I don't think I can read "part (number)" anymore except in Harry Plinkett's voice :-)
Just a quick one today, a thought for a joke...albeit a severely dated one. It's entirely possible Family Guy has already done this but a cursory internet search yielded nothing.
Imagine a cut-away joke or even just a freeze-frame joke of a Japanese band called Japanson. Get it? After the group Hanson of "Mmm-Bop" fame? If it's a visual gag, no further joke is needed...but if a cutaway, they should be singing a parody of "Mmm-Bop" I would say in the form of a rhyme and that rhyme should reference something Japanese. If I knew the language, I would supply an example. Or you could go lazy and just have them sing "Mmm-Bop" with a Japanese accent ("Nnn-Bappo"?)
DISCLAIMER:
To anyone reading this, you are welcome to not only use, but claim this
idea as your own without giving credit to me. I sometimes have ideas,
but I do not have the skills needed to express them. It is more
important to me to see these ideas done than to receive recognition for
them. That being said, giving me a mention anyway would make me giddy.
If this idea has in fact already been done, then I strongly suggest you
not actually steal it (at least not without major revisions) :-)
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Monday, May 28, 2012
MEMORIAL DAY, redux
Now that it is in fact Memorial Day, I thought I would repost an entry I had made suggesting a revamp for the holiday back in February. Click on the link to read.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
SHE GOT KRISTEN STEWART EYES
 |
| InStyle.com |
And it's not the color or her eyes...it's the way they're set in her, uh...skull(? Yeah, that sounded sexy...) that gets me. Ms. Stewart accents her eyes with a dark shadow which only draws more attention to what I'm trying (and failing) to properly refer to. It's like her eyes have this, I dunno, sadness to them and while admitting this surely will not reflect well on me, I find that appearance of sadness so very attractive. How would you describe Kristen Stewart's eyes?
Thanks to my amblings on dating sites, I think I've found a few additional examples of Ms. Stewart's eye type or additional examples showing that I don't know what I'm talking about. You decide... :-P
 |
| (click on image to enlarge) |
"Bette Davis Eyes" by Kim Carnes
Yes, I went there...
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
NCLT DO NOT A COIN MAKE...
There's this whole subset of garbage in the numismatic world pushed upon the collecting community by various world governments. They're non-circulating legal tender coins and for the purposes of this article (can I call my shitty blog entries articles?), I am not including commemorative coins so long as they are legitimately worthy of commemoration and not "gimmicky" (made of metals never used for circulating coins or oddly shaped).
Thankfully the United States actually issues only a small amount of numismatic garbage, primarily in the form of the various "Eagle" programs: the Silver American Eagle, Gold American Eagle, and Platinum American Eagle (there may be a Palladium American Eagle program too). The SAE uses Adolf Weinman's Walking Liberty design on the obverse and John Mercanti's heraldic eagle design on the reverse (why they didn't go with a redenominated original reverse is beyond me).
The Gold American Eagle uses a slightly modified Augustus St. Gauden's original obverse (Liberty's arms are thinner and there are fifty stars ringing the design rather than the 46 and 48 present on the originals) and instead of the original reverse (again, I don't know why they didn't go with it), a family of eagles is shown instead. I also don't know why for the smaller sized GAEs, that they didn't go with the other gold coin designs of the era.
There exists a companion program to the GAE problem and those are the Gold Buffalos which use the original Buffalo nickel designs with a modified reverse to include the motto "In God We Trust" which was not used on the original coin (last one in fact to not use the motto). Why this motto wasn't placed along the edge of the coin so it wouldn't interfere with the original design the legislation for this program was so intent on preserving is again, beyond me.
And finally, there's the Platinum American Eagle program which features the Statue of Liberty on the obverse which, in my opinion, would have made a suitable obverse for the State Quarter Program if Congress could get over its dead Presidents obsession. The program has a standard obverse but the proofs feature new designs each year.
The palladium series, if it ever gets off the ground will feature Weinman's other design, the Winged Liberty or "Mercury" Dime.
I have a problem with these issues being called coins. They were never intended to circulate and for me, that's Strike One against calling these glorified medallions coins. It's dishonest for the government to be issuing money that was never intended to be used in commerce. Now commemorative coins don't circulate either (there have been exceptions where unsold coins were deposited at banks), but there's a key difference: commemorative coins are made to original specifications whereas the above cited "coins" are not which brings me to Strike Two.
The second strike against these issues is their metal content. The SAEs are pure silver as are the Gold Buffalos pure gold and the PAEs pure platinum. Only the GAEs are 90% pure gold like the original pre-Gold Recall gold coins. Never has the United States issued such pure precious metal coinage. Silver coins were made with a 90% silver/10% copper alloy and platinum coins were never part of America's coinage. The American Eagle program is a bullion program, not a coin one. Instead of selling purified metals as bars with the relevant information stamped on them, they were struck as "coins" instead. In addition to their purity, they have also been released in weights that have no historical precedence. Silver dollars contained 0.7737 troy ounce of silver, not one ounce. Double eagles ($20 gold coins, the largest issued) contained 0.9677 troy ounce of gold, not one ounce.
Strike Three is their fictive denominations. The SAEs are "ONE DOLLAR". Since 1986, when they were first issued, silver has never been lower than $3.50/tr.oz. Giving them a denomination of ONE DOLLAR meant these coins not only were never intended to circulate, but that they never could circulate. Even today, with silver approaching, and sometimes over, $30/tr.oz., these "coins" are still issued with ONE DOLLAR face values. Giving them a denomination of TEN DOLLARS at the time would have been more sensible (though their "circulation era" would have ended in 2006) and would have shown that the government was issuing these bullion products in genuine good faith. I don't think the Mint should be in the business of making money which cannot circulate except at a (severe) loss to the purchaser. The ONE DOLLAR denomination is basically a guarantee by the United States that no matter what happens, that coin will be honored at face value...but it's a promise they'll never have to honor because nothing will cause silver to dip below $1/tr.oz.
The situation is even more laughable with the GAEs. The one ounce version is $50; the half ounce is $25; the quarter ounce is $10; and the tenth ounce is $5. Did you notice that? Who thought it reasonable to have four quarter ounces add up to less than one full ounce? Not to mention, like the SAEs, gold has never been low enough in the modern era to justify those denominations. Giving the one ounce "coins" a face value of $500 when the series debuted in 1986 would have been more sensible as well as spendable (right up until sometime in 2006 anyway). Secondarily, instead of the quarter-ounce GAE, they should have made it one-fifth of an ounce so that the fictive denominations would have made sense.
The PAEs have a top fictive value of $100, but I don't even care about that series because of the aforementioned reason.
The Gold Buffalos could have been better if the motto "In God We Trust" as well as the information about the metal's purity were moved to the edge of the coin and if said edge were smooth. The original Buffalo Nickel was smooth-edged, not reeded like this bullion issue. But that's politics for you. As for its face value, by the time this "coin" was proposed, gold had already surpassed $500/tr.oz. Giving it a $1000 top face value would have made sense at the time, but even that value would become obsolete in just a few years. Why the Gold Buffalos did not replace the GAE design is beyond me. More politics I suppose...
But like I've said, this is actually reasonable when compared to mints around the world which issue tons of garbage using all sorts of gimmicks like multiple metals, stupid themes, colorized coins, holograms, embedded crystals, curious shapes (like guitars - not joking)...it's ridiculous. Canada, our neighbor to the north, is a huge offender (see for yourself). Anything to gouge idiot collectors.
Despite the "legal tender status", these coins don't, and in all likelihood, can't circulate (even if you were willing to take the huge loss for having done so since you have to pay far more than the face value stated on the coin to own one of these metal disks).
Like I've said, I'm glad the United States has stayed largely out of this mess but they're guilty too. Take the annual proof sets that get issued. I don't care that there are subsets like "quarters only" and "dollar coins only": that's fine. Originally you could order proof coins individually so that's whatever to me. What bothers me is the silver proof set. In that set, those coins which were originally silver (the dime, quarter, and half-dollar), take on their pre-1965 90% silver alloy composition. These sets first were issued in 1992. To me, they're dishonest. Proof sets should reflect the actual composition of what coins are circulating, not this fantasy they're peddling. There's also the matter of "First Spouse" gold coins being issued as companions to the Presidential Dollar series. They contain a half-ounce of pure gold with a fictive value of $10. I shake my head in disappointment that this program not only exists but perpetuates the problems cited above.
World governments are gonna do what they're gonna do, it's their sovereignty. However, I think it would do the United States good to not cheapen its image by issuing garbage. Leave the garbage to those world mints lacking in prestige and worldly clout. The U.S. should be above such nonsense and could go further by correcting its current abuses such as:
Scrapping the mint set. Unless each mint is willing to provide an example of each circulation strike at face value plus postage, it should not be in the business of selling coins one is supposed to be finding in circulation. Collectors would certainly cry foul but I think it a form of cheating to get one's coins for the year this way. The joy is in the finding.
Scrapping the silver proof set for the reasons mentioned above.
Cease minting coins specifically for collectors. The primary offenders here are half dollars and dollar coins, neither of which circulate significantly. Yet each year after 2001 for both denominations, the coins have been produced for collectors. I might overlook it if the coins were made available at face value plus postage but they are sold at a premium. Coins used to have gaps in their production when they weren't needed. This practice should be allowed to continue. There's no shame in having gaps. It gives coin sets character. I would never advocate for these denominations to cease production altogether, but if they are not needed in commerce they should not be produced. Let production resume when they are needed.
Immediately terminating the First Spouse program, or at the very least, when it ends...that's the last one of that sort ever. And if it were terminated, have it come with an offer to buy back the coins either for what the collector paid or the current sale price (plus shipping), whichever is higher as an apology.
Scrap the Platinum American Eagle program since platinum was never a circulating coin metal.
Remove the face values from the Silver American Eagle and Gold American Eagle bullion pieces. Their current face values are ridiculous, never having come close to reflecting reality. Instead of fictive values, just state their bullion content. I really can't believe having a guaranteed nonsense value on them is what really makes the difference and if it for some reason does, then change the law so that they can't sell for more than face value plus postage. That way, a reasonable value will be assigned to them.
Stop letting the U.S. Mint sell marginally related products. There should not be teddy bears with Sacagawea dollars mounted on (in?) them for sale. There shouldn't be "birth year" sets. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing should be selling nothing except sheets of uncut currency. Such sheets seem to be the BEP's equivalent of a proof set. Everything else is garbage...drop it. These institutions should be dignified and I don't see how offering overpriced toys and other gimmicky shit helps preserve that dignity. Selling overpriced shit to the idiot populace is something I associate with museum gift shops, bodegas, and souvenir stands...not the institutions charged with making the most secure money on the planet.
Thankfully the United States actually issues only a small amount of numismatic garbage, primarily in the form of the various "Eagle" programs: the Silver American Eagle, Gold American Eagle, and Platinum American Eagle (there may be a Palladium American Eagle program too). The SAE uses Adolf Weinman's Walking Liberty design on the obverse and John Mercanti's heraldic eagle design on the reverse (why they didn't go with a redenominated original reverse is beyond me).
.JPG) |
| original Walking Liberty obverse (left), original WL reverse (center), and SAE reverse (right) |
 |
| original St. Gaudens obverse (left), original St. Gaudens reverse (center), and GAE reverse (right) |
And finally, there's the Platinum American Eagle program which features the Statue of Liberty on the obverse which, in my opinion, would have made a suitable obverse for the State Quarter Program if Congress could get over its dead Presidents obsession. The program has a standard obverse but the proofs feature new designs each year.
The palladium series, if it ever gets off the ground will feature Weinman's other design, the Winged Liberty or "Mercury" Dime.
I have a problem with these issues being called coins. They were never intended to circulate and for me, that's Strike One against calling these glorified medallions coins. It's dishonest for the government to be issuing money that was never intended to be used in commerce. Now commemorative coins don't circulate either (there have been exceptions where unsold coins were deposited at banks), but there's a key difference: commemorative coins are made to original specifications whereas the above cited "coins" are not which brings me to Strike Two.
The second strike against these issues is their metal content. The SAEs are pure silver as are the Gold Buffalos pure gold and the PAEs pure platinum. Only the GAEs are 90% pure gold like the original pre-Gold Recall gold coins. Never has the United States issued such pure precious metal coinage. Silver coins were made with a 90% silver/10% copper alloy and platinum coins were never part of America's coinage. The American Eagle program is a bullion program, not a coin one. Instead of selling purified metals as bars with the relevant information stamped on them, they were struck as "coins" instead. In addition to their purity, they have also been released in weights that have no historical precedence. Silver dollars contained 0.7737 troy ounce of silver, not one ounce. Double eagles ($20 gold coins, the largest issued) contained 0.9677 troy ounce of gold, not one ounce.
Strike Three is their fictive denominations. The SAEs are "ONE DOLLAR". Since 1986, when they were first issued, silver has never been lower than $3.50/tr.oz. Giving them a denomination of ONE DOLLAR meant these coins not only were never intended to circulate, but that they never could circulate. Even today, with silver approaching, and sometimes over, $30/tr.oz., these "coins" are still issued with ONE DOLLAR face values. Giving them a denomination of TEN DOLLARS at the time would have been more sensible (though their "circulation era" would have ended in 2006) and would have shown that the government was issuing these bullion products in genuine good faith. I don't think the Mint should be in the business of making money which cannot circulate except at a (severe) loss to the purchaser. The ONE DOLLAR denomination is basically a guarantee by the United States that no matter what happens, that coin will be honored at face value...but it's a promise they'll never have to honor because nothing will cause silver to dip below $1/tr.oz.
The situation is even more laughable with the GAEs. The one ounce version is $50; the half ounce is $25; the quarter ounce is $10; and the tenth ounce is $5. Did you notice that? Who thought it reasonable to have four quarter ounces add up to less than one full ounce? Not to mention, like the SAEs, gold has never been low enough in the modern era to justify those denominations. Giving the one ounce "coins" a face value of $500 when the series debuted in 1986 would have been more sensible as well as spendable (right up until sometime in 2006 anyway). Secondarily, instead of the quarter-ounce GAE, they should have made it one-fifth of an ounce so that the fictive denominations would have made sense.
The PAEs have a top fictive value of $100, but I don't even care about that series because of the aforementioned reason.
The Gold Buffalos could have been better if the motto "In God We Trust" as well as the information about the metal's purity were moved to the edge of the coin and if said edge were smooth. The original Buffalo Nickel was smooth-edged, not reeded like this bullion issue. But that's politics for you. As for its face value, by the time this "coin" was proposed, gold had already surpassed $500/tr.oz. Giving it a $1000 top face value would have made sense at the time, but even that value would become obsolete in just a few years. Why the Gold Buffalos did not replace the GAE design is beyond me. More politics I suppose...
 |
| Buffalo nickel obverse (left), Buffalo nickel reverse (center), and Gold Buffalo reverse (right) |
But like I've said, this is actually reasonable when compared to mints around the world which issue tons of garbage using all sorts of gimmicks like multiple metals, stupid themes, colorized coins, holograms, embedded crystals, curious shapes (like guitars - not joking)...it's ridiculous. Canada, our neighbor to the north, is a huge offender (see for yourself). Anything to gouge idiot collectors.
Despite the "legal tender status", these coins don't, and in all likelihood, can't circulate (even if you were willing to take the huge loss for having done so since you have to pay far more than the face value stated on the coin to own one of these metal disks).
Like I've said, I'm glad the United States has stayed largely out of this mess but they're guilty too. Take the annual proof sets that get issued. I don't care that there are subsets like "quarters only" and "dollar coins only": that's fine. Originally you could order proof coins individually so that's whatever to me. What bothers me is the silver proof set. In that set, those coins which were originally silver (the dime, quarter, and half-dollar), take on their pre-1965 90% silver alloy composition. These sets first were issued in 1992. To me, they're dishonest. Proof sets should reflect the actual composition of what coins are circulating, not this fantasy they're peddling. There's also the matter of "First Spouse" gold coins being issued as companions to the Presidential Dollar series. They contain a half-ounce of pure gold with a fictive value of $10. I shake my head in disappointment that this program not only exists but perpetuates the problems cited above.
World governments are gonna do what they're gonna do, it's their sovereignty. However, I think it would do the United States good to not cheapen its image by issuing garbage. Leave the garbage to those world mints lacking in prestige and worldly clout. The U.S. should be above such nonsense and could go further by correcting its current abuses such as:
Scrapping the mint set. Unless each mint is willing to provide an example of each circulation strike at face value plus postage, it should not be in the business of selling coins one is supposed to be finding in circulation. Collectors would certainly cry foul but I think it a form of cheating to get one's coins for the year this way. The joy is in the finding.
Scrapping the silver proof set for the reasons mentioned above.
Cease minting coins specifically for collectors. The primary offenders here are half dollars and dollar coins, neither of which circulate significantly. Yet each year after 2001 for both denominations, the coins have been produced for collectors. I might overlook it if the coins were made available at face value plus postage but they are sold at a premium. Coins used to have gaps in their production when they weren't needed. This practice should be allowed to continue. There's no shame in having gaps. It gives coin sets character. I would never advocate for these denominations to cease production altogether, but if they are not needed in commerce they should not be produced. Let production resume when they are needed.
Immediately terminating the First Spouse program, or at the very least, when it ends...that's the last one of that sort ever. And if it were terminated, have it come with an offer to buy back the coins either for what the collector paid or the current sale price (plus shipping), whichever is higher as an apology.
Scrap the Platinum American Eagle program since platinum was never a circulating coin metal.
Remove the face values from the Silver American Eagle and Gold American Eagle bullion pieces. Their current face values are ridiculous, never having come close to reflecting reality. Instead of fictive values, just state their bullion content. I really can't believe having a guaranteed nonsense value on them is what really makes the difference and if it for some reason does, then change the law so that they can't sell for more than face value plus postage. That way, a reasonable value will be assigned to them.
Stop letting the U.S. Mint sell marginally related products. There should not be teddy bears with Sacagawea dollars mounted on (in?) them for sale. There shouldn't be "birth year" sets. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing should be selling nothing except sheets of uncut currency. Such sheets seem to be the BEP's equivalent of a proof set. Everything else is garbage...drop it. These institutions should be dignified and I don't see how offering overpriced toys and other gimmicky shit helps preserve that dignity. Selling overpriced shit to the idiot populace is something I associate with museum gift shops, bodegas, and souvenir stands...not the institutions charged with making the most secure money on the planet.
STEAL THIS IDEA! part II
This is an idea for television and, to a lesser extent, movies. I don't know if it would be possible to do given the various unions involved but what I would want to see is a television show where another story is going on surreptitiously in the background.
These background characters would never have any lines. It would be a totally mimed story which the camera work of the show never draws attention to. Admittedly this idea would probably have worked better in a pre-internet television series because, let's face it, the internet is full of assholes who like spoiling everything and nobody knows how to respectfully keep their mouths shut while the show is unfolding.
This is a simple example, suitable for a sitcom, which commonly features scenes in a public environment. Such stories could either be planned to play out over the course of a series or new stories could be done seasonally.
A couple has an entire relationship in the background culminating in marriage. It could start with a non-descript man visible, but not obviously so, in the background with a different woman peas and carroting each week for a couple of episodes. But then, the same woman is shown with the same man over the course of the remaining episodes. Again, nothing which draws the attention. You couldn't show him giving her a gift, but a gift could be present on the table. You couldn't show his proposal, but you could have her ring glint in the lighting. If you keep their "storyline" going, she could be seen visibly pregnant in later episodes and later still, with a baby or two. A similar version could be with an old couple. After a while, one disappears and later still, the other one disappears too alluding to the obvious. Perhaps they were longtime customers and a photo of them on the wall could appear.
The key point to all this is subtlety. If at any point, it is obvious to the viewer that they are being made to see something, you're doing it wrong. What these background characters are doing can't trump the action of the characters whom the show is based on. It would probably help if these mime-stories don't take place each episode so as not to be too obvious. The stories themselves would have to be simple and decipherable by mere visual cues and/or through heavy use of symbolism (e.g. floral arrangements since most flowers have certain implications associated with them).
DISCLAIMER: To anyone reading this, you are welcome to not only use, but claim this idea as your own without giving credit to me. I sometimes have ideas, but I do not have the skills needed to express them. It is more important to me to see these ideas done than to receive recognition for them. That being said, giving me a mention anyway would make me giddy. If this idea has in fact already been done, then I strongly suggest you not actually steal it (at least not without major revisions) :-)
These background characters would never have any lines. It would be a totally mimed story which the camera work of the show never draws attention to. Admittedly this idea would probably have worked better in a pre-internet television series because, let's face it, the internet is full of assholes who like spoiling everything and nobody knows how to respectfully keep their mouths shut while the show is unfolding.
This is a simple example, suitable for a sitcom, which commonly features scenes in a public environment. Such stories could either be planned to play out over the course of a series or new stories could be done seasonally.
A couple has an entire relationship in the background culminating in marriage. It could start with a non-descript man visible, but not obviously so, in the background with a different woman peas and carroting each week for a couple of episodes. But then, the same woman is shown with the same man over the course of the remaining episodes. Again, nothing which draws the attention. You couldn't show him giving her a gift, but a gift could be present on the table. You couldn't show his proposal, but you could have her ring glint in the lighting. If you keep their "storyline" going, she could be seen visibly pregnant in later episodes and later still, with a baby or two. A similar version could be with an old couple. After a while, one disappears and later still, the other one disappears too alluding to the obvious. Perhaps they were longtime customers and a photo of them on the wall could appear.
The key point to all this is subtlety. If at any point, it is obvious to the viewer that they are being made to see something, you're doing it wrong. What these background characters are doing can't trump the action of the characters whom the show is based on. It would probably help if these mime-stories don't take place each episode so as not to be too obvious. The stories themselves would have to be simple and decipherable by mere visual cues and/or through heavy use of symbolism (e.g. floral arrangements since most flowers have certain implications associated with them).
DISCLAIMER: To anyone reading this, you are welcome to not only use, but claim this idea as your own without giving credit to me. I sometimes have ideas, but I do not have the skills needed to express them. It is more important to me to see these ideas done than to receive recognition for them. That being said, giving me a mention anyway would make me giddy. If this idea has in fact already been done, then I strongly suggest you not actually steal it (at least not without major revisions) :-)
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
POLITICAL INTERFERENCE
As far as I am concerned, both liberals and conservatives are anti-science. The only differences are which sciences they soundly reject. Both sides are dangerously undereducated in the scientific method*.
Conservatives are notorious for being anti-science, most notably for their denial of evolution (despite over 150 years of research and corroboration from nearly EVERY scientific discipline [including but not limited to organic chemistry, geology, plate tectonics, paleobiology, ecology, genetics, etc.] it is still supposed "just a theory" which, of course, doubles as a reminder that evolution deniers are woefully uneducated in the scientific method as it shows a profound ignorance of the meaning of the term "theory"), their denial of climate change/global warming (never minding ACTUAL evidence of rising sea levels, rising CO2 levels, average global temperature increases, etc. Sure, the sun is getting hotter as it ages. Yes, the Earth has gone through hotter periods than today as well as colder. Sea levels used to be much higher. But it seems to be happening awful fast lately to pass off as one of those things and of course, to use such countermanding claims requires you to accept things that religious dogmas tend to categorically deny like the age of the Earth, acceptance of the accuracy of radiometric dating, etc.), the need for environmental stewardship (because why bother when you either believe the world is going to end with the current generation or that God gave us the Earth to do with as we please), their beliefs that homosexuality is a choice (because, well, this is hardly scientific, but why would anyone WANT to be homosexual given the way they are viewed/treated throughout the world? Yeah, that makes sense. I mean, I might accept the idea of it being a mental disorder or a genetic mutation of sorts but then that would require an acceptance of biological evolution so my original non-scientific idea stands), and human behavior (e.g. the need for sex education/contraception because again, to believe otherwise would require you to accept that you are both the product of and subject to, hundreds of millions of years of sexual evolution that is really not possible to overcome absent some sort of anomaly. Seriously, I'd love to believe abstinence could be enough, but just because logically it is the only way to 100% prevent a pregnancy does not mean it is reasonable to expect such behavior from meat machines designed to make other meat machines). I think because conservative anti-science is so much more "obvious" and a sign of a lack of more basic education in the sciences, that it leads liberals who are traditionally more educated, to view themselves as superior to conservatives and to be blinded to their own kinds of anti-science.
Liberal anti-science comes to my attention primarily from celebrities who tend to be notoriously liberal (as well as stupid). Prime examples are the anti-vaccination crowd (never mind the 200+ years of evidence that vaccinations are WAY more beneficial than harmful...eradication of smallpox anyone?...and that, while yes, a few people suffer ill effects from vaccines, it is truly a case of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" so fuck you and your philosophical/religious objections to modern medicine. I say your kid either gets vaccinated with a dead virus or quarantined [at your expense] and exposed to the live ones. Let him get his immunity the natural way...assuming he survives. Don't even get me started on the indescribably retarded people who have linked vaccines to autism and continue to do so despite the original study being PROVEN as fraud. These assholes are damning us all with their ignorance. Vaccines are victims of their success because there's really no longer any living memory of the "classic diseases" and how people would actually lose friends and family to them but with the exception of smallpox, dangerous diseases like polio, measles, mumps, pertussis, and hepatitis are still around and still killing. But no, I have to do my OWN research because I don't find hundreds of years of evidence showing the safety and efficacy of vaccines convincing - you sound like the anti-global warming crowd and people who believe in "chemtrails". You honestly believe your pennyweight of doubt will balance out the tons of evidence?), the anti-GMO crowd (yes, Monsanto is practically the epitome of corporate evil, but this idea that genetically modifying an organism is somehow bad for us humans or for the environment is idiotic seeing as how all our staple crops are examples of genetic modification through selective breeding and/or hybridization. It's been going on for some time [dog breeds anyone? Mules? grapefruit?]. The only difference is now we know how inheritance works and can take it a step further and in far less time. Hypocrisy aside, you have scientists doing wonderful things like making rice produce vitamin A for countries whose diets are low in that vitamin and involve a lot of rice, improving the health of untold millions of people. Just because Monsanto does some pretty stupid shit doesn't invalidate the science behind genetic modification), the belief that reality is subjective rather than objective (Probably the most ridiculous and arrogant belief of all. Just because you believe something does not make it so. Our brains are designed to approximate reality, not perceive it, and the brain will lie to you - need proof? Check out ANY optical illusion. If your brains were windows to truth, you would not be fooled. So yeah, your perception of reality outweighs the entire fucking universe. Your personal "truth" supercedes all. Of course it does...), the alternative medicine crowd (because yeah, hundreds of years of medical research is totally invalidating by your non-degree-holding ass. You of course know better than generations of scientists who have spent their lives studying human health at levels you could not even begin to understand), the "natural is always better" fallacy (I wonder when it changed? When did we go from celebrating advancements in things like agriculture, technology, and chemistry to shunning them?), human behavior (brought to you by the people who believed that we are born as blank slates...that our minds are solely the products of the society in which we were raised again denying decades of research showing that there really were biological bases for male and female behaviors), and the germaphobes (These immensely ignorant people are damning us all by permitting the creation of vastly superior bacteria capable of doing us harm and are possibly behind the rise in allergies in the population) --- just to name a few.
* Not claiming that I have been properly educated
Conservatives are notorious for being anti-science, most notably for their denial of evolution (despite over 150 years of research and corroboration from nearly EVERY scientific discipline [including but not limited to organic chemistry, geology, plate tectonics, paleobiology, ecology, genetics, etc.] it is still supposed "just a theory" which, of course, doubles as a reminder that evolution deniers are woefully uneducated in the scientific method as it shows a profound ignorance of the meaning of the term "theory"), their denial of climate change/global warming (never minding ACTUAL evidence of rising sea levels, rising CO2 levels, average global temperature increases, etc. Sure, the sun is getting hotter as it ages. Yes, the Earth has gone through hotter periods than today as well as colder. Sea levels used to be much higher. But it seems to be happening awful fast lately to pass off as one of those things and of course, to use such countermanding claims requires you to accept things that religious dogmas tend to categorically deny like the age of the Earth, acceptance of the accuracy of radiometric dating, etc.), the need for environmental stewardship (because why bother when you either believe the world is going to end with the current generation or that God gave us the Earth to do with as we please), their beliefs that homosexuality is a choice (because, well, this is hardly scientific, but why would anyone WANT to be homosexual given the way they are viewed/treated throughout the world? Yeah, that makes sense. I mean, I might accept the idea of it being a mental disorder or a genetic mutation of sorts but then that would require an acceptance of biological evolution so my original non-scientific idea stands), and human behavior (e.g. the need for sex education/contraception because again, to believe otherwise would require you to accept that you are both the product of and subject to, hundreds of millions of years of sexual evolution that is really not possible to overcome absent some sort of anomaly. Seriously, I'd love to believe abstinence could be enough, but just because logically it is the only way to 100% prevent a pregnancy does not mean it is reasonable to expect such behavior from meat machines designed to make other meat machines). I think because conservative anti-science is so much more "obvious" and a sign of a lack of more basic education in the sciences, that it leads liberals who are traditionally more educated, to view themselves as superior to conservatives and to be blinded to their own kinds of anti-science.
Liberal anti-science comes to my attention primarily from celebrities who tend to be notoriously liberal (as well as stupid). Prime examples are the anti-vaccination crowd (never mind the 200+ years of evidence that vaccinations are WAY more beneficial than harmful...eradication of smallpox anyone?...and that, while yes, a few people suffer ill effects from vaccines, it is truly a case of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" so fuck you and your philosophical/religious objections to modern medicine. I say your kid either gets vaccinated with a dead virus or quarantined [at your expense] and exposed to the live ones. Let him get his immunity the natural way...assuming he survives. Don't even get me started on the indescribably retarded people who have linked vaccines to autism and continue to do so despite the original study being PROVEN as fraud. These assholes are damning us all with their ignorance. Vaccines are victims of their success because there's really no longer any living memory of the "classic diseases" and how people would actually lose friends and family to them but with the exception of smallpox, dangerous diseases like polio, measles, mumps, pertussis, and hepatitis are still around and still killing. But no, I have to do my OWN research because I don't find hundreds of years of evidence showing the safety and efficacy of vaccines convincing - you sound like the anti-global warming crowd and people who believe in "chemtrails". You honestly believe your pennyweight of doubt will balance out the tons of evidence?), the anti-GMO crowd (yes, Monsanto is practically the epitome of corporate evil, but this idea that genetically modifying an organism is somehow bad for us humans or for the environment is idiotic seeing as how all our staple crops are examples of genetic modification through selective breeding and/or hybridization. It's been going on for some time [dog breeds anyone? Mules? grapefruit?]. The only difference is now we know how inheritance works and can take it a step further and in far less time. Hypocrisy aside, you have scientists doing wonderful things like making rice produce vitamin A for countries whose diets are low in that vitamin and involve a lot of rice, improving the health of untold millions of people. Just because Monsanto does some pretty stupid shit doesn't invalidate the science behind genetic modification), the belief that reality is subjective rather than objective (Probably the most ridiculous and arrogant belief of all. Just because you believe something does not make it so. Our brains are designed to approximate reality, not perceive it, and the brain will lie to you - need proof? Check out ANY optical illusion. If your brains were windows to truth, you would not be fooled. So yeah, your perception of reality outweighs the entire fucking universe. Your personal "truth" supercedes all. Of course it does...), the alternative medicine crowd (because yeah, hundreds of years of medical research is totally invalidating by your non-degree-holding ass. You of course know better than generations of scientists who have spent their lives studying human health at levels you could not even begin to understand), the "natural is always better" fallacy (I wonder when it changed? When did we go from celebrating advancements in things like agriculture, technology, and chemistry to shunning them?), human behavior (brought to you by the people who believed that we are born as blank slates...that our minds are solely the products of the society in which we were raised again denying decades of research showing that there really were biological bases for male and female behaviors), and the germaphobes (These immensely ignorant people are damning us all by permitting the creation of vastly superior bacteria capable of doing us harm and are possibly behind the rise in allergies in the population) --- just to name a few.
I have no actual point to make with this post so let's just say, ideology and science do not mix.
Ideology is just as happy to use science as it is to suppress it when doing so suits its needs.
* Not claiming that I have been properly educated
I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN HERE...
J. Michael Straczynski, the creator and principle author of Babylon 5, has this theme he revisits: characters who are cryptic. The most famous of these are the alien species, the Vorlons, known mostly to audiences through their ambassador to the Babylon station, Kosh. He was one of those characters spouting seemingly nonsensical lines which were more often than not laden with hidden meanings (there's a whole page dedicated to these sayings). He, at times, would come across as dismissive to those speaking to him...but he had his reasons for doing this.
Kosh, being a member of an ancient race of aliens, knew their (even more) ancient enemy, the Shadows, were coming out of hiding and that it was important to begin preparations for the inevitable war which would begin once the Shadows had reassembled their fleets. The thing is, the Vorlons just couldn't come right out and say this fact nor could the Vorlons openly reveal who and what they were lest the Shadows get wind of it and begin the war before anyone opposing them could be ready. The modus operandi of the Vorlons is that of secrecy. Next to nothing is known of their species, their way of life, their government...even what they really look like since they insist on appearing in public wearing an "encounter suit". The only thing known definitively about them is that the ships they pilot are alive.
I like how their actions gave a sense of importance to what they were doing. Yes, it was arrogant of them...but it was also necessary. I would love to find out that I was actually important and mattered in the grand scheme of things.
Another character, introduced in "A Call to Arms" and then as a regular character in the legacy series "Crusade" was the technomage Galen. Technomages were a group of people who used their advanced technologies, in addition to furthering their own purposes, to simulate the effects of magic. After all, it was Arthur C. Clarke who said that, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" and the technomages used that Law to great effect.
But like the Vorlons, the technomages too, were secretive. They left known space before the Shadow War had begun for reasons which were their own and hesitated to return. It was Galen who first returned and without permission from his Order when he discovered that the Drakh, the primary servitors of the Shadows, in the name of revenge, had found a Planet Killer the Shadows had left behind and were intending to use it, in a grand display, to wipe out all life on Earth. But Galen could not simply tell the people he needed to tell about this impending doom otherwise the Drakh would launch their attack now instead of when planned, when Earth would be wholly defenseless against such an onslaught. He had to be cryptic and careful in an effort not to alert the Drakh's spies.
The point I'm getting to with all this is that I've found their secretiveness to parallel what I go through on at least a weekly basis. Yes, it is very arguable that both Kosh and Galen are simply being dicks because why not just be frank about it? And there really are occasions when you, as an audience member, feel they know full well they are toying with those whom they are speaking and enjoying every moment of it. (best example)
What I'm saying is, there are a lot of things that go on in my that I obviously need to talk about...but I can't tell you what they are. There's something about me needing to know you're capable of figuring it out. I can't just lead you by the hand to the problem because then I have no faith in your ability to solve it or help me work through it. But if you can figure it out...if you understand...then I am more prone to relaxing my defenses and letting you in and more importantly, accepting what it is you will tell me.
A simple example is most often the simplest, almost daily, problem I face: I need human contact...literally. Touch. Ideally from women, but really...all kinds. I've been left alone; isolated, for too long. But I can't ask. To beg for it or even to simply feel as though I am begging for it...no mater how much it is actually needed, simply ruins anything brought about from such begging. It needs to be either sincere or I need to believe that it was sincere. The trouble is, most people do not understand this need, probably because they have never had to go without for any extended period of time, but I can attest to you...touching is needed to feel human; to feel like one belongs...it is so very necessary. Going years without it or having it only anomalously is corrosive to the soul. It wears you down as it is not a singular longing but a pervasive one so it's not a hurt like you would feel from falling or getting pricked or even suffering a public humiliation. No, it's more like erosion.
Touching and inclusiveness are the roots and moisture holding the soil of the soul in place. Without them, it all just blows away...some parts faster than others, but it is a steady loss that a healthy individual can withstand either because they are still strong and can replace that soil themselves or are capable of finding support when they need it to halt any further erosion. But I've gone a long time. I'm like the soils of Iceland. When the Vikings first arrived, they saw a fertile-looking land much like the Scandanavia they had left behind and treated the land as such not realizing that the fertility of the soils they had found was the product not of years, but of centuries and as such, those soils and lands were easily depleted...the fallout of which Iceland is still dealing with centuries later1.
Occasionally, like Kosh and Galen, I've attempted to recruit people unwittingly to serve my goals...hoping they'd figure it out. I haven't succeeded in such endeavors. RedMom tried, I'll admit, with Digby...a lot of people I worked with did, but then I was open about recruiting allies as an experiment against previous crushes which I had attempted to succeed largely, if not entirely, on my own. But like letting the cat out of the bag to the Shadows, it had only caused me to fail faster than ever before...
Triangulating is another method I'm fond of. This is where I tell one person something directly knowing full-well they now cannot not help me themselves. I'm sacrificing them (so to speak) using the idea that now they know something they can use against my Mind (though not themselves). I hope they will find the right person to give this information to behind my back while not simultaneously giving away that they had done so (at least not until after it's too late for such damning information to have any effect)...but it never happens. The Drakh succeed, and Earth is destroyed.
Even when I had been to therapists, they annoyed the shit out of me by dismissing my desire to talk about my made-up worlds, language, and alphabet. Looking back on it all, I see a goldmine of useful information which could have come from discussions of how my language's grammar worked and what kind of governments and religions did I envision for these worlds? So much could have been learned and insights into the way I think gleaned...albeit roundaboutly...I'm sure of it...but it would never be and my disdain for therapists is only furthered when listening to my other friends who have had therapists themselves, describe their experiences. Without even getting into it, does anyone else see the irony of a person who feels he has no one to talk to creating a language from scratch? Talk about a cry for help, but no...it wasn't important.
So, I don't know, I guess if you see me...make sure you give me a hug and associated normal kinds of touching and make sure I do the same for you...just don't mention you had read this article. Keep it between "us" ;-)
1 Information on Iceland was paraphrased from things I had learned from reading the book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond
Kosh, being a member of an ancient race of aliens, knew their (even more) ancient enemy, the Shadows, were coming out of hiding and that it was important to begin preparations for the inevitable war which would begin once the Shadows had reassembled their fleets. The thing is, the Vorlons just couldn't come right out and say this fact nor could the Vorlons openly reveal who and what they were lest the Shadows get wind of it and begin the war before anyone opposing them could be ready. The modus operandi of the Vorlons is that of secrecy. Next to nothing is known of their species, their way of life, their government...even what they really look like since they insist on appearing in public wearing an "encounter suit". The only thing known definitively about them is that the ships they pilot are alive.
I like how their actions gave a sense of importance to what they were doing. Yes, it was arrogant of them...but it was also necessary. I would love to find out that I was actually important and mattered in the grand scheme of things.
Another character, introduced in "A Call to Arms" and then as a regular character in the legacy series "Crusade" was the technomage Galen. Technomages were a group of people who used their advanced technologies, in addition to furthering their own purposes, to simulate the effects of magic. After all, it was Arthur C. Clarke who said that, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" and the technomages used that Law to great effect.
But like the Vorlons, the technomages too, were secretive. They left known space before the Shadow War had begun for reasons which were their own and hesitated to return. It was Galen who first returned and without permission from his Order when he discovered that the Drakh, the primary servitors of the Shadows, in the name of revenge, had found a Planet Killer the Shadows had left behind and were intending to use it, in a grand display, to wipe out all life on Earth. But Galen could not simply tell the people he needed to tell about this impending doom otherwise the Drakh would launch their attack now instead of when planned, when Earth would be wholly defenseless against such an onslaught. He had to be cryptic and careful in an effort not to alert the Drakh's spies.
The point I'm getting to with all this is that I've found their secretiveness to parallel what I go through on at least a weekly basis. Yes, it is very arguable that both Kosh and Galen are simply being dicks because why not just be frank about it? And there really are occasions when you, as an audience member, feel they know full well they are toying with those whom they are speaking and enjoying every moment of it. (best example)
What I'm saying is, there are a lot of things that go on in my that I obviously need to talk about...but I can't tell you what they are. There's something about me needing to know you're capable of figuring it out. I can't just lead you by the hand to the problem because then I have no faith in your ability to solve it or help me work through it. But if you can figure it out...if you understand...then I am more prone to relaxing my defenses and letting you in and more importantly, accepting what it is you will tell me.
A simple example is most often the simplest, almost daily, problem I face: I need human contact...literally. Touch. Ideally from women, but really...all kinds. I've been left alone; isolated, for too long. But I can't ask. To beg for it or even to simply feel as though I am begging for it...no mater how much it is actually needed, simply ruins anything brought about from such begging. It needs to be either sincere or I need to believe that it was sincere. The trouble is, most people do not understand this need, probably because they have never had to go without for any extended period of time, but I can attest to you...touching is needed to feel human; to feel like one belongs...it is so very necessary. Going years without it or having it only anomalously is corrosive to the soul. It wears you down as it is not a singular longing but a pervasive one so it's not a hurt like you would feel from falling or getting pricked or even suffering a public humiliation. No, it's more like erosion.
Touching and inclusiveness are the roots and moisture holding the soil of the soul in place. Without them, it all just blows away...some parts faster than others, but it is a steady loss that a healthy individual can withstand either because they are still strong and can replace that soil themselves or are capable of finding support when they need it to halt any further erosion. But I've gone a long time. I'm like the soils of Iceland. When the Vikings first arrived, they saw a fertile-looking land much like the Scandanavia they had left behind and treated the land as such not realizing that the fertility of the soils they had found was the product not of years, but of centuries and as such, those soils and lands were easily depleted...the fallout of which Iceland is still dealing with centuries later1.
Occasionally, like Kosh and Galen, I've attempted to recruit people unwittingly to serve my goals...hoping they'd figure it out. I haven't succeeded in such endeavors. RedMom tried, I'll admit, with Digby...a lot of people I worked with did, but then I was open about recruiting allies as an experiment against previous crushes which I had attempted to succeed largely, if not entirely, on my own. But like letting the cat out of the bag to the Shadows, it had only caused me to fail faster than ever before...
Triangulating is another method I'm fond of. This is where I tell one person something directly knowing full-well they now cannot not help me themselves. I'm sacrificing them (so to speak) using the idea that now they know something they can use against my Mind (though not themselves). I hope they will find the right person to give this information to behind my back while not simultaneously giving away that they had done so (at least not until after it's too late for such damning information to have any effect)...but it never happens. The Drakh succeed, and Earth is destroyed.
Even when I had been to therapists, they annoyed the shit out of me by dismissing my desire to talk about my made-up worlds, language, and alphabet. Looking back on it all, I see a goldmine of useful information which could have come from discussions of how my language's grammar worked and what kind of governments and religions did I envision for these worlds? So much could have been learned and insights into the way I think gleaned...albeit roundaboutly...I'm sure of it...but it would never be and my disdain for therapists is only furthered when listening to my other friends who have had therapists themselves, describe their experiences. Without even getting into it, does anyone else see the irony of a person who feels he has no one to talk to creating a language from scratch? Talk about a cry for help, but no...it wasn't important.
So, I don't know, I guess if you see me...make sure you give me a hug and associated normal kinds of touching and make sure I do the same for you...just don't mention you had read this article. Keep it between "us" ;-)
1 Information on Iceland was paraphrased from things I had learned from reading the book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond
Thursday, May 10, 2012
DATING SITE MATH
I only have two "equations" so far, but then that's what the addendum tag is for.
The first one is straight up math: Pi ∝ Rd
DEFINITION: the interest a profile generates is directly proportional to the reader's distance from said profile.
That happens way more often than can be explained by mere chance.
The second one is more difficult but here goes: ∵ Di = ∅, P(R|M) = 1
DEFINITION: because intent to date is an empty set, the probability of getting a reply to one's message equals 100%
In other words, if the purpose of your message to a woman is merely to compliment her on an aspect of her profile and not actually an attempt to seek a date, you can be assured of a 100% reply rate (e.g. I thought a recently viewed headline on PoF "My heart's not a d!ck so don't play with it" was funny, but the kind of guy she was looking for was clearly not me. Nevertheless I wanted her to know that her headline made me laugh).
That type of reply dominates those I have received over the past nine months of my attempting to date online. How very disheartening...
The first one is straight up math: Pi ∝ Rd
DEFINITION: the interest a profile generates is directly proportional to the reader's distance from said profile.
That happens way more often than can be explained by mere chance.
The second one is more difficult but here goes: ∵ Di = ∅, P(R|M) = 1
DEFINITION: because intent to date is an empty set, the probability of getting a reply to one's message equals 100%
In other words, if the purpose of your message to a woman is merely to compliment her on an aspect of her profile and not actually an attempt to seek a date, you can be assured of a 100% reply rate (e.g. I thought a recently viewed headline on PoF "My heart's not a d!ck so don't play with it" was funny, but the kind of guy she was looking for was clearly not me. Nevertheless I wanted her to know that her headline made me laugh).
That type of reply dominates those I have received over the past nine months of my attempting to date online. How very disheartening...
THOUGHTS I NORMALLY KEEP IN MY HEAD, part XIII
One thing about this gay marriage debate that catches my attention is this notion that "Hey! If you oppose gay marriage, you might miss out on a hot lesbian couple moving in next door!" and I'm left wondering, just what is the supposed appeal of lesbians to straight men? Because it is most certainly straight men that this idea is being marketed to.
The Top 4 sexual-orientation possibilities are heterosexual male, heterosexual female, homosexual male, and homosexual female. Of those four, how do you order them in, uh...let's call it "evolutionary terms"?
For me, it's heterosexual women, homosexual men, heterosexual men, and homosexual women. The reasoning is simple.
I am attracted to women. I want to have sex with them, marry one, start a family with one, etc. They're the top of the pecking order for those reasons.
Homosexual men take second place for the simple fact that they are not my competition. They can be perfectly ignored or used as allies in securing a woman for me since, stereotypically, gay men have a kind of understood alliance with straight women. I don't understand why that is but that ignorance will not stop me from exploiting it when possible. Homosexual men are neutral players in this Game of Life.
Heterosexual men take third place because, while I can get along with them, they ultimately represent competition. We share a goal and even if that goal is not with the same girl, that underlying tension is always present, especially for me...a weak player in the Game of Life.
Homosexual women are the bottom of the pile for me. They float higher to the top if other attributes are allowed (e.g. English-speaking: non English-speaking women are viewed by my Mind as a "waste of material"). Because I am attracted to women, lesbians represent a kind of affront to my Mind. The absolute certainty that a lesbian will not be attracted to me makes her, at best, a guaranteed waste of my time (whereas the 99.999% chance that a straight woman I'm attracted to will not be attracted to me makes her, at best, merely an assuredly certain waste of my time). And when they are attractive, it's like the equivalent of becoming attracted to a married woman or one who doesn't speak English...a frustrating waste of attraction.
So tell me again, what exactly is the joy of watching lesbians "in action"? It's the worst kind of cocktease. Actually, that's not fair. Lesbians can't be cockteases because they never wanted the cock in the first place.
The Top 4 sexual-orientation possibilities are heterosexual male, heterosexual female, homosexual male, and homosexual female. Of those four, how do you order them in, uh...let's call it "evolutionary terms"?
For me, it's heterosexual women, homosexual men, heterosexual men, and homosexual women. The reasoning is simple.
I am attracted to women. I want to have sex with them, marry one, start a family with one, etc. They're the top of the pecking order for those reasons.
Homosexual men take second place for the simple fact that they are not my competition. They can be perfectly ignored or used as allies in securing a woman for me since, stereotypically, gay men have a kind of understood alliance with straight women. I don't understand why that is but that ignorance will not stop me from exploiting it when possible. Homosexual men are neutral players in this Game of Life.
Heterosexual men take third place because, while I can get along with them, they ultimately represent competition. We share a goal and even if that goal is not with the same girl, that underlying tension is always present, especially for me...a weak player in the Game of Life.
Homosexual women are the bottom of the pile for me. They float higher to the top if other attributes are allowed (e.g. English-speaking: non English-speaking women are viewed by my Mind as a "waste of material"). Because I am attracted to women, lesbians represent a kind of affront to my Mind. The absolute certainty that a lesbian will not be attracted to me makes her, at best, a guaranteed waste of my time (whereas the 99.999% chance that a straight woman I'm attracted to will not be attracted to me makes her, at best, merely an assuredly certain waste of my time). And when they are attractive, it's like the equivalent of becoming attracted to a married woman or one who doesn't speak English...a frustrating waste of attraction.
So tell me again, what exactly is the joy of watching lesbians "in action"? It's the worst kind of cocktease. Actually, that's not fair. Lesbians can't be cockteases because they never wanted the cock in the first place.
:-P
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
STEAL THIS IDEA!
I think I've built up enough of these to start a new entry series. Y'see, in addition to not being an author, I am also not a writer...or at least not a good one (as this blog no doubt attests). However, this doesn't stop these strange, and what I would hope to be good, ideas from popping into to my head on occasion. I would love to see these ideas developed, but lacking talent of my own to do so, I must rely on the good peoples of the internet to do it for me.
Here's how it works. I present to you, my dear reader(s), an idea I think worthy of a story or at least worth including in a story be that story traditional literature, a movie, or television series (hell, even a play, who am I to give a fuck?). What you do is, upon approving of its meritoriousness, you fucking steal it...run with it...make it your own. Take the credit too, I don't give a shit (although let's face it, getting a mention in your finished project would be just peachy). I just want to know this idea exists outside my limited mind.
Seeing as how I recently railed against horror films, I thought my first entry should relate to them.
Start the film in the middle of the action. Bypass all that shit in the beginning where we spend twenty minutes with jerks and deal with the happy times before the killer/monster/force of evil strikes.
Jump right into the thick of it, like after the first couple of kills. Have a cast which is already aware that something bad is happening and have the audience figure out, through clues in the narrative structure and/or scenery, just what is going on. Do not provide the solutions for what is going on through clumsy dialogue exchanges between surviving characters. They're running for their lives, not trying to solve a mystery. The mystery element is there for those audience members who didn't necessarily come just to see teenagers getting murdered in impractically fantastic ways. I'm looking for a "have your cake and eat it too" type film that will lend itself to rewatch because you, the curious viewer, are determined to figure out the killer's raison d'être, what these kids actually did to provoke his/her/its ire, and how it was the Final Girl was able to stop him/her/it despite the utter failures of her other, now dead, friends.
Doing this will require a lot of planning and storyboarding before you actually begin shooting the film, but I think it is something worth doing because at some level, I am a fan of giving the audience homework. Wait on the actual answer for at least a year...let the message boards hash it out first...see if anyone can put it all together first. Done right, even the actors and actresses in the film need not know the mystery behind it.
It's an idea that's been attempted before in the Babylon 5 legacy series, Crusade. While ultimately TNT forced J. Michael Straczynski to make an alternate pilot, the episode intended to be the first one survives. It was meant to thrust the audience into the thick of things and have them figure it out and it not only works, but is a solid concept. I've been entranced by the idea ever since and would like see it done.
DISCLAIMER: To anyone reading this, you are welcome to not only use, but claim this idea as your own without giving credit to me. I sometimes have ideas, but I do not have the skills needed to express them. It is more important to me to see these ideas done than to receive recognition for them. That being said, giving me a mention anyway would make me giddy. If this idea has in fact already been done, then I strongly suggest you not actually steal it (at least not without major revisions) :-)
Here's how it works. I present to you, my dear reader(s), an idea I think worthy of a story or at least worth including in a story be that story traditional literature, a movie, or television series (hell, even a play, who am I to give a fuck?). What you do is, upon approving of its meritoriousness, you fucking steal it...run with it...make it your own. Take the credit too, I don't give a shit (although let's face it, getting a mention in your finished project would be just peachy). I just want to know this idea exists outside my limited mind.
Seeing as how I recently railed against horror films, I thought my first entry should relate to them.
Start the film in the middle of the action. Bypass all that shit in the beginning where we spend twenty minutes with jerks and deal with the happy times before the killer/monster/force of evil strikes.
Jump right into the thick of it, like after the first couple of kills. Have a cast which is already aware that something bad is happening and have the audience figure out, through clues in the narrative structure and/or scenery, just what is going on. Do not provide the solutions for what is going on through clumsy dialogue exchanges between surviving characters. They're running for their lives, not trying to solve a mystery. The mystery element is there for those audience members who didn't necessarily come just to see teenagers getting murdered in impractically fantastic ways. I'm looking for a "have your cake and eat it too" type film that will lend itself to rewatch because you, the curious viewer, are determined to figure out the killer's raison d'être, what these kids actually did to provoke his/her/its ire, and how it was the Final Girl was able to stop him/her/it despite the utter failures of her other, now dead, friends.
Doing this will require a lot of planning and storyboarding before you actually begin shooting the film, but I think it is something worth doing because at some level, I am a fan of giving the audience homework. Wait on the actual answer for at least a year...let the message boards hash it out first...see if anyone can put it all together first. Done right, even the actors and actresses in the film need not know the mystery behind it.
It's an idea that's been attempted before in the Babylon 5 legacy series, Crusade. While ultimately TNT forced J. Michael Straczynski to make an alternate pilot, the episode intended to be the first one survives. It was meant to thrust the audience into the thick of things and have them figure it out and it not only works, but is a solid concept. I've been entranced by the idea ever since and would like see it done.
DISCLAIMER: To anyone reading this, you are welcome to not only use, but claim this idea as your own without giving credit to me. I sometimes have ideas, but I do not have the skills needed to express them. It is more important to me to see these ideas done than to receive recognition for them. That being said, giving me a mention anyway would make me giddy. If this idea has in fact already been done, then I strongly suggest you not actually steal it (at least not without major revisions) :-)
LIBERAL TRIAGE
I just want to state for the record that I actually don't care about what these girls have done nor do I have any personal opposition to it because I'm really not one to stand in the way of other people's fun provided it synchronizes with the general dictum: "Your freedom to swing your arm ends where the other fellow's nose begins." That having been said, I like the moral conundrum it puts upon liberals...
Not too long ago, the New York Times ran an article about Muslim girls in Hamtramck, Michigan and their desire to have a prom of their own "...which conforms to religious beliefs forbidding dating, dancing with boys or appearing without a head scarf in front of males." Now while I personally feel it is customs such as these that have been hampering strict Muslims around the world from properly assimilating into their adopted lands (and pretty much any overbearing religion...I don't need to pick on Muslims here seeing as how ultra-Orthodox Jews, the Amish, and probably Mormons and Scientologists too, would also qualify), that's not what I found so amusing about this all-girls prom.
For me, the prom posed a lose-lose scenario for liberals who praise diversity and denounce bigotry and sexism and such among their many other stances. I mean, as a liberal, can one really support this all-girl prom being held? It wasn't being paid for by the school, but through fund-raising on the girls' parts, so I don't want to hear that it was a private affair arguments otherwise why don't liberals in general denounce others for protesting the practices of the Boy Scouts who find homosexuality to be contrary to the principles they espouse? Why would they clamor for women's rights in countries under Islamic or Shariah Law when those laws clearly permit such heinous practices?
On the surface, the prom is openly sexist: no boys allowed. Don't tell me because it's girls-only that it's okay especially with the annual brouhaha over Augusta National's policy on not permitting women to join their organization (among other things). If it's wrong for a golf club to forbid women members for no other reason than they are women, then how is it right to permit a prom which forbids participation from men for no other reason than they are men?
But if you oppose these girls having their prom due to its sexist nature, you are then effectively preventing them from expressing themselves in the name of their religion which goes against the liberal creed of espousing diversity. It amuses me because there really is no answer which does not produce hypocrisy. I love it.
It's liberal triage. What do you do? I guess if it were me, I would have to oppose the prom on the grounds that women's rights would supercede religious rights seeing as how being a woman is not a choice whereas being a Muslim (or Christian or Jew or Hindu or Shintoist or Atheist or etc.) is.
Not too long ago, the New York Times ran an article about Muslim girls in Hamtramck, Michigan and their desire to have a prom of their own "...which conforms to religious beliefs forbidding dating, dancing with boys or appearing without a head scarf in front of males." Now while I personally feel it is customs such as these that have been hampering strict Muslims around the world from properly assimilating into their adopted lands (and pretty much any overbearing religion...I don't need to pick on Muslims here seeing as how ultra-Orthodox Jews, the Amish, and probably Mormons and Scientologists too, would also qualify), that's not what I found so amusing about this all-girls prom.
For me, the prom posed a lose-lose scenario for liberals who praise diversity and denounce bigotry and sexism and such among their many other stances. I mean, as a liberal, can one really support this all-girl prom being held? It wasn't being paid for by the school, but through fund-raising on the girls' parts, so I don't want to hear that it was a private affair arguments otherwise why don't liberals in general denounce others for protesting the practices of the Boy Scouts who find homosexuality to be contrary to the principles they espouse? Why would they clamor for women's rights in countries under Islamic or Shariah Law when those laws clearly permit such heinous practices?
On the surface, the prom is openly sexist: no boys allowed. Don't tell me because it's girls-only that it's okay especially with the annual brouhaha over Augusta National's policy on not permitting women to join their organization (among other things). If it's wrong for a golf club to forbid women members for no other reason than they are women, then how is it right to permit a prom which forbids participation from men for no other reason than they are men?
But if you oppose these girls having their prom due to its sexist nature, you are then effectively preventing them from expressing themselves in the name of their religion which goes against the liberal creed of espousing diversity. It amuses me because there really is no answer which does not produce hypocrisy. I love it.
It's liberal triage. What do you do? I guess if it were me, I would have to oppose the prom on the grounds that women's rights would supercede religious rights seeing as how being a woman is not a choice whereas being a Muslim (or Christian or Jew or Hindu or Shintoist or Atheist or etc.) is.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
VIDEO GAMES AND LIFE
Of all the things that video games get blamed for when it comes to supposedly ruining young minds, there is one feature of these games that goes overlooked and yet it is this feature which gets filtered deeply into our subconsciousness, lingering there...festering...and poised to create a feeling of utter damnation once its trap has been sprung.
Now I'm talking classic games like Super Mario Bros., Megaman, and Castlevania. They all had something in common besides scorekeeping. You got three chances. If you died, you got to start the stage over and try again. You alone retain the experience of the failure; the environment you're respawned in completely forgives you. The enemies, tricks, and/or traps which had, just moments ago, caused your downfall are all reset with no memory of your previous attempt. You're allowed another attempt at success and may do so while not in fear of judgement.
It should come as no surprise that life is in no way like this. You fail and you have to live with it. Not only are you denied that which you had attempted to acquire/master/etc. but you have to make do with it and everyone who witnessed your failure will continue to remember it. You do not get to try again. You stay the way you are and how much older you've become over the course of the failed attempt. There's no second chance to get it right. No chance to figure out what you were supposed to do, what you did wrong, what you should have said or done... In fact, it doesn't matter if you figure it all out because it's too late...it's over...you lose.
I hate seeing how all the mistakes I've made have compounded and there's nothing I can ever do about it because there's no redo. I have to live with them. I have to live with my wasted youth and adolescence. It's all gone...
Now I'm talking classic games like Super Mario Bros., Megaman, and Castlevania. They all had something in common besides scorekeeping. You got three chances. If you died, you got to start the stage over and try again. You alone retain the experience of the failure; the environment you're respawned in completely forgives you. The enemies, tricks, and/or traps which had, just moments ago, caused your downfall are all reset with no memory of your previous attempt. You're allowed another attempt at success and may do so while not in fear of judgement.
It should come as no surprise that life is in no way like this. You fail and you have to live with it. Not only are you denied that which you had attempted to acquire/master/etc. but you have to make do with it and everyone who witnessed your failure will continue to remember it. You do not get to try again. You stay the way you are and how much older you've become over the course of the failed attempt. There's no second chance to get it right. No chance to figure out what you were supposed to do, what you did wrong, what you should have said or done... In fact, it doesn't matter if you figure it all out because it's too late...it's over...you lose.
I hate seeing how all the mistakes I've made have compounded and there's nothing I can ever do about it because there's no redo. I have to live with them. I have to live with my wasted youth and adolescence. It's all gone...
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
I HATE HORROR FILMS
I just don't like horror films. All too often they are poorly written, badly acted, too dark (absence of light too dark, not the other kind), too predictable, obviously low-budget, and (among other things) lacking in compelling characters. And they're not scary. A quick cut-away or sudden loud noise does not scary make. "It's not actually talented filmmaking if you can get the same effect from popping a bag of potato chips behind somebody's head."
And for those assholes out there who would counter me with, (mocking tone) "Well, then why you don't you make a horror film then?" You're a fucking idiot. You don't have to be a filmmaker, an actor, a writer, a grip, a director, a producer, etc. to criticize a work. I couldn't play "You May Be Right" if my life depended on it, but I would know immediately if you missed a note, lyric, or sang off-key and I can't do either of those things either so such challenges to criticism are meaningless.
And for those assholes out there who would counter me with, (mocking tone) "Well, then why you don't you make a horror film then?" You're a fucking idiot. You don't have to be a filmmaker, an actor, a writer, a grip, a director, a producer, etc. to criticize a work. I couldn't play "You May Be Right" if my life depended on it, but I would know immediately if you missed a note, lyric, or sang off-key and I can't do either of those things either so such challenges to criticism are meaningless.