The Unification of My Hypopigmented Brethren (originally published on May 17, 2006)

This morning, while I was "working" at work, I came upon an article on CNN.com focusing on the negative reviews and protests aimed at "The Da Vinci Code." Normally, I would have skipped this article and headed straight for the piece announcing the separation of Paul McCartney and his one-legged wife, but I had recently listened to Tom Hanks on National Public Radio, so my interest was somewhat current.

I've never gotten swept up in what I like to call "literary diarrhea." This lovely term encompasses everything from Oprah's Book Club to generally anything and everything in the "chick lit" genre. I think this rule is serving me well because look what happened to James Frey's masterpiece "A Million Little Pieces"? It was a fake, and Frey turned out to be the asshole of early 2006. My point is that I never read "The Da Vinci Code" and I generally avoided its existence. The hype surrounding the book never appealed to me, and frankly, I find anything "churchy" a bit boring. And besides, I love the tacky factor behind everything based in Catholocism. From their art to general congregations in Staten Island, New York, I'll be damned if anyone fictionalizes the utter kitsch factor involved with the Catholic religion.

The movie version of "The Da Vinci Code" excites me about as much as the book has. I'm a Tom Hanks fan, but I'm relatively certain a giant keyboard, a sidekick dog, or a volleyball that provides feelings bordering on sportsmanship and lust are not key players in this new film.

And after reading the reviews thus far, the movie has not received much praise. Hanks has been described as giving a "wooden performance" and apparently their isn't much "chemistry between the hero and heroine." Since I haven't seen the movie, obviously my opinion is a bit skewed, but I can honestly say nothing can capture the bond that Hanks had with the dog in "Turner and Hooch." Seriously, that dog was classic. No woman can show up that dog. But I digress. The film itself was described as "a bloated puzzle," but I think anyone will admit that Hanks does look a bit fat in the promotional photos for the movie, so perhaps the reviewer was not being critical but honestly observant. The "puzzle" of "a bloated puzzle" could be a remark on his choice of hair style, because quite frankly, a universal "what the fuck?" was uttered when Hanks debuted that atrocity of a man's last attempt to hold on to his hair line.

Slightly more interesting than the shitty reviews are the protests being waged around the world. Hunger strikes in India, boycotts in South Korea, and requests for censorship in Singapore are a few of the uproars being raised in reaction to the movie. It's interesting that instead of Christians seeing this as a test of faith, they are demanding the film be censored. I can say that certain parts of the Bible are not really offending, but bore me to death, which i find offensive. So censor thoughs. Give me some white-out and I'll take care of it. Speaking of white-out, this leads me to my next point...

By far, the most interesting group to take offense to the movie is the National Organization for Albinism and Hypopigmentation. Apparently, the villian in the movie is an albino, and this pisses off the fair skinned (fair eyed, fair haried). Now dont' get me wrong. I love the albinos. Granted, their Casper like features scare the shit out of me, but as a non-albino that has been described as sickly pale most of her life, I too, can identify with their plight. Even though I have a normal hair and eye color, I too suffer from sunburns and the constant taunts of "Why don't you get a spray on tanner?"

CNN.com writes:

Also, while not planning a protest or boycott, members of the National Organization for Albinism and Hypopigmentation expressed unhappiness with the film's heavy, a monk-assassin, being an albino, as described in the book.

Michael McGowan, an albino who heads the organization, said "The Da Vinci Code" will be the 68th movie since 1960 to feature an evil albino. He said the group aims to use the movie's popularity to raise awareness about the realities of albinism. People with albinism have little or no pigmentation in their skin, eyes and hair.

According to this article, we're averaging more than two evil albino characters a year in the motion picture industry. I think it's fairly apparent what is going on here. This is obviously far greater than any conspiracy theory presented in "The Da Vinci Code." Far more sinister thant he Pentavret Mike Meyers described in "So I Married an Axe Murderer" (the Queen, the Vatican, the Rothchild's, the Getty's, and the king of the Kentucky Fried Chicken empire, the Sanders). This my friends, is a modern day alliance not seen since Hitler teamed up with the Russians and the Italians.

From what I can tell, the major players are Hollywood celebrities (excluding Jim Gaffigan, Nicole Kidman, and Conan O'Brien), Neutrogena, and a secret organization of tanning bed/salon manafacturers and salon owners. Hollywood is out to villianize the pigmentally-challenged.

This whole task force of uber tanned evil was first brought to my attention sometime last year when photos of Lindsay Lohan surfaced revealing she was a fake tanner. She was waving to a camera which resulted the documentation of orange-stained palms: A tell-tale sign of at home tanner. And now with the staggering statistics presented by the National Organization for Albinism and Hypopigmentation, I believe an all out epidermis war is on the horizon.

God bless Dan Brown for writing such a ridiculous book about a murder conspiracy in the Christian church involving an evil albino. I doubt he ever saw the prophecy he was proclaiming...