To all douche bags: Douche-hawks, long sideburns, dress shirts (especially pink ones with white ties) tucked into jeans, rolled up sleeves, huge white belts, huge douchy belt buckles, white shoes to match your white douchy belt–These are things that were only in style for the douche bag. What I didn’t realize until today was that douches are still wearing these things! I couldn’t believe it. I saw a douche bag sporting not one, not two, but ALL of these things in tandem today. I thought that they had realized by now how truly ridiculous they look.

While sporting one of these things doesn’t automatically make you a douche (but does call into question your level of non-douchiness), using any combination of at least two of these things labels you a douche bag. Automatically. Only a person in a douchy state of mind could even fathom using two of these douchy things at once.

Douche bags, I beg of you. Stop wearing these things! It’s just to easy to make fun of you.

I found this little gem in the 2009 – 2010 BYU-Idaho catalog. President Kim B. Clark states:

It is true that flip-flops and an unshaven face are not big things. But it is just like the stories of pride and greed in the Book of Mormon; failure to do the small things can, in a short period of time, lead to failure on the big things. The principle is so very clear; obedience to the small things creates a spirit of obedience in all things, and thus protects against evil and invites the blessings of heaven. Following the rules about the small things establishes a great spirit of obedience on the campus. It creates a context of respect for learning and for the university that encourages a spirit of order and reverence. In that context of obedience and reverence and order, the Holy Ghost can minister on this campus. These blessings come to you individually and to us as a community.

How does not wearing sandals protect me and you from evil? Jesus wore sandals! Jesus had a beard! He probably still does! At least that’s what all the paintings and movies the Church puts out and promotes would have you believe. The only reason we Mormons keep our faces shaved and our hair neat is to avoid a stereotype that the Church is scared to death of: Bearded polygamist. Does anybody still associate beards with polygamy?

The link really should say, “It’s warming up. You know you’re going to be miserable in this damning, desolate heat, right? We have this butt-sex retarded thing called ‘The Honor Code’ that has all these nit-picky requirements for your dress and grooming or else you are not allowed on campus. The reason we do this is so that you learn obedience in the small things. Because in the Book of Mormon it was the small things that eventually led to apostasy. What we’re saying is that if you wear shorts, you just bought yourself a one-way ticket on the train to becoming a godless, spiritless, Christ-denying, homosexual, baby-killing heathen. We would prefer that you suffer in the heat than have you go through that.” … That’s what the link should say.

With that last statement many would argue that I am insinuating quite a bit. I am. But, isn’t saying that we will become disobedient to the gospel if we wear sandals–what President Clark said–insinuating so much more? Why does the University create its own “little things” for us to be obedient to just for the sake of being obedient to them, when there are plenty of real “little things” we should be more preoccupied with?

I can understand putting boundaries on some things. After all, shorts shouldn’t be too short. The Lord himself is plenty clear on many of these things. We shouldn’t be promiscuous or sexually suggestive. Nobody at this University is going to argue with that. But, there is quite a difference between capris and something a prostitute wears in the summer. There’s quite a difference between exposing your toes, and exposing your breasts. There’s a difference between showing you the hair on my face, and showing you the hair on other parts of my body. However, Brigham Young University-Idaho seems to think that there is no difference.

I hate complaining about this, because so many people already do. But it just gets under my skin sometimes.

Sometimes I think about all the great music artists that have passed away (sometimes horrifically). Then I ask myself “Why? Oh why cannot this world be rid of Fred Durst?” His death alone would bring balance to the universe, justifying the death of truly great musicians that have gone before their time. He is the essence, definition, and epitome of the word “douchebag.” Nobody fits that word better than him. His lyrics are terrible. His rapping is a joke (literally the worst rapper on the planet). His singing makes my body contort like when I hear a fork scraping a plate. There is no justice in this world.

It’s just… awful.

I can.

As I sci-fi film-nerdtastic movie-buff, I am calling B.S. How could The Hurt Locker win out over Avatar? I can see the argument for giving Kathryn Bigelow the nod for Best Director. She took a controversial subject and showed it like it is, and left us without a left or right argument (not to mention that the AMPAS can now say that they’re no longer sexist). That being said how is The Hurt Locker more groundbreaking than Avatar? James Cameron spent years making it; new technologies had to be invented before he could even begin putting his image together, a new language was created to add to the effect, and the actors brought their digital images to life. While the story might be a rehashed version of Pocahontas (which everyone loves anyways), it kept me interested.

Maybe The Hurt Locker moved you more than Avatar did. But it didn’t play with your imagination. Maybe The Hurt Locker had more realistic characters. Well, duh. It’s not a sci-fi movie, stupid. Avatar’s characters aren’t supposed to be realistic. Maybe The Hurt Locker received so much love because it’s not a nerdy sci-fi flick. Maybe people who don’t like sci-fi don’t like to use their imaginations.

Avatar has changed the way movies will be made from now on. The Hurt Locker has not. On that basis alone it should win out over any competition in any “best film” contest. Aren’t the Academy Awards awarded by The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences? Science—as in the creation of new, intriguing, and innovative ways and technologies to make a motion picture. Why did the AMPAS go against what they are supposedly existing to honor?

Please don’t get me wrong people. The Hurt Locker is an awesome movie in every sense of the word. Avatar isn’t even in my personal top 10 favorite movies. But, let’s give credit where credit is due.

Enter Cloudkicker. From what I gather on the internet, Cloudkicker is a one-man instrumental project by a guy named Ben Sharp of Columbus, OH. Cloudkicker is rhythmic, syncopated, and heavy. What separates Cloudkicker from the rest of the rhythmic and syncopated is that there is a heavy atmospheric element in the music with a dystopian/utopian melodic element.  How does this guy think of these melodies that sound so melancholic and rife with human misery, yet uplift and inspire? The music is genius, beautiful, and original.

I just discovered Cloudkicker after the release of ]]][[[. It is the 3^rd EP and fourth release of the project. What’s the second best part of all this (the first part being the incredible music, obviously)? All the releases are completely free—from the debut full length The Discovery to the newest release.

Click here to go to Cloudkicker’s release page.

Click is one of the worst movies ever. Here is an outline of why:

Its advertising campaign was terrible. I remember the few weeks before it came out.

1. You know how in Regal Cinemas they have that thing before the movie plays called “The Twenty?” Well, during that it would show you a Behind the Scenes look at Click. Then you know how after that they would always have advertisements before they showed the new movie trailers? Well, during those there was an advertisement for Click. Then when the trailers finally came on, there was a trailer for Click.
2. As if that weren’t annoying enough—all of these things showed all of the funny parts in the movie. So afterwards, when you go see the movie, you’re left with just the sad parts of the movie. The funny parts weren’t funny anymore because you’d seen them so many times already. So you walk out of the theater depressed.
3. We realize why Adam Sandler isn’t funny.
   1. Adam Sandler’s comedic style wasn’t able to shine a whole lot in this movie.
   2. And in the few moments that it could, you said to yourself, “Wait a minute! He’s really not that funny actually.”

See pie chart of Click:

I like bulleted lists because they get right to the point:

Things that make a movie terrible

• Horrible plot
• Awful acting
• Corny dialog
• Boring music
• Reliance on special effects instead of cinematography
• Stereotypical black people

G.I. Joe and Transformers

• Horrible plot
• Awful acting
• Corny dialog
• Boring music
• Reliance on special effects instead of cinematography
• Stereotypical black people

I shall now switch to essay form for one of the biggest travesties in recent memory:

The Day the Earth Stood Still has only one redeeming quality in the fact that they made one correct casting choice. Nobody is better to play a dry, boring, personality-dead alien than Keanu Reeves. This movie sucks hard because it’s the same message we’ve been hearing over and over again for the past ten years in a plethora of disaster-themed movies–Save the planet and humans are a disease. I’m sick of crap like that.

The special effects, most of the time, weren’t that special. Outside of the helicopters being destroyed, the effects were things we have seen on episodes of the original Star Trek television series (yeah, the old one). Wow, another sports stadium being destroyed. Whoopty do. And the giant robot? Talk about underwhelming. This message has been heard repeatedly and these things were seen recently. Did anybody else think The Day After Tomorrow was good? Yeah, me neither.

The dialogue was lame. “But we can change!” “Uhhhh. I’m sorry. Uhhhh. But the decision… is out of my hands.” PuhLEASE.

Will Smith’s kid is annoying. Not only is his character annoying, but so is his acting. You can tell that this kid thinks he’s hot stuff because he’s Will Smith’s son. Now people are going to say “But he did such a good job crying with Jen!” You know what? Maybe he did. But a 30 second scene doesn’t redeem an entire movie’s worth of whiny acting.

As a sci-fi nerd, I was offended, disappointed and underwhelmed by this remake of a sci-fi classic. Absolutely terrible.

My roommate Rod–one of the most talented and original artists I have ever met in my life–had an incredible painting he had done disqualified from an art competition because it was “too suggestive.” The painting was of a young woman in a sleeveless (not even a cut-off) blouse with a look of contemplation on her face. “Her shoulder is showing” was the excuse for its disqualification.

Things like this upset me. A girl’s shoulder is showing and it’s suggestive? I mean, the school is practically saying “she has a ‘I want to f*** the s*** out of you’ look on her face.” Bravo BYU – Idaho. Then why am I being taught about a painting called The Rape of the Daughters of Leucippus in my Humanities class?

Brigham Young University – Idaho is not a place of learning. It is a hypocritical institution. It hides behind political correctness when even one person finds himself even slightly offended.

I can’t believe this place calls itself “the Lord’s University.” The Lord is not a hypocrite. The Lord doesn’t hide behind some abstract set of rules written on a piece of paper. The Lord judges on a case by case basis. Come here if you want to be sheltered. Come here if you want an institution to hide you under a rock and ill-prepare you for what you will really be dealing with when you enter the work force. This is my last semester here, and I rejoice because of it.

Today I was asked, “So what did you do over the weekend?” To which I answered, “I saw a movie.” This seemed to intrigue the person because they further inquired, “What movie did you see?” Without a second thought I responded, “Law Abiding Citizen.” The next thing I heard was a voice filled with shock and awe from someone that wasn’t even invited into the conversation. Said the voice, “not to be judgmental, but isn’t that rated-R?”

Let me translate that last sentence for you. “Hi, let me give you my opinion on how bad of a Latter-day Saint I think you are because you saw an R-rated film. I am clearly judging you and your obvious lack of morals by the tone of my voice because I am a hypocritical and judgmental douche-bucket.”

So, the cat is out of the bag. I, Daniel Kenneth Toy, watch R-rated movies. I have seen some great ones in my time. Come to think of it, I’m sure that the majority of my top ten favorite movies are rated-R. But I’m not writing this to tell you about my favorite movies, why they are rated-R, or why you should see them. I write this epistle and I would like to figuratively nail it on the front doors of all who share the opinion expressed above.

I shall preface my arguments by sympathizing with my detractors. I admire you. You don’t watch R-rated films. You have made a choice, you stand by that choice, and you live by it. I whole-heartedly commend you for that.

However, your choice has no bearing or effect on me. It has no bearing or effect on anyone but yourself. Watching rated-R movies is not a sin. It never has been, and it never will be. The Motion Picture Association of America does not represent the moral code of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They don’t rate movies thinking about Mormons or what would be appropriate for them. What they say about a movie should not reflect what you think is appropriate content in a movie. What is appropriate for you is not what is appropriate for your neighbor or for me. So, do not judge somebody because they watch rated-R movies.

What would happen if the MPAA didn’t exist? How would we determine what movies are appropriate? We would have to just not watch movies to play it safe! Let me enlighten you. We should pretend the MPAA doesn’t exist and make our own judgments on what is appropriate based on our own personal revelation that is appropriate only for us personally. Why? Because the MPAA is fundamentally flawed. When you let the MPAA make your decision for you, you are basically saying, “I choose to put my God-given agency in the hands of a worldly organization that contains fallible people and is not endorsed by the Church. I will not make a decision on a case to case basis, but will make a blanket-defense to protect myself.” That’s perfectly fine with me if you say and do that. If that is how you want to protect yourself from seeing and/or hearing something that is potentially offensive to you, that is fine with me. But in terms of movies, I choose to make my own decisions. I will not let the MPAA make them for me. Do not judge me for being an agent unto myself.

On my mission I never taught anyone that they shouldn’t watch rated-R movies. Nor was it required that I do so. It wasn’t even suggested in our teaching manual. It was not a requirement that they stop watching rated-R movies before their baptisms. It was not in the baptismal interview questions. If I had told somebody that watching rated-R movies was bad, they would have asked, “What does rated-R mean?” Newsflash: ‘R’ ratings only exist in the United States—nowhere else. Just like in Chile where I served my mission, many countries don’t have movie-rating systems. This is another reason that saying R-rated movies are against some mystery commandment is flawed, because it would only apply to people who live in the United States. When I have a temple recommend interview, I am not asked if I watch rated-R movies. Nor would my eligibility to enter the temple come into question if I was to say that I did.

It seems to be OK to watch PG-13 movies regardless of their content, but completely unthinkable and blasphemous to watch rated-R movies. This is logically flawed and I will use a tired and old example to illustrate my point. Titanic rated PG-13, vs. Schindler’s List rated-R. Which one are you going to pick to see? One is based loosely on historical events. The other is based on actual history. They both contain nudity, and they both contain graphic scenes of violence and death. The majority of Mormons would obviously pick Titanic just because it’s rated PG-13.

If you pick Titanic you are a terrible person. And yes I AM judging you. Titanic shows full frontal nudity, in addition to many nude illustrations of women. People invoke the name of art to justify it. What’s artistic about showing a bunch of sleazy drawings of women the main character has slept with (which is implied unequivocally in the movie)? Using that logic, we can justify pornography as art. And that is something that the church does have a clear stance on, and does not approve of.

If you pick Schindler’s List, you probably have more moral fiber than the person who picked Titanic. Schindler’s List is gritty, graphic, and violent. The difference is the context. Schindler’s List portrays an accurate depiction of the plight of Jews in concentration camps during World War II Nazi terror. It is a lesson in history. It is a story about the courage and heart of Oscar Schindler. And it is all true.

What kind of message are parents sending to their children when they say that PG-13 movies are fine and rated-R movies are of the devil? In the above example, they are sending the message that fornication is acceptable, but learning about history and standing up for what you know to be right is unacceptable. Disregarding the above example, when the PG-13 > R standard is enforced, they are sending the message that they won’t be able to use their own agency in the future, but they will have to rely on what certain groups and organizations that contain fallible, anonymous people from California say is acceptable.

The point that I am trying to get across is that today we cannot use PG-13 as a safe-blanket. And all R’s aren’t necessarily off limits.

Law Abiding Citizen was a very violent revenge story. I’m not going to lie—I liked it. And you know what? It probably was not the most appropriate movie to see. But the R-rating is not what should have told me that.

For the Strength of Youth says that we are to watch uplifting media. It says nothing about an ‘R’ rating. Maybe, just maybe it is because the hierarchy of the church has stepped away from the tired and dogmatic approach that it took in the 1980s. It realizes that plenty of R-rated movies can be and are uplifting. Schindler’s List is rated-R. American History-X is rated-R. Crash is rated-R. Saving Private Ryan is rated-R. The Pianist is rated-R. Mystic River is rated-R. Munich is rated-R. Rain Man is rated-R. These are some of the best movies I have ever seen. They all showed me something about the human condition. Some gave me hope. Some gave me understanding. All of them taught me and enlightened me in many different contexts that I probably wouldn’t have discovered otherwise. And they are all rated-R! Those are just movies that I can think of off of the top of my head. I’m sure that if I thought about it for a while I could think of plenty of movies of all different ratings that are uplifting. An MPAA rating should not be the base of our decisions. And if you want to tell me that I shouldn’t have learned those lessons in those ways, I will politely demand that you not dictate my morality because that is nobody’s place but mine and the Lord’s.

It amazes me how many people think that things are set in stone in the Lord’s Church. That is not the case! We are given tons of head-and-leg room to think for ourselves and decide for ourselves. I am trying to illustrate that point in these comments. We cannot be Mosaic and follow the letter of the law. Nor can we be Lutheran and rebel against the entire system. We have to find a middle ground between the two. If we are thinking for ourselves and seeking the spirit’s presence, then we are not being blindly obedient and our actions won’t be subject to our skewed and biased ideas of what is moral and what is not.

Again, I will stress, if you do not want to watch rated-R movies—that is your prerogative. And I encourage you to stick by it if that is the choice you have made. But do not pass judgment on others because they do. You have absolutely no right, and there is absolutely no base, doctrinal or otherwise, for doing it.

That being said, our political biases are clouding are judgment just a bit here. I’m willing to bet that all of you who posted “i cant beleeve obama bin laden got the noble peece prayz grrrzz” as their Facebook Status Update couldn’t name a single person that was more deserving of the prize without going to google, because said person would have obviously been mentioned in your status update.

If my Humanities 202 teacher, Brother Rick Davis—the most conservative Obama basher I have ever met anywhere—can admit that Obama has done some things to deserve the prize, so can we. We all know that President Obama had ten days after his inauguration to qualify for the Prize, right? Wrong. People seem to have the idea that Obama’s qualification period was from January 20^th 2009 until February 1^st 2009. You are sadly ignorant if you think that is the case. He had his entire life until February 1^st 2009 to qualify for the Prize. Barack Obama has actively sought for nuclear arms reduction for a long time (the reason stated for him winning the prize). He has apologized for the mistakes the United States has made in the Middle East, and has actively sought peaceful means to correct those mistakes all before becoming President. He has spoken publicly and fought against racial issues his entire life. People really need to read up on President Obama, and stop being so quick to judge him. And I know that everyone can think of stuff that he has done after February 1^st 2009 regardless of their political bias. Have we gone to war with Iran yet? There is more reason (and physical evidence) for declaring war on Iran right now than there ever was for going to war with Iraq.

Stop being breast fed from the political nipple of Sean Hannity. Quit licking dry Glenn Beck’s hypocritical tears.

How many times have I seen the SNL skit of Obama talking about the Olympics posted on Facebook today alone? At least three times. Yeah, it’s funny and I laugh with you while watching it. But we’re not laughing at the same thing. That’s not why people are posting it. Why were people so happy when Chicago lost the Olympic bid? You’re happy that the U.S. lost out on tens of billions of dollars of tourist revenue? Wow, you guys must really love our country, which could have used that revenue to help pay off trillions of dollars of foreign debt that it owes. You were happy because it was a political defeat for Obama. Why were you happy because of his political defeat? Because he’s a Democrat. Why is that bad? Because he’s not a Republican. Anybody who has even a remote grasp of basic logic that is taught in a university knows that such logic is extremely flawed. I don’t care that you don’t like Obama. I really don’t. I don’t even 100% agree with him on any given topic. But, please, for the sake of not looking like an ignorant hypocrite, forget your political party biases, don’t listen to your friends, and read up on a subject before you post your opinion so openly on Facebook.

Now I’ll be labeled a liberal. Ten years ago I would have been considered a moderate.

I looked at that picture. I looked at the title. I said, “I must have.” The album artwork for Insomnium’s Across the Dark probably corresponds with the music that goes with it better than any other album this year. The picture says bleak, gloomy, despair, and lost. While at the same time saying perseverance, hope, and defiance. Those are all the feelings I felt while spinning this disc.

It is one of my favorite releases of the year. The atmosphere this disc creates while spinning is so thick and tangible you can cut it with a knife. Their guitar work isn’t anything fancy or complicated, quite the opposite actually. Their ideas aren’t terribly original. Some of the songs are on the verge of becoming metalcore (not that I don’t like that genre or anything), which is heavily influenced by melodeath anyways. But I think Insomnium is one of the best bands in terms of creating atmospheric, melancholic, and melodic albums. Their vocalist is awesome, and their lyrics are great. They are one of the last shining stars in the sky of melodic death metal. A genre that is sadly dying, if not already dead.

The album, while awesome, is very inconsistent. Most of the tracks blew me away, but there were a couple that were only awesome. In true Insomnium style, the album starts out with a mystic and gloomy soft intro, which sets the mood (not the pace) for the rest of the album. One thing about Across the Dark that will keep your attention is that some tracks are very rhythmic, like “Against the Stream”, while others are slow and gloomy, like “Weighed Down with Sorrow.” This is the first Insomnium album to feature clean vocals on some of  the tracks, “Where the Last Wave Broke” being the most heavy-laden with such.

* * * *  1/2 out of  five stars.

Check out the video for the single “Down with the Sun.” It is probably the strongest track on the disc. I could listen to it over and over again.