Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in Nifty McNiftington's LiveJournal:

[ << Previous 20 ]

Thursday, January 28th, 2010
12:15 pm	Content-Free Post of the Day Schpedoinkled from miss_breeziness (5 Comments |Comment on this)
11:29 am	The bravest/stupidest cat ever Longtime readers know that three of my favorite things are: 1. Cats 2. Bears 3. Little animals beating up big animals. This video has all three. And yes, it is what you think. (9 Comments |Comment on this)
Sunday, January 10th, 2010
4:57 pm	Google Image Search I'm always amused at what Google Image suggests when I start typing something into the search box. For example, when I had typed "Yvo" the top suggestion was Yvonne Strahovski. That's not that surprising, considering she's the most attractive famous person whose name starts with "Yvo." But earlier today, I was talking to electricia about Kurt Warner's wife, whose name I didn't know. I typed "Kurt W," and the number two suggestion was "Kurt Warner's wife." (The number one suggestion was Kurt Warner.) I found that a little weird. As a side note, here's something completely bizarre about Kurt Warner's wife. Check out this: The picture on the left is from 10 years ago, and the picture on the right is recent. No, I didn't get that backwards. She's actually 10 years younger on the left, despite the fact that she looks about 20-30 years older. What's up with that? (That picture is from a blog post entitled "When did Kurt Warner's wife stop looking like Cloris Leachman?") (6 Comments |Comment on this)
4:46 pm	Chuck Just a reminder that Chuck, the best show currently on TV, has its third season premier tonight at 8:00. Go watch it! You won't regret it. And if you do regret, you're wrong. And if you need any more incentive, I'll point out that it stars her: (4 Comments |Comment on this)
Wednesday, January 6th, 2010
12:07 pm	Quick Pointless Post I have a friend who shares her name with a somewhat famous actress. And part of my job involves looking at top keywords people searched for that brought them to various celebrity gossip sites. For one of the sites I check, one of the top keywords is invariably "[my friend's name] sex tape." That always weirds me out. (7 Comments |Comment on this)
Monday, December 21st, 2009
5:36 pm	A Vat of Tar Avatar looks amazing. This is the first movie where three dimensions are used as a visual filmmaking technique, rather than just a gimmick with random crap flying at the screen. James Cameron has developed a whole new way of thinking about cinematography, to provide an immersive experience in an incredibly detailed world. Avatar is to 3-D movies as The Wizard of Oz is to color movies. Other filmmakers will spend the next decade trying to replicate what James Cameron has done. Eventually they'll surpass him, and all movies will be filmed in the immersive 3-D style Cameron created. If you care about visuals, you absolutely should see Avatar in 3-D. On the other hand, if you care about things like story, characters, themes, or not having your intelligence insulted, you should stay far far away. Because visuals aside, Avatar is a big fat bloated incredibly predictable generic steaming pile of crap. It almost seems pointless to review it because it's so incredibly predictable. I walked out of the theater thinking "If I told someone the first few minutes of the movie, they could tell me everything that happened after that." Then I got home and tested this theory with my wife. Without seeing the movie, she was able to describe every major plot point with perfect accuracy. And I do mean perfect. There wasn't a single key event she left out, or a single thing she predicted that wasn't in the movie. (And she hadn't even seen Dances With Wolves.) You can try this yourself: There's a planet that has some extremely valuable ore on it, that a greedy corporation wants to mine. But there's also a population of aboriginal humanoids that lives on the planet, and their village is right on top of the richest ore deposit. So the eeevil corporation genetically engineers an alien body, and hires a Marine to remotely control it. They want him to infiltrate the alien village, learn their ways, and gain their trust. Then he can either negotiate with them to move their village, or if that won't work, give the eeeevil corporation's military inside information that they can use when it comes time to move/kill the aliens by force. And then... well, you know what happens next. Yes, you're correct about that. And that. And that too. There are only two things that were remotely surprising, and that's because they're even stupider than I was expecting. One is how ridiculously bad the military tactics are. Now, I'm certainly no expert on military tactics, but the eeevil corporation's army makes the military in the Starship Troopers movie look like freaking geniuses. In the final battle, the eeeevil corporation's goal is to drop a bomb from a spaceship onto a magic tree. Instead of say, dropping the bomb from space, they have the spaceship very slowly fly at a low altitude so it can be attacked by aborigines flying mini-dragons. And then they land a bunch of infantry, whose sole job seems to be to stand around waiting to get killed. The other surprisingly stupid part is where the main character prays to the alien god for help, and at a key point in the battle god sends an army of animals to defeat the eeeevil corporation. Yes, that actually happens. One side note: Some people are offended by the anti-human theme of the movie. But it's not so much anti-human as anti-eeeeevil murderers. When you think about it, cheering for aboriginal aliens who are trying to protect their lives and homes against cartoonishly evil humans isn't any different from cheering for the Ewoks battling the Empire in Return of the Jedi. It's not like the 2005 version of King Kong, where we're supposed to cheer for the monster who's killing heroic, noble, and/or innocent people. Certainly if you go into it looking to be offended by the themes, you'll find plenty to get your dander up. But if you aren't actively trying to be offended, the only offensive thing about this movie is how terrible the script is. James Cameron spent 12 years developing the world and technology for this movie. If only he had spent some of that time on the story, this movie wouldn't be so wretched. (27 Comments |Comment on this)
Wednesday, December 16th, 2009
1:01 pm	The Princess and the Frog It's been a while since I wrote up a movie review, but here goes: The Princess and the Frog is pretty meh. It's not terrible, but it's not especially good either. It doesn't have the sense of joy and fun of the early 90s Disney cartoons, and it doesn't have the story or heart of Pixar movies. I'd say it's on par with forgettable cartoons like Hercules and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. It's worth checking out on video if you're bored and have nothing better to do, but don't feel bad if you miss it. The early 90s Disney movies took us to magical worlds: An undersea kingdom of mermaids, a fairy-tale castle with dancing furniture, the Arabia of Arabian Nights. But 1920s New Orleans isn't magical. It's just a random city with rich people, poor people, and a river. Yes, it's the birthplace of jazz, but who cares? That isn't magic in itself. The closest they come to a sense of wonder is in the part of the movie that takes place in a swamp full of talking animals, but it's not like talking animals in a cartoon are an incredible innovation. The swamp wasn't any more interesting than what you float through in the beginning of the Pirates of the Caribbean ride. The bad guy was just a generic bad guy with ill-defined spooky magic powers. He wasn't a real character. And the way he was defeated was just silly. Engaging in my hobby of forensic script analysis, where I look at a finished movie and try to figure out what decisions were made in the story development process, I think I can guess what happened: ( spoilers ahoy ) The songs are completely forgettable. Literally. As I was leaving the parking lot, I realized the only song I could recall was the "Are you ready" song the Voodoo guy sings, and I only remembered that because I noticed what a blatant rip-off it is of "You ain't never had a friend like me" from Aladdin. Some people have talked about how this is the first Disney cartoon with a black heroine, but what I think is more interesting is the way they switch the gender roles. (Especially considering she's actually green for most of the movie.) A month or two ago a bunch of people were posting this cartoon characterizing the message behind Disney princesses in uncharitable ways.* In The Princess and the Frog, it's the woman who's hard-working, independent, smart, highly competent, and using her own initiative to take concrete steps toward achieving her dreams. While the prince is a shiftless slacker who's hoping to find a rich woman to marry in order to maintain his fantasy lifestyle. So it starts off with a reasonable message for girls. But then this gets ruined when Tiana learns that working hard for success is all well and good, but she'll only find true happiness through the love of a man (that she loves for no reason whatsoever). I suppose it's an improvement over the message of The Little Mermaid (You can find the perfect man by radically altering your body and not talking), but it's still not exactly a beneficial ideal to teach young girls. Still, I don't go to movies for the message. I go to them for entertainment. And I found The Princess and the Frog only vaguely entertaining. Why doesn't Princess and the Frog live up to its predecessors? I can't point to any single decision and say "That's what they did wrong." Ultimately, it's just that making a great movie is incredibly difficult, and they failed to do so. * Unrelated to the Princess and the Frog, but it reminds me of how I once read Star Wars described as "Religious extremists blow up a government facility, killing thousands." (11 Comments |Comment on this)
Monday, December 14th, 2009
2:08 pm	Random Casino Games electricia and I are heading to Vegas this weekend. Usually we play blackjack, craps, and limit Hold 'em. But we're interested in trying some new games. Have any of you played three card poker, let it ride, four card poker, blackjack, Caribbean stud, pai gow, or any other games like that? What are your thoughts on them? We can easily google these games to learn how they work and optimal strategies, so I'm more interested in whether ye think they're fun. And to clarify, we know that all of these games (except Hold 'em) are negative expected value. We view that negative EV as the fee we pay the casino in exchange for fun. So we don't mind it, as long as it isn't excessive. (8 Comments |Comment on this)
Thursday, December 10th, 2009
10:43 am	Dissapointing Heinlein book I've been reading Robert Heinlein's first novel Beyond This Horizon, which was out of print for decades and recently re-released. It's disappointing in that it's a blatant rip-off of Brave New World. It's about a utopian society where people are genetically engineered to be happy and have every pleasure readily available, but their happiness is superficial and masks a deeper dissatisfaction. Then a savage who knows nothing of the society is discovered. I'm only halfway through, but I predict the savage will reject the society and try to live his own life, but be frustrated by tourists. Although I suspect that unlike in BNW, the savage will go off to another planet or something, because suicide isn't Heinlein's style. (4 Comments |Comment on this)
Wednesday, December 9th, 2009
1:17 pm	Sharpshooting reality show Remember when I used to have time to post to LJ? Anyway, here's a quicky that doesn't require any thought on my part, but I'm sure a lot of people on my flist will be interested in: The History Channel is starting a sharpshooting reality competition. (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Thursday, November 19th, 2009
4:56 pm	Quick Obvious Comment of the Day Variety and Hollywood Reporter keep being baffled by the fact that sports - especially football - are dominating the TV ratings. Now, football is indeed awesome. But why is it dominating now more than in the past? What about football has gotten better? They don't understand. The obvious answer: Football hasn't gotten any better. It's just maintained its quality while the rest of TV has gotten worse. Duh. (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Tuesday, November 10th, 2009
4:34 pm	Comic Books I have a hankering to read some comic books (collected in trade paperbacks) or graphic novels. For those of ye who know more about the subject than I do, can you make some recommendations? Some things to keep in mind about my personal tastes: - My favorite comics are the classic Silver Age Spider-Man, followed by classic X-Men*. I have an old-man-crush on Stan Lee. But I'm not excited by all classic Marvel comics. I found Iron Man and Daredevil to be pretty dull, and Ant-Man was just dumb. - I like fun/exciting comics, not dark/depressing comics. I've read quite a bit of Frank Miller and Alan Moore, and I don't think I've actively enjoyed a single book from either of them. Most (but not all) of their stuff is extremely well-written. It's just not for me. I'm also not a fan of quirky/alternative/goth comics like Neil Gaiman. (I'm just making up that category. If there's better terminology for that type of comic, let me know.) - I saw in a book store that DC has started putting out "Showcase" TPBs, which are like Marvel's Essential series: Cheap black & white collections of old comics. They had a set of the 1960s run of Batman, which I was curious about. Have any of you read that? Is it worthwhile? (I don't care that much about the artwork. So cheap black & white reproductions are fine with me.) So please throw your suggestions at me. Bonus points if you actually have the books you're recommending and are willing to lend them to me. * To clarify, I'm not talking about the old old school original X-Men. I'm talking about when Wolverine, Storm, and the rest of the X-Men we know today started showing up, and lame-wads like Angel were booted out of the comic. (13 Comments |Comment on this)
3:32 pm	The Fundamental Disconnect in the Health Care Debate I'm not locking this politics post because I think it's important for both sides to read this. I think I've hit upon the key difference in the way the two sides see the issue, and why they've just been screaming past each other: Those in favor of the health care bill believe that those specific reforms will necessarily improve things. Those who oppose the bill disagree with this premise. Both sides want high quality, low cost health care. Both understand that there are lots of problems with the current system. Neither side really understands all the implications of the 2000 pages of dense legalese that just passed the House, because nobody on Earth actually understands that. But those in favor of the bill believe those implications will be beneficial, and those opposed to it believe the implications will be harmful. It should be obvious that for any situation, no matter how messed up, government action can either make things better, worse, or the same. Which of these is most likely depends on the specific government action being contemplated. So the debate should focus on the specific things the bill does, and evaluate those. I think that proponents of the bill are losing the argument in the court of public opinion (if not in Congress) because they aren't recognizing this is the true disagreement, so they waste their time and energy arguing the wrong things. At best, they point out all the flaws with the current system. But this is ineffective because the people who oppose the health care bill already know there are all sorts of problems with the current system. They just think the bill will make those problems even worse. And often, proponents of the bill (correctly) assume the enormous problems with our current system are obvious, but they forget about their much more controversial premise that any reform will necessarily improve things. So they conclude that anyone who disagrees with them must be either too stupid to notice the obvious problems, or too evil to care about them. Which is why they spout hate and insults, because it's not worthwhile to have meaningful debates with stupid/evil people. But of course their opponents aren't stupid or evil. They just have a difference premise about the efficacy of government intervention. For those in favor of the health care bill, if you want to convince people it's a good idea, you should explain why the specific actions of the bill (to the extent that they're known) will improve things. It's not enough to point out that currently lots of things are wrong or to insult those who disagree with you. Of course I can't force you to make intelligent arguments. But if you continue to insult and stereotype anyone who disagrees with you, you should at least recognize that *you* are the one who's sacrificing health care out of hate. As usual, please remember my "no idiotic flamewars in comments" rule. If you disagree with the way I characterized the debate, it's fine for your to (politely and civilly) explain that disagreement. But I'm not interested in arguments over which side is correct. I'm not going to screen comments because I want to treat you like grown-ups, so please don't be the childish jerk who makes me regret assuming you had a basic level of restraint and civility. (I will screen anonymous comments, because I've learned through experience it's generally a mistake to treat anonymous trolls like grown-ups.) (14 Comments |Comment on this)
Wednesday, October 28th, 2009
12:30 pm	Video Game System Decision: The Revenge I'm still trying to figure out which video game system (if any) we should buy. After the first round of advice, I've eliminated the Wii from consideration. Here are the benefits I've found of the three choices I'm considering. Once again, keep in mind that we're only interested in two-player games that aren't sports or Rock Band/Guitar Hero. XBox360: - Project Natal, which sounds nifty enough that my Apple-obsessed brother-in-law was willing to get excited about a Microsoft product. On the other hand, it's not coming out until next year, and I assume it will be another year after that before they work out the kinks, make it non-sucky, and come out with games that use it as more than a gimmick that gets old in a few minutes. - Netflix streaming, but it requires an XBox gold membership which costs (if I hunt for discounts) around $40/year - Lots of our friends have XBoxes, so I could borrow games. But I don't know how many of those games are two player. - Cheaper than a PS3, although that may not be true when I factor in yearly membership costs, which as far as I know the PS3 doesn't have. (Someone please correct me if that's wrong.) PS3: - Little Big Planet, which several people have suggested as a game we would really enjoy, and is exclusive to the PS3. But does it really make sense to buy an entire $300 system for one game? (And is it really $300? Or is it a lot more once we buy necessary accessories like a second controller, memory card, etc.) - Netflix streaming coming soon. Though I'm not sure when exactly it starts. I don't think it costs extra, but I'm not 100% sure about that. And since this is new, it will probably be more buggy than the XBox's Netflix streaming - A BluRay player, which we really don't care about. Sticking with the original XBox and PS2 we already have - Much cheaper - With the exception of Little Big Planet, all the games people recommended (The Lego series, Marvel Ultimate Alliance) are available for older systems. Obviously this won't continue to be the case in the future, but we can always buy a new system in the future when there are more compelling games. -- So what do people think? Right now, I'm leaning toward not getting a new system. Really, it's all about the games, and there don't seem to be many new two-player games we would enjoy. If any of you know of a bunch of awesome two-player games that would make it worthwhile to get a new system, please tell me. (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Friday, October 23rd, 2009
10:04 am	Media News Catches Up With Real Time Fantasy Island: The Reality Show I would assume that Ricardo Montalban and Herve Villechaize are both too dead to participate. But then again, I don't think Mark Burnett is above digging up their corpses. Predators Reboot/Remake to Star Girlie Men Instead of Arnold and Jesse Ventura, it will star Adrien Brody and Topher Grace. Seriously. Note to Hollywood: If I can kick an actor's ass, he's not an action star. Yet Another Unnecessary Sequel: Son of Vacation It's about Rusty, who was the son in the original movie, who now has a family and takes them on an ill-fated vacation. They don't have a script of course. But they own the rights to make a sequel, and that's all that matters. Venom A spin-off from Spider-Man. Only they'll make Venom into a good guy. WTF. Yet Another Biopic: Richard Pryor: The Movie: Starring Marlon Wayans Yet Another Obscure Comic Book Adaptation: Gravel About "a soldier in the British S.A.S. who uses his skills in dark magic to moonlight and battle supernatural beings for clients in order to make some extra cash." Sounds incredibly generic, and a rip-off of several other comic books. Moses: The Action Movie Seriously. They're taking the same story of Moses that was told in The Ten Commandments (which I think was based on some obscure book) and doing it in the style of 300 and/or Braveheart. No, I'm not making that up or being snarky. That's actually what the producers tell Variety. And yes, I know that 300 and Braveheart aren't remotely the same style, but apparently the producers of this movie don't know that. Warcraft: The Movie Directed by Sam Raimi, and written by the dude who wrote Saving Private Ryan. But before you get too excited, remember that Sam Raimi's last two movies were Spider-Man 3 and Drag Me to Hell, and Robert Rodat's last movie was The Patriot. Psy-Ops It "revolves around a covert U.S. military unit of psychological operatives who specialize in exploiting their target's deepest fears. When on a routine mission to the Amazon Basin, they discover something more terrifying than they could have imagined." Holy crap! It's a movie based on an idea! Blatant Rip-Off of What Women Want That's So Blatant They're Barely Bothering to Change the Title: What Boys Want About a teenage girl who hears boys' thoughts. Starring Disney Channel star of the moment Selena Gomez. Blatant Rip-Off of The Phantom of the Opera: The Animated Movie A Monster in Paris "is set at the turn of the 20th century. It follows a monster who lives in a garden and falls in love with a beautiful, young singer." Hey, I'm caught up on media news! I'm sure that won't last. (14 Comments |Comment on this)
Wednesday, October 21st, 2009
4:35 pm	Which Videogame System (If Any) Should We Get? I've asked this question before, but I figure the answer would change over time, so it's worth asking again. electricia and I are thinking about getting a current generation videogame system. Since lots of ye know more about videogames than I do, I'll throw it out for your advice. Here some information about our preferences that anyone giving us advice should know: - WE ARE ONLY INTERESTED IN TWO-PLAYER GAMES. We have limited free time to spend on games, and want to spend that time together. Please don't tell us about awesome one-player games available for specific systems, because we won't play them and therefore they won't affect our decision of what system to get. Yes, this applies even if the game is really really awesome. - We don't enjoy Rock Band/Guitar Hero, sports games, realistic racing games (cartoony racing games are okay), or most games with a split screen. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with them for those of you who do enjoy them. Just that they aren't fun for us. - We aren't fans of the "Whee, I'm using a Wii!" genre of games. We've played games like Wii Sports, Wii Sports Resort, and Wii Punch Out at friends' houses, and got bored with them after half an hour. We would still consider buying a Wii if you guys point out a bunch of awesome two-player games for it, but they would have to be fun beyond the novelty factor. - We're casual gamers. We aren't interested in games that require you to be an experienced hard-core gaming expert to play them. (I'm glad those games exist so you hard-core gamers can enjoy them, but they aren't for us.) - I recognize that the PS3 is a great deal for people who want a Blu-Ray player, but we don't really care about Blu-Ray, so that's not a selling point for us. - We especially like two-player RPGs like Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance, Champions of Norrath, and X-Men Legends. We also like silly fun two-player cooperative games like Lego Star Wars/Indiana Jones/Batman. We find cartoon racing games like MarioKart and simple fighting games like DOA and Soul Caliber moderately enjoyable, but not as much as the cooperative adventure games. - Being able to watch Netflix Instant Download through the game system instead of our current kluge of hooking up my netbook to the TV would be a selling point. I know XBox 360s can do that, and I'm not sure if the others can. Also it would be a selling point if we could watch YouTube and other internet videos. I'm not sure if any system has a reasonable interface/ability to do so, but it seems somewhat likely so I'm asking about it. - It's entirely possible that none of the three systems have many two-player games we would like, in which case we'll hold off for a while. If you think that's the case, feel free to say so. (18 Comments |Comment on this)
Monday, October 19th, 2009
4:41 pm	Media News - It's Better Than Working Yet Another Adaptation of a Doll: Barbie Yet Another Obscure Graphic Novel Adaptation: Mal Chance "tells the story of Lola, part of an ancient clan of assassins targeted for death by a powerful gangster. Her only recourse is to bring down the gangster's entire operation with the help of an honest FBI agent who is unaware of her true identity." The Exact Same Movie as A Bug's Life: The Movie "Leaf Men focuses on a troop of bugs that try to save a garden and need to battle an evil spider queen. The bugs turn to the mythical Leaf Men to help them." Dimension Studios to focus exclusively on unnecessary sequels and remakes Scream 4. Spy Kids 4. Halloween (remake) 3. Children of the Corn (remake). Hellraiser and Scanners sequels. Remakes to Short Circuit and An American Werewolf in London. If there's a pointless non-idea, Bob Weinstein is all over it. Also note that the kids from Spy Kids are now 17 and 21, so perhaps Spy Young Adults would be a better title. Noah's Ark: The Animated Movie I doubt it will include this scene, which will appear below in the unlikely event that the embed works: Also I tried to find the Far Side cartoon where Noah's on the ark saying something like "So much for the unicorns. From now on, all predators are confined to Deck C." But my google-fu was weak. Yet Another Remake: A Star is Born Insert your own joke about "A Star is Born-Again" and converting to Christianity here. Supermax "The story centers on a skilled prison guard who is re-assigned to Supermax. After a riot erupts, he must join forces with one of the prison's monstrous inmates in order to survive and fight his way out." Not to be confused with the entirely unrelated script Super Max, which is about the DC Comics hero The Green Arrow being wrongfully sent to prison. Hollywood's so afraid of ideas that on the rare occasions when they have them, I guess they feel the need to disguise them by giving them the same name as something else. Yet Another Video Game Movie: Spore I'm unfamiliar with the game. Variety describes it as "players create their own creatures and the worlds they live in and share them with other gamers to create an overall universe." Which sounds like it doesn't remotely have a plot. Of course it's possible for a good movie to be made about a unique creature and world. But the fact that they're moving forward without a script, writer, or even a vague idea as to what the hell this will be about tells you how likely that is. By the way, the article also mentions that they're working on a Sims movie, which is definitely in the top 5 dumbest movie ideas of all time (to date). The Sims is a game about people living their lives, which is vague enough that it could describe nearly any movie. How the hell do you adapt that? Answer: You don't. You just get funding from clueless companies that know nothing about movies and only care about the game's sales figures, then slap together a generic script at the last minute, with predictably terrible results. Yet Another Adaptation of Something That Doesn't Have a Story: The Future Is Wild: The Movie The Future is Wild is an animated documentary series where scientists speculate on what animals might look like 200,000,000 years in the future. That's not a story. I assume the movie will be set far in the future with crazy animals, and the only connection to the TV series will be that they used its name which some people have heard of to get funding. Also whatever scrape off their shoe for this could work equally well as a script for Spore, and vice-versa. Yet Another Obscure Comic Book Adaptation: Cla$$war "a political thriller that revolves around a super-soldier known as "the American," who discovers the sinister truth of the government program that created him and is forced to take on the rest of his super-powered team." Which sounds like an incredibly generic rip-off of a storyline that has appeared many times in Captain America, X-Men, The Incredible Hulk, and probably 50 other comic books. But it uses dollar signs instead of Ses, so that makes it edgy. (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Friday, October 16th, 2009
3:07 pm	The Onion Imitates Life It's funny because it's true: Vince Vaughn Appears On 'Tonight Show' To Deceive Country About Latest Film HOLLYWOOD, CA—Popular film actor Vince Vaughn appeared on NBC's Tonight Show Monday to brazenly and unapologetically deceive the American people about his latest movie, Couples Retreat. "It's a really funny movie, and I think people are going to enjoy it," lied the 39-year-old performer, knowing full well that he was misleading viewers into making a decision that was not in their best interests. "It's got something for everybody." Much more at the article. (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Wednesday, October 14th, 2009
2:00 pm	Thought of the Day If in regard to any contentious issue you ever catch yourself thinking, "My side wants good stuff. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with my side wants bad stuff," that's a sure sign that you aren't thinking about the issue clearly. Both sides want good stuff. They just disagree on the best way to bring that about. If you don't already understand that, you're letting political bigotry trump logical reasoning. If you can't understand why people disagree with you about the best way to bring about good stuff (beyond a cartoonish assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is necessarily stupid and/or evil), that just means *you* haven't thought about it hard enough. Note that this applies to Democrats, Republicans, and independents. If you read this assuming it was only directed to people on the other side from you, it's time to re-examine your own political bigotry. (15 Comments |Comment on this)
1:18 pm	Softest... Schedule... Ever... Via non-LJer Nate comes this article about the Washington Redskins, who in the first six weeks of the season haven't played a team that's won a single game. In other words, every one of the first six teams they played was winless. Obviously that's not meaningful in the first game when their opponent was 0-0. And in this first game, the Redskins lost to the Giants, a good team. But since then, they've played the St. Louis Rams, Detroit Lions, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Carolina Panthers, and are playing the Kansas City Chiefs this weekend. In fact, even through today these five teams have a combined record of 2-22, with the only two wins coming against the Redskins themselves. The Redskins even lost to the Detroit Lions, who at that point had lost 19 straight games and are widely considered to be one of the worst teams in the history of major American sports. Living in DC for four years left me with a strong distaste for the Redskins and their fans, so I'm amused by this. (Comment on this)