talents; more work with my band; three unfinished novels as well as two barely started short stories; and several more projects I'm not even sure I want to talk about yet.

Somewhere in there, I chose "webcomic" as the best target for me to focus on. Why? Because it's really the only way to exercise almost all of my interests simultaneously. I can script, I can draw, I can be funny, I can practice computer stuff, I can comment on the ludicrous and illogical world around me — I can do it all, and perhaps make some people laugh at the same time.

So, I wanted to update my blog accordingly, and keep a sort of progress report on here. You know, use a "web log" as an actual "LOG" for once. Stay tuned here, if you're interested at all. I plan on sharing each stage. At this point, I've looked over many webcomics, and even asked for help (including the talented Caroline of Draw Write Play), and have ventured into a really sweet local art store to update my supplies. I haven't seriously gone after my drawing for years — it was nice to pull out my old sketchbook and impress my 8-year-old.

Tomorrow, I plan to outline my obstacles, and come up with some logical solutions. But the process is part of the art, so I wanted to share it with any interested parties. Enjoy! 

Okay, not that this is a huge revelation, but I do love the reality television phenomenon. It took some time for it and I to become close, with the first tentative touches coming from that behemoth "Survivor", and then growing to a deeper and intimate level until now, I'm surprised at how much of my regular watching is composed of unwritten entertainment. And it hit me last night, while watching the incredibly funny and shallow "I Survived a Japanese Gameshow" why that might be. Allow me to elaborate.

I do love well scripted shows and movies. As an actor, I appreciate what great dialogue and deep characters bring to the medium. I love Hugh Laurie in House, which is a mixture of amazingly deft writing coupled with a fantastic performance (not to mention an adherence to my belief in 'logic above all!'). I watch sitcoms if they're quick and clever ("Big Bang Theory"), I watch procedurals for the concept ("House", "CSI") and more, but I find that the majority of my enjoyment comes from real people in incredibly unreal situations.

I think, upon further reflection, it might be an interest in the psychological and sociological implications — I want to see how people react in situations that we, as a society are not prepared for. In this way, "Reality TV" is really not all that real; I mean, how often are you forced with being stuck on a deserted island, considering who you will exile every three days for being strong? And now, since our culture is immersed so heavily in the reality tv, it's moved to a level where people already have expectations of the genre, and contestants know not to trust each other, and to form alliances, without being told. So it remains in the hands of the producers to throw twists at them.

I watch things like "The Mole" to see normal people be clever in ways they don't get to in their every day lives, but find it amusing that every 3 minutes, they are talking about how every aspect of the other competitors' behaviour means they must be the mole! It's paranoia writ large, and it's fascinating!

I watch things like "American Idol", "Hell's Kitchen" and "America's Got Talent" because it shows how a person's dreams can be completely unrelated to their actual ability, and how a disturbing number of people think they are more capable than they are. The strange thing I noticed this week watching AGT (Oh, I do love the Hoff) is that there seems to be a correlation between a person's talent and their personality, in that the quiet and polite ones seem to be the ones with actual ability, and the loudmouths never seem to have it. I have never witnessed someone come in, blow away the judges in any reality competition, and then have them look out and say "Damn right!"

And my new love, which my 8-year-old shares, is that area that really has no name yet, but could be called "Extreme Game Shows". For example? "American Gladiators", or the infinitely more entertaining "Wipeout", which debuted this week. I think that despite the ribbing the Japanese take on their game shows, we're coming closer and closer to their model, just following far behind.

Well, clearly, there’s a new look for Jonsian Logic, and that’s appropriate, because I think it’s time I renewed my interest in blogging. I don’t know which has spurred me more in the last little while. Possibly, it’s the passing of one of my heroes, George Carlin, who has been a huge influence on my need to find the truth, and react to the world in a logical manner, ever since I first listened to his stand-up as a small child, rocking back and forth on one of those banana-chairs that were so big in the 70’s. I have no idea why we had one, but let’s not question the creation of genius, shall we?

The concepts that Carlin threw around, like deconstruction of language in order to understand meaning, or the research and fact-checking that he obviously worked into his routine showed me that you don’t have to be dumb to be funny, and you should always have an answer for everything. He was a mean old prick in his show, and regardless of whether that attitude carried over into his private life (I tend to believe it didn’t from his interviews), I agree that the search for knowledge and understanding, and more importantly, the education of the ignorant around us, was far more important than worrying about stepping on people’s precious ideals and opinions.

Or maybe, my renewed devotion to spreading the word of Jonsian Logic has more to do with this bizarre wall of misunderstanding I’ve encountered recently. People who’ve stated to me that my search for logic is “weird”, and/or “quirky; that there’s something abnormal about wanting to set people’s misinformation straight. People who are overly defensive about things they do, without denying they do those things.

In fact, let me set the record straight on that one – if someone accuses you of something that you view as a negative trait or interest, there really is only two logical defenses: Firstly, denying you do that thing, and proof of that, or secondly, proving why that thing is not a negative. If someone accused me of being a fan of Ace of Base, I would either deny I liked them, or point out why they are a misunderstood and under-appreciated band. I would not turn around and say: “So?! You like them!”

This is akin to admitting you think they suck, but you aren’t going down alone. Either own it, or deny it, but don’t lash out at someone because of it.

I’ve dealt with a lot of people who also assume that if I express an opinion, they can infer more about my beliefs through what is not said than is realistic. For example, when pointing out things that women can do to be thought of as “skilled” in bed, I was attacked for not advocating the same for men. I hadn’t been asked about men, and yet, my omission of specific directions for my own gender was seen as advocating absolute selfishness in men, and completely putting the onus on women. Y’see how it gets sticky?

We are all walking depositories of information. Our opinions are based on information we’ve been given, and information we’ve been taught, and information our senses provide us. All we are is information and emotion mixed together in a volatile little container, and everything we think and feel and believe is based on the validity of that information. People’s low self-esteem comes from data telling us what is appropriate for us to be, and how far we differ from the ideal, and what consequences there are from that. Sometimes, the information we have on any of those points is wrong, but that’s the false information we base our self-image on.

Not to go back to the guaranteed fountain of popular opinion, but when people say that Hitler was bad, that is based on information, filtered through ethics that are based on more information. We know that murder is wrong. We know that judging people by their religion is wrong, and then killing people because of that divide is more wrong. We judge all this based on history books, and our teachings on good and evil. But if any of the facts of this equation are in dispute, it throws our opinions out of whack.

Doesn’t that mean it’s better to be right – always? I mean, your opinions are supposed to be inarguable – but how can they be if they’re based on misinformation? How can you ever sound intelligent if you’re under false data’s sway? And trust me, we all want to be intelligent, no matter what stigma is attached to it. We just call it whatever makes us feel better: street smarts, wisdom, cleverness, “knowing the dillio”…what have you.

And so, since my blog had been ignored, except for the occasional cross-post with one of the many social networks I’m involved with, I decided to reaffirm myself to my cause. Who knows? I may start up the Logic Bomb podcasts again. I do enjoy the sound of my own voice, but I think the format needs to change, to be less reliant on outside input.

I have other ideas as well. Web comics, flash animation, some funky web design. All in time, though. The main focus has to return to logic. That doesn’t mean it won’t be entertaining – looking for logic in pop culture, through movies, television, music and comics is part of who I am. And I think George would approve. After all, it was one of the best ways for him to get his message across. And I think we can all take a page from his book.

I mean, he wrote three of them.

The other day I got a phone call from my local newspaper distribution centre. I understand the need to promote and sell subscriptions – I was not offended by the call per se. I do believe there are better times to call than during dinner, but realize that this isn't always practical for solicitations, and don't begrudge them that. However – the tone and mindset demonstrated by the caller fueled my rage and is the impetus for this blog topic. Please, bear with me, but if I don't let it out, I'll rant my wife's ear off, and she can't stand that.

The call began traditionally enough, with the solicitor asking me if I was interested in receiving a subscription to the local paper, which shall remain nameless, since I have no idea how libel law works. I politely responded that I was not interested, and thanked him for his call. That apparently was not all, as he proceeded to ask a follow up question, which again, I do not begrudge him. He is only doing his job, and probably has a blank space on his form which asks him to fill in further information.

Telephone guy: "Sir, might I ask why you aren't interested in receiving a subscription to our paper?"

Me: "No one in my household reads the paper."

There was a pause, and then a snotty, smirking tone came back across the line: "You don't read the paper?"

There was so much scorn and judgment in that tone, I recoiled a bit. Now, if I had answered the phone with a lovely Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel tone in my voice, and responded with a drawling "Nah, we'uns don't got much use fer fancy book lernin'!", then I might understand the tone. Not that anyone in the business of selling has any right to openly judge their potential customers. Behind closed doors, or off the phone line? Make any snap judgments you want. To our faces (or ears)? You better be damned respectful.

I don't recall the details of the day that led me to being in a foul mood. I normally don't bother to correct people I don't know in the error of their ways. Hey, it doesn't impact my life, so go on and be a moron. But there was something in that tone that day that forced me to respond, and the punk on the other end obliged me by not hanging up until I finished my diatribe. I will attempt to transcribe it verbatim from my memory:

"No, sir, we do not read the newspaper in this house, and I'm a bit amazed at your surprise. I currently have more than a dozen news feeds streaming straight to my Google home page, including the CBC, BBC, New York Times and more. I have them ordered in preference to my interests, and have a dozen more links allowing me to follow up these stories straight from the Associated Press, if need be. How anyone in today's society could profess surprise that people can get their news digitally far easier, and might I add, significantly cheaper than your newspaper is beyond me. If I want comics, or movie showtimes, or financial reports, or even classifieds, there are at least 30 more reputable sources than your newspaper. Maybe one day I'll buy a bird, and I'll need something to line his cage with. Until then, I remain uninterested."

Amazingly, he hadn't hung up yet, and stammered an apology, but I hung up on him.

Now, I had made that crap up on the spur of the moment. I don't actually have a dozen news streams – I look things up as they interest me. But the point, spoken in anger, was no less valid when I thought about it. Did we really need the printed source anymore? I mean, I check almost every reference source I use online. And not just Wikipedia; lord knows they're suspect, despite the many editors they have. I mean, various major dictionaries are online. The Guinness Book of World records, several encyclopedias, various public domain books…all online. And if I'm not too fussy about the legality of my downloads, there are numerous other sources of information online.

As for recreational reading, I will admit that reading from a book still brings a level of comfort at home – but I have, at various times, had over 50 novels in my PDA at any time, and was able to sit and read while waiting for any number of things, dragging a good chunk of my library with me. I think that with the amount of computer work we do, even the normal eye-strain associated with reading on the computer is becoming minimal. It's theoretical that an entire library of books could be held on two or three DVDs…along with all my writing, my photos, my sheet music – all in a folder smaller than one novel. And in the event of a fire, I lose nothing, as I can carry around something that small in a backpack. Which, believe it or not, I do, along with my laptop, and several key electronic devices.

If everyone is so up in arms about deforestration, isn't the next logical step the reduction or elimination of print? And doesn't that mean that newspapers are heading the way of the dodo?

Man, I'm turning into a TV blog, slowly but surely.

This morning, sick out of my head, I sat and watched "Last Comic Standing" with my wife, which we had PVRed from Thursday, and it got me thinking about celebrity, and how it's not an absolute quality. There's certain tiers of fame that a "celebrity" can be, and still not be a megastar. And everyone accepts that. We all realize the difference between A-List, B-List, C-List and so forth. Certain actors will get a role based on their fame, when producers feel they need a "box office draw". This means that no matter how much I love Bruce Campbell, he will never be higher than comic relief in an A-List movie (eg. "The Snooty Waiter" in "Spider-Man 3"), no matter how good an actor he is. But I was thinking that there's another dimension of fame, and that is location-based fame. It's sort of a spin on the concept of the "local hero", but taken to the next level.

And this brings me to the interesting pickle that is this season of "Last Comic Standing", and the inclusion of Sean Cullen.

Sean is what is known as a huge Canadian celebrity. He's hosted our awards shows. He's had a successful comedy band ("Corky and the Juice Pigs"), and does quite well on stand-up tours. He's had multiple shows on TV, and was the headliner in the Canadian production of "The Producers", and everyone just nodded when his casting was announced, and said, "Yep, that's the Canadian Nathan Lane – without the gay." He's written and number of best-selling books…well, best selling here. I have a signed copy of "Hamish X and the Cheese Pirates". He's huge – but only in Canada. There's very little cross-border permeation. Check out his IMdB listing. It's obscure on the Yankee side of the fence. A few roles in some independent films. A couple of memorable appearances on American sitcoms, most notably his role on "Payne", the John Larroquette rip off of "Fawlty Towers", where he played a woman. He's been on "The Tonight Show" a few times. But nothing earth shattering.

And even though he's huge in Canada, he's only Canadian huge. Canadian huge is different than actually huge. Americans know some Canadian music: Rush is big, Celine, Barenaked Ladies, Bryan Adams…but then it trickles down: Our Lady Peace, Tragically Hip, Moxy Fruvous ("Who?", you ask). Canadian actors are the same way. Sure, you know Mike Myers, Jim Carrey and Michael J. Fox. But what about Eric Peterson, Patrick McKenna or yes, Sean Cullen? Right. Huge here, no one in the States. So, he still probably drives his Toyota to gigs. He can eat unrecognized (well, not by me. We ate lunch in the same restaurant one day, and I just about popped a blood vessel.) And, apparently, he'll try out for an American reality show. It's funny to me, because the wife and I sat bolt upright when we saw him. "Is that Sean CULLEN?"

The strange part to me is, I watched these auditions, and recognized far more than just Sean. The other guy who made it to the semi-finals is a fairly successful stand-up, who coincidentally co-starred on "The Sean Cullen Show" a short lived variety sketch show hosted by Sean Cullen. It was popular, and even was up for awards – bet no one down South ever heard of it, huh? Even stranger, Dave Foley, former star of "Newsradio" and member of the sketch troop "Kids in the Hall" was there as a judge for the talent. "Kids" became a hit when Sean was hitting prominence with Corky and the Juice Pigs (you may have even heard their biggest song "I'm the Only Gay Eskimo" on MadTV). So it's inconceivable they didn't know each other – and probably hung out together. The Canadian comedy scene is pretty tight knit. And so on one side of the stage, you have arguably Canada's biggest remaining stand-up comedian, who is completely unknown to the target audience of the show, and his peer, his contemporary, sitting behind a desk, judging him. My wife opined that it was likely Foley had personally called him, and informed him of the audition dates. I notice there's never a mention of their success – I mean, you know these comics are, for the most part, working comics, but no one mentions starring in multiple TV shows, awards and fame they might have.

And it makes me wonder if this phenomenon extends to other countries. America might be one of the only countries that doesn't have people who are only locally famous, simply due to the fact that we buy pretty much all their shows. There's very little that doesn't get imported up here. But there's plenty of popular Canadian shows that never cross the border. I was surprised to find out the Americans even knew who Red Green was. So I can only assume other countries have this happen. Sure, we know the huge British stars, but judging by the people who end up on "British Celebrity Poker", they have people they're either unwilling, or unable to sell to the North American audience. And Canada? Hey, we buy far more of it than you Americans.

Anyways, it's interesting that we now have a huge Canadian celebrity to root for on an American reality show. Last season, the Canadian. Gerry Dee, was a minor celebrity, which my wife describes thusly: "He gets a half-hour on the comedy network.". This season, we get the equivalent of…you know what? That's the thing I like about Canadian comedy.

It's sort of its own thing.

I know it's been a while since I've blogged, and although I have a few full blogs percolating in my head, today, being slightly under the weather, and unable to focus on long-winded ideas, I sort of had another "Jonsian Logic Blog Points" idea in my head, with a couple of weird thoughts that hit me on my morning hell-commute. So, if you enjoy bloglets, this is right up your alley. If you don't, I apologize, and am thinking of a big blog post about arguing and it's place in my world for some time in the near future.

*    *    *    *    *

When you ask someone how they know what Jesus said and did, a religious person invariably says, "Because the Bible says so, that's why." And if you question the validity of the Bible, you're told that the book is never wrong, and is the ultimate guide to Christianity. Yet, when feminist Christians point out that God may or may not be a woman, and you reference the Bible, they say that the Bible was written by men, who put their own slant on things.

So, which is it? Is the Bible a misogynistic book written by self-serving men, or an inviolate text of what happened in the olden days of miracles? Do you really think you can have it both ways? Either the book is always right, and God is a man, like they say, and you feminists are just whining; or the Bible is biased, which means absolutely everything in it is suspect – because clearly, if they can change the gender of a god, then they could change anything else they wanted to, too, couldn't they?

*    *    *    *    *

And while on the subject, isn't assigning a gender to an omnipotent being sort of limiting? Isn't the meaning of "omnipotent" the ability to do anything? Which, one would assume, would include changing one's gender?

And isn't gender simply a concept assigned to species that need to reproduce? I thought that God said in the Bible that there was only one God. Who would he reproduce with? Is there another, female God one universe over?

And is she hot? Is there a lot of Gods in parallel universes, and is there competition for the hottest Goddess? And do Gods ever get rejected? Is that what natural disasters are? God goes for a date, and gets cock-blocked, and kicks the earth, and half of California falls into the sea?

*    *    *    *    *

Sorry, less airy fare: Does anyone else think it's a little hypocritical for lesbians to use dildoes? Didn't they make their choice (or whatever)? You don't see many gay men with female blow up dolls, why should they get to claim the male form repulses them, and then they get a molded version of the only thing that makes us different? Doesn't that mean they sort of are attracted to men? Or at least, that part? Shouldn't they be stuck with vaginas, when they make the declaration of vagina-only love? If you want both, hedge your bets, and call yourself bisexual! I can't respect a hypocritical lesbian.

*    *    *    *    *

Why is graffiti so unreadable? Isn't "tagging" supposed to be an ego thing? Wouldn't you want people to be able to read what you've written? Isn't that the point? Rather than stylized letters that you claim is your name, shouldn't it actually be legible? I mean, sure, it's not even your real name – I've never seen graffiti that says "Eugene", it's always "Road Dawg!" or something (I assume, it's hard to read…see above), so there's already a level of anonymity, but seriously? Why bother if it looks like someone threw a paint-bomb at the side of a house?

Also, since this flowery graffiti is so popular, when is calligraphy making a comeback?

*    *    *    *    *

Why does everyone equate piracy – software, music and video – with stealing a loaf of bread? Why is this the fall back position? And is it even accurate? I've been asked "If you didn't like the price of a loaf of bread, would you steal it?" to compare it with software piracy (which, in this open forum, I assure you I never do). But how is that the same? Piracy involves copying something someone else bought. It may be unethical to some, but it's really duplication.

If I could go to the store, see a loaf of bread, and then duplicate it into my backpack, then yes, you could compare the two. There would still be a loaf of bread on the shelves, so no store security would believe anything was missing. The bread company would still be out the money, since I got bread for free, but the bread would still be there, accounted for. Hence, it's harder to get caught.

And where's the line between piracy, and sharing? This is a real question, not a rationalization, by the way. I'm curious. If you bought an album when I was a teenager, and made me a copy of it, no one seemed to get their feathers ruffled. Hell, half the people I know made mixed tapes from the radio, which means you had to listen to some idiot DJ talk all the way through the intro of a song, but you had a copy. The technology made it possible, and for some reason, people thought mixed tapes were awesome. No one looked at you like a thief, and no one said you were being unethical. (I have a whole blog post coming on ethics, so I'll save the rage for the term until then).

Today, it's grand scale; one person buys the product, makes a copy, and leaves it out on the internet equivalent of their front porch for others to have a copy of. Is it because it's a stranger that it's no longer considered sharing? That one person owns that CD/program/movie. They paid for it. Why are they not allowed to share with friends? And if friends is okay, why is strangers wrong?

Isn't sharing with strangers called "charity"?

*    *    *    *    *

I may have more later, but this is the mental equivalent of spring cleaning for me.

Angry rant time! Everyone ready? Great!

Today, I realized through a series of conversations over the last month, that the whackos have stolen some phrases and are misusing them hard. Since when did we allow the crazies to decide what words mean?

I submit, for your consideration, two opposing terms: open-minded, and closed-minded. They seem, on the surface, to be fairly straightforward ideas that are easy to grasp. Who doesn't understand what they represent? Or, more importantly to my post, who doesn't understand which one they're supposed to be, and which one they should shun like the plague?

A long time ago, these terms used to be used correctly. If you were open-minded, you were willing to listen to alternate theories and ideas, with no prior bias or bent, long enough to examine their worth. If you were closed-minded, you were stuck in your beliefs and wouldn't accept any new ideas without pre-judging them based on what you already believed. And that made sense, and things were right in the world.

But, like any good use of language, the knee-jerk New Agers had to pick up our toys and paint them gaudy colours, bedazzle them, and call them their own.

Now, when any half-baked hippie opens their ramble-hole, they expect that if you don't accept absolutely every hare-brained idea that falls out of their open-air skulls, you are branded "closed-minded".

Freako: "You know, a magic piece of toast flies in my room every night, and farts fairy dust up my bum, which makes me able to see auras!"
Me: "That makes no sense."
Freako: "You are SO closed-minded! Hey, everyone! Gather around, and see the closed-minded man! Couldn't you just crack your mind open just a smidge, and you'd be a better person?"

Short answer? No. Long answer? No, and fuck you, Zany. It is not being closed-minded to listen to someone babble on incoherently about whatever invisible power they think they have, and then, having heard it, decide to analyze said theory, and possibly find it lacking. Closed-minded would be if when an obvious nutjob opens their mouth, I slap a nice slab of duct tape over it. Trust me, I may not be doing that, but it's always in my head, in glorious whack-o-colour.

I'm tired of the war, simply to assert my right to doubt the unbelievable. If you can't prove your theory to me, I'm not closed-minded — you are a poor arguer without a shred of credible evidence, and your theory is probably padded-cell material anyways. But we're so sensitive in today's day and age, that we can't bear the thought of being seen as intolerant or set in our ways.

By the way, this goes for all theories that you have no proof of — religion is not immune. If I decide not to believe in your invisible bearded guy in the sky, after years of having people try to proove it to me, that doesn't make me closed-minded. It says you don't have much of a case.

Along with misused terms like "know-it-all" (Isn't the pursuit of knowledge the desire to "know it all"?), or "You have an answer for everything!" (If you spent so much time amassing knowledge, wouldn't you be proud of having an answer for any half-assed argument someone threw at you?), I am taking back the mindeds, both open and closed. The second someone uses one of those terms in the incorrect sense, I'm informing them they've officially run dry on credibility. You can also win an argument by punching someone in the gut and laughing as they struggle for breath, but it's not considered good debating form. Likewise, it's bad form to not understand the terms you're using.

Until then, much like my daughter and her new religious leaning, I will remain "obnoxious".