trinityvixen: (balls to that)
On the heels of xannoside's post, and my response to it, evidence of what I was talking about. With numbers and everything. Non-lethal weapons may decrease the numbers of deaths in violent confrontations, but they increase the numbers of incidents that use force, period. Suddenly, you've got a lot of people being harmed who might not otherwise have been. It's problem.

So's this:

Understanding the psychology of policing is also very important, said Dunham.

“In their culture, it’s important to have authority. Most policemen will say that the only thing they have to protect them is authority, and they’re very sensitive to people who do not respect their authority,” he said. “When an officer gets on the scene, the number-one thing they’re supposed to do is take control” — and that dynamic is heightened when they know that other police will judge their actions.

Though I am equally troubled by the notion that policemen and women are thinking of how they'll be judged by their peers rather than by the people whom they serve (also: troubled that, in the estimation of police, acting with less force is the thing they perceive their colleagues will like less), I think the bolded portion makes me most nervous. The vast majority of people do respect, and, I think, even fear the police. The fact that respect is policed so heavily should worry everyone.
trinityvixen: (cancer)
If you don't want to deal with all aspects of your job, quit.

I get it. You were enjoying your little fiefdom in the clerk's office not having to deal with TEH GAYZ, and New York State up and changed the laws on you. Sucks. But them's the breaks in civil service life. So, either get out of civil service life or adapt. While this isn't as bad as, say, pharmacists independently deciding which drugs are and aren't acceptable to hand out to certain patients, it is still pretty goddamned immoral. Your "freedom of religion" rights are not being impinged upon when you're being asked to do your goddamned job.
trinityvixen: (somuchlove)
Apparently, the last Republican primary debate was sponsoered by Google. And Rick Santorum was in attendance. (That's the joke, folks.)

In other, well, not hilarious news, but hilarious reportage of news, this article by the Guardian regarding the arrests at the Occupy Wall Street protest:
"Hero Vincent, 28, an artist from the Bronx, said: "I think it should be out there, so that people know what's going on and if people want to enter his precinct and ask that he should be fired, they can. We are a peaceful protest. For them to attack us is wrong."

Vincent, who was arrested for resisting arrest on Saturday, claimed he was kicked in the stomach by officers."

I may not have loved Catch-22 as a piece of literature, but damned if this isn't some classic Catch-22 shit going on right here.

(Disclaimer: I realize that such arrests are just police arresting people for no reason to get them off the street, etc. etc., but, really? Arrested for resisting arrest, no other charge? That shouldn't pass any smell test for reasonable arrest.)
trinityvixen: (somuchlove)
Oh my. Oh, oh, oh, this made me splutter at work. Um, it's probably not safe for anyone's work but mine, where, because I laughed out loud, I then got to show it around to my other coworkers. Who laughed, probably mostly at me for finding this so funny. But it was.

Ooh, look what's coming to Netflix!
I was kindly given the X-Men cartoon on DVD at Christmas, but I'd be so interested to watch the old Spider-Man cartoon (from the 1990s, not the old-old one from the 1960s). I bet it is even worse than I remember it.

In a stunning bit of thinking, a judge rules that people are not their IP addresses. Or vice-versa, whichever. This is still of the good. I'm all for stopping the kiddie porn watchers, but I still believe you should have to do a liiiiittle more actual investigation than assuming that because something was downloaded to a given IP address that it must be the person residing at that address' fault. People are far too lazy about securing their wireless or patrolling their friends'/roommates' habits. Use the IP link to start a proper investigation, fine. Use it to smear someone FOREVER with a link to kiddie porn? Not so much.

Slow day

Feb. 15th, 2011 01:22 pm
trinityvixen: (blogging from work)
I should be studying for my test tomorrow what with all this free time at work. Instead, I read things. In less trigger-warning-ly dangerous news than my last post, there's been another study showing the ineffectiveness of calorie counts at restaurants. It was already suggested by a previous study that the posted calorie counts don't change adult eating habits, and now they've shown it doesn't change children's eating habits either. Hardly surprising. You'd need to start educating kids younger and more thoroughly about calorie counts before you could expect them to apply knowledge to facts and make a dietary change. Odds are also good that kids whose parents don't care about calories won't have any chance to learn by example and abstain from a 1000-calorie kids meal. (Especially not if there are toys they want in them.)

I still am a tad baffled by this result. I find that the calorie counts work on me quite well. Alas, in New York, I tend not to frequent places that would have a chain large enough to meet the minimum that requires posting. So I'm sure I'm eating a shit-ton more calories than I need when I order Indian food or pick up a chicken gyro at the carts here. At least I've managed to cut back on quantity such that I'm only eating half the Indian I order and the last time I tried to get a whole gyro platter, I didn't eat for the better part of eighteen hours afterwards. But, yeah, if I go into a McDonald's ::shudder:: I will probably get the smaller fry because, hey 200 less calories and I still get enough fries. I've even switched over my meal of choice from one chicken type to another at Wendy's because of that.

I suppose I could see how someone looking at the 600+ calories that a medium french fries would set you back would then go, "What the hell, it's only 200 more for a large." I happen not to work that way. Point of fact, though I'm lazier than ever about cooking, (I swear I will work on that), I've actually been turned off entirely by fast food. Still love their french fries on occasion, but I've finally hit that part of adulthood I never thought I'd reach where I look at my options--McDonald's or starving--and, in all seriousness, opt for starving. If you'd have told me that as a chicken nugget fiend of a kid, I might have hit you.
trinityvixen: (blogging from work)
It has been an exceedingly busy day at work, and I've got about twenty minutes of downtime to share a few things. You will not be surprised to learn they are mostly about movies.

1. Bucky Barnes has a promo still from Captain America. You may be forgiven if you don't spot him right away. (You are also forgiven if you have no idea who he is.) He's not at the center of the still. (Chris Evans, playing the Cap, is.) He's definitely not wearing his, ahem, old uniform. In fact, the only way to tell he's of any more significance than the other dudes standing around in WWII costume who are not the Cap is that he is facing the camera. I think that article title--"Nobody Cares About Bucky"--probably extends to the person choosing stills to release to the press.

2. Unlike most theories about the state of contemporary cinema, this one may be correct. Although I still take issue with the hyperbolic use of the words "death spiral" to describe things, it stands to reason that there's a supply and demand issue with movies. The demand for movies has not ebbed, it has shifted past what the suppliers are able to, financially, provide in the manner to which they had become accustomed. I'm not entirely sure how the studios will handle this shift, either, because there's no way Netflix is going away. Hell, Netflix could double its subscription fees, and I guarantee their business would be fine. (Pretend you didn't hear that, PLZ, Netflix!) People have found a solution that works for them that is legal, and they'll be loath to part from it easily. The 28-day release window that Netflix has hasn't hurt them at all. If they made it a 45-day window, I bet no one would notice. My queue is so long, they could make it a 5-year window, and I bet I wouldn't notice.

This is all relevant to my interests as someone who is not only not on trend, as far as seeing movies is concerned, but who is actively bucking it by making the effort to give Hollywood all of my money. I will continue to go see movies in the theater. I may be slightly less inclined to part with my money after I complete this zany screening schedule for a year, but I'll still always like the theater experience. It's a shame that it's turned off so many others. But I do understand their point. It's the studios' move.

3. The only coherent thing I can say about Egypt is this: It is not about you. That goes for Americans, that goes for Europeans, that goes for the various groups all holding their breath to see who will come out on top. Coverage has been mostly atrocious on this side of the pond, though I do think that Rachel Maddow's coverage has been more thoughtful than most. Her tack has been to not pigeonhole the demonstrators so much as to understand the long game of a revolution as one happens. I appreciate that.
trinityvixen: (cancer)
(This primer brought to you courtesy of this article at The New York Times. h/t [ profile] moonlightalice)

Lesson 1: If you find yourself making the brutal murder of someone into a story about how you, the not-at-all-persecuted, let-alone-dead person are finding it really hard to be called mean names, congratulations, you're on the side of evil.

Example: “Naturally, I don’t want anyone killed but I don’t feel I had anything to do with that,” said Mr. Schmierer, who added that in Uganda he had focused on parenting skills. He also said that he had been a target of threats himself, recently receiving more than 600 hate mails related to his visit. “I spoke to help people,” he said, “and I’m getting bludgeoned from one end to the other.”

Note: Ms. Schmierer uses the word "bludgeoned" in regards to his own imaginary persecution when, in fact, such a term is better used to describe what was done to an innocent man who was so unfortunate as to live in a country full of murderous zealots. This earns him extra cockwhacker points. Sarah Palin ain't got nothing on this guy's sense of victimhood.

Lesson 2: If this guy is on your side, you are on the side of evil:

Uganda’s minister of ethics and integrity, James Nsaba Buturo, a devout Christian, has said “Homosexuals can forget about human rights.”

Lesson 3: If you seriously intend to argue against Lesson 2, you are on the side of evil.

Any questions?
trinityvixen: (drinks are on Tony)
Iron Man 2's central scientific premise--SPOILERS! That Tony Stark could build a particle accelerator in his basement and create new elements with it--not so far-fetched after all!

By "not" I mean "still pretty," and this has been a nothing-to-see-here post for you all. Hope you enjoyed it.
trinityvixen: (thinking Mario)
A worthy commentary on the idiots who want to--literally--whitewash the goddamned Civil War.

To be sure, the economic differences between North and South contributed to the war, and one can never forget that money motivates where morals do not. But you know what made the Southern economy so sucky? SLAVERY. Not just an affront to the belief in humanity as a force for good, but also the means by which the South would, had it won, impoverished itself (on all counts) indefinitely.

There was an episode of The Simpsons where Apu becomes an American citizen, and he attempts to explain the many and varied reasons the Civil War happened, and the man applying his test interrupts him with, "Just say slavery." I think it's very telling that it takes some serious effort to come up with a reason outside of that. Usually, the effort takes one of two shapes. One, it's an academic effort, examining the causes and issues behind the most simplistic of explanations that do not, ultimately, challenge the summary put forth. Or, two, it's bullshit meant to distract and override what you know to be true: that those who expound upon the Confederacy are corpse-raping douchenozzles.

What? They are.
trinityvixen: (no sense)
Having bought a netbook to handle most of the things the iPad wants to do for me, I'm a little annoyed at the iPad's second coming. I say "second coming" because the lackluster response to it at first seems to have been eradicated now that people are starting to get their hands on them. For every person who goes, "I like Flash, actually, and would like to be able to use 99% of the internet that seems to require it these days," or grouses about a 64 GB hard drive computer costing them $900, or who might not want to sell their entire multimedia-consuming soul to Apple, you get articles like this one saying THE iPAD IS THE JESUS CHRIST OF MEDIA. WELCOME BACK, SAVIOR. I get why a magazine would be excited--they really do have to hope the hype is true because they are otherwise fucked as a medium.

I generally expect the hype to fall short at Consumer Reports, though. So I'm reading this and not only am I pissed about the credulous, easily-swayed author basically writing hundreds of words to express an emotion easily summarized in one (that word is "shiny"), but this guy isn't even getting anything...right. It's supposed to be a cogent argument about how the iPad isn't $499, it's easily twice that or more to get out of it the RESURRECTION OF MEDIA MACHINE that Steve Jobs promised you.

Le sigh. )

::rolls eyes::

The apps are a big problem financially speaking, but Apple owning your ass is just not acceptable. Some people, as noted in the Newsweek article, will like Apple streamlining everything for them. I use iTunes myself--it is great for pod-collecting--but iTunes keeps its fucking hands off my everything else. No, you can't play my movies. Stop trying to get me to buy TV series at $2 an episode when I can DVR or Hulu it. If I want to read comics on a computer screen (not my reading method of choice, I assure you), I can do it with any number of programs or, the way I've been doing it 'cause I'm lazy, which is by setting a slide show in fucking Windows Preview. (WORKS JUST FINE.) Thing is, iTunes, you are NOT the best thing for my media browsing. You, in fact, do not please me in my media browsing. You do stupid things like interrupt movies for songs when I just want to check things. Perhaps I can learn to turn that off, BUT I DON'T WANT TO. You don't even support my non-iTunes movies. Why do you want them so badly? Fuck off, I'm using VLC...GAWD, iTUNES, I AM A GROWN WOMAN, I CAN MAKE MY OWN DECISIONS...

And that, in a nutshell, is why being against the iPad makes you look like a crazy person. Because it's crazy not to want something to decide everything for you. (I love you, Google. Let's get married.) I'll take my 250 GB, 3-lb netbook over that damn iPad. Is it weird and a little awkward to carry down the street, reading comics? Yeah, but it's weird (apparently) to read walking down the street regardless, and I have hefted heavier books. You know what my netbook will do, though, that the iPad won't unless you buy a gadget for it? It will let me put it down on table and the screen will stay perpendicular to said table. Isn't that amazing?

ETA: Forgot to mention: Apple is using its bullying power to get rid of Flash-only stuff, btw. So soon that will be taken care of and then you can't object to their shit any more. WE ARE MAKING THE INTERNET IN OUR IMAGE. IT SHALL NOT EAT FROM THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE...
trinityvixen: (fucky)
Christopher Hitchens is a prick. Even when I agree with him, I find myself hating just about everything about the way he makes his arguments. This article, for example, makes the case that the idea that international unity and fellowship is engendered by sporting events is complete horseshit. I'm as cynical as the next person who dislikes sports, but the way he states his case makes anyone who raises an eyebrow at the inordinate, unjustified waste of money on sports look like a total bastard. Question the orthodoxy, the common wisdom that money spent on sports = more money for cities/countries (in tourism and merchandise), and you're with Christopher Hitchens, claiming that the World Cup causes terrorism.

Well, I'm not with him on that. Very. Annoying. Assumptions. Debunked. )

So he's a jerk and one who wounds his fellows as much as his enemies. He and Stephen Fry took up the part of "The Catholic Church is Not a Force for Good" part of a debate, and Hitchens used Stephen Fry's sexual orientation as a weapon. I'm glad Stephen Fry is out and open and unapologetic, but that's an issue for him to use in debate, not the blowhard next to him. It felt uncomfortably like he was just returning to the meme "Stephen Fry's a queer! And you hate him for this thing you find disgusting!" And it came across as salacious and hurtful more than supportive.

Anyway, this long rambling introduction to Hitchens is just a prelude to this article he wrote about Pope Benedict XVI's culpability in the ongoing, ever-renewing, ever-being-revealed sexual abuse scandals. It's a tough but fair indictment of Benedict, not because he's a rapist, but because he protects them, shelters them within the church, and makes the only crime worthy of excommunication that of telling any non-church people about the abuses of the church. I admire the article most for his unapologetic description of abuse and how little he likes a word that covers up assault and rape--the word "abuse" being used to clean up the worst offenses is, indeed, a crime in and of itself.

My favorite turn of phrase, that made me find this article, which is not groundbreaking, news-worthiness-wise, is the following:

The Roman Catholic Church is headed by a mediocre Bavarian bureaucrat once tasked with the concealment of the foulest iniquity, whose ineptitude in that job now shows him to us as a man personally and professionally responsible for enabling a filthy wave of crime. Ratzinger himself may be banal, but his whole career has the stench of evil—a clinging and systematic evil that is beyond the power of exorcism to dispel. What is needed is not medieval incantation but the application of justice—and speedily at that.

It's concise, beautifully stated in hard, uncompromising, literarily vengeful words. "Foulest inequity." Has there ever been a better phrase to describe this sex scandal, now decades in the offing? (And, their God alone knows, still being added to daily?)

I restate my opener here: Christopher Hitchens is a prick. But he can be right, so right.

h/t Savage Blog
trinityvixen: (cancer)
It's now homicide if you get an illegal abortion in Utah (a state where pretty much any abortion is illegal). Oh, wait, except this law also applies to miscarriages. So all your potential fetuses had better be veeeeeery well looked after, women. Because even if you wanted that baby more than life itself, even if you're screaming and crying and seeing a shrink for PTSD following your miscarriage, if someone decides that your miscarriage looks at all out of the ordinary, you could be investigated for murder.

As the title of this post points out, this is terrible law. This is on par with that attempt to classify a zygote as a human being. It's something you cannot legislate at least 90% of the time. Miscarriages tend to occur mostly within the first trimester. It is possible that a woman may not even know she was pregnant or that she miscarried. Are all women, therefore, supposed to submit their used pads and tampons as proof of innocence? If a woman miscarries before viability, is it a lesser/greater charge? If a baby dies in utero, is she then subject to laws about handling a corpse?

Bottom line: you cannot declare fetuses to be persons. It is far too problematic. This is terrible law. On the one hand, it's nice to see the people hiding behind OMG BEBBIES! bullshit go the whole hog and finally start trying to convict women they've always believed were murderers. I mean, courage of your convictions and all that, well done. On the other: you're trying to convict women who have lost their fetuses for murder. That is going to go down really well, let me tell you. The fact that such a radical step would be made just proves that anti-choicers hate women. Just in case y'all hadn't gotten the message by the slut-shaming and presumption of women's stupidity that runs rampant through anti-choice messages.

What a crock of shit.
trinityvixen: (gay)
A wonderful conversation about this maddening, obfuscating article about DADT

[ profile] moonlightalice: oh god the NYT ran a pro-DADT op-ed
me: they waaaaa?
(goes to read linked article)
me: I love how he's like "But we kicked out fatties and no one complained!" Well, yes, because you're allowed to fire people who can't do the job. Point is that gay people CAN. That gayness doesn't automatically disqualify you. This is some seriously deluded BS.
[ profile] moonlightalice: You haven't gotten to the end. "Individual performance is bullshit, it's about GROUPS." Yeah, because all those integrated units in every other country? They lose wars like crazy
[ profile] moonlightalice: oh my GOD, he believes the military is "warrior culture"
me: I love how he's like "call me crazy for being an IDEALIST, but I like my military the way it is." Way to cloak yourself in purtiy, asshat
[ profile] moonlightalice: And warrior culture must be PROTECTED
me: "Waaaaah, stop making me play with faaaaags. Blowing shit up and playing with phallic weapons isn't gay SHUT UP"
[ profile] moonlightalice: lol
me: I mean, has this guy been far removed from "unit cohesion" or what? Does he not remember how fucking many dudes in the army are constantly waving their cocks around?
[ profile] moonlightalice: haha "fucking many dudes in the army." I bet that's what he's scared of.
me: The army is already pretty gay, is what I'm saying.
me: These are the guys most insecure about their cocks. Having a gay guy there to go "Yep, that's a good cock" would probably IMPROVE things

I could probably point out more about how disingenuous all his arguments are, and how they all break down into a temper tantrum about how he doesn't want no gays in this man's army, but really, the logical contortion to make an excuse for why sexual orientation fundamentally alters your ability to kill shit is, well, tortured enough that I needn't bother going on about it, really.
trinityvixen: (balls)
I forget where I read it, but, once upon a time, a man was so hurt and pissed off about his best friend being murdered by a glory-seeking loser, that he resolved never to utter the man's name, the better for everyone, himself included, to forget the man. What better way to deny the murderer exactly what he wanted than to leave him out of history? The man who came up with this brilliant idea: Paul McCartney.

Granted, Paul McCartney had then and has now more power than I or anyone I know will (most likely) ever have. But the internet is the great equalizer in a lot of ways. Enough people get together, they can start a meme, and those little buggers are shit-hard to get rid of. And it's about goddamned time they worked for us instead of against us (and our collective grammar/spelling skills).

So let's start one, right now. Last week, Vernon Hunter, a Vietnam veteran, was killed by a domestic terrorist because he happened to work for the IRS. That's what happened. Spread the word. Rewrite the narrative so this is about a terrorist killing an innocent American. This isn't about the terrorist's frustrations. We don't sympathize with terrorists. We sympathize with victims' families. So let's remember the innocent American who was killed. Let's remember Vernon Hunter, not the man who killed him.
trinityvixen: (Stupid People)
Time for a good old-fashioned gripe. Here's what's annoying me this week!

1. People who pronounce things wrong.
I don't mean people who don't speak English well or have accents. They are lovely and allowed to speak with accents all their life for all I care, especially if they are British. (Or Australian. Or Kiwi. Or even South African, though I will probably confuse that with one of the others--or all of the others at some point.) I mean people who were born and raised in America and obviously speak fluent English who insist on pronouncing words that they clearly have only ever read on paper in a way that is stupid and obviously wrong, and worse, no one corrects them.


2. People who are anorexic presuming to lecture other people about their eating habits. Yes, this article has to do with the Kevin Smith kerfuffle, which should be discussed in terms of customer service and has instead devolved into "Fatties deserve it." But it's a good read. Because even if you want to make this about someone being fat, end of story, you really, really shouldn't let anyone that obsessed with food tell you what's right and what's not when it comes to a) eating, b) obesity, c) anything else. Obsessed people make very poor philosophers.

3. The fact that I'm probably going to have to buy this expansion.
I hate this strategy. )
trinityvixen: (bullshit right?)
One thing that's bugging me about the coverage of the post-earthquake conditions in Haiti is the fact that the reporters can manage all these outrageous comforts and luxuries immediately to do their reporting (and, presumably, keep them going for a week of reporting). One reporter took a helicopter tour of the devastated Port-au-Prince. Couldn't that helicopter have been used for something more constructive? I hope to hell it was radioing in constantly about things it saw for humanitarian workers to get there.

But Christ light is a luxury in Haiti right now, and all these damn reporters are standing in pools of it. Talk to us via radio. We don't need to see your faces. Give that light--light that could be used to help locate people in the dark who might otherwise die waiting--away.

And don't even get me started on Olbermann. I'm REALLY disgusted in his coverage last night. He kept trying to push at this question of whether people were going to be desperate enough to start being dangerous. Over and over and over. This wasn't the idiocy of sending Al Roker to be fat and happy while people were dying. This was fucking racist and it was constant. Will people start rushing the tarmac where supplies are being delivered? Has there been violence? What's going on? Are they rioting yet? Oh my God. I hope to Christ that he's being held at gunpoint to keep bringing that up because otherwise? I lose a lot of respect for him.

Bear in mind, someone did say there'd been reports of gunfire, but this person also said there was no context for it--for all anyone knew, there could have been a collapse that set off guns somewhere. What's important to note about this persistence in picking at this line of thought is that no one gave it any context. The mention of gunfire was the only thing to preface the question of whether people were near to rioting in desperation. But it was summarily dismissed and no further mention of anything like people going feral, no talk of any recent political unrest that would suggest people were on a hair trigger, no murders or theft or anything of the kind mentioned. Even if those things happened, if you don't say that they happened and just keep asking all panicky "ARE THE BROWN PEOPLE REVOLTING YET?" it looks goddamned RACIST, you follow?
trinityvixen: (no sense)
So this woman is out to save marriage from divorce in Oklahoma. This may be an unpopular thing to say, but I applaud her for at least having the courage of her convictions and going full-on with the crazy and not being a hypocrite. See, she really does think gays are a threat to marriage. And she sat a good long time and thought, "Gee, you know what else is a threat to marriage?"

Et voila, she has something she wants done about divorce. Not that she intends to be any less batshit, rights-denying, human-hating about this than she is about gay marriage. This woman wants you married, goddamnit, and you will stay that way, so help her GOD...

Her rules would basically make it impossible for all but childless couples and those who get married at Vegas chapels on drunken binges (are you listening, Britney Spears?) to get divorced. You couldn't divorce for "incompatibility" if you'd been married for ten years or more (because every thing that might happen to you to change your personality has only a ten-year window in which to happen which opens right after you get married and nothing good/bad/major will ever happen to you or your spouse after that window is closed). You also can't divorce for "incompatibility" if you have minor children, which means that unless you were living in sin with the partner with whom you had children until those children were 6-7-8 years of age, HA HA NO DIVORCE FOR YOU. I suppose that's one way to keep an eye on those people of ill repute who would dare to birth bastards in this day and age. (That's probably her next suggestion: finding a way to declare certain kinds of children legally illegitimate in a country with no royalty.)

You also can't object to a divorce on "incompatibility" grounds if the other person objects. Would love to be in that Divorce Court. ("Your Honor, we're clearly incompatible! He wants a divorce and I don't! Er, wait...") It's the kind of logical conundrum that would kill off our Robot Overlords.

The non-funny side to this is that a person who is not outright abusive or unfaithful could trap you in a marriage basically forever by refusing to divorce you. Two things about that: 1) No one should ever have that power over you again, which is why divorce exists at all. 2) If this whole thing were to pass, that person could hold you until such time as you hit the big Tin/Aluminium Anniversary and became ineligible. (Ooh, did this Rep. know that the traditional presents for that anniversary are so...tarnishable?) ::shudders at the thought::

No fault divorce! The three best words in the English language!
trinityvixen: (win!)
I am thankful this kid's maturity especially in this time where adults are behaving like ninnies and schoolyard bullies.

If you can't be bothered to sit still for that whole video--it's painful when the CNN anchor interrupts, I do understand--watch The Daily Show's take at least:
The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Gaywatch - Peter Vadala & William Phillips
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealth Care Crisis

You can disagree with his stance, but you cannot disagree that this kid is preternaturally motivated and logical about his passions. Unlike the screamers in the media, demanding blood, pushing purity tests and other bullshit, Will simply, politely as possible, said he wasn't trucking with something. He exercised his First Amendment rights, and he went about his day. He sounds like the world's most well-adjusted preteen ever. If only adults would so carefully consider their actions and measure their responses to perceived injustices. Nerds 2^2 Ever, indeed. You rock on, Will.

(And, please, do not listen to the goddamned CNN fuckwit. He's not half as smart as you. You don't ever have to say the goddamned Pledge of Allegiance. There doesn't have to be a point where you drop your objection. That's something you'll learn as you transition into being an extremely sharp teenager and, eventually, voting adult: whether or not you agree with it or with the country touting is irrelevant, no one can make you say anything you don't want to. If you just plain don't FEEL like saying it, fuck it.)
trinityvixen: (harley raspberry)
Newsweek took a ton of flak for putting this picture on their cover the other week. The haters claim this move was sexist because it reduces Palin to a pretty face instead of a credible political force.

You don't know from sexism, ya idjits. )

Anyway, regardless, Newsweek felt compelled to prove that they're equal opportunity. So after dutifully printing out the responses to their cover, they cheerfully proved one angry letter-writer wrong by throwing her quote over this picture of Barack Obama. There, now everyone's hot political leader has had his/her sexy action shot in Newsweek and the conservatives who didn't think sexism existed before Sarah Palin became John McCain's running mate can shut the F up.

(I read the comments on the Palin cover with gritted teeth because People. Do. Not. Get. It. When I turned the page to find the picture of Obama, I snorted out loud. On the street. Drawing more than a few looks. Which is even more awkward given that I was looking at a picture of the President wet and shirtless.)
trinityvixen: (question)
ETA: After posting, I went to look at what's coming in the mail to me today. It's Dragonball Evolution--the live-action movie with white people pretending (or not) to be Asian. No wonder I never have to wait for movies!

Someone has been unable to get a DVD through Netflix for almost three months.

How does that even happen? I have never had to wait longer than maybe a couple of days even for something that said "Very Long Wait." I bumped G.I. Joe to the top my queue a few days before going to San Francisco because I thought my brother-in-law would watch it with me. (Turns out he already owned it.) I was mad at myself at the time because I was sure it would never arrive in time--"very long wait" and all. It came like three days later, maybe one whole extra day from the usual two-day turnaround I get on my Netflix movies.

Granted, I live in NYC, and we've got a huge Netflix processing center in Queens on top of the fact that our giant population means that there are always fifteen billion copies of every movie imaginable ready to go at any time. But really? You can be kept waiting for movies? It's always the other way around for me--my movies are waiting on me--and have been to the point that the XBOX is threatening to mutiny if I try to make it load all fifty billion Watch It Now movies I have in my queue one more time.

Other Netflix news: Supposedly Netflix is negotiating with movie studios to arrange a no-rental window on new releases. This is entirely being done to prop up waning DVD sales. It's both a dumb and a smart move. It's dumb in that Netflix risks losing customers who really want new releases as they come out. (Because Netflix, like the old brick-and-mortar video stores of old, gets its new releases on the Friday prior to their general availability, they can mail a new movie such that it arrives on the day it actually comes out.)

It's smart, however, in that I cannot believe Netflix won't get something reeeeeally good out of this. I'm not entirely sure of the power dynamics at work here, but it's the studios who have something to lose. They're not going to pull out from Netflix--that would be suicide--so they don't have much to bargain with. They're going to be the ones coming to Netflix for the favor, and the favor-granter has the power to extract more in return. I wouldn't be surprised if this turned into a cost-cutting measure, where Netflix agreed to the freeze but paid less for the discs or the licensing of streaming movies. If they're smart enough to demand that, that is. The streaming is where so much business is going, but it's hard to get a start in it without a broad, shared base library like Netflix already has (and which Hulu has but weeds out with time). No studio-run start-up streaming sites have taken off. Once again, they need Netflix, and Netflix would be crazy not to milk that for all it was worth.


trinityvixen: (Default)

February 2015

89 1011121314
22232425 262728


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 22nd, 2017 11:40 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios