The last [chat] of November.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
So, during the GO-Pee debate this week our favorite candidate Mike Huckabbe was asked about his position the death penalty, about what Jesus would do about it: Huckabee responded:
You know, one of the toughest challenges that I ever faced as a governor was carrying out the death penalty. I did it more than any other governor ever had to do it in my state. As I look on this stage, I’m pretty sure that I’m the only person on this stage that’s ever had to actually do it. […]
Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office, Anderson. That’s what Jesus would do.
That is interesting. Jesus WAS smart enough no to run for public office. Which is good because Israel was occupied by the Roman Empire, and you know - It had been ruled by a King and shit before that. So, unless Jesus was running for the local water drainage board or the head of the neighborhood watch: he didnt really have a lot of options.
To push this a little further Thinkprogress did some checking about found, in 1997 Huckabee had this to say:
Interestingly enough,” Huckabee allowed, “if there was ever an occasion for someone to have argued against the death penalty, I think Jesus could have done so on the cross and said, ‘This is an unjust punishment and I deserve clemency’
I think if we were to make a syllogism
Jesus was sentenced to the death penalty
Jesus did not ask for clemency
Jesus supported the death penalty.
i think that is how it worked. But i got a D- in logic.
Also. Huckabee is a religious zealot rapped in Ned Flanders Clothing
Glacéau, the people who make Vitamin Water have an Energy Drink.
The Caffeine Information for the beverage is that it contains 9.38 mgs of caffeine per fluid ounce. But more important is that it contains 50.34 mgs of Delicious per fluid ounce.
The good news is that there's a Futurama movie, the bad news is that its straight-to-video both in terms of its method of distribution and its overall quality The joke writing was lazy, relying on zaniness, shock value, and a contrived running gag for what I'll conservatively estimate to be 99% of the movie. Inside jokes were also present, but generally relegated to a sort of Where's Waldo meets Dane Cookian "Hey, see that? You remember that? You do? Good for you"
There was a fairly serious subplot, which featured a twist so obvious, they may have well included it in the title, and a title so contrived that it barely even describes any event in the movie.
And then there were the cameos, which probably would have been more endearing if I didn't see these characters on Futurama reruns every weekday on Adult Swim already. Since I do, however, they did little more than flesh out the waste of time.
There were a few songs, which failed in nearly every way, save for that they had a melody and lyrics, hallmarks of most music.
In short, I hated it and I wish they hadn't made it. However, they found a way to make Amy Wong more of an inconsequential character, and for that I have to give them a little credit.
Today is World AIDS Day.
But it's not a "happy world" AIDS Day. And it's not a Happy "World AIDS" day. But rather the wish is for one to have a "happy" day on which the world thinks about AIDS. Sort of like Earth Day but for fags, fornicators, needle sharers, and African babies.
Friday, November 30, 2007
I had no idea that this was a pro-Ron Paul article until the last three paragraphs. My conclusion is that I'm supposed to understand this as a some sort of Ron Paul ex machina piece.
And that "Dr. Paul wants to return to the gold standard" jab? Was that a jab? Did Joe Murray mean for it to be a good thing?
From the Times Union Online:
At 9:40 a.m. today, dispatch received a call of an armed robbery at Lake City Bank, 420 Chevy Way, Warsaw. Two men, allegedly dressed all in black, walked into the bank and robbed an undisclosed amount of money, and left in a dark-colored mini-van on Ind. 15. Police were not sure of the direction the mini-van headed. No further information was available at press time.
Elusive biblical wall found at last.
Apparently this is Nehemiah's wall discussed in Chapters 3-6 of the book of Nehemiah, the walliest book of the Old Testament.
$10 to the first person who claims that the discovery of these "pottery shards and arrowheads found under the tower" indicates that Jesus Christ was the only begotten son of God.
Edit: Seriously. Read Nehemiah 3-6. It's wall pron.
"But it came to pass, that when Sanballat heard that we builded the wall, he was wroth, and took great indignation, and mocked the Jews." - Nehemiah 4:1
It's like the Melrose Place of Wall Erotica. Sanballat is totally not going to stand for that wall erection!
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Note: This article contains Beowulf movie spoilers.
There's a scene in Beowulf where a fellow tries to get Beowulf to admit to a loss in a swimming match, but Beowulf explains that he only lost because he was otherwise engaged in killing the shit out of sea monsters. According to the men who sail with Beowulf, however, the sea monster story has grown a bit in the repeated telling, and is not quite as impressive as he makes it sound.
I think this scene is very important to the movie because it introduces the notion that oral tradition, specifically Beowulf's oral tradition, is prone to exaggeration and selfish modification, and in instances where the truth is known, his version does not always match it. This idea opens the door for a different yet more cohesive interpretation of Beowulf, which in most cases quite closely follows the outline of the original, but makes bold changes in sequences that would have been reliant on only Beowulf's word.
The most obvious example of this is when Beowulf heads into the marshes to kill Grendel's mother. According to the original, he enters the cavern alone, and by his account, he fights with and eventually kills the monster who gave birth to Grendel, returning with Grendel's head and a melted sword to show for it. The head proves that Grendel is dead, and that Beowulf was in or at least near the lair of the monster, but the sword, which Beowulf claims was melted by the mother's poison (or something), is open to interpretation, and there is certainly no hard evidence that Grendel's mother has been killed.
The film assumes Beowulf is lying about the encounter, and creates an alternate version in which Beowulf has a son by Grendel's mother, and that son grows up to be the dragon that appears later in the story. Grendel himself is revealed to be the son of Hrothgar, who apparently found himself in a similar situation as Beowulf regarding Grendel's mother.
Now, there's a part of me that hates that. It's the part that groans when changes are made in the journey from book to film, but I found myself actually appreciating the alterations in this case. I think I liked them because they seemed to serve a purpose, that is, to facilitate the version of the story they wanted to tell, which was allowable via the theory that anything that happened without witnesses is bound to be inaccurately reported. If they had been all frivolous or pointless changes (such as when Beowulf becomes king after Hrothgar dies rather than returning home to be king there), then I'd probably say the film was mismanaged, but they were not.
I'm afraid the other reason I liked them is because my expectations for the movie and my personal interest in Beowulf were so low that I'd have been impressed by nearly anything.
Did anyone else see the movie? Thoughts?
Apparently Mike Huckabee did well in last night's CNN debate. While one CNN debate is not the proverbial ballgame it is quite terrifying that Mike Huckabee could do well in a Presidential debate. Why? Because this is who Mike Huckabee is:
"I put my head on the pillow and I just want to make sure that the father above is pleased. In essence, I can say that I have one client I have to please."
Dedicating one's life to the pleasing of one's chosen Deity is sensible for a preacher. It behooves a member of the clergy to focus their efforts on Deity pleasing. Unfortunately, as we learned from the Muhammad Teddy Bear story, Theocracies are a bad idea. They are problematic. Even if Mike Huckabee's goal is not to establish a Theocracy maintained by the sentient zygotes he "saves" I still think it would behoove both Huckabee and Huckabee's supporters to read Article II of the United States Constitution.
Go ahead and read it. I'll wait.
Done? Alright. Now go back to that page. Search for the word "preacher", "clergy", "cleric" and any other term you can think of for a person with a religious ideology who has dedicated their life to the pleasing of their chosen Deity. You won't find any of those words.
It's not the President's job to enforce his or her religious ideology. It's not the President's job to be the Pastor in Chief. It's not the job of the President to command via the Bible.
And most importantly? The President does not have only one client. A President is not only subject to their chosen Deity. A President is subject to the American People. All of them. A President's job is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Mike Huckabee cannot do that. His concern is not for everyone. His focus is not on Article II.
His obligation is to his chosen Deity who is not, interestingly enough, a citizen of the United States of America.
Note to remember on your travels to Islamic countries: Do not name your teddy bear Mohammed.
Posted by Andrew at 9:12 AM
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
I'm getting really fucking sick and tired of reading about people being killed by dogs. The latest story is of Margaret Ann Gordon, 56, who was attacked by a "pack of about eight wild dogs". Apparently, "her legs were gnawed to the bone" and she died of blood loss.
How the fuck hard is it to punch a dog in the neck? I mean, really. It's not terribly difficult. You locate the head (the part with the teeth) and you locate the body (the huge mass below the head) and then you aim your blow between these two things. Then when the dog falls back from your initial blow you pull out your knife (Because who the god-damned fuck doesn't in the year our lord 2007 carry at least one fucking knife with them everywhere they go?) and you stab the beast until it dies.
If there are 8? You repeat the process 8 times.
I'm not endorsing cruelty to animals. I don't think killing dogs ought to be one's hobby. If you are in Bulgaria, though, and 8 wild dogs appear and try to eat you? Go ahead and prevent them from eating you. Because you're a human fucking being. You have tools. You have multiple appendages with which you can inflict damage on other beings.
And you're being killed by this:
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Free Speech is a logical extreme. Free Speech can only truly exist without censorship, without limitations. The problem is that human beings want both free speech and censorship, they desire the ideal as well as its negation. Human beings, as always, want to maintain their cake and at the same time consume their cake. This brings us to David Irving and the Oxford Debating Society.
The Oxford Union Debating Society invited David Irving and Nick Griffin to speak at a debate about Free Speech. This pissed off many, many people. Among those who were pissed off and so protested was one David Block, co-president of Oxford's Jewish Society, who supplied this delightful quote:
"My main grievance about this debate is the accusation that we want to deny people free speech. We just don’t want to give them any more platforms to air their views, which are disgraceful."
At the risk of invoking the wratch of David Block's schmutz'd schmeckle I'm going to go ahead and call him a dipshit, or "putz". Why? If you don't want David Irving to spout his idiocy at your university then you don't want free speech. Censorship denies free speech. And everyone wants censorship.
No? Think about it. I am fine with an absense of censorship in many ways: I think a person ought to be able to yell "fire!" in crowded mall if they so choose (it will make the mall less crowded). I think people ought to be able to say "fuck" and "nigger" if they so choose. But I do not think creationism ought to be taught in science classes. I want to limit what a science professor says in a science class. Granted, the position that science professors ought to only teach science in science class is reasonable and, dare I say, correct. But it is a limit to free speech; it is censorship.
I think humanity ought to rid itself of the rhetoric of "free speech". No one wants free speech. No one wants everyone to be able to say anything they want at any time. Even the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States doesn't really mean "free speech". Slander and Libel, for example, are not protected.
It is possible to want a reasonable degree of "free" speech; one can argue for the ability to say things within a context of limitations. But no one wants "free speech". No one wants absolutely no limits, ever, on what a person can say. So qualifying your protest of free speech by saying that you really do want free speech is simply idiotic. You do not want free speech.
So fucking say so.
Monday, November 26, 2007
We are truly fucked. After five months of being totally awesome the Creationist Museum is expanding.
PETERSBURG, Ky. (AP) — Northern Kentucky's Creation Museum is evolving into a larger facility.
The museum will add 663 parking spaces, outdoor canopies and a maintenance building and will move its main entrance as part of a $500,000 upgrade, according to a report in The Kentucky Enquirer.
The controversial museum, which uses literal interpretations of the Bible to tell the earth's history, welcomed its 250,000th visitor five months after its opening on Memorial Day. The museum had expected to get 250,000 visitors its entire first year.
The larger-than-expected crowds left the facility with an overflowing parking lot, forcing staff to park miles away.
The Boone County Planning Commission approved the plans by an 11-1 vote, the newspaper reported.
Three years ago we thought this was the biggest joke in the world, but now...now it is dropping half a million dollars to expand. BECAUSE IT IS SO POPULAR. We are just one election cycle from this place hosting a Republican primary debate.
Also - to add insult to injury Kevin DuBrow the lead signer of Quiet Riot has died. Who now will help us Cum feel the Noize. I need to feel the noize and no one could help me like Quiet Riot.
We are all truely fucked. fucked real hard.
Sellers of digital media need to watch the Soup Nazi episode of Seinfeld.
The Soup Nazi was able to cook "great soup" desired by all. To obtain this soup a customer had to comply with the Soup Nazi's strict customer behavior requirements. The Soup Nazi could dictate the terms by which his soup could be obtained by his customers since he was the sole supplier of his soup. If an individual failed to meet his requirements the Soup Nazi could, and did, proclaim, "No Soup for you!" and the customer was fully denied soup; the customer had no other means by which the Soup Nazi's soup could be obtained. At the end of the episode Elaine finds the recipies for the Soup Nazi's soup, thereby allowing people to obtain the soup without adhering to the Soup Nazi's will.
The problem with modern resellers of digital media is that they desire to be the Soup Nazi while failing to understand the important lesson the Soup Nazi episode taught us all: Don't be a dick.
To stay with the Soup Nazi metaphor, the recepies have been out of the armoire since the mid 90s. Napster and its subsequent offspring allow customers to bypass the Soup Nazis of digital media and obtain files without complying with any requirements; sellers of digital music cannot proclaim, "No Soup for you!" No one needs to buy music files from Apple or anyone else to listen to songs. For, you see, bittorrent exists, the Elaine to their Soup Nazi, if you will. Customers do not have to adhere to any strict regiment of behavior to obtain the desired product. But does this mean that no one will ever buy digital media? No.
This weekend I purchased three Rifftrax. Rifftrax are .mp3 files of commentary that one plays alongside movies. Why did I buy them? The files are reasonably priced ($4 for a movie length of commentary), high quality (great audio quality and superb humor), and in a reasonable format (.mp3). I was happy to exchange money for this product. People will pay for products they desire. And, yes, if the product is only available from a Soup Nazi then the customer will adhere to the requirements placed on them by the Soup Nazi. But if a customer can bypass the Soup Nazi? They will.
The goal is to not be a Soup Nazi. The goal is to not make one's customers want to bypass the system. If the Soup Nazi was not a Nazi, but rather a pleasant man selling delicious soup? Elaine would not have delighted in the discovery of his recipies. Elaine would have happily bought his soup just as I was happy to buy Rifftrax. But if an individual or group maintain their Soup Nazi ways while there exist simple alternative means by which their product can be obtained? We'll make our own soup, we'll download our own digital files, thank you very much.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
New Years eve is always fun. We have played Risk, Axis and Allies, Poker, got drunk, made fun of Cary, made fun of jolly, etc.
Over the thanksgiving break Jay Adam and I watched 3 of our favorite movies, only with Rifftrax commentaries. And i have to say - it was a blast.
So, that non-sequester not withstanding, i think that it is put up or shut up when it comes to ironic film viewing - thus my suggestion.
Giltter and Crossroads....with rifftrax.