(no subject)

Okay, who put Bill and Ted in charge of naming Royal Honors?

Cheif designer of iPod named 'Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire'

Know what would be wicked? Seeing Queen Elizabeth pulling a bitchin' air guitar next time she stands out in front of a crowd. Instead of that, you know, stiff wave she does.

WYLD STALLYNS RULE!! RULE BRITANIA!!!!!

It could happen.

(no subject)

Because these links expire and I might want to go back and be amazed at the stupid things people say, and because this one is especially a tetchy subject, I'm just going to copy the whole thing here:

( An End to the Statute of Limitations for Rapes? )

From a purely practical-personal reality standpoint, I am flabbergasted as to why this should even be a question. YES, YOU SHOULD ABOLISH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON RAPE. That it's classified as B Felony I did not know, but now I do, I am outraged. Outraged. Sexual violence, particularly that against women, being treated as less life-shattering than A Felonies is a joke, right?

Not only is this yet another example of gender bias and ignorance on the part of the mostly-male legislature, but this is a crime against common sense. The case documented in this article proves that. If not for the lax treatment of rapes in the past, this man Worrell might not have kept raping for some thirty years as he has. True, policing standards have improved--as the article says, there's a 'rape kit' for crimes involving sexual violence these days--but that won't necessarily rescue or give closure to the victims who weren't so lucky to be processed--or who can never have someone pay for the crime at all.

And it should be a crime that some defense attorney can say eliminating the statute of limitations on rape will 'demotivate' the police who are investigating. The defendant at the center of this article is a good example of why (let me borrow a muggle Moody, please?) constant vigilance is needed in all matters, not to mention that DNA testing makes even the most anonymous of rapes that much more solvable. To argue that we should give rapists a five-year sweat period and then a get-out-of-prosecution free pass because otherwise the police might not do their job in a timely fashion is insulting to every cop out there and spitting in the eye of victims who were traumatized or ignored into silence because of previous decades' draconian policies regarding rapes (having to prove you struggled to even get a cop's ear then having strangers with authority rifling through your underwear drawer instead of looking for evidence? It's a wonder any rapes were ever proved in the 70s).

Oh yes, the bitch is back, and she has the internet again.

Bah?

From an article titled "New Cultural Approach for Conservative Christians: Reviews, Not Protests" on The New York Times online:

Like their secular counterparts, Christian critics are diverse in their judgments. Most laud the semi-allegorical "Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," based on the spiritually infused novels by C. S. Lewis, as well as tales of salvation like "The Shawshank Redemption," "The Last Samurai" or the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, which many pastors cite in sermons. But many also praise wholesome fluff like "Serenity" or serious fare like "2001: A Space Odyssey," which appears on the Vatican's 1995 list of 45 great films for its blend of "science fiction and metaphysical poetry."

::blinks:: Did they watch the same movies I did? I remember reading a Christian-oriented review of The Matrix that implied (might even have said straight out) that stopping bullets was against God. Someone want to tell me how Serenity, with its anti-religion Captain and established support of prostitution (not to mention vaguely inferred acceptance of homosexuality) is being praised? And I've not seen 2001 (don't start, please), but wouldn't AI pretty much violate Catholicism as we know it? And it's on the Vatican's happy movie list? Wha' happen?