A Shadow of a Truth

"Marilyn Manson". This is the name of one of the most controversial bands ever to sell records, and the adopted name of Brian Warner. Just the name brings a shudder to most Christians (and many other people) who have heard of him. He is so taboo to many Christians that they resolutely refuse to understand him. They don't even bother to know how he became what he is today. But wouldn't it be better if we half-way came to understand who he is and why he does what he does?The following is not a defense but rather a firm condemnation of Marilyn Manson's actions and beliefs. I do not wish to make excuses for him - merely to understand him.

So, who is he? The short and rather simplistic answer to this question is that he is a goulish, satanic, artistic, severely confused rock star with a very un-original message characterized by unabashed nihilism. He became this way through a half-way godless home and several years of a Christian education that became abusive when he was ostracized and bullied. This is yet another argument for why non-believing children of non-believing parents should not be admitted into Christian schools. It is for their own well being.

What about his message? He tells us there is no God (and if there is, then we shouldn't follow Him) and the only way we can be truly happy is if we revolt against traditional morals and fulfill all our desires. Is this a new message? Certainly not; this is classic nihilism and we've been hearing it ever since the garden of Eden. The only surprising aspect of his message is the very explicit manner in which he presents it. When it's not manifesting itself in heinous actions sin has a very shrewd way of disguising itself. It has a way of hiding behind impeccable public lives and deplorable private lives. Our most respected Presidents can be the worst adulterers when we're not looking. In the past we've had no problem with sin, just so long as it stays smartly hidden. The reason that Marilyn Manson is so hideous (to nearly everyone with eyes, ears, and a conscience) is that he makes no effort at all to disguise his depravity. With Marilyn Manson, there is no shroud. What you see is what you get, and naturally it's ugly.

Many people claim that his influence is partly to blame for the Columbine tragedy. In Michael Moore's documentary "Bowling for Columbine" Manson responds to these accusations. "I definitely can see why they would pick me - because it's easy to throw my face on a TV because I'm in the end sort of a poster boy for fear - because I do and say what I want. . . The Two byproducts of that whole tragedy was violence in entertainment and gun control and how perfect that that was the two things that we were going to talk about in the upcoming election and also then we forgot about Monoca Lewinsky and we forgot about. . . the President shooting bombs over seas and yet. . . I'm a bad guy because I sing some rock n' roll songs and who's the bigger influence - the President or Marilyn Manson? I'd like to think me, but I'm going to go with the President." He's right, you know? Or maybe just half right. He claims that the media markets fear in order to keep people consuming. True. Yes, he understands the problem quite well. But he gets the answer to it woefully wrong. The answer to unjust fear is never, more fear. The answer to fear is hope. That is what neither Manson nor the mainstream media understands.

What is the band? I think MM said it best "We are America's s***". The band is a byproduct of what America has been producing for decades. They're what we have been sweeping under the rug for so long. They are "The Picture of Dorian Gray" modified for America.

Manson really doesn't give us much of a reason to listen to his music. His lyrics, as mentioned already, are vile. The instrumentals are terrible, and he simply disguises his poor singing voice with distortion and deep moaning into the microphone. And remind me again what we usually do with s***?

I was like, freakin' blown away, what do you think?

Last night Justin, Pounder and myself watched Napoleon Dynamite. It was the first time Pounder or me had seen it, and I was rather unsure of what to expect. I wanted to like it, I expected I would like it, but there's always this reserve I feel about any film, particularly a comedy, which is either praised to heaven or given the bird.

I freaking loved this movie. The entire thing was wonderful. Jon Heder was brilliant. He deserved an award for that role. Jamie Foxx got the Oscar for Ray that year, and that is an injustice. If I were president of the AFI for a day, I'd knock Jamie Foxx's double-exed self so hard when he came to he would be blind, and then I'd grab that Oscar and hand it to Jon Heder and he will say, "Dude, did you get this from Jamie Foxx?" to which I will respond, "Heck yes I did!"

The wonderful thing about Napoleon Dynamite was that it scrupulously avoided having a point at all. A few times Uncle Rico borders on hitting profundity, and once even Pedro endangers the delicate balance of this piece. He asks Napoleon why the school won't let him hang a pinata of the resident cheerleader/social queen Summer for his supporters to beat on. You feel like the next words out of his mouth are about to be, "because they all beat on me, why can't I beat back?" and then the whole thing would have a point. Which would be a disaster. People criticize this movie for having no plot. Justin says that the more he watches it, the more of a plot he sees. I'm not buying. I think the movie can't have a plot and do what it does. It captures an average high school in Swillwater, USA. The life of a teenager isn't always fraught with complications that are bigger than how to get a girl to look at you. I watch movies about high school and you wonder if any of these people on screen have ever been there. I felt like these directors had. They know the whole thing made absolutely no sense. And so Napoleon Dynamite, like a Chaim Potok novel, really has no beginning and no end. There's a progression in the life of the people you meet, but you never really accomplish anything in the movie. It's the journey there that is so gosh-darned funny.

Overall: 9.2 out of 10
Watch for: Sparse foul language, rude humor, a fair bit of suggestive dialogue - including conversations about bust expansion on women, complete with visual demonstration, and Uncle Rico's advances on both his clients and Napoleon's love interest.

I am done

Today, the 15 democrats of Montana chose Barack Obama as the next democratic candidate for president of these united states. Fox News' little footbar says, "Montana has never before been a deciding factor in a presidential nomination." As if it really needed to be said. It's freaking Montana. It's never been a deciding factor in anything except a particularly good scene of Hunt for Red October.

On another note, about 30 seconds after Obama was predicted to win the nomination, Hillary Clinton is said to have told someone that she would be the VP if it would "help the Democratic Party." I am so glad I'll be in Idaho come next February. At least the stink will be a little easier to bear at that distance.