It was time to relax. I had it all ready: the bag of popcorn, the large glass of cranberry juice, the fluffed-up pillows on my futon, and my feet up on the table. The feature presentation of the evening was to be Million Dollar Baby, a critically acclaimed film that I'd long been eager to watch. I had borrowed it that day for free from the Middletown Public Library.
But then, just as I was ready to settle down into two hours of cinematic bliss, I looked at the DVD box. To my disdain, to my consternation, to my horror, was that loathsome word: FULLSCREEN.
After unleashing a violent series of expletives, I got up, put on my jacket, went downstairs, drove to Blockbuster, paid $4.50 for a rental of the widescreen version of the film, came back, and resumed my evening.
An extreme reaction? Hardly. When I watch a movie, I like to watch the actual movie, not the fake hackjob version. There is no surer way of raping the artistic work of a cinematographer than to render a film into a fullscreen edition.
Movies these days are usually shot in a 16:9 ratio (sometimes in even more rectangular ratios like 2.35:1). This is the rectangular shape of the movie that is projected on movie screens; it is the movie as it was shot and as it is meant to be seen.
Most televisions, however, are still more of a square shape (4:3 ratio) than a rectangular shape. And, as anyone who graduated from kindergarten will tell you, a rectangle will not fit into a square. So if you want to watch a film on your TV, you've got two options: shrink the rectangle down so that it will fit inside the square, or chop off the sides of the rectangle and force it to fit.
The former method accounts for the "letterbox" format of widescreen, with black bars at the top and bottom of the screen. The latter method is fullscreen.
Rendering a movie into fullscreen can cut out up to 45% of the original picture. That's right - you're literally seeing only two-thirds or less of the movie you're watching! And any attempt at artfully setting up shots is completely compromised.
For instance, I grew up loving the Indiana Jones films, and watching them all the time on VHS. The VHS tapes I had were fullscreen versions of the films. When the DVDs finally came out a few years back, I got to see the widescreen versions - and what a difference! I remember one particular shot in Raiders of the Lost Ark, a head-and-shoulders shot of Indy. In the fullscreen version he's simply in the middle of the frame - not a very interesting shot. In the widescreen version, however, he's only on one side of the screen - the entire right side of the shot is a beautiful background panorama. That's how the shot was meant to be seen.
It's not just artistic visions, however, that fullscreen versions compromise; sometimes you miss vital plot elements. Consider this info from Wikipedia's article on Pan and Scan:
Pan and Scan versions of DVDs are often called Fullscreen. But this method can also severely alter compositions and therefore dramatic effects.
For instance, in the film Jaws, the shark can be seen approaching for several seconds more in the widescreen version than in the pan and scan version. For the opening crawl [of text] in each Star Wars film, on the pan and scan versions the viewer has to wait until a line of text of the opening crawl reaches the center of the screen to read through that whole line. On the widescreen versions, each line of the opening crawl text appears in its entirety beginning at the bottom of the screen.
Additionally, in Indiana Jones (I don't know why I'm choosing all these examples from Spielberg), there's a scene in Raiders where Indy is sitting down in a bar with Belloq, the villain. At the end of the scene, all the Arabs in the bar suddenly pull out guns and point them at Indy. But in the widescreen version, this is foreshadowed by a hand in the right foreground handing off a pistol to another mysterious hand. A small detail perhaps, but an interesting one that heightens tension, and leads up to the climax of the scene. And yet it's simply lost in the fullscreen version.
Fullscreen versions of films should not exist at all, and they wouldn't if directors had their way. But there are too many idiots in this country who think that if the picture doesn't fill their screen, they're missing out. They have it backwards: they don't realize that when they watch fullscreen they're missing a third of the movie.
So remember: friends don't let friends watch fullscreen. When you watch a movie, watch the whole movie.
13 February 2007
11 February 2007
Links
A new addition to the Learned Pig: links! Click on them to acquire knowledge and support just causes!
09 February 2007
Extraneous Apostrophes Sold Here
Part 3 in my ongoing series of pictures of ruined English:
Four-wheeler is sold here. Yes, just one. It's a limited-time offer.
06 February 2007
Finally?
In a preview of the ten o'clock news during a break from House tonight, I heard a news anchor ask the following question:
"Coming up, the deep freeze, day 2: how long until we finally get some relief?"
Finally? Did I hear that correctly? Finally? Are you functionally retarded? I seem to remember that autumn lasted through mid-January this year. How soon we forget.
"Finally get some relief" from two days of actual winter. Ha! Now THAT'S the kind of absurdist sensationalism you can find only in the American media.
"Coming up, the deep freeze, day 2: how long until we finally get some relief?"
Finally? Did I hear that correctly? Finally? Are you functionally retarded? I seem to remember that autumn lasted through mid-January this year. How soon we forget.
"Finally get some relief" from two days of actual winter. Ha! Now THAT'S the kind of absurdist sensationalism you can find only in the American media.
America Runs On Cholesterol
Have you seen those "America Runs On Dunkin'" ads for Dunkin' Donuts? They're narrated by John Goodman. John Goodman! Not only a fat man, but a fat man who even distinctly sounds fat. You can hear his bulging neckline putting pressure on his windpipe as he tells you about the new sausage and cheese monstrosities that Dunkin' Donuts wants to pass off for breakfast food.
Their food looks heart-attack-inducing enough; why would Dunkin' Donuts choose a narrator whose chubby voice merely highlights that fact? Don't they get that it's ironic to choose a spokesman who could serve equally well as a poster boy for the unhealthful effects of the food? It's as if the commercials are meant to be cautionary messages brought to you by the American Heart Association.
Their food looks heart-attack-inducing enough; why would Dunkin' Donuts choose a narrator whose chubby voice merely highlights that fact? Don't they get that it's ironic to choose a spokesman who could serve equally well as a poster boy for the unhealthful effects of the food? It's as if the commercials are meant to be cautionary messages brought to you by the American Heart Association.
04 February 2007
For Man Alone
In the course of their constant efforts to erase the line between Church and State, conservatives in the US often argue that the founding fathers were Christian, and intended America to be a Christian country.
This mythical nonsense can be proven false in a number of ways: by remembering that the founding fathers were deists, not Christians; by recognizing that Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison disliked Christian dogma for the simple reason that it held a tyranny over the mind, just as King George had held a tyranny over the colonies; or by acknowledging the emphasis the fathers placed on Enlightenment rationalism as the guiding light through the darkness of superstition.
But nowhere is the founding father's secular humanism more evident, and their desire for a separation of Church and State more obvious, than in the Constitution itself. The US Constitution makes no mention of God - a conspicuous omission in an age when kings still derived their legitimacy from the blessing of the Lord.
Why this omission? Robert Ingersoll, the great 19th-century agnostic orator, explained why the founders insisted on leaving God out of the Constitution - and therefore out of politics:
They knew that to put God in the Constitution was to put man out. They knew that the recognition of a Deity would be seized upon by fanatics and zealots as a pretext for destroying the liberty of thought. They knew the terrible history of the church too well to place in her keeping, or in the keeping of her God, the sacred rights of man. They intended that all should have the right to worship, or not to worship; that our laws should make no distinction on account of creed. They intended to found and frame a government for man, and for man alone. They wished to preserve the individuality of all; to prevent the few from governing the many, and the many from persecuting and destroying the few.
This mythical nonsense can be proven false in a number of ways: by remembering that the founding fathers were deists, not Christians; by recognizing that Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison disliked Christian dogma for the simple reason that it held a tyranny over the mind, just as King George had held a tyranny over the colonies; or by acknowledging the emphasis the fathers placed on Enlightenment rationalism as the guiding light through the darkness of superstition.
But nowhere is the founding father's secular humanism more evident, and their desire for a separation of Church and State more obvious, than in the Constitution itself. The US Constitution makes no mention of God - a conspicuous omission in an age when kings still derived their legitimacy from the blessing of the Lord.
Why this omission? Robert Ingersoll, the great 19th-century agnostic orator, explained why the founders insisted on leaving God out of the Constitution - and therefore out of politics:
They knew that to put God in the Constitution was to put man out. They knew that the recognition of a Deity would be seized upon by fanatics and zealots as a pretext for destroying the liberty of thought. They knew the terrible history of the church too well to place in her keeping, or in the keeping of her God, the sacred rights of man. They intended that all should have the right to worship, or not to worship; that our laws should make no distinction on account of creed. They intended to found and frame a government for man, and for man alone. They wished to preserve the individuality of all; to prevent the few from governing the many, and the many from persecuting and destroying the few.
02 February 2007
On Meat and Meatheads
A disturbing recent trend I've noticed in fast-food commercials has been to target the male demographic by portraying the consumption of processed dead animal flesh as an eminently masculine activity.
In other words, if you're a guy, fast-food companies want you to know that MEAT IS MANLY.
One such commercial, for Quizno's subs I think, features several average-joe types (construction workers, cops, and so on) being polled on a city street. They're each shown two sandwiches - a Quizno's and a Subway's - for which they provide deft and insightful commentary, like "Meat, no meat!" or "Lotta meat. Lotttta meat."
Another commercial features Jared, the most vapid icon in food advertising, extolling the virtues of Subway sandwiches like he usually does. But this time, he's joined by some testosterone-charged pro wrestler, and while Jared is excited about how Subway sandwiches have low fat, the wrestler is all about how they've got "More meat. MORE MEAT!"
The final commercial I've noticed in this emerging genre is a Burger King commercial with some asstard singing about how he likes eating beef because he's a man. (As you can see, this kind of marketing isn't big on subtlety.) The whole time the song's going on, every kind of loser that's ever boasted a Y chromosome is celebrating in the streets by flexing muscles, cheering, punching friends, and eating burgers. The insufferable song, featuring inventive lyrics like "Wave chick food bye-bye, now it's for whopper beef I reach!", ends with the triumphant exclaimation, "I am hungry! I AM MAN!"
As you can see, men love meat. Yes, that's what men do. Eat meat. And drink beer, and catcall at women, and watch football, and scratch their hairy asses.
I gave up eating meat over two years ago, so I'm no longer a man. In the popular view this is an insult, but once one realizes that the popular view of being a man amounts to being a loutish idiot with a gut and high blood pressure, being less manly quickly becomes a positive virtue.
This meathead bullshit is to men what the valley-girl is for women: stupid, annoying, and something to which anyone with a brain would want to take exception. Women aren't the only ones who face demeaning sexual stereotypes.
In other words, if you're a guy, fast-food companies want you to know that MEAT IS MANLY.
One such commercial, for Quizno's subs I think, features several average-joe types (construction workers, cops, and so on) being polled on a city street. They're each shown two sandwiches - a Quizno's and a Subway's - for which they provide deft and insightful commentary, like "Meat, no meat!" or "Lotta meat. Lotttta meat."
Another commercial features Jared, the most vapid icon in food advertising, extolling the virtues of Subway sandwiches like he usually does. But this time, he's joined by some testosterone-charged pro wrestler, and while Jared is excited about how Subway sandwiches have low fat, the wrestler is all about how they've got "More meat. MORE MEAT!"
The final commercial I've noticed in this emerging genre is a Burger King commercial with some asstard singing about how he likes eating beef because he's a man. (As you can see, this kind of marketing isn't big on subtlety.) The whole time the song's going on, every kind of loser that's ever boasted a Y chromosome is celebrating in the streets by flexing muscles, cheering, punching friends, and eating burgers. The insufferable song, featuring inventive lyrics like "Wave chick food bye-bye, now it's for whopper beef I reach!", ends with the triumphant exclaimation, "I am hungry! I AM MAN!"
As you can see, men love meat. Yes, that's what men do. Eat meat. And drink beer, and catcall at women, and watch football, and scratch their hairy asses.
I gave up eating meat over two years ago, so I'm no longer a man. In the popular view this is an insult, but once one realizes that the popular view of being a man amounts to being a loutish idiot with a gut and high blood pressure, being less manly quickly becomes a positive virtue.
This meathead bullshit is to men what the valley-girl is for women: stupid, annoying, and something to which anyone with a brain would want to take exception. Women aren't the only ones who face demeaning sexual stereotypes.
01 February 2007
On Lite Reading
Many books require no thought from those who read them, and for a very simple reason: they made no such demand upon those who wrote them.
-Charles Caleb Colton (1780-1832)
-Charles Caleb Colton (1780-1832)
30 January 2007
Christian Charity
BBC News: No exemption from gay rights law
[Catholic] Adoption agencies had warned they would close rather than place children with gay couples, saying that went against their beliefs.
But Tony Blair said they would get 21 months to prepare for change, calling this a "sensible compromise".
Good ol' Christian Charity. The Catholic Church in England doesn't want to let children in its orphanages be given away to gay parents, and wants to be exempt from anti-discrimination laws that say they have to.
Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, head of Catholics in England and Wales, said this: "We are, of course, deeply disappointed that no exemption will be granted to our agencies on the grounds of widely held religious conviction and conscience."
"Widely held religious conviction and conscience"? I believe he means "widely held religious bigotry and homophobia".
How is denying adoption to gays any different than denying it to, say, black people? I suppose the difference would be that if an organization wanted to deny adoption privileges to a black couple, that organization would not be able to justify its intolerance and irrationality with the base prejudices of an antiquated mythical tradition.
I applaud Tony Blair for taking a firm stand and declaring that "There is no place in our society for discrimination." Bigotry is bigotry, regardless of whether it tries to cloak itself in the false legitimacy of religious belief.
One last thing: Catholic orphanages "would close rather than place children with gay couples"? Now that's the kind of dedicated intolerance at which religion excels. They would rather see orphans starve on the street than see them corrupted by the pernicious influence of loving same-sex parents.
[Catholic] Adoption agencies had warned they would close rather than place children with gay couples, saying that went against their beliefs.
But Tony Blair said they would get 21 months to prepare for change, calling this a "sensible compromise".
Good ol' Christian Charity. The Catholic Church in England doesn't want to let children in its orphanages be given away to gay parents, and wants to be exempt from anti-discrimination laws that say they have to.
Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, head of Catholics in England and Wales, said this: "We are, of course, deeply disappointed that no exemption will be granted to our agencies on the grounds of widely held religious conviction and conscience."
"Widely held religious conviction and conscience"? I believe he means "widely held religious bigotry and homophobia".
How is denying adoption to gays any different than denying it to, say, black people? I suppose the difference would be that if an organization wanted to deny adoption privileges to a black couple, that organization would not be able to justify its intolerance and irrationality with the base prejudices of an antiquated mythical tradition.
I applaud Tony Blair for taking a firm stand and declaring that "There is no place in our society for discrimination." Bigotry is bigotry, regardless of whether it tries to cloak itself in the false legitimacy of religious belief.
One last thing: Catholic orphanages "would close rather than place children with gay couples"? Now that's the kind of dedicated intolerance at which religion excels. They would rather see orphans starve on the street than see them corrupted by the pernicious influence of loving same-sex parents.
28 January 2007
The Real Second Amendment
Here's another dose of specious reasoning from Senator Sam Brownback's presidential campaign site (from the 'issues' section):
Gun Rights/Second Amendment
At the heart of the Bill of Rights is the Second Amendment. This Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep and bear arms, which is essential, as the Amendment itself affirms, to “the security of a free state.”
So there you have it. According to Senator Brownback, the Second Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms is essential to the security of a free state.
Now let's look at what the amendment actually says:
AMENDMENT II.
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Res ipsa loquitor, you illiterate hick. The Second Amendment makes it clear that the right to keep and bear arms is CONTINGENT upon the existence and necessity of a militia. It is the militia - NOT the guns themselves - that are affirmed as being "essential". That's because, at the time the constitution was written, the United States did not have a standing army. The American army was raised on an ad hoc basis - which means that once we found ourselves in armed conflict, we decided to start rounding up some people to fight. Militias could add to the "security of a free State" by acting as first responders until a proper army was raised (like the Minutemen in the Revolutionary War).
Today - over two centuries later - America has the most well-funded and expertly trained standing army in the world. Our soldiers are no longer civilians who keep a gun in the closet and attend a monthly militia drill out on the town square. Today's army is comprised of trained professionals who make a career out of defending the country, and they're quite good at it. We don't need a militia anymore, and therefore we don't need guns.
But even if it were the guns, and not the militia, that the Second Amendment affirms as vital to national security, my point would still be valid. Senator Brownback, how exactly is it that arming ordinary citizens makes anyone any safer? Personally, I think protecting the right of any jerk with $400 to buy a lethal firearm undermines the security of a modern free State.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be revised or rejected, because in its current state it is obsolete.
PS: Where does Brownback get off saying that the Second Amendment is "at the heart of the Bill of Rights"?? What about the First or Fifth Amendments? I think most non-homicidal Americans would choose free speech, freedom of religion, or due process of law over gun rights any day. I'd say the First Amendment is the heart of the Bill of Rights; the Second Amendment is more like the ass.
Gun Rights/Second Amendment
At the heart of the Bill of Rights is the Second Amendment. This Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep and bear arms, which is essential, as the Amendment itself affirms, to “the security of a free state.”
So there you have it. According to Senator Brownback, the Second Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms is essential to the security of a free state.
Now let's look at what the amendment actually says:
AMENDMENT II.
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Res ipsa loquitor, you illiterate hick. The Second Amendment makes it clear that the right to keep and bear arms is CONTINGENT upon the existence and necessity of a militia. It is the militia - NOT the guns themselves - that are affirmed as being "essential". That's because, at the time the constitution was written, the United States did not have a standing army. The American army was raised on an ad hoc basis - which means that once we found ourselves in armed conflict, we decided to start rounding up some people to fight. Militias could add to the "security of a free State" by acting as first responders until a proper army was raised (like the Minutemen in the Revolutionary War).
Today - over two centuries later - America has the most well-funded and expertly trained standing army in the world. Our soldiers are no longer civilians who keep a gun in the closet and attend a monthly militia drill out on the town square. Today's army is comprised of trained professionals who make a career out of defending the country, and they're quite good at it. We don't need a militia anymore, and therefore we don't need guns.
But even if it were the guns, and not the militia, that the Second Amendment affirms as vital to national security, my point would still be valid. Senator Brownback, how exactly is it that arming ordinary citizens makes anyone any safer? Personally, I think protecting the right of any jerk with $400 to buy a lethal firearm undermines the security of a modern free State.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be revised or rejected, because in its current state it is obsolete.
PS: Where does Brownback get off saying that the Second Amendment is "at the heart of the Bill of Rights"?? What about the First or Fifth Amendments? I think most non-homicidal Americans would choose free speech, freedom of religion, or due process of law over gun rights any day. I'd say the First Amendment is the heart of the Bill of Rights; the Second Amendment is more like the ass.
27 January 2007
Thomas Paine: Rational American
I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.
The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall.
Your affectionate friend and fellow citizen,
THOMAS PAINE.
-From the preface to The Age of Reason (1794)
The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall.
Your affectionate friend and fellow citizen,
THOMAS PAINE.
-From the preface to The Age of Reason (1794)
24 January 2007
The Last Thing We Need
Senator Sam Brownback (Retard - KS) is one of the GOP's "virtuecrats" that make the Republican party so repulsive to anyone with a functioning brain. Read his presidential campaign page - the most salient point of his strategy for helping America seems to be prayer. Like that'll do a damn bit of good. (On the other hand, maybe it really will: I'd rather that Brownback waste his time praying than passing legislation to advance his theocratic agenda.)
In a recent speech, Brownback made his stance quite clear on the relationship between church and state: "The last thing we need in America," he said, "is to take God out of our public lives and institutions!"
If that's true, than our Founding Fathers really screwed up. There is no mention of God in the United States Constitution.
But fortunately, it's not true. Taking God out of public life is exactly what this country needs. God deserves no place in politics, not only because he isn't real, but also because including him in public institutions is unfair to citizens who are too intelligent to base their value systems on belief in a mythical deity and hope of reward after death.
The last thing we need in America is more evangelical idiots from Kansas.
In a recent speech, Brownback made his stance quite clear on the relationship between church and state: "The last thing we need in America," he said, "is to take God out of our public lives and institutions!"
If that's true, than our Founding Fathers really screwed up. There is no mention of God in the United States Constitution.
But fortunately, it's not true. Taking God out of public life is exactly what this country needs. God deserves no place in politics, not only because he isn't real, but also because including him in public institutions is unfair to citizens who are too intelligent to base their value systems on belief in a mythical deity and hope of reward after death.
The last thing we need in America is more evangelical idiots from Kansas.
23 January 2007
The State of Our Union
The State of the Union Speech 2007: A Concise Summary
"Madam Speaker: The President of the United States." Applause. Nancy Pelosi presents President Bush. Applause. President Bush makes flattering remarks about Nancy Pelosi being first female Speaker. Applause. President Bush begins speech with vague assertions about strength and confidence of nation. Applause. President continues to talk. Applause continues to interrupt. Camera zooms in on Ted Kennedy, who looks like he's napping because he's looking down to read. President talks about not raising taxes. Lots of applause. President talks about economy. Applause. President talks about medicare. Applause. President goes into long talk about national security and the war on terror. Frequent allusions to 9/11, frequent applause. President proposes energy reform. Much applause. President introduces an altruistic NBA player, a successful entrepreneur, a heroic soldier, and a guy who saved someone from being hit by a train, and bullshits his way into making them somehow relevant to his speech. Rancorous applause. President talks more about national security and other foreign policy issues. Applause. President makes plea for working together. Applause. Thank you, may God continue to bless etc, applause applause applause.
Jim Webb (D-VA) gives Democratic response. Reads carefully off teleprompter. Says Bush better listen to Democrats now that they have power.
Wolf Blitzer and other talking heads analyze the speech, debate its various implications, and generally fail to say anything of real value or interest.
"Madam Speaker: The President of the United States." Applause. Nancy Pelosi presents President Bush. Applause. President Bush makes flattering remarks about Nancy Pelosi being first female Speaker. Applause. President Bush begins speech with vague assertions about strength and confidence of nation. Applause. President continues to talk. Applause continues to interrupt. Camera zooms in on Ted Kennedy, who looks like he's napping because he's looking down to read. President talks about not raising taxes. Lots of applause. President talks about economy. Applause. President talks about medicare. Applause. President goes into long talk about national security and the war on terror. Frequent allusions to 9/11, frequent applause. President proposes energy reform. Much applause. President introduces an altruistic NBA player, a successful entrepreneur, a heroic soldier, and a guy who saved someone from being hit by a train, and bullshits his way into making them somehow relevant to his speech. Rancorous applause. President talks more about national security and other foreign policy issues. Applause. President makes plea for working together. Applause. Thank you, may God continue to bless etc, applause applause applause.
Jim Webb (D-VA) gives Democratic response. Reads carefully off teleprompter. Says Bush better listen to Democrats now that they have power.
Wolf Blitzer and other talking heads analyze the speech, debate its various implications, and generally fail to say anything of real value or interest.
22 January 2007
Ancient Delusions
From BBC News: Ancient Greek gods' new believers
If you think it's crazy that there are people walking around today who believe in the gods of ancient Greece, ask yourself: why is that any more crazy or idiotic than, say, belief in Judaism or Christianity?
Both belief systems feature ancient cultural roots, mythical stories, impressive feats of architecture, and promises of an afterlife. There's no more evidence for the existence of the Judeo-Christian God than there is for that of the ancient Greek gods, and the rituals of the ancient Greeks aren't especially more ridiculous than those of Judaism and Christianity. When you really think about it, the only difference is that the Greek gods have fallen out of fashion.
The article cites a Greek orthodox priest who calls the group of worshippers "a handful of miserable resuscitators of a degenerate dead religion who wish to return to the monstrous dark delusions of the past". But of course he would say that. He himself is a perpetuator of a degenerate, but still fashionable, religion who wishes to continue the monstrous dark delusions of the present, so he's angry probably because he's worried about copyright infringement.
If you think it's crazy that there are people walking around today who believe in the gods of ancient Greece, ask yourself: why is that any more crazy or idiotic than, say, belief in Judaism or Christianity?
Both belief systems feature ancient cultural roots, mythical stories, impressive feats of architecture, and promises of an afterlife. There's no more evidence for the existence of the Judeo-Christian God than there is for that of the ancient Greek gods, and the rituals of the ancient Greeks aren't especially more ridiculous than those of Judaism and Christianity. When you really think about it, the only difference is that the Greek gods have fallen out of fashion.
The article cites a Greek orthodox priest who calls the group of worshippers "a handful of miserable resuscitators of a degenerate dead religion who wish to return to the monstrous dark delusions of the past". But of course he would say that. He himself is a perpetuator of a degenerate, but still fashionable, religion who wishes to continue the monstrous dark delusions of the present, so he's angry probably because he's worried about copyright infringement.
18 January 2007
Have a "good time"
Part 2 in my series of PICTURES OF RUINED ENGLISH comes from Philladelphia! City of the Liberty Bell, the Cheese Steak, and apparently, "Good Times".
Once again, superfluous quotation marks add an air of suspicion to an otherwise respectable sign. This restaurant put quotes around "BEST" and "GOOD TIMES", presumably in a misguided attempt at adding emphasis. It's possible that they're actually quoting someone, but grammatical ignorance is more likely.
Either way, the quotes suggest that the reader should be skeptical. So, you've got the "BEST" MARGARITAS? According to whom? "GOOD TIMES" SINCE 1978? That just looks sarcastic! It's as if the manager wants you to think that this is the "BEST" place for "GOOD TIMES", but the guy making the sign knows that they've got roaches in the kitchen and 2 pending lawsuits for food poisoning. Underlining would have added the emphasis they wanted without making it look like they're giving you the old nudge-nudge wink-wink as they say it.
Thanks to KW for contributing the photos.
Once again, superfluous quotation marks add an air of suspicion to an otherwise respectable sign. This restaurant put quotes around "BEST" and "GOOD TIMES", presumably in a misguided attempt at adding emphasis. It's possible that they're actually quoting someone, but grammatical ignorance is more likely.
Either way, the quotes suggest that the reader should be skeptical. So, you've got the "BEST" MARGARITAS? According to whom? "GOOD TIMES" SINCE 1978? That just looks sarcastic! It's as if the manager wants you to think that this is the "BEST" place for "GOOD TIMES", but the guy making the sign knows that they've got roaches in the kitchen and 2 pending lawsuits for food poisoning. Underlining would have added the emphasis they wanted without making it look like they're giving you the old nudge-nudge wink-wink as they say it.
Thanks to KW for contributing the photos.
15 January 2007
Just A Theory
Despite that all of modern biology is based on the theory of evolution, there still exist numerous religious and otherwise stupid people in our society who doubt the reality of the evolutionary process.
These people can commonly be heard declaring, with grave authority: "Evolution is, after all, just a theory."
And they're right. Evolution is a theory.
But so is gravity.
So the next time someone tells you that evolution is "just a theory", tell them to go jump off a bridge.
These people can commonly be heard declaring, with grave authority: "Evolution is, after all, just a theory."
And they're right. Evolution is a theory.
But so is gravity.
So the next time someone tells you that evolution is "just a theory", tell them to go jump off a bridge.
11 January 2007
A Thought During Takeoff
Flight Attendant [over intercom]: "The captain would like to remind you to fasten your seatbelt..."
Me: The captain? Does he know something I don't?
Me: The captain? Does he know something I don't?
04 January 2007
Galileo
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
-Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Too bad the Church didn't feel the same way. Poor Galileo was convicted of heresy and put under house arrest for the rest of his life - all because he had the outrageous audacity to suggest that the sun does not revolve around the Earth.
The Bible - which was written many centuries before even the telescope was invented - implied that the Earth was at the center of the whole universe. And the Church believed the innocent scientific ignorance of this ancient book of myths as the Absolute Truth. So that was that. Galileo, one of the most brilliant thinkers in history, was dismissed as nothing but a simple heretic.
That's the trouble with religion: it always requires you to forgo sense, reason, and intellect. This practice of forgoing rational thought is called faith, which is a euphimism for stupidity and is a prerequisite for all religious thinking.
-Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Too bad the Church didn't feel the same way. Poor Galileo was convicted of heresy and put under house arrest for the rest of his life - all because he had the outrageous audacity to suggest that the sun does not revolve around the Earth.
The Bible - which was written many centuries before even the telescope was invented - implied that the Earth was at the center of the whole universe. And the Church believed the innocent scientific ignorance of this ancient book of myths as the Absolute Truth. So that was that. Galileo, one of the most brilliant thinkers in history, was dismissed as nothing but a simple heretic.
That's the trouble with religion: it always requires you to forgo sense, reason, and intellect. This practice of forgoing rational thought is called faith, which is a euphimism for stupidity and is a prerequisite for all religious thinking.
02 January 2007
Fear
"Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less."
-Marie Curie
-Marie Curie
24 December 2006
Why I'm a Feminist
I was watching TV the other day, and saw a Direct TV commercial that hurt my brain. In an outrageous assault on the intelligence of the viewer (and women everywhere), Jessica Simpson walks into a bar in a revealing outfit (redundant, I know, to say 'revealing outfit' and 'Jessica Simpson' in the same sentence). She is supposed to be in character as the waitress she portrayed in the cinematic miscarriage Dukes of Hazzard, but I fail to see the difference. Anyway, she starts blathering to the camera, in a coquettish southern accent, about how she's spent all these days working out at the gym, and she's insulted that her salacious male fans won't do her the justice of buying Direct TV to enjoy her fake plastic body in as much detail as possible. Yes, that's right - she's basically saying "I've worked so hard to become a vapid sex object, and now I'm offended you aren't going to objectify me to the fullest extent possible!"
But the climax of this idiocy is when she rattles off some detailed technical specifications about what she's selling, pauses, turns to the camera, and says with a smile:
"I totally don't know what that means - but I want it!"
In this sentence, dear readers, we have the three pillars of modern society's feminine Ideal. She is 1: Hot, 2: Brainless, and 3: Materialistic. Think of not only Jessica Simpson, but Paris Hilton, Brittany Spears, Nicole Richie, Miss America, and so on.
Hotness may be an obvious characteristic, but it's a certain kind of hotness: the kind created by plastic surgeons that makes you look like a six-foot Barbie doll. Brainlessness - when's the last time you saw a sex icon wearing glasses? And Materialism - Paris Hilton failed to identify who Tony Blair was in a recent interview (see Brainlessness), but I'm sure she can tell you all about the differences between Coach and Gucci handbags, or about how many square miles of closet space she has.
I long for the day that a beautiful, smart, and independent feminine Ideal replaces the current hot, brainless, materialistic one. The fact that this places me in the minority among American men is the reason I am a feminist.
But the climax of this idiocy is when she rattles off some detailed technical specifications about what she's selling, pauses, turns to the camera, and says with a smile:
"I totally don't know what that means - but I want it!"
In this sentence, dear readers, we have the three pillars of modern society's feminine Ideal. She is 1: Hot, 2: Brainless, and 3: Materialistic. Think of not only Jessica Simpson, but Paris Hilton, Brittany Spears, Nicole Richie, Miss America, and so on.
Hotness may be an obvious characteristic, but it's a certain kind of hotness: the kind created by plastic surgeons that makes you look like a six-foot Barbie doll. Brainlessness - when's the last time you saw a sex icon wearing glasses? And Materialism - Paris Hilton failed to identify who Tony Blair was in a recent interview (see Brainlessness), but I'm sure she can tell you all about the differences between Coach and Gucci handbags, or about how many square miles of closet space she has.
I long for the day that a beautiful, smart, and independent feminine Ideal replaces the current hot, brainless, materialistic one. The fact that this places me in the minority among American men is the reason I am a feminist.
22 December 2006
Real People
"Just as people with dysfunctional kidneys are getting perfect ones from hospitals nowadays, Americans with dysfunctional social lives are getting perfect friends and relatives from their TV sets. And around the clock!
'Hell is other people,' said Jean-Paul Sartre. 'Hell is other real people,' is what he should have said."
-Kurt Vonnegut, from the introduction to Bagombo Snuff Box
'Hell is other people,' said Jean-Paul Sartre. 'Hell is other real people,' is what he should have said."
-Kurt Vonnegut, from the introduction to Bagombo Snuff Box
15 December 2006
China's not gay
An addendum to my criticism of Jim Rutz's asinine contention that soy food makes children gay: if that were true, wouldn't most of China be gay? They eat a lot of soy, but as far as I know, communists aren't known for their flamboyance or good fashion sense.
Special recognition goes out to Anne Barreca and Kiri Oliver for finding that hilariously stupid article.
Special recognition goes out to Anne Barreca and Kiri Oliver for finding that hilariously stupid article.
14 December 2006
Smart
BBC: High IQ link to being vegetarian
Well fancy that. Of course, it's debatable whether people become vegetarian as a direct result of a high IQ, or because a high IQ tends to correlate with awareness of ethics and health issues, but I'll take it as a compliment either way.
Well fancy that. Of course, it's debatable whether people become vegetarian as a direct result of a high IQ, or because a high IQ tends to correlate with awareness of ethics and health issues, but I'll take it as a compliment either way.
13 December 2006
Deliver us from soy
This just in: soy causes not only homosexuality, but also obesity, cancer, and probably genocide too.
Jim Rutz is actually dense enough to look at how most Americans eat fast food, drink soda, and don't exercise, and conclude: yep, it's the soy that's making them fat. Oh, and it also causes gay babies.
Jim Rutz is actually dense enough to look at how most Americans eat fast food, drink soda, and don't exercise, and conclude: yep, it's the soy that's making them fat. Oh, and it also causes gay babies.
I wonder how much he benches. As a vegetarian, I get a whole lot of my protein from soy, especially soy milk, tofu, and soy peanut butter. And as someone who lifts a lot of weights, I have a sneaking suspicion that I could kick the shit out of this guy, despite my estro-femi-wuss diet. But that's just my liberal, pinko, gay slant towards listening to M.D.s, whose years of education and experience has given them such an uninformed bias towards nutrition that they actually say that soy is healthy and as effective as animal meat in building muscle. Lies. All lies. It may be true that I can run a sub-6:00 mile and do more than twice as many pushups as the average healthy person, but it's all a momentary fluke before the fall. I'mreally on a one-way trip to fat gay death.
Oh, and if you're wondering about Jim Rutz's credentials, he's not a doctor. He's chairman of Megashift Ministries and co-founder of Open Church Ministries. Who needs brains when you have faith? Besides, thinking is so gay.
12 December 2006
Save thee, friend, and thy music
Listen to some of my friend's music. It's good. It's very very good. And you can listen to it and/or download it for free!
10 December 2006
Oh, it's only "danger"...
Part 1.5 in my series of ruined English comes from KW, reporting from Thailand. It's part 1.5, and not part 2, because the sign was actually in Thai, and we unfortunately don't have a picture of it anyway. Nevertheless, it qualifies for the series because it includes misapproprated quotations, which are annoying and hilarious even in translation.
KW saw a sign outside a Bangkok construction site that said:
KW saw a sign outside a Bangkok construction site that said:
Construction Zone
"Danger"
Keep Out
q
Idiotic misuse of quotations is one of the most common grammatical mistakes seen in everyday life. For some reason, people seem to think that slapping quotations on a word or sentence adds emphasis to what they're writing. But the ONE and ONLY purpose of quotations is to show that you are using words that aren't your own. If you want to add visual stress to something, you can underline, bold, italicize, or capitalize the words (see previous sentence for demonstration). But adding quotes can convey the impression that the writer wants to raise skepticism about the validity of what is written. Is this construction site really dangerous, or is it only "dangerous"?
08 December 2006
Deck the Malls
‘Twas the month before Christmas,
And all through America,
The people were embroiled
In consumer hysteria.
Billboards, TV ads,
Radio jingles too,
All carefully employed
To con suckers like you.
The songs on the radio tell me that this is "the most wonderful time of the year.” I disagree; it seems to me that ‘obnoxious’ or ‘absurd' or ‘pine-scented’ might be more appropriate adjectives than ‘wonderful’. But maybe I just lack this elusive “holiday spirit” that everyone seems so enthused about.
The season is the same every year. First, a brutal onslaught of colored lights, insufferable music, and flashy store displays rip out your everlasting soul. Then, a slew of obtrusive advertisements remind you that the only way to fill this void in your existence is to crap away all of your money on presents. A meaningful present is an expensive present. LOVING IS BUYING. CHRISTMAS IS CONSUMPTION.
No where can you witness this mind-numbing, Orwellian fiasco of commercialism better than in shopping malls. Seething masses of frantic holiday shoppers pack themselves into malls everywhere, and lug their bundles of department store bags all over the building in search of that special scarf, iPod, or toolset. You see all kinds of people: the business executive buying flashy jewelry for his wife, the pair of middle-aged housewives shopping for their bratty kids, the bratty kids sitting on Santa’s lap, the fat lady in purple spandex pretending she’s interested in buying a cellular phone. All desperately shopping, all desperately spending, all desperately trying to conform to social standards created by clever marketing.
Signs and posters all over the mall provide you with clichéd, ulterior-motivated stock phrases describing what the season is all about. It’s about giving – giving, that is, Gap Sweaters for only 29.99. It’s about caring – and what better way to show him you care than to buy him a gas grill he won’t use until July? It’s about fun – and your eight-year-old can’t have fun without this video game. It’s about love – and you don’t love people if you don’t spend enough money on them.
But it’s not just the malls. The other day I was watching TV, and a jewelry ad came on: “This year, get her diamonds, the gift she really wants!” That’s right. The television just told me that what I got for my girlfriend last year wasn’t what she really wanted. She really wanted diamonds. My television knows my girlfriend better than I do. I'm a failure - unless, of course, I go drop a huge wad of cash on an aesthetic rock whose carbon bonds will, through some mysterious process, provide the only acceptable demonstration of my love and affection.
Remember how, when the Grinch tried to steal Christmas, it didn’t work because he stole just presents, and not the Christmas spirit itself? That was a nice story. But if some kind of Seussian Grinch were to steal all of OUR presents, we’d all weep, gnash our teeth, and then implode for want of a reason to exist. Make no mistake, though – we do have a kind of ‘Holiday Spirit’. It’s just not symbolized by wreaths, or trees, or menorahs, or those funny light-up Santas on people’s roofs. It’s embodied in the Santas on Coke bottles. Santa Claus endorses soft drinks, because he’s figured out that the true spirit of the season is not love, or Jesus, or family, or any other heartwarming metaphysical idea. It's the simple material act of consumption.
And all through America,
The people were embroiled
In consumer hysteria.
Billboards, TV ads,
Radio jingles too,
All carefully employed
To con suckers like you.
The songs on the radio tell me that this is "the most wonderful time of the year.” I disagree; it seems to me that ‘obnoxious’ or ‘absurd' or ‘pine-scented’ might be more appropriate adjectives than ‘wonderful’. But maybe I just lack this elusive “holiday spirit” that everyone seems so enthused about.
The season is the same every year. First, a brutal onslaught of colored lights, insufferable music, and flashy store displays rip out your everlasting soul. Then, a slew of obtrusive advertisements remind you that the only way to fill this void in your existence is to crap away all of your money on presents. A meaningful present is an expensive present. LOVING IS BUYING. CHRISTMAS IS CONSUMPTION.
No where can you witness this mind-numbing, Orwellian fiasco of commercialism better than in shopping malls. Seething masses of frantic holiday shoppers pack themselves into malls everywhere, and lug their bundles of department store bags all over the building in search of that special scarf, iPod, or toolset. You see all kinds of people: the business executive buying flashy jewelry for his wife, the pair of middle-aged housewives shopping for their bratty kids, the bratty kids sitting on Santa’s lap, the fat lady in purple spandex pretending she’s interested in buying a cellular phone. All desperately shopping, all desperately spending, all desperately trying to conform to social standards created by clever marketing.
Signs and posters all over the mall provide you with clichéd, ulterior-motivated stock phrases describing what the season is all about. It’s about giving – giving, that is, Gap Sweaters for only 29.99. It’s about caring – and what better way to show him you care than to buy him a gas grill he won’t use until July? It’s about fun – and your eight-year-old can’t have fun without this video game. It’s about love – and you don’t love people if you don’t spend enough money on them.
But it’s not just the malls. The other day I was watching TV, and a jewelry ad came on: “This year, get her diamonds, the gift she really wants!” That’s right. The television just told me that what I got for my girlfriend last year wasn’t what she really wanted. She really wanted diamonds. My television knows my girlfriend better than I do. I'm a failure - unless, of course, I go drop a huge wad of cash on an aesthetic rock whose carbon bonds will, through some mysterious process, provide the only acceptable demonstration of my love and affection.
Remember how, when the Grinch tried to steal Christmas, it didn’t work because he stole just presents, and not the Christmas spirit itself? That was a nice story. But if some kind of Seussian Grinch were to steal all of OUR presents, we’d all weep, gnash our teeth, and then implode for want of a reason to exist. Make no mistake, though – we do have a kind of ‘Holiday Spirit’. It’s just not symbolized by wreaths, or trees, or menorahs, or those funny light-up Santas on people’s roofs. It’s embodied in the Santas on Coke bottles. Santa Claus endorses soft drinks, because he’s figured out that the true spirit of the season is not love, or Jesus, or family, or any other heartwarming metaphysical idea. It's the simple material act of consumption.
05 December 2006
If you think your job is tough...
We work a lot in America, but we forget that much of the world labors for a living. Next time you feel fussy about getting up and going to work, think of this guy, and the couple billion people like him who labor all day, almost every day, in harsh conditions, for bare subsistance wages. Dental plan and 401(k) not included.
04 December 2006
What's in a name
"The first of many strokes of good fortune for Adolf Hitler took place thirteen years before he was born. In 1876, the man who was to become his father changed his name from Alois Schicklgruber to Alois Hitler. Adolf can be believed when he said that nothing his father had done had pleased him so much as to drop the coarsely rustic name of Schicklgruber. Certainly, 'Heil Schicklgruber' would have sounded an unlikely salutation to a national hero."
Thus opens Ian Kershaw's two-volume biography Hitler, a well-written and informative (albeit unsettling) read. Amazing, the power of a name. It's unlikely Hitler would have gotten far in politics with a name so clumsy and undignified as Schicklgruber.
That little anecdote came to mind the other day when I heard that a man named Tom Vilsack is running for president in '08. President Vilsack? Can you imagine that? Today, President Vilsack held a summit with world leaders on... No way.
Politics is all about image, and it really helps to have a catchy name - or at least a name that doesn't suggest a synonym for 'scrotum'. We've had 43 presidents in our country's history, and the goofiest last names out of that pool are Roosevelt, Hoover, and Fillmore. I doubt Vilsack's gonna make the cut.
Though it must be said that Vilsack is better than Schicklgruber. Or Hitler. Definitely better than Hitler.
Thus opens Ian Kershaw's two-volume biography Hitler, a well-written and informative (albeit unsettling) read. Amazing, the power of a name. It's unlikely Hitler would have gotten far in politics with a name so clumsy and undignified as Schicklgruber.
That little anecdote came to mind the other day when I heard that a man named Tom Vilsack is running for president in '08. President Vilsack? Can you imagine that? Today, President Vilsack held a summit with world leaders on... No way.
Politics is all about image, and it really helps to have a catchy name - or at least a name that doesn't suggest a synonym for 'scrotum'. We've had 43 presidents in our country's history, and the goofiest last names out of that pool are Roosevelt, Hoover, and Fillmore. I doubt Vilsack's gonna make the cut.
Though it must be said that Vilsack is better than Schicklgruber. Or Hitler. Definitely better than Hitler.
01 December 2006
YOUR BRAIN IS TO SMALL
Part 1 in my series of... PICTURES OF RUINED ENGLISH!
I took this picture while driving in Hartford. The back of the truck reads:
BK CONSTRUCTION
'NO JOB TO SMALL'
No job too small... except, of course, remembering elementary-school grammar and spelling. Would you trust someone who can't discriminate between "to" and "too" to build your house? Maybe they also can't tell the difference between a blueprint and a coloring book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
