If you grew up on the 80's and/or have any kind of fondness in your heart for either Star Wars or Transformers, I'd strongly urge you to just go ahead and quit reading right now. What I'm about to show you, courtesy of my action figure collection, is quite possibly the wrongest toy in existence. I'm not kidding: I can't think of anything more wrong.
The following images may disturb sensitive eyes; viewer discretion is advised.
I wish I was kidding. The Millenium Falcon, complete with tiny Han and Chewie figures, transforms into a giant Chewbaca robot and giant Han Solo robot.
"Transforms into a giant Chewbaca robot" is one of those phrases I could have gone my whole life without saying, but no, Hasbro has forced me to do it. I've had this thing sitting since Christmas, debating whether or not to share it with the world, but decided that I simply had to.
Anguished cries about murdered childhoods ought to be directed to Hasbro, not to me. I'm just the messenger. The very perturbed messenger.
If you know me at all, you know that I favor rational thought over traditionally-held beliefs pretty much exclusively. It's because of this that I never really hold much stock in what the so-called "Intelligent Design" movement says. Most of their energy goes into attempting to disprove a system they are scripturally-obligated not to believe -- evolution -- rather than providing any rational arguments for just what it is they're arguing for: that everything as we know it now was designed by someone intelligent, just not necessarily God.
I've pretty much dismissed out of hand that they could actually be right (which, I suppose, is no better than them dismissing my argument of "Couldn't an Intelligent Designer use a system of evolution as part of his design?"), but I've just encountered some new evidence that has completely blown me away. It seems like every other day the IDers present some new argument for just why the idea of evolution is more silly than that of an Intelligent Designer, none of which have had any impact at all on my sense of rationality. Until today.
This new argument, which I've dubbed "The Peanut-Butter and Banana Sandwich Conjecture," is pretty much irrefutable -- and, might I say, delicious as hell. But I digress. Consisting of two separate arguments, which I've presented below in video form for your convenience (and also for my convenience), the PB&B Sandwich Conjecture simply and concisely proves not only that life can't spontaneously happen, but that all life on earth is the result of a designer who made intelligent decisions about even the tiniest of details.
Now, as I'm sure you'll agree, each of those is somewhat compelling on its own, but the combination of the two is what really hammers the point home. Game, set and match.
As far as I know, I'm the first person to have combined these two lesser arguments into a single irrefutable one, so I'm now going to go ahead and take credit for proving that evolution is inferior to Intelligent Design as a theory.
It's been quite a journey... I, for one, would never have predicted that someone would prove the IDers to be right, let alone that it would be me. You might think that I'd feel bad about this sudden shift to the other side of the argument, but I don't; science is all about changing your argument in the face of new evidence, and the fact that I can do so with no qualms is just further testament to my abilities as a rational thinker. I'm now an IDer, and proud of it.
(All press inquiries regarding this ground-breaking theory should be directed at jer@nyquil.org)
I've been thinking a lot about Martin Luther King lately, and despite the great strides he took towards equality, to me something has always seemed wrong about his "I have a dream" speech. This is the bit that troubles me:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
So, prior to his speech, people of color were routinely not allowed at lunch counters, they had separate seating on transport, they couldn't get jobs, etc. This is clearly not right. It is wrong that they were treated this way -- but not just because of a disparity of skin color. I believe that people shouldn't be discriminated against for any reason, not just the color of their skin.
The way Martin Luther King would have it, it'd be wrong to judge based on skin color, but it would be just fine to do so based on 'content of character.' This dream vision world he spoke of in his historic address would not allow for 'coloreds only' water fountains, but it would allow for -- require even -- separate water fountains for assholes. Sure, he specifically said "judge," not "discriminate," but he was using them in a synonymous fashion and I submit that they're pretty much the same, anyway; you can't discriminate against someone without judging them first.
In a world where Dr. King's dreams were to have actually come to pass, the following statements would be commonplace:
"Hey there, 'dick.' What are you doing up here? Dontchoo know that 'dicks' have to sit in the back of the bus?"
"We don't serve your kind here, 'complainer.'"
"This isn't your restroom... the 'pussy' restroom is over there."
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of equality, I just don't think his vision leaves our world in any better position than it was all those troubled years ago. Luckily, I think I'm the only person who took his words literally enough to postulate what such a future might look like, ensuring that the beneficial parts of his argument were heeded and now commonly-held beliefs.
I just wish he'd had the forethought to think through what he was arguing for.
I really dig the little "Drive-by Blogging" thing RT has been doing lately (and not just because I'm one of the recipients of link-love), and have been trying to think of a way to do something similar myself.
I don't have the time and energy to point to everything thing my blogroll, partly because it just keeps going and going, but partly for other reasons as well.
So what I'm thinking is this: you give me the url to that one post you were sure would get all sorts of attention, but were saddened to find didn't at all. I'll then do a "drive-by"-style post linking to any that I get at some point in the future.
I'm especially hoping for some links from some of you lurkers, so feel free to just mail 'em to jer@nyquil.org if you're shy of commenting. In the event that you don't have any links you want promoted, feel free to send me some from your friends or something, as I'm always looking for new sources of entertainment.
I have a really big favor to ask: Could you all refrain from putting TV spoilers in your blog posts and titles of blog posts so that those of us who cannot stay up late enough to watch shows in real-time will still enjoy them the next day when we watch them on our PVRs?
This is specifically directed towards Battlestar Galactica, but I can imagine that there are other shows people might be upset about having spoiled as well.
All day going through my Google Reader subscriptions I kept coming across titles and posts saying things like "Frak!," "Frack!," "Frakk!," etc, and I had to work pretty hard to avoid reading anything else in them. This also means that anything insightful that you said about BSG will most likely be lost forever as I'll never be able to go back and find all those posts again.
Seriously, it's bad enough that Ron Moore has spoiled some of it for me in his podcast ( and even worse still that SciFi spoiled some of it for those who don't listen to the podcast ) without having to carefully read through my mountain of blogs to just enjoy the one show I care about.
I've been a long-time flickr user, having signed up and paid for a pro account way back in the day, staying relatively happy most of this time. Now, though, I seem to be unable to access my account due to some malicious behavior on the part of one or more of your users.
It seems as if some jerk has hacked your site, and is currently engaging in some sort of "phishing" activity, because the site now requires me to give my personal information to them before I can access my account -- or any other flickr page, for that matter. Even pictures submitted by my friends and contacts cannot be viewed until I submit my personal information to them. They're going by the vaguely-insulting moniker "Yahoo!," which I can only assume means "Yahoo! All these people are giving me their personal information... muhaha. Now I'll pet my overly-furry white cat."
I figured that this is surely something you'd want to know about so you can take steps to ensure that this "Yahoo!" guy doesn't keep persisting with this identity-theft ruse. I'm not giving my information to "Yahoo!," so anything you can do would be appreciated.
Also: I was bothered enough by your seemingly lacking security (if someone can hack it so that everything a user does would require submitting information to a dubiously sketchy individual, it's sure not making me feel confident that my information is secure) that I was tempted to delete my account. Oddly, I discovered that in order to do so, I'd have to give my info to "Yahoo!" first.
Let me repeat that. I'm upset that I don't want to give this "Yahoo!" guy my info, so I decided to delete my account, but to do that, I have to give my info to "Yahoo!" first??!
This is just too much.
Oh, also: I could no longer find any kind of contact info on your site, so I just sorta guessed at an email address that seemed plausible. Just to be safe, I've posted this letter on my fairly popular blog so that you might find it in your referral logs in the event that it gets lost on its way to you.
Dead Silence is by far the best undead ventriloquist death-puppet revenge movie I've ever seen. It's got funny moments, creepy moments and even a few legitimately frightening moments, all of which far outweigh the incredibly hard-to-swallow concept.
Seriously, though, if you think a film about an undead ventriloquist and her creepy-as-hell revenge puppets would at all interest you, then I say go with your gut like I did and just go. You will not be disappointed.
Not saying that it's a great movie, but I really enjoyed it. (For benchmarking purposes, I really didn't like the Chucky or Puppetmaster films, but did like Halloween 1 & 2.)
If you don't think it would interest you, then you're probably right not to see it.
Oh, and if you don't see it, just remember this: if ever you are being hunted by a ventriloquist, for the love of all that is holy, don't keep going around corners or looking over your shoulder just acuz you heard a sound over there... That's kinda what they do
Throughout history, many of mankind's greatest leaders in political and military strategy, rational thought, and respectableness have worn beards. There's Abe Lincoln, General Custer, Col. Sanders, Ulysses S. Grant, and many, many more. The list simply boggles the mind.
It was with this idea in mind that I've decided to take an unconventional look at the candidates for 2008's US Presidential election as they stand now. I've taken the most-viable two (as the radio host and callers I listened to the other day decided) candidates from both the Republican-Americans and the Democrat party and examined them for beard-worthyness. In theory, the one with the best beard will win.
As you can see, his beard is quite distinguished, giving him an air of authority and the look of a debonair attitue. Just a hint of gray to show how wise he is; very well-kempt.
Mitt has his work cut out for him if he wants to overcome the negative stigma that most Americans give to being a Mormon. From the looks of his beard, however, Mitt is in very good standing. Nice coloration gives him a statesmanly appearance, with only the slightest hint of crazy. (In these uncertain times, I believe that we could really use a bit of crazy in a leader.)
I think he's ahead of Barack at this point, despite his Latter-Day Saint background.
Being a woman would typically count a contender out of both a beard contest and a Presidential election, but Ms. Clinton has made some incredible inroads this election cycle. Americans are slowly coming around to accepting her vision of the future, and are rather impressed with the amount of growth she can achieve -- both in her poll numbers and her facial hair. Sure, her beard isn't quite up on par with that of a man's, but I think that in light of her not being one, the beard is the least of her troubles.
She's done better than I would have expected, but she's currently trailing behind both Obama and Romney at this point.
As you can very clearly see, despite his reliance on headwear, Senator McClane comes out head and shoulders above the rest of his competition. His beard is incredibly distinguished, very becoming, and has more than enough crazy in there to get the job done.
I'm currently calling the 2008 Presidential election in favor of Senator John McClane. Sure, he's a Republican, but if a member of the Democrat party comes forward with a better beard, I'll gladly throw my vote their way. Nearly every day someone new suggests that they might be throwing in their hat (and/or towel), so we'll have to see how it goes.
1: I was as surprised as you to hear he was a Senator, but in all the talk on the radio I heard the other day, everyone kept referring to him as "Senator John McClane." Who am I to argue with people who clearly know more than me?
A few days ago I was asked the following peculiar question by a Jiffy Lube employee:
"Do you guys make those magnets or something?"
I was equal parts flummoxed and intrigued. (Flummtrigued?)
After confessing that I did not, in fact, have the slightest inkling of an idea as to what he was going on about, things became clear. He pointed out the window at my car, specifically at the homebrew bumper sticker about which I had completely forgotten.
"Oh, that," I said. "That's just an ironic statement about the commercialism of American culture overlayed upon the tendency to 'keep up with the Joneses.'"
He didn't get it.
"See," I tried again. "People want to show that they 'support the troops,' and they want to do it the same way the Joneses are: by putting a magnet on the back of their car. The thing is, the people who are actually being supported are the ones in Hong Kong, Korea, and Singapore who are making them and selling them to us."
"Basically, while trying to show your support for our troops, you're actually supporting the Axis of Evil1. Buying magnets isn't actually helping the troops one bit. Nice, huh?"
He got it then, and seemed really surprised that he hadn't thought of this before.
I personally find it equal-parts beautiful and sad that entire industries have popped up with soley to provide Americans with foreign-made tchotchkies so that we can show eachother just how much we love our country. Judging by the number of these magnets I see, we really love it a lot.
1: I realize that these countries aren't really the Axis of Evil, but it sure has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? I also realize that there are American companies that make these things as well, but I bet you don't know whether the ones on your car are made by them or by the afore-mentioned foreign profiteers. Besides, does it really matter who it is that's cashing in on your natural tendency to want to show people how much you care? Really what matters is that that money might have been better spent in some way that actually can impact someone other than the guy sitting behind you in rush hour.
I try to avoid politics as much as humanly possible, but today heard some speculation about possible Republican candidates. One in particular jumped right out at me as a particularly great choice, and I immediately decided to back him.
Unable to find any campaign materials online, I decided to make my own.
He correctly identified what was inside the box without having access to it. That's all he had to do. He won.
Sure, the gift he used is "being a nerd" rather than some sort of psychic power, but that was never specified in the original challenge.
Sure, he was able to figure it out based on some sloppy reasoning on Randi's part, but that doesn't change the fact that the guy beat the challenge.
If the JREFdoesn't award him the prize, how is that going to look?
Sylvia Brown has been saying for years that she can win the challenge, but refuses to based on the fact that she doesn't believe Randi will ever actually give the money to her when she does so.
Now that someone has legitimately passed such a challenge -- and if the prize isn't awarded -- does that make her right?
She's not a psychic, but it sure seems to me that she nailed that one.
That mp3 came straight down out of Maynard's podcast and I've linked to where his podcast linked it from, so it seems as if it's OK to share it. A'course, when has what Maynard wants ever affected my sharing things?
