BLACK HOLE SUN...

     This is undoubtedly something I should've written over a month ago while my memories of the event were still fresh but not only did I take my first real vacation in over 25 years last August, I also got to see what will hopefully not be my only total solar eclipse. Though I was primarily visiting North Carolina, staying with a hosting family, I traveled to a town called Blythewood in South Carolina to witness the event.
     We really could not have asked for a better location to view it. Though we did not get the maximum totality possible for South Carolina, we did get about 1.5 minutes worth and as can be expected, that was a very quick 90 seconds...

Blythewood Park in Blythewood, SC

A friendly family we got to share the experience with made this

     The host family and I arrived about an hour before first contact. We found a nice park with good open space and a variety of land textures (it had a mix of grass, baseball fields, a playground for the kids, sand, asphalt, and trees for shade) which would later prove fortuitous.

courtesy of Google Maps

     I had originally planned on not taking pictures at all but the slow-motion nature of the event prompted me to experiment.
     This was my first real good use of the digital camera my Mom had bought me back in 2014 for Christmas. Unlike my previous camera which only allowed certain features to be tuned manually, this camera allows all its features to be controlled manually. This proved important as setting a fixed shutter speed and being able to manually focus were very much necessary, especially near and during totality when the once slow-motion events proceeded at what now felt like a lightning pace. Simply put, there is no way my previous digital camera could've captured the kinds of photos I did get.

     I had built a crude rig to fix the eclipse viewers to my camera and lens at maximum zoom and while it worked, it was cumbersome to remove and replace so I opted for simply holding the eclipse viewers in the path of my camera's lens. I didn't bring a tripod which, in retrospect, would have come in handy as it got darker but I'm nevertheless happy with what I did get.
     I also brought my darkest moon viewer (13% transmission) hoping I could've used that instead to get a more proper white sun than the amber one the eclipse glasses show but that element proved woefully inadequate: the sun still looks like a diffraction spike explosion even at my camera's fastest shutter speed and highest f-stop setting. Eclipse viewers it would be!

(12:45 p.m.) left: sun through moon filter - right: sun through eclipse viewers at same scale

     The park wasn't crowded at all. Probably no more than fifty people chose this particular location which I'd have to say was a good thing as it allowed for much freedom of movement even though I found myself happy to stick to the shade in between photographs.
     We were also lucky to have both relatively cloud-free skies throughout the event and temperatures which, while hot, were not the humidity hell the South is known for.

(12:47 p.m.) some revelers

(12:47 p.m.) additional revelers

(12:45 p.m.) pre-show: total sun at 3x magnification

     The sun's disk was unfortunately bland. There were no giant sunspot groups like could be seen a couple of years ago. It would've provided an interesting contrast but I guess one can't have everything ;-)
 

Giant sunspot group from October 2014 (even though, had it been there, the Moon would've blotted it out immediately)

      First contact happened some time after 1 o'clock. In the first sequence posted below, I was trying to find an appropriate focus and shutter speed. The first image told me I couldn't rely on autofocus so I switched to manual thereafter and I increased the shutter speed in subsequent shots, settling on 1/1000th of a second. I let the camera choose the f-stop and I noticed for all the shots taken through the eclipse viewer, it had selected an f-stop of 2.8.

first sequence

     I'm still not comfortable guessing an appropriate f-stop which is unfortunate as certain photos taken later that weren't of the sun but the darkening scenery around would've benefited I think from both a fixed shutter speed and f-stop. Oh well...
     Things seemed perfectly normal during this part of the eclipse, its Pac-Man phase. The kids that were with us and with other families had already become predictably bored, some opting to return to the park's playground. In fact, I would say everyone who had come at this point in our group except me had become bored. But the adults at least stuck it out and were making friendly conversation with other families at the park.

second sequence

     During this part of the eclipse (the second sequence) I noticed that, while the illumination from the sun was still bright, it no longer felt hot to be out in.

(2:15 p.m.) the halo and spikes are camera artifacts and were not actually visible

     However, even with more than half the sun blotted out, it is still painful to look at and shows no noticeable deviation from its round shape to the unaided eye (though some deviation could be seen in my eye's after-images for several seconds afterward).
     It reminded me of an annular eclipse that happened while I was in school back in '94. I remember peeking up at the sun through a window I opened in the hallway maybe twenty minutes before the area around us darkened considerably. While for only a moment, I recall the after-image of the sun in my eye showing a large chunk taken out of it by the Moon.

margin drawing I made of what I saw back on May 10, 1994

     But back in South Carolina, what could be seen by the end of the second sequence was a noticeable dimming in the sun's illumination. By this point, it looked as though someone had been fiddling with the contrast knob on an old TV, turning it to its lowest setting.

2:19 p.m.

      Throughout the third sequence, you could feel it growing noticeably cooler and the light continued to slowly fade...

third sequence

      I decided to take another shot of the sun without the eclipse viewers and while that sliver of sun was still too bright to look at for any length of time unaided, the light you could see was now deforming from the circular (even more so in my eye's after-images)...

2:33 p.m.

2:21 p.m. - revelers checking out the ever-darkening sky

2:25 p.m. - shadows were becoming sharper too

      What stands out to me in that photo is the string attached to my lens cap. It's normally not visible at all under a full sun. In the minutes before totality, I could see the hairs on my leg each casting their own shadow. Unfortunately I did not get a picture of that nor did I get a picture later of me in a similar pose under a full sun to show the difference so you'll have to take my word for it that yes, shadows get very well defined the smaller the source of the light becomes.

2:28 p.m. - I felt bad for anyone stuck watching the eclipse under those clouds

2:38 p.m. - getting darker

     With the Moon's umbral shadow nearly upon us, things had grown considerably darker and everyone was getting excited, even those who had been bored or uninterested from the start.

fourth sequence

     By the end of this sequence, the sun was no longer painful to look at and everyone waited anxiously for totality. Our host had an app on her phone that alerted us to keep an eye out for shadow bands and sure enough, because we were on a bright patch of sand, we could see them. I got no pictures or video of them but they were cool to look at. These little wavy shadows were all around us but most plainly visible on the sand. It reminded me of the ripples of air you can see coming off a roadway on a hot Summer's day (or those from a radiator near frigid air).
     And just like that they disappeared and the sun's light had shrunk to a pinprick.
     The last two photos in that sequence used the camera's automatic settings for shutter speed and both used its maximum f-stop value of 16. The 2:40 p.m. one had a shutter speed of 1/3200th of a second while the 2:41 p.m. picture was 1/1000th of a second so a proper comparison of the sun's increasingly rapid dimming isn't possible. The leisurely pace of the eclipse was now giving way to blink-and-you'll-miss-it moments.
     I'm not a professional and there simply wasn't time.

2:41 p.m. - I got lucky and snagged a diamond ring

2:42 p.m. - totality

     Suddenly everyone was in awe and I have to admit, the best part was that it was not a silent awe. The commonest refrain was, of course, "Oh my God!" but the excitement of everyone there was electrifying. The sky was like that of twilight but the camera would not capture that. It instead presented a picture of total blackness like that of night which wasn't the case. The now visible corona too, could not ever be properly captured...at least not in a single shot.
     Never discount your eyes' ability to adapt to its surroundings as well as their ability to show contrasts. The solar corona was much bigger than anything I captured on my data card. I would say it was about 3 moons wide and 2 moons tall and while colors are not my thing, the sight was certainly ethereal and deeply moving.

2:43 p.m. - totality: slightly longer shutter time and the most I could tease out with a photo editor

      I mean, when you think about it, all it is that you're experiencing is being caught in a shadow. It happens all the time when a cloud passes over the sun and every day at sunset and yet, while it's the same thing, it's so very different because it's a shadow that's not possible to cast from an Earthly vantage point. You can blot out the sun with just your finger but its illumination still fills the sky and it certainly does not make the corona visible. When the sun sets, its light is still reflected and refracted throughout the atmosphere.
     But the Moon, when the Moon does it, the shadow is coming from a source above the atmosphere, something that no other shadow you've experienced can do. It's a surreal experience and it really does affect you. One particular joy I felt during totality was simply the ability to look directly at where the sun was supposed to be and not having it be blindingly bright. It felt subversive...like I was getting away with something :-)
     During this time, I took a quick survey of the sky and caught sight of both Jupiter and Venus. I almost missed Venus because it was nearly obscured by the trees we were using for shade. I made no attempt to photograph them with the eclipsed sun: there simply wasn't time for something like that and both planets were well separated from the sun. I think a star or two showed up in some of my totality photos but I really can't be sure if they weren't random noise.
     But I'm also ashamed to say I didn't take it in as much as I should have, choosing instead to photograph it both for my posterity (and aphantasia) and for the benefit of friends and family who could not see it for themselves.

     Once I reached shutter speeds too slow for me to get a clear image of the solar corona, I switched it to video and recorded the sun's re-emergence. In retrospect, this is where my old camera would've come in handy. I could've set it upon our car and just let it record the people's reaction to totality in its entirety while using my good camera as I had.
     I also feel, again in retrospect, that I should've chanced a higher ISO setting for my totality pictures. I almost always keep the setting at its lowest, in this case 100, but maybe if I had chanced a setting of 400 or 800, I could've gotten some of the nearby stars to show up and maybe have gotten a hint of color in the sky. But it's not important. What's important is that my photos of totality looked better than literally everyone's smartphone version of it on Instagram :-P
     Again, I regret not simply watching. That was the reason behind my not wanting to take photographs in the first place. It was always the top recommendation for people for whom this was their first eclipse: just watch it. There's another one in 2024. Maybe I'll be able to see that one. Perhaps even with the same friends I got to see this one with. It'll pass through Dallas, Texas and I'd like to think they'd want to check that city out. It'll last longer too and I think that time, assuming I get it, I'll just watch...

     The video was taken at 2:43 p.m. as the eclipse ended. I'm sorry it's shaky but I was really more interested in watching what was left of totality than making sure I was holding the camera steady. I'm sure you understand but it does capture a few fleeting moments in time when a group of strangers were all suddenly interested in something going on in the sky and I'm glad I got to share that with them.

2:44 p.m. - some selected frame captures from the above video

2:44 p.m. - getting too bright to look at anymore

final sequence

     Even that teeny-tiny little sliver at 2:45 p.m. was painful to look at. It truly was a reminder about what they say regarding solar eclipses: It's all about totality! Because yeah, that's the life-changing, looking into the face of a Vorlon moment. Everything else is merely changes in lighting...

2:49 p.m. - ...and little sun crescents shining through gaps in the leaves

The eclipse as seen from where I live was far less dramatic and nearly clouded out

      Once the sun came back out, I knew there would be no persuading everyone to hang around for the official end of the eclipse so I didn't even try and like everyone else there, we all got back on the road at the same time.
      The last picture I got after third contact was taken through both the eclipse viewers and the car's window. The show was completely over by the time we got home.

     And while there certainly was traffic on the road heading back home, they all kept moving at a fair pace and did not jam up, a bonus I'm sure for the host family kind enough to drive us all the hour or so it took to get there.
     All in all, I'm very happy to have gotten the experience and I hope to get to see another solar eclipse before I die. It's a shame they don't happen on a more regular basis. But I did get to see this one and that can't be taken from me :-)

SONGS THAT CAN JUST GO AWAY, part XII

     Okay, look, the hotness of Ariana Grande aside, this song is a mess.

     I'm not saying it isn't catchy. Of course it is. An impressive amount of cynical calculation goes into making today's pop music to ensure such outcomes. No, the problem (no pun intended) with this song is it's doing too much and yes, I'm saying 820.4 million views (as of this post) can be wrong...

     First of all, I think this song was given to the wrong performer. And yes, performer. I'm not for a moment going to pretend that Ariana Grande is anything more than a performer in her industry. If you want to be an artist, you have to be able to do more than sing songs and Ms. Grande has not been presented to us as anything more than a singer of someone else's songs. There's no shame in that as it's a staple of the music industry. Not everyone can sing, write lyrics, compose music, plays such compositions, and arrange it all into a presentable piece. Farming out that work to professionals has created some of the best music we've ever been given.
     I'm just not going to call you an artist for being a professional singer/performer. I'll reserve that title for people who can do at least three of those five things.
     But the point I'm getting at is this song seems out of Ariana Grande's range. When I hear it played on the radio, I can barely make out what she's singing. She's trying to sustain notes either too high for her or too high at that tempo. Plus it sounds rather nasal, no?

     Secondly, I hate featuring. Again, it's been done for a long time but in the past it felt more like something a friend was doing for another like Eric Clapton playing the solo on "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" or Greg Hawkes playing keyboards for some of Ric Ocasek's solo work. And featuring back then was another artist contributing to the work of the main artist. Nowadays featuring feels like an intrusion to the song you've been listening to.
     This too goes back a while as I can remember some No Doubt songs off the album Rocksteady having featured artists and I think in the rap industry, it goes even further back.
     Iggy Azalea, however, is an intrusion. Her presence takes away from, rather than enhances, the work. It's as though someone had changed the radio station in the middle of the song before changing it back. It's almost like a commercial you must endure before returning to your regularly scheduled programming.
     Again, I get it. It's about money. Having hip-hop in your pop song gives it crossover appeal which means more $$$.

     On a side note though... How is Iggy Azalea not considered to be doing something equivalent to blackface? She's a white Australian affecting a decidedly "black" voice. I guess that's considered okay now? Or is it one of those "it can't be racist because" things since she's not American? I don't know...

     But perhaps the most glaring thing about this song is you can't know whose song it is. It's not Iggy Azalea's because she's just in it for the bridge but it's arguably not Ariana Grande's song either because should the band/performer be the one singing the chorus?
     I mean, think about it. What is the chorus to "Problem"? It's nothing Ms. Grande sings. It's that guy whispering "I got one less problem without'cha": that's the chorus. Nothing else qualifies and that's something that makes this song very confusing. Its most memorable part (which is typically the chorus, though yes it can be a bitchin' solo) is not sung by the headlining performer but by another hip-hop artist named Big Sean so is it his song then despite his minimal presence?
     I would have to say yes because that's how I feel when listening to songs. The chorus is generally the most important part as it's repeated, making it easy to learn quickly and allowing the song itself to become embedded in one's mind when it hits right. It focuses your attention on the song and since it's not performed by Ms. Grande, it makes the whole experience weird.


"Problem (feat. Iggy Azalea)" by Ariana Grande
     It's not a bad song when taken in parts, but because it is messy, it needs to go away...

HEROES & VILLAINS...

     I wish I didn't identify so much with the villains of stories. And I don't mean I think they look cool or dress fashionably or something otherwise superficial. I mean their motivations. Like I get that hurt that consumes them and shapes them into mighty opponents to the forces of good.
     I feel like villains, at least in some stories, were supposed to be either normal people or even the good guys but that they didn't get from life what they were told they should get.

     In my life, I was told if you did well in school; went to college; if you followed the rules; and if you stayed out of trouble, that your life would be pretty much set. You'd get a good job, find a good woman to make your wife, start a family, and safely and without obstruction, cross the various milestones of life.
     But that's not how it goes. Sure, it does for some. But ultimately, it appears (and too late for me) that the rewards go not to the rule-followers but to the risk-takers. And that is not to say that risk-takers don't have their share of failure too, it just appears that it is the risk-takers, the ones who flout conventions rather than adhere to them, have the best chance of achieving something like the success promised to the meek, but bright, students who took following the rules to heart.

    You grow upset that the rule-breakers go unpunished, seeing the unjustness in society, and you grow jealous of those who get the good jobs, the friends, the influence, the girl, etc. because you were told those things would come to you by being a rules-bound, dutiful soul but they got theirs by being rebellious and flouting.
    You grow angry at a world that rewards relationships over merit. You question why you spent so much of your time doing what you were told was the right thing instead of building connections which could be exploited later for better jobs and relationship opportunities.
    You grow impatient with a world that does not desire your intelligence or value the contributions you're capable of making.
    You grow tired of being ignored and invisible.

    You're then struck by your utter powerlessness. You'll never be the villain. You'll never make anyone pay for your suffering. It's very depressing. You wish you had the necessary charisma to sway millions to your way of thinking; to create a backbone to execute your nefarious plans and then you realize that had you had that charisma in the first place, you'd've made friends and the evil that is now in your heart would never have grown into its present, all-consuming form.

     It's quite the paradox...

     To have the skills of a villain you need the very qualities that would have prevented you from becoming a villain in the first place. Maybe villainy only works when discovered by someone already in power. I don't know...

    But either way, when villains like Melkor, Father, the Shadows & Vorlons, the Sovereign, and Voldemort appear, and even one-dimensional ones like Mumm-ra, Skeletor, and Saw Boss...I feel a kinship with them. I understand where they're coming from even if they're incompetent. I root for them, even when their success would mean the end of all things.
    I feel their suffering and believe that, like me, had they only been given a normal life...perhaps the normal life they had been promised, that they'd've never become the threats they were. Or to put it bluntly, I really can't believe Hitler would have been Hitler had he only gotten laid...


"Heroes and Villains" by The Beach Boys

THIS IS HALLOWEEN...

     See, I think what ultimately ruined Halloween as a festival of scary was business. It's hard to find genuinely terrifying things or provocations of unease or sources of existential dread throughout the month of October except in very niche environments. People like to say Halloween is "scary" but it's really not. There's talk of monsters like old-school vampires, werewolves, witches, and mummies and more modernly favored zombies, vengeance-fueled spirits, weapon-of-choice spree killers, and vampires but you get sanitized versions of them instead.

     I understand why. It's kinda hard to sell candy, costumes, and television specials to children while also giving them a real sense of mortal terror, challenging their faith in happy endings, and by enhancing our already natural fear of spiders, snakes, and the unknown. Brands can't really turn their mascots into genuinely frightening things. They have to make attractive the darkened Halloween palettes and present a kind of "fun" scary instead.

    I'm not sure in any real sense why Halloween needs to be scary but I suppose it's the age-old that's what we've been told kind of tradition. I just know that such celebrations are impossible in an atmosphere convincing consumers to buy shit.
    We get anthropological M&Ms as a cutesy vampire (watch out! fangs!), Frankenstein's monster (aah! bolts!), and a fashionable witch (help! she's wearing glasses!); Snap, Crackle, and Pop illuminated as if to tell a fun-scary story over a cauldron of Rice Krispies treats; coloring books of smiling friendly witches whose spells provoke delight rather than dread and dancing skeletons to entertain rather than warn of imminent danger; "scary" movies where the kids are always successful at pushing back the evil as though nothing had happened; it goes on...

    It's hard to deliver genuine scares, especially as one gets more sophisticated but I also don't think it unwise to use the holiday for public service. Movies which show how easily one can become enchanted by and to do service in the name of evil (think the masterminds behind the Hitler Youth), how peer pressure can override an overarching sense of what's right, how fear can make one complicit in wrongdoing, and so forth.


   I don't know what the solution is besides just sucking it up and not giving a shit about such trivialities. I think I look at the word "scary" in Halloween season much like the word "beautiful" in today's social media and how it's not only overused, but misused. Surrendering to the ever-changing tides of meaning is necessary lest one desire himself a linguistic Canute...

WHY IS SUPERMAN IMMORTAL?

     I don't know why Superman doesn't age. I've seen comics in which he survives thousands, if not millions of years, into the future. For the sake of the story, I can accept the the light of our yellow sun bestows Superman with his immense powers but I don't see why he shouldn't still be subject to aging.
     On top of that, Superman seems like a dated character. He makes sense in the 1930s-1950s but I have a harder time seeing him remain relevant later on. His methods seem tailor-made for a time when people were looking for and needed big solutions. It was the Prohibition Era, the rise of organized crime, the Great Depression, World War II, the Cold War, etc. Around the world, it was the consequences of World War I and the rise of various fascist states. I have a difficult time imaging someone who's basically a living god dealing with problems like Civil Rights, Feminism, and Environmentalism.

     As for origin stories, Superman does have a convenient tie-in with actual world history.

     Superman was obviously not born of Earth despite looking every bit as much like a human. He was born on a planet named Krypton at a time when the world was doomed. Their sun, called Rao, was going to die spectacularly. As to why a mass evacuation was not planned or even attempted, I don't know. Personally I wouldn't want to venture into that question (even though the comics certainly have). I think it better to suggest a story rather than actually depict it in this case. As it has been said about art: to define is to kill. We don't need to know why Krypton and all its inhabitants were destroyed, just that it did and that Kal-El, the last son of Krypton, managed to escape that Holocaust and arrive to a good family on Earth.

     I figure, like the Thundercats, baby Kal-El was placed in a state of suspended animation for his long journey to Earth. How long the journey took should not be revealed. It could be anywhere from a few weeks to thousands of years. I figure Kryptonian technology must have been advanced but it's not important to know its details. I'm happy to go with the strange crystal ship we saw in the movies and its related crystal-based technology which we see working even though we don't know how it works.


     Something else I wonder...did the writers know of the gaseous element or, because everyone on the planet died, was it supposed to be a pun "Crypt + -on" and they changed the C to a K?

     As for when Superman arrives, however, that much can be said with certainty. In 1908 on June 30th over Siberia in near the Podkamennaya Tunguska River there was a massive explosion from an airburst made by a comet. While it left no crater it destroyed a large section of the forest in that area: over 750 square miles. It was only luck that this explosion did not occur over a very populated area. This seems to me as good a time as any to have Superman arrive on Earth.

Trees flattened by the Tunguska explosion. Imagine if we had better aircraft then so it could be photographed from high up?

     Superman's crystal ship would have landed in Smallville and the explosion over Tunguska would have actually been a fragment of Krypton itself laced with the mineral kryptonite. Since this was before the Great War, perhaps in a spirit of scientific cooperation, samples of this meteorite would be sent all over the world, including the United States which would allow Lex Luthor to come into contact with the mineral and successfully hypothesize its effects on Superman later in this story's timeline.
     I'm happy to have Smallville be located in Kansas, where it was in the iconic 1978 film, rather than have it be a mysterious Anytown, USA. It seems especially necessary for Superman to be "out of the public eye" in his formative years, raised and cared for by his adoptive family, the Kents, who are eternally grateful (and willing to keep his secret, even from Superman) for their literal gift from the heavens of a child whom they would christen Clark since they were incapable of conceiving on their own.

     I'm not going to speculate here how Clark grew up here but it's obviously incredibly important that it be done right. Other superheroes have to learn the message of "With great power comes great responsibility" and no one more represents this message more than Superman given what he, as a living god, is capable of doing. Fortunately for the world he found himself being raised by a wholesome Kansan family who taught him right from wrong, about justice and fairness, about believing in your fellow man, and about idealized American values. It's very "Aww, shucks!" but without it, Superman could easily have become a fanatical dictator (which I believe he does in "Red Son")

     I have no desire to see "the Adventures of Superboy". As far as I'm concerned, Superman did not set out to be a hero and had a regular childhood. I don't even know if I would want it revealed why he turned to superheroism either: as with Kryptonian culture and technology, it seems better left unsaid and implied. However, he should definitely come out wearing his trademark uniform on April 18, 1938 (when Action Comics number one was published) and declare himself to a curious public/press in June of that same year (that issue bore the date "June 1938" despite being published prior).

Dated June 1938; published April 18th

     I think the newest movie suggested it took some time for Superman to gain his powers under our yellow sun so perhaps Clark Kent was effectively "just a man" until at least puberty and afterward, as his powers started manifesting, Ma and Pa Kent's teachings would take on an especially heavy importance. I think of the exchange from the movie spoken by Pa Kent:

     The Superman story in my version also benefits starting in 1908. It was easier to hide back then and start fresh. There was no Social Security administration. The Kents, especially if they moved, could probably get away with claiming Clark to be their own child and if not, I'm sure no one would demand proof of adoption back then.
     Clark would be nine years old when the United States entered World War I: maybe he knew friends who lost their fathers to the war. He'd be adolescent during Prohibition: perhaps organized crime affected his life in some way. He'd be 25 when Hitler came to power and when the Great Depression hit the hardest: did the Kents lose their farm? How did Smallville handle the despair? I don't know how Superman would have handled World War II though that war did scream out for heavy-handed solutions. Does he stay out of it? Does something force his hand? World history is already changed by his mere presence but how far does it go? Were the Kents progressive folk or did Superman carry with him attitudes that may have kept him from being concerned about the rights of black people and the plight of Jews in Europe?
     When does Lex Luthor enter the scene? Maybe for the sake of the movie, Luthor gets his start in real estate schemes before the war but as a soldier in the war, he is the only one depicted showing concern, even horror, that Superman ended it so quickly and decisively in favor of the Allies. As was already stated in some of the comics, Luthor sees in Superman potential menace rather than blindly accepting him as an American hero like the rest of the public. His role was to take on the thankless task of stopping a god, or at the very minimum, containing him, before Superman realizes humanity is virtually incapable of stopping him (Superman) from doing what he damn well pleases.

Does Superman steal Capt. America's thunder and punch out Hitler himself?

     Going by my timeline, Clark Kent would be 30 years old when he debuts as Superman and about 70 years old when he dies on December 10, 1978 (the date when "Superman: The Movie" first premiered) giving about a forty year run.
     As for what causes Superman's death, which I'm assuming will have an air of heroism to it rather than simply the fading of a light, I don't care to speculate (although the Khmer Rouge was in power, actively genociding the Cambodian population at the time). However, I figure his end would be something like that of Avatar Wan, the very first Avatar from the Last Airbender universe in which Superman laments that he was unable to make the world a better place because there's still crime, corruption, war, and supervillainy. There simply wasn't enough time...

[With his eyes closed.] I'm sorry, Raava. I failed to bring peace. Even with Vaatu locked away, darkness still surrounds humanity. [Opens his eyes.] There wasn't enough time...

     However, in his death, he becomes an inspiration for many other heroes. So, in a sense, like Avatar Wan, his spirit remains on Earth and continues to do good in the face of the entropy of evil.
     The first of such heroes would be Batman whose comic debuted in 1939. Batman could have declared himself, a year after Superman did, in response to what he was seeing in Metropolis. Knowing that Superman could not be everywhere at once and still deeply affected by the loss of his parents to crime in Gotham City, Batman would be the first "copycat" hero even if his methods would not necessarily gain the approval of Superman.

     I could go on, but I think I've already said enough...

[On a side note, I don't see Batman as a modern hero either. He feels dated as well, like he would benefit from a time with less invasive technology. I imagine the internet would be as much a bane to Batman's secret identity and staying at least one step ahead of both criminals and law enforcement as would the loss of telephone booths and omnipresent security cameras be to frustrating Superman's quick costume changes and desire for anonymity]

THE ANTI-GMO PROTESTER PRAYER...

     The satirical Amish prayer joke from Family Guy is what anti-GMO protesters sound like to me so I decided to make a silly prayer of my own patterned after it.

Dear All-Natural Lord, Thou lookest sternly down upon us, Thine flock, even though we avoid unhealthy processed food and have been rallying for GMO-labeling laws like fucking crazy.

Please make us crunchy, and deliver us from accumulated toxins, that we may eat only raw, organic food, much more expensive than other people's.

And grant that we shun what we cannot pronounce, like Vani Hari, whom we have never seen, but are just going by reputation because it is your will.

We solemnly believe that, although humans have been genetically modifying plants, fungi, and animals in various ways for over 12,000 years, you feel strongly we had just enough genetic modification between 1946 and 1972. Not too little, not too much.

Please deliver us from Monsanto, the worst company that was ever incorporated and protect us from those who scoff at our woo or our appeal to nature and deliver us from vaccines.

Amen.

"The Amish Barn-Raising Prayer" from Family Guy
     Okay, enough silly poking fun. I will end my awful parody with the following paraphrases altered to suit the subject matter...

     At least let these developers prove they can do it. Give GMOs a break. To write them off before they've even started well, that's irrational. I don't know if GMOs will work: I'm just saying that these developers deserve a chance to try and make them work. (with apologies to Babylon 5)

     And if the GMO experiment fails, we should admit it frankly and try something else. But above all, try something. The world's presently got a lot of hungry mouths to feed and researchers/developers are saying GMOs might be a part of the solution, so let's try it and find out instead of blocking attempts via fearmongering. (with apologies to Franklin Roosevelt)

     And, if this, by grace of Internet, were to be used seriously by those whom I'm making fun of, that means I win, right?

NIGHT WILL FALL...

     Every time I watch a documentary about the Holocaust, I learn something new. It's just that big of a story. Night Will Fall was no exception. As I watched it, I found myself wondering what happened to the survivors afterward and this was briefly touched upon. It turns out that once fed and properly hydrated, once those basic needs had been met, they would slowly return to a more human state, even bickering over fashions, after a period as short as 2-3 weeks (and I'm sure you've seen pictures of the harshly starved prisoners from death camps at the time of their liberation).

     I also learned that while American and British authorities were happy to use the atrocities of the Holocaust in order blame the defeated Germans, that neither government felt any obligation to care for the Holocaust's victims, especially the Jewish ones, either be granting them a place to live in their respective countries or to allow them to form a nation of their own. It didn't matter that what was done was a crime against humanity, they were still Jews...
     And while the latter ultimately happened in 1948 with the creation of Israel, those people first heading there found themselves deported back to a Europe that did not want them or even held in new internment camps so shortly after having left their prior hells.

     There are many unpleasant things one learns throughout history, both about the world and about one's own home. I am amazed at how easy it apparently was for the Final Solution apparatus to be set up and how readily it was carried out; at how easily a people could be swayed to collaborate and effect an end to a perceived scapegoat; at how easily those living near such death mills were able to blithely ignore the goings-on of the genocidal machinery within.

     But then I am also amazed at how easily to this day people will call out for genocidal actions against the "other". And don't get me wrong. As a radical free speech supporter, I will not stand in the way of people wishing to voice such opinions. As a human being, I would be obligated to oppose the carrying out of such desires, but I will never oppose simply talking about it or wishing it upon.

     I don't care if you ultimately still hate Jews, Muslims, gays, blacks, Latinos, communists, etc. but just remember when you casually call out blood, indiscriminate retributive bombing campaigns, or even openly wish for genocide that, to carry it out, this is what is required of you and those whom you commit to such tasks. This is what you must turn your eyes upon and see. This is what must be done. This is what must be lived with afterward.

     That is what you need to remember...

SEVEN DEADLY SINS (play-at-home version)

(click to enlarge)

     I saw this image floating around online and thought it interesting enough to give it a try. Which one would you choose? They each have ups and downs. The only trouble I have is that what is promised is light on details, making me wonder if participation in this game would find you the victim of a Jerk Genie. But let's consider, shall we?

ENVY, option A: I'm not entirely sure what is meant by "aspect of your life" and while it certainly could be used for good, trading a good quality of one's own for a bad quality in another to give that person a shot at a better life, the evil implication is that you're basically fucking over one of your friends with something about yourself you don't like, trading it for something desirable in the other friend. Is this limited to mental aspects or conceptual things like "luck", or are you able to trade for, say, a full head of hair if you were balding or increased height if you felt yourself too short? It doesn't say and it would certainly suck to find out it had to be nonphysical when you wanted something physical, wouldn't it?
     Definitely wouldn't take this option.

ENVY, option B: Trading lives. Does this mean I continue having my own body but people react to me like I were the other person or does it mean body-swapping? Either way, what is to stop the forcibly traded person from coming after me for having stolen his/her life? Sounds dangerous to accept, no?
     I'm gonna have to say no to this one as well.

SLOTH, option A: This is most certainly the safest option I would think. By far the best default in the event you find you cannot forfeit choosing one of these options. Median household income for the year 2012, according to the OECD, was $30,932. Another chart shows the median 2011 income from the U.S. Census Bureau at $50,054, a considerable difference. The former isn't much more than I make now while the latter would make me feel solidly Middle Class.
     Of course, the country whose median income your sloth check would be based on is never stated nor whether the amount would be indexed for inflation or fixed at the present year's value making this option potentially risky, especially given that you would never work a day (which could also mean you're in a coma). I want to take this one, but what if I end up receiving Mexico's median annual income ($4,493 in U.S. dollars)? That would certainly suck and you know there are worse countries than that...
     Now I'm thinking this wouldn't be such a safe bet after all.

SLOTH, option B: Same shitty life I have now except that I always feel rested after I sleep. Again, I'm assuming this reduced sleep is still enough to keep healthy and not like a drug. Assuming this genie isn't totally a jerkass, this option could prove a bit ironic to the sin as you could now being WAY more productive than would otherwise be possible for a human being. If a five minute nap counts as a full day's rest, what's to stop you from always pulling all-nighters, tinkering with all sorts of hobbies, partying 'til dawn on worknights, having your cake and eating it too when it comes to business and pleasure, etc.?
     Even though I'd still have to work, this one could be a good "if I have to" option even if the health risks do exist. It would mean simply be careful not to abuse your power, like one must be careful not to abuse pain medications lest their effectiveness dwindle. I mean I hope it would be that simple and not some other horrible side-effect...

WRATH, option A: Certainly a very tempting option. Both options come with the same potential drawback: are you able to get away with these crimes? I would like to believe proving it in court would be impossible but then being tied up in court having to defend oneself could prove costly and as the O.J. Simpson civil trial showed, being acquitted of murder doesn't mean one cannot still be found liable financially.
     Also, must you inflict this annual fate or can you be merciful and skip a year? Can you bank fates (I'll assume not). Must the fates be terrible or can they be used to slowly grant lottery victories or spontaneous remissions of cancer?
     Of course the wording states that the target must be "of my wrath" making me presumably less likely to wish to be civil about it...

WRATH, option B: You get a monthly option provided the fate be non-lethal - though it can be delayed - but like the above, it must be visited upon an object of rage making this power decidedly useless to pervert in order to help family and friends out.
     Still...I can be pretty creative in my non-lethal horrors but again I wonder, do I have to do this once-a-month or just once-a-month maximum? It makes a difference because I'm just not that angry of a man. I'd run out of justifiable (to myself anyway) targets pretty quickly and my remaining lifetime could still be quite long...

LUST, option A: This really sounds like a roundabout description of rape, doesn't it? Speaking as someone unlucky in both love and hooking up, this is a very tempting option as it would allow me to fulfill a number of fantasies...from my perspective at least. As the nightmare of my prowess is visited upon my targets, what becomes of them afterward? Do they remember hooking up with me but unsure why they weren't able to resist? Are they happy for having done so? Do they regret it? How much time afterward do I have before their free will kicks back in? Like it has been said allegedly of the Devil, would I have no power over true love, meaning I could only hook up with single girls (which would more than suck as I've lusted after a few boyfriended/married girls in my life)? Will it be reported as a rape, tying up my time in courtrooms like with the wrath options?
     Lots of questions with no help offered from the option's description. Still...a tempting option regardless of the potential problems. Yeah, I'm a terrible human being...

LUST, option B: While this sounds like a safer option, I need reality for my fantasies to work. It's like asking for a hug. It's not the same as a hug given freely. Having a shapeshifter who could turn into a crush I could then fuck is not the same as being able to fuck the crush herself.

PRIDE, option A: Fame and popularity. Again, for what is not made clear nor is it in any way certain that I would have a choice over as to why I'm famous and popular. Serial killers tend to be both (except with their victims' families I would imagine). Not exactly something I would like to be prideful of, especially since it would likely mean a lifetime of imprisonment...or pending execution depending on the state. One might also be famous and popular for having exposed national secrets à la Snowden but then stuck in a life of exile for it, always looking over one's shoulder. Many good results and many bad results can come from this...

PRIDE, option B: I like this option, a powerful and commanding aura. I get to be automatically respected and feared by those around me. However, is this a power I have control over or am I always that way? While it could be useful, even when always on, it would make it hard to have friends and those friends you already do have would treat you differently, denying you their honesty.
     If I could turn this power on and off at will or if I could grant exceptions to certain people (even if such exceptions were irreversible), that might be better but still...without clarification, I think this option too risky to assume...

GREED, option A: Actually this seems like the safest option now, unless this hundredfold increase in salary is the result of a bank robbery (I think that's how a genie got wished-for money in a Woody Woodpecker cartoon once: I watched too many cartoons as a kid). Also, is this an annual - but now fixed - 100x salary or just a one-time thing and future years are my present salary with no possibility of a raise and/or promotion ever after? Something perhaps that should've been cleared up in the text. I'm assuming it's a one-time thing since there are no restrictions on how I may spend my new found wealth. 100x my present salary would be plenty for the rest of my life barring a serious illness.
     Maybe I shouldn't give this genie ideas...

GREED, option B: This is actually an interesting option but what would I so covet that I would wish simply to have it with no ability to do anything with it except possess or sell it at a loss/give away freely since I cannot make money off it?
     A double-edged sword indeed...

GLUTTONY, option A: Sounds nice though I would suspect hedonic adaptation would ultimately apply, ruining the joy of this choice...

GLUTTONY, option B: None of the negative side-effects of eating? Does this mean I could eat poisons and be unaffected by them? Are all my poops now perfect, no-wipe-needed wonders? This power could be an interesting way to make money from bets...

     Overall, I'm not sure which one I would take. If I could forfeit the game, I would to play it safe. As mentioned, I've seen too many cartoons and TV shows with jerk genies, literal genies, etc. I don't think any of them ever got the job by choice which might explain why they delight in creating misfortune with their power.
      But if I had to choose, despite the unclear wording, the life of leisure that would (presumably) be afforded me with an annual median income and not having to work for a living. Option A Lust would certainly have its uses but I can't see how I wouldn't feel guilty, at least eventually, for having exercised it. Same with either Wrath option...


"Seven Deadly Sins" by The Traveling Wilburys
     Perhaps a differently worded version might be composed by someone more lawyerly? Internet, I'm waiting...

SONGS THAT CAN JUST GO AWAY, part XI

     Katy Perry's "Firework" has been annoying the internet for some time now and it annoys the shit out of me too. It's not even because it's a sappy self-empowerment song, the kinds of which I've railed against before. No, what bugs me about it is the shoddily written chorus.

     At first I thought it was just another example of Katy Perry's sometimes odd enunciations (listen to "California Gurls" for a good example of this). At times it feels like she is in a competition with Celine Dion for odd vocalizations. But I digress...

     I had a difficult time understanding the chorus and did my damnedest to try to find words which fit. I should mention that this song plays at work so I've had no choice but to listen to it many, many times. The chorus sounds to the uninitiated like:

♪♫ Baby, you're a firework!

Go on show them what your worth

Make them go (unintelligible three repeated syllables)

As you shoot across the sky-y-y!

Baby, you're a firework!

Go on let your colors burst

Make them go (unintelligible three repeated syllables)

You're gonna leave going (unintelligible three different repeated syllables) ♫♪

     Now hearing "sky-y-y" I assumed the first three misunderstood syllables had to be "high" and that kinda made sense: "Make them go high, high, high // As you shoot across the sky-y-y!" But try as I might, I couldn't come up with a good rhyme scheme. "high, high, high // why-y-y?" Nah...

     Finally after many weeks of this, I managed to remember to dedicate a few moments of my uneventful life to looking up the song's lyrics. What I saw brought this song from tolerable to fuck no, I want it to just go away. Here're the actual lyrics:

♪♫ Baby, you're a firework
Come on, show 'em what you're worth
Make 'em go, "Aah, aah, aah"
As you shoot across the sky-y-y
Baby, you're a firework
Come on, let your colors burst
Make 'em go, "Aah, aah, aah"
You're gonna leave 'em all in awe, awe, awe ♫♪

     Okay, I had a few errors: "Go on" was "Come on" & "You're gonna leave them going" was actually "You're gonna leave 'em all in" Whatever. Divining lyrics is sometimes a complex art. Believe me, I know...I'm a Squeeze fan. But the rhyming couplets are what threw me. "Make them go, 'Ah, ah, ah' // As you shoot across the sky-y-y"? "Make them go, 'Ah, ah, ah' // You're gonna leave 'em all in awe, awe, awe"?

     What the fuck was that? That's just terrible. No wonder my brain couldn't figure out the lyrics. It would have never accepted such a shitty couplet. I'm pretty sure Katy Perry doesn't write her own songs so it leaves me wondering what sort of professional songwriter would've found such couplets acceptable for singing? Hell, even in written poetry they'd suck. She barely differentiates between the words too. How was anyone supposed to know what she was singing? My brain just...no, it can't.

     This song just needs to go away already...

And it's got over 450 million views...