For the sake of efficiency, I want to streamline the alphabet. This includes eliminating some letters, reassigning some, and reintroducing one.
A - A good, solid start, here. No complaints.
B - Same as above. It has a purpose and serves it well.
C - This letter frequently does double duty, serving both the S sound and the K sound. Since each of those letters do the same job just as well, C should change to the CH sound. It's common in other languages, and we don't have any other letters for CH, so C gets reassigned.
D, E, F, G, H, and I can all stay.
J - Redundant. One can get the same effect out of G. I could be persuaded to reconsider, provided the soft G is no longer used.
K, L, M, N, O, and P can stay.
Q - A waste of a letter. First of all, just look at it. Q. It's O with a tail. It's frequently confused with G. And it doesn't even make a unique sound. It's just the K sound, but circley. Not only that, Q is hardly ever used in the first place, and most of the time, it requires the addition of another letter, namely U. We can get the same effect with KU or KW.
R, S, T, U, and V are fine.
W - I'm on the fence on this one. On the one hand, one could get the same sound out of U or OO. For mor distinct W sounds, we can just employ a UU. On the other hand, judging by the look and etymology, W is a relatively recent addition to the alphabet and does have a kind of unique sound. If we keep the W, it should be reclassified as a vowel.
X - Where to begin. It's two distinct consonant sounds in one letter. First of all, we rarely use it. Secondly, we see KS all over the place. It's nothing new. I propose we reassign the X to the SH sound. It's not unheard of. In fact, it's frequently used in such a manner when translating Chinese symbols to our phonetic alphabet.
Y - Unnecessary. You can get the same effect with a simple I or IE.
Z - I think we can go without Z. The S makes a similar, and frequently identical, sound. Britons use S instead of Z all the time, with words like realise. Not only that, it would also eliminate the cultural disagreement as to whether Z is pronounced Zed or Zee.
Þ - No one uses this letter anymore, and it's a shame. Þ (or þ) is a perfectly good letter. It has a unique shape, and it's easy to write. For those not in the know, Þ is pronounced "Thorn" and makes a TH sound. I would place it right after the T.
So, in the end, here's my refined alphabet:
ABCDEFGHIKLMNOPRSTÞUVWX.
This brings us down to 23 letters. C and X have redefined sounds, and Þ is new.
I'd also get rid of PH. F works just as well.
- New Generation of Lettering
Monday, March 12, 2007
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
My Own Universe
I've been wanting to write something. I don't know what.
I'm quite fond of the universe I created for the zombie movie.
I've been thinking about rich, fictional universes lately.
Actually, let me back up quite a bit.
I watched The Phantom Menace the other night. Can you believe it's been almost 8 years? Anyway, while watching it, I got to thinking. It's no secret I'm a Star Wars fanboy, and while Iam more than willing to acknowledge all the flaws in the prequel trilogy (and there are plenty), I still love it, and I'll tell you why.
The whole story that the six-part saga encompasses really blows me away. I think it's brilliant. On the one hand, it's about the rise of a great, talented hero, his fall from grace, and his eventual redemption at the hands of his own son (whose story mirrors his own). On the other hand, you have the implosion of a galaxy's power structure, the rise of evil to power, and the ultimate defeat of it. It all just amazes me.
So, while the prequel trilogy was, by and large, poorly executed, in terms of writing, acting, and directing, I can see what Lucas is going for.
So, this got me thinking. I love the story, but it could've been told better. Another great sci-fi story is the one of the Cylons chasing what's left of the colonial fleet as they try to find earth. This originated shortly after Star Wars, but it was also poorly executed. When that story was reimagined in a 2003 miniseries (and subsequent TV series), it worked brilliantly. I got what they were going for both times, but this time, it really worked a lot better.
That inevitably leads to the obvious idea of reimagining the Star Wars saga. Think about it. You take all six episodes of Star Wars, strip away everything but the story, and start over from scratch. It'd be a hell of a project, but it could be done, and I bet it could be done quite well. The downside, though, is that it would entail redesigning the entire universe.
This is when it hits me: It's not just the story that appeals to me. The universe it takes place in is equally important. Imagine having to redesign Artoo Detoo or Darth Vader's suit. Imagine a completely different universe with completely different characters sharing the names of your childhood icons. It's weird. I'm not saying it wouldn't be cool, or it couldn't possibly trump the originals. That's not my point.
My point is that at an early age, I fell in love with a universe in which men in capes fight with laser swords, a world of queens and princesses, a reality in which larger than life heroes fight villains who revel in their villainy.
The hokeyness appeals to me in a way.
Now, I'm not gonna sit here and gush about how great a filmmaker George Lucas is. Frankly, he's a shitty writer and director. But he has a hell of an imagination, and that doesn't get enough credit.
Which brings me back to the beginning of this post.
I want a rich universe that's both romantic and convincing. I want that air of hokeyness with a real world feel. And I want it to be big enough to allow many different, unconnected stories.
- Not George Lucas
P. S. I know it's a repeat, but it fits.
I'm quite fond of the universe I created for the zombie movie.
I've been thinking about rich, fictional universes lately.
Actually, let me back up quite a bit.
I watched The Phantom Menace the other night. Can you believe it's been almost 8 years? Anyway, while watching it, I got to thinking. It's no secret I'm a Star Wars fanboy, and while Iam more than willing to acknowledge all the flaws in the prequel trilogy (and there are plenty), I still love it, and I'll tell you why.
The whole story that the six-part saga encompasses really blows me away. I think it's brilliant. On the one hand, it's about the rise of a great, talented hero, his fall from grace, and his eventual redemption at the hands of his own son (whose story mirrors his own). On the other hand, you have the implosion of a galaxy's power structure, the rise of evil to power, and the ultimate defeat of it. It all just amazes me.
So, while the prequel trilogy was, by and large, poorly executed, in terms of writing, acting, and directing, I can see what Lucas is going for.
So, this got me thinking. I love the story, but it could've been told better. Another great sci-fi story is the one of the Cylons chasing what's left of the colonial fleet as they try to find earth. This originated shortly after Star Wars, but it was also poorly executed. When that story was reimagined in a 2003 miniseries (and subsequent TV series), it worked brilliantly. I got what they were going for both times, but this time, it really worked a lot better.
That inevitably leads to the obvious idea of reimagining the Star Wars saga. Think about it. You take all six episodes of Star Wars, strip away everything but the story, and start over from scratch. It'd be a hell of a project, but it could be done, and I bet it could be done quite well. The downside, though, is that it would entail redesigning the entire universe.
This is when it hits me: It's not just the story that appeals to me. The universe it takes place in is equally important. Imagine having to redesign Artoo Detoo or Darth Vader's suit. Imagine a completely different universe with completely different characters sharing the names of your childhood icons. It's weird. I'm not saying it wouldn't be cool, or it couldn't possibly trump the originals. That's not my point.
My point is that at an early age, I fell in love with a universe in which men in capes fight with laser swords, a world of queens and princesses, a reality in which larger than life heroes fight villains who revel in their villainy.
The hokeyness appeals to me in a way.
Now, I'm not gonna sit here and gush about how great a filmmaker George Lucas is. Frankly, he's a shitty writer and director. But he has a hell of an imagination, and that doesn't get enough credit.
Which brings me back to the beginning of this post.
I want a rich universe that's both romantic and convincing. I want that air of hokeyness with a real world feel. And I want it to be big enough to allow many different, unconnected stories.
- Not George Lucas
P. S. I know it's a repeat, but it fits.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
This wasn't part of my rock'n'roll fantasy!
I'm in a weird place, mentally, and I can't really explain it.
Dan came over last night to work on the movie. I stayed home yesterday because of an upset tummy. I don't know what the deal was, but it cleared up by the evening. So, here I am.
At work.
Nothing much to do. Well, I can do those journals, but meh. This week seems to have lasted forever. It's only Wednesday. I feel like I'm stuck in a routine that's just leaving me mentally exhausted. I don't really know why. I haven't really had any moments of clarity in a while either. You know, those brief periods of enlightenment that last 2 seconds but seem like an eternity. I live for those.
I'm too distracted by life, though, to actually relax and think. Maybe I'll do that tonight. I don't know.
I prefer the role of the spectator, but I haven't been able to play it for a while.
Tomorrow's Magic. I haven't been in a long time.
I also want to get hold of Sara, but I keep getting her voice mail, and my bad karma once again rears its ugly head.
Fuckin' karma. It really annoys me sometimes.
But it'll all work out in the end, I suppose. That's what karma does.
I dunno. Where am I going with all this? Does it matter? Does anyone really care? I don't. But I just keep writing.
Maybe I'm in a rut. Maybe I'm just overly concerned about disappointing Tina throughout my everyday life.
Maybe I'm afraid, though of what, I don't know.
Or maybe I'm just bored. Maybe I need to get out. Maybe I should call Dan and see if he's free tonight. We're at least making some progress with this movie.
Fuffy's noos is back.
I still have the basement to finish, but that's more long-term.
Maybe I just need to clear my head. I haven't in far too long, and I really owe it to myself to.
So, how do I go about doing that?
I need to stop feeling responsible for all the annoying shit that happens in life, but my stupid jackass of a subconscious (see below) won't let me. It keeps me from moving forward, from improving my life, from feeling good about myself. (Not that I deserve to.) (Goddammit.)
I just want to be able to silence the constant barrage of thoughts going through my head every waking second. I figure if I can just get through them all and emerge on the other side, it'll work, but that's never the case. I can't get myself to stop worrying, to stop feeling guilty, and to stop beating myself up.
Maybe I just need to talk it out. Or write it out, as the case may be.
Or not. Who knows.
Maybe sometime sooner or later.
- Notorious Green Leopard
Dan came over last night to work on the movie. I stayed home yesterday because of an upset tummy. I don't know what the deal was, but it cleared up by the evening. So, here I am.
At work.
Nothing much to do. Well, I can do those journals, but meh. This week seems to have lasted forever. It's only Wednesday. I feel like I'm stuck in a routine that's just leaving me mentally exhausted. I don't really know why. I haven't really had any moments of clarity in a while either. You know, those brief periods of enlightenment that last 2 seconds but seem like an eternity. I live for those.
I'm too distracted by life, though, to actually relax and think. Maybe I'll do that tonight. I don't know.
I prefer the role of the spectator, but I haven't been able to play it for a while.
Tomorrow's Magic. I haven't been in a long time.
I also want to get hold of Sara, but I keep getting her voice mail, and my bad karma once again rears its ugly head.
Fuckin' karma. It really annoys me sometimes.
But it'll all work out in the end, I suppose. That's what karma does.
I dunno. Where am I going with all this? Does it matter? Does anyone really care? I don't. But I just keep writing.
Maybe I'm in a rut. Maybe I'm just overly concerned about disappointing Tina throughout my everyday life.
Maybe I'm afraid, though of what, I don't know.
Or maybe I'm just bored. Maybe I need to get out. Maybe I should call Dan and see if he's free tonight. We're at least making some progress with this movie.
Fuffy's noos is back.
I still have the basement to finish, but that's more long-term.
Maybe I just need to clear my head. I haven't in far too long, and I really owe it to myself to.
So, how do I go about doing that?
I need to stop feeling responsible for all the annoying shit that happens in life, but my stupid jackass of a subconscious (see below) won't let me. It keeps me from moving forward, from improving my life, from feeling good about myself. (Not that I deserve to.) (Goddammit.)
I just want to be able to silence the constant barrage of thoughts going through my head every waking second. I figure if I can just get through them all and emerge on the other side, it'll work, but that's never the case. I can't get myself to stop worrying, to stop feeling guilty, and to stop beating myself up.
Maybe I just need to talk it out. Or write it out, as the case may be.
Or not. Who knows.
Maybe sometime sooner or later.
- Notorious Green Leopard
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Me and my jackass subconscious
My battle with sobriety came to an end last night. There was much rejoicing. My inner dialogue is amusing and infuriating to me, though. Here's what happened:
I called Sara after work yesterday, and we arranged to meet at home and hang out a little. I'd hung out with her a bit before, and she was always very nice, if a bit quiet. So, she showed up, we chatted for a bit, then watched some TV. No big deal, right?
After a bit of TV, a sort of alarm went off in my head. I got the very distinct feeling that this particular moment was the opportune time for her to leave, and I knew that if I were her, I'd be getting up and taking off now.
As these thoughts are tumbling through my head, Sara gets up, thanks me for having her over, and vary graciously informs me that she must be on her way.
The following exchange occurs in my head:
Cool Me: "Well, that went well."
Jackass Me: "She's leaving."
Cool Me: "Yeah, but this is when I'd be leaving, too. Besides, I had an enjoyable time, and she seemed to, too. You're blowing whatever may be negative way out of proportion."
Jackass Me: "That's what I do."
Cool Me: "Tomorrow, I will recall this night as a successful venture in entertaining on my own, despite what you say."
Jackass Me: "That's what you think."
Cool Me: "You're going to beat yourself up all night, aren't you."
Jackass Me: "Yep."
Cool Me: "I hate you."
Guess what I spent the rest of the evening doing.
Looking back more objectively, though, I think it went well, especially considering my natural aversion to strangers and social situations.
I just need to stop taking that negative perspective so seriously. I hate that fucker.
- Negativity, Get Lost
I called Sara after work yesterday, and we arranged to meet at home and hang out a little. I'd hung out with her a bit before, and she was always very nice, if a bit quiet. So, she showed up, we chatted for a bit, then watched some TV. No big deal, right?
After a bit of TV, a sort of alarm went off in my head. I got the very distinct feeling that this particular moment was the opportune time for her to leave, and I knew that if I were her, I'd be getting up and taking off now.
As these thoughts are tumbling through my head, Sara gets up, thanks me for having her over, and vary graciously informs me that she must be on her way.
The following exchange occurs in my head:
Cool Me: "Well, that went well."
Jackass Me: "She's leaving."
Cool Me: "Yeah, but this is when I'd be leaving, too. Besides, I had an enjoyable time, and she seemed to, too. You're blowing whatever may be negative way out of proportion."
Jackass Me: "That's what I do."
Cool Me: "Tomorrow, I will recall this night as a successful venture in entertaining on my own, despite what you say."
Jackass Me: "That's what you think."
Cool Me: "You're going to beat yourself up all night, aren't you."
Jackass Me: "Yep."
Cool Me: "I hate you."
Guess what I spent the rest of the evening doing.
Looking back more objectively, though, I think it went well, especially considering my natural aversion to strangers and social situations.
I just need to stop taking that negative perspective so seriously. I hate that fucker.
- Negativity, Get Lost
Friday, January 05, 2007
The rape checklist
This was posted on SA recently. It ranges from blindingly obvious to blindingly retarded. I just knew I had to rebut.
1. You are a rapist if you get a girl drunk and have sex with her.
This is a bit iffy. If your intent is to take advantage of her, then yes, it's rape. If your intent is to have a few drinks and the two of you become amorous, it's not. The key is consent.
2. You are a rapist if you find a drunk girl and have sex with her.
I assume this refers to the passed-out girl on the sofa and the frat guy trying to get some. No problems here.
3. You are a rapist if you get yourself drunk and have sex with her. Your drunkeness (sic) is no excuse.
What if she is sober and consents?
4. If you are BOTH drunk you may still be a rapist.
"Let's get drunk and fool around."
"But that would be rape."
5. If she's alternating between puking her guts out and passing out in the bed then you're a rapist.
Only if you're having sex with her.
6. If she's sleeping and you have sex with her you're a rapist.
Pretty much, yeah.
7. If she's unconscious and you have sex with her then you're a rapist.
How is this different from # 6?
8. If she's taking sleeping pills and doesn’t wake up when you have sex with her then you’re a rapist.
How does this differ from #s 6 & 7?
9. If she is incapacitated in any way and unable to say 'Yes' then you're a rapist.
Duh.
10. If you drug her then you're a rapist.
What do you mean by drug? Roofies? Sure. Smoking a bowl, dropping some E, or snorting some E, then making with the crazy monkey love? No.
11. If you find a drugged girl and have sex with her then you're a rapist.
Same basic principle as # 10.
12. If you don't bother to ask her permission and she says neither 'Yes' or 'No' then you could be a rapist.
Here's a common scenario: You're in an amorous mood. The two of you kiss. Tongues start wrestling, buttons come undone, and within a few minutes, she's on her back, well, you get the idea. Rape or no?
13. You are a rapist if you 'nag' her for sex. Because you manage to ply an eventual 'yes' from a weary victim doesn't mean it's not rape. You are a rapist.
Previous lines were blurred a bit, but this one's ridiculous. Like I said, the key is consent. Some women like to play hard to get. Sometimes, after nagging, and she submits, she'll even thank you for being persistent. Is the guy suddenly a rapist? Of course not. If she relents and feels bad about it afterwards, it's as much her fault as his. No one forced her to stop saying no.
14. You are a rapist if you try to circumvent her "No" by talking her into it. She's not playing hard to get, and, even if she IS it's not YOUR responsibility to 'get' her. You're still a rapist.
So, the girl who gets off on playing hard to get have to go unsatisfied because suddenly her significant other is afraid of being labeled a rapist because of their traditional sex play? I don't think so.
15. You are a rapist if you manipulate her into sex when she doesn't otherwise want it. If you say, "If you loved me you’d do X" then you're a rapist. If you say, "All the other kids are doing it!" then you're a rapist.
It's her own damn fault if she buys into it. She always has the right not to consent.
16. If you threaten her, or act in a way that SHE thinks you're threatening her then you're a rapist. If you puff up and get loud and frustrated while trying to 'talk' her into sex then you're a rapist.
Threaten her? Sure. Act in a way that she considers threatening, even if you don't? I dunno. I mean, if a reasonable person can see it as threatening, yeah. If she has some weird quirk where she feels threatened every time a guy takes off his shirt, then no. She can always change her mind. If she doesn't and goes ahead with it, it's not rape.
17. You are a rapist if you don't immediately get your hands off of her when she says 'no'. You are a rapist if you take your hands off of her and then put them back ON her after 10 minutes and she eventually 'gives in' to this tactic.
Safeword scenarios aside, I agree with the first part. The second part, again, if she submits willingly, it isn't rape.
18. You are a rapist if you won't let her sleep peacefully without waking her every 15 minutes asking her for sex. Sleep depravation (sic) is a form of torture and YOU are a rapist.
Sleep deprivation is torture. Sleep interruption is not. I get interrupted in my sleep all the time. Does that mean my bladder, alarm clock, or beloved cat is torturing me? Of course not.
19. If you're necking with her and you're naked and you've already gone down on her and she says 'No' to sex with you and you have sex with her anyway then you're a rapist.
Well, yeah.
20. If you're engaged in intercourse and she says 'No' at ANY point and you don't immediately stop then you're a rapist.
Unless there's a safeword in effect, then yeah.
21. If she said "Yes" to sex with a condom and that condom breaks and you proceed anyway then you're a rapist.
That all depends. What if you don't notice the condom breaking? What if it does break, and you agree to continue anyway? (Not a good idea, I know, but it happens.) Is it still rape?
22. If she picked you up at a bar looking for sex and then decides that she doesn't WANT sex and you continue then you're a rapist.
Yeah.
23. If she changes her mind at ANY point for ANY reason and you don't immediately back off or you try to talk her into it and get sex anyway then you're a rapist.
First part, yes. You should back off. However, if she willingly agrees to continue, even after a bit of verbal coercion, it isn't rape.
24. If you don't hit her and she says 'No' you're still a rapist.
What.
25. If you don't have a knife or a gun or a garrote and she says 'No' then you're still a rapist.
Oh, so if you have forced sex, even without using weapons, it's rape? Well, yeah.
26. If you're a friend of hers you can still be a rapist.
Duh. I can't imagine that friendship lasting, though.
27. If you had sex with her the night before but she doesn't want morning sex and you pressure her for it anyway then you're a rapist.
Globviously.
28. If you're her husband you can still be a rapist.
Guh.
29. If it's your wedding night and she doesn't WANT to have sex with you and you force or coerce her anyway then you're a rapist.
True.
30. If she's had sex with you hundreds of times before but doesn't want to on the 101st time then you're a rapist.
Pretty much.
31. If you penetrate her anally, orally or digitally against her will then YOU my friend, are ALSO a rapist.
Orally, yes. Anally, yes. Digitally? That's called molestation, not rape. But that's just splitting hairs.
32. Women do not owe you sex.
True.
33. Buying her dinner does not entitle you to sex.
Also true.
34. Paying her mortgage does not entitle you to sex.
Also also true, but it does mean you're whipped. Or her cosigner.
35. Buying her clothing does not entitle you to sex.
Yep.
36. Buying her lingerie does not entitle you to sex. It also doesn't mean that she has any obligation to wear that lingerie around you.
Uh-huh.
37. Spending any amount of money on her does not, ever, entitle you to sex.
Right.
38. Seeing her legs or cleavage does not entitle you to sex.
Right.
39. If she 'turns you on' you're not entitled to sex.
Yeah.
40. If she has fucked every man in a 10 square mile radius and she doesn't want to fuck you and you have sex with her anyway, then you're a rapist.
It also means you raped your sister. Ew.
41. Her clothing is not a reason for you to rape her. Her LACK of clothing is no reason to rape her. If she's wearing a thong and pasties you STILL have no right to rape her.
Right.
42. If she's a prostitute and she says "No" then you're a rapist.
No, it means you're a shoplifter.
43. If she's a stripper and she says "No" then you're a rapist. Likewise, if she's a stripper and she's been rubbing against your dick all night long and you follow her to her car and have sex with her against her will then you are ALSO a rapist.
Uh-huh.
44. If you watch a woman being raped without calling the authorities then you're as bad as a rapist and you may also be a rapist yourself.
You're a bit of a dick, but you're not as bad as the rapist.
45. If you don't fight rape then you accept rape.
What do you mean by "fight rape"? Staving off your attacker? Standing in the street shouting at cars? Taking an active stance? I'm not a fan of rape, but it doesn't mean I'll take an active stance against it any more than I will against the thousands of other atrocities that happen every day. Gotta earn a living and enjoy it, y'know? And if that means less time shouting at cars, distributing pamphlets, and writing up retarded checklists, so be it.
46. If you don't believe a woman when she says she was raped then you're encouraging rape.
"I was raped."
"Really?"
"No, but you encourage it."
Seriously. Rape is a terrible thing, but how many women out there scream rape when they regret sleeping with a guy, broke up with a guy, or just plain don't like some dude for whatever reason? Questioning rape charges is, unfortunately, necessary.
47. If you choose to remain friends with a man who raped a woman you are encouraging rape.
"What were you in for?"
"Date rape."
"Whoa."
"Yeah, I felt bad about it and the judge went easy on me. Still, I'd never do it again."
48. If you confess to the authorities that you raped a woman it does not exonerate you. You are not suddenly a model of good behavior.
True.
49. If you ‘only’ raped one woman, you’re STILL a rapist.
"You raped someone?"
"Yeah, but just a small one. It doesn't count."
50. You cannot tell who is a rapist by the way they look. Rapists are your friends, your brothers, your fathers and you won't know it.
With your gloriously encompassing definition, that's true.
51. Do not get frustrated with a woman if she doesn't trust you. SHE already knows that rapists don't wear signs on their foreheads. Something you think is innocuous SHE may find terrifying.
And if she chooses to sleep with you anyway, you're a rapist, too!
- Non-German Ladies
1. You are a rapist if you get a girl drunk and have sex with her.
This is a bit iffy. If your intent is to take advantage of her, then yes, it's rape. If your intent is to have a few drinks and the two of you become amorous, it's not. The key is consent.
2. You are a rapist if you find a drunk girl and have sex with her.
I assume this refers to the passed-out girl on the sofa and the frat guy trying to get some. No problems here.
3. You are a rapist if you get yourself drunk and have sex with her. Your drunkeness (sic) is no excuse.
What if she is sober and consents?
4. If you are BOTH drunk you may still be a rapist.
"Let's get drunk and fool around."
"But that would be rape."
5. If she's alternating between puking her guts out and passing out in the bed then you're a rapist.
Only if you're having sex with her.
6. If she's sleeping and you have sex with her you're a rapist.
Pretty much, yeah.
7. If she's unconscious and you have sex with her then you're a rapist.
How is this different from # 6?
8. If she's taking sleeping pills and doesn’t wake up when you have sex with her then you’re a rapist.
How does this differ from #s 6 & 7?
9. If she is incapacitated in any way and unable to say 'Yes' then you're a rapist.
Duh.
10. If you drug her then you're a rapist.
What do you mean by drug? Roofies? Sure. Smoking a bowl, dropping some E, or snorting some E, then making with the crazy monkey love? No.
11. If you find a drugged girl and have sex with her then you're a rapist.
Same basic principle as # 10.
12. If you don't bother to ask her permission and she says neither 'Yes' or 'No' then you could be a rapist.
Here's a common scenario: You're in an amorous mood. The two of you kiss. Tongues start wrestling, buttons come undone, and within a few minutes, she's on her back, well, you get the idea. Rape or no?
13. You are a rapist if you 'nag' her for sex. Because you manage to ply an eventual 'yes' from a weary victim doesn't mean it's not rape. You are a rapist.
Previous lines were blurred a bit, but this one's ridiculous. Like I said, the key is consent. Some women like to play hard to get. Sometimes, after nagging, and she submits, she'll even thank you for being persistent. Is the guy suddenly a rapist? Of course not. If she relents and feels bad about it afterwards, it's as much her fault as his. No one forced her to stop saying no.
14. You are a rapist if you try to circumvent her "No" by talking her into it. She's not playing hard to get, and, even if she IS it's not YOUR responsibility to 'get' her. You're still a rapist.
So, the girl who gets off on playing hard to get have to go unsatisfied because suddenly her significant other is afraid of being labeled a rapist because of their traditional sex play? I don't think so.
15. You are a rapist if you manipulate her into sex when she doesn't otherwise want it. If you say, "If you loved me you’d do X" then you're a rapist. If you say, "All the other kids are doing it!" then you're a rapist.
It's her own damn fault if she buys into it. She always has the right not to consent.
16. If you threaten her, or act in a way that SHE thinks you're threatening her then you're a rapist. If you puff up and get loud and frustrated while trying to 'talk' her into sex then you're a rapist.
Threaten her? Sure. Act in a way that she considers threatening, even if you don't? I dunno. I mean, if a reasonable person can see it as threatening, yeah. If she has some weird quirk where she feels threatened every time a guy takes off his shirt, then no. She can always change her mind. If she doesn't and goes ahead with it, it's not rape.
17. You are a rapist if you don't immediately get your hands off of her when she says 'no'. You are a rapist if you take your hands off of her and then put them back ON her after 10 minutes and she eventually 'gives in' to this tactic.
Safeword scenarios aside, I agree with the first part. The second part, again, if she submits willingly, it isn't rape.
18. You are a rapist if you won't let her sleep peacefully without waking her every 15 minutes asking her for sex. Sleep depravation (sic) is a form of torture and YOU are a rapist.
Sleep deprivation is torture. Sleep interruption is not. I get interrupted in my sleep all the time. Does that mean my bladder, alarm clock, or beloved cat is torturing me? Of course not.
19. If you're necking with her and you're naked and you've already gone down on her and she says 'No' to sex with you and you have sex with her anyway then you're a rapist.
Well, yeah.
20. If you're engaged in intercourse and she says 'No' at ANY point and you don't immediately stop then you're a rapist.
Unless there's a safeword in effect, then yeah.
21. If she said "Yes" to sex with a condom and that condom breaks and you proceed anyway then you're a rapist.
That all depends. What if you don't notice the condom breaking? What if it does break, and you agree to continue anyway? (Not a good idea, I know, but it happens.) Is it still rape?
22. If she picked you up at a bar looking for sex and then decides that she doesn't WANT sex and you continue then you're a rapist.
Yeah.
23. If she changes her mind at ANY point for ANY reason and you don't immediately back off or you try to talk her into it and get sex anyway then you're a rapist.
First part, yes. You should back off. However, if she willingly agrees to continue, even after a bit of verbal coercion, it isn't rape.
24. If you don't hit her and she says 'No' you're still a rapist.
What.
25. If you don't have a knife or a gun or a garrote and she says 'No' then you're still a rapist.
Oh, so if you have forced sex, even without using weapons, it's rape? Well, yeah.
26. If you're a friend of hers you can still be a rapist.
Duh. I can't imagine that friendship lasting, though.
27. If you had sex with her the night before but she doesn't want morning sex and you pressure her for it anyway then you're a rapist.
Globviously.
28. If you're her husband you can still be a rapist.
Guh.
29. If it's your wedding night and she doesn't WANT to have sex with you and you force or coerce her anyway then you're a rapist.
True.
30. If she's had sex with you hundreds of times before but doesn't want to on the 101st time then you're a rapist.
Pretty much.
31. If you penetrate her anally, orally or digitally against her will then YOU my friend, are ALSO a rapist.
Orally, yes. Anally, yes. Digitally? That's called molestation, not rape. But that's just splitting hairs.
32. Women do not owe you sex.
True.
33. Buying her dinner does not entitle you to sex.
Also true.
34. Paying her mortgage does not entitle you to sex.
Also also true, but it does mean you're whipped. Or her cosigner.
35. Buying her clothing does not entitle you to sex.
Yep.
36. Buying her lingerie does not entitle you to sex. It also doesn't mean that she has any obligation to wear that lingerie around you.
Uh-huh.
37. Spending any amount of money on her does not, ever, entitle you to sex.
Right.
38. Seeing her legs or cleavage does not entitle you to sex.
Right.
39. If she 'turns you on' you're not entitled to sex.
Yeah.
40. If she has fucked every man in a 10 square mile radius and she doesn't want to fuck you and you have sex with her anyway, then you're a rapist.
It also means you raped your sister. Ew.
41. Her clothing is not a reason for you to rape her. Her LACK of clothing is no reason to rape her. If she's wearing a thong and pasties you STILL have no right to rape her.
Right.
42. If she's a prostitute and she says "No" then you're a rapist.
No, it means you're a shoplifter.
43. If she's a stripper and she says "No" then you're a rapist. Likewise, if she's a stripper and she's been rubbing against your dick all night long and you follow her to her car and have sex with her against her will then you are ALSO a rapist.
Uh-huh.
44. If you watch a woman being raped without calling the authorities then you're as bad as a rapist and you may also be a rapist yourself.
You're a bit of a dick, but you're not as bad as the rapist.
45. If you don't fight rape then you accept rape.
What do you mean by "fight rape"? Staving off your attacker? Standing in the street shouting at cars? Taking an active stance? I'm not a fan of rape, but it doesn't mean I'll take an active stance against it any more than I will against the thousands of other atrocities that happen every day. Gotta earn a living and enjoy it, y'know? And if that means less time shouting at cars, distributing pamphlets, and writing up retarded checklists, so be it.
46. If you don't believe a woman when she says she was raped then you're encouraging rape.
"I was raped."
"Really?"
"No, but you encourage it."
Seriously. Rape is a terrible thing, but how many women out there scream rape when they regret sleeping with a guy, broke up with a guy, or just plain don't like some dude for whatever reason? Questioning rape charges is, unfortunately, necessary.
47. If you choose to remain friends with a man who raped a woman you are encouraging rape.
"What were you in for?"
"Date rape."
"Whoa."
"Yeah, I felt bad about it and the judge went easy on me. Still, I'd never do it again."
48. If you confess to the authorities that you raped a woman it does not exonerate you. You are not suddenly a model of good behavior.
True.
49. If you ‘only’ raped one woman, you’re STILL a rapist.
"You raped someone?"
"Yeah, but just a small one. It doesn't count."
50. You cannot tell who is a rapist by the way they look. Rapists are your friends, your brothers, your fathers and you won't know it.
With your gloriously encompassing definition, that's true.
51. Do not get frustrated with a woman if she doesn't trust you. SHE already knows that rapists don't wear signs on their foreheads. Something you think is innocuous SHE may find terrifying.
And if she chooses to sleep with you anyway, you're a rapist, too!
- Non-German Ladies
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Oh, what the hell...
George and Jenny filled out one of these lameass surveys, and I don't feel like working. I may as well do one, too.
1. What time did you get up this morning? The ungodly hour of 6:40ish
2. Diamonds or pearls? Diamonds lived with us for a while, but I think she passed away.
3. What was the last film you saw at the cinema? Snakes on a Plane
4. What is your favorite T.V. show? Currently, it's a tie between 12 oz. Mouse and Battlestar Galactica. Also, Firefly, Family Guy, Dr. Who, The Twilight Zone, about half of the programming on Adult Swim, Justice League, Samurai Jack, The Weird Al Show, shall I go on?
5. Breakfast? Honey Bunches of Oats
6. What is your middle name? John
7. What is your favorite chip flavor? Jalapeño Krunchers
8. What is your favorite CD at the moment? I am the Messiah by MC Honky
9. What kind of car do you drive? 1994 Chevy Corsica with a Darth Vader on the dash board and a leopard print steering wheel cover.
10. Favorite sandwich? Depends on where I am.
11. What characteristics do you detest about yourself? My knees and hand. I'd also like to actually have a chin someday.
12. Favorite item of clothing? My hat
13. If you could go anywhere in the world for vacation where would it be? Europe
14. What color is your bathroom? White or something similar
15. Favorite brand of clothing? Uhhh...
16. What was your most memorable birthday? My most recent one, I suppose.
17. Favorite sport to watch? Sports?
18. Furthest place you are sending this? The 4th moon of the Yavin system.
19. Who do you least expect to send this back to you? Anyone
20. Person you expect to send it back first? No one
21. Goal you have for yourself? To finish the basement
22. Are you a morning person or a night person? Night.
23. When is your birthday? Octember 38th. You want my SSN and credit card numbers, too?
24. What is your shoe size? 10ish
24. Pets? Fuffy T, Ursa, and the new and exciting Ooyatz.
25. Any new and exciting news you'd like to share with us? We got a new and exciting cat.
26. What did you want to be when you were little? A Jedi Master
27. What are you doing today? Woke up at an ungodly hour to work at 8:00 this morning. Now, I'm just goofing off.
28. What is your favorite candy? You son of a bitch.
29. What is your favorite flower? Lilacs
30. What is a date on the calendar you are looking forward to? November 23. I get four days off.
31. What time do you try to sleep to on the weekends? Noonish, but I usually overshoot by a couple hours.
32. If you could have one wish/prayer what would it be? To always have at least $10 more than I need at any given moment.
33. What perfume do you wear or which one's ur fav?? I will not answer this, since "ur" is not a word.
- Numbered George List
1. What time did you get up this morning? The ungodly hour of 6:40ish
2. Diamonds or pearls? Diamonds lived with us for a while, but I think she passed away.
3. What was the last film you saw at the cinema? Snakes on a Plane
4. What is your favorite T.V. show? Currently, it's a tie between 12 oz. Mouse and Battlestar Galactica. Also, Firefly, Family Guy, Dr. Who, The Twilight Zone, about half of the programming on Adult Swim, Justice League, Samurai Jack, The Weird Al Show, shall I go on?
5. Breakfast? Honey Bunches of Oats
6. What is your middle name? John
7. What is your favorite chip flavor? Jalapeño Krunchers
8. What is your favorite CD at the moment? I am the Messiah by MC Honky
9. What kind of car do you drive? 1994 Chevy Corsica with a Darth Vader on the dash board and a leopard print steering wheel cover.
10. Favorite sandwich? Depends on where I am.
11. What characteristics do you detest about yourself? My knees and hand. I'd also like to actually have a chin someday.
12. Favorite item of clothing? My hat
13. If you could go anywhere in the world for vacation where would it be? Europe
14. What color is your bathroom? White or something similar
15. Favorite brand of clothing? Uhhh...
16. What was your most memorable birthday? My most recent one, I suppose.
17. Favorite sport to watch? Sports?
18. Furthest place you are sending this? The 4th moon of the Yavin system.
19. Who do you least expect to send this back to you? Anyone
20. Person you expect to send it back first? No one
21. Goal you have for yourself? To finish the basement
22. Are you a morning person or a night person? Night.
23. When is your birthday? Octember 38th. You want my SSN and credit card numbers, too?
24. What is your shoe size? 10ish
24. Pets? Fuffy T, Ursa, and the new and exciting Ooyatz.
25. Any new and exciting news you'd like to share with us? We got a new and exciting cat.
26. What did you want to be when you were little? A Jedi Master
27. What are you doing today? Woke up at an ungodly hour to work at 8:00 this morning. Now, I'm just goofing off.
28. What is your favorite candy? You son of a bitch.
29. What is your favorite flower? Lilacs
30. What is a date on the calendar you are looking forward to? November 23. I get four days off.
31. What time do you try to sleep to on the weekends? Noonish, but I usually overshoot by a couple hours.
32. If you could have one wish/prayer what would it be? To always have at least $10 more than I need at any given moment.
33. What perfume do you wear or which one's ur fav?? I will not answer this, since "ur" is not a word.
- Numbered George List
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
The Bull Moose Party
Dave had a party last week. He called it a Bull Moose Party. For those not "in the know", the Bull Moose Party was another name for the Progressive Party that gave us Theodore Roosevelt.
It's a play on words, see?
Anyway, Dave. Party. His place.
I'm not much of a party person. I suck at small talk, and I generally sit around bored until I get sick of being a party pooper and go home and mope because I'm insecure like that.
Oddly enough, this didn't happen. Know what happened? I actually had fun. I brought some beer mugs to share (since Dave brought a keg), and I brought some smokes and my blank white cards. Nobody played BWC, though.
Anyway, after going upstairs and loosening up (I'd just gotten off work, and it was the weekend), I came down and socialized. It was really weird. I sat on the couch a bit, then decided to get some soda. I'm not much of a drinker. I don't care for being drunk. For some reason, a lot of people just don't get that.
So, I get up and make my way to the minifridge in the basement, and somehow, I get caught up in at least 2 seperate conversation. At one point, Trent told me to tell Dan I saw Rockapella live in concert. (I totally did, too. They sang the Folger's jingle.)
What surprised me most was that I was actually pretty comfortable around others. I still suck at small talk, but I made an effort. I'm proud of myself.
Plus, I had fun.
Except for that one guy.
His name was Rob, and he loved to hear himself talk. Not many other people shared his love, and he went through the entire party snagging people into conversations just so he could hear his angelic voice. I don't know how people do it. I've met my share of annoying folks who can talk for hours on end and say absolutely nothing. This guy had it down to a science.
Give the man a friendly nod, and suddenly you're his BFF demanding his life story.
What's worse, he tried to take part (i.e. dominate) multiple conversations at once. At one point, Dan, Trent, Andrew, and I were talking about something inconsequential, and Dan, being Dan, brought up the illustrious topic of man-on-man buttsex. Like Pavlov's dog, the mere mention of phallo-rectal stimulation caused Rob to drool, spin around mid-sentence and verify that you were, indeed, making reference to anal intercourse.
And this happened [i]every single time[/i], which, if you know my wacky circle of friends, is a lot.
Toward the end of the party, most of the guests had left. There was only me, Dave, Rob, and... umm... that one other guy who lives with Andrew and Trevor and whose name I can never remember, but is nevertheless a charming lad. We're in Dave's room, Everyone but Rob is in Dave's room. We don't really know where Rob went. But we found out soon enough when he found us.
He starts in on his conservative beliefs. He's opposed to abortion because "life is life". I can respect that. Honestly, it's not a subject I have any opinion on because it has no impact on my life. Then he starts in on why gay marriage should be illegal, and I am treated to the single worst argument against gay marriage (which, in case you haven't figured out, I'm all for) ever. The argument goes like this:
- Neo Geo Leo
It's a play on words, see?
Anyway, Dave. Party. His place.
I'm not much of a party person. I suck at small talk, and I generally sit around bored until I get sick of being a party pooper and go home and mope because I'm insecure like that.
Oddly enough, this didn't happen. Know what happened? I actually had fun. I brought some beer mugs to share (since Dave brought a keg), and I brought some smokes and my blank white cards. Nobody played BWC, though.
Anyway, after going upstairs and loosening up (I'd just gotten off work, and it was the weekend), I came down and socialized. It was really weird. I sat on the couch a bit, then decided to get some soda. I'm not much of a drinker. I don't care for being drunk. For some reason, a lot of people just don't get that.
So, I get up and make my way to the minifridge in the basement, and somehow, I get caught up in at least 2 seperate conversation. At one point, Trent told me to tell Dan I saw Rockapella live in concert. (I totally did, too. They sang the Folger's jingle.)
What surprised me most was that I was actually pretty comfortable around others. I still suck at small talk, but I made an effort. I'm proud of myself.
Plus, I had fun.
Except for that one guy.
His name was Rob, and he loved to hear himself talk. Not many other people shared his love, and he went through the entire party snagging people into conversations just so he could hear his angelic voice. I don't know how people do it. I've met my share of annoying folks who can talk for hours on end and say absolutely nothing. This guy had it down to a science.
Give the man a friendly nod, and suddenly you're his BFF demanding his life story.
What's worse, he tried to take part (i.e. dominate) multiple conversations at once. At one point, Dan, Trent, Andrew, and I were talking about something inconsequential, and Dan, being Dan, brought up the illustrious topic of man-on-man buttsex. Like Pavlov's dog, the mere mention of phallo-rectal stimulation caused Rob to drool, spin around mid-sentence and verify that you were, indeed, making reference to anal intercourse.
And this happened [i]every single time[/i], which, if you know my wacky circle of friends, is a lot.
Toward the end of the party, most of the guests had left. There was only me, Dave, Rob, and... umm... that one other guy who lives with Andrew and Trevor and whose name I can never remember, but is nevertheless a charming lad. We're in Dave's room, Everyone but Rob is in Dave's room. We don't really know where Rob went. But we found out soon enough when he found us.
He starts in on his conservative beliefs. He's opposed to abortion because "life is life". I can respect that. Honestly, it's not a subject I have any opinion on because it has no impact on my life. Then he starts in on why gay marriage should be illegal, and I am treated to the single worst argument against gay marriage (which, in case you haven't figured out, I'm all for) ever. The argument goes like this:
- Ancient Greece was the height of human civilization.
- In ancient Greece, men were "railing each other in the ass" all the time.
- Even they knew not to call it marriage.
- Therefore gays shouldn't marry.
- Whether ancient Greece was the height of human civilization is open to much debate. In fact, I doubt most people would agree with this premise, given a number of little facts about ancient Greece, like the presence of slavery, the subjugation of women, the lack of indoor plumbing, cooling, or heating, the harsh penalties in place for corrupting youth, the complete lack of washing machines, etc. The point is this. Premise 1 is a matter of opinion, and is no basis for a logical proof.
- This is basically false. In ancient Greece, around Plato's time, it was common practice for men to take on apprentices in their respective trades. Master and apprentice had a unique relationship which did involve sodomy. However, ancient Grecian sodomy practices were not traditionally of the two-men-in-a-romantic-relationship vein but rather in a more NAMBLA sense. During that time, prepubescent boys were considered by most Greek men to be kinda hot. Like I said, the sodomy took place in a semi-professional relationship.
- Let's forget, for the moment, that the previous two premises are fallaceous. Even so, marriage is not just "legal sex". It's much more complicated than that. Marriage is an arrangement between two consenting adults who live together and share certain benefits of their union (like, say, being allowed to speak for one another).
- Basically, what it sounds like is this: If it was good enough for the ancient Greeks, it should be good enough for us. Let us then resort to geocentrism, white male supremacy, cold winters, hot summers, pedophilia, and entire days devoted to doing laundry.
- Neo Geo Leo
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Dear Mom and Dad,
You really, really shouldn't have a dog. I'm not the only one who thinks so.
Mom, it's like you decided one day that you wanted a dog. So, you checked some out, kicked some tires, and decided on this cute, spunky one named for a Beatles song. Now, I'm not complaining about your selection. Elly's as good a dog as any, but I don't think you quite realize what you've gotten yourself into.
Now, I'm not trying to come off as an asshole, here. I just want to say what so many of us have been thinking.
First, she's not a cat. She's not a self-sufficient creature who needs fed a couple times a day, the litterbox cleaned out once a month, and an occasional brushing. It seems like you want her to behave like a cat, though. It's not gonna happen. Ever. Everything I've ever seen her get yelled at for is typical canine behavior. What good is a watchdog who doesn't bark when someone comes to the door?
Second, yelling and punishment don't make a dog behave. Stop relying on negative reinforcement. It fucked your kids up plenty, and it's not doing the dog any favors. Training a dog is an intensive process, not to be half-assed. Most dogs need a 45 minute walk each day. Letting her outside from time to time, then giving her a treat only teaches her that she'll be rewarded for coming inside.
Third, the Gentle Leader has got to go. It's a device designed to a specific purpose, and you're misusing it. Even after being informed of its correct usage, you continue to misuse it. It's an ineffective, cruel form of punishment.
Your dog is miserable, and it's not her fault.
Well, she is our dog.
And Fuffy's my cat. That doesn't mean I own him any more than I own my sister. I don't tie up his snout when he's rambunctious or in the way. And there's always water out for him.
You don't own the dog. She's a living, breathing, sentient creature. It's a reciprocal relationship that dates back to our hunter-gatherer days. You provide for her, and she watches out for you. Just because she's dumb doesn't make her any less of an individual. Trying to mold her into your ideal animal is not going to work. Especially not the way you're trying. It will only end in bad behavior and sadness.
So, please, for everyone's sake, either learn to take care of her the right way, or find someone else who can.
- Next Generation Lighting
Mom, it's like you decided one day that you wanted a dog. So, you checked some out, kicked some tires, and decided on this cute, spunky one named for a Beatles song. Now, I'm not complaining about your selection. Elly's as good a dog as any, but I don't think you quite realize what you've gotten yourself into.
Now, I'm not trying to come off as an asshole, here. I just want to say what so many of us have been thinking.
First, she's not a cat. She's not a self-sufficient creature who needs fed a couple times a day, the litterbox cleaned out once a month, and an occasional brushing. It seems like you want her to behave like a cat, though. It's not gonna happen. Ever. Everything I've ever seen her get yelled at for is typical canine behavior. What good is a watchdog who doesn't bark when someone comes to the door?
Second, yelling and punishment don't make a dog behave. Stop relying on negative reinforcement. It fucked your kids up plenty, and it's not doing the dog any favors. Training a dog is an intensive process, not to be half-assed. Most dogs need a 45 minute walk each day. Letting her outside from time to time, then giving her a treat only teaches her that she'll be rewarded for coming inside.
Third, the Gentle Leader has got to go. It's a device designed to a specific purpose, and you're misusing it. Even after being informed of its correct usage, you continue to misuse it. It's an ineffective, cruel form of punishment.
Your dog is miserable, and it's not her fault.
Well, she is our dog.
And Fuffy's my cat. That doesn't mean I own him any more than I own my sister. I don't tie up his snout when he's rambunctious or in the way. And there's always water out for him.
You don't own the dog. She's a living, breathing, sentient creature. It's a reciprocal relationship that dates back to our hunter-gatherer days. You provide for her, and she watches out for you. Just because she's dumb doesn't make her any less of an individual. Trying to mold her into your ideal animal is not going to work. Especially not the way you're trying. It will only end in bad behavior and sadness.
So, please, for everyone's sake, either learn to take care of her the right way, or find someone else who can.
- Next Generation Lighting
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
William Dembski is a worthless lump of cells.
For those of you who don't know who William Dembski is, let me tell you.
William Dembski is a mathematician, theologian, "cdesign proponantsist", and one-time senior fellow at the Discovery Institute. He served as Ann Coulter's science advisor for her most recent laugh riot, Godless, and his biggest argument against the theory of evolution is that it's so unlikely that it may as well never have happened.
He has a problem with intellectual honesty, and he prefers to dig himself into deeper holes over admitting he was wrong.
To put it bluntly, I flush more academic integrity when I get home from work than he has in his whole body.
Not only that, but he's a monumental dick, to boot. But it's all in the name of glorifying God, so it's ok.
This post is about an event that took place earlier this year, which didn't make much news, but pisses me off whenever I remember it.
On March 3, 2006, a biologist from the University of Texas, named Eric Pianka gave a speech which basically said that the planet is overpopulated, and, historically speaking, we're waaay overdue for a plague, virus, or some other event that would drastically thin out the herd.
He went on to say that the ebola virus is particularly dangerous, that the human population all over the planet is just perfectly set up for a huge viral outbreak that would kill off 90% of the human population, that a lower human population would be a good thing for the planet, that people need to realize that the planet isn't something we're meant to have control over, but rather something we need to live in harmony with, and that basically, most of us are doomed.
I don't really know how likely this event is, but I do recognize that we're far too overpopulated, that we haven't had a massive catastrophe in a while, and that people are too cocky about their place in the world.
Well, word of the talk got to Dembski (via some douchebag named Mims, who basically argued that it could never happen because God wouldn't let it), and he posted a nice response to it on his haven of ignorance, Uncommon Descent.
Basically, Dembski decided that Pianka wasn't making a prediction, but, in fact, he was telling the world of his sinister plot to manufacture a much deadlier strain of the ebola virus, introduce it to the population, and watch with glee from his subterranean bunker as humanity crumbles into near-nothingness. Then, when the dust has cleared, and the rubble has been swept away, Pianka was to emerge onto the scene as humanity's savior and lead the people of the world to a new era of prosperity, Satan-worship, and evil-ution.
Well, William Dembski, the great Christian Hero of Righteousness took matters into his own hands to stop the evil Pianka, and he notified the Department of Homeland Security that Pianka was a potential bioterrorist.
Pianka has since been interviewed by the FBI, who found nothing worthwhile.
As for Dembski, I can only hope he'll see the light. I doubt he will, though.
- Nomenclature Generator Lite
William Dembski is a mathematician, theologian, "cdesign proponantsist", and one-time senior fellow at the Discovery Institute. He served as Ann Coulter's science advisor for her most recent laugh riot, Godless, and his biggest argument against the theory of evolution is that it's so unlikely that it may as well never have happened.
He has a problem with intellectual honesty, and he prefers to dig himself into deeper holes over admitting he was wrong.
To put it bluntly, I flush more academic integrity when I get home from work than he has in his whole body.
Not only that, but he's a monumental dick, to boot. But it's all in the name of glorifying God, so it's ok.
This post is about an event that took place earlier this year, which didn't make much news, but pisses me off whenever I remember it.
On March 3, 2006, a biologist from the University of Texas, named Eric Pianka gave a speech which basically said that the planet is overpopulated, and, historically speaking, we're waaay overdue for a plague, virus, or some other event that would drastically thin out the herd.
He went on to say that the ebola virus is particularly dangerous, that the human population all over the planet is just perfectly set up for a huge viral outbreak that would kill off 90% of the human population, that a lower human population would be a good thing for the planet, that people need to realize that the planet isn't something we're meant to have control over, but rather something we need to live in harmony with, and that basically, most of us are doomed.
I don't really know how likely this event is, but I do recognize that we're far too overpopulated, that we haven't had a massive catastrophe in a while, and that people are too cocky about their place in the world.
Well, word of the talk got to Dembski (via some douchebag named Mims, who basically argued that it could never happen because God wouldn't let it), and he posted a nice response to it on his haven of ignorance, Uncommon Descent.
Basically, Dembski decided that Pianka wasn't making a prediction, but, in fact, he was telling the world of his sinister plot to manufacture a much deadlier strain of the ebola virus, introduce it to the population, and watch with glee from his subterranean bunker as humanity crumbles into near-nothingness. Then, when the dust has cleared, and the rubble has been swept away, Pianka was to emerge onto the scene as humanity's savior and lead the people of the world to a new era of prosperity, Satan-worship, and evil-ution.
Well, William Dembski, the great Christian Hero of Righteousness took matters into his own hands to stop the evil Pianka, and he notified the Department of Homeland Security that Pianka was a potential bioterrorist.
Pianka has since been interviewed by the FBI, who found nothing worthwhile.
As for Dembski, I can only hope he'll see the light. I doubt he will, though.
- Nomenclature Generator Lite
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Bush locates constitution's sphincter, forcibly inserts penis.
Remember high school civics? Social studies? Government?
I do. I distinctly remember covering subjects like checks and balances and due process.
See, the Constitution set up a system of checks and balances by mandating three equally powerful branches of government: Executive, legislative, and judicial. The legislative branch is split into two parts: The Senate and the House of Representatives. The system was designed in such a manner as to restrict one party from taking too much power. The founders thought the chances that one party could gain control of the presidency, the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court were astronomical, and they were right. Astronomical, but not impossible.
What we have now is a government completely controlled by the Republican Party. The system of checks and balances has failed, thanks to well-meaning evangelicals and perhaps the worst administration this country has seen since Nixon.
Now, I voted for Bush the first time around, when I was a good Catholic, single-issue voter with my head up my ass, and I am truly truly sorry.
The Republican party has too much power. This has been illustrated time and again throughout the Bush presidency. It's frightening. The Republicans have used a national tragedy as a springboard to corruption. When the terrorists attacked, the United States had a monster to confront, which we did, briefly, but like a kid who needs Ritalin, our government moved on to a bigger, more exciting toy.
They rushed questionable legislation through Congress in the name of the USA PATRIOT Act. Most people aren't aware this is an acronym. Some of us cried foul about the restrictions of civil liberties, but most of America, it seems, was fine with sacrificing a few things we don't use for the sake of security. There were discussions on bulletin boards about whether torture is ever justified (not that it would ever happen, because that's where the people would draw the line), or whether freedom is such a great idea in the first place.
Naturally, the more skeptical of us, and those of us into dystopian fiction had a few alarms go off. We were, of course, promptly dismissed, because it'll all be over pretty quick, and we'd be fine if we just don't break the rules.
Well, it turns out torture was going on, and, of course, the flag wavers all dismissed it as not being that bad, and as a necessary tool. And besides, it's not technically torture under the Geneva Convention. I mean, luckily we have that in place to prevent any real wrongdoing.
Meanwhile, we dissenters are labeled weak, traitorous, and unamerican.
Besides, it's not like they're illegally tapping our phones or running secret prisons overseas. That's where we'll draw the line, but there's just no way that will happen.
Well, it turns out they are tapping our phones and running secret prisons. But it's all necessary to fight the Enemy, the evil people who hate us and our freedom. We still have most of our liberties, provided we watch what we do and say. They're the monster, not us. Besides, it's not like they're going to overturn the Geneva convention or suspend our right to a fair and speedy trial, right?
Right??
Because that's where we'll draw the line.
Wait, what's this? I was distracted by that Mark Foley scandal. You mentioned something about a new law? Well, it can't be that bad. I mean, it's not like they've given the president the right to interpret the Geneva Convention as he sees fit.
It's not like they've allowed enemy combatants to be detained indefinitely. Well, maybe they have, but at least the know the charges against them, right?
No?
Well, they can at least appeal to the judge about...
Not that either?
Well, there must be a pretty strict way of determining who is or isn't an enemy combatant, though, right? I mean, it's not like Bush or Rumsfeld can put together their own tribunal to decide that, say, I am an enemy for posting on my blog, right? That's protected under the Constitution.
Well, ok, maybe they technically could decide that, but I'd be able to appeal and prove my status as an upstanding American citizen.
Oh wait, no I can't. I don't get to see a judge.
But I haven't done anything.
Doesn't matter.
But I should still feel safe, right? Because our government would never abuse its power.
And yet people still complain about the Big Brother comparisons. They insist that the government has our best interests in mind, and we should trust them.
I will trust the government when they earn my trust, and I will stop the Big Brother comparisons when they're no longer warranted.
Until then, I will enjoy my freedom to think, speak, and act as I please. I will maintain that George W. Bush should be removed from office, that Dick Cheney is a horrible excuse for a human being, that Donald Rumsfeld should have been a blowjob, and that those who continue to support this administration are the real traitors.
This is still the land of the free, right?
- Neoconservative Government Lackey
I do. I distinctly remember covering subjects like checks and balances and due process.
See, the Constitution set up a system of checks and balances by mandating three equally powerful branches of government: Executive, legislative, and judicial. The legislative branch is split into two parts: The Senate and the House of Representatives. The system was designed in such a manner as to restrict one party from taking too much power. The founders thought the chances that one party could gain control of the presidency, the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court were astronomical, and they were right. Astronomical, but not impossible.
What we have now is a government completely controlled by the Republican Party. The system of checks and balances has failed, thanks to well-meaning evangelicals and perhaps the worst administration this country has seen since Nixon.
Now, I voted for Bush the first time around, when I was a good Catholic, single-issue voter with my head up my ass, and I am truly truly sorry.
The Republican party has too much power. This has been illustrated time and again throughout the Bush presidency. It's frightening. The Republicans have used a national tragedy as a springboard to corruption. When the terrorists attacked, the United States had a monster to confront, which we did, briefly, but like a kid who needs Ritalin, our government moved on to a bigger, more exciting toy.
They rushed questionable legislation through Congress in the name of the USA PATRIOT Act. Most people aren't aware this is an acronym. Some of us cried foul about the restrictions of civil liberties, but most of America, it seems, was fine with sacrificing a few things we don't use for the sake of security. There were discussions on bulletin boards about whether torture is ever justified (not that it would ever happen, because that's where the people would draw the line), or whether freedom is such a great idea in the first place.
Naturally, the more skeptical of us, and those of us into dystopian fiction had a few alarms go off. We were, of course, promptly dismissed, because it'll all be over pretty quick, and we'd be fine if we just don't break the rules.
Well, it turns out torture was going on, and, of course, the flag wavers all dismissed it as not being that bad, and as a necessary tool. And besides, it's not technically torture under the Geneva Convention. I mean, luckily we have that in place to prevent any real wrongdoing.
Meanwhile, we dissenters are labeled weak, traitorous, and unamerican.
Besides, it's not like they're illegally tapping our phones or running secret prisons overseas. That's where we'll draw the line, but there's just no way that will happen.
Well, it turns out they are tapping our phones and running secret prisons. But it's all necessary to fight the Enemy, the evil people who hate us and our freedom. We still have most of our liberties, provided we watch what we do and say. They're the monster, not us. Besides, it's not like they're going to overturn the Geneva convention or suspend our right to a fair and speedy trial, right?
Right??
Because that's where we'll draw the line.
Wait, what's this? I was distracted by that Mark Foley scandal. You mentioned something about a new law? Well, it can't be that bad. I mean, it's not like they've given the president the right to interpret the Geneva Convention as he sees fit.
It's not like they've allowed enemy combatants to be detained indefinitely. Well, maybe they have, but at least the know the charges against them, right?
No?
Well, they can at least appeal to the judge about...
Not that either?
Well, there must be a pretty strict way of determining who is or isn't an enemy combatant, though, right? I mean, it's not like Bush or Rumsfeld can put together their own tribunal to decide that, say, I am an enemy for posting on my blog, right? That's protected under the Constitution.
Well, ok, maybe they technically could decide that, but I'd be able to appeal and prove my status as an upstanding American citizen.
Oh wait, no I can't. I don't get to see a judge.
But I haven't done anything.
Doesn't matter.
But I should still feel safe, right? Because our government would never abuse its power.
And yet people still complain about the Big Brother comparisons. They insist that the government has our best interests in mind, and we should trust them.
I will trust the government when they earn my trust, and I will stop the Big Brother comparisons when they're no longer warranted.
Until then, I will enjoy my freedom to think, speak, and act as I please. I will maintain that George W. Bush should be removed from office, that Dick Cheney is a horrible excuse for a human being, that Donald Rumsfeld should have been a blowjob, and that those who continue to support this administration are the real traitors.
This is still the land of the free, right?
- Neoconservative Government Lackey
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Fux News
I was originally going to post about the whole buying a house/moving/soreness hassle, but everyone knows moving sucks and buying a home is stressful (though it is a lovely place).
I also considered posting a rant about the recent bill that was passed which allowsthe president o "reinterpret" the Geneva Convention, which gives the rest of the world a fantastic opinion of the United States.
But this whole Mark Foley thing is just too much.
If you've been paying attention to anything the past couple days, you're aware of the fact that Florida Republican Mark Foley and former chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children recently resigned after it was discovered that he was having illicit IM conversations with underage congressional pages, and that some of his colleagues in the Republican Party were aware of it, yet refused to take action.
The conservative right has been trying to cover their asses ever since, and they've been doing a hell of a job. Newt Gingrich actually declared on national television that the reason no one stepped forward about the scandal was because they would be accused of gay bashing.
Let us ignore, for the moment, that pedophilia, even homosexual pedophilia, is not the same as homosexuality and that most homosexual pedophiles are, in fact, white heterosexual males. What we have is an organisation who acknowledges its member to be a pedophile, yet refuses to do or say anything about it, thus enabling the pedophile's actions.
Sound familiar? The same thing happened with the Catholic Church a couple years back. You may remember this, as I do, and you probably remember the public outcry against the press for bashing the gay priests. Funny how I missed that.
But that's not the best part. The best part, as you may have gathered from the title of this post, is the interesting role that America's most trusted fair and balanced news channel has taken.
You may at one time or another have heard rumors to the effect that Fox News has a slight conservative bias. I know, it's all part of the liberal media's plan to subvert the truth, but hear me out. Fox News has been doing its damnedest to try to spin this story to make the Democrats look bad. First, there's the everso popular question mark. You may be familiar with this technique. By adding a question mark to the end of the sentence, you can make up all sorts of baseless stories and assumptions while at the same time washing your hands of any responsibility. Rather than saying, for example, "NGL rapes puppies", a statement that is not remotely true and has no basis in reality, they can pose the question, "Does NGL really rape puppies?" This way, despite never having any kind of sexual, prepubescent canine interaction, I am suddenly painted as a potential puppy rapist.
Similarly, Fox News doesn't actually come out and say, "Dems ignore Foley e-mails to preserve seat." That would imply that the Democrats had knowledge of the illicit communications and were sitting on it to use as part of their election strategy. Never mind, of course, the well-established fact that the Republicans did. Instead, they ask, "Did dems ignore Foley e-mails to preserve seat?" Now it's just an innocent question. Sure, there's no real reason to think they did, but now we have the conjecture out there, and for some poor miseducated folks, that's as good as a guilty verdict.
As if that wasn't low enough, the folks at Fox News are also trying to distance the Republicans from Foley by relabeling him a Democrat. That's right. No Republican would ever display any p
edophilic tendancies, but those godless Democrats, well, that's a different story. There have been reports that Bill O'Reilly has repeatedly referred to Foley as a Democrat, and the network has literally labeled him as such.
And I thought my opinion of Fox News couldn't get any lower.
Fox News is to journalism what the WWE is to sports. Maybe we should start calling it news entertainment.
And now for the delicious icing on the cake: Mark Foley has blamed his penchant for boys on his alcoholism and prior sexual abuse. He recently checked himself into a treatment facility in Clearwater FL to deal with his alcoholism.
Can anyone guess what kind of treatment facilities they have in the quiet town of Clearwater? I'll give you a hint: Mark Foley is also the proud owner of a leatherbound edition of Dianetics.
- Noteworthy German Leper
I also considered posting a rant about the recent bill that was passed which allowsthe president o "reinterpret" the Geneva Convention, which gives the rest of the world a fantastic opinion of the United States.
But this whole Mark Foley thing is just too much.
If you've been paying attention to anything the past couple days, you're aware of the fact that Florida Republican Mark Foley and former chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children recently resigned after it was discovered that he was having illicit IM conversations with underage congressional pages, and that some of his colleagues in the Republican Party were aware of it, yet refused to take action.
The conservative right has been trying to cover their asses ever since, and they've been doing a hell of a job. Newt Gingrich actually declared on national television that the reason no one stepped forward about the scandal was because they would be accused of gay bashing.
Let us ignore, for the moment, that pedophilia, even homosexual pedophilia, is not the same as homosexuality and that most homosexual pedophiles are, in fact, white heterosexual males. What we have is an organisation who acknowledges its member to be a pedophile, yet refuses to do or say anything about it, thus enabling the pedophile's actions.
Sound familiar? The same thing happened with the Catholic Church a couple years back. You may remember this, as I do, and you probably remember the public outcry against the press for bashing the gay priests. Funny how I missed that.
But that's not the best part. The best part, as you may have gathered from the title of this post, is the interesting role that America's most trusted fair and balanced news channel has taken.
You may at one time or another have heard rumors to the effect that Fox News has a slight conservative bias. I know, it's all part of the liberal media's plan to subvert the truth, but hear me out. Fox News has been doing its damnedest to try to spin this story to make the Democrats look bad. First, there's the everso popular question mark. You may be familiar with this technique. By adding a question mark to the end of the sentence, you can make up all sorts of baseless stories and assumptions while at the same time washing your hands of any responsibility. Rather than saying, for example, "NGL rapes puppies", a statement that is not remotely true and has no basis in reality, they can pose the question, "Does NGL really rape puppies?" This way, despite never having any kind of sexual, prepubescent canine interaction, I am suddenly painted as a potential puppy rapist.
Similarly, Fox News doesn't actually come out and say, "Dems ignore Foley e-mails to preserve seat." That would imply that the Democrats had knowledge of the illicit communications and were sitting on it to use as part of their election strategy. Never mind, of course, the well-established fact that the Republicans did. Instead, they ask, "Did dems ignore Foley e-mails to preserve seat?" Now it's just an innocent question. Sure, there's no real reason to think they did, but now we have the conjecture out there, and for some poor miseducated folks, that's as good as a guilty verdict.
As if that wasn't low enough, the folks at Fox News are also trying to distance the Republicans from Foley by relabeling him a Democrat. That's right. No Republican would ever display any p
edophilic tendancies, but those godless Democrats, well, that's a different story. There have been reports that Bill O'Reilly has repeatedly referred to Foley as a Democrat, and the network has literally labeled him as such.And I thought my opinion of Fox News couldn't get any lower.
Fox News is to journalism what the WWE is to sports. Maybe we should start calling it news entertainment.
And now for the delicious icing on the cake: Mark Foley has blamed his penchant for boys on his alcoholism and prior sexual abuse. He recently checked himself into a treatment facility in Clearwater FL to deal with his alcoholism.
Can anyone guess what kind of treatment facilities they have in the quiet town of Clearwater? I'll give you a hint: Mark Foley is also the proud owner of a leatherbound edition of Dianetics.
- Noteworthy German Leper
Sunday, September 24, 2006
My next tattoo
So, I've been thinking a lot about my next tattoo. My initial idea was to get a green version of the original Return of the Jedi one-sheet, only without the border or text. Tina didn't like it, though, and the way I see it, my wife should like whatever I choose to permanently affix to my skin. She said it was too cliche, too phallic, and the lightsaber effect doesn't translate well to tattoos. In fact, I'd never actually seen the tattoo on anyone else (although further research shows it's been done at lease once), and Tina thinks everything's phallic. But she did sell me on the lightsaber effect difficulties.What I want is basically something that symbolises the entire Star Wars saga in one simple image. I think the lightsaber does that well. My next thought, though, was what about Artoo? I
have an Artoo-Detoo figure on my desk at work, and the character also stands as a symbol of Star Wars lore. But I wanted a Clone Wars Artoo. It makes sense, after all, because it'd be easier to draw, it's a simpler design, and I really like Tartakovsky's style. Unfortunately, there's only one full body shot of Artoo from the Clone Wars, and it's backwards.My next idea was, of course, Yoda. Specifically, Clone Wars Yoda, for all the same reasons. The problem here is that it's so cliche. I've seen lots of Yoda tattoos, and most of them are from Clone Wars. Plenty of those are the Yoda pose I'd want, too. On the other hand, I could get a more realistic Yoda, but realism is harder to get right and probably costs more.
I dunno. What about a Yoda action figure? That'd be unique. I've always loved my vintage Yoda figure. I still have him, too. All his accessories are lost, of course, and the paint's worn off a bit. But it's a good figure. I should talk to Tina and see what she thinks.
Nancy, Get Lost
Monday, September 11, 2006
Jesus in a syringe
I recently had an idea for a movie. I'm full of clever ideas like that.
Anyway, the story is basically this:
It's the not-too-distant future, and the country has been politically polarized even further. The current president is an evangelical Christian who wants to restore the nation to its prior glory before the liberals and secularists went and ruined it.
As a result of the constant Islamic terrorist threat and the ongoing moral decay within the country, Congress decides to suspend the 1st Amendment indefinitely, until the country can get back on its feet. This move is met with astonishing approval from the religious right. Gradually, the country becomes a fundamentalist Christian's paradise.
The 21st Amendment is repealed, abortion and birth control outlawed, laws are passed that prohibit the worship of false gods, evolution is stricken from the schoolbooks, and homosexuality is a felony. Essentially, the 10 commandments are now law. This is, of course, all done to protect the good, Christian people of this great nation and to restore it to the Biblical fundamentals the country was founded on.
Naturally, people get swept up in this national rejuvenation, and the transition goes pretty quickly. Unfortunately, the Jewish, Islamic, and secularist minorities have a problem with all this, and they revolt. Over time, they start to just go away, either to leave the country or to attend reeducation seminars sponsored by the government.
The story is told from the point of view of a regular guy, a Christian who supports the new regime and who gets caught up in all the excitement. Essentially, the Christians are the heroes and the nons are the villains. In the end, the one true god wins.
I've been trying to find a way to approach this without making it look too suspect. Obviously, the idea is to illustrate the tyranny of the majority, the flaws in a theocracy, and the sacrifices that others have to make for one nation under God to exist.
My biggest problem, though, is that every time I try to come up with a feasible scenario for the crumbling of civil liberties, it comes off as cliche, or a thinly veiled attempt to portray the current political and religious climate, or it just seems like something everyone would see through.
But that's not what I came here to talk about.
I came to talk about the pope. Again.
I recently read through Julia Sweeney's blog. You may remember her as part of the cast of SNL back in the day. She also had a semi-famous monologue called God Said Ha! Anyway, a bit before the last pope died, she posted about how much she hates Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI). She referred to him as "the Vatican's Karl Rove".
It's an apt description.
Anyway, Emperor Popeatine recently continued his campaign of viral ignorance by telling German audience to stop relying on science so much.
It seems, judging by the limited amount of information in this article, that he was referring to the AIDS epidemic in Africa. In fact, he went so far as to say that "Faith is also needed to combat diseases such as AIDS".
Wait, what?
I assume he's referring to Catholic faith, and if I'm following what he's saying (i.e. that we rely too much on science and that faith is needed to combat AIDS), he's basically setting modern medicine back centuries. It's a pretty firmly established fact that the pope isn't a fan of evolution, so it should come as no surprise that he would favor superstition over reason.
The thing is faith doesn't combat diseases. Prayer doesn't cure heart conditions. No one has ever overcome malaria, diphtheria, SARS, avian flu, or AIDS just by asking Jesus. I'm sure there are plenty of FOAF stories that say otherwise, but a guy who your cousin's boyfriend used to work with is hardly a reliable source.
Furthermore, the Catholic church's no condom policy is doing no one any good. Do they honestly expect such a large number of people, most of whom probably aren't Catholic, let alone Christian, and who don't recognize the authority of the church in matters of marriage and sex, do they actually expect them to remain abstinent? Isn't that basically saying, "if you get AIDS from sex, you deserve to die"?
The whole thing is sickening.
Several years ago, when I subscribed to Wire, a daily U2 newsletter forum-type dealie, a discussion came up over what the song Daddy's Gonna Pay for Your Crashed Car was about.
The general consensus was that the song is basically about addiction, probably to heroin, told from the perspective of a drug-addled mind. One person, however, chimed in saying that Daddy refers to God and the "flamin' car" refers to the Kingdom of Heaven.
For some reason, that always stuck with me, because the two interpretations were so diametrically opposed. Over time, I came to take my life back from God (he didn't seem to be using it, and I was miserable) and I realized that the two interpretations aren't really that different. In fact, they're the same thing.
Now, in case you're wondering if I'm saying what you think I'm saying, let me clarify: Karl Marx was right. Religion is an opiate. God is a drug.
Not that drugs are necessarily a bad thing, mind you.
- No Gods Left
Anyway, the story is basically this:
It's the not-too-distant future, and the country has been politically polarized even further. The current president is an evangelical Christian who wants to restore the nation to its prior glory before the liberals and secularists went and ruined it.
As a result of the constant Islamic terrorist threat and the ongoing moral decay within the country, Congress decides to suspend the 1st Amendment indefinitely, until the country can get back on its feet. This move is met with astonishing approval from the religious right. Gradually, the country becomes a fundamentalist Christian's paradise.
The 21st Amendment is repealed, abortion and birth control outlawed, laws are passed that prohibit the worship of false gods, evolution is stricken from the schoolbooks, and homosexuality is a felony. Essentially, the 10 commandments are now law. This is, of course, all done to protect the good, Christian people of this great nation and to restore it to the Biblical fundamentals the country was founded on.
Naturally, people get swept up in this national rejuvenation, and the transition goes pretty quickly. Unfortunately, the Jewish, Islamic, and secularist minorities have a problem with all this, and they revolt. Over time, they start to just go away, either to leave the country or to attend reeducation seminars sponsored by the government.
The story is told from the point of view of a regular guy, a Christian who supports the new regime and who gets caught up in all the excitement. Essentially, the Christians are the heroes and the nons are the villains. In the end, the one true god wins.
I've been trying to find a way to approach this without making it look too suspect. Obviously, the idea is to illustrate the tyranny of the majority, the flaws in a theocracy, and the sacrifices that others have to make for one nation under God to exist.
My biggest problem, though, is that every time I try to come up with a feasible scenario for the crumbling of civil liberties, it comes off as cliche, or a thinly veiled attempt to portray the current political and religious climate, or it just seems like something everyone would see through.
But that's not what I came here to talk about.
I came to talk about the pope. Again.
I recently read through Julia Sweeney's blog. You may remember her as part of the cast of SNL back in the day. She also had a semi-famous monologue called God Said Ha! Anyway, a bit before the last pope died, she posted about how much she hates Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI). She referred to him as "the Vatican's Karl Rove".
It's an apt description.
Anyway, Emperor Popeatine recently continued his campaign of viral ignorance by telling German audience to stop relying on science so much.
It seems, judging by the limited amount of information in this article, that he was referring to the AIDS epidemic in Africa. In fact, he went so far as to say that "Faith is also needed to combat diseases such as AIDS".
Wait, what?
I assume he's referring to Catholic faith, and if I'm following what he's saying (i.e. that we rely too much on science and that faith is needed to combat AIDS), he's basically setting modern medicine back centuries. It's a pretty firmly established fact that the pope isn't a fan of evolution, so it should come as no surprise that he would favor superstition over reason.
The thing is faith doesn't combat diseases. Prayer doesn't cure heart conditions. No one has ever overcome malaria, diphtheria, SARS, avian flu, or AIDS just by asking Jesus. I'm sure there are plenty of FOAF stories that say otherwise, but a guy who your cousin's boyfriend used to work with is hardly a reliable source.
Furthermore, the Catholic church's no condom policy is doing no one any good. Do they honestly expect such a large number of people, most of whom probably aren't Catholic, let alone Christian, and who don't recognize the authority of the church in matters of marriage and sex, do they actually expect them to remain abstinent? Isn't that basically saying, "if you get AIDS from sex, you deserve to die"?
The whole thing is sickening.
Several years ago, when I subscribed to Wire, a daily U2 newsletter forum-type dealie, a discussion came up over what the song Daddy's Gonna Pay for Your Crashed Car was about.
Daddy's Gonna Pay For Your Crashed Car
You're a precious stone, you're out on your own.
You know everyone in the world, but you feel alone.
Daddy won't let you weep, Daddy won't let you ache
Daddy gives you as much as you can take.
Aha, sha-la. Aha sha-la.
Daddy's gonna pay for your crashed car.
A little uptight, you're a baby's fist
Butterfly kisses up an' down your wrist.
When you see Daddy comin', you're lickin' your lips
Nails bitten down to the quick.
Aha, sha-la. Aha sha-la.
Daddy's gonna pay for your crashed car.
Daddy's gonna pay for your crashed car.
You've got a head full of traffic, you're a siren's song.
You cry for Mama, and Daddy's right along.
He gives you the keys to a flamin' car.
Daddy's with you wherever you are.
Daddy's a comfort, Daddy's your best friend
Daddy'll hold your hand right up to the end.
Aha, sha-la. Aha sha-la.
Daddy's gonna pay for your crashed car.
Daddy's gonna pay for your crashed car.
Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday,
Thursday, Friday, Saturday's alright.
The general consensus was that the song is basically about addiction, probably to heroin, told from the perspective of a drug-addled mind. One person, however, chimed in saying that Daddy refers to God and the "flamin' car" refers to the Kingdom of Heaven.
For some reason, that always stuck with me, because the two interpretations were so diametrically opposed. Over time, I came to take my life back from God (he didn't seem to be using it, and I was miserable) and I realized that the two interpretations aren't really that different. In fact, they're the same thing.
Now, in case you're wondering if I'm saying what you think I'm saying, let me clarify: Karl Marx was right. Religion is an opiate. God is a drug.
Not that drugs are necessarily a bad thing, mind you.
- No Gods Left
Monday, August 28, 2006
Dancing to the Popmart
I've recently come to the conclusion that U2 is my default music. I always seem to come back to listening to U2. It's weird.
Anyway, a week or so ago, I decided to do something I haven't done for a long time - listen to Zooropa while playing Super Mario World. I got Zooropa on cassette for Christmas in '93, the same time we got our Super Nintendo (which came with SMW), and I remember many a snowy evening in front of the TV, controller in hand, with Zooropa playing on the tape deck. Ever since, there's been a psychic link between the two with me.
In reliving that experience, I started yet another U2 phase. I'd been pretty much U2ed out since the Elevation tour and never really got into How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, though it is a good record. It was shortly after seeing them at Notre Dame that I discovered EELS.
Since then, I listened to E & co. pretty regularly with the occasional Bob Dylan or Johnny Cash sidetrack, and I'm a better person for it. Discovering that copy of Souljacker marked half off at the bookstore marked the beginning of a turning point in my life that forced me to alter my perspective on myself and my relationship with the world, and I am eternally grateful for that.
It's like I have a relationship with the music I listen to. Not all of it, mind you, but sometimes a band or artist will come along at the right time, and a profound sense of intimacy will generate between it and myself, for whatever reason. EELS helped me in a difficult and trying period of my life in which I had to wrestle with my identity, my depression, my transition from childhood to adulthood, and the occasion for which I had postponed my suicide all those years ago.
When I saw them earlier this year, I had a very moving experience during Not Ready Yet. I really relate to that song, as I do with so many others, but it held a special meaning for me this time around. I know what it feels like to be in that state of mind, and I know how awful that feeling is.
But I think I'm past that. It took me almost 30 years, but that's over. I wrestled the demon and won. Now I'm on track for The Rest Of My Life, and it's not looking too bad. It won't be perfect, but it's not as daunting as it once was.
So, with that period in my life done, I can now shelve the music that is so precious and dear to me and move on with my life. I hope to revisit it again someday.
For now, though, I've been listening to Pop. I'm not sure why. It's not their strongest album by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, it's pretty obvious that it's only really half done. They released singles for about half the album, and those versions are vast improvements. I half to wonder if they're ever going to remake the album as a whole (for, like, the 10th anniversary or something) with actual completed versions of all the tracks. And if they do, I wonder how many U2 fans will bitch about Bono raping their childhood. They did new mixed of Discotheque, Staring at the Sun, and Gone for their Best of 1990 - 2000 album, and there's also single versions of Mofo, If God Will Send His Angels, Last Night on Earth, and Please which could go on it. That leaves just Do You Feel Loved, Miami, The Playboy Mansion, If You Wear that Velvet Dress, and Wake Up, Dead Man, which, you may have noticed, were never that popular.
But how can you like U2 but not believe in God?
It's easy. Just ask Adam Clayton.
- Numb, Gone, Lemon
Anyway, a week or so ago, I decided to do something I haven't done for a long time - listen to Zooropa while playing Super Mario World. I got Zooropa on cassette for Christmas in '93, the same time we got our Super Nintendo (which came with SMW), and I remember many a snowy evening in front of the TV, controller in hand, with Zooropa playing on the tape deck. Ever since, there's been a psychic link between the two with me.
In reliving that experience, I started yet another U2 phase. I'd been pretty much U2ed out since the Elevation tour and never really got into How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, though it is a good record. It was shortly after seeing them at Notre Dame that I discovered EELS.
Since then, I listened to E & co. pretty regularly with the occasional Bob Dylan or Johnny Cash sidetrack, and I'm a better person for it. Discovering that copy of Souljacker marked half off at the bookstore marked the beginning of a turning point in my life that forced me to alter my perspective on myself and my relationship with the world, and I am eternally grateful for that.
It's like I have a relationship with the music I listen to. Not all of it, mind you, but sometimes a band or artist will come along at the right time, and a profound sense of intimacy will generate between it and myself, for whatever reason. EELS helped me in a difficult and trying period of my life in which I had to wrestle with my identity, my depression, my transition from childhood to adulthood, and the occasion for which I had postponed my suicide all those years ago.
When I saw them earlier this year, I had a very moving experience during Not Ready Yet. I really relate to that song, as I do with so many others, but it held a special meaning for me this time around. I know what it feels like to be in that state of mind, and I know how awful that feeling is.
But I think I'm past that. It took me almost 30 years, but that's over. I wrestled the demon and won. Now I'm on track for The Rest Of My Life, and it's not looking too bad. It won't be perfect, but it's not as daunting as it once was.
So, with that period in my life done, I can now shelve the music that is so precious and dear to me and move on with my life. I hope to revisit it again someday.
For now, though, I've been listening to Pop. I'm not sure why. It's not their strongest album by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, it's pretty obvious that it's only really half done. They released singles for about half the album, and those versions are vast improvements. I half to wonder if they're ever going to remake the album as a whole (for, like, the 10th anniversary or something) with actual completed versions of all the tracks. And if they do, I wonder how many U2 fans will bitch about Bono raping their childhood. They did new mixed of Discotheque, Staring at the Sun, and Gone for their Best of 1990 - 2000 album, and there's also single versions of Mofo, If God Will Send His Angels, Last Night on Earth, and Please which could go on it. That leaves just Do You Feel Loved, Miami, The Playboy Mansion, If You Wear that Velvet Dress, and Wake Up, Dead Man, which, you may have noticed, were never that popular.
But how can you like U2 but not believe in God?
It's easy. Just ask Adam Clayton.
- Numb, Gone, Lemon
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Not My Pope
The last vestages of my faith died with John Paul II. Despite my disagreements with the most fundamental of principles, I always had the utmost respect for the guy, and I was sad to see him go. As far as popes go, he was a good one.This Benedict XVI guy bothers me, though, and his eerie resemblance to a certain fictional emperor doesn't help.
So, the pope has fired the Vatican's chief astronomer because of his outspoken support for evolutionary theory and repeated dismissals of Intelligent Design. You may recall that the Vatican has supported Darwinian evolution since the days of Pope John XXIII, I believe.
Way to set the Catholic Church's credibility back 4 decades, there, Ben.
First of all, evolution is not a matter of faith any more than gravity is. It's been observed both directly and indirectly and has a firm grounding in science. Without our knowledge of evolution, we wouldn't have vaccines, medicine would still be primitive, and we'd have soaring death rates.
So, the current pope, who holds a great deal of influence over millions of people, is denying reality and promoting ignorance. Fantastic. And why?
Because it implies that humans aren't special? First of all, no it doesn't. Second of all, even if it did, so? Because it's consistant with an atheist worldview? So is the germ theory of disease and elemental periodicity. And besides, what's wrong with an atheist worldview?
The real tragedy, though, lies in the people without the testicular fortitude to think for themselves and tell the pope he's wrong about this particular issue.
While it doesn't concern me directly, it frightens me because it's yet another nail in the coffin of intellectualism and enlightenment.
The whole thing just reeks of the religious right's rampant regurgitation of ridiculous, repulsive rhetoric. It sickens me. I'm glad I left.
I can only hope it's just a big misunderstanding.
- Never Gonna Learn
Thursday, August 17, 2006
V: Season 2
Reading over my previous post ("You actually believe that?"), I noticed that I use the word anyway far too often.
Anyway....
We watched the first disc of season 2 last night. Season 1 ended with about half the cast either leaving or dying, the Visitors taking over LA, and the immensely gay alien leader being murdered by one of the two power-hungry Visitor Vixens.
Whereas the miniseries and season 1 were about a ragtag group of rebels struggling to preserve their way of life and to overthrow their incompetent conquerors, season 2 is completely different.
Season 1, you see, had a number of strong things going for it. First and foremost, the basic premise - a group of resistance fighters trying to survive in a Nazi-esque fascist regime set in the not-too-distant future (probably the early 90s) was compelling. There was some great conflict between the blonde scientist and that power hungry dude from My Cousin Vinny. Michael Ironside's character was pretty badass. The former street thug who opened the restaurant/safe haven for resistance fighters was nice, especially with the base of operations around. Well, they're gone now (except the blonde), as is the Star Child's mother, and the remainder just isn't that interesting.
Plus, they got rid of the Freedom Network bit at the beginning of each episode, and they changed the opening theme, which, while it wasn't that great, was at least memorable and fit the show. They replaced that with a darker, more forgettable theme and gave the show an A-Team-esque premise-reminder for an opening monologue.
The most disappointing bit, though, was that they abandoned the cool story arc (the best thing they had going for the show) for a weekly adventure format. Basically, it's a lame version of the A-Team, but with aliens and casualties instead of flipping cars and Mr. T.
In short, a very badly executed good idea has turned into a very badly executed bad idea.
I can't wait for the next disc.
- Nick's Geography Lesson
Anyway....
We watched the first disc of season 2 last night. Season 1 ended with about half the cast either leaving or dying, the Visitors taking over LA, and the immensely gay alien leader being murdered by one of the two power-hungry Visitor Vixens.
Whereas the miniseries and season 1 were about a ragtag group of rebels struggling to preserve their way of life and to overthrow their incompetent conquerors, season 2 is completely different.
Season 1, you see, had a number of strong things going for it. First and foremost, the basic premise - a group of resistance fighters trying to survive in a Nazi-esque fascist regime set in the not-too-distant future (probably the early 90s) was compelling. There was some great conflict between the blonde scientist and that power hungry dude from My Cousin Vinny. Michael Ironside's character was pretty badass. The former street thug who opened the restaurant/safe haven for resistance fighters was nice, especially with the base of operations around. Well, they're gone now (except the blonde), as is the Star Child's mother, and the remainder just isn't that interesting.
Plus, they got rid of the Freedom Network bit at the beginning of each episode, and they changed the opening theme, which, while it wasn't that great, was at least memorable and fit the show. They replaced that with a darker, more forgettable theme and gave the show an A-Team-esque premise-reminder for an opening monologue.
The most disappointing bit, though, was that they abandoned the cool story arc (the best thing they had going for the show) for a weekly adventure format. Basically, it's a lame version of the A-Team, but with aliens and casualties instead of flipping cars and Mr. T.
In short, a very badly executed good idea has turned into a very badly executed bad idea.
I can't wait for the next disc.
- Nick's Geography Lesson
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
"You actually believe that?"
Last year, in October or November, I believe, we were at my parents' house, and my Mom asked if we'd been reading anything interesting lately. I mentioned that, yes, I have been reading a few interesting things, particularly a book called Finding Serenity (which is a collection of essays about the fantastic, short-lived show Firefly, which, if you haven't yet, I demand you watch immediately) and the courtroom transcripts of the Kitzmiller v. DASD case in Kansas, which was concerned with whether Intelligent Design could be taught in science class. When asked what the witnesses had to say, I told them that there really wasn't anything new, aside from the fact that Intelligent Design is just creationism relabeled.
Evolution:
Evolution:
This, of course, opened up an enormous can of metaphorical worms because Dad immediately chimed in to say, "No it's not." My parents are smart and well-educated, but unfortunately, they're also hopelessly conservative. Anyway, Dad then told me to read some Behe and Dembski. I informed him that both were wrong, that Dembski has no credibility whatsoever and can't be counted on to give an impartial opinion since he was (at the time) a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute. As for Behe, he actually testified at the trial and had his ass handily handed to him. It was a beautiful moment. Then of course there was Barbara Forrest's damning testimony which I absolutely loved. But I'm digressing.
So, Mom offers up her favorite anti-evolution argument - If we come from apes, why are there still apes. Well, the fact of the matter is we don't come from apes, per se. We share a common ancestor with modern apes (and are apes ourselves), so to ask why there are still apes if we come from apes is like asking why there are still Irish people if we come from Irish people.
I also pointed out that we haven't stopped evolving, that there's no way of know what we're evolving into, that 99% of all species that ever existed on the planet have gone extinct, that theory means something different in science, and that no current species is any more evolved than any other.
Creationism:
So, she hits me with this one: Where did we come from?
I tell her we obviously come from less evolved organisms that go all the way back to the first microscopic single-celled life form.
"And you actually believe that?"
Ever have one of those moments where you have to choose between what your brain is screaming and what is more, you know, tactful?
Well, I went the tactful route and explained that it's not really a matter of belief, but a conclusion drawn from the evidence given.
I didn't mention that I was insulted by such condescending questioning. This is why I don't tell my parents anything personal.
But seriously, what did she expect?
"You actually believe that?"
"No Mom. I believe that the universe came about 6,000 years ago when an invisible man got bored one day, uttered the universe into existance, made humans in his image, created the moon, planets, stars, and galaxies for show, then sent his only son over to suffer and die JUST FOR ME and about 6 billion other people, because I touched myself to nudie pics when I was 16."
I'm not one to insult other people's faith.
Ok, I am, but not to their faces. Plus, I would've been kicked out of the house without having dinner, and I wouldn't have gotten any help with the new freezer.
Well, it turns out that righteousness triumphed over ignorance, and Intelligent Design was found to be Creationism in a bad suit. Since then, the term has started to die, and we have new ones like "Sudden Emergence" and "Teach the controversy", despite there being no such controversy in the scientific community.
Anyway, I spent the next few hours explaining to my father that Irredicible Complexity has been falsified already and that evolution isn't concerned with the origins of life itself, just the origins of species from other species.
Anyway, there was a study last year whose results were recently revealed, that showed what people in a number of countries believe in with regards to evolution. Basically, people were asked whether they agree with the statement that evolution is true (which it is, if you'reone of those elitists who believe that observing something occur means it's real). The good news is the United States didn't finish dead last. Turkey did. We finished a little bit ahead of Turkey.
It saddens me when people deny reality because it violates their comfortable faith. That's why I make it my business to violate other people's comfort zones. One of the first and most important things I learned in educational psychology is that discomfort leads to education.
- En Gee Ell
Monday, August 14, 2006
Spoilers
Rosebud is a sled.
Darth Vader is Luke's father.
Boomer is a Cylon.
You're Darth Revan.
The kid's the killer.
Snape kills Dumbledor.
Qui-Gon Jinn dies.
She's really a guy.
Verbal Kint is Keyser Soze.
Norman Bates did it.
The planet is really Earth in the distant future.
Soylent Green is people.
Magneto loses his power - mostly.
Wolverine kills Jean Grey.
Bruce Willis as a kid watched his adult self get gunned down.
Henry Fonda convinces everyone the kid is not guilty.
The closeted military neightbor kills Kevin Spacey.
Holden and Allysa break up after he tries to wrangle himself a 3-way with Banky.
Caitlin has sex with the dead old guy.
Bethany is the Last Scion.
Dante and Randall buy the Quick Stop/RST Video.
Bunny was never kidnapped.
Darth Vader is Luke's father.
Boomer is a Cylon.
You're Darth Revan.
The kid's the killer.
Snape kills Dumbledor.
Qui-Gon Jinn dies.
She's really a guy.
Verbal Kint is Keyser Soze.
Norman Bates did it.
The planet is really Earth in the distant future.
Soylent Green is people.
Magneto loses his power - mostly.
Wolverine kills Jean Grey.
Bruce Willis as a kid watched his adult self get gunned down.
Henry Fonda convinces everyone the kid is not guilty.
The closeted military neightbor kills Kevin Spacey.
Holden and Allysa break up after he tries to wrangle himself a 3-way with Banky.
Caitlin has sex with the dead old guy.
Bethany is the Last Scion.
Dante and Randall buy the Quick Stop/RST Video.
Bunny was never kidnapped.
Brad Pitt and Ed Norton are the same person.
Nicole Kidman and the kids are really dead.
Alec Guinness blows up the bridge.
Ashton Kutcher strangles himself as a fetus/tells Amy Smart's younger self he hates her.
Jesus comes back to life.
Alec Guinness blows up the bridge.
Ashton Kutcher strangles himself as a fetus/tells Amy Smart's younger self he hates her.
Jesus comes back to life.
Bruce Willis is dead.
Mr. Glass is the villain.
The aliens are allergic to water.
It's really modern day.
ET goes home.
Michael kills Fredo.
The shark eats Quint.
Gollum bites off Frodo's finger and falls into Mt. Doom.
He dies in the end.
She dies in the end.
It was all a dream.
It was all in his head.
He survives the night but is mistaken for a zombie and shot in the head.
Milton burns down the building and goes to Mexico with the travelers checks.
Jules finds God.
Mr. Pink survives.
Shaun and Liz survive.
Red gets parole and finds Andy.
- Nitty Gritty Litter
Monday, July 31, 2006
In which I repeatedly insult the bitch who hit us.
So, it's about 8 or 9 on Saturday evening. We'd been home all day, sleeping through most of it, as we do from time to time. Neither of us had taken a shower or anything since Friday morning, and we're getting hungry. Tina suggests we step out of the house for a couple minutes to get drive-thru. She mostly just wanted to get out of the house, and since drive-thru doesn't entail showering and involves minimal human interaction, we agreed that to be the wisest course of action. We agree on Steak & Shake, head out, get our food, and head back.A couple blocks from home, we pull up behind a Mercury Cougar at a red light. You know those moments when time seems to slow down because you have a dozen or two conscious thoughts suddenly bombarding you right before something happens? Here is my thought process for that brief quarter of a second:
- Hey, the light's green!
- Why isn't the car in front of us going?
- Hey, the reverse lights aren't supposed to come on unless you're going backwards.
- Must be a mistake.
- Tina should probably honk.
- I didn't think tires squealed that loud.
- Especially in reverse.
- Oh good, Tina honked. Didn't seem to do much good, though.
- That car's gonna hit us.
- That's funny. Time doesn't seem to have slowed down.
- Maybe it'll seem that way after the fact (ed. note: It does.)
- That car's coming pretty fast.
- I'm pretty sure this isn't going to be a gentle tap.
- Great. Now we're gonna have a broken car.
- I hope they're insured.
- Well, that didn't hurt.
- Tina looks unharmed.
- Wish we'd showered beforehand.
- Better get the insurance info out of the glove box.
- I should probably take pictures.
- Good thing I remembered to grab my camera.
- Shit. I forgot to bring my phone.
- I wonder if it's bad form to eat at the scene of the accident before the food gets cold.
So, I got out of the car and started taking pictures of the damage. The person who hit us was none too pleased about that, not that I care about the opinion of the ignorant cunt who plowed into my wife's favorite car. Luckily for us, there was a right neighborly couple in a Jeep behind us who saw the whole thing and stuck around to give a statement. If they hadn't been there, there's no doubt in my mind the bitch would've claimed we rear-ended her.
Her story (which makes no sense) was that the car in front of her was signaling to turn right, and she planned to go right too. When the light turned, the car in front of her went straight instead, so, naturally, as any responsible driver would do, she had to back up as quickly as possible to, um... let's see....
Car in front goes straight instead of right. That means that in order for you to turn right, you have to press the accelerator while in drive and turn the steering wheel right at the same time. I don't see how backing up at full fucking speed into our goddamn car was supposed to help in the cunting methwhore's right-turning endeavors.
In fact, if I had to guess, I think she saw a car nicer than hers in the rearview and thought it'd be a great opportunity for insurance fraud by making it look like we ram
med her from behind.
Anyway, she gives us her insurance information, but the card's expired. She says it's the wrong one, but the info's all the same. The right one's still in her car. Sounds reasonable enough. She made a big deal of pointing out she's insured. So, it came as no surprise to us when we called Safe Auto (her company) to file a claim, and they told her they haven't had an active account with her since May.
We're still sorting the whole mess out. Tina got her right thumb jambed or something. It's swollen but doing better. Luckily we're well insured, and Tina'll get a rental until the car's fixed or replaced (depending on the extent of the damage).
As for the diseased lump of crusty vaginal discharge who hit us, she's a shitstain on the boxers of humanity, and I hope she ends up destroying whatever is most precious to her.
- Nefarious Grinning Lad
Thursday, July 27, 2006
V
We've been watching V lately, thanks to NetFlix. If you're old enough, you may remember this miniseries/TV show from the mid-80s.
The story itself is particularly engaging, enthralling, and enjoyable. It was originally set to be an historical fiction piece based on freedom fighters in World War II, but the network wanted something more sci-fi. So, they changed the Nazis to reptilian aliens invading earth to take our water (since their planet ran out) and people (for food).
The aliens initially came under the guise of friendship, their leader playing the role of an enthusiastic, charismatic man of the people, winning the hearts and minds of the humans, eventually setting up camps for scientists, and sharing their technology with all of us. Eventually, the sinister truth is uncovered, people take up arms to form a Resistance, and there's a world-wide alien occupation.
Each episode starts off with a broadcast from the Freedom Network with updates on the war effort all over the world. Most of the action takes place in and around Los Angeles (I think) which is a decidedly neutral city (i.e. neither controlled by Resistance nor Visitors), and there's plenty of shootouts, espionage, and melodromatic romance. Plus, there's the Star Child, a human/lizard hybrid. She's on the Resistance's side, and she, of course, has telekinetic powers.
Granted there are some pretty hokey plot points and the occasional plot hole, but the story itself is pretty solid.
Unfortunately, the show completely fails at literally everything else.
Niel, Geddy, & Lifeson
The story itself is particularly engaging, enthralling, and enjoyable. It was originally set to be an historical fiction piece based on freedom fighters in World War II, but the network wanted something more sci-fi. So, they changed the Nazis to reptilian aliens invading earth to take our water (since their planet ran out) and people (for food).
The aliens initially came under the guise of friendship, their leader playing the role of an enthusiastic, charismatic man of the people, winning the hearts and minds of the humans, eventually setting up camps for scientists, and sharing their technology with all of us. Eventually, the sinister truth is uncovered, people take up arms to form a Resistance, and there's a world-wide alien occupation.
Each episode starts off with a broadcast from the Freedom Network with updates on the war effort all over the world. Most of the action takes place in and around Los Angeles (I think) which is a decidedly neutral city (i.e. neither controlled by Resistance nor Visitors), and there's plenty of shootouts, espionage, and melodromatic romance. Plus, there's the Star Child, a human/lizard hybrid. She's on the Resistance's side, and she, of course, has telekinetic powers.
Granted there are some pretty hokey plot points and the occasional plot hole, but the story itself is pretty solid.
Unfortunately, the show completely fails at literally everything else.
Niel, Geddy, & Lifeson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)