- October, 2007
- November, 2007
- December, 2007
- January, 2008
- February, 2008
- March, 2008
- April, 2008
- August, 2008
I just stumbled on something humorous.
A darker, deeper fantasy epic than the Rings trilogy, The Chronicles of Narnia or the Potter films. It springs from the same world of quasi-philosophical magic, but creates more complex villains and poses more intriguing questions. Roger Ebert, in regards to the movie The Golden Compass
You, sir, are a buffoon, a baboon, and a bassoon. Even setting aside the fact that The Lord of the Rings books are vastly better than the movies, I don't think a movie has been made in the last two decades which has surpassed the grandeur, the cultural impact, and the awe of Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Some wanna-be fantasy series written by some lunatic more obsessed with inserting his views into his work rather than writing his work is nothing compared to J.R.R. Tolkien.
Although Tolkien may have been a Catholic, he was consistent in maintaining that his work was no allegory (literal allegory, anyway (if there can be such a thing)) to the events the Bible teaches happened. Now, obviously, a few views slipped in (such as monotheism ("gods" is actually a misnomer applied to angels in Middle-Earth) and absolute truth), but he's not saying "Aragorn is Christ the King, Sauron is the devil (Actually, Melkor, a egocentric fallen angel never seen in the LotR books nor the movies, was the devil. Surprised?) and Gandalf is another facet of Christ." He would be annoyed if someone said that, because that's not how it's meant to be taken.
Now, however, the goof who wrote Northern Lights, the book on which the movie The Golden Compass is based, has supposedly written a series of childrens' books. Is that so, Mr. Goof? Let's take a look at a quotation from the book.
There are churches there, believe me, that cut their children too, as the people of B. did - not in the same way, but just as horribly. They cut their sexual organs, yes, both boys and girls; they cut them with knives so that they shan't feel. That is what the church does, and every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling...
What in the name of sanity is that doing in a book which Wikipedia defines as "primarily marketed to young adults"? Your answer is as good as mine. If you rolled Rush Limbaugh, Hillary Clinton and Al Sharpton in a ball, that sphere of hideousness would not come close to reaching the levels of bias as Mr. Goof so smugly contains.
So, in conclusion, screw you, Roger Ebert.
If you're not familiar with Namco, then I salute you. They're the ones behind the series of popular fighting games known as Soul Calibur where massive breasts attached to women with swords fight to the death. Now don't get me wrong, they're great games. They have beautiful graphics and great gameplay value and managed to create Nightmare, one of the coolest video game characters there is, but there's one thing that's always irritated me about their games, and with my exploration of their newest in the series Soul Calibur 4, I figured something needed to be said. See, there's a very specific reason why these games are as popular as they are, aside from the good gameplay, and I'll summarize it in a single word:
Seriously. Boobs. And I'll prove it to you. Out of seven confirmed female characters already in Soul Calibur 4, I've noticed that four of them seem to share something in common. So I made a little picture to show what I found. Can you see what it is?
Judging from the pictures, Cassandra (bottom left) is the smallest of the four, and hers look like triple Ds. Hell, it took me a full five minutes of looking at Sophitia (top right) before I realized she had tears in her eyes, probably crying over the immense back-pain she's being put through. Now, I'm used to female characters in video games being oversized and underdressed, but in all honesty, Namco has taken it to an absurd level with Soul Calibur 4.
As an example, let's take a look at Ivy's ever expanding bust size over the years. These are her versions from each of the Soul Calibur games leading up until 4.
Her newest boobjob has rendered her mammaries large enough to warrant their own zip code. Not to mention her costume somehow leaving her with less armor than actual underwear would. I don't think they realize that there's a fine line between sexy and laughable, and if they do, then they're not even trying to take their own characters seriously anymore.
Yet at the same time, Namco created a new character for the game, named Hilde, who sports a very heavy and very conservative set of armor. Normally, I'd say this is a good thing, but it's not. By balancing out the scales with this seemingly "unsexy" woman, Namco thinks that gives them permission to inflate the chest size of everyone else in the game by 300%, and reduce their clothing to be as skintight as possible or just plain ridiculous.
Okay, so that last one was a guy, but still. Voldo's costumes have always been stupid. And with stupid costumes comes a price far, far worse than anything we could have prepared for.
Seriously, Namco, stop designing your games with your penises.
You know what I really don't like? Well, the list could probably go on for miles. But, after the joking ones (such as Chicago, New Jersey, etc.), there's a few things that really get me mad.
1. "America is the epitome of injustice"
Firstly, you suck. If you could ever compare countries like America, Canada, and England to countries like Iran and Uganda, you have serious problems and should probably be diagnosed by a psychiatric technician.
Now, allow me to expand upon that first paragraph (also it is summed up there quite well). Also, since it doesn't just apply to America (although it usually does), I'll just refer to it as Amerienglanada.
Anyway, onward. Let me explain to you about of who I am talking. I am talking about the average young internet user: a kid probably between 15 and 28, someone who's grown up in the lap of luxury (more or less). I'm talking about people who really have no idea what freedom is. I don't claim to know what freedom is either; however I can still point out the hypocrisy in this group.
The biggest flaw in the argument that Amerienglanada is repressive and restrictive is quite glaring, but most people are too stupid to realize it. Firstly, these people fail to understand that they're expressing freedom by even having the ability to talk out against the government. If you lived in a truly horrid nation, you probably would be killed.
Roughly the second flaw is this: they don't know what it's like to not have freedom. And no, I'm not talking about petty, new-age crap like "I can't speak English so I can't order food!" or "Someone called me a 'fag'!" Seriously, most of this demographic has lived in their countries all their lives, gone to school, gone to college, picked their jobs and had the freedom to do that.
Now aside from the fact they were probably indoctrinated by the colleges (another post in itself), what right do they have to call out that something is a grave injustice against humanity in the capitals of the free world? Absolutely none. I defy you to go back and ask an elder, perhaps a veteran of World War II or Korea, and ask him to talk to you about freedom. These neo-communists have no idea how communism really worked in nations such as Russia. The people who call out Amerienglanada as the greatest evil of the free world really have no idea what the free world is. They've never had to fight for it, to experience it in a nation that does not have such freedoms. Ask people who lived in Afghanistan all of their lives; I'm sure more than one of them would say that when they came to Amerienglanada earnestly and worked honestly, they were just so incredibly grateful for the opportunity.
And that's the other thing. People today just take things for granted. Seriously, if gays can't marry or you can't sue that doctor because you developed a skin rash, is that really a great injustice? No, it isn't. Get out of your shells. Try being killed summarily for having faith in your god, or perhaps having your entire family impressed into something because of your political opinions.
Any argument these type of people could field really just points out their own hypocrisy, because it just vindicates the fact that they've had the freedom to make such choices and statements.
2. "I like to have fun (drink/smoke) with my friends (have sex with my girl/boyfriend)"
I read this almost verbatim on someone's page on one of those social blogs.
Social drinkers who may get a little tipsy: fine. I may not do that myself, but no big deal. However, arrogant people who believe the only proper way to enjoy yourself with your friends is to be stoned: bad.
If I can have as much fun with my friends without being drunk, I must have some form of mental retardation.
Try doing things that don't involve an intoxicating, liver-murdering, death beverage. You might have a clear enough brain to rethink point #1 (above).
3. "Anything goes, goes."
This kind of relates to the above (and it's not the Chinese song in the beginning of Temple of Doom), but I won't dwell on how. Instead, I'll talk about some of the more major issues.
In this section I talk about the people that believe there is no right or wrong. There is no other group with whom I have a more fundamental disagreement than this. Even the people who hate Amerienglanada I'm not as infuriated. Even Democrats do not make me so mad... and that's saying something!
This can manifest itself in several ways. One of them can be "You just called Amerienglanada 'just' and 'good'! You cannot say that!" Putting the fact that this violates one of their other arguments (free expression of opinion) aside, this simply makes me become enraged. But, this backtracks to section #1, and I won't reiterate it here.
Well, okay, I will a little bit. Simply put, if you're a relativist, fine. I'm probably not going to change your views. However, if you say Amerienglanada is evil and South Korea/Iran/whatever is "good", then you're not a relativist: you're an IDIOTist.
The second manifestation of fundamental relativists idiocy is usually in ways people are treated. Statements such as "Those stupid Americans got what they elected" and "Those fundies are sure idiots" actually go against relativism. In fact, to be a true relativist, you sort of need to... well, be nothing. One of the most shining idiocies is when, for example, people say "property is owned by no one" then will complain about something like "That Jehovah Witness came onto my land! I'm going to call the police and tie up the legal system in some totally worthless endeavor!"
Of course this has the obvious connotations of religion and morals, but I won't beat that horse again (though I may in an upcoming rant).
Anyway, in summary, if you are any of those things above you suck. Good-bye.
New Rule: If you are older than 10, you are not allowed to style your hair like this:
Seriously, I saw one of my teaching assistants the other day sporting one of these. And the man had to have been in his late twenties. Despite popular belief, it does not make you look edgy or cool. It makes you look like you want to be "edgy or cool," but obviously don't have the first clue of how to go about it. If you want to be "edgy," get a real mohawk, not this abomination. If you want to be "cool," wear a leather jacket and hit jukeboxes to get chicks.
And don't even get me started on the name. "Hey, we've got this hairstyle that's just like a mohawk, but isn't. I know, let's call it the faux-hawk! Oh, I'm so clever!"
Yes, the faux-hawk is that bad.
I will warn Mac users: you have 10 seconds to leave the site before I begin bashing Mac.
Gone yet? Well, whatever. Really, I don't hate Apple. I had an iPod (it died, but it wasn't its own fault) and iPhones are pretty cool. However, the corporate and marketing mentality is about the most pathetic thing in this planet.
Anyway, watch this commercial that I just saw on TV a bit ago:
Now hold on a second. Let me get this straight. All of the "Get a Mac" commercials are all filled with more untruths than Al Gore speaking on good sportsmanship, but this one is particularly bloated. So, allow me, if you will, to take on this commercial line-by-line.
Psychiatrist Lady to PCUnlike Mac, whose operating system and hardware are all made by the same people, your stuff comes from a bunch of different places.
Firstly, last I remember, Windows was made by Microsoft. Perhaps they refer to some of the stuff that comes bundled by other people - however, that is not truly called the "operating system." Perhaps this was a low blow at the allegedly-stolen original Windows source code? I don't know.
Secondly, Macs are now using Intel processors. And, as far as I can tell, Inteland Appleare two different companies (and at the time of writing, Apple is down 4.46%, whoo!). So, what does this mean?
Mac does not make all of its own parts.
Psychiatrist Lady to PCUnder those circumstances, who could expect everything to work together the way they should
Well, let's see... IEEE and ISO have been standardizing stuff for years. Almost everything you buy today for computers (I'm talking about hardware here) can be plugged in and will work. And, if it doesn't work on a PC, the chances are it sure as hell won't work on a Mac (since they do use the same architecture now).
Furthermore, look at the W3C, an organization which has been championing standardization of the World Wide Web since it was formulated. Things on the Internet come from a variety of different sources, and although there are tons of crappy websites (most of them designed by yuppies using Dreamweaver on Mac), by-and-large the Internet is compatible.
PC to Mac and Psychiatrist LadyIt's not my fault... it's not my fault! It's Mac's fault!
This is possibly the only speck of truth in this ad. In fact, it is Mac's fault. If they stopped the ridiculous corporate mudslinging (although they are moving in the right direction; once again, Intel), they could actually produce a decent operating system.
You see, using Mac is like buying this well-toted pair of sunglasses, only to realize you're living on a planet without a sun. Although all of your friends are sporting literal sunglasses, you're still stuck with your worthless pile of plastic - but defiantly, you try to make it seem like the "cool" thing. This kind of happened with the PlayStation 3, although that's now rebounding. However, for Apple, there is no end in sight to the mediocrity.
The thing I originally wanted to comment on was how reversed the roles were in this commercial. Since the characters of Mac and PC have been analyzed so many times, I'm not going to spend time doing that; I'll assume you know that Mac stands for the think-outside-the-box, free-spirit, IFC-watching, "plugged-in", Obama-voting socialite, and that PC is, well, "the man" or something like that.
So, tell me, how is it not ironic that this ad is promoting total dominance? Although it's not true that Apple produces all of its own crap (and it is crap), it is true that this ad is promoting monopoly. Is that not something the evil PC would do?
In reality, it is not so.