Sorry, All.

Hey everyone-

I apologize for my lack of posting during the last few weeks. I'm ramping up to go back to school and things get a little hectic. But I wanted to thank all of my loyal readers and give you somethings to look forward to while I get ready to begin the new school year.

1. AWESOME NEW BLOGS- including (maybe or maybe not) how Olympic Gymnastics is sometimes rigged, God and the War in Iraq, and the Existence of Free Will. They'll all be a-coming soon.

2. AWESOME RADIO SHOW- That's right! I'll be back on air coming in the fall, spinning records and talking philosophy. If your in the new york city / long island area's you can tune in on 88.7 FM, and if not you can listen on anywhere around the world! As soon as things are solidified I will be announcing the day and time of my bi-weekly show!

3. AWESOME FILMS- My last film, "When the Tin Man Need's A Heart" is in its last finalization stages and will be premiering at the HFC film festival in the fall. I will also begin production on a new short film in the coming months, one of which I will keep you in the dark about now... but I'll tell you it's much different then all of my past one.


So see, there are things to look forward too! Keep checking back and I'll let you in on the information as it comes.

I love you all!

-Nick Danger


Was Jesus a Liberal?

You can basically boil down all people into three groups (especially when applied to politics): People who want change, People that don't, and People that don't give a damn. When applied to politics, it translates into: the people who want change = liberals, people that don't = conservatives, people that don't give a damn = Canadians.

Barrack Obama is a liberal, George Bush is not. Journalists are liberals, the corporations that publish them are not.

Jesus was a liberal, and the people who killed him were not.

Now this does not mean that I'm saying that conservatives killed Jesus. That's ridiculous. I'm just saying that if Jesus and the people at that time were tested by this theory, Jesus would be the person that wanted change, and the people that killed him didn't.

Now, would Jesus be a democrat? I don't know. But he was revolutionary for his time, preaching to the poor and sinners instead of the rich and "Pius", preaching equal rights to women, and speaking out against capital punishment ('let him with no sin cast the first stone'). 

Sounds a lot like what the democratic party stands for today, eh? 

But I really have no place to say what Jesus would do, or how he would vote, or if he would even support a party over another. But it is interesting that most Christians consider themselves conservative, when Jesus was honestly one the most liberal people to have ever graced this planet. 

And, as a Christian, if your supposed to model you life after him, wouldn't it seem like you would want it too?


A Meditation on Water

So last night I was watching some of the Beijing '08 Opening Olympic Ceremony. Some commentator was talking about Chinese Philosophy and symbolism in the performance, and quoted something along these lines:

"A good life is lead like water, constantly flowing and moving away from resistance."

I was (and am) like, "damn, that's deep" (no pun intended). But I started putting some thought into it and it seemed pretty enlightening.

Maybe going with the flow is always the best thing to do. Water never questions where it's going, but always ends up where it needs to be. As said earlier, it moves away from resistance, which doesn't seem like a bad thing at all. Who wants conflict?

But you could always argue that sometimes conflict is good and needed, and sometimes going with the flow might be the wrong thing to do. Sometimes you just have to Carpe Diem it up.

I don't know, and don't have a solid answer. I'm still living and trying to figure it out for myself.


I Won't Take Off My Glasses

This may be the funniest thing I've seen in along time. Check it out.


Why Gay Marriage is the new Civil Rights Movement

I recently got in an argument with a friend over the issue of Gay Marriage. We came to the conclusion that she believed that marriage was between man and a woman and that, "there should be another thing that [gay couples] could get that is the same thing, except not marriage." 

So I asked her, "So you're saying that there should be something else, separate, but equal?"

She said, "Yes. Exactly."

I responded, "Does that sound like anything to you?"


I don't want a gay marriage. I'm not even gay. But I don't have a problem with gay couples getting married. In fact, it doesn't really effect me that much. I can't see why it would really effect anyone, to be frank. If you don't want one, don't get one. 

I know that it says in the Bible that marriage is between a man and woman, and I get that. I'm a Christian. But I am also open minded enough to realize that not everyone else is. The separation between Church and State is what has kept our country strong, and only when this separation is crossed have we run into trouble (the past couple of years). What right do I have forcing my religious view upon marriage onto someone else who doesn't believe in God? And the even deeper question, Who says God is against Gay Marriage (I'll leave this discussion for another blog).

Either way, I don't believe that the country has a right to take away the rights and joy of marriage from gay couples just because they are gay, just like we had no right to take away the freedoms of black men and women, and just like Rosa Parks had the right the sit where she wanted on that bus.

Separate but equal doesn't work.

Aren't we all equal under the eyes of God anyway?


Do You Really Want to be an Olympian?

So here's the thing, I kind-of always wanted to be an Olympian.

It didn't even matter what sport, as long as I was there, at the highest level of competition representing my country. I'd be awesome right?

Well, not really. You kind-of give up every other facet in your entire life in order to do that. I read an article in Men's Journal a while back that talked about a man who was training to be an Olympic marathon runner. He said that he trained so much, that he lost his ability to be with other people. Like he went to a party, and he would just lean against the wall thinking about how   he could probably run faster then any of them.

And he didn't even make it.

In order to represent your country, you need to exclude yourself from it entirely.

Which to me, seems like an unfair trade off.

My great friend and mentor John was a state-level swimmer in high school who was recruited to many different division one colleges to swim. He chose not to go to any of them. When I asked him why he gave me this following  explanation.

"Alright, so you go to school to swim. They make you practice every day for hours, twice a day, and you start to lose your hold on academics and not really find out what you want to do. All you do is swim, and there is no future in swimming unless you go to the Olympics. And say you do go to the Olympics, if you try your best and get really really lucky you get on a relay spot. You might even get there and not swim. But say you do, and you swim two your part of the relay and its great. You come home, and you really have no idea what you want to do with your life and you end up working at Home Depot" (They employ more Olympians then any other company), "And I don't want to work at Home Depot for the rest of my life."

John's now owns his own web design firm and has a great life with an awesome wife and beautiful kid. But would it all be the same if he would of went for an Olympic bid?

Probably not, because the Olympics steal your life.

So, on Friday, be ready to watch a bunch of loners run-swim-throw-dance-shoot-kick-polevault better than anyone else on earth.


Let it Be & LSD

John Lennon once burst into a board meeting and told everyone, "I am Jesus Christ."

He was on LSD.

Of course they just batted him off, saying "That's great John, we've got to get back to this meeting now." Or something along those lines (I forget which book I read this in, probably John Lennon: The New York Years by photographer Bob Gruen, but I'm not sure).

What if LSD is the real perception of reality?

Supposedly The Beatles argued about this often. My friend Mandy responded when I told her this idea by saying, "That sounds like something someone on LSD would say." Which is true. But what if it wasn't? What if the only way to actually see how the world is was by doing some drug invented in a lab in the 60s? Or any drug, or ANYTHING for that matter? What if we've been living in an altered sense of reality because we haven't found the right glasses to wear to see it properly?

What if the world is a movie in 3-D and we haven't found the glasses, so all we are seeing is a blurry image? Eventually we'd just think that blurry picture was how it was supposed to be.

Now, this probably all comes back to some Descartes thought about centuries ago. Descartes asked, "How do you know your not dreaming?" and through endless babbling and questions, he decided that they only way we know that we're not dreaming is because God wouldn't do that to us. But when you asked him, "How do you know God exists?" his answer was something along the lines of "Well, according to my definition of God being all-powerful, all-knowing, etc... that must include all-existing, and therefore he exists."

You might not think that makes any sense. And that's because it doesn't. It's called the Cartesian Circle, and philosophy professors will be debating about it for the next 2459 years.

So I guess we'll never know. I mean, how could you ever tell?

Maybe this was what John Lennon was getting at.

Or maybe he was just high.


Pinkerton Review

Yes, I know Pinkerton came out in 1996, but I just bought it yesterday and I think its fucking brilliant.

It's probably Rivers' most personal album. And probably Weezer's best. It's rough, real, deep, meaningful and just all around amazing.

When it was first released, it was both a commercial and critical failure, and I can see why that would be. It's so completely different from their debut Weezer (also known as The Blue Album to fans). Its not powerpop, and its not straight forward musically. It flows.

It's also loosely based on the opera Madame Butterfly which is just freaking cool.

It's grown quite a following in the past few years, reaching gold in 2001, and coming out as a major influence on bands like Saves the Day.

The best way to explain this phenomenon, is by saying it was  ADVANCED (see Chuck Klosterman's latest book IV pg. 249-254) when it came out.

Pinkerton is not only one of Weezer's best albums,  but possibly one of the best ever written.

It might just be sneaking into my top 5.

Just go out and buy it.



The Oprah Effect (and how we are taught to think everyone is right)

Nowadays no one is ever wrong. Everyone is right. This is a horrible thing, and its all because of Oprah Winfrey and her god damn show.

Oprah Winfrey began her queenship of the television industry on September 8th, 1986, and has since had 22 seasons and over 3,000 episodes. She teaches the fact that everyone as a right to be right, and this is inherently wrong.

Now, I know what your thinking, something along the lines of your evil or more likely why is that a bad thing? And I admit, on the surface, it seems great. Everyone is right and no one is wrong. But I'll tell you why its bad, because it throws off the God-Given balance of the universe. Some people just have to be wrong.

Sure, agreeing that you are both right when arguing about your preferred style of clothing, is harmless; but what about the war in Iraq? You would probably come to the same conclusion, that you were both right in your own way.

If I saw a tree, and said "Hey, look, there is a beautiful Oak tree with many leaves." And my friend Mikey looked at me and said, "Dude, there is no tree." This would seem like I was living inside of the movie The Matrix first of all, but second of all, one of us has to be right. Either the tree is there or it is not. 

Of course you can get all philosophical and say that the existence of the tree is based on both of our personal perceptions of reality, but this is retarded. The tree either exists, or it does not.

This inability to argue with a successful outcome has made American society weak. Look at our partisan government; two groups that can never agree, and therefore never (really) try to.

I'm not saying this isn't a problem I deal with. In fact, I may be unable to say anyone is wrong. This is very prevalent for me when talking about religion, who am I to say that another face is wrong and I am right? I know your probably saying this is a good thing, which may or may not be true. I honestly don't know.

But either way, imagine a world without constant compromise. Imagine a world without Oprah Winfrey.


Why We Should Legalize Pot (From A Guy Who Doesn't Smoke It)

I don't smoke Pot. In fact, I don't smoke anything. But this doesn't change the fact that the legalization of pot would drastically improve society.

Below I'll list a few reasons (and explanations) for my hypothesis.

1. It would help us battle real crime.

-Smoking pot has never killed anyone. It isn't habit forming. It doesn't make people violent. It doesn't heighten the change of crime. In fact, it probably lowers it. If pot was legalized, we could redirect our crime fighting resources to fighting real crime, and all the money and manpower spent on flying helicopters to find pot growers, DEA agents making busts on hippie pot grow houses and local cops searching out kids that are smoking, we could use it on fighting other crimes like hard drugs, theft, and murder.

2. It would help the economy.

-With pot legalized, a huge American industry would open up. Pot growers and dealers would be taxed (helping us to fund more important things, like improving national security and building roads and playgrounds) and it would give jobs to jobless Americans (which we seem to have a lot of these days).

3. We could save the environment and lower our dependence on foreign imports.

-Hemp has been used for thousands of years. It can be an environmentally safe alternative for everything from clothing, to hand lotions, to oil. With the legalization of pot, its hemp could be cultivated and it could help America save the environment we live on, and lessen our dependence on foreign imports.

4. It would possibly lower drug use.

-We've all been taught that pot is a gateway drug, right? Well, many experts are putting forth a theory that says that pot is only a gateway drug because we distinct it as such. What I mean by this is that since we tell kids pot is bad, and pot is a drug, when they try it and realize its effects aren't that serious, it makes them think that maybe other drugs may not be as bad either. This leads them to try harder, more serious drugs, and start their journey down the slippery slope that is drug addiction.

5. It would save the lives of thousands of people.

-Each year, thousands of people are killed in the drug trade. With pot legalized, the industry would screech to a halt, and all the drug induced and often gang related violence would stop with it.

Now, even if pot is legalized, I don't plan on smoking it. It's just not my style. But I do think it will solve many of the problems that we face in our society today, and the it's legalization should be seriously considered by our government.

I mean, Holland's doing fine, right?


The Nature of Authorship... and Snake Worshipping.

I just finished a book a few days ago. And I just found out the author worships a snake god named Glycon.

The book was really a graphic novel (my first ever), and is called Watchmen. The author is Alan Moore. He's critically acclaimed and is regarded by some as the greatest writer of the graphic medium. He worships snakes.

Now, the book was great. In fact, TIME magazine named it "one of the 100 greatest novels since 1923" and Lost Co-Producer Damon Lindelof has public stated that Watchmen is "The Greatest Piece of Popular Fiction Ever Produced". It's full of philosophy, action, beautiful storytelling and artistry.

But the author worships snakes.

Now here's the question: Should this change the way I view the book?

This could be applied to any artistry: but let's keep it to novels for the sake of simplicity. Glycon (the perviously stated Snake-God) is a talking snake, that was referenced by the satirist Lucican, and has Macedonian roots (so basically its pretty old). According to Wikipedia (the greatest source of knowledge since the Library of Alexandria), Lucian says that the Greek Prophet Alexander of Abonutichus created Glycon. People worshipped the snake for fertility and later for protection from the plague. Lucian went on to describe the entire thing as a hoax, where Glycon was to be a glove puppet.

So, the author of a book that I generally liked, worships a snake god that was said to be a hoax in the second century AD. Should this change how I view the book? It shouldn't. But, inevitably, it does.

I am the first to say that someone should judge art by their own standards. But I would be lying to say that the thought that I may have just read some subliminal message telling me to worship snakes hasn't crossed my mind.

All artists put their names on their works for a reason; to get credit for it. But, more importantly, it helps to define the art itself. Beethoven's last symphony is more meaningful to me because I know that he wrote it, and when he did he was deaf. Does that not make it more impressive? It does.

So in this case, it may be opposite. Alan Moore wrote a great book, but I can't help to take the message of the book in a different way since I have learned of his snake-worshipping-practices. The philosophical message of the book has since changed for me, where once it was a great story involving many philosophical ideas that accompanied a great storyline, and now I view it as a book written only to satirize these ideas.

This is all from the knowledge that Alan Moore worships snakes.

It shouldn't matter, but it does.

It just started hailing where in Philadelphia, where I was belted in the head by rather large pieces of ice. 

Has Alan Moore just cursed me?

Welcome, and the meaning of "Danger"

Hello world!

My name is Nick "Danger" Weingartner, and I'd like to (1) thank you for coming here and (2) explain to you where "Danger" came from.

No, I did not nickname myself Danger. It was added upon my name by forces out of control. It's actually a long story. Or that's at least how I start telling it.

It started by me making a joke. I made a joke to my brother John, where I told him my middle name was Danger. It was a innocent joke (I mean, who doesn't tell someone their middle name is Danger at some point?) and we laughed for a moment, then went on living our lives. Or so I thought.

Upon meeting a group of girls at a conference later that week, we all said "Hi" and introduced ourselves. An awkward silence that marks the lull of conversation then fell upon us. It was then where John decided to tell this group of females that my middle name was actually "Danger". They laughed at the joke, then went on living their lives as well. It was at this point it became an inside joke to my close friends and I, and that was where it stayed.
Months passed, and "Danger" lay dormant. Then I went to college.
Freshman year can be quite intimidating. There is an unspoken pressure for everyone to talk to everyone, even if there is nothing to be said. It was at one of these "conversations" in which "Danger" was brought out of its underground lair.

I went upstairs in my hall to meet my RA, Mike. He was (and is) a good guy, but after introducing ourselves, we didn't have much to talk about. I then (maybe out of nervousness, or just desire to end awkwardness) I told him that my middle name was "Danger". He thought this was funny. This was when "Danger" took off.

We went to film club together. He (being a senior) introduced my to everyone. As "Danger". 
After meeting a number of people, I went to the head of production for films at the time to tell him my intent on making a film that semester. He asked for my name. I said "Nick". Mike walked by at that moment, and said "Danger". Kyle then wrote down "Nick Danger". 

He went to the executive board to talk about my film. He told them my name was "Nick Danger". They voted on it, deciding only to call me by this name. Everyone I met from that point on knew me as "Nick Danger". In fact, I believe that the majority of people don't actually know what my last name is.

So, that's how my name became Nick Danger.

This blog will be my thoughts on anything and everything under the sun.

I hope you like it.

Thanks for coming.

And keep checking in.
     Peace & Love,
        Nick "Danger" Weingartner