While my template is being fixed, the most recent post hasn’t been appearing.

So, I’ve put in two Bump Posts so that the important stuff shows up while I’m working.

Alright, so, in this bump post, I just wanted to say that the new template will be up and running as soon as possible.

I’m starting it off basic, just assembling the layout (hence the placeholder images above).

Then, I’m going to move onto the more specific design tweaks, and finally, the implementation of new content.

The last thing to arrive will be the actual aesthetic style of the blog. That’s right. The placeholder images will remain until I reveal the new blog style and theme.

If you want to view the blog without issue, use Internet Explorer. I know it isn’t ideal, but there are two stylesheets, and I’m only working on the Firefox one.

Also, as an additional note, I’m moderating all comments, because spam keeps getting through. I think approval was grandfathered in from before I put measures in place for protection. I’ve had it like this for a week or more, so - if you’ve wondered why your comments weren’t immediately approved - that is why.

Hopefully, I’ll have marked enough of them as spam so that they wont continue to get through. But it is really pissing me off getting advertisements for soma (which I think is the drug from Brave New World), in the bulk of my comments. Also, card games and genital products are often advertised.

Also, for the time when you can access previous posts (I think you can’t get there now), the post ‘Clarification’ has been passworded in the interests of preserving the post. While I’m really not fond of censoring posts or comments or whatever, it is likely for the best. The password is the usual one. If you don’t know what that is, ask me and I’ll tell you. Unless I don’t know you, in which case, be gone.

Earlier in the week, I was listening to CFRB 1010 out of Toronto, when I heard this incredibly interesting story brought up on the Bill Carroll show.

In Saskatchewan, there was recently a perplexing legal decision made that I think will be especially relevant to my readership, as they are mostly male. As men growing up in Canada, who will be fathers within the next decade if we maintain the status quo, I look forward to hearing your opinions voiced on this issue.

The situation in Saskatchewan - which concluded this past week - is detailed here, here and here.

None of the people in the trial are named, so I’m just going to call the biological parents Mommy and Daddy, and the adoptive parents the Couple.

In the beginning of it all, Mommy, a young First Nations woman, meets Daddy, a man who is not First Nations, and the two engage in a semi-regular sexual relationship. While they never live together and the relationship is eventually dissolved, Mommy gets pregnant with Daddy’s child.

Daddy only finds out about the pregnancy after the two lovers had gone their separate ways. A paternity test is done to confirm that he is - in fact - the child’s biological father, and when Mommy decides to give the baby up the Couple, a man and woman of First Nations descent, Daddy moves in to claim custody of what is his child.

This is only natural. Biologically, the child is his. And if the mother, who by virtue of her uterus has complete control over the child from conception to birth (and usually beyond), does not want the child, then the custody should default to the biological father.

Nevertheless, an adoption agreement is drawn up between Mommy and the Couple, and the child is hurriedly handed over. All the while, Daddy is contesting what he deems to be an unfair arrangement, since he never consented to the adoption agreement and he is more than willing to take custody of his son. Regardless of this, the system has worked against him, and the child remains with the Couple while Daddy appeals to the Courts of this country to get his son back.

The courts in Saskatchewan, however, do not recognize his rights as the biological father of the child, and - in what is surely to become a controversial precedent - awards the child to the adoptive parents. The adoption agreement is recognized as binding, despite the fact that it lacks the father’s consent. So, the Couple walks away with the child, and Daddy is left stranded.

Currently, he is unable to visit his own child so that it can form an attachment to the adoptive parents.

---

The thing that I have found so incredibly interesting about this whole ordeal is this:

While humans have striven towards gender equality for decades now (although occasionally offsetting the balance too far to make new inequalities), fatherhood is something where men invariably get shafted.

Consider the opposite of the above scenario:

A man and a woman engage in a sexual relationship outside of marriage that eventually amounts to nothing, and they go their separate ways. But, uh oh, the male appears to have exceptionally strong swimmers in his testes, and they have found their way, somehow, into the woman and have fertilized an egg.

When the woman plus bun in the oven approach the man and say “Congratulations, you’re a father!”, the man says “Fuck that! I’m out of here.”

And with that, the man runs off. Granted, he will be haunted by spousal and child support payments until the child has reached the age of majority, and he will be branded as a coward, man-whore, etc. The man has done a truly heinous act by abandoning his child and one-time lover, and deserves the financial burdens and labels that he receives.

Keep your Johnson in your trousers.

Yet, Daddy from Saskatchewan does the exact opposite. He finds out that his ex-girlfriend is pregnant, and he genuinely wants to be the father of this child, and take part in its upbringing. But even this noblest of gentleman is screwed over by the court systems. Instead of having to pay child support payments, as the negligent father does, this man is simply robbed of the child that he desires to be with.

Sure. Why not? Teach men that - in essence - you are damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. What exactly do women want from us? Do they want us to be fathers? Do they not want us to be fathers? Would they prefer if men just ejaculated into tubes, and we did away with coitus entirely?

And the worst part of hearing this show through CFRB 1010 were some of the women who phoned in about the issue, claiming that Daddy did not deserve his child, nor did he deserve to be with it. Apparently, for wanting to be the father to his offspring, Daddy was being immoral by robbing the child of a better life with the heterosexual Couple. I felt compelled to yell “Dis-missed!” when the host, Bill Carroll, rebuked the caller with “And what if the couple get divorced, can the father have his son back then?”

It is interesting to see that - when it comes to their children - it is the father who has no rights at all. I am grieved enough at the helplessness of men when it comes to abortion. Personally, I could not live with myself if a child of my own creation was aborted. And, while I do not intend to force my belief upon others, even if it was my own child, my belief is relevant. Hurrah for feminism! The woman has control of her own body, and can do what she wishes with it.

While I have not fully come to terms with the fact that any lover of mine who is impregnated with a future member of the Grant clan can shout out “Abort! Abort!”, I am willing to respect the right of a woman for control over her own body.

But this court decision in Saskatchewan just shows that fathers have no rights…ever.

Contrary to the stereotype portrayed by Dr. Phil and fucking Maury Povich, the vast majority of men have no opposition to being fathers, and those who are already fathers love their children dearly. The biological connection between a mother and her child is equally profound in regards to the father’s connection.

Men can love, care for, and appreciate their children. We are not heartless, soulless, sperm banks. Men do want to be fathers. So, how about granting us a few more rights in regards to parenting, so we aren’t left feeling helpless and emotionally crippled.

If I was in Daddy’s position right now, I would be an emotional wreck. Currently, he is caught in the most intense of emotional binds. He cannot see his son for a year while the child bonds with the Couple. And moreover, he has to be contemplating whether he wants to appeal this. As a father, he surely desires to be with his son more than anything. But, also as a father, I am confident that he does not want the earliest memories of his son to be the painful drudgery of legal proceedings and an intense custody battle.

The long and short of it is Daddy is fucked, and it is not fair. Frankly, if I were in his shoes, I would not know what to do.

Just when I thought I’d be done with my PSP, and I could toss it into a pool of nothingness, Sony (or more specifically, Konami) had to drop this bomb.

That’s right. Konami, knowing that my love for Castlevania has exposed my weak and flesh underbelly, have decided to lay an unbeatable one-two punch on me, and delve into my wallet for some coin. They are going to release Dracula X (Rondo of Blood) - in a decent offering - here in North America. The game only appeared on the SNES here, and it was peculiar, and below par.

However, now it is coming to the PSP in an entirely new, 2.5 dimensional offering that is making me go ballistic just thinking about it. I felt that - after reading about this game’s existence - it would be impossible to resist its purchase.

But then, they “two” of the one-two punch arrived. The game would come packaged with Castlevania: Symphony of the Night - quite possibly one of the best Castlevania games, starring one of my favourite characters, Alucard.

So, right when I figured I would never need a PSP again, they pull me back in.

Damn you Konami. Damn you.

Okay.

Let me clarify the comments made on Binkle’s blog:

In Regards To The Arrogant Breed of Customers

My first comment in regards to the headphones is found here.

Now, please take note of the following sections:

“I hope you’re not the type of consumer that everyone hates.”

“However, there are some customers (the breed I hope you are not)”

“I hate those customers.”

“I’ve always wondered why people: a) Seem to treat customer service workers like shit b) Believe that being arrogant and cruel is the best way to work out a problem with customer service representatives.”

“I would be seriously crestfallen if you were prepared to be arrogant and cruel about it.”

The above comments clearly show that I am not accusing Binkle of being this breed of customer. At most, I am inquiring if that is his method of dealing with customer service people, while giving him the benefit of the doubt.

If I was intending this to be an offensive towards Binkle, and I was accusing him of being cruel, my comments would have been far more direct. I would have said “I cannot believe you are so arrogant and cruel” and “You are the breed of customer that everyone hates.”

I am - quite obviously - giving Binkle the benefit of the doubt, and I am not accusing him of anything. It was merely an inquiry.

“I only wrote all this because you talked about “shouting, etc” and I was wondering if you were an arrogant consumer, or merely a persistent one.”

And again, I’d like to stress that I was merely piggybacking off of your story to comment on the nature of customers who are just plain jackasses.

My mother - as an example - got a call from some woman at the Perth District Health Unit. This woman - whose child was suspended from school for not being properly immunized - was incredibly angry at my mother (and another nurse) claiming that they had somehow lost her child’s paperwork, and how it was the fault of the Health Unit that the child had been suspended (despite the fact that three suspension notices are issued before a child is ousted from school).

This woman yelled at my mother, a nurse, and then went so far as to threaten to sue the Perth District Health Unit because of all of this.

Another example is two parents who came into Zellers shortly after the holidays (last year) with an XBox 360 game to return. When they had opened it on Christmas, the package had apparently been completely empty. There was no game, or instruction manual. They returned to Zellers, and marched to Home Entertainment, where they promptly yelled at me for the disappearance of the game, accusing me (or another employee) of tampering with the packaging and stealing the game, and even going so far as to imply that I had ruined the holidays for their young boy.

While I was more than happy to help these customers, I couldn’t help but feel insulted that they were going ballistic and blaming me for something that was: a) Out of my hands as far as the nature of the disappearance and b) Easily fixable (we did an exchange in 2 minutes after the yelling had ceased and I was able to grasp what had happened).

Another example from Zellers is an older couple who came into Zellers to buy a digital camera for their son. They were looking at some of the older clearance models, and they had set their hearts on an old display - a crusty antique of a camera that had been at Zellers longer than I had. So, I got it out, rummaged in the back and found the package, and returned to the front of the store to inform them that “Uh oh”, somebody who had unpackaged the product years ago had - inexplicably - disposed of the cables.

I tried to do everything to please these customers. I searched other camera boxes, other stores, the whole department for substitute items that could be written off. Finally, I got a camera shipped in from another store, and we were able to mix-and-match the two boxes to create a complete set, but the family adamantly complained to Rachel and Sheila (the manager) about my poor service. I missed my break for that couple, and I was accused of poor service. Unbelievable.

It is those people - who disrespect customer service employees as if we are merely soulless bodies that walk the halls of retail locations - that I absolutely loathe. My rant - in essence - had nothing to do with you.

You were the springboard that vaulted me into my tangent, which - by its very nature - has little, if anything, to do with the original topic (you).

In Regards To The Headphones

The second comment can be found here. Let us be realistic here. Saying that I would not buy $200 headphones is a far cry from pointing out your “flaws” to the universe.

Even if we disregard that the attendance at both of our blogs doesn’t breach the double digit mark, you have to realize what you are saying here.

1. The first thing that I feel obligated to point out is that when you operate a blog, and offer content on the Internet - personal content or otherwise - you are opening yourself up to criticism. Plain and simple. It is the nature of the beast. You cannot post information on the web without expecting to be critiqued in one form or another, whether it is positive criticism or negative criticism, it will be there.

2. I am well within my right to say that I would not purchase a $200 set of headphones, and that I prefer the accessibility and durability of my $20 - $30 headphones. The only things I said in my headphones commentary was the truth. I could not reconcile a purchase for headphones like that. I prefer my less expensive alternative, if only because of the virtue that it is less expensive. I like my headphones, and - I say again - I could not ever justify to myself spending $200 on those headphones. To the same token, I can not justify the cost of an XBox 360 to myself. That is not to say that the purchase is foolish or idiotic. It is just not a financial plausibility in my mind.

I don’t know how this can be misconstrued as an insult. Is it insulting for a family in a lower income bracket to say, “No. I cannot ever see myself purchasing a Hummer. I’d rather go with a nice, reliable used car from Honest Jim’s Used Car Yard.”

Is that a direct insult to anyone who would purchase a Hummer? Or an SUV? Or even a decently-priced mid-size SUV/car/van…thing like the Chevy Equinox (my dad calls it a truck, my mom calls it a van, my siblings call it a car, I think it looks like the unholy spawn of a Jeep and a sedan).

I cannot even fathom how saying that I prefer the cheaper alternative to what are some undeniably expensive headphones is an insult. Has my freedom of opinion been revoked in this country?

3. I’d also like to point out the double standard in relation to that beloved Penny Arcade comic. It is probably near the top of Binkle’s “Most Oft Quoted” list, as far as Penny Arcade goes, and he gets a jolly good laugh out of it because Gabe’s iPod is padded in cash due to the tremendous savings. However, when Binkle is on the side of “he who is laughed at” (although not really), instead of the side of “he who cackles”, the fun and games are over and it is an insult.

Judge not, lest ye be judged - in a sense.

In Regards To The Bawls Mints

Now, this was a misunderstanding that went too far.

While Binkle was formulating an order for ThinkGeek, everyone was coming in with orders of twenty or thirty dollars, while Binkle was forking over a comparatively small amount of coin for Bawls mints. However, Binkle - who had access to a credit card - was going to be the one making the purchase and, ultimately, taking the biggest financial risk.

I casually point out that this is the prime type of setup before somebody gets screwed over financially (i.e. Binkle holding the ball for about $100 bucks of unwanted/unpaid for product). Somehow, in the grand scheme of things, this was misconstrued into me saying “Binkle, you deserve to get saddled with the financial pitfalls that this purchase entails.”

This was not what I meant at all.

For anyone who watches a lot of old sitcoms, or any comedies in general, you know that these circumstances would lead to nothing but misfortune on the small screen. Binkle - decked out in bell-bottom jeans and platform shoes - offers to pitch in the most money for a new Hendrix record while his friends assure him that they’ll pay him back. Binkle floats the bill, while his friends get the most enjoyment out of the record. And - in the end - we’d all learn a cheesy moral lesson about honesty, all cleverly woven into a package of sexual innuendo and comedic misunderstandings.

If you’d prefer a real world example of this happening, take Andreas’ Goodbye party. Aaron and I got saddled with paying for Blake’s drinks, and - despite assurances that we would be reimbursed - my wallet is still devoid of his cash.

Was I off the mark when I said something like that could happen? No more than I would be off the mark saying an accident “could” happen on the 401 during bad weather. Does this mean I am sitting at home, in a ring of candles, praying for such destruction? No. I’m merely stating that - in life, shit happens. And oftentimes, it happens to you when you’re trying to do something nice for people (like ordering their stuff from online, or paying for their drinks).

In The End

While these clarifications may or may not mean anything to you, I’d just like to say how offended I am at this comment:

“Here’s the real question I’ve got here. I can think of at least three or four occasions where I have been quite angered with you for stunts like this; I have actually, physically LOST SLEEP at times because of things said over the internet that I’ve taken as being callous or hurtful. The kicker is that you KNOW AND ACKNOWLEDGE that you’ve said things that have angered or depressed me”

Thank you for belittling our friendship.

Yes, I know and acknowledge that the things I have said anger or depress you…

After they have happened, and you have told me that they anger or depress you.

Do you honestly think that - as your friend - I sit in my shadowy hovel, conspiring and plotting to find the most malicious ways to say something? Do you think I have diagrams of what exactly I can say that will cause you to misinterpret my meaning, and then drive you into a rage/depression? Indeed, in your eyes, I appear to be some demonic form, haunched over and covered in scales, who breathes fire and flicks his slitted tongue between his fangs as he ponders and plots.

The fact that you’d accuse me of somehow intentionally setting up misunderstandings is completely ludicrous, and by far, the most offensive thing that you have ever said to or about me. I cannot even fathom the amount of depravity and callousness you must see beneath my exterior to accuse me of this.

The reason this only happens on the Internet is because you appear to be overly sensitive. Perhaps it is because you cannot detect tone and inflection as easily in text, and merely assume the most extreme interpretation (which, due to my dry sarcastic nature, and cynicism, is usually a negative interpretation). At times like this, I feel as if I’m telling a mother how beautiful her newborn is, only to be accused of pedophilia.

The extreme exaggerations of the situation, and your subsequent reactions, always shock me. And, while I try to justify or clarify my position, I always come out being the enemy. Talking to you in any medium but the flesh is like speaking to a powder keg by sparking matches in Morse code.

And frankly, I really cannot take it anymore. I’m tired of being afraid to say anything over a sentence in length that could be misconstrued as an attack or an affront to your very existence.

Remember the argument about that composer? I try to ask what relevance any of this has, and if you guys even know who he is (because I certainly didn’t), and you get angry and say to me “Congratulations, you’ve won MSN!”

And all the while, I’m left wondering what I did wrong (and what the hell that was supposed to mean).

So please, understand that I am not maliciously attacking intentionally. The thought doesn’t even cross my mind. While I do disagree with you, I can honestly say that I do not thrive off of any confrontations, as you seem to imagine.

I’m not going to tell you how to act or anything, I just wish you wouldn’t get offended by everything that I say to you.

---

While I acknowledge that this post does also hold the potential to upset you, due to the nature of its “airing dirty laundry in public”, I don’t overly care who reads it. I talk about all personal issues pertaining to me on this blog. I don’t write about other people’s secrets. I write about things relevant to me, or related to me.

And currently, this is the most pressing issue.

Potential Spoilers

Ah.

Sweet satisfaction.

All of my favourite shows are back. Heroes, Prison Break, Battlestar Galactica, The Office, both Stargates, 24, and Studio 60.

It is truly the most rewarding time to sit back and feel your ass grow.

In regards to these shows, I have to say that some of them returned with exciting new flourishes, while several others most certainly did not.

Heroes made an anti-climactic return. In the mid-season finale that aired several weeks ago, the series alleged supervillain, Sylar, escaped from his holding facility in the Primatech Paper factory, and presumably killed Eden McCain (who possesses the ultimate power of suggestion). With Sylar on the loose, and now possessing the power of suggestion, the return to Heroes would surely be an epic one.

But, it really wasn’t. The return to Heroes leapt several weeks into the future, and had Sylar - the main antagonist - reimprisoned by horn-rimmed glasses, the ambiguous mysterious character. The method in which this occured is entirely unclear, but the viewer is intended to accept it.

The return of Heroes has been disappointing. While it seemed as if the show was picking up momentum as it approached the catastrophic destruction of New York City, in reality, the show has slowed to a crawl.

Prison Break has returned with a few interesting plot twists, and has managed to recapture my interest to a degree approaching the awe that the show created in the first season. While Michael Scofield and Lincoln Burrows are still running from the law, the enemy is finally beginning to falter, and there is a successful climax in sight. Character development with Bellick’s character, as well as the two brothers who are being pursued, has caused the show to be interesting once again.

Battlestar Galactica returned with an absolutely superb follow-up to their mid-season finale (which is what should happen). The Rapture - the conclusion to the mid-season finale episode, The Eye of Jupiter - was absolutely fantastic, and further explored the nature of the Cylons, the identity of the final five Cyclons, the fate of the first Cylon-human hybrid, and - most importantly - it put Gaius Baltar back into the hands of humanity. But that is not all. With him came Caprica Six, which will hopefully factor into some terrible interesting plotlines in the remainder of the season.

The Office returned as humorous as ever, however the events surrounding the merger between the two Dunder-Mifflin offices appear to have meant nothing. While the show’s cast gained an extra five cast members when the two offices were combined into one, each episode since has seen the elimination of a new inductee, reducing the cast down to its original numbers, except for Andy and Karen. Furthermore, the show’s writers have worked the Jim-Pam romance back into the spotlight, which is starting to create some of the redundancies and social awkwardness of previous seasons. Out with the new, and in with the old, I guess.

Still, the show is worth watching.

A show that has lost its effect on me is Stargate SG-1. The conclusion to the mid-season finale involved SG-1 fighting a dragon and discovering Merlin, frozen in ice. Then, SG-1 delved into its tradition of Daniel Jackson - the know-it-all - being granted some sort of special abilities granted from above that make him super powerful. Throughout the series, he has been killed, ascended, all-powerful and all-knowing, reborn, killed and ascended again, a Goauld (once or twice), he has been granted the power and memories of Merlin, and - most recently - has become a Prior for the Ori.

SG-1 is slowly becoming tired and boring.

Stargate Atlantis is constantly becoming a better show. Stargate Atlantis is becoming the Spiderman (or Batman) of sci-fi shows, in the sense that it is developing - by far - the biggest “rogues gallery” I’ve ever seen. They are enemies with the Wraith, the Genii, the Asurans, and - even now - they have become enemies with Michael and his faster, stronger, Iratus bug hybrids.

Furthermore, the cast is much better than Stargate SG-1. Col. Shepherd does not make as many unnecessary jokes as Col. O’Neill did. Teyla and Ronon Dex are both alien characters, but they have much more personality and character when compared to Teal’C, their SG-1 equivalents. Finally, Rodney McKay is better than Samantha Carter. No question about it. He is sarcastic, arrogant, deep, and a coward. The episode that featured the death of Carson Beckett, and the emotional response from McKay was utterly fantastic. Utterly!!

I think Stargate Atlantis is doing better than SG-1 because it has a superior ensemble cast (with supporting characters Zalenka, and Maj. Lorne, as well as the now-deceased Carson Beckett), as well as a diverse range of enemies, and less bullshit science. In Stargate SG-1, Carter seems to be able to understand and create anything from Earth components. In Stargate Atlantis, they are struggling to use, understand, and maintain equipment made by a species that is far more advanced than mankind could ever hope for. As such, there is a lot less of those situations from SG-1 where Carter says, “I’ve been able to analyze the quantum flux capacitor field, and have morphed the tritillium quadro-sectic alloys to have a reverb function that will delve into the space-sub-par-quintillo-parsec”¦blah blah blah.”

In SGA, people demand that McKay figure something out. And then, with much perseverance, squabbling, and fighting with Zalenka, they manage to rig up some sort of solution that may or may not work in time, and usually involves no invention of their own.

24 came back for its 6th season, and it seemed to have improved. I’ll admit that they have certainly increased production quality, and they are highlighting the issues of public unrest, civil disorder, and blatant racism a fair bit more. This - all in all - makes for interesting sub plots and conflicts, the likes of which have not been seen since Season Two, when they suspected the Muslim boyfriend, when it was actually the snotty rich blonde girl.

Studio 60 has returned, but the main plot threads move on so slowly that I have not been able to accurately gauge if the show will pull itself out of the rating hole that it fell into after the pilot. Nevertheless, STUDIO 60 IS A GOOD SHOW AND I INSIST YOU WATCH IT!

That is all.

This post contains spoilers related to the movie known as The Prestige, starring Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale, and the voluptuous Scarlett Johansson.

I’m going to keep this short and sweet, because I have bigger fish to fry.

The movie had an incredibly interesting premise. Due to the setting in which the film was viewed, it was extremely difficult to understand. When you’re watching the film from poor seats that are positioned right in front of the entrance to the Bomber, it is nearly impossible to follow a plot.

The movie was good, from what I heard of it.

However, I called the final twist of the movie within the first five minutes. In the court scene at the beginning, where Christian Bale is on trial for allegedly murdering Hugh Jackman’s character, Christian Bale waves to a little girl in the custody of a man with a moustache and hat. As the two turned to depart, I thought to myself, “Huh. That guy on the balcony with the little girl looks a lot like Christian Bale.”

At that moment, I thought of an ironic twist to the movie. Perhaps Christian Bale, and the guy with the moustache, were related. Maybe, they were even twins.

I thought of how humorous it would be to pull out the Blackberry, and e-mail Binkle my predicted results for the movie, and then have him arrive at home and read it. In the end, I thought against it. I figured the light from the screen would be distracting, and besides, I would miss more of the movie.

But, in the end, I was right. The mustached guy was Christian Bale’s twin (or his other character). Hurrah! I was right.

In the end, the whole thing was disappointing. It might be a fantastic movie”¦but I suppose seeing it would have made it better.