Fun with Words

"Morologist: A fool who speaks nonsense."

Mildly redundant, but useful for labeling pretentious academics. Or Charlotte NPR hosts.

News You Can Use

This week's News of the Weird, which should be read in its entirety because this installment just happens to cotain more pathos than most, has one part that particularly caught my eye:

"A researcher writing in the January/February issue of Australasian Science magazine reported that the Toxoplasma gondii parasite, carried by many cats, not only can harm pregnant women (as was previously known) but also can lower the IQ of men and make women more promiscuous."

Are they more promiscuous because the cat parasite makes them dumber, is what I want to know. Are researchers working on a way to bottle and sell the parasites, without the ass-sucking cats being part of the deal?

I'm conflicted now. Me not like be made dumb by fuzzy shit-pet, but slutty women are Top 5 for myself and most men I know or don't know, or just speak for because even gay men like freaky chicks (if you roll 'em over then it's just like...well, never mind).

Internal conflict over. So is this post. Gotta go buy a cat before the wife gets home.

But first:

"And a Nottingham University professor warned in January that farmers are now at work in the United Kingdom breeding "stress" and "hostility" out of pigs and cows to make them more obedient en route to the slaughterhouse. The professor said the goal of such breeders is to create animal "vegetables."

No, I don't trust you to actually read News of the Weird on your own, so I'll just tell you about it.

It's always seemed to me that the animal rights crowd has a pretty good case against factory farming when they talk about cleanliness and the health of the consumer.

But, it's a very weak case to be made when they begin on the "suffering" that animals "probably" "experience" during their short, nasty lives. I just don't give a fuck, frankly, because I don't think cows, chickens, pigs or whatnot serve much of a purpose otherwise. I don't think they need to be tortured before they die, but I also don't think they're penned up in the factory farm, eating non-stop and standing/lying in their own filth thinking, "Oh, to be free! Won't someone save us from all this?" Yes, unnamed fowl/ungulate: the guy with the bolt-gun.

Anyway, if animals were actually so retarded that they didn't even know what to do beyond eat and breathe, wouldn't the moral conundrum disappear? What if we could grow meat on trees--would that be good enough?

Wastage

Barrelling towards 500 posts, this space has been taken up for no reason.

Buh, Ah Law-k Mah Teef, Guv-nah!

British people (well, Welsh children, but why be precise?) don't get anything, self-image-wise, from having their teeth fixed.

The study that proves the assertion would have us believe that this:

Is the same as this:

Whatever, Nigel....

Maybe it should have been a study to find out if British people know how to use mirrors?

Maybe a mouthful of rotten teeth masks the stench of food that can only be described as--and in fact, sometimes IS--eating the ass out of a cow?

C'mon and play along at home! What else?

Bad Idea

Newsweek reports that, among the results of the latest poll on Bush's miserable fucking existence, "more than half the country (58 percent) say they wish the Bush presidency were simply over."

That was the same attitude that prevailed in the 1970s with regards to Vietnam and the Nixon Presidency. It would be a good thing, historically speaking and in terms of collective memory, not to allow that sentiment to dictate our actions during and after Bush's final years in office.

Our policy must be full investigation and the laying of blame upon those responsible. Life cannot and will not simply go on as it was or we imagine it to have been before the Idiot King was created. Truth and reconciliation is the best and only option if we truly want to repair what he and we have done to this nation.

The alternative is more war, more degeneration, and the total collapse of our society.

You Look at Cat Shit?

Maybe just because Comic Book Guy has made us forever wary of movie nerds and fanboys, this review of "Epic Movie" (not that I was reading it...) from one Dustin Putman contains this line:

"I've seen more talent in my cat's last dump than these two ass-clowns have as filmmakers."

He obviously didn't catch it, but is there any better way to tell the world you live in Mom's basement and don't date than to mention that you have a cat, even if it's part of a disgusting man-humor reference?

As a general rule, men--ANY men, including those who get laid all the time and have season tickets to all sports and only wear jockstraps and boxing gloves around the house--should never refer to their cat(s) in public.

Dunkless Basketball

Who watches women's basketball? You can! If you go to www.horizonleague.org and you have a fast internet connection, you can watch the UIC Flames women's team take on Wright State on Thursday, February 8th at 11:30 am central time.

Just click on the video player and sign up for a free account and you should be on your way to enjoying one of the great liberal pastimes: supporting women's athletics.

And, if you have audio, you can hear me calling the game. Ahem.

By the way, I'm a fucking awesome announcer.

Duke Sucks

Clemson almost beat Duke the other night, except the Blue Devils made a layup at the buzzer to escape with the win.

Unfortunately, the clock failed to start and did not run during the previous play. Instead of taking time off the clock and sending the game to overtime, however, the officials conferred and then added time to the clock, presumably because they don't know whether the clock counts up or down (in case they're reading this: it's down. Down, you dummies! Just like what you do every time you have a game with Mike Krzyzewskiystyshy: you go down! So does the clock!).

The result was that Duke got an extra 2.5 seconds to, well, make a layup and win the game.

I know what you're thinking ("I don't care"?): "The refs handed Duke a game on a silver platter? No way!"

What's Your Point, Though?

Senate Republicans (or, as they're known, "Turds") won't pass the minimum wage bill without a corresponding tax cut for small business.

Now, forgetting briefly that "small business" is a meaningless term if the President and Vice President can both claim on their tax returns to be small businessmen (look it up and find out if you've "got wood." Furious George does.). Just to add one more example (which I don't need to, since I just damn said that it was forgettable): the Carolina Hurricanes, defending Stanly Cup Champions of the NHL (Jesus, gratuitous example!), are classified by RBC Centura Bank--whose name graces the building the team plays in--as a "small business." Marinate on that for a minute.

The point about the Senate, though, is that a tax break for small business makes little sense. What's the connection to the minimum wage? As far as I can ponder it, there are very few small businesses that pay minimum wage.

What are the two kinds of small businesses? 1: single employee, sole proprietorships. 2: non-farm, family operations.

#1 has no issue with the minimum wage. Sole proprietors don't always draw a check (from themselves), as it's more efficient and profitable to keep all the money in the business--and you pay less in taxes by doing so. Besides, what kind of butthole would pay himself minimum wage?

Additionally, most of these companies are established to do subcontract or contract work, which--newsflash--doesn't pay minimum wage. Let me state categorically that unskilled day labor in the South (the worst, lowest work I can think of) pays at least $8 an hour. And then you get a 1099. THAT should be the tax break the government looks at, since 1099 "employees" have to pay taxes twice; that is, they pay a self-employment tax AND the 1040 tax everybody pays. On $30,000 in income that's roughly $3500 in taxes, due all at once.

#2 also has no connection to the minimum wage, since families don't pay minimum wage, either, if they pay at all.

So, Turds, what's your boner for this tax break all about?

Am I missing the point?

AOS Gallery

Retail space, Ashland Avenue, Chicago. Says it's a "photo gallery" but has windows covered by black plastic and isn't open during the day. Comings-and-goings late at night. Neighbors report hearing "loud," "theatric" sex noise on occasion.

Is it a gallery, apparently run by Trustafarians who also live (and, uh, *sleep* there)?

Or is it a porn studio?

Because porn studio would be fucking awesome.

Calling All Jamies

Hey, Jamie, can you access this site? Do you need a new invite? Goddamn Blogger.

Scary Gary Strikes

From the eponymous author:

"I heard the most disturbing story on the way to work. I really must swear off NPR. It's like a girlfriend that is bad for you. Anyway, the story was about three football players at Guilford College who beat up these three Palestinians. All they were doing was chain smoking and demeaning women. I don't know about you but I am appalled that Guilford has a football team. Something really must be done."

Call Me...Hilarious

Al Sharpton is "sizing up" the field before deciding on a 2008 presidential bid. Hmmmm, Hillary Clinton, Obama, Edwards, maybe Gore.

I say, go for it!

Protest Only in Winter

Futuristic weapons should be designed with the future in mind. By that I mean, people who make weapons for future needs have to conceptualize what combat in the future will look like. Lately we've seen all sorts of alternative technologies for futuristic quasi-combat. Mainly non-lethal, these things anticipate scenarios where some government thug militia--say, the police or Army--will have to subdue unruly mobs, usually in urban settings.

But now, for the first time, it appears that the US Army thinks, in the future, that rioters and hippies will be complete and total pussies who can't stand even momentary discomfort without running for shelter and weeping like little bitches.

How do we know this? Well, they've invented a heat-ray gun:

The article will explain how it works. I particularly like the fellow in the mock-up with his fist raised in the universal "down with whitey!" pose. For good measure, though, he also appears to have a greaser pompadour haircut and also be wearing bell-bottoms and strutting like a 70's pimp. Oh US Army, your idea of the future is soooo groovy!

The long and short of it is that a big dish blasts you with a short burst of hot air, which feels like "a hot oven" and only lasts for a very short period of time and also, if that weren't scary enough, penetrates the skin only a tiny bit, making the weapon, by the Army's own admission "Totally harmless"!

So, what they're saying is that the Army spent untold millions of dollars on this ray-gun (well, "ray-bowl," or "big wok") that has very limited applications. For instance, it could be used against rioting Eskimos, or Irishmen, or some other population that doesn't like warm temperatures--"up to 50C" or in real numbers, 122 degrees F. Or, the same temperature as hot tap water. "Like a blast from a hot oven," huh? The knob on my oven starts at 200 degrees, dickwad.

How hot IS 122 degrees? I found this cool article about people in Hawaii who get all itchy as a result of pathogens that grow in their hot water heater tanks. Why? Because the bacteria only grow at temperatures of about 120-122 degrees, which is the government standard for how hot your water heater can be. In other words, 122 degrees Fahrenheit is not very hot. Sorry to belabor the point.

The moral of the story (and this post!) is that future urban dissidents will need to suck it up and ignore the momentary, mildly uncomfortable, utterly harmless blasts of hot air coming from the Army guys. Good advice in any case, don't you think?

No Idea Who You Are...so Take That!

Just reading through BBC.com, there is a search box in the upper left corner and under it, Yahho!-style, are some "other things blokes are searching for," or some such British ninnery. Apparently, folks in the UK are using the BBC sute to search for "scooby doo," "you and yours," and "robbie williams."

Intrigued, I followed up. Here's the profile: http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artist/vrzf/

Why would paparazzi want to follow this guy? And, has he had the craziest life of random events mixed with zero accomplishments? Finally, why are Britons searching for information about this person in such large numbers--I mean, how great can you be if your former bandmates replaced you on tour with a hologram?

OK, I looked it up

Fuck it, I have a minute. According to baseball-reference.com, home of the ugliest page layouts on earth, a quick comparison of Juan Pierre and Kenny Lofton:

Pierre (7 seasons):
Career BA: .303
Career OBP: .350 (league avg. .348)
Hits/average season: 200
Runs/average: 98
RBI/average: 46
BB/average: 42
SB/average: 52
Career OPS+: 86

Last year, Pierre made 532 outs in 750 plate appearences. The last three years he made 532, 514, 507 outs, respectively. For his career, he averages 445 outs per year, or 1 out every 1.4 plate appearances.

Players closest in statistical comparison include: Carson Bigby, Whitey Witt, Ducky Holmes, Debs Garms. (I have no idea who any of those men are.)

Lofton (16 seasons):
Career BA: .299
Career OBP: .372
Hits/average: 188
Runs/average: 119
RBI/average: 61
BB/average: 73
SB/average: 49
Career OPS+: 107

Over his career, Kenny Lofton has never made 500 outs in a season. In his lone 700 AB season, in 1996, Lofton made only 489 outs. In his career, he averages 337 outs per season, or 1 out every 1.5 plate appearances.

Players closest in statistical comparison include: Ken Griffey, Johnny Damon, Kiki Cuyler, Brett Butler.

So If you add Lofton's walks and hits, he gets on base roughly 261 times per year (not counting HBP or whatnot). Pierre gets on 242 times. Juan pierre averages 661 AB a year; Lofton, 628. But in 33 fewer AB, Lofton makes, on average, 108 fewer outs (!).

Given that Lofton sees far fewer at-bats in an average year, yet outpaces Pierre in almost every statistical category, you have to wonder what the hell Jon Heyman was thinking when he wrote that Pierre is a good substitute for Lofton in the Dodgers outfield. 39 year-old Kenny Lofton gets on base more, scores and drives in more runs, makes fewer outs for his team, and did I mention he actually can throw the ball in from the outfield? I haven't even begun on Juan Pierre's horrible arm in centerfield...

Even if we say, for the sake of argument, that Lofton would be injured or have to rest about 40 games a year, he STILL puts up equal or better numbers than Juan Pierre. And, you can get additional production, theoretically, from Lofton's substitute, making your leadoff spot even more productive than one Juan Pierre alone.

It's a no-brainer, really, unless you're Jon Heyman.

Just for Closure

Here's the other part of the asinine equation: JD Drew vs. Luis "My Power is Gone because I can't Shoot Up Steroids Anymore" Gonzalez:

Gonzo (17 seasons):
Career BA: .284
Career OBP: .368
Career OPS: .852 (OPS+: 121)
H/average: 166
R/average: 92
RBI/average: 93
HR/average: 23
BB/average: 74

In an average year, Luis Gonzalez makes 373 outs, or one out every 1.5 plate appearances.

JD Drew (9 seasons):
Career BA: .286
Career OBP: .393
Career OPS: .905 (OPS+: 133)
H/average: 153
R/average: 102
RBI/average: 86
HR/average: 27
BB/average: 89

In an average season, Drew makes 262 outs, or one out every 1.6 plate appearances.

Gonzalez's numbers are really, really good, especially compared to Juan Pierre (there is really no legitimate basis for comparing them, but I just did). Except for HR, RBI, and OPS (on-base percentage + slugging %), though, Kenny Lofton is a good comparison for Luis Gonzalez.

JD Drew's numbers are downright spectacular, though he has a thing with being injured for long stretches--note the fewer hits, which is a function of never playing a full season. Now that he's headed to the AL, where he can DH, he might finally get in 162 games a year. But, injuries aside, there is clearly no basis, none at all, for Jon Heyman to have ever claimed that Luis Gonzalez is a passable substitute for JD Drew. And, injuries? Gonzo is 38 years-old; Drew is 30. I'm guessing Gonzo has fewer games left in the tank than Drew this season.

My best lazy FJM impression

Jon Heyman, SI columnist, is really confused. He makes one good point in his report card segment on the Los Angeles Dodgers:

"For the price of Gil Meche, they signed Jason Schmidt and Randy Wolf, enabling them to construct a deep rotation to go along with an almost-as-deep bullpen and their long litany of talented youngsters."

And then he does this:

"Luis Gonzalez and Juan Pierre are a fair trade for Kenny Lofton and J.D. Drew at almost exactly the same price ($70 million plus, counting Drew's new contract, not his old one)."

A ha ha ha. Ha. Hmm.

I could prove this with numbers, but let me just be the fourth or fifth person to write this: Kenny Lofton is so much better than Juan Pierre it is not even worth looking it up. It is so clearly not even a comparison that I am embarrassed for you that you wrote that sentence.

And, just for good measure, allow me to point out that one of Heyman's SI colleagues wrote a column earlier this winter in which he suggested that the Red Sox would be just fine if they let Manny Ramirez go. The reason? Because they were going to get JD Drew from the Dodgers!

Now, that IS a little crazy. JD Drew is in no way Manny Ramirez-like. But, he is a Porsche and Manny is a fucking Lear Jet. And Lofton is a BMW roadster to Juan Pierre's Chevy Malibu.

Jon Heyman, close it out for us:

"Grade: A-."

Smiling = Work

From News of the Weird:

"...(S)ome Japanese and Singaporean people find it (difficult) to smile, even when their jobs depend on it, and Chinese people preparing for the 2008 Olympics are having similar problems turning Beijing into a "city of smiles," as the campaign is called. Said one man attending a class on smiling: "At first, I thought (it might be) difficult to smile after you became tired. But later I realized if you don't treat smiling as ... work ... you may find it very easy to smile all the time." (In popular literature in China, people who smile frequently or for no particular reason are often regarded as either silly or devious.) [China Daily, 11-24-06] "

Everybody's Crazy

Except me and you, and I'm not so sure about you.

Nancy Pelosi says that, when the President vetoes the anti-surge bill the Democrats will do the most principled thing they can think of: nothing. Why? Because they won't be put in the position of "not supporting" the troops by cutting off funding for the escalation.

Gee, that's funny: it seems to me that the way to show support for troops fighting an unpopular, illegal war, and bearing in mind those same troops don't, in the main, want to be in Iraq in the first place, is to CUT OFF funding so they have to be brought home.

Supporting them means protecting them. Protecting them means bringing them home and punishing the ineptards that put them there in the first place.

Supporting the troops does not mean sending more of them to die. Ass.

Garbage

If you're trying to login to Blogger and you get a blank box with a little "click here to continue" link in it, right-click the link and select "open in new window" to access the blog dashboard.

Now why didn't we all think of that?

Say What?

In a TV show last week (which I believe is called "What About Brian?"--to which I would answer, "What about the 57 minutes of my life you just stole with this shitty show?"), a couple learned that their daughter was deaf (she is a toddler), mostly. Pretty standard plot twist, yeah, right?

Well, then the weirdest thing happened. The characters playing her parents proceeded to weep and gnash their teeth, rend their clothes and rage against the, uh, calcifying cocleas? Anyway, it was odd.

Why would anyone react that way to the rather mundane news that their child has, let's say, 90% hearing loss? Children get ear infections the way junkies get hepatitis C; many of them develop hearing loss--I'm pretty sure the pediatrician went over this with them during the pregnancy. Have these people never seen a deaf person? Did they never see "The Miracle Worker"? Do they know of sign language? Gallaudet University? Have they not noticed how incredibly deaf-friendly our society is?

The theory I woke up with today is this: the deafness lobby wrote that episode.

HEAR me out: by portraying deafness as the worst thing that could possibly befall the 3 year-old moppet, the deafies have forced viewers--incredibly dumb (ha ha!) as they are--to consider just how alien and tragic deafness can be. Thus, they have in fact reified what too many wanky scholars and other "feelers" now take for granted: that there is some different, special culture that inheres to those with hearing loss.

What is up with all the frigging references to deafness on TV this past year?

I Just Can't Quit You

AmericaBlog is so gay, I just can't stop reading it.

But the fellows over there are getting mighty lousy at interpreting the news, often resorting these days to scare headlines that totally misconstrue the content of an article or speech.

Take, for example, this one:

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/01/michigan-court-says-adulterers-can-get.html

Now, if you read the article, you'd see that the judges came to that decision precisely to point out that the law was poorly worded and needed to be changed to reflect actual intent. But, if you just read the line on AmericaBlog, you'd think the judges were rightwing nuts out to push theocracy on the people.

The ruling was a good one. The decision clearly stated, right off the bat, that the law was flawed. It will be changed.

Or, you could go with "Crazy Fundies Are Out to Get Us, and THIS is the PROOF!!!"

Part 1 is probably true; part 2? Not so much.

The New NHL meets Craig MacTavish

I think shootouts are pretty dumb, since the "winning" team gets an extra point essentially for having players who can score under circumstances you would never see during a game. That is, settling a hard-fought game in a shootout is pretty much like settling an NBA game by having a best-of-3 game of H-O-R-S-E. Some teams would have one scrubby white dude who could hit a spinning, half-court hook shot, and that would be that.

In fact, the best goal I have ever seen in a shootout was scored by the completely offensively inept defenseman, Marek Malik. Look it up on Google Video.

Plus, the fact that perhaps the greatest goalie ever to play, Martin Brodeur, is only 11-6 in shootouts should be a big warning sign. If the best there is dropped 6 games because he couldn't stop a lone skater, and some of those SO losses came against bad teams like the Avalanche, Islanders (twice!), and Kings, then something's wrong.

Anyway, that's not really why I started this post. I actually think it's time, since the SO isn't going to go away, to just open it up all the way and let players take the shots without helmets, to add more personal interest to the whole thing (with the giant padding, the players look too much like robots already). I would also allow them to not wear gloves if they preferred, and the goalie would have the option of 1. having his stick, or 2. throwing one (1) water bottle at the approaching shooter.

I would also allow home fanes to throw shit, like dead rats or souvenir pucks, at the opposing shooters; also, at commissioner Gary Bettman (who looks exactly like Dracula, so could he be called "Count Hockula"?).

Up is Down

Bush does not renew his illegal spying on US citizens program.

So when do we find out that he's still doing it? That signing statement that "allows" (in his mind, anyway) him and his cronies to read our mail would be worthless if he actually wasn't planning to keep spying on everybody.

Take a Step Back

It would seem that most of what has recently been posted is hotheaded dreck, or bordering on sociopathic. So, here's a reasoned question (and it will not deal with how long the flag has to be half-down--in Illinois, it is apparent that the answer is "forever"...or until the next state holiday):

Gerald Ford, in dying, has sealed the record on Watergate. He never did apologize for shutting off the investigation and effectively ending what could only have been a beneficial inquest into the activities of officials at the highest levels of power in America. In other words, the public could only have benefitted from something like a truth and reconciliation committee--at any rate, public opinion of the government in 1973/74 could hardly have gone down.

But Ford, misguided idjit that he was, decided (isn't it a bad sign when a President unilaterally decides to be the decider?) to "heal" the nation, all on his own...nevermind that Vietnam shit...by pardoning his predecessor (whose memory, incidentally, Bush II has almost redeemed).

Of course, could we even make the offhand statement that Nixon has almost become respectable again if in fact there HAD been a full and thorough investigation into Watergate? Well, no. Because, I have to believe, Americans would be quite shocked to learn what governments do in the dark of night and then hide away from posterity.

Just as with Watergate, Bush II has tried mightily to seal off his own activities and those of his minions from future examination. He wants history to remember him fondly, but he needs to completely erase his actual actions in order for that fiction to obtain. I can't help but feel that we are letting him get away with this, after already allowing him too much, because we never changed the culture by hanging Nixon, that bastard, up by his entrails and spitting on the corpse, a la Mussolini.

And, isn't that permissive, or perhaps plain apathetic, culture something we can lay at the feet of the late Gerald Ford?

This is the very definition of "small sample size"

Nobel Prize-winning scientists supposedly live 2 years longer, on average, than their merely nominated colleagues.

The pool of subjects was about 500 people. Hooray for science!

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran

This is a repeat post, in honor of my sister, who is the only person to get the Beach Boys reference:

So there's going to be a war with Iran. The generals think it's a good idea. Of course, as James Q. Wilson could tell you based on his Bureaucracy book, generals ALWAYS say they can win because it's what they train for their whole lives. To say otherwise would be like asking the average American whether he loves his SUV and hearing "no."

Iran is so toast. In a sucky twist, though, so is Israel, since it's right by Iran and the Iranians outnumber the Israelis and have some, uh, nuclear capabilities. Oh well...

I mean, wait! America will do everything it can to protect those frail, quivering Israelis (Chaim Weitzman was a pussy!) and their arsenal of F-16s and nuclear weapons...but ultimately, let's be honest, Iran is going to wipe them off the globe. And then it will just be us and Iran, mano y mano, as it were; ...and also the several billion Muslims in the world arrayed against us. But we'll totally prevail because we have, like, Jesus on our side...and stuff.

Make your will now, dude. We are, like, so totally dead. But me? I don't give a FUCK because I just turned 28, so I'm not in the first batch of draftees. Eat it with a fork, America's future!!

You're not the king, you fuck

Bush says critics won't derail Iraq surge plan. Or so the AP says. Does the AP know how this thing called "funding" works? It goes through Congress. Bush is not a king. He works for the people. He has no balls, unless you and I say he does. So, once again dickhead: what's your plan for the Middle East?

Hi: Zionism is BULLSHIT

http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/world/?content_id=5298

What would positive news about Israel look like, exactly? Would that not be like spreading the good word about how well the Chinese are doing in Tibet? Or how much progress settlers made in Texas circa 1840? You’re a bunch of colonizers and/or outright occupiers. Why would I give one flying fuck how your kibbutz is doing?

"Hi, everybody! My lettuce is growing like crazy! It's watered by human fucking BLOOD, of course, but hey! what great lettuce! Forget that whole 'farmed on the soil of human misery and starving Palestinian children and murdered Arabs and illegitimate occupation and genocide' thing...because as we all know, WWII and the Holocaust are the justification for anything the political state of Israel wants to do! I mean, we could eat the brains of Arab babies and nobody would care, as long as we say the word "Holocaust" every five minutes! Hooray!"

I think Palestinians, if they had computers and were allowed to use them, would probably be upset that their actual homes were represented on Google Earth by long bulldozer tracks and smoldering holes in the ground. Or is it by a pile of dead children whose sins consisted of throwing rocks at armored vehicles?

Finally, why do you think something called the "Zionist Alliance" would sound fair, impartial, and like the voice of reason in this matter?

When times get hard, eat sand, motherfuckers. Eat sand. I pray for your happy deaths, assholes.

Fun at the Movies

I saw exactly 3 films over the break; two great, one not so good. If you care to know, here's what they rate:

"Westway to the World": the authorized Clash documentary. Nothing really earth-shattering, except you get to hear almost exclusively from Joe Strummer, Paul Simonon, Mick Jones, and a very emaciated Topper Headon for 2 hours about how they met, why they became a band, and why they broke up. You'll have lots of questions after it's over, but you'll have to figger it out on your own, chum. Joe's dead, Paul and Mick haven't talked since 1983, and Topper is still busily needling himself to death. What a great film. And, the bonus footage is all old club stuff or, more, unseen, nearly destroyed footage of the NYC shows of the early '80's. I watched that first, and it's actually longer than the documentary itself. Sweeeet.

"Casino Royale" The wife and a co-worker dragged me to this one with promises of psychological depth and a lack of cheese. Well: cheese still there; depth less than two fathoms; middle third of pic is one long poker scene of incredible simplicity--almost totally insulting to audience. I fell asleep twice. The film was over 2 1/2 hours long. One other problem: if this love interest is the reason Bond is so cold in all the later films, why is he so hung up on a simpleton? I mean, (and I am completely giving away the ending, one of the rare parts I was awake for) if YOU were being blackmailed and you thought it likely you would be killed after delivering the money, would you: A: go it alone, being careful never to give the slightest hint to your darling 007, or B: tell Mr. Bond what's up, since he is (and has proven before your very eyes all through the preceding movie) to be a fucking one man army and killing machine? Seriously, I ask you.

"Loose Change, 2nd Edition": the 9/11 conspiracy movie. You can download it for free of Google Video, or give the guy $9 for a DVD copy. Or, he'll send you a pack of 100, at cost, and you can give them out to friends. I don't have any friends, so I spent the 9. This is a very cool film that revisits 9/11 and points up all the mistakes, ommissions, or forgotten elements of the coverage, as well as splicing in some anonymous interviews with eyewitnesses and some cherry-picked articles. Nonetheless, excusing for a moment its shaky grounding in reputable sources (which are...what, anyway?), the film raises compelling questions. It would appear, just from a common sense standpoint, that no plane hit the Pentagon, a plane likely did not crash in Pennsylvania, the people our government has identified as the hijackers did not actually fly any planes (and, at least 8 of them are definitely alive and well in other countries!), and so on. It's a neat little project that will certainly get you on a watch list. Where I and many others get off is at the discussion of the Shanksville flight (the United 93 flight) and the assertion that all passengers were herded to an abandoned NASA hangar at Cleveland's airport and...shot? Abducted? What? And then there's the further implication that the ~200 people from all 4 flights combined were somehow put onto that one flight, I suppose for easier extermination? Anyway, check it out. It's well worth an hour and 20 minutes of your time.

Math is My Enemy

Bush wanted 32,000 troops. Generals say there are 21,000, tops. Bush now wants war with Iran. Are we all going to get drafted? What the hell is going on here?

New Blogger

I wish I were more tech savvy, so I could quit you, shitty Blogger. But I'm not.

New Blogger is here, and all us peons who couldn't be part of the beta test are now more or less being strong-armed into changing over to the "new" platform. I can't tell a difference, except the posting options are far more childish than before. (Is this corporate media, i.e., Google's, attempt to infantilize us? Are we bloggers supposed to one day realize how silly we are because we have to write our posts through a program that looks goofy as hell?)

Anyway, enjoy!