Recently, Hilary Clinton compared herself to Rocky Balboa, like so:
Obama responded Wednesday to Clinton's comparison of herself a day earlier to Rocky Balboa, the underdog boxer from Philadelphia in the 1976 film. She said "when it comes to finishing a fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit. I never give up."
I mean, EVERYONE remembers Rocky.. right?
So, how did Obama respond?
Obama told the union meeting: "We all love Rocky. But we've got to remember, Rocky was a movie."
NO, NO, NO!
Obama, you blew it!
Everyone knows what the proper answer would have been:
Obama told the union meeting: "We all love Rocky. But we've got to remember - Rocky fought hard, but he lost"
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Monday, March 31, 2008
"No woman wants this!"
Resting up in my hotel room in Watertown, SD and watching some sick Law and Order offspring show.. I think it's "Special Victims Unit". This show in particular involves a woman who was a murder victim.. the only clip of the show I could bear watching without vomiting involved a female cop grilling a male suspect accused of murdering a woman.
In the scene in question, the female cop shows the male suspect pictures of the bruised and battered victim; he claims that this was the result of consensual violent sex, and she shrieks out "No woman wants this!"
Excuse me, fancy Hollywood Writer, who are you to say? I can say with absolute certainty that I've known several woman who have wanted WORSE than this, and the last thing I need is some ignorant character spouting such generic and needlessly hateful rhetoric just because you have an agenda to push or standards to meet up with.
For all of you who think I'm needlessly overreacting, consider this -- imagine the outrage if a TV show dimissed an actual case of domestic violence as "that's okay, he/she wanted this!".. as did the first Ann Landers column.
Seriously. The things locked away in the back of the human mind in terms of sexual impulses are far more complicated than simply saying "only men want this / no woman wants this!" And labelling anything kinky / violent / perturbing as something "only men want" and "something that no woman wants!" is a flagrant insult to both men and women.
To top this off, the next segment involves some worthless polygraph test being analysed and cleanly beaten by the suspect who is apparenly the murderer. But lo and behold! the polygraph analyst is smart enough to know when the person is cleanly "beating the test".
For the record, polygraph tests are not "lie detector" tests. Do you know why they aren't "lie detector tests?" Because they don't detect lies. They detect physiological responses in a way that the "polygraph tester" can simply interpret to get the results he wants in advance.
Hell, put the writers back on strike if this is the kind of crap that they're coming up with.
In the scene in question, the female cop shows the male suspect pictures of the bruised and battered victim; he claims that this was the result of consensual violent sex, and she shrieks out "No woman wants this!"
Excuse me, fancy Hollywood Writer, who are you to say? I can say with absolute certainty that I've known several woman who have wanted WORSE than this, and the last thing I need is some ignorant character spouting such generic and needlessly hateful rhetoric just because you have an agenda to push or standards to meet up with.
For all of you who think I'm needlessly overreacting, consider this -- imagine the outrage if a TV show dimissed an actual case of domestic violence as "that's okay, he/she wanted this!".. as did the first Ann Landers column.
Seriously. The things locked away in the back of the human mind in terms of sexual impulses are far more complicated than simply saying "only men want this / no woman wants this!" And labelling anything kinky / violent / perturbing as something "only men want" and "something that no woman wants!" is a flagrant insult to both men and women.
To top this off, the next segment involves some worthless polygraph test being analysed and cleanly beaten by the suspect who is apparenly the murderer. But lo and behold! the polygraph analyst is smart enough to know when the person is cleanly "beating the test".
For the record, polygraph tests are not "lie detector" tests. Do you know why they aren't "lie detector tests?" Because they don't detect lies. They detect physiological responses in a way that the "polygraph tester" can simply interpret to get the results he wants in advance.
Hell, put the writers back on strike if this is the kind of crap that they're coming up with.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Watching "The Price Is Right" in Fargo, ND.
Yes, the road trip has started with enthusiasm. Besides doing my work on the road, there's lots of other treats ahead. TNA Wrestling live in Spencer, Iowa and Lincoln, Nebraska. A couple nights in a nice suite on a Native casino resort. Some time in Boise visiting friends. Really and truly, the stuff that dreams are made of!
For now, though, it's a Comfort Inn in Fargo, ND. I've been looking for a souvenir woodchipper, but no luck so far. So, reclined in the inn, it's time to turn on the tube
It's interesting watching The Price Is Right with Drew Carey. You might wonder what a strapping manly-man might be doing watching such a blue-hair's show, but there's really two primary reasons:
#1> I like game shows, and especially "Everyman" gameshows such as TPIR, Wheel of Fortune etc. -- mostly because watching the contestants on them tend to make me feel very smart and dignified by comparison.
#2> I used to watch this show with my late grandfather, Dick Davies, and it's interesting to see how so little of the show's mechanics have changed over the years, most importantly including the ever-popular "You lose!" brass solo.
(The following will assume you are familiar with the show's mechanics, so if it looks like part gibberish, forgive me.)
Nevertheless, it's amazing to see how the "contestant's row" portion of the show is so stacked against the player who has to go first, simply because placing a bid $1 above another person's bid will guarantee that the other person will have, essentially, no chance of winning, so if the first person's bid looks halfway plausible, one of the other players -- usually the last one! -- will wind up bidding $1 more than it. I'm so convinced that the advantage is this so strong, the first player should bid $1 and hope the second person bids plausibly, the third bids leaving enough room and the fourth person bids $1 over the third. You really, really want the second player to win if you can't -- because the new contestant will come into that spot and have to bid first next time, meaning you will bid last on the next round.
Incidentally, I saw a young blond woman rather pompously wearing a shirt that said "I don't need luck". She was bidding last, the highest bid was $899, and she bid $950. I guess she doesn't need luck because even luck wouldn't help her.
For now, though, it's a Comfort Inn in Fargo, ND. I've been looking for a souvenir woodchipper, but no luck so far. So, reclined in the inn, it's time to turn on the tube
It's interesting watching The Price Is Right with Drew Carey. You might wonder what a strapping manly-man might be doing watching such a blue-hair's show, but there's really two primary reasons:
#1> I like game shows, and especially "Everyman" gameshows such as TPIR, Wheel of Fortune etc. -- mostly because watching the contestants on them tend to make me feel very smart and dignified by comparison.
#2> I used to watch this show with my late grandfather, Dick Davies, and it's interesting to see how so little of the show's mechanics have changed over the years, most importantly including the ever-popular "You lose!" brass solo.
(The following will assume you are familiar with the show's mechanics, so if it looks like part gibberish, forgive me.)
Nevertheless, it's amazing to see how the "contestant's row" portion of the show is so stacked against the player who has to go first, simply because placing a bid $1 above another person's bid will guarantee that the other person will have, essentially, no chance of winning, so if the first person's bid looks halfway plausible, one of the other players -- usually the last one! -- will wind up bidding $1 more than it. I'm so convinced that the advantage is this so strong, the first player should bid $1 and hope the second person bids plausibly, the third bids leaving enough room and the fourth person bids $1 over the third. You really, really want the second player to win if you can't -- because the new contestant will come into that spot and have to bid first next time, meaning you will bid last on the next round.
Incidentally, I saw a young blond woman rather pompously wearing a shirt that said "I don't need luck". She was bidding last, the highest bid was $899, and she bid $950. I guess she doesn't need luck because even luck wouldn't help her.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Happy Birthday, Katie
Near the end of March, 2005, a friend of mine called me up and gave me grief for not calling her on her birthday. My professing that "I don't know what your birthday is!" meant nothing to her, and on the spot, I put an entry in my Outlook calendar to remind me on March 24th, 2006 to wish Katie Pettengill a happy birthday.
Although she passed away suddenly before I'd have a chance to show her I was good to my word, it naturally seemed like the right thing to do on that day to just take a few minutes and remember a good friend, and so, it became a bit of a tradition for me to do so on March 24th. There are far worse ways to start a day, after all.
For those who hadn't heard, I met Katie through my Magic: the Gathering articles I wrote for Brainburst years ago. I had asked my readers to summarize me and my mannerisms in a Magic card in the gazillion-to-one chance I ever won the Invitational (and the winner would appear in a card, you see).
Egocentric Canadian
2UU, 0/2
Creature-Megalomaniac
2U, Tap: Say the longest word you know. If no opponent knows what that word means, you may pay (1) to bitch-slap that player.
The picture provided has unfortunately been lost to time, but it was priceless. Painstakingly drawn in MS Paint, it featured a man in a Team Canada hockey jersey, standing on an actual factual "SOAPBOX", standing in front of a math chalkboard full of equations, and holding a pointer to the bottom right corner which stated, plainly, "= I'M RIGHT!"
Even this early on, I could see that she had a keen eye for detail and appreciated my wit enough to return it in kind. I responded to this email, and her reply came back with a joke, the first of many she'd share with me:
How many existentialists does it take to change a light bulb? ...None, existentialists like their voids nice and dark! By the way, never tell that joke while drinking, it just doesn't come out well.
.. the first joke of many, I might add, that would redefine everything from nursing homes to fluctuations to Richard Simmons over the years.
Happy Birthday, Katie; thanks for the good times!
Charles.
Although she passed away suddenly before I'd have a chance to show her I was good to my word, it naturally seemed like the right thing to do on that day to just take a few minutes and remember a good friend, and so, it became a bit of a tradition for me to do so on March 24th. There are far worse ways to start a day, after all.
For those who hadn't heard, I met Katie through my Magic: the Gathering articles I wrote for Brainburst years ago. I had asked my readers to summarize me and my mannerisms in a Magic card in the gazillion-to-one chance I ever won the Invitational (and the winner would appear in a card, you see).
Egocentric Canadian
2UU, 0/2
Creature-Megalomaniac
2U, Tap: Say the longest word you know. If no opponent knows what that word means, you may pay (1) to bitch-slap that player.
The picture provided has unfortunately been lost to time, but it was priceless. Painstakingly drawn in MS Paint, it featured a man in a Team Canada hockey jersey, standing on an actual factual "SOAPBOX", standing in front of a math chalkboard full of equations, and holding a pointer to the bottom right corner which stated, plainly, "= I'M RIGHT!"
Even this early on, I could see that she had a keen eye for detail and appreciated my wit enough to return it in kind. I responded to this email, and her reply came back with a joke, the first of many she'd share with me:
How many existentialists does it take to change a light bulb? ...None, existentialists like their voids nice and dark! By the way, never tell that joke while drinking, it just doesn't come out well.
.. the first joke of many, I might add, that would redefine everything from nursing homes to fluctuations to Richard Simmons over the years.
Happy Birthday, Katie; thanks for the good times!
Charles.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Can anyone explain how this is fair?
In case anyone ever wanted hard-coded proof that men are second-class citizens in our culture:
It's okay to have one-sided statutory rape laws, really!
The law defined unlawful sexual intercourse as "an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a female not the wife of the perpetrator, where the female is under the age of 18 years."
Nice. If you said, "this means that only males can be punished for underage sex," you'd be right!
This is the best part, though:
In a plurality decision, the Court held that the law did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, noting that "young men and young women are not similarly situated with respect to the problems and the risks of sexual intercourse." The Court found that the state had a strong interest in preventing "illegitimate pregnancy." The Court noted that "[i]t is hardly unreasonable for a legislature acting to protect minor females to exclude them from punishment. Moreover, the risk of pregnancy itself constitutes a substantial deterrence to young females. No similar natural sanctions deter males."
Uh huh.
No similar natural sanctions to pregnancy exist? Garsh, how about the "unnatural sanction" of an oppressive two decades worth of child support payments? Maybe that's a bit of a disincentive?
Now, I bet you that if you had a chat with young men in California - a state with notorious "equal treatment" laws - if such an anti-male law could possibly exist, I bet you they wouldn't believe it for a second.
This is why I have ALWAYS believed that we are doing our young men a disservice by not educating them on how shafted they are by child, family and sex laws. Of course, if the true gravity of the situation were shown to them, society as we know it would probably come to an end in 2 generations.
What a joke. What a sick, freaking joke.
It's okay to have one-sided statutory rape laws, really!
The law defined unlawful sexual intercourse as "an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a female not the wife of the perpetrator, where the female is under the age of 18 years."
Nice. If you said, "this means that only males can be punished for underage sex," you'd be right!
This is the best part, though:
In a plurality decision, the Court held that the law did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, noting that "young men and young women are not similarly situated with respect to the problems and the risks of sexual intercourse." The Court found that the state had a strong interest in preventing "illegitimate pregnancy." The Court noted that "[i]t is hardly unreasonable for a legislature acting to protect minor females to exclude them from punishment. Moreover, the risk of pregnancy itself constitutes a substantial deterrence to young females. No similar natural sanctions deter males."
Uh huh.
No similar natural sanctions to pregnancy exist? Garsh, how about the "unnatural sanction" of an oppressive two decades worth of child support payments? Maybe that's a bit of a disincentive?
Now, I bet you that if you had a chat with young men in California - a state with notorious "equal treatment" laws - if such an anti-male law could possibly exist, I bet you they wouldn't believe it for a second.
This is why I have ALWAYS believed that we are doing our young men a disservice by not educating them on how shafted they are by child, family and sex laws. Of course, if the true gravity of the situation were shown to them, society as we know it would probably come to an end in 2 generations.
What a joke. What a sick, freaking joke.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Another beautiful song by Jade Valerie.
I was looking for Jade's new album, Bittersweet Symphony on iTunes; instead, I found myself this treasure, which moved me to tears. The lyrics are simple, even repetitive, but once again, Jade's haunting voice and some very good music combine to great effect.
Lyrics:
Lying awake, I tremble and shake,
I'm trapped in those days, and I reach for your face
and I wonder.. where are you now?
In the midst of my mind, our fingers entwine,
and they're stronger than time, as constant as tides,
and I wonder.. where are you now?
Silently we say goodbye.
Silent as night.
Quiet as night, the angels came and closed your eyes,
and now, there's shadows where you used to lie;
I promise to remember.
Quiet as night, the angels came and closed your eyes,
I guess I'll never understand why;
I promise to remember.
(SPOKEN)
Quiet as night, the angels came and closed your eyes,
and I guess I'll never know why,
but I'll always remember.. I promise to.
Been talking to God, but I guess He forgot, cause I'm
still standing here with my unanswered prayers,
and I'm waiting.. I'm hurting.
Silently we say goodbye.
Silent as night.
Quiet as night, the angels came and closed your eyes,
and now, there's shadows where we used to lie,
but I promise to remember
Quiet as night, the angels came and closed your eyes,
I guess I'll never understand why,
but I promise to remember.
Lyrics:
Lying awake, I tremble and shake,
I'm trapped in those days, and I reach for your face
and I wonder.. where are you now?
In the midst of my mind, our fingers entwine,
and they're stronger than time, as constant as tides,
and I wonder.. where are you now?
Silently we say goodbye.
Silent as night.
Quiet as night, the angels came and closed your eyes,
and now, there's shadows where you used to lie;
I promise to remember.
Quiet as night, the angels came and closed your eyes,
I guess I'll never understand why;
I promise to remember.
(SPOKEN)
Quiet as night, the angels came and closed your eyes,
and I guess I'll never know why,
but I'll always remember.. I promise to.
Been talking to God, but I guess He forgot, cause I'm
still standing here with my unanswered prayers,
and I'm waiting.. I'm hurting.
Silently we say goodbye.
Silent as night.
Quiet as night, the angels came and closed your eyes,
and now, there's shadows where we used to lie,
but I promise to remember
Quiet as night, the angels came and closed your eyes,
I guess I'll never understand why,
but I promise to remember.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Life can begin at thirty-three.
One thing which I've had on my mind lately is how busy I've been with life in the past nine months, starting with my move from Calgary back home, and finding myself rapidly getting lots of work in my chosen fields. It's interesting because I always feel that my best years were behind me - the frivolity of high school, the joys of university, and the easy going life two kids, 10 years and 100 pounds ago.
Nevertheless, I look at history and I can see that Richard Nixon didn't even begin his first political campaign until he was 33. Likewise, my absolute favorite librettist, W.S. Gilbert, didn't even meet his musical counterpart, A.S. Sullivan, until his (Gilbert's) 33rd year. Both Nixon and Sullivan, needless to say, had huge careers and lived relatively long lives - if not turbulent at time and crisis-filled at others!
A lot of that "it was so great being young" rhetoric in life is a combination of biology and society. The biology part speaks for itself, but our society seems rather obsessed with youth and 'faking' being young if you can't actually be young. It's nice to remember, on occasion, that sometimes, you aren't in a position to make something of yourself until you have a few years under your belt. As they say, only when the student is ready does the master appear.
Nevertheless, I look at history and I can see that Richard Nixon didn't even begin his first political campaign until he was 33. Likewise, my absolute favorite librettist, W.S. Gilbert, didn't even meet his musical counterpart, A.S. Sullivan, until his (Gilbert's) 33rd year. Both Nixon and Sullivan, needless to say, had huge careers and lived relatively long lives - if not turbulent at time and crisis-filled at others!
A lot of that "it was so great being young" rhetoric in life is a combination of biology and society. The biology part speaks for itself, but our society seems rather obsessed with youth and 'faking' being young if you can't actually be young. It's nice to remember, on occasion, that sometimes, you aren't in a position to make something of yourself until you have a few years under your belt. As they say, only when the student is ready does the master appear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)