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"...
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)