| Pure-Evil Antirepublican Antisocial Well-Adjusted Satanist Atheist Manly Bitch |
[entries|archive|friends|userinfo] |
|
Der Schaedling - Scientific Unamerican
|
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Nov. 25th, 2006|09:06 pm] |
A review (verbatim in its entirety, emphasis mine) of Interview with the Vampire:
"this is also a well done movie and based off the the books by anne rice.grant you if your not that overlly smart you wont understand it.no offense"
On the contrary. It would seem that stupid people totally get it. It's the smart people who can't understand what the big damn deal is. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Oct. 15th, 2006|12:00 pm] |
Okay, why would you put a major debate on a Sunday at noon, on a UHF channel that used to be owned by UPN? Are they trying to bury this?
Edit: Yes, apparently they are trying to bury this. It's like watching Bill O'Reilly, so I can't really blame them for wanting to make it disappear. The idiot takes 20 weeks vacation from the easiest job in the nation (giving himself pay raises with no oversight and milking the public system to pay for his children)... and he wants me to be impressed by his work ethic. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Oct. 12th, 2006|06:50 pm] |
I'm watching this Indian movie where the opening scene takes place in a cloning lab. And one of the first visuals is of somebody putting a white mouse on a xerox machine and (apparently) photocopying its feet.
...
Um, dudes? That's not really how cloning works... |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Sep. 24th, 2006|09:22 pm] |
So Clinton goes on Fox News or whatever, the commentator pulls his smug little bullshitter act, forcing Clinton to call him on it or come out looking like a total pussy... and the nightly news guys cover it as "Clinton Loses His Temper".
And that's why they call it "framing": you're damned no matter what you do. |
|
|
| Peggy Noonan? What a stupid waste of gravity. |
[Jul. 20th, 2006|09:45 pm] |
As if you didn't know that already. But this is quite possibly the single stupidest thing I've heard all year.Are we better off with an Earth that is getting hotter or, what with the modern realities of heating homes and offices, and the world energy crisis, and the need to conserve, does global heating have, in fact, some potential side benefits, and can those benefits be broadened and deepened? Some benefits to global warming? First we had this "global warming has natural causes" BS and Gore had to stand up and show us this lovely graph of what the 80's did to the atmosphere... and now this? The need to use air-conditioning in February is a benefit? This is about the farthest I've seen someone stretch to morally justify idling her SUV in a midtown traffic jam.
I suppose it'll be some great comfort to Noonan's grandchildren, that she dedicated her burned fossil fuels to the cause of making NYC a tropical paradise. (Too bad it'll be underwater.) |
|
|
| praise the lard and pass the pork rinds |
[Jul. 11th, 2006|11:21 pm] |
So my music recommender told me that I'd probably be way into some guy who does ambient techno. And, listening to the opening track from his newest album, I thought the recommender wasn't totally off this time, so I went on a Google hunt for his website... And four of the top ten hits on Google were yayjesus websites, spouting off about how jesusriffic this ambient album was.
Goddamn (no pun intended). It was annoying enough when you had Christian Rock and Christian Alternative and (holywtf) Christian Metal replacing actual music on the airwaves, but now we have to have Christian Ambient Techno? It's not like it even has lyrics to sanitize and rewrite about praying in church or whatever, so I'm not exactly sure why it's labeled "Christian".
All I can figure is that he's turning his religion into a marketing tool for his music in the hopes that he'll sell more albums if the some church website says it's wonderful. It's nothing to do with the music itself, but cheap ploys like that just make my cynical heart beat a little colder. Thus, I'm not buying the album (though I thought I might like it) and I refuse to feel guilty about it.
(And for the record, I don't buy ambient albums that get plugged on new age websites, either. But that's more because new age albums are universally bad than because they're cashing in on religion.) |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Jun. 7th, 2006|10:16 pm] |
There's no good metaphor for the release of Ann Coulter's new book. A terrorist attack isn't as horrifying, a vivisection isn't as gruesome, a black widow isn't as venomous, there's no one nearly as deceptive ('cept maybe the creationists)... you get the idea.
And somehow, after all these years, it still surprises me that the mainstream media is totally unprepared to deal with her particular kind of cut-rate O'Reillyisms. It's like they're genuinely surprised that she steamrolls anyone to talks to her, like they can't handle it when she deliberately talks over their questions to spew her talking points in that piercing nasal whine, and like they're totally incapable of seeing her blatant hypocrisy while it's staring them right in the fucking face. It's like watching a deer in the headlights.
Oh Lord, won't you get me a competent interviewer...
Still, Miz Coulter is hilarious to watch with the sound off. If I had my own magic talk show, I'd love to cut her mic and ask her questions. Let her rant and flip out to her heart's content, let her think that it's just a normal, friendly talk show, and with the sound off, she becomes just some batshit woman clearly furious about some damn thing or other, her mouth going at a mile a minute, but no words coming out. And then I would dub her over with the Beeker voice (the "meep meep" muppet, for the culturally inept). Crazy woman becomes instant comedy!
That would make my day. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[May. 22nd, 2006|12:45 am] |
Look, if there's one thing you really don't want to associate yourself with these days ("these days" meaning "since the 1930s"), it's militant German nationalism. And imagining people getting beaten while you listen to German music, well, that just makes you a twisted little fuck. But pretending you're a normal human being while you embrace militant German nationalism and imagine people being beaten to death?
THAT MAKES YOU A SOCIOPATH. |
|
|
| A "Special" Musical Guest... |
[May. 7th, 2006|12:59 am] |
Holy crap. That was RHCP? Hell, I hated them on principle back when they were popular (early 90's, maybe?); I had no idea they actually sucked this bad.
That was like a stoned Iggy Pop in Spinal Tap wearing Avril Lavigne's wardrobe (though I think the guitar guy stole his shirt from the local production of 1776, or possibly from a Japanese goth band). The nicest thing about that horrible experience was the lead singer's tie (which was probably on elastic).
And on top of it all, the music was shit-tastic, mush-mouthed emo. "California rest in peace"? And then you rhyme that with "show us your teeth"? I haven't heard lyrics this bad since Oasis's last album. No, wait, strike that. I think Fallout Boy's latest musical abortion came out after that (just one word: "luhreeloorah").
Anyway, the point is: RHCP have officially reached suckage. The third Mission Impossible movie might have the world record for the number of commercials shoved down my throat, but RHCP are a close second in number of dollars spent on advertising worthless, horrible, unwatchable dreck.
Fuck you, chili peppers. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Apr. 23rd, 2006|07:18 pm] |
Sometimes I just like to have fun with people stupider than me. I don't think they enjoy it as much as I do, though.
( Read more... )
Anyway, my point in all this (which got deleted by Jazzy Jeff over there because she decided to get all pissy when she found out she was dead wrong)... was that you shouldn't blindly trust chain letters, especially on the internet. People like to attach names to these letters to lend them credence, hoping that they'll get passed through a few more hands before they reach the end of the line.
Think about it. An email sure sounds authoritative about security issues when it's coming from a DHS agent. A pretty poem about a nice way to live your life sounds doubly pretty coming from a 17th-century church in Maryland. A story about cancer is twice as touching when it's told by a little paraplegic girl.
But it's not true. And it's tremendously easy to copy the title, the first few lines, or any unique phrase into Google to see where something like a published poem came from. Snopes has a searchable database of all these chainmails to sort the genuine from the bogus. If you're already hitting a copy-and-paste to send this to all your friends, isn't it worth the extra few seconds to hit up Google, just to see what comes up, if for no other reason?
I'm sure the original author of a poem would appreciate being properly credited (assuming he's still alive), and I'm sure you'd like to know if the author of some red-alert chainmail was just a dumb schmuck, wouldn't you? In short... don't be so damned gullible. This is the internet, honey. People here will love to lie to you.
And that's the second irony I mentioned, Jazz-licious. You're spreading this lovely message of love and light... and spreading a lie in the process, all because you're too lazy to look up a very famous poem. Just typing the name of the poem into Wikipedia would've clued you in to the 1692 hoax in the very first paragraph. You could've easily given that poet his due, but you didn't; you decided to spread the lie instead. (Come on! It doesn't even sound like colonial-era writing. Are you thick or something? Didn't that make you the least bit suspicious?)
The third irony? Your little buddy tried to defend your sweetness and light poem and condemn my "negativity" (it's skepticism, stupid) by getting all up on her high horse about how my journal name calls me a "satanic bitch". Yes, I know it does; that's why I put it there. Pro-tip: Attempting to insult me based on my journal name A) won't work, and B) doesn't exactly reflect the love-thy-neighbor of the sweetness and light poem, now does it? |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Apr. 14th, 2006|11:09 pm] |
I shouldn't be surprised that Michelle Malkin is going all nuts about Mohammed again. I'm a little annoyed that she can't figure out whether Muslim imagery is "okay" or not (remember her railing against the Red Crescent?), but what do you expect from a person who uses the term "Dhimmitude" with no ironic overtone whatsoever?
Anyway, scroll down past the shitty photoshops of Comedy Central's logo in the link above, and you'll find what Malkin suggests is an uncensored screenshot from the censored episode of South Park... along with a full page of screenshots and analysis of why this is might be faked screenshot. Well, fucking duh. It's kind of obvious to anyone with eyes that Mohammed was pasted in from a completely different episode (the Super Best Friends episode, to be exact). I'm a shitty artist, and I still think the completely and totally different art style with no outlines was a giveaway... Is Malkin always this stupid, or do I keep catching her on her bad days?
So, about the episode itself: I wasn't impressed. I think they undermined the point by intentionally censoring the scene (and yes, I think it was Parker/Stone's idea to censor it - watch the way the scene is blocked, if you don't believe me), basically saying they agree that personal safety is more important than freedom of speech. But then, that pair is really good at undermining their own points. Advocate rational moderation by making a deliberately antagonistic TV show? Sure, that makes perfect sense. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Apr. 10th, 2006|09:22 pm] |
It's times like these that I just adore Fundies. Some guys from National Geographic show up with a manuscript from Judas's point of view, showing that maybe The Bad Guy of the New Testament wasn't as horrible as John made him out to be, and now the Resident Fundie at Foxnews will do absolutely anything to make it not be true. Oops, make that Fundies. It's a regular old anti-Judas Crusade in the old town tonight.
I mean, these guys go off for paragraphs about how it's "heretical" and "unorthodox" and "gnostic (anti-Christian)"... well, of course it's all those three. It was written before the final four gospels were compiled, it didn't make the final cut, so it fits all three adjectives by definition. This does not, however, make the manuscript false, worthless or even irrelevant. You might not like it, and it may not fit in with your worldview where humans are inherently evil until they're "born again" as Fundies, but you can't simply dismiss new historical information out-of-hand because you don't like the implications.
Sure, you can choose not to believe it, if you really want to. But a lack of belief doesn't mean you should shout it down, chastise other people who discuss it, and use historically inaccurate "Christian theology" to justify yourself. Cause right now, you're acting like a little child who just found out that Sesame Street is just puppets and guys in funny suits. "NO! BIG BIRD IS REALLY A SEVEN-FOOT-TALL, TALKING BIRD! HONEST! (And the hairy elephant thing loves me more than you, so nyeah.)" Grow the fuck up. |
|
|
| Goddamn stupid Texans... |
[Mar. 10th, 2006|09:29 pm] |
Final Jeopardy tonight: Historical Documents. The clue (and I'm paraphrasing a bit, but it went like this): The 39th clause of this document begins: "No freeman shall be seized, or imprisoned, or dispossessed, or outlawed, or in any way destroyed..."
And before the final answers (and scores) are revealed, the host begins his kibitzing: "The way that's phrased, it's obviously not an American document." Well, duh. How many American "historical documents" are measured out in clauses? Anybody who paid attention in European History thinks this one is a total gimme.
But apparently the obvious answer wasn't apparent to our two contestants from Texas. One came up with the Emancipation Proclamation, and the other came up with - I shit you not - the Fourteenth Amendment. Seriously. He really thought there were at least 39 independent clauses in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I wonder what he thought the other 38 dealt with.
But when both contestants from Texas - on a show where you supposedly have to be smart to win - have that level of sheer ignorance of the basic laws of our country (and more importantly, where those laws came from), it suddenly becomes painfully obvious why "Texans" like W Bush think it's totally okay to spy on their own people without any due process or justification.
The correct answer, obvious only to those who give two shits about their personal freedom... is that the clause in question came from the Magna Carta. The non-Texan spelled it "Charta", but they gave it to him.
...
And speaking of irredeemably stupid, I heard about Clinton trying to get the CDC to prove that video games are bad for the tiny children. All I can say is: Exercise in dipshittery. I'm sorry Mrs. Clinton, are video games a communicable disease? Are you going to go beg them for a goddamn vaccine against Super Mario Brothers...itis? CDC has better things to do than to feed you a justification for semi-legal censorship, all so you can score your Family Values points in time for your reelection campaign. I'm going to play my FPS, and you can go to hell. And take Lieberman with you.
I want the Puritans out of the Progressive party, dammit. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Feb. 20th, 2006|09:01 pm] |
I never get sick of republicans trying to psychoanalyze democrats. It's hilarious, some of the justifications they have to build up, just to wrap their heads around the idea of functional equality. (Or anyway, that's why I'm a democrat.)
Like, Belttboy, for example, came up with this whole thing about how he believes welfare is evil, therefore democrats are egotists. There were a couple steps in between, but they made even less sense than the grand leap from supposition to conclusion, so I'm summarizing. Now, I don't think welfare is all that great shakes, either. Hell, I'd just give 'em a government job digging ditches or whatever until they find something better. But then, that's communism, and we can't have that. *sigh and rolleyes and such* But in the meantime, while we're waiting for bureaucrats to find their collective ass, welfare is a nicely evil way of shrinking the money gap - it's a cheap, not-well-working way, but for the people it actually helps, it's worth it. But of course, we can't admit that there are success stories here.
Oh, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. In a thoroughly irrelevant comment, this dude starts by implying that democrats are violent by nature (I think he just knows the wrong democrats; all my democrat friends are pacifists), that democracy means 'free stuff' (see above), that democrats can only win by taking money from lobbyists (sounds like someone hasn't been reading the newspaper for the last month), that democrats are quick to slander republicans (mote in thine own eye, chuck), and, oh yeah, Kanye West is evil and/or an idiot.
Whoa. That's a whole lot of misguided and just-plain-wrong psychoanalysis, just to justify your damn position. Do all republicans feel the need to just randomly spout off about how evil their opposition is? And if, as he says, "mainstream America [won't] agree with, or vote for Democrats", then why do these people, with their oil money and their reservation subsidies and their corporate pensions and all the middle-of-nowhere people feigning patriotism, feel so threatened?
Stop getting so defensive! |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Feb. 13th, 2006|07:57 pm] |
Yes, it's true. After a long hard day of watching people spin their wheels in ankle-deep snowdrifts (ooh so deep and terrifying), I like to settle in and warm my cold, blackened heart over the unidirectional flamewar generated by the intelligence-challenged (I believe that's the correct "PC" term for "fucking stupid") ideologue Joe Sabia. So, first big snowfall along the northern east coast, and guess where I'm headed.
And well, first I discover that he's abandoned the great snowy Northeast for warmer climes... that pussy. (Y'know, if you couldn't hack it in ultraliberal New York, Joey, all you had to do was say so.) But then, this is the guy who thinks Nixon should be canonized as a saint - or at least carved over Lincoln's face in Mt. Rushmore -- I imagine his particular ideological bent would find a happier home in a red state somewhere. However, I have no idea how he's going to get his froth up now over how much he hates the local liberals, now that he's surrounding himself with the like-minded folk of the South.
Oh, that's right. He's going to pick a member of his own party, label the poor guy a liberal, and then malign him for being as bad a RINO as that Specter fellow from Pennsylvania, or that kooky old POW, McCain. And all because the newly outed liberal had the bad sense to employ hyperbole in expressing his distaste for the neocons' desire to curb our natural rights just a little more.Some morbid little part of me wonders if the rewritten constitution would be renamed "the neo-constitution". That little part is going to shut up now. Thus, because this guy I've never heard of before wants state governments to respect the personal rights of their constituents, that makes him not-neocon-enough-for-Sabia, and hence, a reprehensible waste of gravity. Y'know, for somebody who pounds it so hard for a free market, his desire to clamp down on personal freedoms is downright frightening. I guess freedom is only for those rich enough to buy their own senator?
What really bothers me about the latest rant, though, is that he doesn't realize the neocons aren't interested in making amendments to the constitution or even - as Joey accuses the liberals of doing - imaginatively reinterpreting the document. No, the minions on the hill are happiest to just ignore the parts they don't like. The right to privacy, for example. I will admit that the left-wing party in this country is not what I want it to be, but at least they have some respect for the laws and rules that our forefathers built.
In closing, Sabia doesn't even realize what the word "conservative" means, let alone entails. This amuses me intensely (as does most of what Sabia writes, though not for the reasons he intends). |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Feb. 5th, 2006|11:39 pm] |
To take a break from all the heavier shit that's happening out there, I'm going to wonder out loud here:
Do the special guests on SNL bring their own writers with them? Cause that last Steve Martin episode, there were actually some skits that were, well... funny. I didn't think that happened anymore. |
|
|
| The iPod: This Isn't Hard, People. |
[Jan. 28th, 2006|12:22 pm] |
The iPod is a very simple machine: it's a hard drive with a screen and a basic audio processor. There is nothing complicated here, and yet so many people are mystified by the semi-miraculous wonders of the thing.
For example, this one guy I used to work for has been screaming for a month and a half now that his iPod is a piece of crap. Why? Because when he set up his iPod, he chose Automatically Update instead of Manually Manage, and now it (*gasp*) automatically updates! The horror! Well, then he plugged it into a computer with an empty music library, and it automatically updated to that. Oops! And... this is my fault, because I own two Macintoshes, and therefore should've known that he would try something stupid like this. Right.
You know that story about the guy who complains that his computer doesn't work, and after a bit of back-and-forth with tech support, it turns out that the power's been out? Generally that story ends with the tech support guy telling the idiot to box his computer up and send it back, because the idiot is just too dumb to use it. I submit that the same should be true for iPod owners who can't fathom the term "automatically update". Just what the hell did you think that was going to do?
The moral of the story is: don't be like the boss guy; don't go doing stupid things without reading your iPod manual first. Don't try to install MSSQL on a BSD box, either. Sheesh, man. |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
| |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
what_a_waste's journal