9999

• Full Name – Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer
• Nickname – Milwaukee Cannibal, Milwaukee Monster
• Born – May 21, 1960
• Location of Activity – Ohio and Wisconsin, U.S.
• Years of Activity – 1978 - 1991
• Number of Kills – 17
• Date of Death – November 28, 1994
• Cause of Death – Beaten to death in prison

One of the most famous of serial killers, Jeffrey Dahmer is well known for killing around 17 people over the course of 13 years, along with his necrophiliac and cannibalistic tendencies.  Born in Wisconsin, Dahmer fits many of the classic profile elements of serial killers.  He showed an early interest in death, collecting dead animals and dissecting them, he was a social outcast at his high school and he became an alcoholic at an early age.

Once out of high school, Dahmer tried to pursue college though quickly dropped out.  He then entered the army, but was kicked out because of his drinking problems.  Over the course of his life he was arrested many times, the charges ranging from indecent exposure to molesting a young boy.  What many did not know until much too late, however, is that Dahmer had been killing since age 18.

His first victim he bludgeoned to death in 1978.  It would be nine years until Dahmer’s next kill, in September of 1987.  But, as is common among serial killers early during the killing career, the number of Dahmer’s victims began to accelerate.  Near the time of his capture, Dahmer was claiming around one victim per week.

Those he killed were all men and young boys.  Usually he would pick them up somewhere, have sex with them and then kill them.  Sometimes he would have sex with them after they were dead and other times he would eat parts of their remains.  He kept many trophies of his kills, including numerous heads and many pictures of his victims’ mangled bodies.

Eventually, one of Dahmer’s targeted victims managed to escape.  He ran and told the police about Dahmer’s attempt to kill him.  Upon investigating his home, they found his trophies.  Dahmer was then arrested, tried and found guilty of 15 counts of murder.  Though sentenced to several lifetimes in prison, he would end up falling prey to another inmate, who beat him to death.

Since it finally came out on DVD, I decided I would actually give the new incarnation of the Spider-Man franchise a try.  I’ve always liked the Lizard as a villain so at the very least I wouldn’t be completely disappointed, right?  And after the utter disaster that was Raimi’s Spider-Man 3, Marc Webb’s Amazing Spider-Man had nowhere to go but up.

My first impression of the film was pretty positive.  I liked the style of the camera work, the actors were pretty decent (especially Emma Stone, who played Gwen Stacy) and the overall story had a solid pacing.  But as it became time for Peter Parker to turn into Spider-Man, the movie started to get erratic and fall apart.

First and foremost, Parker jumped into his new role as Spider-Man in a matter of minutes.  There was a brief bit of confusion, but after that he was fine.  I did like the evolutionary montage, where Spider-Man switches up his suits and tactics and learns how to use his newfound powers.  It’s something you usually see done badly in super hero flicks, and this time around they managed to pull it off without seeming too cheesy.  But there was little psychological transition, which was a shame.

The same thing occurred with the death of Peter’s Uncle Ben.  It was quick and almost meaningless compared to the way it has been portrayed elsewhere.  Not to mention a very poorly directed scene where people are standing around Ben when he gets shot and then magically disappear once he is dead, leaving no one to help Peter.

So, Ben is dead and the only thing the soon-to-be Spider-Man has to motivate him is revenge.  I guess perhaps that Webb is looking to tell a different story of progression for Peter by using the next two films?  He does have free-reign over the franchise right now, so he could have been planning to tell the story in the long-term.  I certainly hope so, cause right now Peter is still very two-dimensional.

On the plus side, this movie had some of the best action scenes out of any super hero flick ever.  They are frenetic and brutal and you really see the endurance and strength that both Spider-Man and the Lizard possess.  There are a few “freerunning” scenes that almost made me throw up due to the way they were shot, but luckily there are only two and they are very brief.  Those were perhaps the worst action I’ve ever seen.  Let’s hope they don’t make a reappearance in the next Spider-Man flick.

As far as the acting went, Andrew Garfield was better than Toby Maguire ever was in the first three Spider-Man flicks, but by about half-way through the movie he does start to get a bit annoying.  He comes across less like the shy Parker from the books and more like a sly manipulator.  Some of this could be chalked up to the fact that he’s a bad-ass with his new powers, but Garfield doesn’t really pull it off.  Hopefully he’ll be in top form next time around.  The supporting cast was pretty damn good as well, and the guy who played Flash particularly stood out.  Hoping to see him come back and develop the big jock.

All-in-all, a fun ride but not what it could have been.  Straying from canon is acceptable to a point, but when you include a scene (like the death of Uncle Ben) but downplay the heck out of it, it just confuses viewers (or at least me).  If you like Spider-Man, it’s a good run.  If you’re a more general fan of super hero flicks, then take it or leave it.

My husband saw people camping out in tents when he went into work for Black Friday opening night. Had he not had to work he wouldn’t have ventured out anyway. As it was, I only went out because we had to return library books and make a bank deposit. I didn’t even get out of the car and I nearly puked.

There were wild drivers everywhere, cutting people off, filling up parking spots, and generally acting like idiots. We were cut off three times. My stomach rolled as I clamped onto the side of the car, wishing I’d just decided to make the deposit on Monday, to take the library late fees rather than venture out into this hellish storm of spending.

On Facebook, I noticed about thirty posts where people boasted about their “finds,” yawped on about how much money they saved or how much fun was had, and—get this—how they can’t wait to do it all over again next year.

I cannot imagine wading into that mindless chaos for any thing. No item—I don’t care if it’s a signed book from Neil Gaiman or one of JK Rowling’s ink pens!—would be worth not only the gross consumerism but the over-booking of employees, none of which can request off in retail lest they be fired. Fired. So you can get a “great deal.”

It’s the same in the food industry; when I worked at a restaurant you couldn’t ask off for holidays, either. It was mandatory to work, even if you had children. I’m very glad that I’m not in that industry anymore—but my husband is in retail so we’re still in the whole “holiday work” game.

No, this isn’t his first choice in a career; in fact, it’s the only job he could get after nearly a year of being laid off from his previous, double-paying job, even after applying to several a week. We’ll take it and we’re grateful for it—but is it really worth the holiday chaos during a weekend many have off?

I hope everyone is very happy with the junk they’ll forget in a couple of months, and the things they bought that will undoubtedly go on sale next summer for even cheaper.

You fired up the economy, you insist; it’s all a good thing. If it wasn’t for your commercialism and your need to buy the latest blood diamond or conflict mineral-filled gadget or sweatshop-made outfit for your son, daughter, mother, father, sister, brother, or aunt you only see once a year, the whole country would simply collapse.

Yep. Way to go. Way to participate in the spirit of the season. I’d much rather stay at home and have cocoa in my jammies with my daughter and husband—but he has to work.

The last time I read about American parenting styles, it was about authoritarian, permissive and authoritative, with neglectful being added as the “style” of bad parents who basically don’t parent in general. Today, there are now apparently four different cultures of parents in the US, according to a new study. Where do you fit in?

Group one is known as “The Faithful,” and consists of parents who raise their family on religion, their faith being more important than anything else. About 20 percent of the nation’s parents apparently fall under this category. Group two, “Engaged Progressives,” are liberal, optimistic parents who use the Golden Rule and teach their kids to make choices by giving them information. Around 21 percent of parents fall into this category.

Group three, “The Detached,” makes up about 19 percent of American parents. They go by the thinking that kids will be kids, and are generally pessimistic, blue collar workers with limited education and income. Finally, group four, “American Dreamers,” strive to give their kids every advantage they can despite their low income and have optimistic views about their kids’ prospects. These parents make up 27 percent of the country’s parents.

So where do you fit in? On paper, my husband and I are definitely engaged progressive parents mostly to a T, save for the economic affluence (which we did have a few years ago). So we also sort of fit the American dreamers category, too. Which one fits you best—or do you think it’s just another load of crap to typecast American families?