Saturday, February 16, 2008
Friday, February 15, 2008
This evening I purchased the Jurassic Park Rifftrax and Jurassic Park on DVD. What follows is my review.
Buy the Jurassic Park Rifftrax. Buy Jurassic Park on DVD. Listen to the Rifftrax while you watch the movie.
Do it now.
Ok, real review.
I don't know why I thought Weird Al would not be capable of riffing. I mean, I'm capable of riffing so it's obviously not that difficult. But this thought has come to be that Mike and fellow Riffers from MST3K have this gift that allows them to use imdb and google far better than we lesser beings who did not have a show on comedy central.
Turns out that, really, Weird Al is just as capable of using IMDB and making pop culture references as other sentient beings are.
I won't say that Jurassic Park is the best Rifftrax yet, even though it is, or that if you only buy one rifftrax this ought to be the one you purchase, even though it is. But this trax was just as good as every other trax I've purchased if not better. I was smiling throughout the entire middle of the film, which could have been the result of the vodka, i'm not sure. The jokes were delightful and numerous. There were no long periods of no jokes, or long periods of crappy jokes. Throughout the entire movie rich commentary is provided that results in lols and rofls. I counted two rofls.
Anyway, here is the trailer:
If you enjoyed that trailer then buy the rifftrax. Because the Rifftrax is two hours and seven minutes of that.
The tournaments will take place on special realms that allow competitors to instantly create level-70 characters with epic equipment, placing the focus on tactics and execution rather than normal adventuring.
I think this is quite a good idea. By removing the component of leveling and grinding for gear, effectively putting all players on a level playing field, they remove that component of pvp and leave only tactics and player ability.
I like it.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
President George Bush has decided to use a military missile launched from a U.S.Navy ship to attempt to bring down a broken spy satellite expected to hit the Earth in early March, senior officials said Thursday.
Oh, for fuck's sake.
He thinks he is Wile E. Coyote now.
Since today is Vawentine's day I wanted to write something vawentine related. There is a Newsweek Article about Wal-Mart now selling Wet, a sexual lubricant, and how retail chains are starting to stock sexual lubricants and, in some cases, vibrators of various makes and models. While that is in some ways vawentine related (what with the fucking) it didn't really spark that necessary hate required to write a rant.
Then I read this:
"In Alabama the laws take the ban one step further. All stores, including specialty stores, are barred from selling vibrators because of a 1998 law prohibiting distribution of devices that provide genital stimulation. Breaking the law is an offense that can bring up to a year in jail and a $10,000 fine. It's a penalty that rivals that for illegal gun ownership in some states."
That's the stuff.
Why would there be a law prohibiting the distribution of devices that provide genital stimulation? Ignoring the question of how one defines such a device (what constitutes genital stimulation?) why would any such device be deemed detrimental to society? Why is it problematic? Whence the illegality of masturbating?
Because that's what the law is about: masturbation. Prudish dipshits may think that sex and, by relation, masturbation is "icky", that putting a vibrating object on one's vagina is "yucky". But in what way is it illegal? Who does it harm? How is it harmful to society?
On that same note how is homosexuality harmful to society? Whence the desire to make it illegal? If someone wants to use a dildo how is that problematic? If a man wants a penis to be placed into his anus how is that problematic? Hell, if two people really want to shit on each other what's wrong with that?
Provided that ample lubrication and flexibility exist no actual harm comes from consentual anal sex, from masturbation. We can certainly fabricate a moral view in which such acts damage one's soul, one's mental or psychological well-being, but, again, these are mere fabrications. They are not representative of actual things but merely ideals we create. If one makes the claim that penises ought to only ever be placed inside vaginas there is no foundation for such a claim. They are only saying things with which other ignorant people agree.
If you do not want to buy a vibrator or have homosexual sex then, fine, go nuts. But don't tell others that they oughtn't or try to prevent them from doing so. Because you're just being intolerant and stupid.
But wait, you say. Isn't it a slippery slope? If we allow homosexuality, masturbation, dancing doesn't that also mean that we must allow pedophiles to fuck non-consenting children? If we allow for the sale of vibrators mustn't we also legalize and mandate prostitution?
No, you jackass. First of all, slippery slope arguments are asinine and nonsense. Second of all, shut up.
Vawentines day is primarily a Hallmark Holiday created by retailers to promote slacking February sales. But so long as it exists and things are on sale we might as well take advantage of the capitalist idiocy and try on this day to communicate to someone special to us that we appreciate them, that we enjoy their company, that to us they are an awesome and meaningful individual without whom our lives would be far less enjoyable.
So, Happy Vawentine's Day.
Go fuck something.
Lots of people play World of Warcraft. 10,000,000 people, in fact. But what does that really mean? Kotaku has an article linking to mmogcharts.com which has, as you might guess, charts detailing how different MMOs relate to one another.
Market Share Pie Chart
Active Subscriptions Line Chart
If we can learn anything from these charts it is that WoW does not suck and many other games do, in fact, suck.
And Guild Wars is gay.
For those of you who have been to Atomic Age Cinema (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE), you'll certainly not dis-enjoy this...lengthy interview with hosts Dr. Calamari and Baron Mardi. For those of you who have NOT been to Atomic Age Cinema (I MUST ASSUME YOU ALSO KNOW WHO YOU ARE), then you might have questions about this. Questions, I assure you, that have no answers.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
"To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude." - John McCain, Victory Speech Feb. 12, 2008
Why would anyone vote for John McCain? Why would anyone embrace his hopeless world view, his ceaseless grasping at decrepit and tattered ideals, his war mongering? To whom is that world view appealing, comforting, empowering?
McCain's speech last night was anti-Obama, anti-hope. It portrayed Obama as a spouter of baseless platitudes, an empty shell decorated with flowery rhetoric and childish idealism. McCain is the gruff, experienced father figure to Obama's juvenile hope. McCain has been there, he has experience. He has fabricated an illusion of himself as a maveric, a lone gun, lone wolf who does not conform to party lines, but rather forever comforms to failed and outdated, "sound and proven" ideals of Cold War, Beaver Cleaver yesteryear.
Again I ask, to whom is that world view appealing?
Are we really living in a time in which we do not desire idealism, hope, change? Is McCain's chalky complexion, his doddering speeches, his entrenched ideology a thrilling vision of the future?
Who wants that?
Who wants what we have, what we've always had? Who wants a continuation of the norm? Whose desires are so juvenile as to forever embrace the known, idealized, flawed past rather than to hope for something better and take a chance on change?
Last night McCain gave his speech in front of a crowd of less than 300. His backdrop a pearly field of aged, decrepid, indoctrinated animate corpses. Obama gave his speech to a screaming, multi-cultural crowd of 17,000.
Obama is a vision for America, a hope. Obama is genuine change and a chance at something better. Obama is asking for your vote with the hope that the process does not stop there, that you will be involved with and participate in the change he hopes to make.
McCain? He just wants you to vote for him and then get off his lawn.
And Hillary? She is Bill Clinton 2.0, the tried and true policy hack more concerned with winning than helping. In her hands are the leash to her attack dog husband, her soulless media machine, her whore of a daughter. Hers is a promise of a return to the known, a change of gender to unchanged policies, tactics, and schemes. Her strength is her experience, Rumsfeld's experience, Cheney's experience. She is the Washington we've known and loathed, despised and ignored out of frustration. She is the Democratic side of the coin; McCain is the Republican side of the coin.
Obama is not on their coin.
Obama is something new.
Obama is hope.
To whom is that not appealing?
MSNBC has an article which details the Dem primary results so far.
Hard Count Delegates:
with Pledge Delegates (+/- 5):
with Super Delegates (+/- 5):
States Awarding Delegates
Obama 9,373,334 50%
Clinton 8,674,779 46%
Others 726,095 4%
Obama 9,942,375 49%
Clinton 9,531,987 46%
Others 984,236 4%
With Florida and Michigan
Obama 9,942,375 47%
Clinton 9,860,138 47%
Others 1,249,922 6%
Monday, February 11, 2008
The sun was setting over the hills of Gronn as Aelor wiped his blood-stained kabar on his newly tattered cloak; the blood and soot enmeshing within the cloth as it had on the soiled ground upon which he stood.
The battle had gone far better than he expected. His men fine, the enemy vanquished, at least for now. As his legion rested behind him, winded yet still eager to battle on, he ventured to the exposed outcrop overlooking the land of Lai.
A desolate wasteland stretched out below him in all directions. Where once there existed a lush realm of life and possibility there now remained only this barren ground devoid of life, hope, possibility. This was why they had fought, why they had stood their ground. The realm of Lai served as a reminder to he and his men of what would happen should they fail. In a mere month Lai had been drained and reduces to this pitiful state. Lai’s fate would befall all realms if the quest were to fail.
Aelor knew not from where the enemy came or why. He did not know who they were or their purpose. He knew only two things. He knew what would happen if they were to survive. He knew also how to make them die.
He turned to face his men, his surrogate family. Within him they found the strength to battle on, within them he found his purpose. For them and their families he had to win and see the quest through to its end. In this first battle they fared well, they survived. He knew that this would not hold true to the end.
Then, one of his men looked past him to the horizon, the warrior’s face reverting to its battle-toned scorn. Aelor turned and saw them in the distance, the black shapes against the setting sun. He did not desire to battle at night aloft on a craggy expanse but the decision, he smirked to himself, was not his to make. He turned back to his men.
“Here comes the second wave,” he said.
Posted by _J_ at 5:46 PM
If we learned anything from Don Imus calling the Rutgers women's basketball team a bunch of "nappy headed hoes" and the ensuing idiocy it's that the media and their associated talking heads pounce on stupid shit like a hooker on a dime bag.
For those of you who have missed the latest scandal here it is:
DAVID SHUSTER: Bill, there's just something a little bit unseemly to me that Chelsea's out there calling up celebrities, saying support my mom, and she's apparently also calling these super delegates.
BILL PRESS: Hey, she's working for her mom. What's unseemly about that? During the last campaign, the Bush twins were out working for their dad. I think it's great, I think she's grown up in a political family, she's got politics in her blood, she loves her mom, she thinks she'd make a great president --
SHUSTER: But doesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?
For those of you who may, rightfully so, find Shuster's comment to be innocuous I direct you to this clarifying article by Taylor Marsh who, having nothing else to write about, got really, really pissy:
"I am disgusted by the indiscriminate sexism and blatant misogyny of this statement. I also cannot believe in the 21st century we have Neanderthal men parading around with such arrogance that they wouldn't immediately check themselves as a statement like this went tripping through their itsy-bitsy-teeny-weeny brain."
1) The statement was not "indiscriminate".
2) I wouldn't say that a guy sitting in front of a camera is "parading".
3) Are you trying to level up your hyphen proficiency or something?
While we could focus on the media's reaction, the manner in which other MSNBC employees reacted, or whether or not the comment made Chelsea recoil to her ugly tree for comfort and solace I think there is a much more important question to address:
What the fuck political influence does Chelsea Clinton have?
My understanding is that Bill Clinton has significant political appeal and influence, that as an ex-President he has considerable clout. So when Hillary has someone like Bill Clinton on her campaign what the hell good can Chelsea really be?
The answer to that question may be the defense David Shuster needs. When you think about it there are two possibilities. The first is that the Clintons are literally whoring out their daughter to celebrities and superdelegates in exchange for votes. The second is that Chelsea Clinton has some political influence greater than her father or mother over superdelegates and celebrities.
Which do you think is more likely?
Personally, I think it far more likely that a superdelegate would be game for some nice bag-over-her-head sex with Chelsea than that a superdelegate would change their vote as a result of a phone call from the daughter of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
While I don't personally know David Shuster and will freely admit that he is something of a douche I think his "pimped out" comment is based on the recognition that Chelsea is, politically speaking, far more useful as a whore than as a source of influence over superdelegates and celebrities. If only because if he's not making that argument then he's just baselessly saying mean things about Chelsea Clinton.
And what kind of person does that?