Super Mario Galaxy 2 Gameplay

What I've Been Listening to - Brad Sucks

Free music for professional licensing

O, I Think I Smell a Rat

O, I Think I Smell a Rat

Posted using ShareThis

I Am Skeptical of S.E. Cupp

I had never heard of S.E. Cupp until this past Friday, when she appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher. Cupp - who looks like Sophia Bush with an Ivy League education - has written a book entitled Losing Our Religion: How Blah Blah Blah Liberal Media Blah Blah. She is ostensibly a FOX News hack, but here's the thing: She's an avowed atheist.

There's a part of me that wants to cheer. Even though she is a conservative, she has all the characteristics of the kind of conservative I kind of dig. Cupp is smart, witty, and an extremely talented writer. She has a Republican Diablo Cody sort of style, and that is not to demean her. Her prose is entirely readable, especially if you don't pay attention to what she's actually saying.

Something doesn't seem quite right, though. I'm about to criticize her for how she talks about religion, not because I disagree with what she's saying - I certainly do - but because she seems to be disingenuous about her convictions. Let me be clear, however: my position isn't that S.E. Cupp isn't an atheist. I am not doubting her atheism, on the whole. My interests don't lie in defining atheism, since it is a mere rejection of religiosity. There is no dogma surrounding it, and I don't find any sort of real brotherhood (or sisterhood) in those who are like-minded. Cupp is free and welcome to defend religion with every waking breath.

That being said, how she represents herself, and, similarly, how she is perhaps being used by the "FOX Right" is of vital interest to me, because I see something at work here, and I want to point it out as quickly and as succinctly as I can.

While someone like Ann Coulter wields her conservatism right out front (and I am not the first person to compare her to Coulter, and I need not go into her antics), Cupp seems to be a straw man atheist. It's not that she defends the religious. That is admirable, in a way. Not every atheist needs to fit the same mold; that's the role of the religious (hoo-wah!).

No, it's the extent to which she defends the religious that seems to elicit a quizzical brow-raising. The way that she grimaces every time she utters the words "militant atheist" conveys a disgust that is palatable to the larger conservative / Christian worldview (up to and including those who watch FOX News), and I have to say that this is what arouses my skepticism. While Cupp herself may be sincere about her distaste for the way that atheists behave as a whole, what she has created in the realm of FOX News is an archetype that can be used by the right in order to discredit atheism itself.

For example, Cupp's views on the evolution/creationism debate border on being apologist. An article published in The Washington Post takes Cupp to task for blurring the lines in the argument.

S.E. Cupp's handling of science and religion misrepresents the nature of evolution, obscures the science of biology and dismisses the deeply held religious views of most Christians outside of the fundamentalist subculture.

Cupp presents creationism as "a counterargument" to evolution, yet never provides a clear account of what evolution is or what she thinks creationism means.
~Joshua Rosenau, public information project director at the National Center for Science Education

This is a curious position for an atheist to hold, but that is not what is important. What is important is that this position panders to the very people who already think lowly of atheists in general. Many critics have called her the "atheist Alan Colmes," which I personally think is unfair and, more importantly, untrue. She will not be a whipping post for the network. I recently (a few minutes ago) watched an interview she had with Mike Huckabee and some other FOX News contributor, and the three of them agreed on all the same points about what the media is doing to the country by attacking Christianity (which is, of course, the only religion in the U.S.).

And yet, the seed of a great idea lies in all of this. For far too long, people have been ranting about how no one in this country gets along anymore. FOX News, above all, has been guilty of creating a schism between people of the left and right by vilifying them openly on the air, so perhaps we can look at this through rose colored glasses. Maybe we should say that it's not such a bad thing that (a) FOX News has an atheist who is a regular contributor and (b) that an atheist is treated well on FOX. I personally don't buy it, but, then again, Christopher Hitchens has been on Bill O'Reilly's and Sean Hannity's programs...to be reviled. We shall see if this experiment works, but I have my doubts that S.E. Cupp is going anywhere in the near future.

What's Wrong with Network Science Fiction

Entertainment Weekly posted an article about the dip in ratings for shows like 'V', 'FlashForward', and 'Lost', which are all ostensibly science fiction shows. Why are these shows struggling? Here are some possibilities:

1) The shows kind of suck: What happens too often is that the whole of a genre is judged based on a few examples. The failure of Harper's Island more or less killed the horror tv subgenre for major networks. It says nothing about horror shows in general, just Harper's Island. TV Execs are reticent to flood the market with a single type of show if the flagship show doesn't work.

However, maybe it should be acknowledged that Lost isn't at the top of its game right now and V and FlashForward weren't really that good to begin with. It doesn't say that people don't like science fiction; it just says that maybe people don't like these science fictions shows. The ratings for both V and FlashForward plummeted after the first episodes, so maybe it's just not their bowl of grits. I personally like both shows (somewhat), but I can see why the general public may not be interested in them.



2) They don't account for the average tv watcher: This point has the potential of condescending to 'the masses', but the shows are kind of complicated and geeky in their lore. Lost may have alienated casual fans because of how different and complicated it is from the first season. They tune in and go, "What the hell's happening?" and then turn it on. It's not a show you can pick up in the sixth season, and, perhaps, it's not a show that people can keep up with after a hiatus. It's challenging to remember all of the details of the show, so I'm sure plenty of people have turned it off.

Additionally, and this may be a subset of 2), there are a lot of characters. It's difficult to pick up on shows that have so many different mutual story lines and situations.

3) The scheduling is messed up: After watching four episodes of the new shows, I wanted more! Four test shows with a hiatus wasn't enough to keep me interested, and now I'm feeling sluggish about getting back into them. That's probably my single biggest complaint. Had they produced more episodes and played them in a row, I would have felt more satisfied. But because they snapped the shows off - at critical moments, no less - people more or less lost interest.



4) Too much separates the shows: This may be a vastly idiosyncratic point, but I'm gonna make it anyway. V and Lost are completely, utterly different shows, and to lump them together is a mistake. Plenty of people who watch Lost are just fans of Lost, not science fiction as a whole. Assuming that viewers will carry over from one show to the other is problematic, to say the least. TV viewers are accustomed to (and sometimes request) samey shows, like all of the cop and crime dramas that permeate all networks at the moment. There are much smaller gaps between them than Lost, V, FlashForward, and Fringe. The spectrum of science fiction falls under a wide umbrella, so there will be disparities in the shows.

5) Maybe Lost was a fluke: Or, maybe Lost is the token science fiction show. Perhaps people can stomach one or two really popular science fiction shows at a time. The X-Files were really popular a decade ago, but (a) the show was really very good and (b) it was one of the only popular science fiction shows of the time period. It's only a hypothesis, but it can't be that far off the mark. And, the longer the show runs, the more Lost has upped the ante on the suspension of disbelief. The first season had a few mysterious things, but it was more character- than plot-driven. For the past two seasons, the show has been barreling along at such a pace as to undermine the personal element somewhat. So maybe people are less interested in the story of the survivors of Oceanic 815 than the people.

First Thoughts on 'Heavy Rain' - No Spoilers

I liked it. I'll have more to say in a mini-podcast about the game, but overall I thought it was an engaging experience. It's less of a game, in my opinion, than an interactive movie - a grown up choose-your-own-adventure - but I still thoroughly enjoyed it. Here are some first thoughts.

What is good:
* The story - I won't go into the particulars of the story here (wait for the spoilers section of the podcast), but there are several plot threads that keep the game fresh throughout. The game starts off slow, but once the story gets rolling along, it's hard to put the controller down.
* Multiple endings - there are well over twenty epilogues for the game, though I believe the basic story itself stays the same. This gives the game definite replay value. I'm probably going to buy the game so I can play through the game a few more times.
* The characters - The great thing about 'Heavy Rain' is that you can control the actions of the characters and mold the game to your personality, or you can make each character as aloof or downright evil as you like. Based on how you react to certain situations, the story changes along the way. It's really intriguing.

What sucks:
* The controls - Learning the control mechanics is quite frustrating early on, and there are points in the game when you will spin around and pivot several times before getting to where you're going. The system is not intuitive whatsoever, and it can be irritating. You use R2 to walk and the left analog stick to change direction. When you enter a room, the control shifts, and you might turn around and back out of a room before gathering your bearings.
* The voice acting - It becomes obvious very on that the developers are European. You'll catch an accent here or there that is out of place, and sometimes the voice acting distracts from the story itself. That being said, the writing is actually pretty good, so it's a shame that the voice acting is so bad.
* The first act - you have to persist through brushing your teeth, taking a shower, playing with the kids, all before getting to the meat of the story. Seriously, the game did not need such an extensive tutorial. It's quite boring until about half an hour to forty-five minutes into the game. However, the prologue sets up the story very well.

Overall, I think the game is at least worth a rental and is perhaps worth buying (I'm definitely going to buy it). And, now that I've decided to buy it, I saw over at Amazon that the game is on sale for $46.99 WITH A $10 off coupon for the next video game purchase. If you're craving a game with a very different, almost revolutionary user interface, then 'Heavy Rain' is a no-brainer.

Check out the podcast later for more in-depth discussion about the game.

Here is a non-spoiler-ific review of 'Heavy Rain'.

Powered by Podbean.com

Bioshock Evolve T Shirt from Zazzle.com

Bioshock Evolve T Shirt from Zazzle.com

I'm a t-shirt guy. I just love them, and not just regular white Hanes tees. I like the weird ones, ones that you have to get off the internet, from sites that would make the store owner from Gremlins cringe. They must have a slogan or picture for me to be happy. It doesn't have to be particularly well thought-out, but it should be present nonetheless. The irony of my outlook on life is that I despise people who cover their bumpers with slogans and other nonsense, and yet I'll be the first person to throw on a 'Day of the Dead' tee or (if I go all out and purchase this shirt) something to do with BioShock. Thing about life is, you can't be entirely free of contradictions. Contradictions are what make full, round, wonderful characters, and very few people in this world have such airtight logic, so I'm not that worried.

What Ralph Nader *May* Teach Us About Ron Paul

I'm not going into any specifics here, because the canyon between Paul and Nader couldn't be wider. However, what I want to caution you people out there against is judging the man too closely by his followers. I don't want to start a ruckus with Libertarians, but some of them are quite devoted to Paul. I have allowed the irony of their position - How can you follow Obama so blindly! Ron Paul's always right! - to keep me from thinking more deeply about whether or not his positions really, truly, honestly deserve the headspace I've been unwilling to give them.

How this relates to Ralph Nader is in the near-religious fervor with which both men's followers regard them. We live in an age of the cult of personality, and both me are subject to it, even in their respective lack of personality. What happened ten years ago is that the majority of Americans eschewed the message of Ralph Nader because his denizens were a bit wacky, and he was a turd in the punch bowl, but the anti-corporatism message he espoused is becoming eerily prescient in these financially bankrupt days of our republic.

Similarly, Paul's supporters are so fervent that they tend to turn the average person off, myself included, because you can kind of see that David Koresh look in their eyes when they talk about RP. That should not detract, however, from what the man is trying to say. We should keep the man separate from the message, indeed, as far as the supporters go. When I posed a question on the internet recently, asking Libertarians what their biggest grief with the man was, the most compelling answer I received was, "I wish he were twenty or thirty years younger. Oh, and he could be more forceful in his message." Honestly.

No doubt, Ron Paul has a track record to back up what he's saying, but that's not really the argument being made here. I demur from going into any real discussion of his positions - that is a post for another time - but the crux of this argument (and I hope RP fans can see through the veiled criticism to what is ostensibly a compliment) is that Ron Paul shouldn't be discounted simply because he's willing to throw a wrench in the modern political machine. I'll leave you with a quote from Ralph Nader in order to drive this point home: “When people say, ‘Why’d you do this in 2000?’ and so on,” Nader explains in AN UNREASONABLE MAN, “I’d say, ‘I’m a 20-year veteran of pursuing the folly of the least worst between the two parties.’ Because when you do that, you end up allowing them to both get worse every four years.”

Source: PBS.Org

Orangutans That Love DIY

This BBC video features orangutans that paddle along in boats, wash clothes, and make things, not because they were trained to do so, but because they watched others doing it and worked out how to do it for themselves. In other words, these are not parlor tricks, but real evidence of the cognitive ability of orangutans.

The Ooks of Hazzard - 'Kids' (MGMT Cover)

I believe it should be pronounced like Dukes without the D, but otherwise there's nothing confusing about this inspired cover of MGMT's 'Kids'. It's a straightforward, resonant track, and I hope to see more from this Americana group in the future. Enjoy.

A Jihad on South Park

For those of you who thought last week's episode of South Park was tame, think again. The fact that South Park even chose not to show Mohammed has sparked a controversy within radical Islamic sects. The web site Revolutionmuslim.com, which has been under investigation before for supporting violence (according to CNN), posted warnings about potential violence against creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone for even threatening to show the prophet Mohammed in the 200th episode.

As is quoted on the site (through CNN):

We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.

The awful irony of arguing over whether or not Mohammed should be shown in an episode of South Park is that it has already happened. If you take a look at season five of the series, you will see an episode called 'Super Best Friends', which features Buddha, Krishna, and Mohammed as well. Fully visible. No Censorship bar. Nothing. In fact, if one were so inclined, he or she could got to the South Park web site and watch the entire episode right now (here is the page). In essence, this is already a moot point, but the humorless extremists on Revolutionmuslim are not very attuned to humor and irony, as it should be blatantly obvious.

Everyone is waiting for mainstream Muslims to condemn the actions taken against Theo Van Goh, who was murdered for a critical film regarding abuses suffered by Muslim women, and for this most recent threat of violence against Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Parker and Stone themselves are largely unafraid of repercussions, if their interview with BoingBoingVideo is any indication:

(Trey Parker) It would be so hypocritical against our own thoughts if we say, "Okay, well let's not make fun of them because they may hurt us...That's messed up to have that kind of thought process. Okay, well, we'll rip on the Catholics because they won't hurt us, but we won't rip on them because they might hurt us. That is not the way it works. (from from YouTube)

To be upset and appalled by the way your religion is portrayed on South Park is acceptable. That is one of the beautiful aspects of American culture, to realize that someone out there disagrees and has the right to disagree. The rights of free speech do not protect one's feelings, however. You may be astounded at the audacity of an artist willing to show Mohammed's face, but faith does not create an asylum for violence. To advocate violence for a satirical cartoon show - for any show, for that matter - only works to stretch the limitations of what is to be considered one freely practicing one's faith.

BoingBoing Interview w/ Trey Parker and Matt Stone
CNN - Radical Islam Web Site Takes on 'South Park'

Who Leads The (R)?

Even though I'm not a Republican, I am thoroughly interested in train wrecks, so naturally I would be interested in the elephantine party of 2010. Today's article of note comes from David Brooks of the New York Times, who takes a few moments to answer questions about the crumbling Republican Party in a brief opinion piece.

One of the more illuminating portions of the interview was when Brooks said the following:

First, let’s all stop paying attention to Sarah Palin for a little while. I understand why liberals want to talk about her. She allows them to feel intellectually superior to their opponents. And members of the conservative counterculture want to talk about her simply because she drives liberals insane. But she is a half-term former governor with a TV show. She is not going to be the leader of any party and doesn’t seem to be inclined in that direction.

The Sarah Palin phenomenon is a media psychodrama and nothing more. It gives people on each side an excuse to vent about personality traits they despise, but it has nothing to do with government.

About Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality is the idea that the internet should not be controlled by corporate interests. Basically, what cable and internet providers would like to do is become ostensible gatekeepers of the internet, creating a "fast lane" for web sites and search engines that pay them for a certain brand of preferred status, leaving those web sites too small or poor to stay in the "slow lane" of the internet. It would create a tiered system on the internet, favoring those with the most money and depriving the internet itself of a sort of free market, as it were. The above video explains it in much better detail and with more clarity, so watch it and become involved. On the FreePress site, you can sign a petition to keep the internet the way it is and send an e-mail to your congressperson.

8-bit Dr. Horrible Sing Along Game

I think the blog title is pretty self-explanatory, but for those who may be confused, Youtuber DoctorOctoroc has recreated Dr. Horrible's Sing-A-Long Blog in an NES, 8-bit, old school Nintendo format. Curiously, the video does really seem to highlight both the movie itself and what an NES version of the movie might have done. Except, it probably would be much crappier and have nothing to do with the movie itself. Rather, you would probably be required to jump on bats or snakes and collect musical notes in order to advance to the next level.

Going Postal - Trailer

What's weird is, I recently read 'Going Postal' and thought, there's no way this will ever be made into a movie. I should say the same thing about all the books I want to see made into movies.

Hiroshima 'This is Your Life'

The documentary 'White Lights/Black Rain' details the destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima when US forces dropped The Bomb on them. In this excerpt, one of the survivors, Kiyoshi Tanimoto, is brought on the show 'This is Your Life' and forced to meet the man, Captain Robert A. Lewis, who co-piloted The Enola Gay on that singularly destructive day. Tanimoto, it should be noted, is famous for his work with the Hiroshima Maidens, the group of twenty-five seriously disfigured women who also survived the attack on Hiroshima in 1945.

Sexy ABCs and 123s

This video challenge has Youtuber DeStorm singing a love song using only letters, numbers, and symbols on the keyboard. I really didn't think I was going to like it when I first watched, but I had to go back and watch it a second time just to be able to take it all in.

Tool - 'Lateralus' on the Koto

Here is a cover of Tool's 'Lateralus' on a Japanese instrument called the Koto. According to Wikipedia, the Koto is "a traditional Japanese stringed musical instrument derived from the Chinese guzheng. The koto is the national instrument of Japan.[1] Koto are about 180 centimetres (71 in) width, and made from kiri wood (Paulownia tomentosa). They have 13 strings that are strung over 13 movable bridges along the width of the instrument. Players can adjust the string pitches by moving these bridges before playing, and use three finger picks (on thumb, index finger, and middle finger) to pluck the strings." It isn't that odd that Tool's music is so easily orchestrated in such a manner, but it's always refreshing to see a different take on popular music like this. It's not just novel but inventive as well, and I could see this tune being included in a score for a movie of some kind.

Here is a photo of a Koto.



Source: Koto

The 'Lost' Intro Done 'Buffy'-Style

I didn't watch 'Buffy the Vampire' - shame on me - but I do watch 'Lost', so I thought this was pretty funny.

The Yes Men Fix the World - Trailer

'The Yes Men Fix the World' is a documentary about one of the biggest hoaxes perpetrated in the country, all done in the name of fighting the PR battle against giant corporations from the inside...sort of. The two men - Andy Bichlbaum and Mike Bonanno - pose as ostensible PR execs from "evil" corporations like Exxon Mobil and Dow Chemical and go on television to expose the companies' shady business practices.

You can read more about the story by going to the movie's web site.

The Pixies - Where is My Mind? Piano Cover

YouTuber Maxene Cyrin takes pseudo-pop songs and then covers them on the piano, with often hauntingly beautiful results. Here, the pianist covers The Pixies' 'Where is My Mind?' (which, as well all know, closes out 'Fight Club') with scenes from the 1928 Greta Garbo flick, 'The Mysterious Lady'.

Dr. Dre vs. Class Act - Nothin' but a Journal Thang

Anyone who reads the blog knows I'm a fan of mash-ups, and this is a top-notch one, though I'm not sure what the song underlying 'Nothing But a G Thang' is. 'The Class Act Actress' implies that its from the Kid N Play movie from 1993. Still, it's worth a listen.

Christopher Hitchens Interview

Christopher Hitchens Interview from Anonymous on Vimeo.

Preaching Hate in Uganda

Within the next century, when historians are able to accurately (or at least with some amount of objectivity) label these decades, they may be able to deem them "The Second Dark Ages", or, more ironically, the "Evangelical Enlightenment". There exists today such a religious fervor in fiery American evangelicals that they cannot help but spread the love. They have learned, perhaps, that a direct brand of Old Testament intolerance may not work in America, so they have taken it elsewhere to places like Uganda, where vitriol against homosexuals can be openly, freely, and violently expressed. "The gay movement is an evil institution. The goal of the gay movement is to defeat the marriage-based society," says Scott Lively, an American evangelical working to stir up anti-gay sentiment in the country. As the video suggests, outright homophobia is at an all-time high in Uganda (and, I imagine, other places in the world where there is a strong evangelical presence). A recently introduced Anti-Homosexuality Bill would require "some" homosexuals to be put to death - how they will be able to decide who will be executed, we may never know - and the bill is supported by American and Ugandan evangelicals alike. Take, for example, Ugandan minister Martin Ssempa, who is the local figurehead for this seemingly grassroots movement to rid the country of "sodomy". The video pretty much speaks for itself, but let's hope that the rhetoric that demagogues like Ssempa spews does not stir up the kind of biblical wrath in Uganda over homosexuality that, well, the Bible advocates.

Now, for those who think this borders on being ludicrous, it does, especially if one considers that, not only does Martin Ssempa accuse gays of gaining sexual gratification from eating feces, but also that Mr. Lively readily equates homosexuality with Nazism (His book is entitled The Pink Swastika. I do not believe I have to create a straw man here. What lengths would I have to go to in order to mischaracterize their argument? How much more depraved an accusation would I have to make in order to top coprophagia and Nazism? I can't argue in any fashion that any of this is mainstream Christianity, for it is not, but we are also not discussing the American political stage either, where statements are often simultaneously grandiose and tame at the same time. The greatest difference is in the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which outright proposes the execution of a person for confessing an alternative sexual preference to their own, based entirely on the writings of men - certainly men - who believed that spitting on a wound may cure it. Thankfully, there has been a great outcry from mainstream Christian leaders, such as Ugandan Anglican minister Canon Gideon Byamugisha, who says that passing the bill would amount to "state legislated genocide".

The denouncement of the bill is heartening. However, what should be focused on in this matter is not that some have taken a stance against the bill but that a stance need be taken at all, or that the bill even exists. How much longer can such ignorance be disseminated to the people for petty religious gain? The ostensible purpose of the sentiment in Uganda is not to rid the world of homosexuality but to manipulate people into confessing the Christian faith based on simple knee-jerk reactionism. Thankfully, the bill has been revised to omit the death penalty for homosexuals, and yet the bill itself still remains. This is a depressing and altogether horrifying development in two thousand and ten, and I sincerely hope the bill gets shut down altogether.

Source: Ugandan church leader brands anti-gay bill 'genocide'

The Evolution of the Eye

The eye is a controversial organ, indeed. It is one of the main body parts creationists point to when espousing the "evidence of a designer," and the argument over its development has persisted for nearly two centuries. Creationists propose that the eye could not evolve in a vacuum, that no discernible transitional phase has ever been observed, and that its complexity is irreducible (meaning ostensibly that, due to its complexity, the eye could not have evolved whatsoever). To make a simpler analogy, which "scientist" Michael Behe uses in his book, Darwin's Black Box, how could a mouse trap evolve independent of creation? You can find numerous supposed refutations of evolution in man-made examples. Has a house ever been constructed which has not been designed by man? Could a jumbo jet be made from a whirlwind sweeping through a junkyard? And so on.

The affirmation of the eye's evolution is rather simpler to explain than I would have thought, actually. It need not even get too bogged down in scientific jargon in order to be convincing. The above video shows in detail how the eye developed into what it is today and also how different creatures bear differing evidence of eye development. It is basically a process of gradual development, with light-sensitive cells turning into a minor recess in what will become an ocular cavity, after which the gathering of cells become the eye itself, able to manipulate light into the objects we perceive.