Here we are again, staring another Asshole Fuckface Roundup in the face. Don’t be scared. Several Asshole Fuckfaces were sent to obscurity this week, rarely to be heard from again. Henceforth, all we will hear from the Asshole Fuckface administration is occasional whining and complaining. That’s... more

Here we are again, staring another Asshole Fuckface Roundup in the face. Don’t be scared. Several Asshole Fuckfaces were sent to obscurity this week, rarely to be heard from again. Henceforth, all we will hear from the Asshole Fuckface administration is occasional whining and complaining. That’s a lot better than the in your face stupidity we’ve been subjected to for 8 years. Sadly, Asshole Fuckfaces still exist. They are still quite active and it is still my job to point them out to you, so that you may mock them. Someone has to do it. So, put on your most fluid resistant moccasins, because this is going to be ugly.

First up, some Asshole Fuckface baking.

People who live in New York City think it is the greatest place on Earth. I lived there for five years. I disagree, mostly because the city has an astounding number of fucking idiots running about. It is a cornucopia of Asshole Fuckfaces. Take Ted Kefalinos, baker and owner of Lafayette French Pastry in Greenwich Village. Ted decided to celebrate our new president’s inauguration by baking some “Drunken Negro Head” cookies.

Um. So. You. Eh.

The name of the cookies seems to change. Sometimes Ted calls them Drunken Negro Cookies and other times he calls them Drunken Nigger Cookies. And no one has burned down his store. Strange. But Ted totally gets how some people could be offended.

I said, Ted totally gets how some people could be offended.

Well, since your now horribly ashamed sister married a Cuban fella, you should be able to make any racist cookie you want. Please send me some Stingy Kike Puffs and a few Dirty Spicwhiches

Four years of this shit, at least.

Next up, some fantastic military Asshole Fuckfacery.

Our military is awesome. Not only do they make our soldiers fight on and on and on with no break, but they also charge them for uniforms and stuff.

Since when did working in the military become like working at Taco Bell?

Um, listen. I realize you just fought in a ridiculous, horribly planned war and we didn’t give you the proper armor and stuff, but can we have those pants back? You don’t have the pants? Seriously, we’re not kidding. We really need the pants. We’ve only got one pair for each dude and we need all of them.

I don’t know how these guys could misplace any gear in a war situation. Don’t they check to make sure they have all their stuff?

Oh, right. IT’S A FUCKING WAR.

You don’t say.

Honestly, it was careless. And he could have gotten it dry-cleaned. How about a little respect for the uniform? You don’t see me walking around in a blood-covered suit, do you?

Next up, some Democratic Leadership Asshole Fuckfacery.

Harry Reid may be the most useless, pathetic Democrat in the country. The man is a walking fool and is not afraid to show it.

Obama started his campaign promise to limit lobbyist’s access to government. He announced government employees leaving their positions could not lobby the department they left for two years. That was apparently a bit much for “I don’t know what in the fuck I am doing” Harry. This week he explained his door will remain wide open for all lobbyists.

He must have missed that year long campaign thingy.

Aw. Da poor wittle wobbyists. I so feel for them and their buying of the government. They work so very hard. What the fuck are you thinking?

Shocking. But, hey, at least his kids aren’t rapists, or this might be really awkward. Harry needs to go.

Next up, some “I didn’t learn from recent history” Asshole Fuckfacery.

Remember when the record industry went after kids who downloaded songs? Remember how that was a total failure and caused a massive backlash amongst kids who purchase music? Remember how the record industry put up the white flag and surrendered on the lawsuits? That seems like so many couple of years months days ago.

Now the movie industry has decided to do the same thing, but with a dash of worse thrown in. RealDVD is a relatively new product that lets people save the DVDs they own to their computers. The DVD will only play on your computer.

So, you own it, which means you can play it the devices you want, right? The program does not harm the movie industry because users still have to buy the DVD and can’t rip them. If you think about it, it’s exactly the type of technology the movie industry should embrace, right? Nope.

Welcome to Epic Fail 2, Electric Boogaloo.


FearTheReaper is a writer, actor and stand up comedian. Check back each Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday for more from FearTheReaper and read his blog, Stop All Monsters.

(image) John Thain is the guy that looks like a Clark Kent doll you saw grinning from page one of your paper Friday morning. Thain was just fired by Bank of America because the square-jawed executive demanded a $30 million bonus after losing $5 billion in just three months at the bank's Merrill... more

John Thain is the guy that looks like a Clark Kent doll you saw grinning from page one of your paper Friday morning. Thain was just fired by Bank of America because the square-jawed executive demanded a $30 million bonus after losing $5 billion in just three months at the bank's Merrill Lynch unit. In addition, Thain spent over a million dollars redecorating his office while, at the same time, the U.S. Treasury was bailing out his company with billions in aid. Thain's office re-do included the installation of a $35,000 toilet bowl.

Thain was robbed. He shouldn't have been fired; he should have gotten a $60 million bonus -- and Obama should immediately hire him as Secretary of the Treasury in place of that tax-dodging lightweight that's been nominated, Timothy Geithner.

Here's the facts, ma'am.

Thain was CEO of Merrill Lynch, the big brokerage firm. On a good day, Merrill is worth zero. A week before it was about to go out of business, Thain sold this busted bag of financial feces to Bank of America for $50 BILLION.

I'd say that's worth a bonus.

But it gets better. When the bag broke and another $5 billion in losses were discovered at Merrill, Thain went to the U.S. Treasury and got ANOTHER $20 BILLION to cover Bank of America's bad financial bet -- from us, the taxpayers.

Now that certainly deserves a bonus. And let's face it, a butthole that big needs a $35,000 toilet.

Instead, the guy that paid the $50 billion, Bank of America Chairman Kenneth Lewis, is keeping his job. Lewis is the same guy that just spent billions more on buying Countrywide Financial, the sub-prime mortgage loan sharks that have brought America to its knees and put Bank of America into effective bankruptcy. (Note to Mr. Lewis: the only thing worse than getting cancer is PAYING for it.)

But dumber than Lewis is the loser who OK'd paying Bank of America for its losses on Merrill, who traded a pile of turds for a stack of gold -- our gold from the U.S. Treasury. That was Tim Geithner, Obama's pick for Treasury Secretary, who's now answering questions at Senate confirmation hearings about his funky tax filings.

Tiny Tim was head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank during the Bush regime. Along with Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, Geithner came up with that $700 billion bail-out that loaded banks with loot on their way to insolvency. Bank of America got $25 billion of it to spend on Thain's company Merrill. That was before the extra $20 billion was weedled by Thain.

So why, President Obama, have you given us Tiny Tim to save our sorry nation's economic behind? What's with that?

In another life I was an economist. Really. So here's the economic facts of life: Our valiant young president is going to have to borrow a trillion dollars to bring our economy back from the grave. He's got to borrow it, no choice about that. But who in their right minds will lend it to us? I can tell you the number one job of a new Treasury Secretary will be to con Saudi sheiks and Chinese apparatchiks into lending us another trillion (they've already lent $2 trillion).

Who in the world can talk them into it?

The answer came to me after I went this afternoon to see my proctologist, a brilliant doctor with one eye and really long fingers. (OK, I made that up.) The good doctor told me that hoary old joke about the heart and brain and rectum getting into a fight about which one was more important. When the higher organs made fun of the butt-end, the rectum went on strike. After a month, the brain and heart couldn't take it any more -- the whole body was about to explode. So they told the rectum, 'You win.' And the rectum said, Now you know why an asshole's always in charge.

There's our answer. Instead of an easily duped, incompetent weasel like Geithner for Secretary of the Treasury, what we really need is a lying bucket of evil snot, a flaming red take-no-prisoners asshole. A guy like Thain that can sell a piece of crap like Merrill for billions -- twice -- is just what we need to shake down the sheiks. "America for Sale! Cheap!"

And Thain comes with his own gold-plated toilet.


Greg Palast is the co-author of Steal Back Your Vote, a comic book co-authored with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Watch Palast's investigative reports on BBC Television's Newsnight and in Rolling Stone Magazine. For more info go to GregPalast.com.

Rhona Mitra isn't known for playing it safe -- hence her decision to dial up SuicideGirls earlier this week while blazing through L.A. traffic with an ornery bulldog bouncing around in her back seat. Luckily, there were no fatalities and we were able to discuss the particulars of her latest action... more

Rhona Mitra isn't known for playing it safe -- hence her decision to dial up SuicideGirls earlier this week while blazing through L.A. traffic with an ornery bulldog bouncing around in her back seat. Luckily, there were no fatalities and we were able to discuss the particulars of her latest action opus, Underworld: Rise of the Lycans, which drops in theaters today. A 32 year-old Anglo-Indian stunner, with a voice like erotic asphalt, Mitra first came to our attention as Alan Shore's mind-fuck buddy in the final season of The Practice. Her character, Tara Wilson, then moved on alongside Shore (played by James Spader) to form the early nucleus of David E. Kelley's follow-up legal drama, Boston Legal.

After a brief stint steaming things up on Nip/Tuck, Mitra came screeching onto Hollywood's radar last year with a memorable turn in Doomsday, a nasty little neckbreaker of a movie with a distinct John Carpenter vibe that had genre fans standing up and cheering -- and begging for more of Mitra. This week they're getting it, as she takes up the sword previously wielded by Kate Beckinsale in a big-budget Underworld prequel set in the twelfth century that explores the origins of the feud between the aristocratic vampire clan known as the Death Dealers and those beastly, low-born Lycans who come howling at their door.

Ryan Stewart: Isn't it considered dangerous to talk on a cell phone while driving around?

Rhona Mitra: I've got you on the speaker phone. Anyway, I believe you had a time issue, so...

RS: I'm just kidding, it's fine.

RM: By the way, if you hear snorting in the background, that's my bulldog in the back of my car and I apologize. [to the dog] Oh, get down! [back to me] Excuse me, so sorry. That's my little monster in the back.

RS: No problem. I was doing a little research before you called and the internet seems to think you're on Christopher Nolan's list to play Catwoman.

RM: Ah yes, I've heard that!

RS: Did you start that rumor?

RM: No, I didn't start it, but it's a fantastic rumor. It would be interesting if I was that calculating, wouldn't it? I would have done something like that a long time ago and I can think of a million others I could have conjured up! I'm not quite sure I would start with this one.

RS: You should have your agent go around starting them up, see what happens.

RM: [laughs] I don't have people like that in my life. You might be looking more to a different type of personality who would do something like that, but not me.

RS: I looked at some footage of the new Underworld -- it seems to be drawing a sort of allegory of interracial love, or at least a 'two different worlds' kind of love story.

RM: Yeah, it's exactly that. It's about crossing those boundaries and dealing with the prejudice. It's pretty poignant, given where we're at in today's world. I think there's a sort of Romeo and Juliet parallel that can be drawn. The fact that it's set in the twelfth century and it's a vampire and a werewolf [which] could be just metaphorical, I suppose. It's not really so fantastical and far-removed in its premise. There's also a social comparison as well, as far as the class system and that hierarchy -- there's a focus on that, with the revolt of the werewolves, the lycans, against the vampire world. You could liken it, I suppose, to Spartacus, with the slaves going up against the Roman empire.

RS: As far as you know, can vampires and werewolves actually procreate?

RM: [laughs] Yes, they can! I mean, we haven't seen the outcome yet, but they definitely give it a go.

RS: By the way, I'm tempted to throw some Skinwalkers questions your way, since that was your first werewolf movie. You're becoming an expert in the field.

RM: No, Skinwalkers was one of those jobs that I literally had to do at the time because I needed a job. I've kind of forgotten that Skinwalkers even existed. And they're such different creatures, the actual movies themselves. Do you know I had completely forgotten that I even did Skinwalkers?

RS: Really? I haven't, it's on TV a lot.

RM: No, it's just more that it's something that didn't really permeate me in any way, my system. It didn't stay with me.

RS: What did you bring of yourself to Underworld ? Did you get involved with any aspects of production other than just the acting?

RM: Yeah, the costuming. I was very aware of how iconic the first costume was -- it became so much about that costume. I mean, people still talk about it and I wanted there to be some level of similarity only in the connection that Bill Nighy's character makes in the first Underworld. A lot of the reason behind his fondness for and his connection to the Selene character, as he says, is borne out of a reminder and a familiarity between Sonja and Selene. [The dog starts making trouble again] Sorry, I'm distracted because I'm driving! So, yeah, that's a resonance that really needed to be there and the costume designer, who is a lady called Wendy Partridge who did the Selene costume, she came back and we sat down with Len Wiseman, actually. It was Len Wiseman, Patrick [Tatopoulus] and I and Wendy, we all sat down a few weeks before we went into production.

RS: That's cool, that they wanted you to pitch in with pre-production.

RM: Yeah, this was all around Christmas time and we did drawing after drawing after drawing. It was very important to make this costume feel real, I suppose, because we didn't have any of the latex or the PVC that they had to make Kate's outfit out of because of the time that it was set in. So, we put together lambskin and this very fine, delicate chainmail. The corset is the common link between the two costumes and then there's this wonderful armor, because she's a warrior, she's a Death Dealer. She charges out on her horse and kills wolves in the midst of the night and I think we really wanted to make sure that she looked like that. I wanted to make sure she looked like she was the capable "son" that Viktor never had, I suppose, because that's what she ends up being. She's more like the son that he never had, rather than a daughter. It was important to me that we didn't go the Xena: Warrior Princess route, which could have very easily happened.

RS: Are you strong enough to wield a real sword?

RM: No, they gave me a little girl's one. [laughs] And by the way, they are not light, I'll have you know! No, there were some times that I used a real sword. There are different ones, there are ones that they have you practice with, which are just featherweight, and then they have an intermediate one which meant that I could swing it around my head and make it look effortless, but then the real ones are incredibly heavy. Have you ever held a real sword?

RS: Nope.

RM: Oh yeah, they are very, very heavy things. When we ended up clashing them together, those pretend ones would actually break, so they weren't much good. They were just holding us up, so I'd end up getting a regular one and making it work.

RS: Are you an actor who's willing to play hurt? I guess that's required of action stars to an extent, right?

RM: You know, I've been very fortunate in that I don't get hurt that much. The stuntmen are so fastidious, usually, and when you rehearse as much as I've rehearsed -- we all did -- for things like the fight sequences, people shouldn't get hurt and I haven't. I make sure that whatever it is we're going to be doing, we do it again and again until it's a very finely tuned dance more than anything else. There's such little room for error when you do things again and again. I think maybe on some productions where they don't pay such attention to the choreography and the stunt work people do end up getting hurt, but I've been quite fortunate in that I've worked with great stuntmen who make sure that safety is their number one priority. There may have been a little grating here and there, but that was usually due to costuming, I have to say, more than anything else. Any discomfort I ever felt was the grating of chain mail against my skin, but that's about it. I'm not a baby, you know? I have two brothers that did, and still do, rough me up on a pretty permanent basis, so I'm not about to run off to the corner and cry.

RS: I've heard that Kate Beckinsale might come back for the fourth film, and that this film is just a detour from her storyline. Do you consider it your franchise now?

RM: If it's anybody's franchise, I would imagine that it's gonna be Michael Sheen's. This is just a one-off thing for me.

RS: Speaking of leading men, you're dong something next with the guy from Mad Men, right? I love that show.

RM: Yeah, I've got a film coming out called Boy in a Box with Jon Hamm, also Josh Lucas. I also just completed a film called The Truth About Men with an Australian actor called Joel Edgerton who was in Kinky Boots and Ned Kelly.

RS: You worked with one of the legends of the action genre, Paul Verhoeven, but it was at the very beginning of your career so the role was tiny. Sort of a missed opportunity?

RM: What's Paul done since then? Black Book? No, I was a baby then. It was the first job I did when I came here. I don't call it a missed opportunity, I don't think. If anything, I feel that my relationship with that film was very much a kind of foot-in-the-door thing, and I wouldn't repeat that particular adventure again if it came my way, but it was really what brought me to the States and then I was offered the role in Party of Five. So, I'd consider it to have been a transitional project, but not a missed opportunity.

RS: You're not going to quit doing action before you get your signature role, your Ellen Ripley, right?

RM: Well, I'd never dream of saying that I'd ever step into that particular outfit. Sigourney Weaver as Ripley is so iconic. Now, is there a possibility that I could do more action and would like to do more action? I love and have loved these experiences I've had. I like the hard work and I like going to bed feeling a bit bruised and roughed up and feeling very fulfilled at the end of my day. As long as I still get to do a little bit of both and I don't end up becoming pigeon-holed...I think choice equals ultimate freedom and the reason why most of us do what we do is to have the freedom to wear as many different hats as possible and explore as many different facets of our psyches and our physicality and all of those things. However that is expressed, whether it's through the action genre or anything else, I'd absolutely love to continue doing it. It's probably a possibility for as long as I'm capable.

RS: I'm sure that the longer you stick with the action genre, the more of a fan you'll become as a moviegoer.

RM: Well, with genre movies there's a big difference between watching them and taking part in them, isn't there? For me personally, it all depends. I'm a big fan of Christopher Nolan's and I enjoy the Batman movies, as of Nolan's involvement in them. As a viewer, I really take it movie to movie. I'm not necessarily a massive, rabid fan of the genre. It seems to be drawn to me, or has been with the last couple of movies that I've taken part in. But also, in the meantime I've also done smatterings of television work which have involved, you know, combat more in words than anything else. I'm a man for hire. I take whatever comes across my table and look at it and weigh up the experience more than anything else, really. I try to figure out whether I'm going to have an enjoyable time, because at the end of the day you're talking about giving over between three to seven months of your life. I personally really enjoy what's involved with the genre, the physical aspect of it and the mythological aspect and the psychological aspect as well.

RS: It keeps your imagination stimulated, keeps you sharp?

RM: It gets you thinking outside of your box -- me, personally, this is -- it takes me outside of my world. There's a level of escapism which is something I really, really enjoy. Actually, I find it necessary. I find it to be a necessary component in my life and it enables me to exist in the world as it is today. Otherwise, I find it can all get to be a little too much, a little bit too serious.



Underworld: Rise of the Lycans opens in theaters everywhere today.

This past summer -- Friday, June 13th to be specific -- SuicideGirls hopped a plane down to Austin, Texas to visit the set of Friday the 13th, the remake of the 1980 slasher classic that introduced the world to drowned-boy-turned-unkillable- ghoul Jason Voorhees. You can read about our night on the set... more

This past summer -- Friday, June 13th to be specific -- SuicideGirls hopped a plane down to Austin, Texas to visit the set of Friday the 13th, the remake of the 1980 slasher classic that introduced the world to drowned-boy-turned-unkillable- ghoul Jason Voorhees. You can read about our night on the set right HERE, but the interviews conducted during that trip have been under studio-mandated lock and key -- until now. Here is the fourth in our series of five interviews with those responsible for bringing horror back to Friday the 13th and giving Jason Voorhees a new lease of life.

Scott Stoddard is part of the make-up and special effects team that updated Jason Voorhees classic bad-boy looks and put the gore into the new Friday the 13th. Working with the film's writers, producers and director, he made sure that each of Voorhees gruesome kills went off spectacularly yet believably -- and without a hitch. SuicideGirls chatted with Stoddard, to find out, among other things, what make-up and head attire Camp Crystal Lake's favorite slasher will be sporting in the upcoming Friday the 13th killing season.

Question: How long did it take your team to figure out exactly what Jason's look was going to be?

Scott Stoddard: I spent probably a month before I even started filming just thinking about his look, underneath the mask. Then we started dealing with the mask and the hood that he wears, stuff like that. Altogether it was about three months from beginning to end. I would come up with ideas and designs and then start doing two-dimensional stuff. Once things were agreed upon with what the look was, then I would hire on a crew of people.

Q: How much would you say was taken from the earlier films?

SS: I would say easily fifty percent to seventy-five percent, taken from all the different makeups and fusing them all together, putting in things I want to see.

Q: How much license did you have to play around with the look?

SS: They said, "You're a fan of it, do what you think is gonna be right, what you would wanna see and what you think the fans are gonna want to see." You can't please all the fans, you can't please everyone, but I just looked at it as a fan myself and said, "This is what I would really want to see." I took elements from each of the different films and we melded them all together and made our own Frankenstein monster.

Q: Can you talk about some of the specific kills you've worked on?

SS: We kind of looked back at what was done and enhanced things a bit. It's a little more creative and a little more excessive than what was seen before. We've enhanced quite a bit of the stuff. I hate to spoil it for people who want to see it and be surprised by it. There is some makeup stuff we've done in the film that, I've done a bit of it before, but I've never been able to go as far as we have with this. There is some CGI element to it. Some of the kills are practical and some are enhanced by CGI, but I don't think we've done any kills that are all CG.

Q: Can you talk about inspirations from past films?

SS: The makeup that was done in Part 2 that Warrington Gillette was wearing, the Carl Buechler makeup that's a little more mountain mannish, there were some elements of that I liked. Also, there were parts of Part 4 and a little bit of him as a child, but not as bald -- more as a young kid that still has hair. There's a deformity, but more in the human realm, having one side more accessible than the other. That's kind of where I pulled from. We went though medical books and looked at different types of diseases and human abnormalities, scoliosis of the spine. He's got a hump up on his back, he's a little more thin and barrel-chested -- I drew from all of that stuff, instead of just big, solid, lumbering Frankenstein.

Q: How much exposure does the facial makeup actually get in this film? Just a flash? He's in the bag or mask for ninety-nine percent, right?

SS: It might be a little more than one percent, we shot a couple of different things. We'll see what ends up in it, what they wanna see. What they've seen, they really like, so we'll see what works best for the film. From the whole time of doing the designs of it, I knew that they didn't want to show him that much, his face, they wanted to keep it real covered. But in my own right, I said that if we do show it, I want to be prepared for it and I want to make something really special and cool and pay homage to the films. Once I did that, and we started seeing it on the days, it was like, "Maybe we can do a little here, maybe we can do a little there." Once it comes to editing, they'll determine what is appropriate.

Q: Is determining the kills a group process? Do the writers come to you with ideas? Do you meet with them? Is there a process of compromise?

SS: There's always a compromise. What's great is that the writers did come to the plate with a script and we read it, and then it's my job to figure it out, like, how are we gonna shoot this? But nothing was really set in stone. Once we started sitting down with the producers and the director, we started having meetings and it was like, "What do you think of this? Do you think it should be more like this? What is your input?" So nothing was set in stone.

We kept shuffling ideas around, and it was good, it was a whole collaborative effort. It was what we've seen before in the past films, what is gonna be new and different and interesting and play off of the character, to have kind of a reason behind certain things. It was nice; there was a nice open playing field. In the end, it's the producers and the directors as far as what they want to see, but everyone got a chance to voice what they thought. This is a group of people who grew up watching these films, they're fans and we all got to get involved in it, which was good.

Q: Can you talk about something that was taken off the drawing board for maybe being too difficult or outlandish?

SS: There were a couple of things that were too outlandish; it was shock on top of shock and it took away from the initial impact of it. So we said, "Let's slice it down and make it a little more, not simplistic, but make the impact in one area and not drag it out where it's obsessively obscene." That wouldn't work for the film. There were a few things.

Q: Some slasher films use a lot of blood and some obscure it with angles and rely on the impact -- which way is it for this film?

SS: It's a bit of both. We'll shoot stuff where there's less blood and it's more of the impact of what's going on, and the actors definitely bring it. I sometimes feel that there's a lot better reaction to what you don't see. Instead of seeing the visceral, you see the emotion of somebody going through something. They're shooting stuff like that, but we also have stuff to choose from as well that's a little more excessive and a little more grotesque. In the final editing we'll figure out what works best for each scene.

Q: So no geysers of blood like in Freddy vs. Jason?

SS: We haven't done too many geysers. With it being a collaborative thing, they'll come to me and go, "What would really happen if..." And so you stretch it a little, but a fountain? No. There's only so much blood in the human body. Organs are not spring-loaded. They don't shoot against a wall.

Q: You wanted to maintain the realism of it?

SS: Yes. From my standpoint that's where I wanted to keep it. There's a lot of stuff in the older films that you saw that was, like real. It didn't have to be more is better. You gotta do it just right. That's the reality of it.

Q: What can you tell us about Pamela Voorees's head?

SS: It's in the movie and it's about a twenty year span from when it was taken.

Q: So it's just a skull?

SS: Sort of. Could be. [laughs] The good things you don't want to let out!

Q: Do you see a major difference between how the effects were approached in the 80s and what you're doing now?

SS: There are definitely materials and stuff now that we use that's way more advanced than what they had to deal with back in the 70s and 80s and even the beginning of the 90s. We have better technology to make things more user-friendly for actors, and they look nicer as well. Also, when you're getting into an area of being sort of dirty and grimy and gross, it's all sort of the same techniques to get to that point, but we just have better materials now. I'm a fan of the sleight of hand tricks that you do for certain kills, things like that. If they're shot right and coordinated correctly they work really well. It's all about a magic trick, like what Savini used to do. That's fun.

Q: Do you feel CGI can undermine what you're trying to do, if they're like, "Let's just go ahead and shoot it and pretend there's a blade there."

SS: Sometimes you hear that, and people tend to want to rely on things like that, but we've been able to get away with a lot without having to rely on things like that. Relying wholly on one effect tends to not work. The greatest for me is when you do it practically and then they think, "That was a really nice CG shot." I remember when people heard CG and were like, "What's that mean?" And now it's like overloaded, like watching a big videogame. If it's a videogame, I don't want to see it.

Q: Can you talk about creating the mask?

SS: I got a copy of a mask from Part 3 and I utilized it and looked at it. There were some things I wanted to change and make a bit different. I wanted to keep it within the realm of where it needed to be. I did a few sculpts and then I tried to make it a bit more user-friendly for Derek, who is gonna be wearing this thing. Once I got the shape right, I molded it, made a two-part mold from it and instead of doing a fiberglass or vacuform -- I'd heard that ones in the past were made like that, they were just fiberglass -- I knew that Derek was gonna be doing a lot of physical stuff in this film so I made a core for it and basically made it out of a really high-strength resin that was more like a heavy, dense plastic. It can take a hit. It can be pounded into. Derek has been smashed in the face, he's been kicked in the face a bunch of times. He's a stuntman as well, so he's like, "Yeah, go ahead and hit me, I got a hockey mask on." In the hockey world, old hockey masks were made out of whale bone, they would carve whale bone into the shape of a face mask. So I thought it would be cool if I could get something that's not as strong as bone but can take a hit and be light enough -- then it can be a stuntmask as well.

Q: What can you tell us about the sack?

SS: It's kind of a meld between Part 2, which was like a pillow-case tied around his neck. Instead of using a rope and tying it around his neck, this one is kind of like a wrap, in a way, a very thin cheesecloth, very stained and dirty, one eyehole cut out for his good eye to see though, kind of an homage to The Elephant Man. It's very stained and dirty. You know that there's a mouth under there, over to one side, kind of fluxing. When he breathes through his nose, you can see it kind of going in and out, it gives a little more emotion to it. It conforms to the shape of his head a bit, it's not just a square thing, you know something's going on under there. We didn't want to go Mummy on it, so there's a fine line.

Q: This Jason is running around a lot more than previous Jasons -- did that require a change in approach at all?

SS: Not really, because Derek moves really well. Wardrobe might have had to do some adjustments, but for what we had to do, he's basically got a bodysuit on the top which is a sculpture of his chest and his back. He gets into that and then we have a head cowl piece and his shoulders that go down, to give shape, but it's pretty flexible, he can move around pretty nicely and do what he needs to do inside of it. It's vented in the right places for movement, the shoulders and arms and torso. He's got scoliosis and a sort of scapular hump. He can accentuate it -- he's actually standing straight when you see him moving around, that's just the shape of his body, that's how twisted up the spine is and he can accentuate it even more and just kind of be off-kilter a bit.


Friday the 13th opens in theaters nationwide on February 13, 2009. Check out the official site HERE.

(image) I really didn’t expect Obama to publicly chastise George W. Bush during his inaugural speech, but that is exactly what happened on Tuesday. It was an old fashioned verbal beat down. Line after line repudiating the terrible policies of Bush, while the creep was forced to sit quietly and listen. more

I really didn’t expect Obama to publicly chastise George W. Bush during his inaugural speech, but that is exactly what happened on Tuesday. It was an old fashioned verbal beat down. Line after line repudiating the terrible policies of Bush, while the creep was forced to sit quietly and listen. And all this after being booed by the crowd as he made his entrance. Welcome to the rest of your life George, you are a massive failure.

Obama started by tossing George a bit of sugar.

Now, George, please take your balls out of your pants and gently rest them on your chair because I am going to hit them with a hammer.

Barry started with the economy.

An open handed slap to the face. This was a direct response to the Bush policies of the past eight years. It could have only been better if Obama had said it directly to George: "You did nothing about our failed energy policy, which weakened us militarily and financially. You did nothing to fix healthcare. You did nothing to solve our public school problems. You did nothing to prepare America for the future."

Most notably, Obama said, “failure to make hard choices.” Bush’s line was and has always been, “I make the hard choices, even if they aren’t popular.” It was no mistake that Obama used this exact language. He stood in front of America and told Bush he did not make hard choices. Rather brutal from a diplomatic standpoint.

Barry continued.

Punch to the gut. Barry just told George the way he governed was wrong. Bad. Sorry. Lame. Weak. And nobody was into it. The grown up is taking over. Just sit and listen, I’m in charge of this shit now.

Knee to the head. He just called Bush “petty” and called him out on making “false promises.” Ouch. Although, that one was actually a combo. It was a “you blew it” to George and a “watch your shit” warning for Congress. Might want to listen, boys.

In a minute or so, Obama moved on to my favorite moment of the entire speech.

Roundhouse kick to the face. Bush was just called out for throwing science overboard –– and he had to sit there quietly and listen. Obama went on to explain that his restoration in science will lead to improvements in health care, energy and schools. Let's get some stem cells and solar panels up in this bitch!

Elbow to the nose. Again, this is an attack on everything Bush stands for. Obama is telling America to look beyond the small minded, backward government of Bush, to see a future where great things can be achieved. Maybe he will, maybe he won’t, but he’s kicking Bush and his cynicism in the face.

Hi, reframing, my name is Barack. I just took a shiv and jammed it into the ribs of a former “small government” president sitting behind me. Small or big doesn’t matter –– only whether or not it works. Uh oh. Republicans just shit themselves all over America. Dude with the mic took away your big, stupid argument. Better hope this one doesn’t stick, you fucking Neanderthals.

Holy shit. Another roundhouse kick to George’s face. Is he still conscious? Obama just told George his tax cuts and his obliteration of regulatory bodies ruined us. This is when I started giggling. I can only assume now completely transformed into a super villain Dick Cheney was squirming.

Is it possible to do a roundhouse kick to the testicles? Because I think that's what just happened. George, we reject you. You know that whole thing you built your 8 years in office on? We reject it. Completely.

Shhhh! Just sit there and listen, he’s not done.

He poured salt in one of the many open wounds. “Once more.” Because that hasn’t been happening for the past eight years. Obama just told Bush we haven’t been leading. How delightful is that? How long have you waited to hear that?

Jesus. Fucking. Christ. Will somebody is Bush’s corner throw in the towel? It’s like Obama is bunching a sack of meat. “Nor does it entitle us to do as we please?” At this point he’s just lecturing Bush on how to be a proper leader, like he is a five-year-old.

This was not just a comment to leaders around the world. This was a comment for George, first and everyone else second. George has built nothing, he has only destroyed. His administration was shockingly corrupt, deceitful and he was just told so by an adult. “Unclench your fist.” My God. Brutal. Those three words could not describe Bush more. And it was obvious, throughout this speech, who he was talking to. Today, some historians have said no president has repudiated another so harshly during an inaugural address since Roosevelt handed Hoover his ass on a plate. And you can be sure the message was received this time.

Yet, they have no power to respond. With these comments, you can be sure Obama washed his hands of these people.

They have been set aside. It’s time to clean up the day care center.


FearTheReaper is a writer, actor and stand up comedian. Check back each Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday for more from FearTheReaper and read his blog, Stop All Monsters.

Long before he was the most dangerously incompetent governor California has ever had, Arnold Schwarzenegger was the biggest action superstar on the planet, and everything he touched turned to box office gold. Most of my generation first saw him in the title role of 1984’s The Terminator, a movie... more

Long before he was the most dangerously incompetent governor California has ever had, Arnold Schwarzenegger was the biggest action superstar on the planet, and everything he touched turned to box office gold.

Most of my generation first saw him in the title role of 1984’s The Terminator, a movie that was perfectly suited to his, um, acting ability, and (unfortunately for science fiction fans) cemented him in the minds of studio executives as the guy for science fiction movies.

As I observed in Sci-Fi Guilty Pleasures of the 80s:

Sci-Fi/Action is the most common Schwarzenegger hybrid, and he can be found chewing up cigars and scenery in some of the biggest blockbusters of the 80s and 90s.

In true action star fashion, Schwarzenegger totally overwhelms the roles he plays to the point of self-parody in each one. In the 80s, as a science fiction fan, I hated this, but with the benefit of time and the ability to not take these movies so seriously, I can enjoy them for the guilty pleasures that they are.

For this month’s Geek in Review, I reached into the vault, and pulled out a few of the future Governator’s more memorable sci-fi vehicles. To get perspective from the damn kids today, I convinced my 17 year-old son, Nolan, to watch them with me and give me a comment on each one.

The films are presented in chronological order, and are ranked on the McBain scale, which hopefully needs no further explanation.

The Running Man (1987)
In the future, society has collapsed and turned into a police state. The only thing more popular than rioting for food is watching the hit game show The Running Man, where convicted criminals try to escape from a hilarious group of “stalkers” who use the power of ice hockey, chainsaws, and LEDs to catch them. Arnold Schwarzenegger sits at the center of this Venn diagram, and with the help of his friends and a lot of spandex jumpsuits, manages to get the highest ratings ever, and bring down the government. Also, Mick Fleetwood is there.

Awesomely Awesome Because: To the film’s credit, it stops pretending to be something it’s not by the second reel. When Schwarzenegger tells Running Man host Richard Dawson’s Killian, “I’ll be back,” we know exactly what to expect from the rest of the film, and we’re not disappointed. Listening to Schwarzenegger and Maria Conchita Alonso speak heavily-accented dialog, and watching the excess of the late 80s –– on full, unapologetic display –– is unintentionally hilarious. Jesse “The Body” Ventura and Richard Dawson essentially play themselves in unselfconscious, uncomplicated performances that provide the perfect balance to Schwarzenegger’s ludicrous, over the top collection of McBainesque one-liners.

Awesomely Awful Because: The whole thing collapses under the weight of Schwarzenegger’s ludicrous, over the top collection of McBainesque one-liners. It’s like there are two movies struggling to get made here: one is a dark science fiction tale about a police state that abuses the public’s insatiable appetite for violence to maintain its grip on power, and the other is a series of convoluted scenes that exist simply to let Schwarzenegger feed it.

Obligatory Schwarzeneggerisms: Unnecessary biceps flexing? Check. Cigar-chomping? Check. Convoluted display of World’s Strongest Man-like feat of strength: Check. Quoting of The Line from Terminator? Check. Sappy, forced, “I learned something today” moment? Check. Uncomfortable romantic moment with a woman who’s too young for him? Check.

Nolan Says: “This movie needs 33% more skin-tight jumpsuits.”

McBain Ranking: 11 out of 10. (In fact, this may be the film that created McBain.)


Predator (1987)
Hey, did you hear the one about the guy who was dropped into the jungle with a bunch of red shirts and Apollo Creed? You know, the one with the alien and the cool thermal camera vision? Okay, it’s the one where Jesse Ventura has that ridiculous chain gun, and he’s all, “I ain’t got time to bleed!” Yes! That one!

Awesomely Awesome Because: Like The Running Man, once it drops the pretense of being something it’s not, and spends the rest of the film letting Arnold kick ass and struggle to pronounce names, it’s a whole lot of fun. And unlike the other films on this list, Schwarzenegger can’t really overwhelm the role, because he’s pretty much playing his character from Commando. The supporting cast is fine, and the climactic fight with the Predator is awesome.

Awesomely Awful Because: All the dialog in the non-Predator portion of the film is just painful to listen to. The entire MacGuffin about dropping an elite unit of commandos into the jungle who do the CIA’s dirty work –– but are surprised and pissed when they find out they’re doing the CIA’s dirty work –– feels like it was just lifted from another film. And for an elite secret fighting force that gets in and gets out before anyone knows they were there, they sure do make a lot of noise, fire thousands of rounds of ammunition, and never hit anyone. Still: GET TO DA CHOPPA!

Obligatory Schwarzeneggerisms: Unnecessary biceps flexing? Check. Cigar-chomping? Check. Convoluted display of World’s Strongest Man-like feat of strength: Check. Sappy, forced, “I learned something today” moment? Check.

Nolan Says: “It’s so sad that they gave that big guy such a tiny little gun.”

McBain Ranking: 6 out of 10.


Total Recall (1990)
Douglas Quaid is a construction worker with the hottest wife on the planet, who wants to fuck him every time he breathes. Because he is some kind of asshole, this dream life isn’t perfect enough for him, and he constantly fantasizes about living on Mars. His entire household budget goes toward keeping his wife’s hair huge, though, so they can’t afford to take an actual trip. Luckily for him, a company called Rekall can implant vacation memories that anyone can afford, so he visits Mars that way. But just visiting Mars isn’t awesome enough, so he tells Rekall to make him a secret agent, throw in some alien artifacts, and a nefarious plot to destroy the planet. He also wants to nail a girl while he’s there who isn’t nearly as sexy as his wife, and is actually kind of skanky. Seriously. Asshole!

Something goes wrong (or does it?) at Rekall, and Quaid finds out that ... he’s a secret agent on a mission to Mars, where there are lots of alien artifacts and he’s nailing a girl who isn’t nearly as sexy as his wife. Before we’re done, people try to kill him, he uncovers a nefarious plot, saves the world, and gets the girl –– who isn’t as sexy as his wife. We’re not sure if he’s dreamed the whole thing, but one thing is crystal clear: this guy is an asshole.

Awesomely Awesome Because: Throughout the whole film, we’re left to wonder if the whole thing is a dream or not, and there are an equal number of clues to support both conclusions. Anchored by reliable science fiction villains Ronny Cox (Robocop) and Michael Ironside (Scanners) it’s a great 70s-style science fiction thriller, right up until the third act, when the whole thing falls apart and becomes an intelligence-insulting action movie with science so bad, it couldn’t even fool George W. Bush. If you’re hoping for a faithful adaptation of Phillip K. Dick’s classic We Can Remember it for You Wholesale –– as I was in 1990 –– you’re going to be profoundly disappointed. But if you’re willing to suspend all of your disbelief, you’ll be glad you got your ass to Mars.

Awesomely Awful Because: It won an academy award for its visual effects, but the miniatures, blue screens, and foam rubber puppets do not age (or convert to DVD) well. However, they’re not nearly as bad or distracting as the terrible atmospheric pseudoscience at the end of the film, or the 35 minutes of mind-numbing gun battles and action movie idiocy that precede it.

Obligatory Schwarzeneggerisms: Unnecessary biceps flexing? Check. Convoluted display of World’s Strongest Man-like feat of strength: Check. Uncomfortable romantic moment with a woman who’s too young for him? You know that’s going to be a nice big check.

Nolan says: “That blond girl was kind of hot, but I’m really disappointed he didn’t have a single cigar.”

McBain Ranking: 2 out of 10.


The 6th Day (2000)
Adam Gibson, a mild-mannered helicopter pilot and dedicated family man who has recently gotten a face lift, has been cloned without his knowledge. As if watching his clone smoke his cigars and bang his wife isn’t bad enough, a whole bunch of other clones are trying to kill him. Also, there are clones.

Awesomely Awesome Because: The science fiction is great, the art direction is ultra cool, and who doesn’t want to live in this future of virtual girlfriends, remote controlled helicopters, cloned pets, and an XFL that lasted more than one season? The supporting performances from Robert Duvall, Michael Rapapport, and especially Tony Goldwin are just outstanding.

Awesomely Awful Because: While there aren’t as many product placements as Demolition Man, the few we see are as obvious and distracting as those in Ghost Dad, but that’s not the worst of it. The 6th Day had the potential to be a science fiction classic; it deals with some very serious ethical questions about how far we’ll go to cure diseases, the rights of cloned humans, and what it even means to be human. But even with its great supporting cast, and solid, smart writing, it can’t achieve escape velocity from Schwarzenegger’s limited acting abilities and obligatory Schwarzeneggerisms. In fact, of all the roles he overwhelms in sci-fi movies, this is probably the most egregious example. Adam Gibson is supposed to be a talented but mild mannered helicopter pilot who loves his family, and still holds on to the good old days when clones only existed in bad movies. But by the end of the first act, Schwarzenegger has turned him into a gun-toting psychopath who doesn’t think twice about killing anyone who gets in his way, and actually seems to enjoy it. And it’s simply unforgivable that we had an opportunity to finally watch him fight himself, but the whole thing ended after just one punch.

Obligatory Schwarzeneggerisms: Unnecessary biceps flexing? Check. Cigar-chomping? Check. Quoting of The Line from Terminator? Check. Sappy, forced, “I learned something today” moment? Check. Uncomfortable romantic moment with a woman who’s too young for him? Check and mate.

Nolan Says: “I’ve actually seen this before. It does not improve upon a second viewing.”

McBain Ranking: 4.5 out of 10.


Some of you may be wondering why Terminator 2 isn't on this list. Well, the truth is, I love Terminator 2, and I don't feel guilty about it at all.

Wil Wheaton will be back.

What Suicide Girls are putting on...and taking off... Knee-high, cowboy, flat or heeled –– there's nothing like a pair of boots to make us feel sexy as hell. Whether you wear them for rugged functionality or just [cough] around the house, take a look at how these ladies rock theirs. (image)... more

What Suicide Girls are putting on...and taking off...

Knee-high, cowboy, flat or heeled –– there's nothing like a pair of boots to make us feel sexy as hell. Whether you wear them for rugged functionality or just [cough] around the house, take a look at how these ladies rock theirs.

























Did we miss your favorite boot shot? If so, upload it HERE.

Fashion Notes: Re-Boot Your Life!

These boots are definitely not made for walking ($34.99 from ElectriqueBoutique.com). • If you'd rather take a bike than a hike try these flats or these heels ($139.50 and $159.00 respectively from Zappos.com) • To satisfy the call of the wild (west), Urban Outfitters ($124.99), Steven Madden ($119.95) and Forever 21 ($44.80) offer a contemporary twist on the classic Western riding boot. * Punk rock rolls in these 14" black leather lace-up Timberlands ($164.99 from Shoes.com). * For a more polished, patented look check out these hi-glam platforms with black ribbon ties ($39.99 from HotTopic.com). * 80's aficionados should add these ankle boots with 4.5" heels, buckles, a side-zipper and peek-a-boo toes to their collection ($199.95 from SteveMadden.com). * If you're into extreme buckles, this pair is for you ($57.99 from snaz75.com) * Finally, these allover corseted stiletto-heeled boots ($59.99 from Hot Topic) will leave you (and those who see you in 'em) panting for more.


Check back each Wednesday for more Dirty Laundry and let SuicideGirls show you the best way to (un)dress.

Welcome, Barry. You are already my favorite black president and you’ve only been on the job one day. That’s all kinds of awesome. Keep it up. To get through your four years (yeah, that’s all your getting) I’m going to give you some fantastic advice. To be honest, there’s... more

Welcome, Barry. You are already my favorite black president and you’ve only been on the job one day. That’s all kinds of awesome. Keep it up. To get through your four years (yeah, that’s all your getting) I’m going to give you some fantastic advice. To be honest, there’s no way you'll survive without it. I am all knowing and I smell nice. So, here we go.

How about Israel gets by without shitloads of our money? I think they’ll do okay. At the very least, pulling back on giving them gobs and gobs of money might make them less prone to go on another baby killing massacre spree. Besides, we need all that money for our own baby killing sprees. Giving 7 million dollars a day to Israel is completely ridiculous, especially considering the state of our country. Israel seems all growned up, so let’s take off the training wheels. Plus, people seem to really like us a lot less because we back Israel up during their baby killing sprees. That’s not going to work out in the long run –– or the short run. So, that’s 3 billion a year we can use here in the good old US of A. You’re welcome, Barry.

Next up, let’s get our gamble on, Barry! We’re all adults –– or, at least most of us are (Admittedly, some of are children). Specifically, I am talking about Internet gambling. Let’s face it, people aren’t going to be going out much during this depression –– and they are going to want to gamble because they are sad and hopeless. Actually, they ARE going to gamble, regardless of the laws. Congress made online gambling illegal a couple of years ago –– which just means people are now gambling illegally and we are not collecting tax revenue. That’s a lot of money we are just letting slip away for no reason.

Look at how much money I just made for you, Barry! That’s sweet, sweet cash you can make just sitting on your ass. Again, you are welcome.

Next up, let’s get our vaginas and penises going. Time to legalize prostitution. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, Barry, but it’s happening, everywhere. From what I’ve read it happened big time at the Republican and Democratic National Conventions. New York Governors do it and Louisiana Senators do it. There’s lots of fucking for money going on and we should get in on that action. Apparently, just one brothel can bring in $250,000 in taxes per year.

That’s just one. There would probably be many more because tons of dudes don’t have mad skillz when it comes to the ladies –– and yet they love vaginas. We’re talking about $360 million in tax revenue. Granted, it’s not as much as cutting off baby killing Israel, but it’s a nice chunk of change.

Let’s stop those wars. They are totally bumming me out, seem pretty useless and are making us less safe. We’re kicking down $144 billion a year in Iraq and they don’t even like us (Mostly because we kill them and stuff). We are throwing in another $4 billion a year in Afghanistan. Let’s admit we blew it in both cases. Totally blew it. We need to now acknowledge we are fuck ups, say, "My bad," apologize and go home. It’s like having too much tequila at a party and waking up the next morning with hazy memories of peeing in the dryer, punching a hole in the wall and grabbing your friend’s breast. It’s a loss. You blew it. Nobody wants you around. It’s time head home and soak in our shame. I just saved you $196 billion a year, Barry. You are very welcome.

Of course, the biggest and most obvious money saving move would be to legalize a bunch of drugs. You know, gateway drugs. I’m talking marijuana, tranquilizers, a few painkillers, Ketamine, magic mushrooms, LSD and ecstasy. Honestly, I don’t know shit about Ketamine, but I like the name, so I put it on the list. I am quite familiar with the rest of them. That’s why God made college.

The war on drugs is ridiculous.

That is just the “effectiveness” of our drug war. The amount of money we spend in fighting the drug war and the lost revenue in taxes is insane. The “experts” are all over the map in terms of actual gains. A Libertarian economist recently concluded we would net about $77 billion from the legalization of all drugs.

That’s pretty sweet. I could buy a boat, or something, with that kind of money. Our government obviously doesn’t have the balls to legalize them all, so let’s just go with the really fun ones.

And this money doesn’t even include all the money we are going to spend protecting ourselves from Mexico, as it descends into an unstable country run by drug cartels. Although, I’m sure the Christians will lose their minds, so let’s say we’re going to legalize everything, then “compromise” and just legalize pot.

Dude, I just made you $41.8 billion dollars. Spend it as you wish. And you can tell people you smoked pot and everything worked out. Hell, you smoked crack and everything worked out.

Next up, increase the gas tax. Each penny increase is about 2 billion in annual revenue. Let’s kick that fucker up 10 cents for a year. How’s that $20 billion I just made you doing? Why stop there? 50 cents for a year = $100 billion. Even if you take it and spend it all on hookers and pot, we walk away with some serious cash because of all the other moves I’ve laid out.

I just made you some serious, dough, Barry. Don't fuck this up. It's just waiting there for you to take. After you get all this money together, I think you should build a public teleportation device.

Good luck,

As always,

Your pal,

FearTheReaper


FearTheReaper is a writer, actor and stand up comedian. Check back each Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday for more from FearTheReaper and read his blog, Stop All Monsters.

At SuicideGirls our mission is to challenge stereotypical ideas (both physical and philosophical) forced on us by society, to encourage free-thinking, and to champion an alternative spirit. In the pursuit of this goal, one of the most hotly debated topics on the Newswire has been that of religion, which... more

At SuicideGirls our mission is to challenge stereotypical ideas (both physical and philosophical) forced on us by society, to encourage free-thinking, and to champion an alternative spirit. In the pursuit of this goal, one of the most hotly debated topics on the Newswire has been that of religion, which is the source of some the most regimented and intransigent examples of human thought found today. We therefore sought the opinion of some highly advanced free-thinkers on the subject. Here, in a special report for SuicideGirls, R. Elisabeth Cornwell, PhD and J. Anderson Thomson, MD, who work alongside Richard Dawkins in support of his Foundation For Reason & Science, share their thoughts on the possible roots of religion from an evolutionary perspective.

The Evolution of Religion

R. Elisabeth Cornwell, PhD and J. Anderson Thomson, MD



The Human Niche

Humans, like all other living beings, are a product of four billion years of evolutionary processes. We have been shaped and pounded by the rhythms of our planet's geology and climate as well by the continual interplay among biological organisms. You exist because eons of your ancestors, from bacteria to primates, struggled and reproduced successfully. The genes that reside in each and every one of us are the ones that helped our ancestors not only to survive, but to out-reproduce their competitors. And as improbable as it might seem, you are here through the success of billions and billions of generations.

Every living species on the planet -- from cabbages to whales -- has gone through this process, and evolved to fit a particular niche. Our human niche just happens to have emphasized brains over brawn, which has given us language, creativity, curiosity, and the most complicated social system of any species. However, our incredibly powerful brain is locked in a continual battle between reason and ancestral fears. This conflict helps us understand why religion has held such a grip on humanity and why reason must still fight to be heard.

Our ability to solve complex cognitive problems evolved over our long, tenuous, evolutionary history. Many adaptations that squeezed through the sieve of environmental constraints have led up to more and more complex brains. This culminated in fine-tuned software for negotiating the competitive social hierarchies that have been a crucial aspect to primate, especially human, evolution. We humans evolved the uniquely complex communication system that is language, and it in turn drove the evolution of more and more complex social interactions.

Adaptations: Designs for Success

But we are getting ahead of ourselves: we need to consider a host of adaptations that have brought us to where we are today. Adaptations are the physical and behavioral characteristics that equip a species to survive in its own particular way. The human way being as unique and complex as it is, untangling concepts of culture, including religion, is not an easy undertaking and we are only in our infancy in exploring our evolutionary roots. One way to think about these peculiarly human adaptations is as a series of software and hardware upgrades, each dependent on the other.

A common fallacy hoisted up by creationists (including 'intelligent design' sophists) is that adaptations can't work until every part is finished and in place: they ask questions like, "What good is half an eye?" The biologist Richard Dawkins has devoted more than one book to answering questions of that kind. Darwin's theory of natural selection uncovered the mystery of how the tiniest of incremental adaptations over vast amounts of time could lead to the evolution of something as complex and sophisticated as an eye or language [*1]. The mutually supportive development of computer software and hardware echoes how adaptations have built up over time, but orders of magnitude faster. Your laptop is a supercomputer by yesterday's standards, which can dance circles around the giant computers of living memory. Through small incremental steps in both hardware and software, computing technology has advanced beyond the dreams of only a few generations ago (if you doubt this, watch an old rerun of Star Trek and wonder at the huge banks of on-board computers). Of course, the mutations and adaptations witnessed by the computing industry were actually designed by intelligent beings who had specific goals in mind. Biological adaptations, by contrast, were driven by the blind and often cruel hand of natural selection. Evolution has only one goal: successful replication.

In humans, the trajectory that took us from bacteria to fish to reptiles to mammals including primates has left an indelible mark. An interesting and fun read on our unique evolutionary pathway is Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin. Shubin suggests that when we take a look at how our bodies are put together, an intelligent designer becomes ever more implausible -- there are too many flaws, too many 'patches' that don't quite work right, but good enough to squeak by. The mind is no different: we are a product of millions of tiny adaptations -- and with no one in charge to make certain they all run smoothly and correctly in conjunction -- we end up with all sorts of psychological hiccups. Religion is one of them.

Tool Making: Goals and Process

Early in our hominid past, Homo hablis -- 'handy man' -- developed the ability to make tools. Such a skill required them to plan ahead, to learn from mistakes, as well as to learn from other individuals, perhaps in 'master-apprentice' relationships. Psychologically this might have been the seed from which grew our need to see purpose in not only man-made things but all things -- tools and weapons were made for a purpose, so why not stars and rivers too? Those hominids who became slightly more proficient at tool-making, planning and orienting toward goals would have been more successful, left more descendants -- and those successful individuals became our ancestors. Through tiny mutations, both physical and psychological, our ancestors became more adept at these skills. Adaptations necessary for advanced tool-making and use would have driven the psychological need to see purpose. Picking up a piece of flint, your ancestor would have needed the skill to determine if it possessed the qualities necessary to produce a cutting tool or spear head -- and that skill is the direct result of a purpose driven mind. We will get back to the critical importance of purpose in a moment.

Theory of Mind

The ability to build tools in order to achieve an end goal is only one adaptation that might have predisposed us to cultural and religious beliefs. After all, chimps are capable of making-tools, learning from other chimps, and employ goal-directed behavior. A significant adaptation that guided the course of human evolution has been our capacity to view the world through the eyes of another -- known as 'theory of mind'. This ability, which allows us to attribute mental states such as beliefs and desires to others, and intentions that differ from our own [*2], is so complex, it does not fully develop in children until around the age of four [*3]. While some scientists argue that our closest cousins, the chimpanzees, possess some abilities to perceive the intentions of others -- it is humans who have honed this ability to a fine art.

What does this have to do with religion? As our ancestors developed a sensitivity to the thoughts of others as an aid to second-guessing their outward and visible behavior, they would have started to see an intelligent creative force wherever they looked. An individual watching another chip away at a flint would attribute to him a purpose, similar to his own when he created a tool. So too would he assume that lightning, rain, the sun, the stars, the moon must have had some sort of purposeful creative force behind them. Here lie the very deepest roots of our religious beliefs.

Kinship

One of the most important contributions to evolutionary science was kin selection as proposed by William D. Hamilton [*4]. His theory, which was steeped in complex mathematical equations, was brought to life in Richard Dawkins' ground-breaking book The Selfish Gene. Hamilton proposed that, while passing on our genes directly to our offspring is one way of ensuring our reproductive success, helping those individuals who are closely related to us, even at our own expense, could also ensure the survival of our genes -- more specifically the genes for helping. Any social species where relatives are likely to live in the same troop, band, or flock, would have evolved adaptations to recognize kin, assess their relatedness, and assist those who were most related. This is probably why you are more likely to donate a kidney to your sister than to your third cousin.

While all animals that live in social groups may have varying strategies to recognize and reward kinship, humans are unique in that language has allowed the development of fictive kin. Shepherds have long manipulated the concept of fictive kin within their flocks. When spring arrives and lambing begins, both ewes and lambs die. If the ewe dies, the orphaned lamb will die too unless a ewe is found who will suckle her. However, it is not in the best interest of the ewe to suckle an unrelated lamb, so shepherds have learned that by skinning the ewe's dead offspring and placing it on the orphaned lamb the ewe could be fooled into thinking that the lamb was hers. In other words, she was manipulated into accepting fictive kin.

Kinship recognition in humans comes about in two ways. The primary method is extremely archaic. We simply recognize those individuals who eat with us, share the same sleeping quarters, and provide us with food and comfort as our kin. However, with the advent of language, definitions of kinship became more complex. All cultures throughout the world name and track kinship. As our ancestors formed larger and larger groups, keeping track of kin through verbal definitions of kinship became more and more important (this helps to explain ancestor worship). But this also opened the door to creating fictive kin -- that is, giving kin names to individuals who were not closely related. This would have been extremely useful for group cohesion, especially in times of war [*5].

With the onset of agriculture, land ownership, and accumulated wealth, our ancestors began to aggregate in large, permanent settlements. The birth of villages, towns and cities, brought together masses of unrelated individuals. As these settlements grew and expanded, tribal wars over territory would have been inevitable. In a small group where everyone was closely related, sacrificing one's life in defense of close kin would have benefitted one's own genes. However, in large groups where most people were not close kin, how could leaders convince warriors to die for people who were unrelated? Language acts like the lamb's skin and tricks our minds into attributing kinship where none exists by using kin terms such as 'brother', 'father', 'sister', and 'mother'[*6]. In order to keep a small nation together, fictive kin would have been essential. It is not without reason that even today the military strives to create a sense of 'brotherhood' among soldiers. While language would have provided the platform on which to construct fictive kin, it would have been ritualized ceremonies that solidified it. Next time you attend a baptism, note the ritualization of a child being accepted into 'God's family'.

The Conflict Between Archaic Minds and Reason

Very late in our journey to modern humans, we evolved the ability to think abstractly. We could not write this article without the ability to abstract and reason, and you could not comprehend it without these abilities either. To think in such a fashion is apparently unique to humans, and even then not everyone is able. Pre-adolescent children simply do not have the brain configuration to do so. The brain configuration of a pre-adolescent child is far different from the one she will possess as an adult. It takes about 12 years or so for the frontal lobes to develop fully after reaching puberty [*7]. Our frontal lobes are key to social behavior, abstract thinking, planning and solving complex problems. Humans have evolved the most elaborate set of frontal lobes on the planet -- it is our evolutionary niche.

But highly developed frontal lobes came late into the game, and they have to compete with the archaic brain that was the engine behind our evolutionary success. Just as Shubin argues that our bodies are more like bits and bobs from a rummage sale that have been shoe-horned together and sort of work...the brain too is made up of parts that are often in conflict because they have different jobs and priorities.

Let's call our frontal lobes the 'smart-self' and the more archaic part of our brain the 'primal-self'. Our smart-selves know that over-eating and under-exercising is bad for us, leading to heart disease, diabetes, and a shorter life-span. But our primal-selves are still primed for the risk of starvation, thus it simply cannot understand why the smart-self would deny you a nice Big Mac with a large order of fries and a chocolate shake. It throws fits as you drive by those Golden Arches, and causes your brain to send messages that scream 'STOP or we could die!’. The smart-brain is just not designed to prevent the primal brain from taking over because the abundance of food most of us are surrounded by is a fairly new development in human history. Perhaps given another few thousand years, those individuals with the will-power to resist all that tasty fat, protein, sugar and salt will out-reproduce those that don't.

The point is, that there is an instant conflict between what we know is good for us and what we feel we want -- and we often fall victim to our more primal needs even when we know they are harmful.

Religion As The Ultimate Big Mac

Religion's success is undeniable. It is in every culture, and in every corner of the world. We spend billions and billions of dollars on building monuments to it, supporting it, and of course proselytizing on behalf of our own favored brand of it. Individuals give up sex and eschew family and friends for religion. Beyond that, we sacrifice time and effort to its rituals, and indoctrinate our children and grandchildren to do the same. We are even willing to kill for it.

Modern science, particularly modern biology, has given us the freedom to shuck off the idea that our existence and the existence of the universe requires an intelligent being. In fact, as Richard Dawkins pointed out in The God Delusion, invoking an intelligent being doesn't explain anything -- it just pushes the question back to 'Who designed the designer?' Despite the illogic of believing that some great being in the heavens, capable of creating not only the laws of physics, the principles of evolution, and the vastness of time also cares a great deal about whether or not you use your left hand to clean up after defecating, eat a cracker while sinless, or not mix cheese with chicken, we still seem to sup it up like mother's milk.

The reason religion is so successful is that it taps into our primal-brains in much the same way that a Big Mac does -- only more so. Religion gained its foothold by hijacking the need to give purpose at a time when humans had only their imagination -- as opposed to the evidence and reason that we have today -- to fathom their world. Spirits and demons were the explanation for illnesses that we now know are caused by bacterial diseases and genetic disorders. The whims of the gods were why earthquakes, volcanos, floods and droughts occurred. Our ancestors were driven to sacrifice everything from goats to one another to satisfy those gods.

Along with the need to attribute purpose, our faculty to intuit the intent of others spills over into a predilection for determining the intentions of gods and goddesses (or spirits, demons, and angels). Of course the major problem has been that we can never quite agree among ourselves about god's intentions, which often ends in unfortunate violent discussions. Our evolved proclivity for aggression feeds into that as well. We justify our prejudices, hatred, murders, and war by attributing our own biases to a god. As long as we kill in god's name, we are doing good.

Our primal-brains that keep track of kin can be easily hijacked through language and rituals, which is why religion uses terms such as 'god the father', 'Mary the mother of heaven', 'brother', and 'sister'. Rituals reinforce fictitious kin through feasts, worship, and ceremonies such as marriages and funerals. Despite our smart-brains being able to recognize the difference between real kin and not, those ties created within religious organizations bind tightly. Leaving the faith one was born into would certainly have led our ancestors to being shunned if not worse. In Islam, the punishment for apostasy is death. And in Western cultures, it is not uncommon to hear of individuals whose families and friends have turned their backs because they have disavowed their religious beliefs.

The fear of losing family and friends is a powerful force for keeping people in tow. It is far easier to ignore the evidence that there is no god than to give up the love and friendship of a community. Our survival depends much more on being part of a community, even in today's modern world, than on abandoning religion. Psychological studies strongly suggest that our social network, that is family and friends, are essential to personal happiness. For our ancestors it was more than that, it was necessary for our very survival itself. Exclusion would have meant death, and our primal-brains have not forgotten. We did not evolve to be solitary creatures, nor to be independent of social support. Religion has, for better or worse, always offered a ready social network, an entire (fictive) extended family. Our primal brains are designed to not only strive to maintain close family and social relationships, but when coupled with the attribution of our own primal fears to the mind of god along with our tendency for aggression, we are more than willing to commit the most heinous acts to protect our fictive kin and beliefs.

Of course there are other factors that contribute to this tangled web, such as the desire for power, land, wealth, and, where men are concerned, access to females for reproduction. All of these extant drives ingrained in the human psyche have also been justified through religion. No matter how terrible the deed, by attributing to god our own fears and hatreds -- anything could be justified. Religion and gods were extremely useful to the ruthless and power-hungry.

The Battle For Reason

Our archaic brains, which served us so well during our evolutionary past, now threaten our very existence. While our smart-brains have given us modern technology and science and the privilege of understanding not only ourselves but our universe, our primal brains are stuck in the stone-age. Reason must always fight our tendencies to give way to superstitions and fears. This is especially true when we have the capability to destroy not only ourselves, but our planet.

Much of the world's population still believe in a god forged out of the fears of a desert people and, worse, fully believe not only that their view of god and his wishes are right, but that those who disagree must be converted or face eternal torment (sometimes even offering some help to get there). The primal fears instilled by religious fever act as impenetrable walls to reason. According to a recent Gallup poll, 66% of the US population agrees strongly with the statement 'God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years'. Given the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence to the contrary, such obstinate belief should frighten any reasonable thinking person. It also is testimony to the wealthy and powerful religious organizations who spend billions of dollars on public relations, creating controversies where none exist and spewing lies about the evidence for evolution [*8]. But none of this would be possible without our brains being ready and available to take in the message they are delivering. It is easy enough for atheists and humanists to chuckle at the credulity of believers, but we do so at our own peril.

Religion needs to be taken seriously. Understanding its roots, how it can seize command of our psychology and take control of our culture, may well be one of the most important endeavors we pursue. For even with all our grand technology, modern medical advances, and volumes of knowledge, if we do not stop our archaic past from overriding our modern reason we are surely doomed.


For further information on this on this topic:

We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers (parts 1-3) -- J. Anderson Thomson

Why They Kill -- J. Anderson Thomson

Why We Believe In Gods -- J. Anderson Thomson

Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer

Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind by Gary Marcus

Please visit RichardDawkins.net for more discussions, articles, and videos concerning religion in the modern world.


Notes:

*1. For more on this matter read Richard Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable.

*2. Premack, D. G & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 515-526.

*3. Lewis C & Osborne A. (1990). Three-year-olds' problems with false belief: conceptual deficit or linguistic artifact? Child Development 61(5):1514-9.

*4. Hamilton, W.D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour I and II -- Journal of Theoretical Biology 7: 1-16 and 17-52.

*5. Thomson, J.A. (2007). We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers -- AAI 2007 conference in Washington, D.C.

*6. For example, in English the word 'King' is thought to be derived from the Old English word cynn, which means family or race.

*7. For more on this matter read Barbara Strauch's The Primal Teen: What the New Discoveries about the Teenage Brain Tell Us about Our Kids.

*8. Forrest, B & Gross, P (2004). Creationism's Trojan Horse: The wedge of intelligent design.


R. Elisabeth Cornwell is an Assistant Professor of Research at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. Her research includes work in the area of hormones, pheromones, and sexual selection in humans. Her most recent paper can be found in Animal Behavior, regarding evidence in support of various theories of mate selection in humans. Most recently her work has involved differences between theist and atheists on a variety of psychological profiles.

J. Anderson (Andy) Thomson received his B.A. from Duke University and his M.D. from the University of Virginia. His academic publications address PTSD, suicide terrorism, narcissistic personality disorder, religious identity, religious belief, and evolutionary theories of depression. He has done international conflict resolution work in Latvia, Estonia, Turkey, the Republic of Georgia, South Ossetia, and Kuwait. Currently he is a staff psychiatrist at the University of Virginia Counseling and Psychological Services, and at the University's Institute of Law, Psychiatry, and Public Policy. He maintains a private practice in adult general psychiatry and forensic psychiatry, and is a trustee with the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.

SuicideGirls would like to thank Richard Dawkins for facilitating this article.

Too embarrassed to talk to your friends about your furry fetish? Not sure when to tell your partner about those, um, nasty genital warts? Are your friends sick and tired of you running to them every time that frenemy of yours pisses you off? Not sure how to get your foot in the door of that fab new career... more

Too embarrassed to talk to your friends about your furry fetish? Not sure when to tell your partner about those, um, nasty genital warts? Are your friends sick and tired of you running to them every time that frenemy of yours pisses you off? Not sure how to get your foot in the door of that fab new career you want? I got you covered. Miss Truth Hurts is here to answer all of your love, life, sex, career, and relationship questions. Ask anything. I've been there/done that (except for the warts) and I've dished out advice to readers just like you through the pages of my advice book/lifestyle guide, Cherry Bomb: The Ultimate Guide to Becoming a Better Flirt, a Tougher Chick, and a Hotter Girlfriend, and to Living Life Like a Rock Star.

Send your questions, dilemmas, and conundrums to misstruthhurts@suicidegirls.com. Alternatively, SG members can send a message via the site to MissTruthHurts.



Q: My boyfriend cheated on me three times, but I love him and he's a better boyfriend after each time he cheats. His apologies always get me, but then he does it again. We live together and he seems to really need and love me. But, how do I get him not to cheat?

-Cheated on in California


A: Are you serious? Three times? Dump the dude! And get some therapy. Code word: Co-Dependency!



Q: Aside from ad spaces on blogs and using my non-existent contacts in the literary industry, how can I get a gig doing freelance non-fiction essays for publications like The New Yorker or even get a column like you?

-Troubled in Tampa


A: Buy this book: 2009 Writer's Market This was my Bible when I started out. It lists every publication and gives explicit instructions on how to approach them for work. Follow what they say to the T. The book also has examples of query letters and other useful information on breaking into magazines, newspapers, and books. It's mostly for writers, but photographers can use it for the contact info as well. Other than that, I say, write every day like Hunter S. Thompson did. You need to hone your craft and get published a LOT before you will ever be considered for a column. You should offer up your stuff for free at the beginning just to get a collection of clips for your portfolio. Once you get good clips, then start to sell your work. It's exactly what I did.



Q: I'm interested in being a freelance photo journalist so any advice or help you can offer would be greatly appreciated!

-Occupationally Challenged in the O.C.


A: The answer for Troubled in Tampa works for you too. But you should also shoot as much as you can and submit your stuff per the Writer's Market guidelines. If it's bands you want to shoot, you can start with small, local bands that will let you shoot and possibly even want to use your images for their websites and/or press kits.



Q: Is it true that you can have an orgasm without even touching? If so, how do it you do it?

-Curious in Colorado


A: I'm going to let one of my favorite sexperts answer this one for you. In my book, contributor Dr. Ava Cadell refers to it as the “Mind Over Body Orgasm” and apparently it works for some women. She writes: "Since the brain is the most erotic organ in the body, it should be no surprise that you can think your way to orgasm. Sexual thoughts can activate the brain just like sexual touching does. If you've ever enjoyed looking at porn, you'll know what I'm talking about. Visuals of people having sex can automatically trigger your body into a state of arousal, making women wet and giving men erections. If you continued to watch erotica without touching yourself, you could still experience a full-blown orgasm. Even if you're not into porn, you can achieve a mind over body orgasm by tapping into all of your five senses. To begin, wet your genitals with your own saliva or some lubricant, and then using only your imagination; think about what your lover's tongue would feel like between your legs. What he or she smells like when fully aroused, visualize what they look like naked, imagine touching, kissing, licking and tasting his or her body. Hear them moaning with pleasure. Become aware of your own feelings as you let your excitement build. The trick here is not to touch yourself, but to let the ebb and flow of your orgasm take you on a mental journey to sexual ecstasy. This can also be fun to do with a partner as a safe sex activity."




Carrie Borzillo-Vrenna is Suicide Girls' sex, love, and life advice columnist. She is an entertainment journalist, rock wife, and author of Cherry Bomb: The Ultimate Guide to Becoming a Better Flirt, a Tougher Chick, and a Hotter Girlfriend, and to Living Life Like a Rock Star and Eyewitness Nirvana: The Day-by-Day Chronicle.

www.myspace.com/carrieborzillovrenna
www.carriebv.com