http://insanemiscellany.wordpress.com/
From the mind that brought you Junkyard Wolf's Junkyard
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Saturday, October 2, 2010
A Brief Note on Celdran's Little Media Whore Stunt
Using Rizal to defend this noxious deal with Mephistopheles that is the RH Bill is like some moron stoner using Thomas Jefferson to defend marijuana use in public.
Celdran did not strike a blow for his cause that day. All he did was drag Rizal through the dirt. For never has Rizal argued for the slow extinction of the Filipino as Lagman and his Mad Men have.
I have long said that the demons that have haunted the West would make their way here, for we are a Western country no matter how hard we try to deny it. Now, the night is drawing near.
On a side note, the Church should just excommunicate Noynoy Aquino. Sure, the Church will be hit with both barrels by our shrill, manipulative media, but She's gonna get the shotgun treatment anyway. If you're going to go down, it is best to go down standing. The Bishops made a mistake supporting this amateur for president. They should grow some balls and rectify that mistake.
Celdran did not strike a blow for his cause that day. All he did was drag Rizal through the dirt. For never has Rizal argued for the slow extinction of the Filipino as Lagman and his Mad Men have.
I have long said that the demons that have haunted the West would make their way here, for we are a Western country no matter how hard we try to deny it. Now, the night is drawing near.
On a side note, the Church should just excommunicate Noynoy Aquino. Sure, the Church will be hit with both barrels by our shrill, manipulative media, but She's gonna get the shotgun treatment anyway. If you're going to go down, it is best to go down standing. The Bishops made a mistake supporting this amateur for president. They should grow some balls and rectify that mistake.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
May Day Eve 2010 Trailer
ViARE Presents
May Day Eve 2010
Directed by Juan Ekis
Trailer
Director: J. R. Guillermo
Cinematographer: Joachim Antonio and T.J. Aguirre
Editor: J. R. Guillermo and Joachim Antonio
Score: Joao Atienza and Ian Amane
Monday, September 13, 2010
The Sexual Revolution Will Die with a Wig On
Camille Paglia, one of the most articulate cultural defenders of the Sexual Revolution that began with the concept of reproductive freedom, is seeing the the gruesome end of her labors. And the end is personified in that un-erotic mannequin this last generation has elevated to the status of "icon", Lady Gaga.
Gaga has borrowed so heavily from Madonna (as in her latest video-Alejandro) that it must be asked, at what point does homage become theft? However, the main point is that the young Madonna was on fire. She was indeed the imperious Marlene Dietrich’s true heir. For Gaga, sex is mainly decor and surface; she’s like a laminated piece of ersatz rococo furniture. Alarmingly, Generation Gaga can’t tell the difference. Is it the death of sex? Perhaps the symbolic status that sex had for a century has gone kaput; that blazing trajectory is over…
While I do not share her admiration for the fake Madonna (I have infinitely greater love and admiration for the real one), I bemusedly share her fascination with the total collapse of what the Sexual Revolution categorizes as "erotic". After years of being told that sexual freedom is...well... sexy, it is funny how plain, boring and plastic the resulting erotica is. There is only so much capital sex can put out, stored up in century upon century of mystique and mystery. Like with the financial system, the well of that capital is not inexhaustible. We've dried up in forty years what took millenia to build up.
We have learned, to our great detriment, that sex divorced from the transcendent which gave it power becomes just another routine animal activity. Dump after you pump.
At the end of this crap-colored rainbow stands Lady Gaga, possibly the ugliest, cheesiest, creepiest living thing to be ever named a sex symbol. She is the epitome of "poseur" - a rebel bankrolled by a marketing committee; a hack promoted as an artist. One thing that Ms. Paglia seems to overlook is that borrowing from fake Madonna is not like borrowing from Mozart. It is simply because fake Madonna's brilliance, borne at the vanguard of the Sexual Revolution, cannot be sustained for it contains nothing timeless. It is a thing of the moment; a stupid thing meant to die with its moment. Among Lady Gaga's litany of mediocrities is her inability to find a better source to borrow from.
Those couples with large numbers of children which horrify the champions of the Sexual Revolution likely have a greater store of the erotic than the sterile culture-makers for whom sex is but a hobby. After all, these large-brooded couples keep having sex. Those children have to come from somewhere.
I remember a scene from the first "Godfather" movie, where Al Pacino's Michael Corleone meets Simonetta Stefanelli's Apollonia Vitelli while walking in a wheat field in Sicily. Apollonia was wearing simple purple dress, long and chaste, nothing fancy. But she radiates such a glow that Michael Corleone is dumbstruck. Their courtship occurs under the watch of Apollonia's conservative relatives, but because of this, every gesture becomes loaded with sexual tension, from her hand on a necklace to the two of them walking together. The couple are wed in church, and the movie has their first kiss come before the priest and the village. The resulting "first night" scene, where Apollonia shyly takes off her simple white nightgown in front of her husband for the first time, has more eroticism packed into it than a three-hour porno.
Unfortunately for Generation Sex, all they've been served (and are serving) for the past forty-odd years are nothing more than three-hour pornos. Long, boring, and ultimately tiring. When sex becomes this rote and pointless, I wonder if Generation Sex will even manage to get off its ass long enough to beget another.
So, this is the party at the end of the Revolution: a bunch of asexual blow-up goth dolls gyrating listlessly to "Alejandro".
Gaga has borrowed so heavily from Madonna (as in her latest video-Alejandro) that it must be asked, at what point does homage become theft? However, the main point is that the young Madonna was on fire. She was indeed the imperious Marlene Dietrich’s true heir. For Gaga, sex is mainly decor and surface; she’s like a laminated piece of ersatz rococo furniture. Alarmingly, Generation Gaga can’t tell the difference. Is it the death of sex? Perhaps the symbolic status that sex had for a century has gone kaput; that blazing trajectory is over…
While I do not share her admiration for the fake Madonna (I have infinitely greater love and admiration for the real one), I bemusedly share her fascination with the total collapse of what the Sexual Revolution categorizes as "erotic". After years of being told that sexual freedom is...well... sexy, it is funny how plain, boring and plastic the resulting erotica is. There is only so much capital sex can put out, stored up in century upon century of mystique and mystery. Like with the financial system, the well of that capital is not inexhaustible. We've dried up in forty years what took millenia to build up.
We have learned, to our great detriment, that sex divorced from the transcendent which gave it power becomes just another routine animal activity. Dump after you pump.
At the end of this crap-colored rainbow stands Lady Gaga, possibly the ugliest, cheesiest, creepiest living thing to be ever named a sex symbol. She is the epitome of "poseur" - a rebel bankrolled by a marketing committee; a hack promoted as an artist. One thing that Ms. Paglia seems to overlook is that borrowing from fake Madonna is not like borrowing from Mozart. It is simply because fake Madonna's brilliance, borne at the vanguard of the Sexual Revolution, cannot be sustained for it contains nothing timeless. It is a thing of the moment; a stupid thing meant to die with its moment. Among Lady Gaga's litany of mediocrities is her inability to find a better source to borrow from.
Those couples with large numbers of children which horrify the champions of the Sexual Revolution likely have a greater store of the erotic than the sterile culture-makers for whom sex is but a hobby. After all, these large-brooded couples keep having sex. Those children have to come from somewhere.
I remember a scene from the first "Godfather" movie, where Al Pacino's Michael Corleone meets Simonetta Stefanelli's Apollonia Vitelli while walking in a wheat field in Sicily. Apollonia was wearing simple purple dress, long and chaste, nothing fancy. But she radiates such a glow that Michael Corleone is dumbstruck. Their courtship occurs under the watch of Apollonia's conservative relatives, but because of this, every gesture becomes loaded with sexual tension, from her hand on a necklace to the two of them walking together. The couple are wed in church, and the movie has their first kiss come before the priest and the village. The resulting "first night" scene, where Apollonia shyly takes off her simple white nightgown in front of her husband for the first time, has more eroticism packed into it than a three-hour porno.
Unfortunately for Generation Sex, all they've been served (and are serving) for the past forty-odd years are nothing more than three-hour pornos. Long, boring, and ultimately tiring. When sex becomes this rote and pointless, I wonder if Generation Sex will even manage to get off its ass long enough to beget another.
So, this is the party at the end of the Revolution: a bunch of asexual blow-up goth dolls gyrating listlessly to "Alejandro".
Sunday, August 29, 2010
What England Was...
Theodore Dalrymple writes in an article called "The End of Virtuous Albion":
The husband of another of my patients, a man in his late seventies, described how his wife's compulsions--constant checking that the gas was turned off, for example, and repeated scrubbing of surfaces that were obviously already spotlessly clean--had sometimes made his life very difficult. His wife's compulsions had lasted fifty years, and since she never completed her checking she was often unable to leave the house.
"Why did you stay with her?" I asked, my question demonstrating that I was myself a creature of the modern age.
"I made a promise in church fifty years ago," he said. "And I meant it."
There are more such examples as Dalrymple tried to put into words his feelings about the decline of the British character. These old Englishmen, polite, unflinching, stoic, and still possessed of a remarkable sense of honor, stands in stark contrast to all those morons who make up my "UK Run by the Stupids" files.
It was for men such as the above, who would not leave a most annoying woman due to a promise given in church, or the one who did not wish to disturb his doctor except for the now-unbearable pain, these guys were the stuff England was once made of. It was for this aged generation that "There Will Always Be an England" was sung, and you could believe it with the stern strength of character possessed by many common men of that time.
Today? The UK is just waiting to be euthanized into an Islamic fiefdom. Its current generation of arrogant, Pop-glugging hooligans are ultimately spineless in the most important things. And now, Albion's time is almost up. There won't always be an England.
The husband of another of my patients, a man in his late seventies, described how his wife's compulsions--constant checking that the gas was turned off, for example, and repeated scrubbing of surfaces that were obviously already spotlessly clean--had sometimes made his life very difficult. His wife's compulsions had lasted fifty years, and since she never completed her checking she was often unable to leave the house.
"Why did you stay with her?" I asked, my question demonstrating that I was myself a creature of the modern age.
"I made a promise in church fifty years ago," he said. "And I meant it."
There are more such examples as Dalrymple tried to put into words his feelings about the decline of the British character. These old Englishmen, polite, unflinching, stoic, and still possessed of a remarkable sense of honor, stands in stark contrast to all those morons who make up my "UK Run by the Stupids" files.
It was for men such as the above, who would not leave a most annoying woman due to a promise given in church, or the one who did not wish to disturb his doctor except for the now-unbearable pain, these guys were the stuff England was once made of. It was for this aged generation that "There Will Always Be an England" was sung, and you could believe it with the stern strength of character possessed by many common men of that time.
Today? The UK is just waiting to be euthanized into an Islamic fiefdom. Its current generation of arrogant, Pop-glugging hooligans are ultimately spineless in the most important things. And now, Albion's time is almost up. There won't always be an England.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Sports I Find Unwatchable
Sports are one of the greatest entertainment events in the world. They provide a lot of action, some built-in drama and conflict, as well as a feeling of gritty reality that so-called reality shows can only dream of. Plus, they make excellent analogues for a human past-time one can no longer indulge at will: war.
However, I find some of them a chore to watch, for several reasons. Sometimes it's the nature of the sport. Sometimes, its the participants. After all, not all sports are bone-crunchingly, high-flyingly equal.
(Note: These are just sports I've encountered personally, whether live or on TV, and are considered actual sports. Sorry, chess, poker, billiards and cheerleading.)
Men's Tennis
I used to love tennis, back before I discovered videogames and fun. I quickly realized that tennis, while fast-paced and occasionally frenetic, is essentially human Pong with a needlessly confusing scoring system. Of course, I should have said "Tennis" instead of "Men's Tennis", but I still find some juvenile delight in hearing girls in short skirts grunt loudly. That's the only reason I'd watch women's tennis. That and the prospect of seeing a future supermodel.
Oh, and to keep up with the latest in super soldier steroids....
Also applies to: Badminton, Table Tennis
Golf
I don't know why golf gets so much coverage. I can understand golf as a hobby for old men whose athleticism had deserted them around the same time their prostates did. But, as a spectator sport, I cannot imagine being excited by a bunch of middle-aged guys (or dykes) strolling around grassy knolls with their manservants carrying all the stuff. (This is, like, 85% of the sport.) Even when Tiger Woods, the most athletic, exciting golfer in the history of ever, played, I always believed that he should be playing basketball or football instead. It seemed like he got more of a workout with a stripper on his lap than with a club in his hands.
Pictured: Athlete?
Also applies to: Any sport where you spend more time cutting business deals than playing.
Women's Basketball
Basketball is a great game. People speak of soccer as "the beautiful game" when played a certain way (Brazil, Barcelona and 70's Holland), but basketball has its savage beauty already so inherent that it need not be described as "the beautiful game" simply because it already is. The muscling in the paint, bone-crunching picks, the rising form of the jumpshot, the elegant fastbreak and the swift, graceful savagery of the slam dunk all combine to make basketball one of the most amazing athletic endeavours to behold. But all that is in the men's game.
The women's game is slow, ponderous and played way, way below the rim. There is just a fraction of the athleticism and excitement. Slam dunks are so glaringly absent that the politically-correct media celebrates the prospect of a girl "dunking" like its the Second Coming of Christ, never mind the fact that the "girl dunk" is just a glorified lay up where your fingers graze the rim. Ostensibly, the excuse is that the women's game is about basketball "fundamentals", but the women's game even does "fundamentals" badly. Even Mr. Fundamentals (aka Tim Duncan) can make the game look coherent, intelligible and exciting. Sheryl Swoopes, the so-called "female Jordan" (if Jordan couldn't dunk, shoot the fade-away or play defense), looks that way because she's guarded by Susie, the "blonde who once took up Child Welfare studies in college before experimenting".
The only reason the WNBA exists is because the NBA needs a charitable cause to its politically-correct name. That, and the world needs a place to see lesbians making out in public. Unfortunately for the WNBA, most of its lesbians are the "grizzly bears with mullets" kind.
Girl-on-girl action...???
Also applies to: most women's versions of men's team sports, with notable exceptions being women's volleyball and women's soccer.
Equestrian Jumping
So your horse can jump. Yay. Sign my souvenir program, horse.
Now, if you give the rider a lance and some armor, then we're in business....
All sports should be like this....
Also applies to: All non-racing equestrian events...until they legitimize jousting.
Men's Figure Skating
Women's figure skating can be a joy to watch. A slender woman in some pretty tights twirls to classical Western music, and the world applauds this celebration of femininity. It's like the culmination of feminine grace on stage for everyone to admire.
Then some dude similarly dressed comes along and ruins it all.
Look, if I wanted to see some faggy drag queen gyrating to music, (and I never, ever want to see this) I'd be in a gay club, not watching TV.
Someone do the world a favor and kick all men's figure skaters in the nuts. Of course, that won't hurt much as they're probably already neutered.
Men, men, men, men, manly men....
Also applies to: the Gay Olympics
Women's Power-Lifting
Take everything that was sublime about women's figure skating and find the direct opposite. This is women's power-lifting.
The only time I'd be watching this sport is after I have pledged to never sleep with a woman, ever again.
Her milkshake caused the formation of a new fault line...
Also applies to: Women's body-building
However, I find some of them a chore to watch, for several reasons. Sometimes it's the nature of the sport. Sometimes, its the participants. After all, not all sports are bone-crunchingly, high-flyingly equal.
(Note: These are just sports I've encountered personally, whether live or on TV, and are considered actual sports. Sorry, chess, poker, billiards and cheerleading.)
Men's Tennis
I used to love tennis, back before I discovered videogames and fun. I quickly realized that tennis, while fast-paced and occasionally frenetic, is essentially human Pong with a needlessly confusing scoring system. Of course, I should have said "Tennis" instead of "Men's Tennis", but I still find some juvenile delight in hearing girls in short skirts grunt loudly. That's the only reason I'd watch women's tennis. That and the prospect of seeing a future supermodel.
Oh, and to keep up with the latest in super soldier steroids....Also applies to: Badminton, Table Tennis
Golf
I don't know why golf gets so much coverage. I can understand golf as a hobby for old men whose athleticism had deserted them around the same time their prostates did. But, as a spectator sport, I cannot imagine being excited by a bunch of middle-aged guys (or dykes) strolling around grassy knolls with their manservants carrying all the stuff. (This is, like, 85% of the sport.) Even when Tiger Woods, the most athletic, exciting golfer in the history of ever, played, I always believed that he should be playing basketball or football instead. It seemed like he got more of a workout with a stripper on his lap than with a club in his hands.
Pictured: Athlete?Also applies to: Any sport where you spend more time cutting business deals than playing.
Women's Basketball
Basketball is a great game. People speak of soccer as "the beautiful game" when played a certain way (Brazil, Barcelona and 70's Holland), but basketball has its savage beauty already so inherent that it need not be described as "the beautiful game" simply because it already is. The muscling in the paint, bone-crunching picks, the rising form of the jumpshot, the elegant fastbreak and the swift, graceful savagery of the slam dunk all combine to make basketball one of the most amazing athletic endeavours to behold. But all that is in the men's game.
The women's game is slow, ponderous and played way, way below the rim. There is just a fraction of the athleticism and excitement. Slam dunks are so glaringly absent that the politically-correct media celebrates the prospect of a girl "dunking" like its the Second Coming of Christ, never mind the fact that the "girl dunk" is just a glorified lay up where your fingers graze the rim. Ostensibly, the excuse is that the women's game is about basketball "fundamentals", but the women's game even does "fundamentals" badly. Even Mr. Fundamentals (aka Tim Duncan) can make the game look coherent, intelligible and exciting. Sheryl Swoopes, the so-called "female Jordan" (if Jordan couldn't dunk, shoot the fade-away or play defense), looks that way because she's guarded by Susie, the "blonde who once took up Child Welfare studies in college before experimenting".
The only reason the WNBA exists is because the NBA needs a charitable cause to its politically-correct name. That, and the world needs a place to see lesbians making out in public. Unfortunately for the WNBA, most of its lesbians are the "grizzly bears with mullets" kind.
Girl-on-girl action...???Also applies to: most women's versions of men's team sports, with notable exceptions being women's volleyball and women's soccer.
Equestrian Jumping
So your horse can jump. Yay. Sign my souvenir program, horse.
Now, if you give the rider a lance and some armor, then we're in business....
All sports should be like this....Also applies to: All non-racing equestrian events...until they legitimize jousting.
Men's Figure Skating
Women's figure skating can be a joy to watch. A slender woman in some pretty tights twirls to classical Western music, and the world applauds this celebration of femininity. It's like the culmination of feminine grace on stage for everyone to admire.
Then some dude similarly dressed comes along and ruins it all.
Look, if I wanted to see some faggy drag queen gyrating to music, (and I never, ever want to see this) I'd be in a gay club, not watching TV.
Someone do the world a favor and kick all men's figure skaters in the nuts. Of course, that won't hurt much as they're probably already neutered.
Men, men, men, men, manly men.... Also applies to: the Gay Olympics
Women's Power-Lifting
Take everything that was sublime about women's figure skating and find the direct opposite. This is women's power-lifting.
The only time I'd be watching this sport is after I have pledged to never sleep with a woman, ever again.
Her milkshake caused the formation of a new fault line...Also applies to: Women's body-building
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Flirting is Now a College Course
Potsdam University wants its IT geek swamp to reproduce, after all.
Of course, only grad students need apply.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Of course, only grad students need apply.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Speaking of the Sons of the French Revolution
It looks like the country that no longer exists is having another one of those fits of multicultural love as expressed by its most multicultural activity: rioting.
You have the French Chinese rioting against the French Moslems.
And then you have the French Moslems rioting against...everybody else.
More fun in the land of Robbespierre.
Whereas France used to be this:
Bayard, one of France's greatest knightsIt is now this:
Some Moslems celebrating multiculturalismSunday, July 18, 2010
Last Week Was Bastille Day
And to give this wretched day and the rest of the French Revolution a big middle finger, here is a look at the last letter written by the person most caricatured and villified by the murderous French revolutionaries: Marie Antionette.
The letter was written to her sister, and the letter was held and never delivered by the monster Robbespierre. Some excerpts:
Let my daughter feel that at her age she ought always to aid her brother by the advice which her greater experience and her affection may inspire her to give him. And let my son in his turn render to his sister all the care and all the services which affection can inspire. Let them, in short, both feel that, in whatever positions they may be placed, they will never be truly happy but through their union. Let them follow our example. In our own misfortunes how much comfort has our affection for one another afforded us! And, in times of happiness, we have enjoyed that doubly from being able to share it with a friend; and where can one find friends more tender and more united than in one's own family? Let my son never forget the last words of his father, which I repeat emphatically; let him never seek to avenge our deaths.
...
I die in the Catholic Apostolic and Roman religion, that of my fathers, that in which I was brought up, and which I have always professed. Having no spiritual consolation to look for, not even knowing whether there are still in this place any priests of that religion (and indeed the place where I am would expose them to too much danger if they were to enter it but once), I sincerely implore pardon of God for all the faults which I may have committed during my life. I trust that, in His goodness, He will mercifully accept my last prayers, as well as those which I have for a long time addressed to Him, to receive my soul into His mercy. I beg pardon of all whom I know, and especially of you, my sister, for all the vexations which, without intending it, I may have caused you. I pardon all my enemies the evils that they have done me.
Far from being the cartoon villain of "let them eat cake" infamy (a quote falsely atrributed to her), she was an intelligent and spiritual woman whose strength and willfulness both made her an important partner for her kingly husband and an easy target for her husband's enemies. (Being Austrian, and therefore foreign, made things even easier.)
In the end, she conducted herself with such grace during her trial that her prosecutors came off looking like the vultures they were. Months after her own execution, the beasts started eating each other.
The letter was written to her sister, and the letter was held and never delivered by the monster Robbespierre. Some excerpts:
Let my daughter feel that at her age she ought always to aid her brother by the advice which her greater experience and her affection may inspire her to give him. And let my son in his turn render to his sister all the care and all the services which affection can inspire. Let them, in short, both feel that, in whatever positions they may be placed, they will never be truly happy but through their union. Let them follow our example. In our own misfortunes how much comfort has our affection for one another afforded us! And, in times of happiness, we have enjoyed that doubly from being able to share it with a friend; and where can one find friends more tender and more united than in one's own family? Let my son never forget the last words of his father, which I repeat emphatically; let him never seek to avenge our deaths.
...
I die in the Catholic Apostolic and Roman religion, that of my fathers, that in which I was brought up, and which I have always professed. Having no spiritual consolation to look for, not even knowing whether there are still in this place any priests of that religion (and indeed the place where I am would expose them to too much danger if they were to enter it but once), I sincerely implore pardon of God for all the faults which I may have committed during my life. I trust that, in His goodness, He will mercifully accept my last prayers, as well as those which I have for a long time addressed to Him, to receive my soul into His mercy. I beg pardon of all whom I know, and especially of you, my sister, for all the vexations which, without intending it, I may have caused you. I pardon all my enemies the evils that they have done me.
Far from being the cartoon villain of "let them eat cake" infamy (a quote falsely atrributed to her), she was an intelligent and spiritual woman whose strength and willfulness both made her an important partner for her kingly husband and an easy target for her husband's enemies. (Being Austrian, and therefore foreign, made things even easier.)
In the end, she conducted herself with such grace during her trial that her prosecutors came off looking like the vultures they were. Months after her own execution, the beasts started eating each other.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
If I Were to Practice One Eccentric Sport...
...it would be jousting.
I mean, come on, look at these guys!
Not pictured: flopping for penalties and charging fouls
If this becomes a professional sport, I hope some sports channel carries it.
Look at it: all the violence of American football and some really sweet-looking armor. As a combat sport, it suffers from a system that pauses after spurts of action (like American football and boxing) in order to allow fallen competitors to regroup, and this opens it to exploitation by advertisers. However, there is no rolling around and writhing together for whole rounds like in MMA. Plus, you are assured of bone-crunching hits and flowing testosterone.
All this while wearing some of the most beautiful armor ever made.
Sign me up.
PS
On the downside, its really expensive.
I mean, come on, look at these guys!
Not pictured: flopping for penalties and charging foulsIf this becomes a professional sport, I hope some sports channel carries it.
Look at it: all the violence of American football and some really sweet-looking armor. As a combat sport, it suffers from a system that pauses after spurts of action (like American football and boxing) in order to allow fallen competitors to regroup, and this opens it to exploitation by advertisers. However, there is no rolling around and writhing together for whole rounds like in MMA. Plus, you are assured of bone-crunching hits and flowing testosterone.
All this while wearing some of the most beautiful armor ever made.
Sign me up.
PS
On the downside, its really expensive.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Viva España!
What a great way for all of it to end. A victory for Spanish / FC Barcelona football, and for football in general!
While I feel for the Orange, I find it a good thing that dirty, thuggish football lost today.
And yes, a team I like finally didn't suck!
Oh, and Nike refused to leave well enough alone, cursing one of the few nice Dutch players with this just before the final:
While I feel for the Orange, I find it a good thing that dirty, thuggish football lost today.
And yes, a team I like finally didn't suck!
Oh, and Nike refused to leave well enough alone, cursing one of the few nice Dutch players with this just before the final:
Sneijder should have known better....
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Twilight for Guys
The video's NSFW, so I'll only post the link.
Quotes:
This movie was freakin' awesome!
That shit choked me up....
Its like a female Shawshank Redemption, directed by Michael Bay!
It was the writing that did it for me....
I thought these movies were really gay, but it was the good gay...
Quotes:
This movie was freakin' awesome!
That shit choked me up....
Its like a female Shawshank Redemption, directed by Michael Bay!
It was the writing that did it for me....
I thought these movies were really gay, but it was the good gay...
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
G20 Finally Realizes Global Warming Fraud
It was easy to go parroting global warming when the summer is hot. This past summer sure was. It is harder to put things in perspective. Hot as it was, this summer didn't feel as hot as the summer of 2000.
That said, its looking like the world's leading nations are finally "warming" up to the notion that Global Warming is an Al Gore-drenched fraud of massive proportions.
When your advocacy requires that you spend billions of other peoples' money to prop up the warm hackles of rich people's hearts, you're going to get called on it. The last thing the world needs is another damn tax to satisfy the greenies.
That said, its looking like the world's leading nations are finally "warming" up to the notion that Global Warming is an Al Gore-drenched fraud of massive proportions.
When your advocacy requires that you spend billions of other peoples' money to prop up the warm hackles of rich people's hearts, you're going to get called on it. The last thing the world needs is another damn tax to satisfy the greenies.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Soccer's Madden Curse
I'm sure the sports and videogame geeks out there are familiar with the Madden curse. Whenever an NFL player appears on the cover of a Madden football videogame, he is bound to encounter catastrophe the next season.
Now, soccer has its own version, thanks to Nike.
Watch this:
Look at the superstars who participated in that commercial (which came out in May) and their World Cup performances afterward.
Didier Drogba: Broke his arm in a friendly against Japan. One meaningless goal as his team gets knocked out in the group stages.
Fabio Cannavaro: Limps through three games as Italy is knocked out by Slovakia (and that really awesome mohawk) in the group stages.
Wayne Rooney: Goes scoreless as England gets murdered by eternal rival Germany in the first knockout stage.
Franck Ribery: Had the shittiest World Cup of those participants who did make it. Participated in the great French team blow-up that has made them the embarrassment of the tournament. Also the ugliest soccer player to be named a star. (Looks like a child molester, and I'd include the soliciting underage prostitutes charges against him if they had occured after the commercial was released.)
Ronaldinho: Didn't even make it to the World Cup. Snubbed by Dunga.
Cristiano Ronaldo: This king of the World Cup douchebags (the commercial portrays him as such) managed one goal in four games and gets shut down by Spain as Portugal gets knocked out at the first knockout stage. I liked Portugal, but Ronaldo was an ass with an atittude problem.
Cameos:
Landon Donovan and Tim Howard: Team USA crashes out ignominously against Ghana in the first knockout stage. Howard concedes two goals and Donovan gasses out in extra time.
Theo Walcott: Didn't even get called up.
Cesc Fabregas: Cesc who? Though to be fair, Spain's still in it at this point, but unless your name is David Villa or Andres Iniesta, you don't get to take credit. Plus, Fabregas has taken the field for all of...what...15 minutes? I get the feeling Spanish manager del Bosque has been briefed about the curse, likely from watching the next guy...
Update: His premature run gets a potential game-winning goal disallowed and his attempt to rebound a shot results in an injured shoulder.
Gerard Pique: Spain's still in the hunt, but still... hehehehe.... poor bastard. Not only was he the reason Spain lost to Switzerland, giving ominous signs for Spain's historic choking, he ends up with two boots to the face and a swift shot to the crotch. Having fun yet, Pique?
Update: While Spain is doing well, his individual performance continues to suffer as he almost gives the game away to Paraguay via a stupid penalty box foul.
I wonder what this curse will be called? The Nike curse? The "Write the Future" curse?
Hehe, "write the future"...
Now, soccer has its own version, thanks to Nike.
Watch this:
Look at the superstars who participated in that commercial (which came out in May) and their World Cup performances afterward.
Didier Drogba: Broke his arm in a friendly against Japan. One meaningless goal as his team gets knocked out in the group stages.
Fabio Cannavaro: Limps through three games as Italy is knocked out by Slovakia (and that really awesome mohawk) in the group stages.
Wayne Rooney: Goes scoreless as England gets murdered by eternal rival Germany in the first knockout stage.
Franck Ribery: Had the shittiest World Cup of those participants who did make it. Participated in the great French team blow-up that has made them the embarrassment of the tournament. Also the ugliest soccer player to be named a star. (Looks like a child molester, and I'd include the soliciting underage prostitutes charges against him if they had occured after the commercial was released.)
Ronaldinho: Didn't even make it to the World Cup. Snubbed by Dunga.
Cristiano Ronaldo: This king of the World Cup douchebags (the commercial portrays him as such) managed one goal in four games and gets shut down by Spain as Portugal gets knocked out at the first knockout stage. I liked Portugal, but Ronaldo was an ass with an atittude problem.
Cameos:
Landon Donovan and Tim Howard: Team USA crashes out ignominously against Ghana in the first knockout stage. Howard concedes two goals and Donovan gasses out in extra time.
Theo Walcott: Didn't even get called up.
Cesc Fabregas: Cesc who? Though to be fair, Spain's still in it at this point, but unless your name is David Villa or Andres Iniesta, you don't get to take credit. Plus, Fabregas has taken the field for all of...what...15 minutes? I get the feeling Spanish manager del Bosque has been briefed about the curse, likely from watching the next guy...
Update: His premature run gets a potential game-winning goal disallowed and his attempt to rebound a shot results in an injured shoulder.
Gerard Pique: Spain's still in the hunt, but still... hehehehe.... poor bastard. Not only was he the reason Spain lost to Switzerland, giving ominous signs for Spain's historic choking, he ends up with two boots to the face and a swift shot to the crotch. Having fun yet, Pique?
Update: While Spain is doing well, his individual performance continues to suffer as he almost gives the game away to Paraguay via a stupid penalty box foul.
I wonder what this curse will be called? The Nike curse? The "Write the Future" curse?
Hehe, "write the future"...
Not Quite Unforseen
Apparently, married women who grow sullen without Edward Cullen tend to make mince meat of their marriages. One more reason to hack off Stephanie Meyer's writing (typing) hand(s).
These two are supposed to be lovers. Yes, Meyer's fans are that creepy.
I guess sparkly vampires really can suck the life out of something, even if its the marriage of some malcontent with a vagina.
The article does get one thing wrong, though. Or rather, one of the quoted "scientists" is wrong. I've never met a man who would turn down sex with his wife over the performance of his favorite sports team. So that analogy is a wash.
These two are supposed to be lovers. Yes, Meyer's fans are that creepy. I guess sparkly vampires really can suck the life out of something, even if its the marriage of some malcontent with a vagina.
The article does get one thing wrong, though. Or rather, one of the quoted "scientists" is wrong. I've never met a man who would turn down sex with his wife over the performance of his favorite sports team. So that analogy is a wash.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Kim Jong Il Sucks at Football
Apparently, he's behind the atrocious tactics North Korea displayed in that squash match with Portugal. So much for a propaganda victory.
Hehe, cellphones not visble to the naked eye. I wonder what the little guy will think of next.
Hehe, cellphones not visble to the naked eye. I wonder what the little guy will think of next.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Escaping an Upset is Not a "Miracle"
It's funny how the American media is celebrating ther soccer team's 1-0 victory over Algeria.
They escaped being upset by the second-lowest ranked team in their group, and they all think it was USA vs. USSR in hockey all over gain.
Managing to avoid an early exit like Italy is not a "miracle". These idiots should get over themselves. If Donovan was any sort of superstar, this should have been a squash match like Portugal vs. North Korea. The fact that they needed 91 minutes to get it done speaks more "incompetent" than "world beater".
A little perspective goes a long way.
They escaped being upset by the second-lowest ranked team in their group, and they all think it was USA vs. USSR in hockey all over gain.
Managing to avoid an early exit like Italy is not a "miracle". These idiots should get over themselves. If Donovan was any sort of superstar, this should have been a squash match like Portugal vs. North Korea. The fact that they needed 91 minutes to get it done speaks more "incompetent" than "world beater".
A little perspective goes a long way.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
Toy Story 3
| Rating: | ★★★★★ |
| Category: | Movies |
| Genre: | Animation |
When was the last time you saw a movie trilogy that got better with every movie? I can't remember. But next time I am asked that question, I will undoubtably answer "Toy Story".
The first movie was quite good. The second movie was awesome. This third movie is the best of the trilogy. It offers the same sense of grand adventure as the second movie, but offers a final act that both captures a kaleidoscope of emotions and meaning and provide a good and proper final wrap to the entire enterprise. Sure, it is slightly more gag-driven than the second, and considering what the third film is supposed to be, there is little room for further character development (except for Woody), but the last act puts it slightly above the second movie in my opinion. Whereas the second movie's final act alludes to the toys reaching this point, the third fleshes the point out with powerful symbols and emotions.
Structurally, this is the opposite of last year's beautiful "Up", wherein the power of the first ten minutes contextualizes the rest of the movie. In "Toy Story 3", the entire movie builds up the power of its last ten minutes, and those last ten minutes I will carry with me for the rest of my life, just as I would the first ten of "Up".
I originally planned to break this review down into parts, but now I find that I can't. This movie should be seen as a whole, and appreciated as a whole. Every element is perfectly in sync, from the story-telling to the 3D cinematography. This is, by far, the best movie I've seen this year.
And for once, I don't want to spoil it. Go see it for yourself, and be amazed. Pixar is the American Studio Ghibli, and this movie seals the comparison.
When, at the end of the movie, Andy says "Thanks, guys", you will want to say the same. Thank you, Woody, Buzz, and Pixar. Thanks for everything.
Now, I'm going to go and hug my old toys.
Iron Man Justifies Iron Man 2
With music!
Oh, and Green Lantern and Deadpool fight over Ryan Reynolds....
Continuity!
Oh, and Green Lantern and Deadpool fight over Ryan Reynolds....
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Saturday, June 19, 2010
The End of Men?
I guess, like with Mother's Day this year, I was premature with Father's Day by a week. However, I'd like to reiterate how important it is to show good fathers your appreciation this Father's Day, for they are under attack now more than they have ever been in any point in history.
As a case in point, here is how a prominent American "news" magazine is presenting its issue release on Father's Day:
The main article is "The End of Men", written by Hannah Rosin. If you go to the online version of the article, you will not only be treated to some asinine writing, you also get a cutesy little video wherein Hannah and her daughter debate her husband and son over who is better, boys or girls. Her husband, being a liberal ponce (editor at Slate), says nothing in the midst of his emasculation, with only his young son offering a defense of masculinity typical of young boys. (Boys can kick girls in the shins, that kind of thing.) Its quite sad when the seven year-old boy has more balls than his eunuch of a father.
Hannah proves to be the typical shallow thinker of the age when she spews crap like:
Man has been the dominant sex since, well, the dawn of mankind. But for the first time in human history, that is changing—and with shocking speed.
What in the world does she mean by "dominant"? That in a hunter-gatherer society, men were hunters and that hunting was "dominant"? Or that when men go farther afield, taking on the physical abuse of toil so their wives can raise their children, taking on toil is being dominant? I get the feeling that her definition of "dominant" is but 50 years old, spawned in that cesspool of the generations: the 60's.
I guess I can make some sexist statement about the intellectual capacity of female journalists, but I digress.
Here's more from the article:
“Women are knocking on the door of leadership at the very moment when their talents are especially well matched with the requirements of the day,” writes David Gergen in the introduction to Enlightened Power: How Women Are Transforming the Practice of Leadership. What are these talents? Once it was thought that leaders should be aggressive and competitive, and that men are naturally more of both. But psychological research has complicated this picture. In lab studies that simulate negotiations, men and women are just about equally assertive and competitive, with slight variations. Men tend to assert themselves in a controlling manner, while women tend to take into account the rights of others, but both styles are equally effective, write the psychologists Alice Eagly and Linda Carli, in their 2007 book, Through the Labyrinth.
This is the research Rosin presents as proof that we are obsolete, at least in business.
First off, who in the world would believe that you can "simulate negotiations" in a damn laboratory? Oh, yeah, Ivory Tower academics who know about as much as the real world as your average World of Warcraft basement dweller. Negotiating requires an assessment of position and the use of leverage. How did they simulate that in a lab?
And those "slight variations" are massive. Men take a more controlling and dominating approach, which is in a different league from women's taking "into account the rights of others". Guess what, when negotiating in business there is no "rights of others". There are interests. The more you can outmanoeuvre and dominate your partners and opposition, the more of your interest you can assert. Just ask Steve Jobs. Heck, the female CEO who was the poster child of feminine ascent to corporate power, HP's Carly Fiorina, is so patently unfeminine she shaves her head and takes pride in being a "ball buster". Why was she let go? Being a parody of masculinity, she often went too far and abused her authority over her colleagues.
Besides all that, how do you account for the fact that even female employees prefer having male bosses?
Then, there's this:
Researchers have started looking into the relationship between testosterone and excessive risk, and wondering if groups of men, in some basic hormonal way, spur each other to make reckless decisions.
Sure, with the current state of the economy, "reckless decisions" are being blamed as a cause. There is good reason for this. However, these people forget that it was also "reckless decision-making" that shaped world history and brought us civilization. The very first "reckless decision" by men (back then as hunters) was to look skyward and question his place in existence. This was followed by that reckless decision to abandon hunting, which they have known for so long, and to risk cultivating crops in a hostile environment. Go down a few more historical roads, and you have that reckless decision by Leonidas to oppose Xerxes, the reckless decision of Alexander to conquer the known world, and that reckless decision by Julius Caesar to cross the Rubicon. "Reckless" decisions, without the feminine hemming and hawing and consensus-building, are not useless.
Furthermore, there is this:
The same Columbia-Maryland study ranked America’s industries by the proportion of firms that employed female executives, and the bottom of the list reads like the ghosts of the economy past: shipbuilding, real estate, coal, steelworks, machinery.
So yes, the modern post-industrial economy somewhat favors women. Considering the dominance of service industries and the glut of corporations that service feminine consumption (and therefore must be led by women), this is to be expected in the United States. (And, coming to a third world country near you.) But before you pronounce the end of men in the post-industrial economy, do make note that economies go about in cycles. The current infrastructure is supported by wealth generated by those "ghosts of economy past", and considering the rapid deconstruction of the post-industrial economy we are seeing unfold before our very eyes (hello, Greece!), I do not find it convincing that economies dominated by marketing firms, non-manufacturing companies, government spending and the service sector are going to be sticking around forever. Furthermore, industries like steelworks, construction and real estate, while reduced, will never go away. Go ahead; try hiring a credit firm to build your house. And have a drink every time some female employee complains that sanding boards is "dirty work".
All of this brings us back to Hannah Rosin's weak-kneed husband, who may be what Pamela Paul had in mind when she wrote a piece called "Are Fathers Necessary?" for the same issue of The Atlantic.
The thrust of her article is simple. Fathers are "non-essential".
The bad news for Dad is that despite common perception, there’s nothing objectively essential about his contribution. The good news is, we’ve gotten used to him.
What led this woman to believe that there is nothing "objectively essential" about his contribution? First, she goes on about how the kids of single moms do "better" than the kids of single dads. Big whoop. Since child-rearing has always been the mother's forte, this is no surprise. If any, its an argument to stick together, because kids with both mom and dad do better than those of single parents, single mom or dad.
However, peel away the layers of her yammering, her proof boils down to two paragraphs:
The quality of parenting, Biblarz and Stacey say, is what really matters, not gender. But the real challenge to our notion of the “essential” father might well be the lesbian mom. On average, lesbian parents spend more time with their children than fathers do. They rate disputes with their children as less frequent than do hetero couples, and describe co-parenting more compatibly and with greater satisfaction. Their kids perceive their parents to be more available and dependable than do the children of heteros. They also discuss more emotional issues with their parents. They have fewer behavioral problems, and show more interest in and try harder at school.
According to Stacey and Biblarz, “Two women who chose to become parents together seemed to provide a double dose of a middle-class ‘feminine’ approach to parenting.” And, they conclude, “based strictly on the published science, one could argue that two women parent better on average than a woman and a man, or at least than a woman and man with a traditional division of family labor.”
Ah, "one could argue". One can also argue that aliens live in Roswell. How good is the proof of the "published science"?
Well, here's the problem with some of the "published science".
The first problem is that many of the researchers are activists before they are researchers, and are sponsored by activist organizations. Hence, this places the rigor of such studies in question. After all, are we to make credible research from Camel and Marlborough that cigarette-smoking is not all that bad?
The second problem stems from the first: these researchers not only have very small sample sizes, the sample sizes for the lesbian group are cherry-picked from economically well-off white lesbians, as compared to a more economically and racially diverse control group of regular parents. Cherry-picking skews results.
To further cast light on the dubiousness of the "science", in these research methodologies, the lesbians self-report the state of their children. So, you're basing scientific conclusions on the guarantee of your subjects?
Going beyond the research, you also have to take into consideration the fact that lesbians tend to rigorously screen the sperm donors they use to conceive. (Hey, who produces sperm? Fairies?) Hence, they can tailor their children to higher performance, much like you can tailor your dog to win dog shows through breeding.
So, the "science" used to render the contribution of fathers "non-essential" is a whole lot of junk.
Now, one can ask some counter questions of Pamela Paul. If fathers are so "non-essential", where is the civilization built on matriarchy? After all, if fathers were optional, then we should see the rise of some civilization that is wholly matriarchal. Matriarchies have existed in the past after all. But why did all of them end up absorbed into patriarchal societies?
A second question; how come most children who were conceived via anonymous sperm donor end up wanting to find their real fathers?
We may end up paraphrasing the question. With fatherhood under constant attack from an ignorant media and a complacent population, in line with the blitzkrieg on anything masculine, it is no surprise that we are seeing a decline in male achievement and participation in family life. After all, since men are resilient, if they can survive for themselves then they're good. What incentive do men have to cater to the needs of a society that scorns the very essence of their being? And so the fathers go into anonymity.
Needless to say, this bodes badly for Western civilization, a civilization built by the hands of fathers. And if Western civilization collapses, then we will truly enter another Dark Age. No offense to my fellow Asians, but if we are going to be led by a country that considers murdering children an essential part of its economic well-being, we are well and truly fucked.
So, show some love to those good men who decide to stick around for their children. And pray that your children's children will get to do so as well.
As a case in point, here is how a prominent American "news" magazine is presenting its issue release on Father's Day:
The main article is "The End of Men", written by Hannah Rosin. If you go to the online version of the article, you will not only be treated to some asinine writing, you also get a cutesy little video wherein Hannah and her daughter debate her husband and son over who is better, boys or girls. Her husband, being a liberal ponce (editor at Slate), says nothing in the midst of his emasculation, with only his young son offering a defense of masculinity typical of young boys. (Boys can kick girls in the shins, that kind of thing.) Its quite sad when the seven year-old boy has more balls than his eunuch of a father.
Hannah proves to be the typical shallow thinker of the age when she spews crap like:
Man has been the dominant sex since, well, the dawn of mankind. But for the first time in human history, that is changing—and with shocking speed.
What in the world does she mean by "dominant"? That in a hunter-gatherer society, men were hunters and that hunting was "dominant"? Or that when men go farther afield, taking on the physical abuse of toil so their wives can raise their children, taking on toil is being dominant? I get the feeling that her definition of "dominant" is but 50 years old, spawned in that cesspool of the generations: the 60's.
I guess I can make some sexist statement about the intellectual capacity of female journalists, but I digress.
Here's more from the article:
“Women are knocking on the door of leadership at the very moment when their talents are especially well matched with the requirements of the day,” writes David Gergen in the introduction to Enlightened Power: How Women Are Transforming the Practice of Leadership. What are these talents? Once it was thought that leaders should be aggressive and competitive, and that men are naturally more of both. But psychological research has complicated this picture. In lab studies that simulate negotiations, men and women are just about equally assertive and competitive, with slight variations. Men tend to assert themselves in a controlling manner, while women tend to take into account the rights of others, but both styles are equally effective, write the psychologists Alice Eagly and Linda Carli, in their 2007 book, Through the Labyrinth.
This is the research Rosin presents as proof that we are obsolete, at least in business.
First off, who in the world would believe that you can "simulate negotiations" in a damn laboratory? Oh, yeah, Ivory Tower academics who know about as much as the real world as your average World of Warcraft basement dweller. Negotiating requires an assessment of position and the use of leverage. How did they simulate that in a lab?
And those "slight variations" are massive. Men take a more controlling and dominating approach, which is in a different league from women's taking "into account the rights of others". Guess what, when negotiating in business there is no "rights of others". There are interests. The more you can outmanoeuvre and dominate your partners and opposition, the more of your interest you can assert. Just ask Steve Jobs. Heck, the female CEO who was the poster child of feminine ascent to corporate power, HP's Carly Fiorina, is so patently unfeminine she shaves her head and takes pride in being a "ball buster". Why was she let go? Being a parody of masculinity, she often went too far and abused her authority over her colleagues.
Besides all that, how do you account for the fact that even female employees prefer having male bosses?
Then, there's this:
Researchers have started looking into the relationship between testosterone and excessive risk, and wondering if groups of men, in some basic hormonal way, spur each other to make reckless decisions.
Sure, with the current state of the economy, "reckless decisions" are being blamed as a cause. There is good reason for this. However, these people forget that it was also "reckless decision-making" that shaped world history and brought us civilization. The very first "reckless decision" by men (back then as hunters) was to look skyward and question his place in existence. This was followed by that reckless decision to abandon hunting, which they have known for so long, and to risk cultivating crops in a hostile environment. Go down a few more historical roads, and you have that reckless decision by Leonidas to oppose Xerxes, the reckless decision of Alexander to conquer the known world, and that reckless decision by Julius Caesar to cross the Rubicon. "Reckless" decisions, without the feminine hemming and hawing and consensus-building, are not useless.
Furthermore, there is this:
The same Columbia-Maryland study ranked America’s industries by the proportion of firms that employed female executives, and the bottom of the list reads like the ghosts of the economy past: shipbuilding, real estate, coal, steelworks, machinery.
So yes, the modern post-industrial economy somewhat favors women. Considering the dominance of service industries and the glut of corporations that service feminine consumption (and therefore must be led by women), this is to be expected in the United States. (And, coming to a third world country near you.) But before you pronounce the end of men in the post-industrial economy, do make note that economies go about in cycles. The current infrastructure is supported by wealth generated by those "ghosts of economy past", and considering the rapid deconstruction of the post-industrial economy we are seeing unfold before our very eyes (hello, Greece!), I do not find it convincing that economies dominated by marketing firms, non-manufacturing companies, government spending and the service sector are going to be sticking around forever. Furthermore, industries like steelworks, construction and real estate, while reduced, will never go away. Go ahead; try hiring a credit firm to build your house. And have a drink every time some female employee complains that sanding boards is "dirty work".
All of this brings us back to Hannah Rosin's weak-kneed husband, who may be what Pamela Paul had in mind when she wrote a piece called "Are Fathers Necessary?" for the same issue of The Atlantic.
The thrust of her article is simple. Fathers are "non-essential".
The bad news for Dad is that despite common perception, there’s nothing objectively essential about his contribution. The good news is, we’ve gotten used to him.
What led this woman to believe that there is nothing "objectively essential" about his contribution? First, she goes on about how the kids of single moms do "better" than the kids of single dads. Big whoop. Since child-rearing has always been the mother's forte, this is no surprise. If any, its an argument to stick together, because kids with both mom and dad do better than those of single parents, single mom or dad.
However, peel away the layers of her yammering, her proof boils down to two paragraphs:
The quality of parenting, Biblarz and Stacey say, is what really matters, not gender. But the real challenge to our notion of the “essential” father might well be the lesbian mom. On average, lesbian parents spend more time with their children than fathers do. They rate disputes with their children as less frequent than do hetero couples, and describe co-parenting more compatibly and with greater satisfaction. Their kids perceive their parents to be more available and dependable than do the children of heteros. They also discuss more emotional issues with their parents. They have fewer behavioral problems, and show more interest in and try harder at school.
According to Stacey and Biblarz, “Two women who chose to become parents together seemed to provide a double dose of a middle-class ‘feminine’ approach to parenting.” And, they conclude, “based strictly on the published science, one could argue that two women parent better on average than a woman and a man, or at least than a woman and man with a traditional division of family labor.”
Ah, "one could argue". One can also argue that aliens live in Roswell. How good is the proof of the "published science"?
Well, here's the problem with some of the "published science".
The first problem is that many of the researchers are activists before they are researchers, and are sponsored by activist organizations. Hence, this places the rigor of such studies in question. After all, are we to make credible research from Camel and Marlborough that cigarette-smoking is not all that bad?
The second problem stems from the first: these researchers not only have very small sample sizes, the sample sizes for the lesbian group are cherry-picked from economically well-off white lesbians, as compared to a more economically and racially diverse control group of regular parents. Cherry-picking skews results.
To further cast light on the dubiousness of the "science", in these research methodologies, the lesbians self-report the state of their children. So, you're basing scientific conclusions on the guarantee of your subjects?
Going beyond the research, you also have to take into consideration the fact that lesbians tend to rigorously screen the sperm donors they use to conceive. (Hey, who produces sperm? Fairies?) Hence, they can tailor their children to higher performance, much like you can tailor your dog to win dog shows through breeding.
So, the "science" used to render the contribution of fathers "non-essential" is a whole lot of junk.
Now, one can ask some counter questions of Pamela Paul. If fathers are so "non-essential", where is the civilization built on matriarchy? After all, if fathers were optional, then we should see the rise of some civilization that is wholly matriarchal. Matriarchies have existed in the past after all. But why did all of them end up absorbed into patriarchal societies?
A second question; how come most children who were conceived via anonymous sperm donor end up wanting to find their real fathers?
We may end up paraphrasing the question. With fatherhood under constant attack from an ignorant media and a complacent population, in line with the blitzkrieg on anything masculine, it is no surprise that we are seeing a decline in male achievement and participation in family life. After all, since men are resilient, if they can survive for themselves then they're good. What incentive do men have to cater to the needs of a society that scorns the very essence of their being? And so the fathers go into anonymity.
Needless to say, this bodes badly for Western civilization, a civilization built by the hands of fathers. And if Western civilization collapses, then we will truly enter another Dark Age. No offense to my fellow Asians, but if we are going to be led by a country that considers murdering children an essential part of its economic well-being, we are well and truly fucked.
So, show some love to those good men who decide to stick around for their children. And pray that your children's children will get to do so as well.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Reboot Battle: Karate Kid
I've just finished seeing the new "Karate Kid" (or "Kung Fu kid" if you want to be more accurate) and I've been wanting to stack it up against the old "Karate Kid" as soon as I exited the theater. Not sure if that's a good or bad thing.
VS
Anyway, this is how the battle will go: I will award a star for each version in every aspect it is superior, and will compare stars in the end.
Warning: Spoilers ahead.
Round I: Plot Presentation
The plot did not significantly change in the reboot other than the martial art and the location. The reboot is plot point note-by-note similar to the original, right down to the villain instructor telling his second-best student to break the hero, despite his insistence that he can beat him fair and square.
What matters here is how the plot is dramatized. The plot points provide the escalation, but the presentation will determine the effectivity. The original Karate Kid had it down pat, with Daniel-san progressively getting his ass kicked in increasingly painful and humiliating ways. In this respect, the reboot was somewhat lacking. Sure, using slow-motion made the blows to Dre seem more painful, but he is hardly humiliated. He endured rather standard and cliched bullying tactics (Emptying the bag? Please...), while suffering nothing compared to Daniel getting thrown off his bike while going downhill or having his car die in the middle of a date. It is also to the original's credit that the disadvantages Daniel vis-a-vis the girl and his enemies is much more stark than that endured by Dre. I guess Will Smith's son cannot stand having to play a complete loser.
Since this is a fairly big point of lumped together factors (can't be bothered to go into more separate details...nobody watched Karate Kid expecting Citizen Kane), it gets multiple stars. Advantage to the original.
Original: ***
Reboot: **
Round II: Leading Man (Boy)
It's Ralph Macchio vs. Son of (Will) Smith.
Sure, Son of Smith comes off as "cooler", with his hip hop moves and skateboard. (A decade behind, but better than a bike.) However, having such attributes does not help in this case, as upping the cool only ends up reducing the sympathy for the character. Macchio's Daniel looked like he genuinely needed Mr. Miyagi, while Son of Smith's Dre looked like he could have coasted by on slick had he just played his cards right. It also doesn't help the reboot that the hip-hop jiving of Son of Smith made him come off as more of a douchebag and less of a lovable everyman. Further compounding the reboot is that while Macchio won't be getting an Oscar, he at least acted his part. Son of Smith at some parts looked like Mokujin from Tekken (yep, the walking piece of wood), and at other parts looked like all he cared about was striking cool poses for future Hollywood reference. Macchio may hit a few sour notes, but Son of Smith felt too cool to condescend to playing any.
Advantage to Macchio's Daniel-san.
Original: *
Reboot:
Round III: The Mentor
This is an intriguing comparison. I can't really go one way or the other here. On one hand, Pat Morita plays the "hidden dragon" martial artist master / father figure to a lovable-yet-detached perfection. On the other hand, one cannot deny the on-screen charisma of Jackie Chan. Jackie Chan's Han gets minus points though, because his "let's make him more human" moments are so schmaltzy that they're practically begging for tears, thus compromising his unspoken authority as the master in the partnership with Dre. Contrast Han's incessant whining about his car crash with the stoic, dignified (though drunk) revelation of Miyagi's Japanese internment camp experience and subsequent war service. However, Jackie Chan has undoubtedly far more charm at this stage of his career than Pat Morita did during the making of the original.
By the barest of margins, advantage to Chan's Han.
Original:
Reboot: *
Round IV: Villains
The original had a bunch of southern California douchebags, while the reboot had Chinese douchebags. While the Chinese seem more credible on paper, some of the characterization of the villains is somewhat thin in the reboot. The evil kung fu mentor initially looked more menacing, what with his brutal drilling of his students and their military-precision at acting on his commands. However, his lines are delivered in a clipped monotone that does nothing to make him scarier, especially in scenes where he is not ordering students around. The Cobra Kai sensei's delivery of "I want him broken" is much more chilling and menacing than that of the kung fu master, precisely because the latter delivered it like he was reading it. The little combatants are an interesting dynamic. While in the original, the lackeys seem far more menacing than the boss fight guy, the reboot has the boss fight guy rightly more menacing than his lackeys. However, the reboot misdelivered on a subtle but important plot point. During the tournament, there is one guy who belongs to neither camp who makes it to the semi-final. In the original, its a dark-skinned Asian guy (Filipino?) who has some pretty convincing aerial moves that look more Tae Kwon Do than karate, while the reboot has some kid douche with a mohawk. The purpose of this character is to build up the boss fight guy as a world beater. The original pulled this off well-enough, with the Asian guy scoring on some nifty kicks before the boss fight guy hulks up and runs him through. This made it seem like he can beat even experience and flashy high-fliers, making him look more daunting. In the reboot, mohawk guy is so pedestrian that he looked overmatched by boss fight guy. It did not make boss fight guy look more daunting. Indeed, he looked more bully than world beater.
By a small margin, advantage to the Cobra Kai.
Original: *
Reboot:
Round V: The Ladies
Who is the hero fighting for? Its the original's young cheerleader Elisabeth Shue versus the reboot's Generic Asian Girl picked up from generic asian girl catalogue. Who plays a weak violin. *yawn*
No contest. Big advantage to Elisabeth Shue. Big, big advantage. (Just watch Leaving Las Vegas.)
Original: *
Reboot:
Round VI: The Montage
The reboot's training montage featured gorgeous Chinese countryside vistas and the Great Wall of China, while the original's montage had the mean streets of Santa Monica beach. Yeah....
However, as Team America teaches us, a montage is made awesome not by the scenery but by the music. Does the music get you to believe in the awesomeness-in-becoming of our hero? Or does it want you to beg for it to stop?
The reboot's training and fight montages had some fairly forgettable hip hop instrumentals and generic Chinese instrumentals, and didn't even feature the somewhat catchy song featured in its trailer. The original had this in the fight montage:
Advantage Esposito. Not even the reboot's trailer song comes close.
Original: *
Reboot:
Round VII: Training Gimmicks
The original had "wax on, wax off", while the reboot had "jacket on, jacket off". The original's training gimmicks were more comedic, and in-line with the premise of an everyman being eased into the strict discipline of a martial art by a wise master. While the reboot's training gimmicks seem to magically diminish the learning curve (Son of Smith seemed way too good at kung fu after the gimmicks), they look much cooler and have all the mystic juju of a Shaolin temple. Plus, the dragon well water and the snake woman were an upgrade in awesome from the crane stance on a pier.
Advantage, jacket.
Original:
Reboot: *
Round VIII: The Combat
This is what most people came in expecting to see. The movie is called "Karate (Kung Fu) Kid" after all. The original was criticized because Daniel seemed to punch soft, but it was in-line with the premise of an everyman loser who had just learned karate to save his hide. It also further enhanced the sense of drama in the final match. The reboot featured some nifty kung fu, but all the fights looked the same. (Just check out the blandness of mohawk guy.) It takes a hell of a bad job to make karate seem more varied and diverse in style than kung fu. And while the kung fu looked nicer as a whole, the use of the wire was also as readily apparent as steroids in baseball. At least the tournament in the original featured fighting that might realistically occur. Plus, while the snake charming stance looked way cooler than the crane, the move Son of Smith executed afterward was just jaw-droppingly fake. Say what you will about Daniel-san's soft punching, but at least he wasn't blatantly abusing wire-fu like an insecure douchebag.
Advantage to non-wired Karate.
Original: *
Reboot:
Final Tally
Original: ******** (8)
Reboot: **** (4)
Winner: Original
Final Note:
I absolutely loathe the soundtrack of the reboot. I especially despise that asinine chest-thumping congratulatory rap by Son of Smith and his brother while the credits were rolling.
VSAnyway, this is how the battle will go: I will award a star for each version in every aspect it is superior, and will compare stars in the end.
Warning: Spoilers ahead.
Round I: Plot Presentation
The plot did not significantly change in the reboot other than the martial art and the location. The reboot is plot point note-by-note similar to the original, right down to the villain instructor telling his second-best student to break the hero, despite his insistence that he can beat him fair and square.
What matters here is how the plot is dramatized. The plot points provide the escalation, but the presentation will determine the effectivity. The original Karate Kid had it down pat, with Daniel-san progressively getting his ass kicked in increasingly painful and humiliating ways. In this respect, the reboot was somewhat lacking. Sure, using slow-motion made the blows to Dre seem more painful, but he is hardly humiliated. He endured rather standard and cliched bullying tactics (Emptying the bag? Please...), while suffering nothing compared to Daniel getting thrown off his bike while going downhill or having his car die in the middle of a date. It is also to the original's credit that the disadvantages Daniel vis-a-vis the girl and his enemies is much more stark than that endured by Dre. I guess Will Smith's son cannot stand having to play a complete loser.
Since this is a fairly big point of lumped together factors (can't be bothered to go into more separate details...nobody watched Karate Kid expecting Citizen Kane), it gets multiple stars. Advantage to the original.
Original: ***
Reboot: **
Round II: Leading Man (Boy)
It's Ralph Macchio vs. Son of (Will) Smith.
Sure, Son of Smith comes off as "cooler", with his hip hop moves and skateboard. (A decade behind, but better than a bike.) However, having such attributes does not help in this case, as upping the cool only ends up reducing the sympathy for the character. Macchio's Daniel looked like he genuinely needed Mr. Miyagi, while Son of Smith's Dre looked like he could have coasted by on slick had he just played his cards right. It also doesn't help the reboot that the hip-hop jiving of Son of Smith made him come off as more of a douchebag and less of a lovable everyman. Further compounding the reboot is that while Macchio won't be getting an Oscar, he at least acted his part. Son of Smith at some parts looked like Mokujin from Tekken (yep, the walking piece of wood), and at other parts looked like all he cared about was striking cool poses for future Hollywood reference. Macchio may hit a few sour notes, but Son of Smith felt too cool to condescend to playing any.
Advantage to Macchio's Daniel-san.
Original: *
Reboot:
Round III: The Mentor
This is an intriguing comparison. I can't really go one way or the other here. On one hand, Pat Morita plays the "hidden dragon" martial artist master / father figure to a lovable-yet-detached perfection. On the other hand, one cannot deny the on-screen charisma of Jackie Chan. Jackie Chan's Han gets minus points though, because his "let's make him more human" moments are so schmaltzy that they're practically begging for tears, thus compromising his unspoken authority as the master in the partnership with Dre. Contrast Han's incessant whining about his car crash with the stoic, dignified (though drunk) revelation of Miyagi's Japanese internment camp experience and subsequent war service. However, Jackie Chan has undoubtedly far more charm at this stage of his career than Pat Morita did during the making of the original.
By the barest of margins, advantage to Chan's Han.
Original:
Reboot: *
Round IV: Villains
The original had a bunch of southern California douchebags, while the reboot had Chinese douchebags. While the Chinese seem more credible on paper, some of the characterization of the villains is somewhat thin in the reboot. The evil kung fu mentor initially looked more menacing, what with his brutal drilling of his students and their military-precision at acting on his commands. However, his lines are delivered in a clipped monotone that does nothing to make him scarier, especially in scenes where he is not ordering students around. The Cobra Kai sensei's delivery of "I want him broken" is much more chilling and menacing than that of the kung fu master, precisely because the latter delivered it like he was reading it. The little combatants are an interesting dynamic. While in the original, the lackeys seem far more menacing than the boss fight guy, the reboot has the boss fight guy rightly more menacing than his lackeys. However, the reboot misdelivered on a subtle but important plot point. During the tournament, there is one guy who belongs to neither camp who makes it to the semi-final. In the original, its a dark-skinned Asian guy (Filipino?) who has some pretty convincing aerial moves that look more Tae Kwon Do than karate, while the reboot has some kid douche with a mohawk. The purpose of this character is to build up the boss fight guy as a world beater. The original pulled this off well-enough, with the Asian guy scoring on some nifty kicks before the boss fight guy hulks up and runs him through. This made it seem like he can beat even experience and flashy high-fliers, making him look more daunting. In the reboot, mohawk guy is so pedestrian that he looked overmatched by boss fight guy. It did not make boss fight guy look more daunting. Indeed, he looked more bully than world beater.
By a small margin, advantage to the Cobra Kai.
Original: *
Reboot:
Round V: The Ladies
Who is the hero fighting for? Its the original's young cheerleader Elisabeth Shue versus the reboot's Generic Asian Girl picked up from generic asian girl catalogue. Who plays a weak violin. *yawn*
No contest. Big advantage to Elisabeth Shue. Big, big advantage. (Just watch Leaving Las Vegas.)
Original: *
Reboot:
Round VI: The Montage
The reboot's training montage featured gorgeous Chinese countryside vistas and the Great Wall of China, while the original's montage had the mean streets of Santa Monica beach. Yeah....
However, as Team America teaches us, a montage is made awesome not by the scenery but by the music. Does the music get you to believe in the awesomeness-in-becoming of our hero? Or does it want you to beg for it to stop?
The reboot's training and fight montages had some fairly forgettable hip hop instrumentals and generic Chinese instrumentals, and didn't even feature the somewhat catchy song featured in its trailer. The original had this in the fight montage:
You're the best around!!!!
Advantage Esposito. Not even the reboot's trailer song comes close.
Original: *
Reboot:
Round VII: Training Gimmicks
The original had "wax on, wax off", while the reboot had "jacket on, jacket off". The original's training gimmicks were more comedic, and in-line with the premise of an everyman being eased into the strict discipline of a martial art by a wise master. While the reboot's training gimmicks seem to magically diminish the learning curve (Son of Smith seemed way too good at kung fu after the gimmicks), they look much cooler and have all the mystic juju of a Shaolin temple. Plus, the dragon well water and the snake woman were an upgrade in awesome from the crane stance on a pier.
Advantage, jacket.
Original:
Reboot: *
Round VIII: The Combat
This is what most people came in expecting to see. The movie is called "Karate (Kung Fu) Kid" after all. The original was criticized because Daniel seemed to punch soft, but it was in-line with the premise of an everyman loser who had just learned karate to save his hide. It also further enhanced the sense of drama in the final match. The reboot featured some nifty kung fu, but all the fights looked the same. (Just check out the blandness of mohawk guy.) It takes a hell of a bad job to make karate seem more varied and diverse in style than kung fu. And while the kung fu looked nicer as a whole, the use of the wire was also as readily apparent as steroids in baseball. At least the tournament in the original featured fighting that might realistically occur. Plus, while the snake charming stance looked way cooler than the crane, the move Son of Smith executed afterward was just jaw-droppingly fake. Say what you will about Daniel-san's soft punching, but at least he wasn't blatantly abusing wire-fu like an insecure douchebag.
Advantage to non-wired Karate.
Original: *
Reboot:
Final Tally
Original: ******** (8)
Reboot: **** (4)
Winner: Original
Final Note:
I absolutely loathe the soundtrack of the reboot. I especially despise that asinine chest-thumping congratulatory rap by Son of Smith and his brother while the credits were rolling.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Crysis: World's Most Beautiful Videogame
I'm not talking about its vapid storyline or its rather pedestrian gameplay. I'm talking about this:
These have got to be the best graphics in any videogame.
However, as with the Ark of the Covenant, anybody who sees this must die. Or at least, their PC must die. Achiveing graphics like this must shave years off the lifespan of your computer.
These have got to be the best graphics in any videogame.
However, as with the Ark of the Covenant, anybody who sees this must die. Or at least, their PC must die. Achiveing graphics like this must shave years off the lifespan of your computer.
All The Teams I Like Suck
I was going to root for Spain in the World Cup this year. (A change from always rooting for Brazil.) Looks like the greatest chokers in World Cup history decide get an early start on sucking and choking. Losing to Switzerland? For fuck's sake...
I guess it is some sort of portent for when Spain's creditors start shutting down the Spanish economy in a year or two.
Once more, the wisdom of never betting on matches is illuminated to me.
I guess it is some sort of portent for when Spain's creditors start shutting down the Spanish economy in a year or two.
Once more, the wisdom of never betting on matches is illuminated to me.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
These People are Scientists?
I was watching this show called "Sports Science", and one segment was supposed to "debunk" the "myth" that hitting a baseball pitch is the hardest thing to do in professional sports. They brought on some pretty blond softball player who says she begs to differ. (I can smell the PC grrl power BS from here, but let's check the methodology.)
So, this is how this bunch of scientists decide to "disprove" the myth.
1. The more force a pitch generates, the harder it is to hit, so they compare the impact force of some college dude's baseball pitch and blondie's softball pitch. The 95 mph baseball pitch, thrown from 63 feet with a single forward step motion, generates 2,400 lbs of force. The 70 mph "bowling motion" softball pitch (accompanied by a short hop forward) thrown from 40 feet away shatters the plate. Therefore, softball pitch harder to hit.
2. A baseball prospect who usually hits .310 had a harder time hitting the softball pitch than he did the baseball pitch.
3. They confirmed the finding of the second step by studying the motions of either pitcher. A baseball pitcher throws high to low from a further distance, so the baseball hitter's eye is able to adjust. The baseball hitter had a harder time adjusting to the rising trajectory of a softball pitch.
Ergo, softball pitches are harder to hit than pitches of pro baseball pitchers.
Any amateur philosopher can see the holes in the argument put forth by the "scientists".
First, the force impact of a pitch is not the most important aspect in making a pitch hittable. If that were true, then every pitch would be a fastball and all you'll need is a strong arm. No, it is unpredictability that makes a pitch hard to hit, which eplains the need for the pitcher to throw a variety of pitches in a game. In fact, a pitch that generates greater impact is easier to hit out of the ball park if hit solidly. So, the first method cannot contribute to proving the thesis. All it proves is that an object travelling at 70 mph covering a shorter distance will generate more impact force than an object travelling further at 95 mph. The conclusion does not prove the thesis.
Second, the baseball hitter had a hard time hitting the softball pitch precisely because it was unpredictable for him. A baseball hitter is used to hitting baseball pitches, which is why he adjusts better from high to low than low to high and has a reaction time geared towards the length of time it takes a baseball pitch to cross the plate. The premise of the question is that hitting a baseball pitch is the hardest thing to do in pro-sports. It assumes that the baseball hitter's job is the hardest in all of sports, and his job is to hit baseball pitches By using a baseball hitter to hit a softball pitch, you skew the experiment because you have a baseball hitter not doing his job, which is to hit baseball pitches. This point is proven inadvertedly by these scientists by their display of how different a softball pitch is to a baseball pitch. It's like asking a tennis player to hit a cricket throw, or asking a bowler to hit a three-pointer. By using an experiment design that is tantamount to comparing an apple with an orange, the experiment's results are useless to the thesis. The science has been used to prove,,,nothing.
A more sensible experiment design would have been to have a person with no eperience hitting a baseball or a softball and having him try to hit either pitch.
After the segment, these amateur hour clowns have the gall to say that "science" proved their point, where nothing they did could even remotely be tantamount to well-thought science. (Don't get me started on their stupid experiment design for debunking the "myth" that athletes shouldn't have sex before a competition.) One of the most important aspects of science is determining the means by which a hypothesis could be derived and tested, and for this, the scientist needs some philosophy. I find it sad seeing the philosophical dunderheads of "Sports Science" wield science like four year old swinging a wiffle bat.
Next time, leave the science to actual scientists.
So, this is how this bunch of scientists decide to "disprove" the myth.
1. The more force a pitch generates, the harder it is to hit, so they compare the impact force of some college dude's baseball pitch and blondie's softball pitch. The 95 mph baseball pitch, thrown from 63 feet with a single forward step motion, generates 2,400 lbs of force. The 70 mph "bowling motion" softball pitch (accompanied by a short hop forward) thrown from 40 feet away shatters the plate. Therefore, softball pitch harder to hit.
2. A baseball prospect who usually hits .310 had a harder time hitting the softball pitch than he did the baseball pitch.
3. They confirmed the finding of the second step by studying the motions of either pitcher. A baseball pitcher throws high to low from a further distance, so the baseball hitter's eye is able to adjust. The baseball hitter had a harder time adjusting to the rising trajectory of a softball pitch.
Ergo, softball pitches are harder to hit than pitches of pro baseball pitchers.
Any amateur philosopher can see the holes in the argument put forth by the "scientists".
First, the force impact of a pitch is not the most important aspect in making a pitch hittable. If that were true, then every pitch would be a fastball and all you'll need is a strong arm. No, it is unpredictability that makes a pitch hard to hit, which eplains the need for the pitcher to throw a variety of pitches in a game. In fact, a pitch that generates greater impact is easier to hit out of the ball park if hit solidly. So, the first method cannot contribute to proving the thesis. All it proves is that an object travelling at 70 mph covering a shorter distance will generate more impact force than an object travelling further at 95 mph. The conclusion does not prove the thesis.
Second, the baseball hitter had a hard time hitting the softball pitch precisely because it was unpredictable for him. A baseball hitter is used to hitting baseball pitches, which is why he adjusts better from high to low than low to high and has a reaction time geared towards the length of time it takes a baseball pitch to cross the plate. The premise of the question is that hitting a baseball pitch is the hardest thing to do in pro-sports. It assumes that the baseball hitter's job is the hardest in all of sports, and his job is to hit baseball pitches By using a baseball hitter to hit a softball pitch, you skew the experiment because you have a baseball hitter not doing his job, which is to hit baseball pitches. This point is proven inadvertedly by these scientists by their display of how different a softball pitch is to a baseball pitch. It's like asking a tennis player to hit a cricket throw, or asking a bowler to hit a three-pointer. By using an experiment design that is tantamount to comparing an apple with an orange, the experiment's results are useless to the thesis. The science has been used to prove,,,nothing.
A more sensible experiment design would have been to have a person with no eperience hitting a baseball or a softball and having him try to hit either pitch.
After the segment, these amateur hour clowns have the gall to say that "science" proved their point, where nothing they did could even remotely be tantamount to well-thought science. (Don't get me started on their stupid experiment design for debunking the "myth" that athletes shouldn't have sex before a competition.) One of the most important aspects of science is determining the means by which a hypothesis could be derived and tested, and for this, the scientist needs some philosophy. I find it sad seeing the philosophical dunderheads of "Sports Science" wield science like four year old swinging a wiffle bat.
Next time, leave the science to actual scientists.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Stop the Noise! Ahhhh!!!
Watching the World Cup on TV is more difficult than it should be. Its because of that incessant wasp drone of those fucking vuvuzela trumpets. If those South Africans had any sense of hospitality or sensitivity for the welfare of the great number of peoples who have come to their doorstep or are watching on TV, they'd ban those tuneless, noisy trumpets.
When I watch soccer, I want to hear the crowd. I want cheers, groans and offensive chants. But with those damn noise-makers, I can barely hear the color guy calling the match.
When I watch soccer, I want to hear the crowd. I want cheers, groans and offensive chants. But with those damn noise-makers, I can barely hear the color guy calling the match.
Speaking of Affronts to Patriarchy
The European Union, in between bouts of financial insanity, has recently found time to indulge in its other favorite past-time: egalitarian social engineering.
Last month, the European Union decided that it ought to be illegal for a father to give away his daughter on her wedding day, saying that such a practice is an affront to equality and treats daughters as chattels.
So, a time-honored practice that has its roots in the primordial participation of the human father in life of his family is equated with the barbarism of slavery simply because it is old and it revolts against some modern notions of "equality" spread by a democratic bureaucracy with the historical memory of a scholarly goldfish. It is but one more assault on the beauty of the ages by a bunch of chronological snobs hell-bent on making man in their image.
When the day comes that the EU collapses in a heap of its own piss and tears, I'll be among the ruins applauding. For the sake of Europeans, that monstrosity of an organization cannot die fast enough.
I do find the Princess of Sweden's defiance of the matter quite heartening. One of the advantages of a monarchy is that it is more prone to fits of sanity when it comes to the defense of what is good in its traditions. I find it sad that I am no longer surprised that democracies, which can only thrive on the virtue of the population, are more likely to toss virtue aside at a whim. At least, when a king does it, it is but one man's flaw writ large. It is far more disturbing when a collpasing society does so on the aggregate of its people's flaws.
Last month, the European Union decided that it ought to be illegal for a father to give away his daughter on her wedding day, saying that such a practice is an affront to equality and treats daughters as chattels.
So, a time-honored practice that has its roots in the primordial participation of the human father in life of his family is equated with the barbarism of slavery simply because it is old and it revolts against some modern notions of "equality" spread by a democratic bureaucracy with the historical memory of a scholarly goldfish. It is but one more assault on the beauty of the ages by a bunch of chronological snobs hell-bent on making man in their image.
When the day comes that the EU collapses in a heap of its own piss and tears, I'll be among the ruins applauding. For the sake of Europeans, that monstrosity of an organization cannot die fast enough.
I do find the Princess of Sweden's defiance of the matter quite heartening. One of the advantages of a monarchy is that it is more prone to fits of sanity when it comes to the defense of what is good in its traditions. I find it sad that I am no longer surprised that democracies, which can only thrive on the virtue of the population, are more likely to toss virtue aside at a whim. At least, when a king does it, it is but one man's flaw writ large. It is far more disturbing when a collpasing society does so on the aggregate of its people's flaws.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Happy Father's Day
Long live the Patriarchy, without which no civilization would arise.
Long live the patriarchs, without which no civilization is possible.
And a pox on those who would shame your names!
Long live the patriarchs, without which no civilization is possible.
And a pox on those who would shame your names!
Monday, June 7, 2010
More Egg on Al Gore's Face
Al Gore claimed in "The Inconvenient Truth" that man-made "global warming" will result in the oceans swallowing up several tiny Pacific nations. One of the "poster nations" of this claim was a tiny atoll nation called Tuvalu.
Unfortunately for Mr. Gore (and fortunately for Tuvalu), the island is nowhere near vanishing beneath the waves of capitalistic greed. In fact, the island is rising further up from the sea.
Gore: Why is that thing still there? Maybe its because of... Man-Bear-Pig!!!
Unfortunately for Mr. Gore (and fortunately for Tuvalu), the island is nowhere near vanishing beneath the waves of capitalistic greed. In fact, the island is rising further up from the sea.
Gore: Why is that thing still there? Maybe its because of... Man-Bear-Pig!!!Sunday, June 6, 2010
Where is Ash's Dad?
Stumbled on this short series of Pokemon webcomic strips.
I find it particularly interesting that somebody, somewhere managed to take notice of the fact that a TV character is actually missing a parent. Too many people take the "single TV parent" model for granted. Also gratifying is the exploration of what that character feels about the lack of the other parent, something that is rarely ever shown in shows.
Plus, the strip is pretty well-written too.
I find it particularly interesting that somebody, somewhere managed to take notice of the fact that a TV character is actually missing a parent. Too many people take the "single TV parent" model for granted. Also gratifying is the exploration of what that character feels about the lack of the other parent, something that is rarely ever shown in shows.
Plus, the strip is pretty well-written too.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
God Loves the Ugly Too
A while back, I posted a photo of Dennis Kucinich (an American Democrat Congressman who looks the embodiment of "pencil-necked geek") and his insanely hot redhead wife.
Apparently, God loves ugly people too. And here's more proof why.
Some samples from the article:
You'd think Agent Sarah Walker was with some lesbian, but its actually some dude named "Tim Loden". A lesbian would've been hotter.
Just...what.the.fuck...Fuck you, Salman Rushdie...
And my personal favorite:
I like this one because, as per the article:
They got married in 1995 and have two daughters, the latter of which was born five or six years after the above picture was taken. Why does Sarah-Jane look like that? Well, I blame Owen’s openness about being faithful to his wife:
“I so value what I’ve got at home with my wife and kids that I’ve never f—-ed with that,” Owen, 42, tells Playboy in its September issue. “For me, that’s what it’s about.”
My respect for Clive Owen just kicked up a couple of notches.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Yeah, It's Our Fault Women Don't Cook Anymore
Feminist nuttiness is a deep well indeed.
New York Times food critic Michael Pollan approvingly notes that one of the authors he is reviewing has criticized feminists for the denigrated eating habits that have become the norm across the United States. On the third page:
In a challenge to second-wave feminists who urged women to get out of the kitchen, Flammang suggests that by denigrating “foodwork”—everything involved in putting meals on the family table—we have unthinkingly wrecked one of the nurseries of democracy: the family meal. It is at “the temporary democracy of the table” that children learn the art of conversation and acquire the habits of civility—sharing, listening, taking turns, navigating differences, arguing without offending—and it is these habits that are lost when we eat alone and on the run. “Civility is not needed when one is by oneself.”
This, of course, did not sit well with the sisterhood. One particular harpy bares her fangs:
Blaming feminism for luring women out of the kitchen, stealing the ritual of the family meal, and thereby diminishing "one of the nurseries of democracy" is both simplistic and ridiculous. It's true that shared meals are powerful spaces for building relationships and "the habits of civility." But if we're going to talk about who's to blame for our current culture of processed food, why not blame untold generations of men for not getting into the kitchen, especially given Pollan's characterization of the family meal as having a meaningful role in cultivating democracy? If it's so important, why is their absence excusable?
Yeah, the fall of the family kitchen is the man's fault because he didn't cook. Why, I'm sure that they can magically conjure up food items at will, just like the 50's housewife....
Once more, the feminists destroy something and blame it on men. Fucking retards.
The answer to Ms. Clark's question is that it was the men who busted their asses to provide the food that the wife will make for the family. They are absent because somebody has to shoot the hog, or harvest the crops, or go through the industrial grind, in order to bring home something to prepare in the kitchen. That was their role. It only so happened that one day, they delivered the goods and there was nobody there to recieve them. That is not the man's fault.
While the feminists tricked women into upending the division of labor and going after men's jobs, men are not going to just roll over and give up what they've spent millenia doing. Furthermore, men have not picked up the slack in house chores because, seriously, a man can be quite happy in a pig sty. The feminists may have tricked women into wanting to become men, but the trick doesn't work the other way around.
So, welcome to processed blah eaten in front of the TV, feminists. That is your handiwork.
New York Times food critic Michael Pollan approvingly notes that one of the authors he is reviewing has criticized feminists for the denigrated eating habits that have become the norm across the United States. On the third page:
In a challenge to second-wave feminists who urged women to get out of the kitchen, Flammang suggests that by denigrating “foodwork”—everything involved in putting meals on the family table—we have unthinkingly wrecked one of the nurseries of democracy: the family meal. It is at “the temporary democracy of the table” that children learn the art of conversation and acquire the habits of civility—sharing, listening, taking turns, navigating differences, arguing without offending—and it is these habits that are lost when we eat alone and on the run. “Civility is not needed when one is by oneself.”
This, of course, did not sit well with the sisterhood. One particular harpy bares her fangs:
Blaming feminism for luring women out of the kitchen, stealing the ritual of the family meal, and thereby diminishing "one of the nurseries of democracy" is both simplistic and ridiculous. It's true that shared meals are powerful spaces for building relationships and "the habits of civility." But if we're going to talk about who's to blame for our current culture of processed food, why not blame untold generations of men for not getting into the kitchen, especially given Pollan's characterization of the family meal as having a meaningful role in cultivating democracy? If it's so important, why is their absence excusable?
Yeah, the fall of the family kitchen is the man's fault because he didn't cook. Why, I'm sure that they can magically conjure up food items at will, just like the 50's housewife....
Once more, the feminists destroy something and blame it on men. Fucking retards.
The answer to Ms. Clark's question is that it was the men who busted their asses to provide the food that the wife will make for the family. They are absent because somebody has to shoot the hog, or harvest the crops, or go through the industrial grind, in order to bring home something to prepare in the kitchen. That was their role. It only so happened that one day, they delivered the goods and there was nobody there to recieve them. That is not the man's fault.
While the feminists tricked women into upending the division of labor and going after men's jobs, men are not going to just roll over and give up what they've spent millenia doing. Furthermore, men have not picked up the slack in house chores because, seriously, a man can be quite happy in a pig sty. The feminists may have tricked women into wanting to become men, but the trick doesn't work the other way around.
So, welcome to processed blah eaten in front of the TV, feminists. That is your handiwork.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
Aging Like Fine (Boxed) Wine
The older he gets, the more David Wong proves he is the best writer on Cracked's staff.
His latest article on the immaturity of the self-professed gamer is the sort of mature mind candy (and it is still, as with all things Cracked, candy, with dong jokes and all) that no other Cracked writer can come up with without first undergoing a brain aneurism.
This is probably because he is the only guy on the staff with a wife and his own property. Nothing like growing up to make a man an adult.
His latest article on the immaturity of the self-professed gamer is the sort of mature mind candy (and it is still, as with all things Cracked, candy, with dong jokes and all) that no other Cracked writer can come up with without first undergoing a brain aneurism.
This is probably because he is the only guy on the staff with a wife and his own property. Nothing like growing up to make a man an adult.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
I Fell Asleep Last Night And Just Woke Up to A "Brave New World"
The phrase "Man playing God" has been used many times before, in a metaphorical capacity.
But now, it is no longer a metaphor.
Man has created "artificial life". We are now, truly, playing with forces we cannot hope to control. We have siezed Promethean fire. Who will now bind us?
I didn't know last night when I fell asleep that I would be waking up to a much, much more dangerous world. We have just sown the seeds of our own destruction.
God help us all.
But now, it is no longer a metaphor.
Man has created "artificial life". We are now, truly, playing with forces we cannot hope to control. We have siezed Promethean fire. Who will now bind us?
I didn't know last night when I fell asleep that I would be waking up to a much, much more dangerous world. We have just sown the seeds of our own destruction.
God help us all.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Diagnosing the West's Generation 50's
In contrast to the screaming harpy in my previous post, here is a woman who defies Eve Ensler's silly progressive typecasting by proving capable of having an intellectual conversation.
Her musings were prompted by an American high school student asking what the American 50's must have been like for women. What follows is a powerful insight into the growing malaise that brought about the radicalism of the decade that followed. Her conclusion was particularly haunting:
The fifties housewife was doomed, as was the “dad who knows best.” The housewife’s life wasn’t really about linoleum floors, casseroles or new toasters and refrigerators. People like to say it was but it wasn’t. Her world was held together by non-materialistic values and once those were thoroughly assaulted, she could not defend it. She could no more explain what she did or why she deferred to men in many areas of life than a prayer or a poem could say, “This is what I am.” When people accused her of materialism or vacuity, of weakness, she did not know what to say to counter the complete falsity of this charge. The sacred was no longer defensible. For that reason – not because of economic and technological change - the things she valued most were about to disappear.
What brought about the beginnings of the radicalized 60's were not extraneous circumstances, but a metaphysical black hole that could not be fulfilled because they had done away with metaphysical things. This sort of thinking is dangerous to the materialistic historian who grounds the very fiber of history on physical circumstance. I personally find this sort of thinking a refreshing breeze.
The way she describes the collapse of the American family reminds me of Tolkien's dying Minas Tirith, where there were more tombs than grand houses, and the children are scarce. I fear that we in this country are at that same stage of history as the US in the 50's. After all, we just elected to the presidency with an astounding mandate a man-child who cannot articulate anything about our common values beyond vague platitudes. This, after all, is a man-child who thinks our families are disposable where economically inconvenient.
With this trajectory in mind, I shudder at our prospects for the next decade.
Her musings were prompted by an American high school student asking what the American 50's must have been like for women. What follows is a powerful insight into the growing malaise that brought about the radicalism of the decade that followed. Her conclusion was particularly haunting:
The fifties housewife was doomed, as was the “dad who knows best.” The housewife’s life wasn’t really about linoleum floors, casseroles or new toasters and refrigerators. People like to say it was but it wasn’t. Her world was held together by non-materialistic values and once those were thoroughly assaulted, she could not defend it. She could no more explain what she did or why she deferred to men in many areas of life than a prayer or a poem could say, “This is what I am.” When people accused her of materialism or vacuity, of weakness, she did not know what to say to counter the complete falsity of this charge. The sacred was no longer defensible. For that reason – not because of economic and technological change - the things she valued most were about to disappear.
What brought about the beginnings of the radicalized 60's were not extraneous circumstances, but a metaphysical black hole that could not be fulfilled because they had done away with metaphysical things. This sort of thinking is dangerous to the materialistic historian who grounds the very fiber of history on physical circumstance. I personally find this sort of thinking a refreshing breeze.
The way she describes the collapse of the American family reminds me of Tolkien's dying Minas Tirith, where there were more tombs than grand houses, and the children are scarce. I fear that we in this country are at that same stage of history as the US in the 50's. After all, we just elected to the presidency with an astounding mandate a man-child who cannot articulate anything about our common values beyond vague platitudes. This, after all, is a man-child who thinks our families are disposable where economically inconvenient.
With this trajectory in mind, I shudder at our prospects for the next decade.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Would It Be Better as "Iron Person"?
A feminist professor on Ms. Magazine, further (unintentionally) proving Eve Ensler's theory that women are not cut out for intellectual work, goes on an estrogen-tinged rampage against the Iron Man franchise.
You know you're doing something right when the hysterical feminist establishment unleashes the harpies on you.
Politically incorrect and loving it!
The pseudo-academic gossip gaggle about "weaponizing the male body" is funny enough (brought to you by the same people who interpreted Frodo's stabbing Shelob as "Patriarchy!!!"), but the best part is right up there on the first sentence:
It’s right there in the title: Iron MAN, not meaning “human” but male.
Before spewing her ignorance on things Iron Man, she decides to be fair and presents herself as a blubbering moron right off the bat. At least, that's sort of courteous.
Personally, I pity her 13 year old son. By the looks of it, he'll be growing up with an insane parent who wished he had a vagina.
And yes, Tony Stark is right, the liberal agenda is boring as hell.
Maybe I should go watch the movie a third time.
You know you're doing something right when the hysterical feminist establishment unleashes the harpies on you.
Politically incorrect and loving it!The pseudo-academic gossip gaggle about "weaponizing the male body" is funny enough (brought to you by the same people who interpreted Frodo's stabbing Shelob as "Patriarchy!!!"), but the best part is right up there on the first sentence:
It’s right there in the title: Iron MAN, not meaning “human” but male.
Before spewing her ignorance on things Iron Man, she decides to be fair and presents herself as a blubbering moron right off the bat. At least, that's sort of courteous.
Personally, I pity her 13 year old son. By the looks of it, he'll be growing up with an insane parent who wished he had a vagina.
And yes, Tony Stark is right, the liberal agenda is boring as hell.
Maybe I should go watch the movie a third time.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Taking a Shot at the Zeitgeist
A Missouri state rep who is a mother to seven children decides to fire a salvo out of nowhere upon a pillar of the prevailing Western Zeitgeist: no-fault divorce.
This woman has balls taking on such a Cyclops: no-fault divorce may prove to be one of the most difficult pacts of cultural suicide to turn back. Harder than abortion even.
Naturally, there has been a massive reaction against the bill. I find the delusion-making funny though. Here's the Missouri Bar Association (pdf warning):
At their meeting on January 21, 2010, the Executive Committee reviewed House Bill 1234,
which changes laws regarding marriage license fees and dissolution of marriage. The Executive Committee found provisions in the bill that reinstate the requirement of a finding of fault in dissolution proceedings and affect judicial administration to be within the legislative scope of The Missouri Bar. Strict "fault divorce" was abandoned in Missouri many years ago because it was found to promote animosity between the parties, have a damaging effect on children of the marriage and increase legal costs of dissolution. The bill's provision requiring court clerks to return the entire filing fee upon withdrawal of a petition for dissolution or legal separation within one year imposes an undue burden on an already financially stressed judicial system. For these reasons, The Missouri Bar opposes House Bill 1234.
I find this absolutely funny because it seems that the Missouri Bar Association lives in the Land of Unicorns, where no-fault divorce results in friendlier divorce parties and absolutely issue-free children.
Personally, I would find increasing the "legal costs of dissolution" to be a wonderful disincentive to leaving your spouse.
This woman has balls taking on such a Cyclops: no-fault divorce may prove to be one of the most difficult pacts of cultural suicide to turn back. Harder than abortion even.
Naturally, there has been a massive reaction against the bill. I find the delusion-making funny though. Here's the Missouri Bar Association (pdf warning):
At their meeting on January 21, 2010, the Executive Committee reviewed House Bill 1234,
which changes laws regarding marriage license fees and dissolution of marriage. The Executive Committee found provisions in the bill that reinstate the requirement of a finding of fault in dissolution proceedings and affect judicial administration to be within the legislative scope of The Missouri Bar. Strict "fault divorce" was abandoned in Missouri many years ago because it was found to promote animosity between the parties, have a damaging effect on children of the marriage and increase legal costs of dissolution. The bill's provision requiring court clerks to return the entire filing fee upon withdrawal of a petition for dissolution or legal separation within one year imposes an undue burden on an already financially stressed judicial system. For these reasons, The Missouri Bar opposes House Bill 1234.
I find this absolutely funny because it seems that the Missouri Bar Association lives in the Land of Unicorns, where no-fault divorce results in friendlier divorce parties and absolutely issue-free children.
Personally, I would find increasing the "legal costs of dissolution" to be a wonderful disincentive to leaving your spouse.
Friday, May 14, 2010
So Much for a "Classy" Aguilera
I once thought that, unlike Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera had matured with marriage and motherhood.
Yeah....
So much for that. The sad part is that when her son is hit by the "I slept with your mama" jokes when he grows up, he'll have good cause to pause and wonder if it isn't, in fact, true. His mom's a slut. Again.
Or at the very least, a very warmed-over 80's Madonna. Blech.
Yeah....
So much for that. The sad part is that when her son is hit by the "I slept with your mama" jokes when he grows up, he'll have good cause to pause and wonder if it isn't, in fact, true. His mom's a slut. Again.
Or at the very least, a very warmed-over 80's Madonna. Blech.
Robin Hood
| Rating: | ★ |
| Category: | Movies |
| Genre: | Action & Adventure |
*spoiler warning*
A good movie always gives the audience an emotion to leave the theater with. However, frustration, anger and ironic mirth are not among the desired ones. Unfortunately, that is all this latest mish mash of the Robin Hood mythos has to offer. Whoever made this boondoggle should fire the research staff, since they were never used as evidenced by the lousy history. Then they should fire the hack writer. After that, they probably should get another director. Or another movie star. Or, hell, just rename this whole stinking turd and repackage it as a movie about a Renaissance Faire. Poorly written, poorly acted and overall, poorly made, this lamb can rise and rise again, but it will never grow a mane and be a lion.
Craftsmanship
Sure, there were some breathtaking shots, but most of them have to do with the subject matter and less with the actual skill of the cinematographer. I would claim that it doesn't take much to make a wide-angle shot of knights in armor riding to battle look dramatic. Awe of the horseman has never left the Western audience.
The whole picture seemed to have been shot with a palette of gray, with the occasional greenish tribute to English hills thrown in for a little variety. Whoever made this movie probably got all of his medieval imagery from Monty Python. I wouldn't be surprised if Blanchett's Marian suddenly pointed out a lovely mound of filth in a corner.
The costumes were standard Renaissance Faire, and making Maid Marian wield a sword sort of highlights the fact that their swords are costume-grade and made of aluminum tinfoil. An authentic broadsword like that would've broken Blanchett's arm if she had tried to swing it around like it were a toy. Best way to allow your audience to suspend disbelief is to not do anything so patently unbelievable by your universe's logic. If Marian had been established as a fembot cyborg, then the Eowyn moment would have been acceptable.
Plot / Story-Telling
As a historian, I am already offended by the blatantly stupid historical pastiche director Ridley Scott attached to this film. In order to satiate his basic instinct for ideological cheap shots (just watch Kingdom of Heaven), he includes an unnecessary and over-long introduction in order to demonize Richard Lionheart and the Third Crusade. Russell Crowe's Robin Longstride*, asked for an honest medieval man's opinion by the Lionheart on the righteousness of his Crusade, unironically delivers the answer of a 21st century liberal hack, complete with Orientalist drivel about the enlightened Muslim.
This massive introductory exposition, which takes up a whole half of a long film (2 hrs 30 mins), does nothing to justify the moving action. If Richard Lionheart was such a heartless asshole, why should I believe that his exchequer managed to raise four years' worth of revenue just to ransom him from the Holy Roman Emperor? And how is King John a worse king than his brother? The massive introduction never fully establishes this, because Scott wanted to demonize Lionheart. On another note, why should I believe that Robin Longstride would fall for such an unwomanly, cold shrew like Blanchett's Marian? Also, how come Marian wants to take back the grain that was freely given to the Church as a tithe offering just because she let the estate's grain get stolen? If you give money to the collection basket, do you storm back and demand a refund from the priest if you get robbed on the way home? This Marian could have stepped onto a bear trap and bled to death, and I wouldn't give a damn about it. This is just poor character development.
Aside from these problem, one gets a sense at the end of the movie that the beginning never really ends in a middle. The movie ends with Oscar Isaac's King John burning the Magna Carta (something that never happened) and denouncing Longstride as an outlaw. This, which should have been the starting point of the film, is placed as the resolution. This renders the entire movie a two and a half hour introduction.
But, one can say that this could be an origin movie. I would retort that even horrible origin movies (Wolverine, for example) have a compact and complete story. Scott's dick move of having King John burn the Magna Carta turned what could have been the ending (and as a bonus, an historical accuracy in a sea of lies) into a prolonging of the absurdly long beginning.
Then, there is character development. I already mentioned the one-dimensional Marian. But almost every character in this movie is a cardboard cutout. A Brechtian production could just put labels on top of each head and the experience would not be altered. King John is a one-note "bad king". King Richard is a one-note "Crusader hypocrite". Godfrey is a one note "bad heavy". Worst of all, Robin Longstride is a one-note "21st century hero medieval stand-in". Anachronism makes for lousy characterization.
Another funny plot moment: where the hell was Godfrey riding to when Longstride hit him with the fatal arrowshot?
Performances
One moment in this film encapsulates the sheer mediocrity of the phoned-in performances for this movie. Crowe's Robin Longstride is preparing to ride away to Dover to meet the French in battle (another bit of historical rape). He looks at Blanchett's Marian, and with a robotic deadpan delivery that would make Keanu Reeves proud, he mumbles "I love you Marian". (Yes, punctuation marks would be a travesty to that delivery.) If young Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher can make "I love you", "I know" into an instant quotable classic, there is simply no excuse for a heavyweight veteran like Crowe. This sort of mediocrity is what you get for two and a half hours. Scott could have saved himself $10 million if he had just gone with Cary Elwes. At least that Robin Hood would have an English accent.
This pedestrian effort ought to tell the movie-going world a lesson: never let Ridley Scott anywhere near anything medieval. He has proven not only incapable of capturing that age and its sentiments on film, but that he also has an utterly debased hatred of anything medieval. In fact, it would be a crime to let Scott attempt to direct historical movies in general. The guy's sense of history, lifted from no later than the last news cycle, interferes with his capacities as a filmmaker and story-teller.
*One more funny observation. Robin Longstride, who never appears in any of the Robin Hood incarnations, is never once called "Robin Hood". The closest is an off-hand remark by some sheriff saying "also known as Robin of the Hood". For a movie called "Robin Hood", you'd think they'd use the name more.
Also, there is no "Longstride" among the Magna Carta's signatories. If ever, "Longstride" seems derivative of the more medieval-sounding "Longshanks" (they mean the same thing), which is the nickname of Braveheart's nemesis King Edward I. So, maybe this can be a prequel to Braveheart?
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Where Do I Sign the "Fuck Cannes" Petition?
The media is in a self-righteous huff when trying to take down sleazy bishops who move pedophile priests with decade-old cases around.
But when its an entertainment figure like Roman Polanski, Cannes filmmakers circle the wagons to protect him and try to get his case dismissed because it was decades old. Of course, this further proves how useless filmmakers are. At least, even sleazy bishops preside over vast works of charity. And sleazy bishops can be confronted. No, its only these self-important filmmakers who are above moral indignation.
And where is the media in all this? Where the fire-breathing hatchet jobs, the thundering op-eds and the call for boycott of these preening auteurs? If the media were as consistent in their treatment of all who abet child abuse as they were in their Catholic scandal coverage, maybe I'd believe their scandal coverage more. As it stands, they'd try to get a doddery old priest tried and hanged, but these assholes would let Polanski walk in a heartbeat.
But when its an entertainment figure like Roman Polanski, Cannes filmmakers circle the wagons to protect him and try to get his case dismissed because it was decades old. Of course, this further proves how useless filmmakers are. At least, even sleazy bishops preside over vast works of charity. And sleazy bishops can be confronted. No, its only these self-important filmmakers who are above moral indignation.
And where is the media in all this? Where the fire-breathing hatchet jobs, the thundering op-eds and the call for boycott of these preening auteurs? If the media were as consistent in their treatment of all who abet child abuse as they were in their Catholic scandal coverage, maybe I'd believe their scandal coverage more. As it stands, they'd try to get a doddery old priest tried and hanged, but these assholes would let Polanski walk in a heartbeat.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
More Street Fighter
Apparently, the resurrected video game series has been getting a lot of fan love.
Here is Street Fighter: Beginning's End:
And here's Street Fighter Legacy:
Both have surprisingly good production values, especially Legacy. But I think Beginning's End has better fighting.
Overall, quite amazing.
Here is Street Fighter: Beginning's End:
And here's Street Fighter Legacy:
Both have surprisingly good production values, especially Legacy. But I think Beginning's End has better fighting.
Overall, quite amazing.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Psyching Myself Up
For the next six years of misrule by the country's most glorified mama's boy man-child.
We're in for the shitter now.
We're in for the shitter now.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Apparently, There is a Saint Ahmed
Saint Ahmed the Calligrapher of the Eastern Orthodox Church...
There are just some names you don't expect to see attached to the title "Saint"...mainly names from a non-Christian culture.
Saint Ahmed was probably as unexpected as someone who'd be Saint Mohammed, or Saint Vishramani, or, Saint Gaga.
If there are ever aliens out there, I'm waiting for St. Kal El. (And no, I do not mean Nicolas Cage's son.)
There are just some names you don't expect to see attached to the title "Saint"...mainly names from a non-Christian culture.
Saint Ahmed was probably as unexpected as someone who'd be Saint Mohammed, or Saint Vishramani, or, Saint Gaga.
If there are ever aliens out there, I'm waiting for St. Kal El. (And no, I do not mean Nicolas Cage's son.)
Saturday, May 8, 2010
An Example of Stupid Political Correctness
Some American publisher decided to slap this warning / disclaimer label:
This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.
On a reprint copy of the United States Constitution.
Yeah, let's not discuss these ideas as ideas, but rather as a quaint manifestation of more backward times.
No wonder recent American presidents think the US Constitution is more of a suggestion than anything else.
I think that when Green Day decided to sing about the "American Idiot", they didn't realize who the real American idiots were. The rednecks aren't the problem. It's the elitists who fancy themselves book-read who are. After all, no redneck would dare do something as monumentally stupid as slapping a chronologically snobbish warning label on the US Constitution.
This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.
On a reprint copy of the United States Constitution.
Yeah, let's not discuss these ideas as ideas, but rather as a quaint manifestation of more backward times.
No wonder recent American presidents think the US Constitution is more of a suggestion than anything else.
I think that when Green Day decided to sing about the "American Idiot", they didn't realize who the real American idiots were. The rednecks aren't the problem. It's the elitists who fancy themselves book-read who are. After all, no redneck would dare do something as monumentally stupid as slapping a chronologically snobbish warning label on the US Constitution.
Dumb Politicians
Yesterday, I spent ten minutes inside a hot tricycle waiting for a politician's motorcade of paid supporters to pass by. I don't know where this Anthony Suva got his education, but I do hope somebody somewhere taught him to never piss his potential voters off two days before an election. After all, that gaggle of kool-Aid drinkers he paid to cheer him off won't carry the election for him.
Moron.
Moron.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
The Groan You Hear is Me...
You would think that a woman who knows she is the dream girl of a subset of the population who subsist primarily on meat and cheese (pizza and hot pockets) would know better. But, noooooo....
Stupid Olivia Munn decides to get naked for PETA.
To honor her stupidity, view her nakedness while munching on a recently-slaughtered, deep fried former poultry of your choice.
Or, do it while watching a bear juggling bowling pins. Circuses are actually fun.
PS
Say what you will about Olivia Wilde, but she has not, to my knowledge, ever posed naked for these monsters. So there. (Though, it may just be a matter of time.)
Stupid Olivia Munn decides to get naked for PETA.
To honor her stupidity, view her nakedness while munching on a recently-slaughtered, deep fried former poultry of your choice.
Or, do it while watching a bear juggling bowling pins. Circuses are actually fun.
PS
Say what you will about Olivia Wilde, but she has not, to my knowledge, ever posed naked for these monsters. So there. (Though, it may just be a matter of time.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)