Yes, this Saturday is the debut of Mega Python vs. Gatoroid on SyFy. Oh yes.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
GOP to push for D.C. gay marriage ban
Ok, this kind of thing just pisses me off. The Hill is reporting that "Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC), told The Hill that he will push for a vote on the controversial issue in the 112th Congress." /sigh. IT'S ABOUT FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY YOU IDIOTS! NOT YOUR OUTDATED SOCIAL AND MORALITY CRAP. I think it's the height of hypocrisy to claim you're in favor of smaller government but then turn around and start telling people what they can and can't do in their personal lives. I'm already disappointed with Jim DeMint, and was hoping that there would be enough of a libertarian streak in the tea party to counteract this sort of thing. But who knows? At the least it'll be interesting to see what happens. Will libertarians get turned off by the endless moralizing of the religious right and go back to voting democrat? I know that I'm a fairly hardcore libertarian and I don't think I'll ever vote democrat again. But libertarians do tend to be a fickle bunch. The problem is that the democratic party has moved so far to the left that they basically are socialists at this point. Personally I'd like to see them, along with all liberals, marginalized to the point of extinction. We'd be left with a debate between the more libertarian among us and the so-cons, at which point we'd trump them with the constitution. So how about putting your money where your mouth is and respecting that document, eh? Leave the issue of marriage to the states and get the federal government out of it. (Of course I'm aware that congress has the constitutional authority to legislate over D.C.; I'm really speaking of the issue of gay marriage in general, which I'll get to in the next paragraph.) This isn't the time for this debate though. There are far more pressing issues.
As a side note, I would personally like to see the government out of marriage entirely. I do understand where the so-cons are coming from though. It looks like the liberals are trying to use the issue of gay marriage to muscle their way into being able to tell churches what to do. And I'm not in favor of that, especially when I know it won't be applied evenly. Catholics who don't want to acknowledge gay marriage are homophobic bigots and must be forced to change. Muslims who don't want to acknowledge gay marriage are simply protecting their rights to religious freedom and if you're against that then you're an Islamaphobic bigot. However, from the other side, it looks like the so-cons are trying to have it both ways. Marriage is defined as both a religious rite as well as a legal contract. I think this is wrong too. If we really want to solve the gay marriage debate, I am in favor of separating the religious and legal definitions of marriage entirely. Everyone, straight or gay, would get a civil union for legal purposes as a contract between two consenting adults. Churches, then, would be free to choose for themselves if they wish to acknowledge gay marriage. Some will, and some won't. People who don't like gays are free to belong to churches that don't, and gays and people who don't care are free to belong to churches that do.
As a side note, I would personally like to see the government out of marriage entirely. I do understand where the so-cons are coming from though. It looks like the liberals are trying to use the issue of gay marriage to muscle their way into being able to tell churches what to do. And I'm not in favor of that, especially when I know it won't be applied evenly. Catholics who don't want to acknowledge gay marriage are homophobic bigots and must be forced to change. Muslims who don't want to acknowledge gay marriage are simply protecting their rights to religious freedom and if you're against that then you're an Islamaphobic bigot. However, from the other side, it looks like the so-cons are trying to have it both ways. Marriage is defined as both a religious rite as well as a legal contract. I think this is wrong too. If we really want to solve the gay marriage debate, I am in favor of separating the religious and legal definitions of marriage entirely. Everyone, straight or gay, would get a civil union for legal purposes as a contract between two consenting adults. Churches, then, would be free to choose for themselves if they wish to acknowledge gay marriage. Some will, and some won't. People who don't like gays are free to belong to churches that don't, and gays and people who don't care are free to belong to churches that do.
State of the Union
And tonight's the state of the union address. Yawn. The pundits are asking what should he say, what should he say, oh what should he say? But it's meaningless. Everything he says, so long as he's on script, is completely meaningless. I'm far more interested in listening to what Paul Ryan's got to say in his response. Michele Bachmann . . . well, she shore is purdy, but I think we can do without it.
Let's see. In other news, the AP is reporting that Government Motors has a chance of overtaking Toyota in worldwide sales. Well, considering massive government funding and an all out assault on Toyota from congress and the media last year that's not too surprising. Now, it's true that Toyota's US sales slightly declined from last year, (and, again, considering the amount of bad press against them, not too surprising) but their worldwide sales were up 18.7% and their worldwide revenues were up 17.8%. In the first two quarters of FY2011 Toyota's net revenue for automotive operations were a little over 100 billion (after converting to dollars, the actual number is 8,863.6 billion yen) while GM revenues for the same two quarters were 62.2 billion. GM, in the meantime, is investing 540 million into opening an engine plant in Mexico. So make sure you look for that union label.
The global warming alarmists continue to marginalize themselves with headlines that look like they could have been ripped form the Onion. Was Ginghis Khan history's greenest conqueror? That would, of course, make republicans worse than Genghis Khan (we already know they're worse than Hitler) for slashing Nancy Pelosi's "Green the Capitol" program.
Let's see. In other news, the AP is reporting that Government Motors has a chance of overtaking Toyota in worldwide sales. Well, considering massive government funding and an all out assault on Toyota from congress and the media last year that's not too surprising. Now, it's true that Toyota's US sales slightly declined from last year, (and, again, considering the amount of bad press against them, not too surprising) but their worldwide sales were up 18.7% and their worldwide revenues were up 17.8%. In the first two quarters of FY2011 Toyota's net revenue for automotive operations were a little over 100 billion (after converting to dollars, the actual number is 8,863.6 billion yen) while GM revenues for the same two quarters were 62.2 billion. GM, in the meantime, is investing 540 million into opening an engine plant in Mexico. So make sure you look for that union label.
The global warming alarmists continue to marginalize themselves with headlines that look like they could have been ripped form the Onion. Was Ginghis Khan history's greenest conqueror? That would, of course, make republicans worse than Genghis Khan (we already know they're worse than Hitler) for slashing Nancy Pelosi's "Green the Capitol" program.
House review: "Carrot or Stick"
The theme of this week's episode is, as evident from the title, punishment and reinforcement. Discipline. The case of the week is a Marine drill instructor running a camp for troubled youths who collapses while running them through an obstacle course. Medical mystery ensues, heightened when one of the youths, the one he rides the hardest, is admitted to the hospital with identical symptoms. As such, the case of the week is, once again, rather boring, and the main mystery is in figuring out how the two cases are related. And they are related, because the Marine is really the kid's long-lost father. I guess they made him black as a red herring?
Mostly, however, the drill instructor is there to prompt the House vs. Someone on the Team ethical dilemma of the week. This week it's the annoying new girl who is at this point rivaling Cameron for the most annoying House character ever. At least Cameron used to be interesting before she became such a bleeding heart whiner. This girl, well, not so much. So they have to squeeze as much annoying out of her before the return of Thirteen, whenever she comes back. So, Annoying Girl thinks that the drill instructor is a big bully. She attempts to connect with the kid by bleeding her heart onto him, and he tries to steal her car. Natch.
House isn't quite as gloaty as last week, however, because he has his own concerns. Cuddy wants her daughter to get into a nice preschool and House, like the audience, knows that poor Rachel is as dumb as dirt. So he begins his own training regime in line with the theme of the episode with some old fashioned behavioral conditioning to teach her the toys she'll be playing with when she "auditions" for the preschool. I guess we're supposed to be appalled that he's using a dog training device on her, but for House this was pretty tame. And it's not that he cares about the kid, it's that he doesn't want to console Cuddy when Rachel gets rejected. Because House is so emotionally stunted he can't (or more likely won't, due do his being such a steadfast ideologue) admit that he cares about anyone. And in the end, he's not so much impressed with the fact that Rachel is able to wow the preschool as he is that she's able to lie so easily about her training to Cuddy. So already, the full machinations of House's cancerous and cynical personality are at work on her young mind. And he's so proud of himself.
The "other" plot of the week, since last week centered around Taub and his impending divorce, involves Chase and a "revealing" picture of him that some mysterious person posted onto his social networking page. He figures out that it happened the night of the wedding reception when he had a foursome and tracks down the girls one by one. You see, actions have consequences. That's the point of discipline. That's the lesson of the week, children. You have to take responsibility for what you do, and having a foursome is clearly a bad thing that will bite you in the ass and humiliate you in front of everyone. Eventually. So it turns out that the person who took the picture is one of the girls' sister, or something, and she's doing it because Chase talked to her at the bar and wasn't interested after she said she doesn't fuck on the first date. And clearly this is reason to punish him by hacking his account and locking him out of it, posting a nude and doctored picture of him, advertising his love for large women, and using his credit card to make a 2,500 dollar donation. Because he wasn't interested in her at the wedding reception. After talking for only a few minutes. And what is Chase's response to this overt act of flagrant psycho bitch syndrome? Well, he asks her on a date, of course. I don't know . . . were we supposed to think she was clever? That Chase's punishment was justified? The guy just had a good time with some no-strings fun and no one got hurt. I have a feeling this plot line isn't over yet. To great detriment, I'm afraid.
One thing that really bugged me, and it always bugs me, is at the end the psycho bitch uses "negative reinforcement" wrong. She means punishment. Negative reinforcement is when you remove something negative, and serves as a reward to increase the likelihood of a behavior. Punishment is causing something bad, to decrease the likelihood of a behavior. I would expect the writers of House, since it is a medical show and all, to know the difference. But no, they fall into the trap of using a phrase that sounds like it's a fancy way of saying punishment. It's not. The only person allowed to make that mistake is Peter Venkman.
Mostly, however, the drill instructor is there to prompt the House vs. Someone on the Team ethical dilemma of the week. This week it's the annoying new girl who is at this point rivaling Cameron for the most annoying House character ever. At least Cameron used to be interesting before she became such a bleeding heart whiner. This girl, well, not so much. So they have to squeeze as much annoying out of her before the return of Thirteen, whenever she comes back. So, Annoying Girl thinks that the drill instructor is a big bully. She attempts to connect with the kid by bleeding her heart onto him, and he tries to steal her car. Natch.
House isn't quite as gloaty as last week, however, because he has his own concerns. Cuddy wants her daughter to get into a nice preschool and House, like the audience, knows that poor Rachel is as dumb as dirt. So he begins his own training regime in line with the theme of the episode with some old fashioned behavioral conditioning to teach her the toys she'll be playing with when she "auditions" for the preschool. I guess we're supposed to be appalled that he's using a dog training device on her, but for House this was pretty tame. And it's not that he cares about the kid, it's that he doesn't want to console Cuddy when Rachel gets rejected. Because House is so emotionally stunted he can't (or more likely won't, due do his being such a steadfast ideologue) admit that he cares about anyone. And in the end, he's not so much impressed with the fact that Rachel is able to wow the preschool as he is that she's able to lie so easily about her training to Cuddy. So already, the full machinations of House's cancerous and cynical personality are at work on her young mind. And he's so proud of himself.
The "other" plot of the week, since last week centered around Taub and his impending divorce, involves Chase and a "revealing" picture of him that some mysterious person posted onto his social networking page. He figures out that it happened the night of the wedding reception when he had a foursome and tracks down the girls one by one. You see, actions have consequences. That's the point of discipline. That's the lesson of the week, children. You have to take responsibility for what you do, and having a foursome is clearly a bad thing that will bite you in the ass and humiliate you in front of everyone. Eventually. So it turns out that the person who took the picture is one of the girls' sister, or something, and she's doing it because Chase talked to her at the bar and wasn't interested after she said she doesn't fuck on the first date. And clearly this is reason to punish him by hacking his account and locking him out of it, posting a nude and doctored picture of him, advertising his love for large women, and using his credit card to make a 2,500 dollar donation. Because he wasn't interested in her at the wedding reception. After talking for only a few minutes. And what is Chase's response to this overt act of flagrant psycho bitch syndrome? Well, he asks her on a date, of course. I don't know . . . were we supposed to think she was clever? That Chase's punishment was justified? The guy just had a good time with some no-strings fun and no one got hurt. I have a feeling this plot line isn't over yet. To great detriment, I'm afraid.
One thing that really bugged me, and it always bugs me, is at the end the psycho bitch uses "negative reinforcement" wrong. She means punishment. Negative reinforcement is when you remove something negative, and serves as a reward to increase the likelihood of a behavior. Punishment is causing something bad, to decrease the likelihood of a behavior. I would expect the writers of House, since it is a medical show and all, to know the difference. But no, they fall into the trap of using a phrase that sounds like it's a fancy way of saying punishment. It's not. The only person allowed to make that mistake is Peter Venkman.
Monday, January 24, 2011
speaking of villainous simians
speaking of villainous simians, this video's been making the rounds:
And of course it would be remiss of me not to bring up this one, which happens to be one of my favorite songs. Enjoy every sandwich.
Monkey Grodd
When you're this good it's probably more than luck, despite the macaque's name.
So I find myself wondering about the famous simian villains that may have served as inspiration to our prison-break primate. Of course we have the famous Flash villain Gorilla Grodd. Grodd uses mind control, and may explain why Lucky was able to get past his prison guard so easily. The cleaner just happened to "allow" him to escape while cleaning his cage? Hmmmm?
We have Mojo Jojo of the Powerpuff Girls, a genius simian with an enlarged brain. I'm not sure about him . . . so far Lucky seems to eschew the more elaborate plans involving giant robots and prefers the far simpler approach of simply biting people during his reigns of terror.
And of course there's Hollywood's favorite giant gorilla monster in King Kong, who caused a lot of destruction but ultimately he was just misunderstood. He wasn't an evil genius at all and I'm not sure why he's even on this list. I guess mindless destruction has its good points as well, though, and I wish Lucky all the best.
So I find myself wondering about the famous simian villains that may have served as inspiration to our prison-break primate. Of course we have the famous Flash villain Gorilla Grodd. Grodd uses mind control, and may explain why Lucky was able to get past his prison guard so easily. The cleaner just happened to "allow" him to escape while cleaning his cage? Hmmmm?
We have Mojo Jojo of the Powerpuff Girls, a genius simian with an enlarged brain. I'm not sure about him . . . so far Lucky seems to eschew the more elaborate plans involving giant robots and prefers the far simpler approach of simply biting people during his reigns of terror.
And of course there's Hollywood's favorite giant gorilla monster in King Kong, who caused a lot of destruction but ultimately he was just misunderstood. He wasn't an evil genius at all and I'm not sure why he's even on this list. I guess mindless destruction has its good points as well, though, and I wish Lucky all the best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)