Is THIS the Face of Evil?

I've been a huge Batman fan since I was a kid. Unlike most Batties (I'm pretty sure they're not called that), I don't think I was introduced to or became a fan in the traditional way. I'm under the impression that many fans are introduced and hold strong loyalty to the comic books from which he originated.

Me though…I got into Batman as a youngling addicted to television…one of my favorite shows being the old, silly 70's version starring Adam West and Burt Ward. Despite the silliness, I always loved the stories, the characters, and even the idea of a "good vs. evil" battle, even though it was very thin and completely polarized in the greatest sense.

My favorite villain in the show--who remains my favorite villain today--was Batman's greatest arch-nemesis…The Joker. Comic book versions aside, Joker has appeared in various incarnations throughout the "Batman" cinematic history (both TV and film). I loved the giddy Cesar Romero in the old series (especially his Easter-egg green mop), and even the one and only Luke Skywalker voiced Joker in the Batman animated series--but I've always been particularly loyal to the rendering by Jack Nicholson in the 1989 Tim Burton version of "Batman." I know I'm probably alone on that one, given that Nicholson's performance has been generally criticized as "cartoonish" and the film in its entirety gaudy…but Jack is the one who simultaneously gave me nightmares, yet seduced my darker side with the fantastical ideals of the freedom insanity brings. He was psychotic, yet managed to be charming. Frightening…yet absolutely hilarious.

The latest attempt to resurrect the Batman movie franchise met me with some reluctance. I think everyone was a little hesitant, wondering if "Batman Begins" would be take the Dark Knight down the even darker path of garishness--a sin committed by the ill-fated "Batman and Robin." To my utter delight, however, Christian Bale not only turned out to be the hottest Batman yet (next to Adam West--though I do prefer Michael Keaton in the movie versions), but also delivered the best Batman adaptation ever done for the screen.

The sequel, "The Dark Knight," hits theaters in summer 2008…and when I heard that it'd be a movie to include the Joker, I about died. The caliber of "Batman Begins" was seemingly unsurpassable. With the same writers, director, and principal cast (I am one of the few people who will miss Katie Holmes as Rachael Dawes), I was so excited about how potentially freaking awesome "The Dark Knight" could be. When it was rumored that Paul Bettany might get the role as the Clown Prince, I about died.

And then I literally did. Right when I learned that one of the worst choices in casting ever--in my opinion--was made. My beloved, insane anti-hero was cast as…Heath fucking Ledger.

Is this really the face of evil?




I know I should remain optimistic. And with the writing and execution from "Batman Begins," I am relatively open to the idea that maybe, just maybe Heath Ledger won't blow chunks (after all, we have to judge Christopher Nolan's judgment)…but really? The gay cowboy from Brokeback Mountain really has the chops to go from an Australian pretty boy to the incarnation of evil itself?



A lot of me is pretty pessimistic. I have a very
specific image of the Joker in my head…partially to blame by a mixture of Jack Nicholson and Cesar Romero…but he's a tall, thin and lean guy with a high-pitched, gleeful squeal. He's insane, charming, sexually charged, and freaking scary as hell. So badass, in fact, that he even scares the shit out of one of the greatest heroes ever (in my opinion--Batman is the greatest hero ever, given he does all his crime fighting, sans superpowers). I can't even imagine Ledger having the Joker's laugh, let alone being funny. Even those who hated the Jack Nicholson version have to admit that his delivery of, "Where does he get all those wonderful toys?" was as classic as it comes.

Sorry…but Ledger doesn't scare the pants out of me…even in the makeup (which I'm also not a fan of…the hair isn't green enough either). I still think Paul Bettany would have been a better choice. And I don't care that this movie is based on the Dark Knight comic books over the regular ones--but Ledger wasn't even on the shortlist for me when I was contemplating potential candidates.

So, I'm going to put out my predictions right now. Given the short history of the Christopher Nolan "Batman," I'm willing to bet that the story is there, but maybe all of the performances will be there except for the one that makes us want to watch the movie--the struggle between Batman and the most badass villain ever. I would bet though that at the end of the movie, people will be walking out of the theaters saying to each other, "You know…the story was there, but it just wasn't as fun as it could be."

If they're saying that…I can guarantee you it'll be Ledger's fault.

Who knows? Maybe Ledger will surprise me. I hope he does. I hope to god I'm proven wrong on this one, because I don't how I'm going to come across the biggest turd in the world to send to Warner Brothers if Ledger freakin' screws up my criminal idol. I'm tellin' ya…that's going to be one big P.O.S in the mail if they do.

Tiffiny Kaye Whitney

P.S. For another blog…possibly tomorrow…I am going to disclose some of the other concerns I have for this particular movie. I am deathly afraid they're going to kill off what appeared to be a very lucrative franchise with the same mistake that the other Batman movies made…too many freaking villains. We've got Joker in this one, Two Face (at least Harvey Dent), and Scarecrow. In all honesty, that's one of the biggest reservations I have right now too. The Joker is a very rich character. I’m afraid they'll waste him by freaking throwing Two Face in there.

Those Weirdo Mormons!

Holy cow! It's November 27th already? Geez…it's not very long until I'll actually turn 24 on December 16th! God I feel old.

Anyway, me feeling old is not the subject of my blog today, actually. I haven't written in a while, so I felt it was time for an update. So today, the topic of my choice is…religion.

It's actually a bit more specific than that. It's about a particular religion, which seems to have a pretty bad rap and threatens to halt the careers of certain public figures, should the American people decide that their "hokey," "cultist" religion is too "out there."

Hah…you probably thought I was going to say Scientology and cite Tom Cruise or Will Smith? Huh? Nope! Right now, I'd like to talk a little bit about Marie Osmond and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, better known as the Mormons. And being a former Mormon myself, I have a bit of background that qualifies me to at least speak with some knowledge on the topic.

It all started when I was browsing the web and happened across a blog by comedian Mo Rocca. You really should read it, even if just to see the introduction of Marie Osmond to TV audiences as a three-year-old (she's pretty cute in that video!), but let me sum up what he said.

Essentially, Mo believes it's possible--and even offers a poll at the end of the blog to tabulate public opinon--that perhaps Marie's very public status as a Mormon might affect her winning the show that she now appears on, "Dancing with the Stars."

Umm…hello?

I have to say that I lost a lot of respect for Rocca--firstly for watching the show. I know--I've heard it's good--but I'm sorry. It's a bunch of has-beens dancing for no good reason, other than to increase their currently limited-to-nill exposure in the public eye. I'm sure it's fun, but I just think it's a show I wouldn't have a ton of interest in. In fact, at this point, my only interest in the show is that my home girl Marie is doing quite well on it (I think she's like one of the last two women?).

My other beef with Rocca is for even asking the question, "Is America ready for a Mormon 'Dancing with the Stars' champ?"

It gets worse. At the end of the blog, he offers a public opinion poll about whether you would vote for her or not, knowing she's a Mormon. The choices include, "Yes, I'm ready for a Mormon DWTS champ," "No, I don't feel comfortable with a Mormon winner," "I'm voting for her, even though I think her religion is weird," and "I'm not voting for her, but interested in learning about Mormonism."

I repeat myself…"Um…hello?"

First off, people like Rocca need to get their facts straight. Mormons don't practice "Mormonism." Allegedly, Mormon was a dude who recorded all the stories in the Book of Mormon (hence the name) onto golden tablets, which were then later translated by Joseph Smith and followed by the Mormons. They don't worship Mormon, so they can hardly practice Mormonism. While I'm not sure if there is any "ism" that can be used in regards to the Mormons, the more correct term would be saying that someone is "LDS" (for Latter-Day Saints), or a practitioner of the Mormon faith (indicating following the Book of Mormon--not Mormon himself). You could also say they were a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but that's really just long.


Secondly, where does Rocca get off thinking that the religion of a contestant is going to make any difference to a sane audience member voting on DWTS? Yeah, maybe some ignorant fool is going to say, "Dude…she's Mormon…I can't vote for her," but really? I mean, really! Your religion has nothing to do with your ability to dance. And if it does, then why haven't the religions of the other contestants been disclosed and made an issue? Is it because the Catholics have been around for centuries that makes them more legitimate as a faith?

On top of the audacious suggestion, the poll at the end really bothered me. The options for choice do one of three things:

--Option #1 indicates that someone would vote for Marie simply because they think the idea of a "Mormon champ" is good (what is this--DWTS: The Affirmative Action Edition?). Why can't she just win? Why does the respondent have to say, "It's time for a Mormon champ!," as if her faith means anything?

--Option #2 insults the intelligence of most of the American populace, I think, in assuming that there might be a significant amount of people who wouldn't vote for Marie, based on her religion. Maybe there are people like that out there…but dude…if she wins DWTS, it's not like it's your own personal endorsement that the Church take over the world, or that the Mormons are any better than anyone else.

--Option #3 seems to allow room for tolerance…except that no matter what, if you pick this option, you're automatically acknowledging that the religion is weird. Sorry dude…but it's not weirder than Catholicism, Islam, Judaisim, or that weird-ass Hinduism stuff with gods who have multiple appendages and blue skin (plus, I eat cow).

--Option #4 makes the assumption that if you're not going to vote for her, you'd still be interested in learning more. Now maybe I'm just taking what was meant to be a comment made in jest (Mormon missionaries are notorious for their, "Would you like to know more about the Mormon faith" speech), but why would someone feel like they wanted to learn more about the Mormons? Maybe some people will be curious to learn--but honestly, I really think ignorance is bliss for most people, and they couldn't give a flying rat's ass.

Anyway, obviously I think that Marie's religion has no place in being a deciding factor for anyone whether she wins or not. She's not the only one to suffer from this prejudice though (and I say prejudice, because there seems to be all sorts of assumptions that are made about a person when you mention they're Mormon). Not Gladys Knight (a Mormon, for those of you who don't know)…but Mitt Romney.

Romney is a contender for the Republican presidential nomination for 2008. Amidst scandal, he basically cleaned up all the negative PR surrounding the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics when he took charge of the whole situation (I even met him during that time period). Later, he went on to be a successful governor in Massachusetts. Now that he's setting his sights at the White House, there's a swirl of questions from ignorant people asking themselves, "Is America ready for a Mormon president?"

It seems to me like a lot of people have misconceptions about the Church and its members--enough to think that someone's spiritual agendas and beliefs will severely impact their secular functions. I've even heard it said that Mormons swear their absolute allegiance to the Mormon prophet (yeah, we have a prophet--but he's cooler than the Pope because he's supposed to actually talk to God)--so there are people out there who think that Romney might turn into a puppet president while Gordon B. Hinkley (the 90-something-year-old LDS prophet) pulls the strings.

By the way...above is cute, little old man, Prophet Hinckley.

False, I say!

The exact same things were said about John F. Kennedy as a Catholic. Did his religion affect his presidency? Nope…not unless you want to argue the fact that he probably pissed off God with his various infidelities to the point where God didn't have his back on November 22, 1963. That affected quite a bit by cutting his presidency rather short.

While I don't think the Mormon thing is going to cause Marie too much trouble on DWTS, I do think it may legitimately threaten to kill the campaign of Romney. I'm not a Republican, but I can certainly say that I actually like the guy. Aside from his policy on gay marriage and abortion rights, I actually wouldn't mind terribly if he became president. If anything, the morals of the Church (which are conveniently ignored when people talk about Mormons) would potentially make him one of our more honest presidents, with probably just as much integrity as Good old Abe Lincoln.

That is, of course, contingent on the idea that he lives the "Word of Wisdom." (Also another Mormon thing).

What are the misconceptions that people have of the LDS faith? I'm not sure. I know they have issues with a bunch of policies like the afterlife and stuff…but really, isn't the concept of religion in general kind of weird? Honestly, even if you think your religion is the way to go because you were raised that way--no one's perspective on faith and God is any more legitimate than another's. What you as a Jew might think is weird, might be weird to me as an agnostic. A lot of people think the Scientologists are weird too (not me, but with Tom Cruise as the self-assumed PR guy, who wouldn't think so?). Personally--I think it's just ignorant that people just assume that they're better off not really knowing what others really believe. If they examined it a little more, or even expanded their social circle to include members of other faiths--they might think differently.

We all have different beliefs that will, somewhere along the way, be perceived as "weird" by someone. People need to start taking a more analytical look at their own beliefs, and maybe be a little more tolerant of the beliefs of others. If you disagree, that's fine--but just always remember that there's someone else out there who disagrees with you.

Who's right and who's wrong? Even though we all like a little bit of closure…the real answer is "no one."

And by the way, to close…GO MARIE OSMOND! WHOOP WHOOP WHOOP!

Tiffiny Kaye Whitney

I am not COMPLETELY humorless...

There were a bunch of things I considered for my blog topic today--Thanksgiving coming to mind, primarily, and all that I'm thankful for. And the Jello salad that I brought to work today that I'm apparently the only one interested in. Then I thought that those thoughts might be better spent in a blog tomorrow, assuming I get to it, detailing all the things I'm "thankful" for at this time of year.

So I thought I'd examine, in my serious way, the fact that even though it's debatable sometimes--I think I can be sorta funny. Sometimes. Not really…but sometimes. I'm Tiff…with funny observations, moodiness, and all around just…Tiff.

Anyway, so I was floating around the internet today when I happened upon the comics of Pat Bagley. Pat's a cartoonist for the Utah paper, The Salt Lake Tribune, which I wrote to earlier this weekend regarding some stupid shakeups going on in the Salt Lake City Police Department. Even though I'm no longer a Utahan by location, I am by heart, and I hold dearly some of the little familiarities of my past life.

Anyway, it was delightful to come across his website, as it reminded me of a childhood incident involving him (which I'm really surprised I even remember). Bagley was visiting my element school, Hannah Holbrook Elementary, for a school assembly. This was back when Hannah Holbrook's students were the "hooters" (changed for obvious reasons, but the mascot an owl--not a gigantic pair of breasts), but that's another story.

The entire school was gathered in the multi-purpose room for the assembly. I can't for the life of me remember what Pat Bagley was doing, or what message he was supposed to impart, but I know that for part of the assembly, he would draw little cartoons on a huge sheet of paper, fill in the statement bubbles partially, and then call upon the audience to finish the statements of his characters. The kid who could correctly finish the statement would win the original Bagley work (not that any kid would have cared at the time, because it really held no value).

I had to have been in the second or third grade for this…as I remember sitting near the back of the room (where they would sit the "bigger" kids, so that the littler kids could see). It was one of the last drawings he did--a monster couple (like squat, little fuzzy monsters) who were married and having a discussion. The wife monster, a bow in her hair and a mirror in her hand, asked the husband monster, "What do you love most about me? My good looks or my style?" The husband monster, rolling his eyes, said back, "Your ____ of ____."

Now this might be a very simple joke to an adult. To a kid though…kids don't think about being insincere or sarcastic. Me…I didn't usually…but in this case, a thought struck me. Everyone in the room was raising their hand, got called on, and no one got it. Finally…the dude came up to me, and I completed the sentence, "Your sense of humor."

Low and behold, I was right! I was so right, that I did, in fact, get that spiffy poster. I have no clue where it is anymore, and in fact, I'm pretty sure it was destroyed at some point--I but I won it! Yay for validation that I'm not completely humorless.

I don't know what the whole point of that blog was…but more or less just to kill time at work…

Tiffiny

Guilty Pleasures...

Sometimes in life, you have to take advantage of your guilty little pleasures. I wish they didn't have to be "guilty" pleasures--after all, we should be able to enjoy whatever we want without having to feel "guilty" about it--but even I can admit that there are things out there that I shouldn't like, but in fact, love with a deep and burning passion.

I visited my family the other day, since I won't be spending the Thanksgiving holiday with them (sad!). My mom and I made a little mother/daughter trip to the mall, however, to spend some time together and do a little makeup/Christmas shopping. Well, in addition to finding the 3-pack for the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies (which I sadly did not get), I did happen upon another treasure at the Victoria's Secret store.

And no…it was not underwear.

Drawn back to the days of yore (i.e., junior high), I was reminded of the rise and fall of the sugar poppy pleasure that was the Spice Girls. Hailed at the time as the only thing that could plausibly take on the power house of boy bands at the time, like the Backstreet Boys and NSYNC, the Spice Girls took the world by storm to become one of the biggest and best-selling artists in Britain since the Beatles. In fact, their fandom was often described as "Spicemania," akin to "Beatlemania."

I was one of those people who were sucked in by the addictive hooks and gorgeous girls who comprised the Spice Girls. I wouldn't say I ever considered them role models at the time, despite their message of "girl power," but I will say that I always thought they were pretty and they contributed to my body image complex (particularly Posh Spice, who was, of course, was the one with the most unattainable body and looks).

When Ginger Spice left, and eventually when the entire group dissolved, I figured we were at an end of an era. It was about the time that pop in general was dying out, and rap and R&B was quickly usurping the throne of popularity in American culture (much to my dismay, because it's pushing out rock too). Still, I didn’t think I'd ever quite miss the Girls…after all, I'd only really heard a couple of songs. Things like "Wannabe" and "Spice Up Your Life" were my favorites…but I could live without them. And even though I'd never seen "Spice World," I knew the world would live without a sequel.

Well…I guess I was wrong to assume that something would be missing from the world without the Spice Girls. Listening to the album, I can tell you that even though it's probably almost all the songs from the three albums the girls put out before their demise--I sorely missed them. They've got a lot of fun songs--and their new stuff ain't that bad either!

I know I should be ashamed. And maybe, on some level…I am. After all, how embarrassing is it to hold tightly onto a cheesy girl band from the mid-90's? And I know it draws the ridicule of my friends and family. Mike has told me (even though I plan to disregard this rule) that I'm not allowed to play the album anywhere but alone in my car.

I say "Oh well!" though and suggest that we all embrace our "guilty pleasures." So long as the guilty pleasure doesn’t include cutting people up…what's so wrong with things like the Spice Girls, right?

Be who you are…and don't be ashamed of it. Oh, and by the way? GIRL POWER!

Ha ha hah ah hah ha hah ha!

Tiffiny

P.S. I've got way more 'guilty pleasures' than the Spice Girls. Like um...the Backstreet Boys and the original, live-action "Super Mario Brothers" movie. Ahh...to be addressed in another blog, another day...

I Love You Just the Way You Are...

Billy Joel, one of my favorite musicians of all time, wrote in a classic song..."I love you just the way you are." This is probably one of his better, more insightful lyrics...especially when contasted with "You had the Dom Perignon in your hand and the spoon up your nose." Classic.

I got into an interesting conversation a couple days ago with a friend and another acquaintance that really opened my eyes to just how...different…people are in their perspectives on things. What one person may call pathetic, another person is more open to and forgiving. It just struck me as really odd, and makes me really wonder where I personally fit in on the "normal" scale.

The acquaintance played a tune...I don't have a clue who it was by or what it was called...but the gist of the song was this meek-sounding woman who goes on about how much she loves her significant other, how she's always going to be there for him, and that she accepts him entirely for who he is--flaws and all.

The first "girly" part about love and crap seemed well received by everyone--but the last part about accepting someone for who they are entirely was the subject of some debate.

Well…sorta. It was a subject of debate for me, but because my two friends were talking, I didn't take the opportunity to voice my opinion at the time. I was pretty sure the acquaintance didn't want to hear it, so I kept my trap shut.

Her point was, "How pathetic is that? Why would you want to accept someone entirely for the way they are? That's like saying, 'I love you, honey. Never change--never get better!'" It's like accepting a person's flaws as an inevitable thing that'll never change, and you should just accept them as part of the person and never demand that they get better or change themselves.

I disagree…to an extent. On the one hand, of course it would be mean-spirited to never hope that someone "got better" or improved upon their flaws. It's like telling someone who's a compulsive liar that it's okay that they're a compulsive liar. It'd be like saying that it's a "beautiful" part of the personality that should be loved and appreciated in the unique context of the person. Or that it's okay if they like to kill people.

Obviously…you would hope that someone "gets better." If someone has a tendency to be scared of big groups, a fear of confrontation, is a bit of a hot head, stubborn, or any amount of other negative personality detractions…of course you would hope the person would work on their flaws to realize their full potential as a human being. In fact, you would hope that their significant other and the people around them would be doing their best to even assist that loved one in the quest for improvement.

Still...I think that, like life, the quest for improvement is a journey and not a destination. You may try your hardest to get there, but in reality, you'll be driving around the world for the rest of your life trying to find something that's about as mythical as a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. You might as well admire the things that do exist--like the worlds biggest ball of yarn. It's there, it's tangible, and at least it's real. In essence, admire people's balls of yarn.

I think the song was taken too literally. It's weird that I would be saying that, of all people--because I'm generally the one taking things way too literally. However, I think that any thoughtful person who has taken the time to examine the human condition as a whole--and even anyone who takes the time to just look at the people around them, or at themselves!--has noticed that the world is overrun with flaws. Perfection doesn't exist. The sweetest, kindest person in the world might also be extremely shy. Or someone like me, who I believe to also be a good, worthwhile person--I'm a little quirky myself. Okay, beyond quirky--but does that make me any less deserving of love or acceptance? No.

What I’m trying to say here is that flaws within people are inevitable. And they shouldn't necessarily be "embraced" like the prodigal son, but to say that someone is "pathetic" for accepting their lover along with their flaws is just…well…mean. No one wishes anything bad on the people they love--but they're also realistic enough to know that the state of Jesus will never be reached. In analyizing your costs and benefits, mostly, the person is worth far more to know and love--flaws and all--than anything without them.

Mike and I have issues sometimes, but I know that despite the things about him that bug me…I love him more than anyone I've ever loved in a relationship before. He's on par with my family, and I know that I'd like a family with him someday. That much love for him…actually overshadows his flaws and even alters my own sense of what perfection is. They're things I'm willing to let be not so important, because there are so many other beautiful parts to him And if changing his flaws changed who he was overall, I don't know if he'd be quite so valuable. I'd take him, flaws and all, over someone who was "perfect" any day. Maybe that's because my perception of perfect has changed. To me, he's probably as perfect as I'm ever going to get in finding a life mate. I wouldn't trade him for the world...there is no trading up.

The same thing is true of my dad. My relationship with him over my lifetime has had some seriously tumultuous moments. During a state of my life where I was really sexually experimental (what I look back upon and describe fondly as my "slut stage," even though it wasn't nearly as slutty as it sounds), there were people in my life who were horribly judgmental. I still continue to accept and love those people regardless…because hey…when I love someone…I love someone.

So, unless the flaw is COMPLETLEY unacceptable--like being axe murderer or something--I see nothing wrong with someone coming forth and saying, "You know-it doesn't severely affect the relationship, so I'm going to tolerate this flaw. I get so much more out of this person, that it's far more worth it to keep them around than not."

That's what I think, at least. It'd be mean-spirited for someone to accept a person and their flaws with every intention of wanting to keep them down. If that ambition to continue to suppress the person doesn't exist though--then I think it's fine. Flaws give us character, and as long as they're not completely detrimental, I find them endearing too.

Hah…maybe I'm the pathetic one for thinking everyone should have multiple chances? Perhaps I'm just a little too forgiving. I just tend to look at things from the perspective of things I learned as a kid. The whole "walk a mile in another man's shoes" thing really rings true for me, as does treating others how you'd like to be treated. I know I have faults. I try hard to eliminate them. Unfortunately, some things are so engrained into your personality that no matter what you do or how hard you try, at least remnants or complete relapses into "negative" behavior will occur. It's what makes "us" us.

I would want someone to accept me for who I was…why would I be so quick to judge someone else?


Tiffiny

P.S. "Taking Life Too Seriously" is a name that couldn't fit this blog better. I can't believe I just wasted an hour at work talking about a conversation on song lyrics--that happened days ago!

Waiting for Shatner to Die

I would consider myself a fairly decent sci-fi/fantasy fan. I grew up on the stuff, fueled by my complete and total adoration for the original "Star Wars" trilogy and my maternal grandfather, who would rebelliously allow me to stay up and watch twisted things like "Clash of the Titans" and "Planet of the Apes".

Quirky fan that I am, it was no surprise to people when I dragged my boyfriend Mike to the Star Wars Celebration IV convention earlier this year (which rocked, by the way).

My fandom for "Star Wars" is rivaled in my family only by my sister's strange devotion to "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Xena: Warrior Princess."

Well…no more. Now I know where we get it. Apparently not from my grandpa--but from my dad!

Yup…dear ol' Dad's a "Scaper," and two weekends ago, he ceremoniously introduced me into the small, yet dedicated cult of the short-lived Sci-Fi Channel show "Farscape" at a convention held at the Burbank, California Marriott Hotel.

I rarely get to see my dad, as he lives on the opposite end of the country, so it was awesome to see him. What was really weird though was seeing him in the context of a nerdy "con"--normally my domain--and having, embarrassingly, never actually seen the show. It was surprisingly intriguing though, and I plan to watch the series in the near-ish future, thanks to the wonders of DVD.

But sometimes, new experiences aren't exactly always good ones…

Now we all make bad decisions…but it's surprising what the heat of the moment and the fervor of a bunch of sci-fi freaks can do to a semi-normally functioning brain. Mine had a lapse in judgment that final Sunday at a no-minimum bid fan Farscape auction, where they ironically auctioned off an estimated $1,500 signed, limited edition, 40th anniversary photo of the five captains that currently exist in "Star Trek" lore: Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway, and Archer.

Guess who's now the "proud" owner of $650 in credit card debt?

Yeah…I'm thinking I might not have made the best move. But at least it's framed?

Still, my reasoning behind the purchase seemed sound at the time. My piece is #68 of the limited edition set of "Five Captains," making it semi-valuable simply because it is nearly impossible to reproduce. Knowing how much I've seen autographs go for in swanky autograph shops in places like Downtown Disney or the Mirage Hotel in Las Vegas…I know that a such an item would probably rank as a highly-priced collectible for a die-hard "Star Trek" fan with too much expendable cash.

Now it's a sad fact of life, but in traversing these sorts of shops, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice that a signed Babe Ruth baseball, or an original Abraham Lincoln signature, is worth more than a signed Billy Joel guitar. The autograph game seems to thrive not only on notoriety, but on one deplorable fact: You're worth more dead than alive when it comes to the value of a signature.

Unfortunately, as I was bidding on the item, all I kept thinking to myself was, "I wonder what that'll be worth when Shatner dies! And Patrick Stewart! They're old! Get it! Get it!"

I know…I'm a horrible person. I own a piece of "Star Trek" memorabilia with the express intent of waiting on the appreciation value once the actors kick the bucket--particularly Shatner, as he was the "original" of the "Star Trek" captains. It's not that I wish anything bad to befall these beloved actors…but I have to say that I now have a depraved financial interest in their deaths.

According to the Death Clock, which we all know to be an undisputed authority on the internet, I have predicted the deaths of the 76-year-old Kirk and the 67-year-old Picard. I don't know what their BMIs are (which goes into the equation)--but assuming neither of them smoke, I've determined that I've got until March 22, 2029 and May 15, 2035 respectively to see a return on my investment. I won't get a Ferrari out of the deal, but I would gather that an autograph dealer will pay more than $650 for the piece once those two tombstones hit the graveyard.

See? At least I'm not hoping for an early death for either (because hey, I've got an insane old man crush on Patrick Stewart). Shatner's got 22 years left, and Patrick Stewart's got 28!

I'm just waiting…in warped, perverse anticipation…

Taking life too seriously,
Tiffiny

Taking Life Too Seriously...For the First Time!

Hello there! My name is Tiffiny, an ex-Mormon from the state of Utah, now living in sin in the state of California with my wonderful boyfriend. This is me:

Seemingly normal looking on the outside…I have a confession to make.

I take life too seriously. Way too seriously...

You know the type of person I'm talking about. One of those "anal" people who have a vested interest in just about every conceivable subject. "Ambivalence" is a word that does not apply. Every decision made could be life-altering. Every inkling of a suggestion turns into an endless dialogue of "what ifs." Sometimes, random thoughts materialize into a, "Hey, did you know…?" just because I think it's interesting. Even every meal has to be carefully considered, because--hey? What if it's my last? I don't want to go out knowing the last thing I had was the pettily Taco Bell imitation when I could keel over, content that my final morsel was a Lorena's chicken enchilada. Seriously…I can't visit my parents in Utah anymore without insisting we eat there.

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm actually a little insane. Not the bad "attack-you-in-the-night-with-a-meat-cleaver" kind…but the good insane. The reasonably amusing, if not sometimes mildly annoying variety that provides those around them with endless entertainment as their mind whips around like a little hamster running on a wheel.
I'm freakin' Woody Allen.

I have a feeling I'm even going to take this blog a little too seriously… As you can see, I like to write.

So let's get started then. I'm starting this blog out of inspiration from an acquaintance of mine--a very funny guy named Bean, who is a morning radio DJ for the popular Los Angeles radio station, KROQ 106.7 FM. His program is called the "Kevin and Bean Show," and is comprised of himself, Kevin (obviously), and a colorful cast of "characters" that range from their witty entertainment guy, Ralph, to their wise and beautiful traffic girl, Lisa May, and others ("Psycho Mike" and "Dave, the King of Mexico").

I take a particular liking to Bean, as he is of a similar breed. He is mocked constantly on the show by his cohorts for being engrossed in the minutiae of life, and for living differently--if not a bit eccentrically--on an island near Washington State in a pink house with a ceramic clown head on the top, and raising farm animals. One of his personal heroes is Clyde Tombaugh, discoverer of Pluto; and he's still in denial over the planet's demotion to a piece of space rock.

Like I said…Bean is mocked for his wide variety of interests and vast sense of curiosity. To the other members of the Kevin and Bean show, Bean is a strange outcast. A weirdo! To me, and innumerable people like us who find an odd, obsessive fascination with every aspect of this little thing we call life….well…we just call people like Bean "underappreciated."

As an outlet, Bean has his own blog called "Strongly Worded Letter," which I highly recommend that everyone check out. It's extremely informative, and much shorter than mine (after all, he has cows to raise). I look up to his blog as a creative and innovative way to "vent" all the stuff going on in the noggin, and I appreciate his unabashed embracement of…well…everything.

This blog is, in essence, a pale imitation to Bean's blog, and the thousands (if not millions) of others who, for some weird reason, also find solace in writing down their thoughts in an electronic public forum. For me it's a release because I'm a blocked creative writer who has massive amounts of insecurity about my ability to write a story anyone would be actually be interested in, yet I have no problem rambling on about my life and thoughts at the moment.

I'd also like to just create a safe haven for those who are afflicted by the same thing I am…someone who obviously takes things way too seriously to be normal. Someone who obviously has severe mental problems with accepting that it's "okay" to be a little off, and needs to vent through writing to "work out" in my own head that it's okay to be who I am. A safe place for those who hold a misunderstood appreciation for the complexities of this thing we call life. After all, we spend so much time prompting the idea of "self acceptance." Well…feel free to be "too serious" all you like here.

So that's what this blog is. A little weird, and a little quirky, and just a little trip into the mind of someone who really borders on the edge of sanity and the inane. Really. I'm like a Mrs. Field's Cookie. It's freakin' great…but there's a taste there you really can't place. It's addicting, and it'll probably make you fat, despite your better judgment. Speaking of which...I would suggest you go buy some Mrs. Fields...they're yummy :)

So enjoy…if I haven't scared you off. I promise the next entries will be shorter, and hopefully more interesting. This introduction was just a little bit about me and the purpose of the blog. After you get past that…well…the long-winded crap just isn't needed.

Enjoy.

Tiffiny