As I discussed in Part One, while it’s easy to blame the internet for the plethora of dishonest players, the truth is, it is simply another vehicle through which to play the serial dating game. In the 21st Century, technology has provided an efficient method for both the upstanding and not-so-upstanding among us to either genuinely seek out a meaningful relationship, or secure the next superficial fling in a relentless hunt for a sexier, prettier, hotter version of the previous week’s hook-up.

Case in point: last summer. To make a long story short, a gentleman (ahem) unexpectedly contacted me via email, after coming across my website in cyberspace. For the next two weeks, we engaged in regular communication in the form of email and telephone conversations. Seemingly holding much in common, including a desire to save the United States from ruination, it seemed a logical conclusion that we meet in person to determine if there was any potential for a real relationship.

Granted, geographical distance between the man and the woman does present a unique challenge, as does older age. Unlike the America of the past where families tended to live together in the same geographical area, and the daters in question tended to be much younger (most folks in their 30s and above having already been joined in the bonds of marriage), today the “safety net” of having a man pick up a woman at her parent’s home is almost non-existent. In this example, my suitor would have to drive about six hours just to meet me. An inconvenience? Possibly, but also a fact of life in the contemporary dating scene.

For obvious reasons, including my own personal safety, I’d set the expectations well in advance: the man who desired to make my acquaintance in order to determine if we had a corresponding physical “spark” to accompany the intellectual one, would have to stay at a nearby hotel. Over the phone, he appeared quite understanding about the arrangement. I’d also informed a few close friends and family of his name, hometown and location of our get-together, simply as a precaution. And since the suitor in question was a self-described “old-fashioned kind of guy from Texas,” it never occurred to me he’d take issue with buying me a $20 entrée at a mom-and-pop establishment by the beach.

Admittedly, along the way I’d ignored some serious warning signs such as his distasteful tendency to divulge intimate details of previous relationships, his confession that the only photo he’d sent was over 12 years-old and the fact that (on his way over in the car!) he phoned to alert me that the birth date on his Facebook profile was indeed, false. In actuality, he was much older than the posted birth year would suggest. And in spite of my inquiries, he begged me to keep an open mind and wait for the answer until I met him in person. I chalked it up to nervousness and decided to give the guy the benefit of the doubt; after all, he was taking some time and expense to meet me. I could cut him some slack.

Note to self: never do that again!

When at last we met face-to-face, I was a bit disappointed inasmuch as he did not remotely resemble his photo. However, being an open-minded person, I determined to spend the next few hours listening and talking, understanding that the heart and soul within supercedes the exterior package. And yes, while I do believe in “chemistry,” I don’t simply base it upon the first two minutes of a physical interaction involving a friendly hug and a warm greeting. Sure, in many instances, it does develop within a matter of seconds; however, in my experience, this isn’t always the case.

This man and I went on to have dinner, although his reluctance to do so should’ve provided another clue. Unknown to me, “Zack” had already determined back at the Comfort Inn parking lot that the elusive “spark” he was seeking was nowhere to be found in Deerfield Beach—at least not with me. And as I mentioned, the feeling was mutual, although I was willing to give the guy a chance. As we sat at the dining table, he mentioned how “full” he was from lunch, having been treated to the Cheesecake Factory earlier in the day by a client. Undaunted and hungry (it was dinnertime after all), I ordered a chicken entrée, which came with a side of unwanted pasta, a dish I willingly gave him once the waiter arrived with the home-cooked food.

After he paid for our meal (the water-with-lemon was free as far as I know), we proceeded to walk along the beach, talk and even dance for the next several hours. If Zack wasn’t feeling the “spark” he must’ve been desperately trying to create one because at various points throughout the evening, he’d put his arm around me and even rub my bare feet and place his head on my thigh as we sat by the sand. Alas, these efforts were in vain as he later announced in no uncertain terms back at the hotel parking lot that he just wasn’t that into me.

Fair enough, especially considering the feeling was mutual; however, for him the disappointment ran so deep he didn’t even want to meet for breakfast the next morning. And although I am no psychic, I picked up on a subtle vibe that my crestfallen date truly resented having to sacrifice any gas, time and money for a girl he’d only ever regard as a friend. For him, no initial spark = Dutch treat; it also meant he’d be hitting the highway first thing in the morning, rather than spend any quality time with a new platonic relationship. Too bad he hadn’t enumerated his ground rules from the start to this “old fashioned kind of girl.” When I inquired about attending a free concert as buddies the next evening he protested, “But what if I see a girl there I am interested in? I won’t be able to talk to her because I’ll be with you!”

Needless to say, that was my cue to leave in spite of his protests to “talk it out” some more. This unfortunate interaction led to a few emails back and forth, including this little gem, so eloquently written without the benefit of proper grammar and punctuation (bold emphasis mine):

its more than just me paying for ur dinner…First of all, we were not in the “dating routine”…I had never even met u before so i would hardly say we were dating…Secondly, i expended money, time, gas and personal committment to drive there and meet you…Dont u think the least u could have done is take ME out to dinner, split the bill, or found me free acomodations??…I think it highly presumptuous of you to just assume things that had not even matured yet….Once again, u are over assuming…my coming to see you was not a “date” as in romance or after having established more between us…What it was was to see if there might be a spark where a romantic relationship could grow…Obviously it wasnt there…Apparently from ur reply letter, you considered this a date and as such the man should be responsible to pay for everything…Im sorry for that assumed delusion…Maybe u should grow up a little and understand that when someone (whom u dont know) has invited u to meet them for the first time, it is proper etiquette to split monetary charges between the two and to even extend accomodations to the weary traveler…If we had already established a romantic interest in each other prior to this weekend, then everything u said in this email would be correct, but that simply is not the case…Even u yourself said i knew what the ground rules were before i came; meaning no sex or intimacy…That being the case, how could u expect to have received more than what u got..Daria, when i go out with my female friends (of whom i have no romantic interest) we always split evenly all things we do….Why couldnt u have extended the same graciuosness to me until the two of us decided whether or not there was a romantic spark to further the relationship along into something more that just friends??…You are stil a very sweet girl and I wish u the best in all you do…

Silly me! I should have realized from the start that the fact I wasn’t planning to put out would automatically transform my evening from a “first date” with a guy I met online to an actual audition, whereby if my mere presence didn’t generate those elusive fireworks within his entire being, I would immediately lose all rights to the hotly contested $20 dinner.

Rather than complain about this modest output of cash, good ol’ Zack ought to thank his lucky stars that I am not a Boca Babe, or he’d have been out a heckuva lot more money. Oh how I sometimes wish I had time machine to transport me back to the Fifties! In spite of the benefits of modern technology, in a culture gone to extremes, a good man is still hard to find.

The most recent bomb of the Iraq War is Green Zone, the most ingenuous revisionist film about war to come along in recent memory. Being touted as some sort of Bourne WMD, it attempts to be a mainstream action thriller set in Iraq during the war. This is the first collaboration between Matt Damon and director Paul Greengrass that is not a Bourne film. It is pretty appalling in its distorted attempt to rewrite history, and it comes as no surprise that Matt Damon stars in it. His constant limited knowledge of history in the roles he chooses to act and/or produce is becoming quite annoying.

Green Zone is not based on, but instead “inspired by” the book Imperial Life in the Emerald City by Rajiv Chandrasekaran. If Universal Pictures is going to go ahead and create an obvious leftist slant on the war, at least they cleverly admit that it isn’t actually based on anything in the credits.

This isn’t to say that the film doesn’t get much of the detail right; the daily life of the early days of the American occupation is convincingly realistic. When trumped-up details invade the storyline, it is very subtle. Ultimately, since we all know the outcome of the plot here (the search for weapons of mass destruction), this is a suspense thriller with absolutely no suspense. When the film should be asking more complicated questions, it simply lays out an implausible story of American military and media blame. No matter how one feels about The Hurt Locker for example, that film’s intellectual ambition makes Green Zone a frustrating experience.

The story focuses on Army Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller (Damon). He is a skeptical soldier on a single mission: to find the weapons of mass destruction the U.S. government is certain Saddam Hussein has hidden in sites around Iraq. Development of his theory of the Bush Administration’s false premise for the invasion completes the story. Sounds intellectually stimulating. There’s nothing wrong with a filmmaker’s insightful critique of a government’s debatable actions. Unfortunately, it doesn’t create that debate, and Green Zone never lives up to its potential. A film rich with possibility sacrifices credibility for predictability.

Amy Ryan does an admirable job as journalist Lawrie Dayne, a character obviously based on New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Of course, this movie continues its leftist slant by having her work for (of all things) the Wall Street Journal. I guess Hollywood liberals just can’t accept the fact that the sacred New York Times gets things wrong.

Maybe this film will bring an end to the shaky camera school of cinematography. The whole wobbly camera things gets really old fast. Greengrass is one of the worst offenders out there. If it’s supposed to make us feel like we are really there, then I guess one of the casualties of war is constantly feeling like a seizure is coming on. When a film uses this technique ad nauseum, I am usually more aware of the cameraman than I am of the characters on the screen. The truth is, as most cinematographers know, this is a cheap way to shoot a film. And if there’s anything that Green Zone is, it’s cheap.

The idea is lacking on several fronts. The main problem is that the idea is based on graduation rates from freshman student-athletes over a six year span. Basically, the players on the team today would be penalized for players not graduating six years prior. That hardly seems fair.

If Secretary Duncan’s plan was in place this year the following schools would miss out on the tournament; Maryland, California, Arkansas-Pine Bluff, Washington, Tennessee, Kentucky, Baylor, Missouri, New Mexico State, Clemson, Georgia Tech and Louisville. (stat from the AP) That’s a healthy amount of teams, including Kentucky - a number one seed.

Secretary Duncan’s idea is noble. His thought is to help student-athletes be prepared for the world by graduating from college. However, his idea is also extremely naive. To think that the majority of kids who go to any of the power conferences to play basketball are concerned with anything else but playing basketball is foolish. Of course some big conference basketball players want to graduate, but most go to college so they can play professional basketball. They do not all play in the NBA but some play overseas.

Isn’t that what college is for? I mean aren’t you suppose to go to school to get a good job? Some from the world of academia would tell you college helps you be a well rounded individual. It helps you hone social skills as well as earn an education. This is true, sure, but it’s also the secondary reason to go to school.  If you ask ten kids why they went to college the answers would be the following; to sleep with girls, to party, or to get a good job. Frankly, any basketball player from a power conference is going to make more money playing ball in the NBA, Greece, Turkey, Japan, Brazil, so on and so forth in a month then I am going to make in 5 years, and I have a Master’s Degree.

For the Secretary of Education to concern himself with College Basketball is what seems the most odd to me. In this country we have a public education system in shambles. The Federal Government hasn’t done a very good job at fixing that and now they are going to mess with a multi-billion dollar business? How many of those are they going to stick their hands in? Because rest assured, that is exactly what big time college basketball is. They have a multi-year TV deal worth six billion dollars alone and that’s before any school sells one ticket.

Of course it’s important to graduate players.  Of course college coaches want to make sure their players are prepared for the future. Bottom line, in most cases power conference coaches are measured on one thing and one thing only: winning.

I can’t remember the last time a big time coach was fired because he didn’t graduate enough players. Let’s be real here, they are hired to build winners. Winning basketball teams and football teams bring in students, applications, and fundraising money for the institution. If the student-athletes graduate then that’s all well and good but it’s not as important as winning and it never will be. Maybe that’s a culture problem or whatever but it’s a fact.

So Secretary Duncan, do me and everyone who loves college basketball a solid. Keep out of college basketball, or better yet come up with a reasonable solution. To expect more then 40% (I know it seems like a low number but it really isn’t) is irrational. These kids are here to play basketball first and get a good job second. Frankly, for most of them those two things go hand in hand. I hope all college basketball players graduate problem is they really won’t regardless of what the Federal Government does. The only thing the Feds will do is penalize the viewing public and the student-athlete by not letting good teams compete.

It’s foolish.

The media, whether true or false, has never portrayed the Republican Party of persons in the Conservative movement as being gay friendly. However, one conservative voice is showing the world that Conservative and Christian homosexuals have every right to have their voices heard.

Diane Student, the host of Freedoms Wings on Blog Talk Radio, has not been using her sexuality as a shield, but as a perspective to voice her Conservative philosophy. And she has been using it all with a smile and a laugh.

Previously, Student talked with Parcbench.com about her politics and views, but in the third and final part of our interview, she discusses her sexuality in light of her faith.

QUESTION: How do you reconcile your faith with your life?

DIANE STUDENT: I grew up in a very conservative and strict branch of the Lutheran denomination and it was too restrictive in their set up. The most musical we got was an a capella version of the Doxology.

And as I grew up, I was taught two things, if you are gay, you are going to hell (or heck for the squeamish), and if you commit suicide, you are going to hell (or heck for the squeamish). And when I was about 16 or 17 years old, I realized I was gay and that made me suicidal. So it was (again for the squeamish) darned if you do, darned if you don’t.

But I started looking into. For all I know it was the wanna-be biologist in me, I began to study what makes a person gay. And here is what I found, nothing is set in stone.

There is not enough scientific proof as to what attracts one person of the same gender to another. I don’t know what happens because somewhere the wiring was crisscrossed. I don’t know if it is environmental or what? But I do know we are gay.

I mean, I have talked with other gay people and they have asked, “Who would want to live like this?”

I get why God created Adam and Eve, because had it been Adam and Steve or Madam and Eve, the species would not progenerate. But the fact is, on every biological level, a certain percentage of animals engage in some sort of homosexual behavior.

However, wouldn’t it be funny to see on Animal Planet two male goats and one wore Elton John glasses, or two female lions hunting down a gazelle and one wore a flannel shirt? [LAUGHS]

QUESTION: [LAUGHS] Well, maybe. But do you get how some Christians and Conservatives have a problem with you being gay?

DIANE STUDENT: Of course

I began to study everything the Bible had to say on the subject and what is and was not considered a sin. I believe I have the Holy Spirit guiding me on this.

And I prayed for God to change me. I prayed for God to make me straight, but I was not changed and I have seen God first hand heal people of their dependency on drugs and alcohol. And for lack of a better phrase, I was not “healed” of this.
And as I read further and further, I began reading in the Gospels that Jesus Christ never spoke on the subject of homosexuality. He spoke about divorce, but he did not speak on that and that said something to me.

QUESTION: What about, in the Book of Genesis, Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah and Romans 1?

DIANE STUDENT: Let me just touch on those two passages for a moment.

Regarding Genesis 19 and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, basically God went after that city for their cruelty and their idolatry. I mean these idiots wanted to rape these two strangers that turned out to be angels.

Good luck there, buddy

Second, Romans 1, and I am taking this from the King James Version of the Bible, versed 26 and 27 say, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”

Basically, God is taking issue with these people for their idolatry.

And let me take it further back, look at the servants God used. David and Moses were murderers and Paul mentioned that he had a “thorn in his side.” He asked God to take it away three times and God said, “My grace is sufficient for you.”

In order for their to be grace, their needs to be a sinful action to be committed. So I wonder what it was he was fighting that he needed grace for?

QUESTION: Okay, let me put you on the spot, what do you believe about Jesus Christ and the Bible.

DIANE STUDENT: Simply, I believe that Jesus Christ was God in human form. He died for my sins and rose again and now he is up in heaven preparing a place for me as well as his followers.

I believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God that explains this wonderful gift. And the gift of Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven and I believe my eternal salvation rests with him.

However, if he is unhappy with me for my homosexuality, I may end up being a toilet scrubber in heaven, but frankly, I am okay with that [LAUGHS].

But either way, my faith in Jesus has secured me forever.

QUESTION: How does the liberal gay community react to you?

DIANE STUDENT: Oh, they hate me [LAUGHS]

Every time I speak out against something I am accused of being some “self-hating homosexual.” Best example I can remember recently was former American Idol performer Adam Lambert performed at the American Music Awards back in November. He performs this song where he kisses a man on stage and simulates he is performing a…um…a Lewinsky, for lack of a better word, on another man and it offended me.

Frankly speaking, this type of performance and those horrible pride parades of people acting in such a disgusting manner pushes a further divided between us and the rest of the country.

People think, “Well, the host of Freedom’s Wings is gay, so she must support some man walking around without the back of his pants during the pride event ” No That can be further from the truth.

We, as a gay community, are so busy asking for acceptance from mainstream America, why would they want to accept such vulgar displays.

And heaven knows I hear it from the homosexual political groups out there

I say to them, “Want to get acceptance for the gay community, start marching a bunch of lawyers in three piece suits with briefcases down the main street of San Francisco sometime ”

QUESTION: And this leads to the next point, are gay Conservatives coming out of the closet more?

DIANE STUDENT: Yes, they are And it thrills me.

Groups like GOProud are out there supporting the upcoming CPAC event and they are making positive strides.

To quote their mission statement, “GOProud represents gay conservatives and their allies. GOProud is committed to a traditional conservative agenda that emphasizes limited government, individual liberty, free markets and a confident foreign policy. GOProud promotes our traditional conservative agenda by influencing politics and policy at the federal level.”

And isn’t that what we are all about, traditional conservative values?

I am the same proud Conservative, I just choose to package them from a different perspective.

QUESTION: Thank you for sharing those with us, Diane

DIANE STUDENT: And thank you for this opportunity to be on Parcbench.com, I’m a big fan

Freedoms Wings can be heard on BlogTalkRadio.com/freedomswings, every Tuesday and Thursday night from 6 to 8 pm EST and Saturdays 2 pm EST. For more information visit, www.onfreedomswings.com.

a production of XTREME MEDIA LLC of New York

212 Stations can’t be wrong!

Two great new stations under new ownership have joined the Baldwin/McCullough Saturday family of stations taking the show. . Big massive thanks to the good people of Des Moines, Ames, Boone, Centerville, Loganspot, Ogden, Jordan, Gilbert, Madrid, Perry, and Grand Junction Iowa. We look forward to being with you this Saturday night, and every Saturday night… so tell your friends and turn on the radio at 8pm CST (9pm EST)!

ON BALDWIN/McCULLOUGH RADIO:
1. A teen girl who wishes to be sexually active with other teen girls, declares that she will bring another girl to prom. The high school fearing a lawsuit for possibly treating people differently, decides to cancel prom (and thus treat everyone the same) and avoid the conflict. NOW said teen girl is suing to force school to hold prom AND let her bring her same-sex date. Your thoughts: 800.345.9622.

2. PLUS: Democrat Congressman Bart Stupak: “I really believe that the Democratic leadership is simply unwilling to change its stance,” he says. “Their position says that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered.” The arguments they have made to him in recent deliberations, he adds, “are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party.” BONUS: More voters anti-abortion than ever before… 800.345.9622.

Baldwin/McCullough Resources:

Making it all happen:

ON BALDWIN/McCULLOUGH RADIO:

1. Baldwin’s time in London is all but over having had massive impact on the message of faith in Great Britain over the last month. But before he exited, the Guardian newspaper couldn’t resist one more dishonest swipe: “Honestly, what is it about American born-again Christians that makes them so intolerant? ?Whatever” How did Stephen respond and did the Guardian newspaper give him equal time? Your thoughts: 800.345.9622.

2. PLUS: In light of the Tim Tebow controversy other advocacy ads are bubbling up. (One in particular promoting redefining marriage to include other non-traditional sexual unions.) Dennis Prager claimed this week on Larry King that the Super Bowl should be a time for Americans to come together – to be united, not divided. Respectfully KMC disagrees. Prager argues that because the Super Bowl is a “family event” that it should refuse advocacy ads. What is your opinion on the matter? 800.345.9622.

Baldwin/McCullough Resources:

Making it all happen…

And in case you missed it… the ultimate podcast solution is at your fingertips…
Weare so thrilled to enjoy our new partnership that will make your podcasting life SO MUCH EASIER. If you’ve struggled with always remembering to go iTunes, open up the window find the podcast and download it… then we are begging you to check out ZUBEO . They have made us a special partner in their brand new technology that allows you to get your favorite talk programming, and to listen to it on YOUR schedule .Please check it out, then let us know what you think. How well it works for you. And what we can do to improve it. We hope you like it, AND we hope it allows you to never miss another show… on YOUR time!

REGISTER ONLINE NOW and get $5 off.
$15 includes all the games, food, and access for all three days.

Thursday, February 18, 2010

7-9am – CPAC Radio Row – Kevin McCullough Radio
sponsored by Xtreme Media & Baldwin/McCullough Radio
Sirius Satellite Radio – Channel 161

9am – XPAC Lounge Opens – Games, WiFi, Wii and more.
Fox News Strategy Room Begins Broadcast from XPAC

12N-1:30pm – LIVE: Special Fox News broadcast
“FREEDOM WATCH” with Judge Andrew Napolitano

2-3pm – Rising Voice: Engaging the Ideas That Really Matter
sponsored by Focus on the Family Action’s Rising Voice
Dr. Chris Leland – VP of College Student Ministries, Focus Action;
Esther Fleece – Asst to President, Millennial Relations, Focus Action;
Jessica Stollings – Founder, re:Generations

6-7pm – The XPAC Social-Networking Reception
The alternative reception for the XPAC crowd.
Food and beverages will be provided.
(Mingle with Stephen Baldwin, Andrea Tanteros, Kevin McCullough,)

7-10:00pm – EPIC Nights at XPAC
sponsored by Xtreme Media & Baldwin/McCullough Radio
Moderater: Stephen Baldwin
Special Appearance by Fox News’ Andrea Tanteros
“New Tech Moment w/ Big Right TV”
Special Appearance: Governor Mike Huckabee
“10 Questions with Stevie B. featuring: Meghan McCain/Sarah Huckabee”

11pm – XPAC “Late Night” – “Music Jam”
sponsored by Parcbench.com
LIVE MUSIC PLUS Special performances by:
Rappers: Hi-Caliber, Young Cons*, and many more!

Friday, February 19, 2010

7-9am – CPAC Radio Row – Kevin McCullough Radio
sponsored by Xtreme Media & Baldwin/McCullough Radio
Sirius Satellite Radio – Channel 161

9am – XPAC Lounge Opens/Fox News Begins

10-11am – Young Conservatives Coalition Awards

Noon-1pm – Film Screening “True U: Does God Exist?”
presented by Focus on the Family Action’s Rising Voice

2-3pm – How to Talk about Your Beliefs without Being a Jerk: Ideas for Engagement
sponsored by Summit Ministries
Executive Director John Stonestreet

6-7pm – The XPAC “Liberty Ship” New Media Broadcast Reception
sponsored by The Liberty Ship, (register here/Promo Code: “XPAC”)
The alternative reception for the XPAC crowd. Tonight broadcast on Livestream across the globe…(Mingle with: Stephen Crowder*, SE Cupp, Guy Benson, Mary Katharine Ham*, Ed Morrissey, Andy Levy*, Stephen Baldwin, Kevin McCullough.)

7-10pm – EPIC Nights at XPAC
sponsored by Xtreme Media & Baldwin/McCullough Radio
Moderator: Kevin McCullough
1st Annual XPAC Award for Speech
*The XPAC Entertainment Surprise Spectacular*
1st Annual XPAC Award for Impact: James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles, ACORN busters

11-1am – XPAC “Late Night” – “Comedy”
sponsored by Parcbench.com
Ellen Karis, Robert George, Jim Menderos, Ivan Quinones (and more…)

Saturday, February 20, 2010

9 am XPAC Lounge Opens
Noon XPAC Lounge Closes

Are you looking for where you can find Baldwin/McCullough Radio on a station near you? We’ve got roughly 200 of them to choose from… Check out the LISTEN HERE page on our site ! Join the live chat room by clicking on “Xtreme TV”.

COMING UP on the next edition of Baldwin/McCullough Radio:

1. The Curious Case of “Ellie Light.” A curious number of letters to the editors have been popping up in various local newspapers all around the country–supposedly written by individuals all named Ellie Light, supposedly local residents, and who have come to surprisingly identical conclusions about the need to support the President. When an editor sniffed out some of these ironies, at first e-mail of defensiveness were uttered followed by no response. Would it be at all possible that there is more to this curiosity than meets the eye? Your thoughts: 800.345.9622.

2. PLUS EXCLUSIVELY on Baldwin/McCullough: Stevie B returns to Baldwin/McCullough after an eventful week ending his run on Celebrity Big Brother UK. How it went down, and what’s next… all tonight as Stephen Baldwin is able to speak to the outside world for the very first time…

3. ALSO: “The Book of Eli” is the most talked about movie in theaters at present. It’s been slated as a post-apocalyptic thriller. Youth pastors rave about it on their facebook status, family-oriented movie reviewers have claimed it is a “must see.” So did you? What was your reaction? And on what level does the message of art outweigh the context?

Making it all happen…

** ½ (out of 4)

Directors: Albert and Allen Hughes
Rated: R (strong language, brutal violence)

Shouldn’t it be enough for a movie to have a decent storyline, a cool star, adequate acting, and an admirable sense of purpose? Or should I actually feel something about the storyline, the star, and that sense of purpose too? No matter how much I wanted to like this movie (and I did want to like this movie), I have to report that I had absolutely no idea how I felt about it as I walked out of the theater. Was it a great action flick/morality tale or just a ridiculously hyper-violent missed opportunity? Alas, if that question has to be asked, then we know the answer. Sorry, but “The Book of Eli” will probably be more satisfying if it comes out in a computer game form eventually.

If your idea of The Bible is pretty much the Book of Revelations, then this is the post-apocalyptic action film for you. It takes itself very seriously with a mix of slow motion psychology and sped-up violence and mayhem. Oh yeah, in case you didn’t know that this is a serious movie the cinematographer has chosen to drown it in sepia tones and sand-storm haze. Constantly. Think of it as the anti-“Avatar,” but with twice the plot and half the imagination.

“The Book of Eli” is merely the latest arrival in the endless line of end-of-the-world type films. It is a genre that the Hughes Brothers (“Menace II Society” and “Dead Presidents”) seem right at home with. Once more,they have made a film where violence is central to the story.

Denzel Washington plays the generic survivor of a “flash” that devastated the Earth years ago. He is named Eli Walker (Get it?) He’s been walking to the west coast for 30 years, carrying the last copy of a certain book. (Yes, this movie is that obvious and simplistic, while pretending to be that important and symbolic.)

Denzel Washington is one of those actors that are always enjoyable to see up on the screen. If you’re going to make a futuristic Clint Eastwood film, Denzel is the hero that you are going to want to see. He has a natural dignity and charisma that creates an instant rapport with the audience… and that can go a long way in a star vehicle. But only so far. It cannot go all the way across the post-nuclear wasteland, no matter how many bad guy’s hands he slices off along the way.

Along the way, our cool action hero Denzel runs into the hyper-cool supermodel Mila Kunis. For a film set in an America where people kill each other for a Chapstick, I couldn’t help but wonder where she got her perfectly blended makeup and mascara.

Once the movie descends into Wild West melodrama, there are two performances that are successfully over-the-top: Michael Gambon, and Frances de la Tour as an old couple, George and Martha (Once again, yes – this movie is that obvious), whose farmhouse becomes the sight of a pretty spectacular shootout. (Of course, it made me wonder about the lack of bullets left in the world that the script kept referring to for the previous hour and a half).

Another great performance comes from Gary Oldman, who is a scene-stealer, as usual. He plays Carnegie, a bad guy who controls the local water supply. He relishes every moment as the evil guy trying to get his hands on the “book” that our hero is protecting in his backpack.

Speaking of that “book,” I found it almost ludicrous the way that no one called it The Bible until well into the movie. Either, it was meant to create suspense, or it was meant to maintain a sense of abstractness. In either case, it failed. By the time we hear the actual word “Bible” it is preceded by the words “King James.” So is there some sort of not so hidden agenda here that I just don’t really care enough to think about too hard? And let’s not forget the sinister reference that this book may have been the cause of the great “flash” that nearly ended life as we know it.

When I got really bored watching “The Book of Eli,” I began to do the math. If it took Denzel 30 years to reach the West Coast, from, say, New York City… that’s 2800 miles or so, divided by 30… equals 93.33 miles per year. That’s just a little over a quarter-mile per day. Really? Come on. This guy doesn’t seem that committed to God after all.

Considering how many people Eli kills along the way, as he protects “the book,” and considering his inability to understand or communicate the meaning of “the book,” I can’t help but question what this movie has to do with religion in any way. The way that the film focuses on violence, rather than make any bold statement on the subject of religious tolerance and protection is disappointing. Here was a chance for Hollywood to make some progress, in that it had a message worth delivering, and it had the cast and budget to do it in epic fashion. But the movie ends up being wishy-washy and almost apologetic, when it could have been an important film.

In the beginning, there was the challenge to decide just what kind of film “The Book of Eli” should be. Unfortunately, the directors couldn’t decide if it should be a post-apocalyptic action/Western in the style of “Mad Max,” or a serious tale of one man’s mission to protect good from evil. In the end, there was only the revelation that Hollywood needs more practice in creating good films that respect even a very slight religious theme. In the meantime, at least it’s good to see Denzel Washington back in the saddle again.

We know. You want her to just go away.

At Parcbench, it’s our solemn duty to keep human train-wrecks like Nadya “The Octomom” Suleman in the headlines. It’s a job, and yes, it’s a sick, sick pleasure.

Nadya didn’t disappoint this week. Foxnews was all-too-excited to run an entire photo gallery of Ms. Suleman posing in a skimpy red bikini for the cover of Star magazine.

As a skilled PhotoShop user, I can pick out a re-touched photo pretty handily, and I’m pretty sure the Octomom was retouched. Heck, you don’t need to be a photo expert to know that there’s no way in hell her thighs are that smooth.

Frankly, whoever PhotoShopped Nadya deserves to be on the  cover of PC World. It takes some pretty tight skills to make the surface of the moon look more like the surface of a bowling lane.

It’s a shame no amount of PhotoShopping can fix Nadya’s surgically augmented face. It’s awfully hard to stare at a bikini clad body with a set of lips like those staring back at you.

It reminded me of my high school days, when my group of friends would chip in on a bucket of live minnows and use them to hook similar-looking creatures at the end of 20-pound-test line.

If Steven Tyler and Mick Jagger saw those Octo-lips, they would both probably say “Damn! Ease up on the collagen!”

As it is, Nadya has proclaimed herself to be the “Rubber Band Lady” because she snaps back so quickly from pregnancies. I think the moniker’s appropriate for other reasons – those lips stretch endlessly to accommodate all that implantation.

Yes, the editorial staff of Parcbench enjoys the Octomom on a certain level. After all, gawking at idiocy on an Octomom-level is a kind and gentle reminder that maybe your life isn’t so bad.

In short, enjoy the Octomom while she lasts, but if she snags your minnow, just cut the line and let her eat it. She’s the kind of catch you just don’t want to reel in.

-

Sid Bridge, APR is the Senior Editor for Parcbench and the Editor-in-Chief of The Endive, a satirical news magazine. He also last saw Nadya Sulemon licking algae off the inside of his fish tank.