I meant to complain about this when I saw the movie in the theater, but hey, sue me. I forgot. However, 'Superman Returns' just showed up on HBO and reminded me to do it.
I like the movie. I'm not a huge Superman fan in general, but I enjoyed the movie. Mostly. If you're planning on seeing it, don't read any further. Because I'm going to spoil the fuck out of it in a little bit.
You see, I don't get the story. If you turn your brain off and ignore the glaring plot hole, the movie is enjoyable and you come away thinking 'Hey, Superman rules'.
But I didn't do that. So I enjoyed the movie, but decided that Superman is a bastard. Basic idea goes like this: Superman left Earth to find Krypton. Five years go by and now he's back. Lois Lane and the merry band of reporters have all moved on with their lives. She has a kid with her fiance. About five years old. You see where this is going, right?
So Superdick comes back and expects everything to be the same, and is hurt when it's not. Boo fucking hoo. The villain does his thing, Superman saves the day, nearly dies and finds out the kid is his. Yay, heroic ending.
Think about it. This story requires Superman to fuck Lois, knock her up, and decide to run off into outer space. What a shithead. Seriously, Superman is a hit-it-and-quit-it type of guy? Really? Then, inside a few weeks of banging superman, she runs off and fucks her new man on the side (Richard). I mean, it had to be close enough that he thought the kid was his, right? They never say if she knowingly lied to Richard. Maybe she just underestimated the power of Super-Sperm. The end result is that she's either easy or desperate to cover up the bastard child. And since we see her hang all over Superman's jock once he's back, I'm betting she's just easy. I suppose she could have been involved with Richard while she was banging Superman. Still, not a set of choices that really casts her in a positive light.
But let's step back to Superman. The pillar of Truth, Justice and the American Way, right? Sleeps with a chick out of wedlock. Knocks her up, and the runs away for five fucking years. That American Way bit just isn't what it used to be, is it?
For additional points, I refer you to Superdickery.com Read it for a while. There is plenty of other evidence out there.
I've mentioned it before, and I'll probably do so again. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act sucks donkey balls. And so do most of the people that use it. It's poorly designed, vaguely written, and grotesquely overpowered.
I offer up as evidence, exhibit A: Viacom's attack on YouTube user Christopher Knight. Mr Knight is running for the County Board of Education of where ever the fuck he lives. So he made a funny little commercial that apparently aired on local TV. He also uploaded it to YouTube.
Because people were amused by it, it got a lot of views, and eventually VH1 got wind of it. They thought it was funny and decided to put it on their YouTube thievery show 'Web Junk 2.0'. Basically a show that looks out for the new hot video, and puts it on TV. Apparently because they can't be bothered to think of original ideas.
So, Mr Knight hears about it and laughs a little. He was amused by it and decided to take advantage of his little moment of fame. He took a clip of the Web Junk show airing HIS clip, put it on YouTube, and linked it in his blog.
Naturally, Viacom, owners of VH1, sent in a DMCA takedown notice. Totally fucked up. He has a clip of them broadcasting HIS clip, and they have the nerve to demand he take it down?
But it gets better. Oh yes. You see, VH1... never ASKED him if they could broadcast it. And just for bonus points, they violated YouTube's terms of service by stealing his video. His not-for-profit ad was pilfered by a for-profit corporation and they give him shit when he puts it up online?
Fuck them and fuck the DMCA
Stop it. Please for the love of all that is sacred... stop it.
Everything is not dominant. In the past month, you've said that this program was dominant, that band is dominant, those cars are dominant, and the headphones you wear are all dominant. And that song you love is dominating.
You describe everything as either dominant or not dominant. There are dozens of good synonyms you can use as an alternative. Supreme, prominent, authoritative, controlling. Hell, try something simple like BEST.
Quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of it. It's depressingly repetitious. And while you may like the word, the more you use it, the lower the standard seems to be for it. The over usage of it has made it into an everyday occurrence. The word carries significance when it's an uncommon. When you use it to describe every third item, it doesn't mean much to me. It's impossible to discern which instances are really remarkable. I don't have the time to check the credentials of everything you mention. So, my natural response is to assume that nothing you describe as dominant is actually that impressive.
Expand your vocabulary a little and people will pay more attention you your opinions.
In this huge nanny state, we have ratings and warnings and such things they tell us if we could be offended at the media we've decided to view. And if so, how offended they think we could be. They coach it in terms of protecting our youth, but it's really more of an offensive meter.
What I don't understand is how fucked up the system is. Or rather, the systems. They don't seem to agree on anything.
First off, there is no rating in print media. No book comes with a sticker telling you that it has some fucked up imagery inside. I suppose you could say the shrink wrap on skin mags equates to an adult only rating but I think that's a stretch.
Music has only 2 ratings. Explicit lyrics and Not. That means that music is either OK for kids or not OK for kids, without really defining what age that line exists at. For some reason, 2 groups is enough for music.
But not for say... Movies. Because it's visual, we apparently have to add a whole slew of new ratings. G for everyone, PG for older kids, PG-13 for teens, R for adult supervision and NC-17 for adults only Honestly, that seems pretty reasonable. The only real issue I have with it is that the NC-17 rating is used as a bludgeon to prevent movies from going overboard. It functions as an effective ban on the movie because it can't get into major theaters with that rating. That ban allows the rating board to effectively censor movies or force them to be edited into their guidelines, which are often vague, enigmatic and often enforce their own mores over the true content of the movie (please, go watch This Film Not Yet Rated for more).
Next up we have TV. Movie guidelines aren't enough for TV. They need more. Y for all children, Y7 for older kids, Y7/FV for.. older kids, but with fantasy violence... yeah whatever.... G for general consumption, PG for tweens, 14 for teens, and MA for adults. To me, the Y-G breakdown is odd, but I guess I can understand it for helping parents find programming for their child's age group.
Finally, we have video games. Which has yet another rating system. C for childhood, E for everyone, E+10 for everyone that's over 10 (not really everyone, right?) T for teen, M for mature (adults only) and AO for adults only. I know, it sounds like I stuttered, but I didn't. M and AO have the exact same requirements. The concept is like R and NC-17, but they failed at definitions because the rule is the same, only an adult can buy it. Also, much like the movie industry, the game industry uses AO as a bludgeon to force games to conform to a standard or risk a loss of sales.
I know, that's all a very long winded explanation of things you probably already know. But I think it's important to go through all of that to get to my point. Those systems have some generally easy to see crossover in ratings, on the surface. But once you go deeper, they don't really agree on much. Homosexuality in music is fine, but it's almost a certain R in movies. Violence is fine in movies, but not in games. Sex is cool for books, but right out in TV.
The problem is that all these systems use a different set of rules to define themselves. They can't agree on what is offensive or how offended to be by it. You can Fuck 3 times, but not 4. You can show nipple, but not ass. You can allude to drugs, but not show someone using them. Two guys can live together, but not if they're gay.
The ratings groups have a difficult job. They have to walk a fine line of moral objection across a diverse spectrum. But the way it is now, it's not useful. You have a bunch of systems that are close to one another in form and function, but diverse on the content of those ratings. And other media that is either totally unregulated or nearly so.
The whole set of systems are just fucked up. It's no wonder parents get confused.
Dude in Missouri held up a convenience store. Police were called in. He stole a car and attempted to evade police. During the pursuit, the suspect shot and injured a cop. They caught him and arrested him.
He was convicted of a number of crimes relating to the burglary, car theft, and shooting the cop. He was also convicted of 2nd degree murder. You might wonder, how did the murder bit get attached?
Well, apparently a cop was on route to the search area to join the pursuit. 40 miles from the area, with his lights on, siren blazing, the cop came over a hilltop. A tractor trailer crashed into him and killed him.
The jury found that the cop would still be alive if this guy hadn't committed his crime, so it was his fault.
Personally, it's bullshit. I'm all for tough laws and all, but the cop got killed by his own actions and the actions of an unrelated truck driver. Would he still be alive? Maybe, but that doesn't mean this guy is guilty of murder. It's pretty fucked up, IMO.
Honestly, throw the book at the guy for the stuff he was responsible for. Attempted murder on the cop he shot. Burglary, grand theft auto, whatever. But you can't assign guilt to the guy because some cop that was responding to the call ended up dead 40 miles away from the scene of the crime.
I've done this topic before. I know I have.
I picked up Unreal Tournament 2004 again. It's been six months or so and I thought I'd go a few rounds. Shake the rust off.
I spend a lot of time working my hit scan. Gotta get the aim dependent aim back, because the game is dominated by it. Sniper rifle, lightning gun and shock. If you don't have it, you're doomed.
I do not cheat. I do not have a program installed to help me aim. My aim isn't even that good (just over 35% in fact).
So, I'm amused that I'm received 5 accusations that I cheat in the past week. So here are some tips for those pathetic players out there who assume botting before they assume skill.
First off, CTF-Face is a sniper map. When I set up my tent and sniper rifle up on the ground in front of the base, you have to find a way to deal with it. If you try to just teleport past me, you'll discover that I can aim at you by tracking the movement of the translocator and shoot you the second you appear.... even in mid-air. Complaining about it won't help you.
Also, you are on the blue team. That means you're bright blue and show up nicely against the base color. So, when you go up top and slide down the side, you're visible, especially when facing a *ahem* accomplished sniper. This means that as you fell, I followed you down with my scope, and when you stopped on a ledge, I put a bullet through your head. Nothing mysterious there. No magic. No artificial aim. No radar. Simple, easy mouse movements and a fatal left click.
Want more tips? I got 'em. Just because you don't know my name or clan tag doesn't mean I'm an aliaser/botter. I know because I wear my clan tag and name proudly. It just means that you're a little punk bitch who hasn't been around long enough to be afraid when I announce that I'm on flag defense.
Claiming to spectate me and decide I'm cheating is also idiotic. I don't snap aim. I don't follow people through walls. I hit around 1 out of 3 sniper shots. Most of the people on the server can tell I'm not cheating because I move well and spam well. That's why they laughed at you.
So, when you accused me of cheating, it just pissed me off and makes me target you more. Consider that your last tip.
I want to injure someone. This isn't really unusual I know. But there is a new guy here at work. Works in a nearby office. Don't know him, don't have any clue what department he works for, don't give a fuck.
You see, he has his instant messaging on. Not a big deal. But he has the volume on high enough that we can hear it 25 feet away. And every time he gets or sends a message... a little BONG like a small church bell goes off. Much louder than the standard sound for AIM and MSN and all.
Every time. He's been IMing someone for about 3 hours now. Almost constantly. My headache is not pleased with this man and his annoying ass BONGing laptop.
I was going to just bash his hands and break the laptop speakers. But then I thought that it's better to destroy the entire laptop to get rid of the wav file. Finally, I decided that the only way to be sure is to nuke him from orbit.
As a hardcore video game player, it's well known that I value game play over aesthetics. But just for a moment, lets step back and LOOK at the games we play.
As graphics have improved, the industry has been pushing more and more realistic models and environments. Recently, one particular thing has stood out at me over and over again. In the drive to achieve aesthetic perfection, logical design has been cast aside. The key example here is armor.
It's not really that complicated to apply logic to armor. Torso and head should receive the bulk of the armor. Limbs and extremities receive less armor in order to allow greater flexibility. All logical, right?
So, explain to me why the foot soldiers in Gears, UT, Quake and other games all put the majority of their armor on their shoulder pads? Why do they wear boots that look to weigh over 40 lbs? Gloves that would do justice to Hellboy? Why do the women expose their bosoms to the world instead of wearing the light chest plate the men wear? Open face plates, but heavily armored ankles??
I dunno. As I'm sitting here looking aqt preview pics of UT3, the thought occurred to me, so I followed it up. All the sci-fi shooters do the same thing. I just can't figure out why anyone would think to design armor that way.
Yesterday could have been a new first for the Senate. There was a guest chaplain in to read the opening prayer. A Hindu prayer. The first time that religion's voice had been offered that honor.
Not a monumental or amazingly special first, but a good one.
And if that was all that happened it would have been a footnote in the historical archives of a country that prides itself on religious freedom. Most likely, no one would have heard about it or thought overly much about it.
But sadly, it's not. Some dumb fucks decided to interrupt the guy just before he spoke.
"Lord Jesus, forgive us father for allowing a prayer of the wicked, which is an abomination in your sight." Continuing into "No Lord but Jesus Christ!" and "There's only one true God!" as they were taken from the senate floor.
Seriously people. Try not to be ignorant bigots. You make the rest of the Christians look bad. Most of them are good people. But idiots like you are a fucking dark mark on them.
So, Operation Save America, who drove all the way to DC from North Carolina to be dicks. They even put out a press release taking responsibility and making some very common misstatements about the Founding Fathers.
Fuck you, asshats. You fail to live up to the precepts of your religion and, at the same time, besmirch those who practice your faith. Sit down, and shut the fuck up.
Let me introduce you, loyal readers, to my latest target of rage and disgust.
Jennifer Roback Morse. PhD even. God only knows what she got her doctorate in, but it certainly couldn't have been the medical profession. I fucking hope it isn't at least.
Why has she earned her place on my list of ignoramuses?
Well, she recently penned one of the most idiotic articles I've ever seen. Once again, as loyal readers, you know that sets the bar pretty fucking high. Ok.. To be fair... top ten. Worst is pretty harsh. Still, I had difficulty even attempting to catalog all of the lies and distortions in her article on contraception and sex ed.
You see, she wants to get the government out of sex ed. By that, she means Planned Parenthood and similar groups that teach about various methods of safe sex. Not the abstinence only crowd. They should be allowed to suck the government teat.
I can accept that viewpoint. I disagree, but I accept the position. What I find reprehensibly unacceptable is lying to achieve your goals. Distorting facts to confuse people. And alluding to causation with unrelated correlation.
She's a liar, and a bad one.
For example, she uses interesting versions of statistics. Instead of the proper usage failure rates of condoms, she lists the "common usage" as though it was the norm. So, instead of the 2% failure rate of properlly used condoms, she lists the rate as 15%. 15% is the rate of failure including improperly used protection. Because the failure rate is so high, she contends that we must give up on teaching condom usage and focus on abstinence, which has a 100% success rate.
Couple problems here, beyond her woeful ignorance of course. First off, the lack of real sex ed is what leads to improperly used condoms. The real interesting usage of that stat is to say that 13% of condom failures are due to people using them in an improper manner, so education is needed to close that gap. But hey, she's a slack jawed idiot. My expectations are probably too high for her. Secondly, I bring up a argument regarding her usage of the 100% rate. Yes. She's right. It is. If you do it right. If you don't, not so much. See? Since we're including improper usage, can we get some stats on kids that failed to use abstinence protection properly? That is, how often did the people who fucked without protection get pregnant? We ARE including improper usage, right? Idiot.
But she's not done. Oh no. That sort of stupidity is just the tip of her mental juggernaut. She goes on to say that a cohabitating teenager on the pill has a 48.4% failure rate. That's amazing. Simply amazing. You'd think someone would have noticed the pill doesn't work as well for teens 'living in sin'. I mean, seriously... how do you think the pill is designed to detect that? I mean, it would have to have some sort of sensor to alter it's chemical structure in order to fail more than the .3% failure rate associated with proper usage. Because short of chemical change, usage is the key factor. If it fails that much in certain socioeconomic groups, we're not talking about a drug failure. We're talking about an education problem.
And that's what she's trying to block. Getting sex ed out of schools. Abstinence only. No funding for educational programs like Planned Parenthood that offer alternatives and medicinal advice on how to prevent parenthood and have safe sex.
Honestly, this bitch is the fucking problem she's trying to solve. I suggest suicide.
The White House has once again told Congress to pack sand. They're not going to turn over documents and are claiming executive privilege. The democrats are making some simpering little grunts about maybe doing something about it.
Know them, it'll be non-binding and pointless. Wouldn't want to accidentally serve the country if it could potentially look bad during the elections. (By the way, thanks a lot Ken Star. Your little witch hunt has made it impossible to effectively check the President's power without looking like a partisan hack)
I find it difficult to summon outrage over it. Hell, annoyance is getting harder to summon at this point.
Honestly, that bothers me a little. When something is as fucked up as this administration, I should be able to be pissed at them and remain that way until it's resolved. But they're wearing me out. That's obviously their intention.
But I find myself more and more just shrugging it off and sighing. They won't stop fucking up. No one can apparently stop them from doing it. Checks and balances are fucking broken. The people are pissed at Bush. And pissed at Congress for sitting there and not doing anything about it. Not so much as a pro forma censure.
It's hard to bring up that same level of outrage day in and day out. I guess people can get used to just about anything. Real life boiling frog syndrome.
Earlier this week, some dumb rich bitch got out of jail. Not news.
However, I admit that I did see a tiny glimmer of hope out there. MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski refused to cover the story. They gave it to her 3 times and she responded by attempting to burn it, ripping it up and shredding it. Now, it's possible this was staged.
Even if it was, it's a good thing. Not just because they showed a disdain for Paris's plight, but because they actually took a step forward and said that it was not newsworthy.
That good. But it's not enough. It's easy to brush aside the Paris Hilton and Britney Spears type of story. News has to go further. I'd say a little less than half of the stories covered on 24 hour news channels are really newsworthy. Local news is closer to a quarter.
Imagine a world where the news covered just news. Informed you of the world around you on a local and national scale. Maybe ever, dare I say, global level? Because there is certainly enough real news out there. I know rich white girls equal ratings. But that really doesn't mean the need to discussed ad nauseum.
This is a good first step I suppose. But it's just that. And if it's not followed up with the second step, it doesn't mean a thing.
Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical -- and it is not the only option before us.
Bush said that in a speech concerning his planned veto of the new stem cell research bill.
I find it interesting. Destroying life is unethical, even to save life. Interesting position. If that is his stance, how does he mesh that with the Iraq war? Even to save lives (ours or Iraqi) it would be unethical to attack because it would destroy life (Iraqi soldiers, citizens and American soldiers). Sounds like a Gandhi-style position of non-violence to me.
I suppose they didn't consider the ramification of such a broad ethical claim?
I tell you, we've got some winners in Congress. We really do. Take Rep. Bachus from Alabama's 6th district. He's smart. And wily.
Sadly, it's more like Wile E Coyote.
So, they had hearings this month on internet gambling. And of course, the dangers of children having access to such an immoral and wretched past time.
At this point, they're interviewing a guy named Radley Balko. And Bachus brings out his 'trump card'. The exchange is baffling. You can click the link in the title for the full transcript, but I'll give you the gist here.
Bachus talks about an internet gambling site and notes that they have profiles of popular players. He notes the bio of Ross Boatman. The bio indicates that Ross first learned to play cards at the age of 10 by watching his brother and friends play. They didn't let him play because he didn't have money. But he watched.
Bachus looks up from reading the bio out loud and says "I guess the verification system didn't work."
Wow. Big throw down there. Really showed those internet gambling people, didn't he? Proof that the system is flawed.
Tiny problem... Ross was born in 1965. Which means when he was 12 (1977), the internet didn't really exist. And gambling sites certainly didn't.
Seriously, that was his big finish? That a 42 year old learned to play cards when he was 12? With real cards? That's how he's going to shut the door on INTERNET GAMBLING?!?!?!
So, the guy being interviewed point that little fact out. Bachus just wondered why the bio is still on the site.
Still?? It's not like it's been up since 1977. It's a BIO. Of a player. It's going to include how that guy freaking learned to play.
Freaking hell. Stupid fucking politicians. If you don't know shit about it, you shouldn't be allowed to write up regulations for it.
Go directly to hell.
Do not pass go.
Do not collect fucking $200.
Just fucking go to hell.
Mr Wayne Albert Bleyle admitted to molesting children. Specifically, he admitted to eight counts of forcible lewd acts upon a child and four counts of exhibiting a minor in pornography.
Prosecutor Laura Gunn told a judge then that Bleyle targeted children who were "the most brain-damaged, most comatose, most nonverbal — children who could never say anything about it."
What the fuck. Seriously.
Or even better, this fucking part:
Bleyle confessed to federal agents that he molested "countless" disabled patients, the prosecutor told the court last year.
"One of the agents who interviewed him said, 'How many kids are we talking about?'" Gunn said. "The defendant, who was in New York at the time looking out at the snow, looked out at the snow and said, 'How many snowflakes are there out there?'"
He's getting 45 years in jail. That's a good start. But short of my recommended sentence of "one hour alone in a room with each of the fathers." Failing that, I recommend some ancient medieval execution. Not the nice guillotine type of thing either. Something that takes a bit of time. And hurts like a mother fucker.
I don't even know where to begin with this son of a bitch.
Sometimes... we're just too civilized to do what we need to do.
I watch the Sopranos. I missed most of the first couple seasons, but I've caught the last 3 and some of the one before that.
Good show, very quality. One of the few TV shows that I actually followed.
This was the last season. Last episode was last night. This is not news. We've all known it since last season started. This was it. The writers knew it. The audience knew it. The actors knew it. If you're trying to avoid spoilers about it, stop reading now.
Still with me?
Good. Lets move on.
All was good. This season slowly built up the tension leading toward the end. Lots of things became very tough for Tony. Money problems. Legal hurdles. Fights with the NY mob. Lots of his people got whacked. The works.
So, he finally sets some things right. Goes to sit down with his family in a local restaurant. He gets there first. Then the door opens and his wife shows. Then the door opens and it's his son. Then it cuts to his daughter parking. Badly. Finally get settled into a spot. Goes running into the restaraunt. You hear the door open, Tony looks up.
Than nothing. Black screen.
Roll the credits.
Fuck you HBO. It was an entirely unsatisfactory ending to a great show. Was it just 'life goes on'? Did Tony get killed? Was it just the daughter coming into the shop? Or did the FBI finally decide to arrest Tony?
Who knows. It's all bullshit. Fuck you producers, writers and actors for taking such a crappy end to the show. You've made mistakes with the show before, but this was the worst. If you didn't expect the entire world to hate it, you're on fucking drugs.
So, our friendly neighborhood legislators in New York have penned a new law. They introduced it, and passed it in both the state house and senate in less than a day. They have to work out a few differences between the two and then it'll go to be signed into law. Should be done before the recess at the end of the month.
The law makes it a class E felony to sell indecent, or violent games to minors. Also, it will make it illegal to sell game consoles that don't have parental controls built in (basically, new consoles only).
Amazing. Truly. And like many other lawmakers before them, they know it's unconstitutional. They admit that portions of it closely mirror prior laws that were struck down. They know precedent is against them. And they're aware that not only have those laws been struck down, the but the states that passed them have been put on the hook for the ESA's legal fees used fighting the law. Plus the cost that state will spend defending the damn thing. Hell, I bet the ESA lawyers already are on the clock racking up time on this.
The sponsor of one side even had the balls to say "We have nothing to lose by trying." So, since it's nothing, I vote the ESA receive funds directly from that guys personal bank account. I mean, since it's nothing, it shouldn't matter.
I mean, does New York have nothing better to spend money on? I vote every person that votes for the bill be impeached. Reckless disregard for the constitution. Mismanagement of state legal concerns and financial security.