On which point is he unclear exactly?

Like that time on Three's Company when
Mr. Furley called Jack a godless deviant and
had him arrested on charges of sodomy.

Don't worry everybody, Indiana Governor Mike Pence's Religious Freedom Restoration Act isn't about discrimination and this whole thing is just a big misunderstanding.

"I just can't account for the hostility that's been directed at our state...I've been taken aback by the mischaracterizations from outside the state of Indiana about what's in this bill." 

-Governor Mike Pence,

taken aback by the abundantly obvious

But seriously, he really doesn't see the problem everyone's having with this? Here, let me try and account for the hostility. First of all, nobody wants their healthcare options limited by their boss's religious convictions, that's just bullshit that will lead to further bullshit.

"Ok team, as you know our CEO has converted to a new religion. You've probably never heard of it, but he's
legally devout as required by the RFRA. Since he no longer believes in doctors we've gone ahead and cancelled 
your insurance plans and anyone who is menstruating is now considered unclean and will have wait out their periods in the hut of shame in the rear parking lot. And yes, it will count against your sick days. Questions? Concerns?"

"Yeah, you can't order the fettuccine, my
religion is gluten free. Maybe try the salad?"

Also, it's stupidly vague. All anyone has to do get out of complying with parts of the Affordable Care Act, or to refuse service to someone they have a theological issue with is to say that their exercise of religion is being burdened. Like, what the shit does that mean? Do they need a note from their reverend? Do they have to bring in an excerpt from the applicable holy book? Does this apply to any religion? Because I can make one up. In fact, I did make one up and it specifically states that you can't be a dick to people. So where's my law?

"Let me be clear, I don't hate gay people,
I'm just looking out for people who do."

-Governor Mike Pence

Anyway, the biggest issue here is the way the RFRA divides people up into two categories: business owners with religious beliefs and the people they find so morally objectionable that even doing business with them will "substantially burden their exercise of religion." Holy shit. I mean, it's not just that the bill provides businesses legal cover from accusations of discrimination, it's that in doing so, it presupposes that these moral objections are valid in the first place. That's why people are getting hostile Mike, your law basically calls gay people objectionable and, by extension, un-cake-worthy.

Look, nobody wants to trample on anyones religious freedom, that was never the point. In fact, most people don't give a shit what others do or do not believe in. What most people do want however is not to be legally classified as a substantial burden and I'm pretty sure that's not asking so much.

"But my exercise of reli-i-i-i-igion..."

-RFRA supporters,

you know, metaphorically

Let's Boycott Indiana!

Pictured: the deplorable treatment 'people of faith'
have to endure every day in the State of Indiana.
(source: white people with persecution complexes)

Wow, yesterday was a great day for the great state of Indiana. Governor Mike Pence signed a bill that would-wait, what? No, this isn't about potatoes, you're thinking of Iowa, this is Indiana we're talking about. Anyway, Governor Pence signed a bill-huh? No, Chicago's in Illinois. Here, let me get through this and then we'll try to figure out which state Indiana is. Ok. So yesterday, Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which finally freed Christian business owners from the cruel torment they've faced at the hands of gay people.

Yes, that Indiana, the State famous for its many cornfields and anonymity among the 'I' states. It has for years now apparently been the scene of religious persecution as god-fearing Indianans have been forced to treat gay and lesbians like regular folk.

Above: one of the many gay-wedding cakes Indiana Christians
have been forced to bake, and then accept payment for, despite that
the fact that the Bible specifically forbids same-sex cake toppers.

Remember that bullshit?

That all ended yesterday when the Governor signed a bill which allows 'people of faith' to discriminate freely against anyone as long as they say it's because of their religion. Here's Mike Pence on why he rolled the clock back on civil rights: "Many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action. One need look no further than the recent litigation concerning Obamacare..." He's referring to Hobby Lobby's claim that being Christian exempts them from you know, complying with Federal law because Jesus. They uh, won by the way.

But that's shouldn't upset you because President Obama voted for a similar bill back when he was a Senator in Illinois. You know, the other 'I' state:

"We're the Buckeye state, right?"

"...when the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was considered by the Indiana-or the Illinois, State Legislature, State Senator Barack Obama voted for it*...The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, then and here, limits government action that would infringe on religion."

-Indiana Governor Mike Pence,

also unsure as to which state is Indiana

Oh, and if that kinds of sounds like it's a license for business owners to discriminate, don't worry, this isn't about discrimination. Um, somehow.

"For the last time Nicole, no where in
here do I say anything like that. At all."

-Jesus, kind of sick of it

"Now let me be very clear on this point: This bill is not about discrimination. And if I thought it was about discrimination I would have vetoed it. In fact it doesn't even apply to disputes among private individuals unless government action is involved. I think there's been a lot of misunderstanding about this bill. I get that. But let me say that again: This bill is not about discrimination..."

There, you see? It's about protecting business owners from having to violate their religious beliefs. Even if they can't point to a specific tenet to support whatever stance they're taking.

So exactly this.

So what could possibly be discriminatory about a bill that allows business to "make[s] a distinction in favor of or against a person...based on the group, class or category to which that person...belongs to..."? Oh, wait. everything. This bill is, and I don't use the word lightly, literally about discrimination. And as an added bonus, it gives business owners the power to determine what healthcare their employees should have access to based on their own religious beliefs, which again, they don't have to prove or quantify in any way. Awesome.

Look, I'm not suggesting that people's religious beliefs are inconsequential, I'm just suggesting that maybe having to rent out Conference Room C at the Marriott for a same sex-wedding reception is not the same thing as being persecuted for one's beliefs. Oh, and also I'm suggesting that we all join George Takei in boycotting Indiana, which shouldn't be too hard. Like, c'mon, Indiana.

Crossroads of America is just a nice way of saying
you just drive through it on the way to someplace else.

*You may have noticed that Pence just cited Barack Obama voting for a similar bill back in Illinois as a reason everyone should get onboard with the RFRA, while at the same time holding up the President's Affordable Care Act as the reason Indiana needs to defend religious people from government meddling. If that makes your ears bleed from the illogic of politics, you're not alone.

When the President votes for your petty, homophobic bill he's a paragon
of bipartisanship. When he tries to get health care for people who
can't afford it, he's an example of governmental overreach.

Richard III, we hardly knew ye...

But isn't he famous for murdering children? Wait, who are you talking about? You ask, more than a little tired of this lead in. Why King Richard III, I reply, once again pretending that you've asked me to explain. But seriously, check out his funeral:

Could you imagine the turn out if he wasn't a child killer?

"M'eh, just an Earl. We're going to keep
digging until we hit at least a Duke."

Yeah, that Richard III, the medieval English King whose unmarked grave archaeologists dug up in a parking lot because in England you can't stick a shovel in the dirt without digging up someone historical. It sounds like I'm kidding, but seriously, a team of researchers from the University of Leichester decided to excavate an old church, you know, on the off-chance that there'd be some clues as to where Richard III's body might have been dumped, and whatta ya know? Corpse one is the hunchbacked Tricky Dick of the fifteenth century.

Amazing right? Yes. Absolutely. Although it does seem like he's getting an awfully fancy funeral for a guy who's not only been dead since 1485, but also probably murdered his nephews. I mean, I'm not saying they should toss his bones in a sack, spit on them and chuck them in a lake, but c'mon...it wouldn't be completely undeserved. 

"I'll miss the way he used to turn to the audience and
soliloquize about his schemes of usurpation and regicide..." 

"And I would have gotten away
with it if it weren't for-oh, wait, I
did get away with it. Hm! Suck it."

-Richard III, Act V Scene i

Ok, so I realize that I keep harping on this point and that there's no concrete evidence that Richard murdered his nephews and that it's totally possible that he doesn't deserve his reputation. After all, anyone in a position of power is going to make political enemies and five centuries of bad press from William Goddamn Shakespeare can't possibly help. On the other hand, he totally did it. Look, I'm not an historian or anything, but Edward IV dies, and his son Edward V is the new king. But Edward's twelve, so his uncle Richard is put in charge and immediately sends Edward V and his younger brother off to the Tower of London for safe-keeping. They're never seen or heard from again and Richard becomes the new king. Scooby and the gang could have solved this one without Velma.

Anyway, murderer or no (but probably yes), there's no denying that he's a significant figure both in history and literature and not a lot of people can say that. Also, after five hundred years Richard III has still got people talking and arguing about him and that's something. I mean, good for him, right? I guess. Less so for the nephews. 

Also, it looks like he finally got that horse...

Just remember to yell 'Surprise!'

How is a proposed law that would make being gay a capital offense not, in and of itself illegal? Also, how am I just hearing about Matthew McLaughlin now?

Pictured: The surface of Mars where, apparently, I've been living for the last month.

Huntington Beach, famous for its surf,
sun and rabid-foam religious fervor.

Let's start with the who first. Matthew McLaughlin is an attorney from Huntington Beach (the one in California, I checked) who, back on March 2nd filed a proposal for a ballot initiative with the California Attorney General's Office called the Sodomite Suppression Act which, I shit you not, calls for the immediate execution of gays and lesbians, you know, because gay stuff makes God wrathful and you saw what happened to Sodom and Gomorra. No really, that's in there.

"Can't we just shoot him up with horse
tranquilizer and lock him in a room?"

-AG Kamala Harris,

looking for an out

Clearly this guy is batshit insane and thousands have already called for him to be disbarred on the grounds that he's a homophobic shit-heel, but according to this, the State Attorney General still has to go through the motions as though this was a totally normal referendum. Because he filed all the proper paperwork and turned in the $200 fee, AG Kamala Harris who, incidentally, is running for Senate, now has to take McLaughlin's hate-filled rambling proposal, summarize it and hand it back to him and he can go collect signatures.

So obviously, it's always going to be illegal to murder people, even if God tells you to and even if you have a petition. Still, it's incredibly fucked up that there's even a chance that people are going to be knocking on doors asking Californians to sign up if they'd like to see a kill the gays option on the ballot in 2016. Holy shit, ballot initiatives, right?

Oh, and if they do go door to door, we should all stage elaborate gay orgy scenes
for the people collecting signatures to walk into. Like, even if you're not gay, invite
some friends over, wait for the doorbell and take your places. It'll be hilarious.

We're stupider for every ticket they sell.

You know what kind of bums me out? This movie trailer (please don't click on it, you'll only make it worse). It was viewed 34.3 million times in its first 24 hours. 34.3 million. It's for a movie called Pixels, which as far as I can tell, is the second most blatant attempt to disguise a car commercial as a film about 80's nostalgia.

The first being the Transformers tetrology in which the heroic Autobots
defend the human race from the evil Deceptions while at the same time raising our
awareness of GM's excellent line of products. Transform and roll out...the savings!

But it will leave you feeling that
they ripped-off Futurama...

What's its deal anyway? Well, I looked it up and it's a full-length film version of a French short done a few years ago in which New York is attacked by 80's video games. Actually, it's kind of fun. It's cute. It's two minutes long and it won't leave you with that slightly dirty feeling you get when you realize that something you've been enjoying is actually a thinly-veiled advertisement. Pixels the movie on the other hand, is a two-hour Mini-Cooper commercial about aliens invading the Earth in the form of classic arcade game characters.

 In many ways this movie will also
be an advertisement for blow.

Wait, how's that? Well, according to the exposition-heavy trailer, it's because back in 1982 NASA launched a space probe full of retro games into space as a message of peace or something. Which, who needs prime numbers, right? Let's just send them Centipede. I'm just going to ahead and chalk this one up to cocaine. Lots and lots of cocaine. And yes, I realize that I'm totally judging this film based upon the trailer, speculation and the Wikipedia page. Is it fair? Of course not, but then Sony Pictures and Mini Cooper are going to trick a lot of people into sitting through it so I don't feel badly about this at all.

Ok, back to the, uh, story: so aliens are invading and the world's only hope is obviously a former video game champion played by Adam Sandler. To defeat the aliens, Sandler must team up with the President of the United States, played by Kevin James-yes, let me stop again to emphasize the fact that the unbeatable star-power that brought us I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, is reunited at last.

Yeah, that two-hour gay joke made back in the way less
enlightened year of 2007-wait, holy shit, really? 2007?

Pictured: The precise moment when the
world lost respect for Peter Dinklage.

So Sandler and Paul Blart: President are soon joined by rival video-game champion Peter Dinklage and together this rag-tag team must defeat the alien leader who has taken the form of Pac-Man. Logically, the only way to pull this off and save the world is by hoping into a fleet of candy-colored British sub-compacts and pretending to be the ghosts from the video game. Because...uh, again, I refer you to the cocaine. You're probably now left with some questions.

"It's the only way to be sure."

-Ellen Ripley

Reasonable questions like, why would the aliens bother with Atari-themed disguises instead of simply nuking us from orbit? Or why the President would rely on Adam Sandler's video gaming skills instead of, I don't know, scientists or the military or something? Of course, the only question we should be asking is 'are you goddamn kidding me, Sony Pictures?' This movie could potentially be the stupidest thing they've ever done and they almost started a war with North Korea.

Look, I'm not saying that every movie has to be Citizen Kane, but can we at least start calling out shit like this as a movie studio getting us to pay for the privilege of being advertised at? I mean, I know product placement has a long and storied history, but the least they can do is put up the pretense of subtlety. 

"Alright everybody, we're mankind's last hope. Well, us and the smooth ride and roomy interior
of these Mini Coopers. When this is all over, we should all head down to our local Mini Cooper
dealerships and take advantage of their historic spring sales event!"

-Adam Sandler in Pixels,

 the opposite of subtlety

Andiamo boicottare Dolce e Gabbana!

To give one a bobby, as in:
"ello ello, what's all this then?'

If you're confused and angry about this (the story, not the title), you're not alone. Here, let me explain, or at least try to: Elton John has joined the call for a boycott of Dolce and Gabbana which, if you're anything like me, has exactly zero bearing on your life. I mean, I know they make clothes or purses or something, but the thing that's giving me a bobby is the reason: in a recent interview in the Italian news magazine Panorama, the company's founders have come out against same-sex marriage and adoption by gay parents. Ok, Italian company, publicly anti-gay owners, what's new?

Here's the sticky wicket: they, and I'm referring to Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana, are totally gay. Like super gay. They were a couple for 23 years and back in 2005 even posed for the cover of Vanity Fair holding a bunch of kids and talking about how much they'd like to adopt some. So like what the hell?

Above: Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana being totally gay. Like super-gay.

"Oh fuck off you barmy tossers"

-Sir Elton John responding

to Dolce and Gabbana *

Apparently both men have been opposed to same-sex marriage for awhile and are fairly vocal about it which is stupid and gross on the face of it and confusing given their gayness, but hey, to each their own, right? The dick move here, and the thing that probably drew the particular rage of Sir Elton John, father of two via a surrogate, is their attack on surrogacy and in vitro fertilization:

"The only family is the traditional one. No Chemical offsprings and rented uterus: Life has a natural flow; there are things that should not be changed."

-Either Dolce or Gabbana,

I don't know which, but they're both 

clearly being assholes about this

Pictured: Parents with
newborn sperm fruit.

Yikes, right? Weirder and hypocritical-ier is that Gabbana himself once asked a female friend to be a surrogate for him:

"I want my own child, a biological child, the fruit of my sperm, conceived through artificial insemination because it wouldn't make sense for me to make love to a woman I don't love."

-Stefano Gabbana in a 2006 interview with-

gross, did he just say 'the fruit of my sperm?'

Above: Also a row, because
English is confusing.

You know, can't these guys just choose to not adopt children themselves and move on? Sure, everyone's got a right to an opinion, even a baffling and ridiculously hypocritical one, but holy shit, these guys are going after parents who used IVF to have kids. So yeah, Sir Elton, his husband and pretty much every else who's gay, has children conceived with medical assistance or isn't a total asshat is understandably upset and now there's social media row (it's British for fight) between two opposing viewpoints each telling the other to shut up and mind it's own business.

What's your problem anyway? Don't
like my pro-punching you viewpoint?

Sometimes in fights like this you can see the validity in both side's argument. You know, reasonable people, reasonable viewpoints, but I'm not sure that applies here. On the one hand you have Elton John saying: 'Hey, stop calling my children abominations' and on the other you have Dolce and Gabbana saying: 'Hey, stop trying to tell us not to call your children abominations.' Like, you can't punch someone in the face and then call them a fascist for having a problem with you.

Oh yeah, did I mention that Gabbana actually called Elton John a fascist? Because he did and then, in a stunning example of both tastelessness and too-soonessness, appropriated #JeSuisDolceGabbana. For real. Holy shit Gabbana, just holy shit.

Supporting radical authoritarianism makes you a fascist, telling D&G
to go fuck themselves because they vocally oppose you, your marriage
and your children's very existence is not really the same thing.

*I may have made that quote up.

Let's Celebrate Circular Reasoning!

"Hey Steve? Did you see on Facebook?*
Today is Pi Day! Steve? Steeeeve?"
(*or whatever they had in 1592. Talking?)

So yesterday was Pi Day, but I'm not sure I understand. Ok, yeah, I get that pi is 3.141592 or whatever and that since Saturday was March 14th 2015, everyone made this big deal about the once in a century day on which the date lines up with the numbers in pi...which it doesn't. If this were the year 1592 or pi were 3.142015, I'd give it to you, but I've got a feeling that everyone was too busy dying of plague back then to actually give a shit about Pi Day. But am I overthinking this? Am I the guy on New Year's eve, 1999 that nobody talks to because I keep pointing out that it's not the new millennium?

Yes. Completely. After all, everyone loves Pi Day and besides what other observance is celebrated by both eating and posting Instagrams of pie? Could there be a better meaningless observance? 

Tiramisu Tuesday? No? Well what've you got?

Pfft...no wonder everybody murdered
 him. Well, that and the tyranny...

Well, as it happens, today is the Ides of March, which at least marks an actual thing that happened. It's the anniversary of the day Julius Caesar got stabbed to death by like sixty of his closest friends and colleagues in history's easiest-to-see-coming assassination. Unfortunately, the day doesn't so much lend itself to something delicious like pie. I mean, it was a pretty brutal shanking, so I'm not really sure how we'd mark the occasion. I suppose you could eat a caesar salad but falling as it does the day after Pi Day that seems like a pretty serious letdown. 

Oh well, it looks like the Idea of March are destined to be nestled anonymously between Pi Day's delicious pies and St. Patrick's Day's socially acceptable public drunkenness and Irish stereotyping. I guess we'll just have to settle for celebrating by being the super-pedantic weirdo who keeps asking people to guess what today is just so we can tell them.

Hey people who probably don't give a shit about the history behind St. Patrick's Day,
did you know that he was once captured by pirates and brought to Ireland as a slave
where he...You know, I'll just shut up now. You folks can go back to your drinking.

Let's put pants on Superman!

There are lots of things wrong with Superman. I mean he's overpowered, not that interesting and holy shit did anyone else sit through Superman Returns? Of course, Kryptonite, Grant Morrison, and Days of Future Past (I'll explain below) in that order solves these issues, but there's one thing about Superman that can never be salvaged no matter how hard DC tries.

Bryan Singer turned down X-Men 3 so he could do
Superman Returns, so in a way, Superman ruined two movies.

Above: the moment DC just gave up.

The costume. Sure, it's kind of-oh, sorry, I should probably warn you that I'm about to argue that Superman's new pants are what's wrong with DC comics, so if you want to bail out, now's the time. Still with me? Ok. Superman's costume. DC's holy trinity of characters anybody actually gives a shit about, Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman are all getting new looks. If it feels like they just did this, they did, back in 2011 with the New 52, but this time it's different (no it's not). Wonder Woman is getting tights and thigh-high boots, Batman is apparently getting robotic rabbit samurai suit (no, really) and Superman is eschewing his traditional, albeit ridiculous, blue-onsie and cape combo for a t-shirt and jeans. Yeah, a t-shirt and jeans.

And wait, what's that crap at his feet? Are those tattered remnants of his old costume, blood or those Saran-wrap 'S's he throws at the end of Superman II? Remember that? What was that anyway? Are they bringing that back?

"Because I'm goddamn Superman, that's why."

Remember this bullshit? No? That's
because it sucked and DC couldn't go
back to the status quo fast enough. 

The tights and cape thing is usually described as iconic, but that's just because it's objectively lame. Hardcore fans don't want to admit it, and casual fans don't waste their time giving it much thought, but Superman looks like a doofus and no amount of tweaks and Nehru collars you stick on him is going to change that. They've tried. They gave him a mullet for while, killed him off and replaced him with four fake Supermen, and then there was that Red Superman/Blue Superman thing where they took away the cape and gave him different powers, but that didn't stick around long. It's always back to the same dull character and that same stupid look.

The in-universe explanation has always been that the costume is made from Kal-El's advanced Kryptonian lycra swaddling blanket and is therefore the only garment capable of keeping Superman's super-junk covered at super-sonic speeds.

It 's impervious to earthquakes, Brainiac and deep space radiation, but not Martha Kent's Singer. 

Mecha-Bunny-Bat-Samurai is
definitely new, so there's that.

The out-of-universe explanation is that Superman is an icon and you can't change anything about him and that's what's wrong not only with Superman, but with DC in general. Look, I am, at best, a middling comic nerd with a definite Marvel bias, so take my argument with a grain of salt, but DC tends to be too careful with their classic characters. Marvel routinely screws with their superheroes and fictional universe in an attempt to keep things fresh. Sure, they've retconned their way out of a few big events, and resurrected a few dead characters they assured us wouldn't be coming back, but nobody ever undid Scarlet Witch's 'No More Mutants' hex and Ultimate Spider-Man is still Miles Morales. Superman in jeans is still Superman in jeans, at least until he goes back to the tights, which I would give six months. So what else is new?

Anyway, that's why Superman's pants are a troubling indication of the stagnation of the DC Comics narrative universe and why we'll never be able to take live-action Superman seriously. Well that and the fact no one can write a decent script for it.

On the other hand, Marvel could crap out a big-screen version of X-Babies and as
long as Joss Whedon was involved they'd have my ten bucks, so what do I know? 

Um, is Apple hitting on us?

Have you been feeling less attractive lately? Like, somehow you're no longer cool and you might as well never leave the your apartment ever again less you suffer the derision and disdain of your fellow humans? Well don't worry, because there's a cure!

I mean other than alcohol and Netflix.

Breaking News: Apple has new
products they'd like you to buy!

Apple is coming out with a whole new thing for you to buy in the desperate hope that it will fill the void in your life. And get this: it's a watch. So um, hurray! They announced it today at the huge launch event they threw for themselves. Now a cynic might point out that you don't really need a packed auditorium and a forty foot screen to roll out a new product, and that the company was just trying to make the announcement seem like an important event instead of a commercial so they could get some free media attention, but...I, uh, actually have no follow up for that.

Oh, go for it. It's not like Apple is going to
come out with a better one in 6 months... 

Anyway, the thing is called Apple Watch and for just $350 you can...well, $350 is just the base model which everyone knows is for suckers. It's the iPod Shuffle of watches. If you really want everyone at Starbucks to think you're awesome, you're going to want the $550 mid-range but better than the cheap-o version. Of course if you're like really super-rich and I don't know, un-aware that people are literally starving to death around the world, you can go all out and get the $10,000 18-karat gold version. No, really, ten thousand dollars. Of money.

Pictured: barbarians holding their phones
like it's the goddamn Middle Ages.

So what the hell does the Apple Watch do? Well, the usual stuff a smart watch does: tells time, sends text messages (albeit chosen from a list, as you can't type on the thing), listen to music. If that sounds an awful lot like what your iPhone does, it's because it is exactly what your iPhone does. In fact, I looks like your iPhone will be doing most of the work, since the Apple Watch has to be paired with one to function at all. So in a sense you're paying $550+ for the privilege of not having to pull your phone out of your pocket.

Well, second most personal depending
on what you use these iPod speakers for.

It probably does other things too, but after looking at the Apple website, I'm left with the unsettling impression that at least some of its features might be sexual. I mean, maybe I'm just seeing things that aren't there, but check out some of the copy. And if you're not at work or anything, try reading it in a sexy voice to see what I'm talking about:

"Our goal is to make powerful technology more accessible. More relevant. And ultimately more personal. Apple Watch represents a new chapter in the relationship people have with technology. It's the most personal product we've ever made..."

Look, I know Apple isn't explicitly saying 'hey, you can even have sex with Apple Watch,' but is it just me or is there a subtle undercurrent in the advertising? Like maybe they kind of want you to think about having sex with Apple Watch.

Apple Watch: Coming April 2015
"Go ahead, strap one on."