Wednesday, October 31, 2007
I'd rather go naked than wear fur?
For Steve-O, that doesn't seem like much of a big deal, since he seems to rather go naked than wear just about anything, but still. Nice jump!
Dust-up
Does that have a hyphen? I just emailed Brett about the debate last night, calling it a dust-up, and then it occurred to me that maybe it should just be a dustup. Or a dust up. Or a clusterfuck, what do I know? Anyway, apparently it was good, including everybody's favorite quote: Joe Biden, saying "There are only three things [Rudy Giuliani] mentions in a sentence: a noun and a verb and 9/11". Funny!
Speaking of America's Mayor, he made a joke himself about a dream he had recently (at the "Defending the American Dream" summit, get it??) -- he was dreaming that France's new president, Nicolas "Le Neocon" Sarkozy, was in a plane crossing the Atlantic on his way to the States, and has a near miss with a plane headed back the other way. Quips Rudy: "Sarkozy can see inside the window of the plane headed for France. They all wave to each other...the people going from the United States to France waving to him are Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards."
He seemed to think this was hilarious, and so did the audience (skip to the 7 minute mark for the, um, "punchline"), but I guess my sense of humor is just not très sophisticated like his, cause I didn't really get it. Yes, we hate the Democrats! HIGH-larious!
Whatever, maybe I just hate him, but I maintain that is not funny.
Speaking of America's Mayor, he made a joke himself about a dream he had recently (at the "Defending the American Dream" summit, get it??) -- he was dreaming that France's new president, Nicolas "Le Neocon" Sarkozy, was in a plane crossing the Atlantic on his way to the States, and has a near miss with a plane headed back the other way. Quips Rudy: "Sarkozy can see inside the window of the plane headed for France. They all wave to each other...the people going from the United States to France waving to him are Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards."
He seemed to think this was hilarious, and so did the audience (skip to the 7 minute mark for the, um, "punchline"), but I guess my sense of humor is just not très sophisticated like his, cause I didn't really get it. Yes, we hate the Democrats! HIGH-larious!
Whatever, maybe I just hate him, but I maintain that is not funny.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Stephen Colbert's Facebook group will beat up your Facebook group
In the week since Stephen Colbert announced he will be running for president (in South Carolina), a Facebook group called 1,000,000 Strong for Stephen Colbert has been formed and has indeed passed one million members.
Whereas the group One Million Strong for Barak, formed in January, still has less than 400,000 members.
In fact, an actual legtimate polling group has found that SC would get 13% of the vote as a third-party candidate up against Clinton (45%) and Giuliani (35%). And in just the 18-29 age group, Stephen Colbert gets more of the vote than Giuliani.
It can't be much harder to be elected President than it can to win a contest to get a bridge in Hungary named after you, right?
Whereas the group One Million Strong for Barak, formed in January, still has less than 400,000 members.
In fact, an actual legtimate polling group has found that SC would get 13% of the vote as a third-party candidate up against Clinton (45%) and Giuliani (35%). And in just the 18-29 age group, Stephen Colbert gets more of the vote than Giuliani.
It can't be much harder to be elected President than it can to win a contest to get a bridge in Hungary named after you, right?
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Hello, Australia!
Teaching seven year old kids how to pole-dance is just so...American. The competition for world's crassest country is really heating up, I guess.
USA! USA!
USA! USA!
Net Neutrality
AP reports on one of the most egregious examples yet of why we need net neutrality -- Comcast is interrupting file sharing between Comcast and non-Comcast users, secretly and without telling anyone they're doing so. When traffic on any part of their network goes above a certain threshold, a Comcast packet sniffer finds P2P connections and falsifies a message from each computer, telling the other it is unavailable.
As the AP puts it, "Each PC gets a message invisible to the user that looks like it comes from the other computer, telling it to stop communicating. But neither message originated from the other computer — it comes from Comcast. If it were a telephone conversation, it would be like the operator breaking into the conversation, telling each talker in the voice of the other: "Sorry, I have to hang up. Good bye."
So of course nobody can get upset about all those IP pirates out there, not being able to steal "The Transformers" off Limewire. But Comcast isn't just blocking BitTorrent (and of course has no way to ascertain the copyright status of the files being transferred -- the AP tried to download the Bible and got blocked. Comcast is clearly going to hell), it blocks any P2P program, like Skype, which is all legal all the time.
So if this saves Comcast money, by limiting how much traffic its networks can handle, then what's to stop every ISP from doing the same, and turning the "unlimited" access you're paying for into access to only the specific files and services that your ISP wants you to have, and only when it's cheap for them to let you? And then where does it stop? Once Verizon the ISP implements this idea, should Verizon the cell phone provider be able to tell you who you can call with your cell phone minutes, and when too many people were calling, end the call by breaking into your phone conversation and pretending to be you?
Anyway, Save the Internet.
As the AP puts it, "Each PC gets a message invisible to the user that looks like it comes from the other computer, telling it to stop communicating. But neither message originated from the other computer — it comes from Comcast. If it were a telephone conversation, it would be like the operator breaking into the conversation, telling each talker in the voice of the other: "Sorry, I have to hang up. Good bye."
So of course nobody can get upset about all those IP pirates out there, not being able to steal "The Transformers" off Limewire. But Comcast isn't just blocking BitTorrent (and of course has no way to ascertain the copyright status of the files being transferred -- the AP tried to download the Bible and got blocked. Comcast is clearly going to hell), it blocks any P2P program, like Skype, which is all legal all the time.
So if this saves Comcast money, by limiting how much traffic its networks can handle, then what's to stop every ISP from doing the same, and turning the "unlimited" access you're paying for into access to only the specific files and services that your ISP wants you to have, and only when it's cheap for them to let you? And then where does it stop? Once Verizon the ISP implements this idea, should Verizon the cell phone provider be able to tell you who you can call with your cell phone minutes, and when too many people were calling, end the call by breaking into your phone conversation and pretending to be you?
Anyway, Save the Internet.
Three-way
So, the math that went into this one is a little on the wishful thinking side, but it's basically set up under the premise that in a Giuliani v. Clinton election, the Dobsons of the world would go shopping for a third-party candidate, sucking the evangelical vote from Rudy, and therefore setting up this lovely looking map here:
Isn't it pretty? Texas! A swing state! Mississippi, blue! Those three all-important South Dakota votes, up for grabs! What a lovely idea.
Isn't it pretty? Texas! A swing state! Mississippi, blue! Those three all-important South Dakota votes, up for grabs! What a lovely idea.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Kucinich '08
Y'all want something different, fuck Obama and vote for the author of this passage:
"Spirit merges with matter to sanctify the universe. Matter transcends, to return to spirit. The interchangeability of matter and spirit means the starlit magic of the outermost life of our universe becomes the soul-light magic of the innermost life of our self. The energy of the stars becomes us. We become the energy of the stars. Stardust and spirit unite and we begin: one with the universe; whole and holy; from one source, endless creative energy, bursting forth, kinetic, elemental; we -- the earth, air, water and fire-source of nearly fifteen billion years of cosmic spiraling."
Motherfucker.
"Spirit merges with matter to sanctify the universe. Matter transcends, to return to spirit. The interchangeability of matter and spirit means the starlit magic of the outermost life of our universe becomes the soul-light magic of the innermost life of our self. The energy of the stars becomes us. We become the energy of the stars. Stardust and spirit unite and we begin: one with the universe; whole and holy; from one source, endless creative energy, bursting forth, kinetic, elemental; we -- the earth, air, water and fire-source of nearly fifteen billion years of cosmic spiraling."
Motherfucker.
Flamingos
Not that I want this to just be a collection of YouTube videos, but I just saw this episode of Nature last night about the Andes, and it is amazing. The mountains are really breathtaking, you can see them in this preview, but the best part is totally this flamingo dance. These flamingos hang out in poisonous lakes in the middle of the Andes, where the only things that can survive are them and the brine shrimp swimming in this toxic water that leeches from the volcanos.
Apparently the song is some sort of traditional Chilean folk tune, and not specifically designed to be humorous, but it succeeds nonetheless.
Anyway, for the whole show which really is great, check your local listings. And, you know, support public television.
Apparently the song is some sort of traditional Chilean folk tune, and not specifically designed to be humorous, but it succeeds nonetheless.
Anyway, for the whole show which really is great, check your local listings. And, you know, support public television.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Sometimes liberals are funny
This photo was posted on Salon's War Room, identified as "GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, left, and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at Saturday night's National Italian American Foundation gala in Washington. (Photo: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst)" with the question "Why is this man laughing?"
...no?
Oh come on, that's funny!
Whatever, it's a scary fucking picture, anyway.
User Strangely Enough gives this answer:
Fascist Funnies.
Scalia: What's funnier than subverting the Constitution while claiming to interpret it's "original intent"?
Giuliani: What?
Scalia: Nothing.
(laughs)
...no?
Oh come on, that's funny!
Whatever, it's a scary fucking picture, anyway.
The GOP's crazy aunt
Randall Terry of Operation Rescue is always good for a laugh, in between blowing up abortion clinics and harassing nurses and whatnot, and I did get a chuckle out of his description of Giuliani:
"Rudy is the GOP's crazy aunt. Every family has a crazy aunt in the basement. So what do you do with her? Don't give her the family checkbook; don't give her the keys to the car; and by all means, keep her in the basement."
Nice! The last "talking point" listed (the author is unclear) is:
"Could we vote for a man who right on every single issue, except that he was a racist? Or was a candidate who supported slavery? (Of course, he would never own his own slave, but he would defend any other white persons right to own his own Negro.) How then can we in good conscience vote for a man who supports the destruction of innocent human life, which is far worse than slavery or racism?"
Negro, huh? Classy.
"Rudy is the GOP's crazy aunt. Every family has a crazy aunt in the basement. So what do you do with her? Don't give her the family checkbook; don't give her the keys to the car; and by all means, keep her in the basement."
Nice! The last "talking point" listed (the author is unclear) is:
"Could we vote for a man who right on every single issue, except that he was a racist? Or was a candidate who supported slavery? (Of course, he would never own his own slave, but he would defend any other white persons right to own his own Negro.) How then can we in good conscience vote for a man who supports the destruction of innocent human life, which is far worse than slavery or racism?"
Negro, huh? Classy.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Presto Chango!
So everybody keeps telling me they don't much like Hillary cause they think she will be more of the same, and Obama will really be new and different. Not just the same old Washington crap again! Fresh, innovative, NEW NEW NEW! Still has that new politician smell.
But I remain confused as to exactly what he will do differently. There is an enormous amount of inertia in Washington, and one president cannot change it. You can't even pass laws. You're sick of the same old, same old -- what are you sick of? Lobbyists, Big Oil, bribes and kickbacks? You'd have to elect a completely new Congress to get rid of that, and it would still only take them six months to become the same old Congress again.
So what is he going to do that is so different? I would really like to know. Cause I'm of the opinion that he seems different cause he's only been a US Senator for like ten minutes, and he has no idea how hard it is to get anything done, and that new politician smell wears off real fast once you start trying. And if we're going to have more of the same, we might as well have somebody who knows how to do it all already, yeah?
But I remain confused as to exactly what he will do differently. There is an enormous amount of inertia in Washington, and one president cannot change it. You can't even pass laws. You're sick of the same old, same old -- what are you sick of? Lobbyists, Big Oil, bribes and kickbacks? You'd have to elect a completely new Congress to get rid of that, and it would still only take them six months to become the same old Congress again.
So what is he going to do that is so different? I would really like to know. Cause I'm of the opinion that he seems different cause he's only been a US Senator for like ten minutes, and he has no idea how hard it is to get anything done, and that new politician smell wears off real fast once you start trying. And if we're going to have more of the same, we might as well have somebody who knows how to do it all already, yeah?
Friday, October 12, 2007
Radiohead are rich!
Still. Or, again. Also, maybe?
According to Gigwise, a source "close to the band" says they have sold 1.2 million copies of their digital label-free pay-whatever-you-want release "In Rainbows" in its first week (well, three days, really, but including preorders), beating out their previous album by a factor of four, as well as crushing Bruce Springsteen's new release this week. That's even more than Kanye sold! Although, to be fair, not more than Kanye PLUS 50 Cent, since I doubt Bruce was really eating into Radiohead's sales all that much this week.
But, a) it could be totally not true, and b) who knows how much people paid? If it's one pence a download, that's only £12k. Of course most people paid more than that -- I paid 5 pounds, which (plus the credit card processing fee) converted to $11.11 on my statement, which I thought was awfully nifty.
So we will all wait and watch our rebel bands (NIN is also label-free (see 10/8 comment), and promises to do fun stuff soon, though really, does Trent do anything fun?) and see what will happen. A lot of people who complain about music theft seems to be missing a major thing here -- the market pays what the market wants. If you're turning hundreds of thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens into intellectual property master thieves, you are charging too much. People would rather buy than steal, but they don't want to be robbed. (Ooh, wasn't that pithy!)
It's the end of the world, right Andrew Keen? Stupid git.
According to Gigwise, a source "close to the band" says they have sold 1.2 million copies of their digital label-free pay-whatever-you-want release "In Rainbows" in its first week (well, three days, really, but including preorders), beating out their previous album by a factor of four, as well as crushing Bruce Springsteen's new release this week. That's even more than Kanye sold! Although, to be fair, not more than Kanye PLUS 50 Cent, since I doubt Bruce was really eating into Radiohead's sales all that much this week.
But, a) it could be totally not true, and b) who knows how much people paid? If it's one pence a download, that's only £12k. Of course most people paid more than that -- I paid 5 pounds, which (plus the credit card processing fee) converted to $11.11 on my statement, which I thought was awfully nifty.
So we will all wait and watch our rebel bands (NIN is also label-free (see 10/8 comment), and promises to do fun stuff soon, though really, does Trent do anything fun?) and see what will happen. A lot of people who complain about music theft seems to be missing a major thing here -- the market pays what the market wants. If you're turning hundreds of thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens into intellectual property master thieves, you are charging too much. People would rather buy than steal, but they don't want to be robbed. (Ooh, wasn't that pithy!)
It's the end of the world, right Andrew Keen? Stupid git.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Yay, Giuliani?
It's uncommon. But, in Tuesday's Republican debate, when Mitt Romney was asked if he "believed" the line-item veto was Constitutional (after Giuliani successfully challenged it, causing the Supreme Court to say no it's not in '96, or as he puts it: "So I took President Clinton to court and I beat him") and Romney replied with basically, yes: "I'm in favor of the line-item veto to make sure that the president is able to help get out pork and waste," etc, you gotta give a "Yay" for this response: "The line-item veto is unconstitutional. You don't get to believe about it; the Supreme Court has ruled on it". (Of course, overturning Roe would "um, be OK" but whatever.) It was a great fight. They are messy little candidates, those two.
Anyway, let's continue to cheer for everybody's favorite leprechaun, Ron Paul (that's right, he is BETTER than Kucinich!): When Chris Matthews asked if the President needed Congressional approval before taking military action against Iran's nuke facilities, after others mumbled around about "talking to lawyers" and "it depends", our buddy Ron simply pointed out: "Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it? You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war." Yay, Ron Paul! I really might vote for him in the general if he shows up on some random ticket. It's not likeHillary the Democratic candidate isn't gonna carry New York, anyway.
Of course, right after that, I Don't Heart Huckabee came up with this exchange:
MATTHEWS: ...Governor Huckabee, same question. Do you need Congress to approve such an action?
HUCKABEE: A president has to whatever is necessary to protect the American people. If we think Iran is building nuclear capacity that could be used against us in any way, including selling some of the nuclear capacity to some other terrorist group, then, yes, we have a right...
MATTHEWS: Without going to Congress?
HUCKABEE: And I would do it in a heartbeat.
MATTHEWS: Without going to Congress?
HUCKABEE: Well, if it’s necessary to get it done because it’s actionable right now, yes. If you have the time and the luxury of going to Congress, that’s always better. But, Chris, the most important single thing is to make sure.
MATTHEWS: And if Congress say no, what do you do?
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: If Congress says no, what do you do, Governor?
HUCKABEE: You do what’s best for the American people and you suffer the consequences. But what you don’t do is what you never do, is let the American people one day get hit with a nuclear device because you had politics going on in Washington, instead of the protection of the American people first.
(APPLAUSE)
Right. What's the Constitution when there's maybe a bomb somewhere? Good call. (APPLAUSE)
Anyway, let's continue to cheer for everybody's favorite leprechaun, Ron Paul (that's right, he is BETTER than Kucinich!): When Chris Matthews asked if the President needed Congressional approval before taking military action against Iran's nuke facilities, after others mumbled around about "talking to lawyers" and "it depends", our buddy Ron simply pointed out: "Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it? You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war." Yay, Ron Paul! I really might vote for him in the general if he shows up on some random ticket. It's not like
Of course, right after that, I Don't Heart Huckabee came up with this exchange:
MATTHEWS: ...Governor Huckabee, same question. Do you need Congress to approve such an action?
HUCKABEE: A president has to whatever is necessary to protect the American people. If we think Iran is building nuclear capacity that could be used against us in any way, including selling some of the nuclear capacity to some other terrorist group, then, yes, we have a right...
MATTHEWS: Without going to Congress?
HUCKABEE: And I would do it in a heartbeat.
MATTHEWS: Without going to Congress?
HUCKABEE: Well, if it’s necessary to get it done because it’s actionable right now, yes. If you have the time and the luxury of going to Congress, that’s always better. But, Chris, the most important single thing is to make sure.
MATTHEWS: And if Congress say no, what do you do?
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: If Congress says no, what do you do, Governor?
HUCKABEE: You do what’s best for the American people and you suffer the consequences. But what you don’t do is what you never do, is let the American people one day get hit with a nuclear device because you had politics going on in Washington, instead of the protection of the American people first.
(APPLAUSE)
Right. What's the Constitution when there's maybe a bomb somewhere? Good call. (APPLAUSE)
Breaking news -- Thompson is a fucking moron
You heard it here first -- he is a lot like Reagan, but only after the Alzheimer's set in. As tapes from Nixon's Oval Office conversations point out, Thompson was not so well regarded in his position as minority counsel during the Watergate hearings:
Nice! Done with his cons, they go on to highlight his pros (well, pro):
"Baker has appointed Fred Thompson as minority counsel," Haldeman is heard saying on one tape.
"Oh shit, that kid," Nixon responds.
Nice! Done with his cons, they go on to highlight his pros (well, pro):
"Our approach is now, we've got a pretty good rapport with Fred Thompson. He came through fine for us this morning," White House counsel Fred Buzhardt says on a tape from June 6.You know, like a dog. Less of a Gipper, more of a Skippy. All I have to say (besides, seriously, what ARE you Republicans thinking? This dude looks like Reagan like the really bad animatronic robot from Disney World's Hall of Presidents looks like Reagan. Except with worse skin) is Nixon really did know how to turn a phrase:
"He isn't very smart, is he?" Nixon asks.
"Not extremely so, but --," Buzhardt says, interrupted by the president.
"But he's friendly," Nixon says.
"But he's, he's friendly," Buzhardt echoes.
"Good."
"Oh shit, he's dumb as hell. Fred Thompson."You said it, Mr. President.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Amy Sedaris on Martha Stewart's show
In which Amy informs us that A1 is basically bong water, and her phone smells SMOOOOKY.
Hilarity.
Hilarity.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Suspension of Disbelief
I've been reading this one thing and another thing (the former featuring a most excellent question posed by one Howard Kenty [last question], regarding a fancy trick shot in the film Contact, and I must add that Mr. Kenty is quite the discerning cinephile, as well as being a luxuriously bearded sociopathic robot).
So I have to say, I really don't get this suspension of disbelief thing at all, that's mentioned in the comments in the former about trick or long shots, and in this quote in the latter: "During a drama, if a character from a different show suddenly walks across the bottom of the screen, 'it’s a total disconnect and ruins your suspension of disbelief,' Ms. Sklar said".
Do you honestly believe that these shows/movies you're watching are really happening, and when you see a trick shot that can't have really happened, or god forbid a promo for another show (an AD! On TV! Holy shit!) it suddenly shocks you into realizing that you are, in fact, watching television? But things like, oh, gosh, I don't know, just to pick a couple random examples off the top of my head: the twelve year old girl in Jurassic Park found the application with the commands to lock the doors in about 15 seconds because she recognized the fucking operating system, or, say, maybe, THEY GAVE THE MOTHERSHIP A VIRUS WITH A MOTHERFUCKING MAC LAPTOP (you want to get seriously nerdy? Check this one out. Although I have to say that having in your possession an alien spaceship that crashed 50 years ago to practice on is not a valid rebuttal for being able to write a virus that would crash the entire fucking system in approximately eight minutes -- not only are we talking about you possessing two totally different crafts [could you figure out how to crash an aircraft carrier by fucking around with the jet that took off from it?], but also how much would you say your average aircraft has changed from 1950 to now? How bout your average computer [Hint: in the '50s, they ran on vacuum tubes]? How bout your average operating system and compiler? HOW BOUT YOUR INPUTS? You remember USB from 1950? Yeah, me neither) don't bother you at all?
Anyway. The above scenarios do not bother me in the slightest and this is, in fact, the first time I have ever even thought about them, much less discussed them, and as long as you have never met me you can go ahead and believe that.
My point is, what is this suspension thing? I understand being caught up in a storyline, or relating to characters, and whatnot. I've even gotten a little sniffly from time to time (in particular, actively crying through literally 4/5 of The Bear), but I was at no point laboring under the delusion that the little baby bear, when he finally freed himself after being captured, just crawled under the skins of the other murdered bears for comfort and slept instead of running away (shut up I am not crying again!), was actually real, and so it didn't bother me when "[t]he rock that kills the mother bear is noticeably smaller than the boulder that rests atop the dead bear" because it is a motherfucking movie and these things happen.
When you're watching a movie or even a show, aren't you paying attention to the acting, and the cinematography, and the lighting, and the costumes, and the direction, and the timing, and the writing? I mean, fine, if you're watching 2 1/2 Men or whatever you can let the cinematography slide, but how much disbelief can you be suspending when there's a freakin' laugh track? But really, I'm curious: it seems like things within the plot that are unbelievable are not such an issue, but anything that reminds you that you are actually watching a movie is not ok? Do you want to be schizophrenic and fail to grasp distinction between reality and fantasy? LSD is actually cheaper than a night at the movies -- just throwing it out there. Thoughts?
So I have to say, I really don't get this suspension of disbelief thing at all, that's mentioned in the comments in the former about trick or long shots, and in this quote in the latter: "During a drama, if a character from a different show suddenly walks across the bottom of the screen, 'it’s a total disconnect and ruins your suspension of disbelief,' Ms. Sklar said".
Do you honestly believe that these shows/movies you're watching are really happening, and when you see a trick shot that can't have really happened, or god forbid a promo for another show (an AD! On TV! Holy shit!) it suddenly shocks you into realizing that you are, in fact, watching television? But things like, oh, gosh, I don't know, just to pick a couple random examples off the top of my head: the twelve year old girl in Jurassic Park found the application with the commands to lock the doors in about 15 seconds because she recognized the fucking operating system, or, say, maybe, THEY GAVE THE MOTHERSHIP A VIRUS WITH A MOTHERFUCKING MAC LAPTOP (you want to get seriously nerdy? Check this one out. Although I have to say that having in your possession an alien spaceship that crashed 50 years ago to practice on is not a valid rebuttal for being able to write a virus that would crash the entire fucking system in approximately eight minutes -- not only are we talking about you possessing two totally different crafts [could you figure out how to crash an aircraft carrier by fucking around with the jet that took off from it?], but also how much would you say your average aircraft has changed from 1950 to now? How bout your average computer [Hint: in the '50s, they ran on vacuum tubes]? How bout your average operating system and compiler? HOW BOUT YOUR INPUTS? You remember USB from 1950? Yeah, me neither) don't bother you at all?
Anyway. The above scenarios do not bother me in the slightest and this is, in fact, the first time I have ever even thought about them, much less discussed them, and as long as you have never met me you can go ahead and believe that.
My point is, what is this suspension thing? I understand being caught up in a storyline, or relating to characters, and whatnot. I've even gotten a little sniffly from time to time (in particular, actively crying through literally 4/5 of The Bear), but I was at no point laboring under the delusion that the little baby bear, when he finally freed himself after being captured, just crawled under the skins of the other murdered bears for comfort and slept instead of running away (shut up I am not crying again!), was actually real, and so it didn't bother me when "[t]he rock that kills the mother bear is noticeably smaller than the boulder that rests atop the dead bear" because it is a motherfucking movie and these things happen.
When you're watching a movie or even a show, aren't you paying attention to the acting, and the cinematography, and the lighting, and the costumes, and the direction, and the timing, and the writing? I mean, fine, if you're watching 2 1/2 Men or whatever you can let the cinematography slide, but how much disbelief can you be suspending when there's a freakin' laugh track? But really, I'm curious: it seems like things within the plot that are unbelievable are not such an issue, but anything that reminds you that you are actually watching a movie is not ok? Do you want to be schizophrenic and fail to grasp distinction between reality and fantasy? LSD is actually cheaper than a night at the movies -- just throwing it out there. Thoughts?
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Microsoft's new MP3 player
Look familiar?
Well it wouldn't be the first time Microsoft ripped off Apple shamelessly, but I wonder if this one will work. 80 GB for $250 isn't terrible, and the best part? No DRM on songs you buy from their store, and no bullshit AAC. You can buy music and play it anywhere! FUCKING REVOLUTIONARY.
Oh wait you already know all this. Sorry.
Well it wouldn't be the first time Microsoft ripped off Apple shamelessly, but I wonder if this one will work. 80 GB for $250 isn't terrible, and the best part? No DRM on songs you buy from their store, and no bullshit AAC. You can buy music and play it anywhere! FUCKING REVOLUTIONARY.
Oh wait you already know all this. Sorry.
Human Chess
Fine, I am an enormous, enormous dork, but doesn't this look like fun? The chessboard is eight square blocks, with the pieces standing on corners, and two chess experts playing somewhere in the middle. When they want you to move, they call you. I assume in the event you take a piece, there is a fantastic death scene. And you can just hang out at the ward when you're not moving or have been taken! Anyway, check out the play-by-play (or lack thereof):
being a knight
the following was written by Zack, who played the black queenside knight in the lower east side game
...
12:57p Double-decker tourist bus stops for red light at corner. I consider whether to yell up to the tourists and inform them that they are entering the space defined by the chess match, but bus moves on before I can take action.
12:59p A bunched-up group of four NYC busses pass North on Allen Street. Bishop, Rook, and Pawn still visible. I wonder if any passers-by perceive the patterns that they are encountering as they walk through the neighborhood.
1:02p Pawn is no longer visible -- has the first move occurred?
1:03p Pawn emerges from a candy store and resumes standing on his corner.
1:04p Pawn suddenly starts striding purposively South on Allen St.
1:06p Bishop moves South out of sight on Orchard St. The game has started in earnest -- we're on the move!
...
1:40p Group arrives at my intersection. It turns out they are the 'Street Art Walk'; I note that several chess pieces have joined them and are out of position. Person leading the walk points out a pair of wooden sneakers and two stuffed iguanas suspended from a wire running over the intersection between two streetlights, which I had previously missed.
1:42p Both Black Bishops have come over to visit. They are bored.
1:43p An attractive woman walks by. One of the Bishops wonders if she is interested in chess. If so, I wonder if she has ever had any fantasies about the Black Knight. Both Bishops express regret that they are men of the cloth.
1:45p The two women who had earlier passed by on East Houston pass by. They again express frustration that some pieces are out of position, saying it makes it difficult to follow the game properly. I sympathize. Black Queen's Bishop gets call on cell phone, ordering him to move South. We note that the Black Queen has apparently moved from her position at c7. We appear to be on the attack! I eagerly await my own orders to move.
1:51p Wind picks up. I put on sweater.
1:55p Still no orders. I chat with the owner of an antique store on the corner -- the sign on his door says "Open Monday-Saturday 12:30 - 6:30, Sunday afternoons by chance". I tell him he is in the middle of the world's largest chess game. He seems non-plussed.
OK, so maybe it's a tiny bit boring, but remember what I said about the ward? Apparently they gave this up in 2005 but I think it's time for a revitalization! Who's with me?
?
Hello?
being a knight
the following was written by Zack, who played the black queenside knight in the lower east side game
...
12:57p Double-decker tourist bus stops for red light at corner. I consider whether to yell up to the tourists and inform them that they are entering the space defined by the chess match, but bus moves on before I can take action.
12:59p A bunched-up group of four NYC busses pass North on Allen Street. Bishop, Rook, and Pawn still visible. I wonder if any passers-by perceive the patterns that they are encountering as they walk through the neighborhood.
1:02p Pawn is no longer visible -- has the first move occurred?
1:03p Pawn emerges from a candy store and resumes standing on his corner.
1:04p Pawn suddenly starts striding purposively South on Allen St.
1:06p Bishop moves South out of sight on Orchard St. The game has started in earnest -- we're on the move!
...
1:40p Group arrives at my intersection. It turns out they are the 'Street Art Walk'; I note that several chess pieces have joined them and are out of position. Person leading the walk points out a pair of wooden sneakers and two stuffed iguanas suspended from a wire running over the intersection between two streetlights, which I had previously missed.
1:42p Both Black Bishops have come over to visit. They are bored.
1:43p An attractive woman walks by. One of the Bishops wonders if she is interested in chess. If so, I wonder if she has ever had any fantasies about the Black Knight. Both Bishops express regret that they are men of the cloth.
1:45p The two women who had earlier passed by on East Houston pass by. They again express frustration that some pieces are out of position, saying it makes it difficult to follow the game properly. I sympathize. Black Queen's Bishop gets call on cell phone, ordering him to move South. We note that the Black Queen has apparently moved from her position at c7. We appear to be on the attack! I eagerly await my own orders to move.
1:51p Wind picks up. I put on sweater.
1:55p Still no orders. I chat with the owner of an antique store on the corner -- the sign on his door says "Open Monday-Saturday 12:30 - 6:30, Sunday afternoons by chance". I tell him he is in the middle of the world's largest chess game. He seems non-plussed.
OK, so maybe it's a tiny bit boring, but remember what I said about the ward? Apparently they gave this up in 2005 but I think it's time for a revitalization! Who's with me?
?
Hello?
Rice harvest
You guys remember those awesome rice paddy designs? Like this:
Anyway, it's nifty.
Well, it's harvestin' time, and you can watch them take away the now yellow rice here. The different colors are different varieties of rice so I guess they're just doing one type at a time, but it makes for pretty cool images where the characters are still intact, like this:
Anyway, it's nifty.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
People, he really didn't do anything wrong
So Senator Craig's lawyer went on Hardball to explain how the Senator might stay in the Senate even if he can't retract the guilty plea, saying: "I know they say they have the right to discipline people for bringing discredit on the Senate. That's a vague standard. That's well beyond where we are in 2007. I can't imagine that 99 other senators want to be judged by that standard." Which Chris Matthews agreed with, saying "Yes, you wonder about all the traffic violations and other kinds of problems [the other senators] would be facing."
Now some people seem to think Sen. Craig's conduct should not be equated with a traffic violation, that it is far more reprehensible and he should be thrown out of the Senate immediately, since he hasn't the decency to resign when he said he maybe would. Personally, I wonder what exactly they think he did. According to a cop in Minnesota, tapping your foot and running your hand along the bottom of a stall wall is grounds for arrest, and I don't doubt the cop knows the signals for "I want to fuck in the bathroom", but hi! It is not illegal to tap your foot, or run your hand, or even to ask a cop if he wants to fuck, or to have sex, even if it's with a man and even if you're married (ok adultery is still technically illegal in some states but it hasn't been challenged since Lawrence so shut up).
Having sex in public is illegal, yes, but it seems that would be rather difficult to prove that was his intent (I don't exactly know the standards describing "conduct which [he] knew or should have known tended to arouse alarm or resentment of others, which conduct was physical (versus verbal) in nature”, but that's all they got, which is certainly a long way from sex in a bathroom), and he really shouldn't have pled guilty, but if you listen to the tape you can totally hear the cop convincing him to plea, like cops do, and Christ, people, this is not that fucking big of a deal! Nobody ever died from watching people have sex in a bathroom, whereas quite a few have from being hit by someone who ran a red light or a stop sign or some other garden variety traffic infraction, so what exactly shouldn't be equated with what, here? (Answer: fucking in bathrooms, running red lights.)
Now some people seem to think Sen. Craig's conduct should not be equated with a traffic violation, that it is far more reprehensible and he should be thrown out of the Senate immediately, since he hasn't the decency to resign when he said he maybe would. Personally, I wonder what exactly they think he did. According to a cop in Minnesota, tapping your foot and running your hand along the bottom of a stall wall is grounds for arrest, and I don't doubt the cop knows the signals for "I want to fuck in the bathroom", but hi! It is not illegal to tap your foot, or run your hand, or even to ask a cop if he wants to fuck, or to have sex, even if it's with a man and even if you're married (ok adultery is still technically illegal in some states but it hasn't been challenged since Lawrence so shut up).
Having sex in public is illegal, yes, but it seems that would be rather difficult to prove that was his intent (I don't exactly know the standards describing "conduct which [he] knew or should have known tended to arouse alarm or resentment of others, which conduct was physical (versus verbal) in nature”, but that's all they got, which is certainly a long way from sex in a bathroom), and he really shouldn't have pled guilty, but if you listen to the tape you can totally hear the cop convincing him to plea, like cops do, and Christ, people, this is not that fucking big of a deal! Nobody ever died from watching people have sex in a bathroom, whereas quite a few have from being hit by someone who ran a red light or a stop sign or some other garden variety traffic infraction, so what exactly shouldn't be equated with what, here? (Answer: fucking in bathrooms, running red lights.)
Media Matters
I would just like to point you all in the direction of this excellent piece from Media Matters, which makes the following points more eloquently than I can (though with far less swearing), so I am taking these excerpts directly from the article:
1. During the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq "phony soldiers."
2. On August 19, The New York Times published an op-ed by seven members of the U.S. Army 82nd Airborne Division [which advocated withdrawl, or at least that "it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit." --k]
3. On September 12, The New York Times noted: "Two of the soldiers who wrote of their pessimism about the war in an Op-Ed article that appeared in The New York Times on Aug. 19 were killed in Baghdad on Monday."
4. As Media Matters for America has documented, Limbaugh denounced as "contemptible" and "indecent" MoveOn.org's much-discussed advertisement -- titled "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" -- critical of Gen. David Petraeus, but has repeatedly attacked the patriotism of those with whom he disagrees. For instance, on the January 25 broadcast of his radio show, he told his audience that he had a new name for Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), a Vietnam veteran: "Senator Betrayus." A day earlier, Hagel had sided with Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in voting to approve a nonbinding resolution declaring that President Bush's escalation in Iraq was against "the national interest." Additionally, on August 21, 2006, Limbaugh said: "I want to respectfully disagree with the president on the last part of what he said. I am going to challenge the patriotism of people who disagree with him because the people that disagree with him want to lose."
<--- This concludes excerpts, so this is the part where I say "Seriously, Rush, what the fuck?" So where's Congress's resolution condemming this dude who says he is more patriotic than the two phony soldiers who co-wrote the Op-Ed piece just died (not to mention the third who was shot in the face)?
Also, if I am parsing that last sentence up there correctly, Rush is disagreeing with Bush to say that people who disagree with Bush want to lose? So Rush wants to lose? Exile that non-patriotic junkie fuck right now!
Anyway, please read Rush's whole conversation with Caller #1, cause it's awesome, and ends with:
1. During the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq "phony soldiers."
2. On August 19, The New York Times published an op-ed by seven members of the U.S. Army 82nd Airborne Division [which advocated withdrawl, or at least that "it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit." --k]
3. On September 12, The New York Times noted: "Two of the soldiers who wrote of their pessimism about the war in an Op-Ed article that appeared in The New York Times on Aug. 19 were killed in Baghdad on Monday."
4. As Media Matters for America has documented, Limbaugh denounced as "contemptible" and "indecent" MoveOn.org's much-discussed advertisement -- titled "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" -- critical of Gen. David Petraeus, but has repeatedly attacked the patriotism of those with whom he disagrees. For instance, on the January 25 broadcast of his radio show, he told his audience that he had a new name for Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), a Vietnam veteran: "Senator Betrayus." A day earlier, Hagel had sided with Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in voting to approve a nonbinding resolution declaring that President Bush's escalation in Iraq was against "the national interest." Additionally, on August 21, 2006, Limbaugh said: "I want to respectfully disagree with the president on the last part of what he said. I am going to challenge the patriotism of people who disagree with him because the people that disagree with him want to lose."
<--- This concludes excerpts, so this is the part where I say "Seriously, Rush, what the fuck?" So where's Congress's resolution condemming this dude who says he is more patriotic than the two phony soldiers who co-wrote the Op-Ed piece just died (not to mention the third who was shot in the face)?
Also, if I am parsing that last sentence up there correctly, Rush is disagreeing with Bush to say that people who disagree with Bush want to lose? So Rush wants to lose? Exile that non-patriotic junkie fuck right now!
Anyway, please read Rush's whole conversation with Caller #1, cause it's awesome, and ends with:
CALLER 1: -- you know, really -- I want you to be saying how long it's gonna take.You would know, Rush.
LIMBAUGH: And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon!
CALLER 1: How long do we have to stay there?
LIMBAUGH: You're not listening to what I say. You can't possibly be a Republican. I'm answering every question. That's not what you want to hear, so it's not even penetrating your little wall of armor you've got built up.
Spirited!
Does this cat really look like he's "in the Halloween spirit"? Looks more like he's about to maul the photographer. I am however seriously considering subjecting my (male) cat to this getup:
I think he'd be down. He is a princess.
God, I love Halloween. What is better than adults acting like retarded children, ancient pagan rites and chocolate all at the same time?
Also, pumpkins!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)