Dude, it's 4/20.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Dude, it's 4/20.
Those who've had Renata know what this link is about.
Those who haven't. Don't.
Masada - Behold, Peter O'Toole and his Shining Thighs
Friday, April 25, 2008
My crush on Christina Ricci began in 1995 when I first saw Casper. Now, I know that Casper was a terrible movie despite the fact that it starred Independence Day's Bill Pullman, but at the time I did not care. You see, Christina Ricci is freaking gorgeous. She has the eyes, the hair, the personality, the breasts, everything. She even has that faux artsy thing going for her where she'll do needlessly unconventional photo shoots to try and compensate for being on Ally McBeal.
So, you have to understand how difficult it is for me to rant about her. Yet rant I must. You see, in a recent interview Christina "holy god she's hott" Ricci indicated that she hates the objectification of women:
I think people are learning to actually aspire to be objectified. It’s like the highest form of flattery for teenage girls. The culture we live in right now seems to reward behavior that we used to frown upon. We used to teach our daughters not to be like this. I think in the ’80s, there would certainly have been a little bit of snobbery expressed if somebody admitted to getting a full Brazilian bikini wax. A circle of friends would be like, ‘What are you, a porn star?’”
It used to be something that we were sort of ashamed of. You didn’t want to admit to people that you were a stripper. But now, the hottest thing to say is, ‘I can work a pole!’ Who gives a f---? But it’s a huge, weird thing. I mean, you see actresses, and their passion project is to play a stripper. It’s just stupid.
With regard to the objectification of women I think Christina's point is entirely sensible. The problem, though, is that Christina Ricci said it.
I've seen Prozac Nation. Or, rather, I have seen a nude scene from Prozac Nation and by "nude" I mean "you get to see her boobies and they are magnificent". I've also seen Now and Then. Again, though, I have not seen Now and Then so much as I have repeatedly watched that scene where Christina Ricci inspects her bra. In fact, allow me to list a few more movies and tv shows in which Christina Ricci has appeared and my reasons for watching them:
Now and Then: That scene in which you showed your bra
The Opposite of Sex: That scene in which you showed your bra. That scene in which you were naked in bed.
Buffalo 66: Cleavage
That Darn Cat: Pussy
Pecker: That scene in which you playfully show off your cleavage when Pecker wants to take your picture
200 Cigarettes: Cleavage
Prozac Nation: Topless
Pumpkin: You were simply inexplicably gorgeous in this movie
Ally McBeal: Tits, tits, bra, tits, bra
See a pattern?
Now, I'm sure we can find some artful justification for all of these scenes. The nude scene in Prozac Nation was to show a sense of vulnerability. The Now and Then bra scene was an artful depiction of, um, how Christina Ricci wears bras and inspects herself in mirrors. 200 Cigarettes was an attempt to make the shittiest damn movie ever starring two Afflecks. The problem is that in order to maximize ticket sales all of these movies focus, in some way, upon the objectification of Christina Ricci.
Now, as someone who adores Christina Ricci and enjoys combating prostate cancer to these scenes I'm not trying to argue that Christina Ricci oughtn't do scenes such as these. I'm just saying that when you've done a scene in which while wearing only a bra and panties you jump off a high-dive into a man's bed you look really fucking stupid when you bitch about other women objectifying themselves.
But, again, if you want to bitch about the objectification of women while you take off your shirt? I'm perfectly ok with that. I'll just ignore your mind, personality, and adorable thought process and rather focus upon your body. That way everybody wins.
It turns out, if the democrats were more like the Republicans that Hillary Clinton would Already be the nominee.
Who would of figured that the Big Hill was more like a Republican than a Democrat. So fuck the activists in their hippy ass.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Meet Tony Zirkle.
Zirkle is running for congress in Indiana's 2nd District (South Bend Area). On Sunday he spoke to American National Socialist Workers Party (Illinois Nazis) Where he stood in front of a painting of Hitler with a swastika flag in the background. This wouldn't be such a big deal, except that he got 30% of the vote in the last Republican Primary. However, he was than running against an incumbent and the Republicans gave a damn.
Thinkprogress.org has a video from a WSBU report.
Oh, By the Way. Sunday was Hitler's Birthday.
Anyone familiar with the Lone Wolf series of books?
or Fighting Fantasy?
Probably not, as those were bigger in the UK, it seems.
Basically they were hybrid RPGs and Choose Your Own Adventure style Interactive Fiction. Unlike CYOA, you would keep stats through the book/series on a notepad, so you'd advance and adapt to scenarios...
The first Lone Wolf was turned into a couple of Neverwinter mods that were.. interesting..
Anyways.. the author of the Lone Wolf stuff has put them all up online... as hypertext linked pages.... with a Java statkeeper on the side.
I reccomend trying them out, if you've time to kill.
Posted by Roscoe at 2:27 PM
In my particular world view 2009 provided a glimmer of hope off in the distance. No more George W. Bush, no more shitty job, and Grad School. 2009 was shaping up to be a happy little year to which one could look forward with anticipation and delight. But then NBC hired Jimmy Fallon to host 'Late Night' in 2009 and that happy little vision crashed into a mountain of dread.
Ok, Jimmy "Laugh at my own jokes" Fallon is not funny. He wasn't funny on Weekend Update. He wasn't funny in any of his sketches. And he god damned well was not funny in Taxi. And if at any point you have found Jimmy "Laugh at my own jokes" Fallon to be entertaining then you are either functionally retarded or Jimmy Fallon. (After all, we know that Jimmy Fallon thinks he's funny. HE COULDN'T STOP LAUGHING AT HIMSELF!)
I don't even watch NBC late night TV; it's not for me. So, arguably, I could just avoid Jimmy "Laugh at my own jokes" Fallon as he sits at Conan's desk laughing at his own jokes and breaking character. The problem with that, though, is that Jimmy "Laugh at my own jokes" Fallon will slowly seep into popular culture and dipshits like Roger Friedman over at Fox News will write shit like this:
He’s the perfect successor to Conan and should have just as big an audience when he takes the reins. Fallon is one of those great underrated performers. This should be the right milieu for him.
Fucking god damn shit festering ass cock no! No, Roger Friedman! Bad Roger Friedman! We do not feign praise for Jimmy "Laugh at my own jokes" Fallon!
And what the hell does "Fallon is one of those great underrated performers" mean? Seriously, if that's the nicest thing you can think of; the highest level of praise you can muster? What the hell does that tell you about the subject matter? And by what backwards fucking metric has anyone ever "underrated" Jimmy "Laugh at my own jokes" Fallon? Jimmy "Laugh at my own jokes" Fallon is by definition OVERrated! He neither deserved nor behooved his chair at Weekend Update. And now with 'Late Night' handed to him like the Presidency was handed to W we have even more proof of Jimmy "Laugh at my own jokes" Fallon's overrated, undeserved success within an industry which obviously does not pay attention to itself.
So now we have this to look forward to. Leno goes somewhere. Conan moves to Leno's spot. And the poor man's Adam Sandler, Jimmy "Laugh at my own jokes" Fallon, gets to sit at Conan's desk while he breaks character, laughs at his own jokes, forgets his lines, and collects gigantic undeserved paychecks.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
So, World of Warcraft addiction.
After inundating myself in WoW for the past few months as a result of wanting to save money and not having anything else to do I've reached the point where my daily schedule is based upon my WoW schedule and the primary focus of my leisure time is progression in WoW itself. So I think that I have reached a point of qualification to answer the question addressed by this article on MSNBC entitled "What makes video games ‘addictive?’". My answer? I do not grant the premise of the question.
World of Warcraft is not addictive.
About a month ago a friend of a friend was convinced to play WoW. So a group of us started new characters and began the task of leveling him. Through working together we got his character to level 60 at which time it became his responsibility to level his own character through questing. Shortly thereafter he effectively stopped playing.
When this happened I felt personally betrayed. I had invested the time and effort required to aid him in reaching level 60 and so afforded him the opportunity to reach Outlands and access content the majority of players focus upon. Had I not spent time leveling his character, which now sits unplayed, I could have worked on my own character and completed tasks necessary to my own progression.
After pondering this feeling for a few weeks I took notice of the language I used: "invested", "time and effort", "required", "tasks", "worked", "progression". I was not talking about WoW in terms of an enjoyable hobby or game or drug but rather discussed WoW in terms similar to those one would use to describe a job, an obligation. This point is the foundation for my argument that World of Warcraft is not addicting.
I will not go so far as to call WoW a "job"; I do not think that WoW is a job. But WoW certainly has job-esque characteristics. An example I use to describe this situation is that a friend participates in a bowling league. Now, this league is not a job. But certainly there are days when his obligation to attend motivates him far more than a simple desire to attend. Certainly performance in this league is enhanced by practice which, again, may stem from a need or obligation rather than a desire. The Bowling League is not a job or a game but rather a chosen obligation with its own benefits and requirements.
And I think WoW is this same sort of thing.
I think that the time individuals invest in WoW is the result of not an addiction but rather an acknowledged embrace of the requirements placed upon individuals by the structure of WoW. If a player requires more gold then that player must do that which is required to obtain more gold. If a player requires better gear then a player must do that which is required to obtain better gear. The game presents obstacles and hurdles which are overcome fundamentally by an investment of time. But then, you ask, why would an individual care? What fundamentally motivates a player to engaged in WoW and see these pursuits as worthwhile? Must not this fundamentally be an addiction?
I do not think so.
Plenty of activities require an investment of time and degrees of sacrifice which are not classified as "addictions". A successful guitar player, bowler, painter, or adult film actor must spend hours practicing their craft in an effort to do their best when the opportunity arises to perform. Yet these pursuits would not be classified as "additions". They require time and sacrifice yet this is not perceived to be a sign of addiction but are rather known requirements of these activities.
Certainly we can take the definition of addiction, "a recurring compulsion by an individual to engage in some specific activity, despite harmful consequences to the individual's health, mental state or social life", and apply it to bowling given that when we leave the realm of chemical dependency we're basically just making shit up. But it would be very odd for a person to argue that bowling, painting, or cancer research were addicting activities.
When we label a non chemical dependency as "addiction" we're really just assessing the merits of the given activity with regard to the amount of time required and sacrifices made. Then, based upon our own notions of what one ought concern one's self with, we either deem an activity addictive or not addictive. If a person spends 30 hours a week playing World of Warcraft then they are addicted. If a person spend 30 hours a week practicing the guitar then they are dedicated.
Fundamentally we need to address the reasons why people spend time engaged in any activity rather than simply assess the activity itself. I supposed that a person could be addicted to bowling, guitar playing, or World of Warcraft; it is possible. But that possibility does not mean that these activities themselves are addicting. Were that the case everything would be addicting.
Except for writing misinformed articles. That's not an addiction so much as being a fucking dipshit. "Even though Lalji became the best — the No. 1 priest character on his server." No. 1 priest character on his server? What the fuck does that even mean?
Monday, April 21, 2008
Mike Capps, president of Epic Games, made the most accurate summary of the Wii I have heretofore heard:
It's a virus where you buy it and you play it with your friends and they're like, "Oh my God that's so cool, I'm gonna go buy it." So you stop playing it after two months, but they buy it and they stop playing it after two months but they've showed it to someone else who then go out and buy it and so on. Everyone I know bought one and nobody turns it on. Obviously there's a class of people who really love it and enjoy it and are getting into the games but I'm still waiting for that one game that makes me play it.
The only word I would add to his assessment is "gimmick".
Sunday, April 20, 2008
So there are these two WoW guilds, Nihilum and SK-Gaming. Both of these guilds are composed of professional WoW players who are paid to play. Nihilum killed the Eredar Twins 30 minutes before SK-Gaming downed them, meaning that Nihilum got the first world kill on the Twins. SK has been trying to beat the Nihilum guys in World First kills since day one.
This is a video someone made depicting what happened at SK-Gaming after learning that Nihilum downed the Eredar Twins.