Rou

I know what you're thinking when you see that title. Here he goes again. Another rant blasting the faithful for believing something.

Perhaps in part. Really, I'm blasting one faithful. Normally I try not to narrow it down so much, but this one is running for president, so I think he's earned a little bit of time in my spotlight.

Mitt Romney. He's got a problem with his campaign. His problem is that he's Mormon, and he's having some trouble from Christians who don't really seem to appreciate his religious choice. He avoid the subject as much as possible and does his very best to temporize the issue of his faith. Makes sense.

Normally, I wouldn't take issue with it. It's between him and the people that have a problem with his faith. That is, until he decided to take a swipe at me And those like me.

Yeah, I don't like that shit. So, Mr Romney, henceforth now as Shitball, is getting some of my literary wrath. What did Shitball say? Couple things. He started out saying that he wanted to protect all faiths from the rise of the religion of secularism.

The phrase religion of secularism is so uniquely moronic that just by using it, he ensures that I will never vote for him. You can't have a religion of secularism. The words don't make sense.

Secular: 'not pertaining to or connected with religion'

There is no fucking way to have a religion of it. The only purpose of using that phrase is to turn the secular movement in the country up to the level of a religious rival.

OK, I see what he's going for. Unite the faithful against the atheists in the spirit of the 'Attack on Christmas'. I get it. But really, do you want a president who's goal is to funnel the rage of the majority away from him and toward a minority? That's so fucked up I have trouble seeing how Shitball got this far.

But he's not done yet. No no. Shitball is too fucking stupid to let it pass at that. Honestly, this is the part that really pissed me off.

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

Mother fucking Shitball. I'm sorry, but seriously, what kind of a jackass is he? I mean... Shitball. Seriously. Do you have a fucking clue about things before you open your mouth? Ever? I mean, he's wrong. He's so fucking wrong, I'm having trouble finding out where to start in on him.

Shitball, freedom doesn't not require religion. I can be perfectly free and not need to acknowledge another mother fucking thing in my life. No divinity, no deity, no miracles. Even if I'm wrong and God smites me down, I will still have lived a free life. I'm free and I'm not religious. So fuck you Shitball. Secondly, religion doesn't require freedom. In fact, religion does pretty damn well without it. Even Christianity, a very free religion, is built around a concept of choosing to surrender that freedom to live by God's code. Beyond that, I offer the up the Taliban. They offered absolutely no freedom, and had an amazingly high amount of religious followers. Taken further, look into the Spanish Inquisition. Religion requires no freedom, nor does freedom require religion. They're not even remotely symbiotic. Freedom and religious flourish just well apart as they do together. They might even do better seperate.

So fuck you Shitball. I hope every single Christian smacks you down and tells you that they could never trust someone like you. I hope you're forced to defend your thoughts and religious views in every single debate and interview from now until the primary. And I hope the faithful run from you in droves. Then I hope you sit back and reflect on how it feels to be thrown under the bus for religious views. Fuck you Shitball. Fuck you.

To catch a predator is a set of 'investigative reports' run by NBC Dateline. Basically, they film an incident where a sting operation is run on someone online in the hopes of catching pedophiles trying to find kids to have sex with. In a sad statement on our society, they seem to be pretty successful.

All and all, a noble idea. Fewer people out there trying to molest children is a good thing. Bravo, bonus points, and kudos.

But you know what, the show is just wrong, in my opinion.

Something in my brain has a hard time wrapping my head around turning this sort of police activity (the people involved are not police for the most part) into a spectator sport. In many ways, this is worse than shows like Cops because of it's focus on the sexuality of the 'minors'. Once they come and get the guy, they go through a Q&A section on camera where they review what they guy said online. They make sure to point out the fairly graphic (for broadcast TV) descriptions of sexual activities and positions.

It's supposed to come off as forcing the predator to admit to his crime, but it seems overly focused on the naughty bits to me. While I'm sure this is good for ratings, I find it kind of skeevy even if the 'children' involved are adults posing as jail bait.

To be honest, I think the entire show is a bit dodgy. First, they set it up to bring the guy in. Some people have gone so far as to say their methodology is borderline entrapment, but without the full transcripts, it's impossible to tell. They guy shows up, they bring him into the house, and they interview this guy. His lawyer isn't there. Face isn't blurred (at least not in the few segments I've seen parts of). I don't even know if he's been officially arrested or read his rights at this point. But there he is right there on camera. Anything he says will damn sure be used against him. It's damn sure not softball questions.

The problem is that all of this occurs outside of the justice system. The predator is thrown in front of public opinion long before the court system has finished with them. They present all of the evidence in a very one-sided manner. It may be true, but it's certainly not part of a fair justice system.

Is the overall goal good? Sure. I just don't think catching pedophiles should be used to boost commercial sales. I think the show is tasteless, crass, and asinine. It peddles it's wares to the lowest portion of the viewers psyche and then tries to pretend as if it's doing it for lofty noble reasons. It's not. It's all about ratings. The presentation of the segment and it's focus on the lewd and vulgar commentary drives that point home for me. Police work just shouldn't be a spectacle presented to viewers.

To be fair, most of these points are true of Cops and similar crime documentaries as well. I don't enjoy / watch them either. The nature and presentation of this just seems far more blatant and distasteful to me.

I don't watch it. I try to ignore it. This panel of women no doubt says a million things that are perfectly reasonable. I don't know or care. But then every so often, the show gives is a segment so amazingly stupid, one can not help being aware of it.

Such was the case this week. One of the woman brought up a History channel show about Epicurus. While describing the show she mentions that this was all in a time period before Jesus Christ.

To which one of the other chick, Sherri Shepard, said "They still had Christians back then."

Wha???

You mean, in 300 BC.. that's Before Christ.. there were Christians??? Really? How's that work, shit for brains?

Does she stop there? No. Of course not. Stupidity doesn't stop after one bump. It goes full tilt.

Shepherd: They had Christians, And they threw 'em to the lions.
Goldberg: I think this might predate that.
Shepherd: I don't think anything predated Christians.
Behar: The Greeks came first, then the Romans, then the Christians
Shepherd: Jesus came first, before then.

Seriously? She really believes this shit? Why do you think they called it the NEW testament? There was an OLD one too you know. A group of people called Hebrews used it. You might have heard of them. And you know that story about them being set free from Egypt? Moses, Commandment... all that stuff? Yeah, who do you think the Egyptians worshiped? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't a man that wasn't born for over a thousand years.

Nothing predated Christians? How on earth could you be that stupid.

Oh wait, I remember where I've seen your name before. You also don't believe in evolution. Not all that unusual, even if it is misguided. But you went further than that. You think the world might actually be flat. Sure, Aristotle estimated the circumference of the globe in something like 300BC, but don't let that stop you. Being 2000 years behind the learning curve shouldn't bother you.

You're too dumb to live, I swear. Honestly, I want to know here you went to school so I can make sure no one else ever attends it ever. You're a blight on human intelligence. Seriously. You're like an anti-Stephen Hawking or something. Where he's smart, you're moronic.

No, not really.

So, in May 08, scientists are hoping to start up the Large Hadron Collider in France. Basically, it's a particle accelerator. A really BIG one. It's going to be used to investigate things like dark matter, the god particle, antimatter, and such things. Nifty things that all would help up understand how the universe works. Because you know, we're kinda curious.

Anyway, that's the short version. It's a big new toy for scientists to play with. Is that the end of the story? Course not. That would be a crappy rant, wouldn't it? The rant comes next.

So, if you were going to guess, how do you think the nutcases would portray this type of thing? If you guess Doomsday machine, congratulations. Let me tell you, they didn't skimp out on the crazy here either.

They feel that colliding particles like this has a number of major risks not only to the entire planet, but potentially the entire universe. Oh yeah baby. The whole fucking universe. Really incredible that we can do that with just a couple miles of magnets lined up properly. You see, they think we're going to do one of a couple things. First, we could create a black hole. Obviously the black whole would consume the entire earth and solar system. Second, we could tear a hole in the fabric of space and time. Finally, they give a nod to other conspiracy groups. This machine could be used to create anti-matter, which could then be used by Al Qaeda to create massive anti-matter explosions.

I mean, just... wow. I don't care how bad you are at physics, that's some crazy shit right there.

First off, we're talking about particle collisions, not stellar ones. If, by some highly unlikely chance, we created a black hole, it's only the sum of it's parts. It would be a super condensed, micro black hole with a mass of... well.. a few particles. It's gravitational force would be... exactly the same as those few particles normally have. Just really condensed. the diameter for that colossal gravitational force would be about the same as an electron's orbit around a helium atom. So long as you stay outside that event horizon, you should be ok. Seriously, it would take a lot of luck for it to attack nearby air particles. Especially inside of a magnetized accelerator. Oh, and black holes evaporate. It's slowly based on their mass, but with so little, it would be nearly instantaneous in this case. Color me not scared.

As for ripping space time, that's so crazy you can't even quantify it. The statement doesn't even make sense outside of a star trek episode. The worse part is that we're trying to study cosmic radiation with this thing. Stuff that hits the earth hundreds of times a day with FAR more energy than we can generate. But since we can't predict when/where such rays will hit, we wanted this little toy in order to do so reliably.

And then we have the concept of anti-matter explosive devices. These are good. I'm sure we'd like that. But we're not talking about significant amounts of anti-matter. And it only exists for a few fractions of a second inside the chamber. It's not like we have portable containment units. If anti-matter touches matter, they collide and destroy each other. So... lets just say, this is not really possible and leave it at that.

So why do people (read as: nutters) think this? Because scientists tend to be truthful when they're asked questions. Even if the question is... shall we say... leading. So, when a reporter asks something like "what is the worst case scenario?" or "could this conceivably create a black hole?" a truthful person going on record might say "theoretically it could create a black hole, but that's unlikely." Then some dirt bag reporter could just trim the last 3 words off and he's got himself a headline!

People at the facility who have to talk to the press are now told to be more careful in choosing their words. Take a few crappy articles citing the same source and add a few hyper-phobic people that are bad at science.. and you've got a recipe for crazy.

Sometimes you have to admire the Muslim code of justice. They really know how to get the point across. For example, take Saudi Arabia. They catch a group of guys that raped a girl. They throw them in jail. An not a nice jail, a Muslim style fuck you very much jail. Hoo-ZAH!

Of course, there is always the flip side. They sentenced the victim, a 19 year old girl, to 90 lashes. Oh yeah, she gets raped, and then BEATEN for it. Quality justice they got there. Her crime? "Being in the car of an unrelated male." Doesn't matter that the male was raping her.

But wait, it gets better. I know, it's hard to imagine how they could fuck up even more. The appeals court DOUBLED it and then some. 200 lashes. AND six months in jail! Because the media caught on and bitched about it. Additional lashes for her "attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media".

Fucking priceless. I'm glad these guys are on our side, right? Sigh.

I'm curious... why do you believe I am a multi-billion dollar search engine? Do I look like a search engine? When I speak, does it sound like I'm rattling off information about the last words you spoke?

Then, pray tell, why do you keep coming to me with requests more easily found through Google? We're both at work. We both sit in front of computers all day long. We both have degrees in computer science. I presume you know how to use the internet. It's pretty easy. My grandmother does it.

So I'm confused when you get out of your seat, walk over to my desk, and ask me things like "How many feet in a mile?", "What are the names of New England Patriots wide receivers?", and "What time does Best Buy close?"

These are things that I don't know off the top of my head. Even if I did, a quick entry into Google will get you the answer several orders of magnitude faster than I will. Additionally, I don't have to be bothered by your request. Instead, you will only require the assistance of a tool specifically designed to fill your request.

So, fuck off. K? Thanks. Buh-bye.

Pop quiz time for sanctimonious pricks out there.

Can an atheist behave morally if he doesn't believe in a supreme being?
A)yes
B)no

If you said B, you can feel free to go throw yourself off the nearest convenient tall building. Atheists aren't automatically devoid of moral structure just because they don't believe in God or take Jesus Christ as their savior. Just as Christians aren't always moral titans. There are good and bad in just about every group.

But just so you know, let me explain to you how a non-denominational, entirely secular moral structure might look.

Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.

Confucius said that sometime around 500BC, but there have been a number of variations of it, both earlier and later. It doesn't require worship or fear of a deity to be true. It's not right to do something to someone else that you wouldn't want done to yourself. Simple. Elegant. Timeless. All five of the major religions have some version of it. I imagine most of the minor ones do as well. I happen to like the way Confucius phrases it.

Secular morality stems from the concept that doing positive things improves society and doing negative things harms society. If this world is all there is, than it's in our best interest to improve it.

Moral value is not a religious monopoly. If you stopped acting as if you were a direct conduit to the Lord Almighty, you might have realized that.

I read today an article about our troops in Iraq. For the most part is was a fairly masturbatory view of the war. The US is right. The troops are amazing. The strategy is sound. That sort of thing. Then he goes a little further.

He says that anyone who enlists in the military is automatically a hero.

See, that just pisses me off. It's just not true. And it detracts from those people that have actually done something heroic, in or out of uniform. I don't want to bash our troops. I'm proud of our troops and I think they are some of the best soldiers anywhere in the world. My attack here isn't on them, it's on a dumb ass author.

It's not heroic to enlist. It takes than committing four years to the military to become a hero. It takes more than serving in a combat zone.

I read a story today about a hero. 14 year old kid jumped off the station platform and onto the tracks after a man he didn't know fainted and fell down. He pulled the man back under the platform and out of the way of an on-coming train. He was in no personal danger, but he placed himself in harms way to protect another person. He displayed courage and strength of spirit to save a person he didn't know. That, sir, is a hero.

Soldiers in combat have many opportunities to become a hero. There are long lines of men in uniform that have gone above and beyond their duty to help their comrades in arms or to vanquish their foes. Men who have put their lives down to do what they knew what right. Maybe they carried wounded men out of harms way. Maybe they held their position longer than was safe because to fall back would mean death to their friends. That, sir, is what it takes to be a hero.

Being a hero is more than a simple platitude we throw down for anyone. It's means something. It's a choice made by a person that 'good enough' doesn't apply to them. That they accept the risk because the benefits are worth it. Or maybe they choose to do something dangerous because they just don't think they can live with themselves if they did nothing. Whatever the reason, they choose to do more.

This article cheapens that. It makes the very act of enlisting into a sacrifice. The act of going off to war into heroism of the finest sort.

But heroes do more than just put on a uniform. It takes more.

Ah November. The sweet spot for video game publishers. Games have gone gold and are being released at record pace for the holiday season. Gamers flock to stores to grab the latest new releases. Parents run out to grab little Johnny's top Christmas gift. My credit card screams out for mercy. Life is good in the world of gaming.

Honestly, this may be one of the better years in recent memory. Unreal Tournament 3, Assassin's Creed, Hellgate: London, Call of Duty 4, Mass Effect, Crysis, SimCity Societies, Rock Band, Half Life's bundle of games, and a huge number of expansion packs. And those are just off the top of my head.

So, if it's so great to be a gamer, why am I posting here?

Because quite frankly, I'm sick of retail stores. Is there a good place out there to buy games? I don't think so.

EB Games was bought by Gamestop. The conglomeration should have been a good thing, but instead left us with a steaming pile of dog shit. I'm so fed up with the place that I will never, under any circumstances, give the company money again. I recommend you do the same. I will not be held hostage by a company that makes the consumer feel like a beggar. If I want a game, I should be able to buy it at GAMEstop. But more often than not, that's not the case. I have to pre-order or special order or reserve or whatever the fuck the game I want ahead of time. Otherwise, they don't fucking get enough in. How a company focused on games can not have games on demand is beyond me. I've heard the drivel and frankly, they can shove it up their ass. 'We have too many stores to have multiple copies available everywhere'. That tells me you HAVE TOO MANY FUCKING STORES. Maybe if you'd consolidate them you would have more than 1 copy of each game at each store. And hey, you know what else would be nice? If that one copy wasn't already opened. I know you want to prevent theft. I get it. But you know what? When I buy a game, I expect it to... I dunno... NOT have fingerprints on it. Or worse, already be scratched because one of your employees took the game home to try it out.

Oh, and Mr. Gamestop worker, No, I don't want to reserve a game. No, I don't give a fuck if you didn't like the last game this publisher put out. No, I don't want a copy of your shitty magazine. No, I don't want a mother fucking game guide. I want to give you my goddamn money and have you give me my fucking game! I don't have any idea who came up with this model of retail store, but they should be take out, shot repeatedly in the legs and left in the Florida Everglades so that nature can dish out a fitting punishment.

That's not to say the box stores are much better. They rarely ever get games on the shelves the first day. And if you want a new game, their prices are competitive. Circuit City is pretty good about having sales on games within two weeks of release. The problem is the older games. They never seem to come down in price. A game that's over a year old is still marked at $49.99 just like the day it was released. Also, CC is famous for pulling bait and switch ads. For example, Call of Duty 4 was marketed as giving the buyer a free copy of Call of Duty 3. But the stores didn't honor it and claimed it was a typo. And heaven fucking forbid you ever want to return or exchange a game, even if it's defective. You might as well pull out all of your own teeth with a pair of pliers.

Honestly, can you imagine if all retail businesses operated the same way video game stores do? I swear there would be riots. Try telling some woman that her makeup was opened and tried on by employees. Or that you can't buy those jeans unless you pre-ordered them. Hey, we only got one iPod in stock and the manager earmarked it for himself.

The only real alternative is to order games online and have them delivered. That costs a bit more and it has the same underlying problem as Gamestop's pre-ordering bullshit. I can't just go get a fucking game. I have to know I want it in advance.

This is a great time to be a gamer. Except for the bullshit you have to go through to get them.

I recently had surgery. Outpatient type deal. No big deal.

But the billing is cracking me up. Fortunately for me, my insurance is covering most of the bill, which allows me to laugh. If it didn't, this wouldn't be funny.

The first bill I get is my anesthesiologist. Before anyone else, his bill is front and center. It's pretty simple. $1200 for his services. Simple.

A few weeks pass and I get my surgeons bill. Another simple bill. $1100 for her services. I'm on board with all of this.

Then I get the hospital bill. And this thing is fucking priceless. it's 15 entries. Not that bad. 1 of them is listed as 'Outpatient Anesthesia'. The other 14 are all 'Hospital Incidentals'. They range from $2.21 to $3,764.00 I mean, seriously... this is just fucking lazy. I mean, I think there should be SOME separation of this bill. A little more clarity. I don't think an aspirin should fall under the same category as the cost of the operating room. $3,761.79 is a pretty wide range for the same cost code, right?

Seriously. How can they expect someone to just blindly pay for shit and assume it's ok? Maybe there are people out there that just pay the bill and make it go away, but I'm really not one of them. I like to make sure they're not billing me for a drug they didn't actually give me.

Maybe I'm just silly that way?

We all have the things in games that drive us up a wall. Sometimes it's the insanely complicated maneuvers they expect us to pull off. Or the microscopic target mounted on the back of the gigantic titan. Or the stupidest AI in the world that we have to protect as it mindlessly wades through a horde of zombies.

Well, I get to add a new game to my list of games that irritate me. Medal of Honor: Airborne. It's yet another in a long line of WWII shooters. The big gimmick in this one is that you can parachute in to the level from above and pick your landing zone. Cute, but ultimately not very useful. Still, I love shooters in general, and WWII are generally worth my time.

Sadly, the game has three of my pet peeves in it.

The first is infinite respawning bad guys. I know Nazi's are evil incarnate, but even they draw the line as instant cloning of hundreds of soldiers. Well, I'm sure they would have done it if they could.. but that's not the point. When I clear a building or area, and my troops move up with me, I generally expect it to remain that way. More importantly, when I'm attacking a small 3 room building, I expect there to be an upper limit to how many times I have to shoot the machine gunner in the upper window. They don't have a company of people in there.

The second is a long standing complaint of mine and many MANY games are guilty of it. The protection offered by various forms of cover. For example, when being attacked by shoulder mounted anti-tank panzershreck, a thin wooden pallet is an unacceptable form of cover. Equally, a 55 gallon drum would not provide protection from that type of attack. This is a weapon that is designed to go through TANK armor. the thin sheet metal used there is not going to slow it down much. Even if it did stop the round, the concussive blast is going to hurt you on the other side. And finally, an M1 rifle is entirely capable of shooting through barbed wire. Hiding behind a roll of it isn't actually cover. It's not a wall. I can see your entire back and head. When I put 3 rounds on target, it shouldn't act as a wall. The bullet would got THROUGH it because it's a FUCKING coil with a large amount of air for the bullet to pass through.

The final one is the enemy. They should have to operate under the same rules as I do. If they can fire hundreds of rounds from their MG42 machine guns without reloading, I should be able to do the same when I capture it. But no, I have to reload every 30 rounds or so. If I take 25 seconds to reload my bazooka, they shouldn't be able to fire it four times in that same period of time. Rules must always be equalized for both sides.

Maybe my expectations are too high. It's just a crappy little shooter from Electronic Arts, I know. I should expect much. But damn it, I demand more. Maybe Call of Duty just spoiled me.

I meant to complain about this when I saw the movie in the theater, but hey, sue me. I forgot. However, 'Superman Returns' just showed up on HBO and reminded me to do it.

I like the movie. I'm not a huge Superman fan in general, but I enjoyed the movie. Mostly. If you're planning on seeing it, don't read any further. Because I'm going to spoil the fuck out of it in a little bit.

You see, I don't get the story. If you turn your brain off and ignore the glaring plot hole, the movie is enjoyable and you come away thinking 'Hey, Superman rules'.

But I didn't do that. So I enjoyed the movie, but decided that Superman is a bastard. Basic idea goes like this: Superman left Earth to find Krypton. Five years go by and now he's back. Lois Lane and the merry band of reporters have all moved on with their lives. She has a kid with her fiance. About five years old. You see where this is going, right?

So Superdick comes back and expects everything to be the same, and is hurt when it's not. Boo fucking hoo. The villain does his thing, Superman saves the day, nearly dies and finds out the kid is his. Yay, heroic ending.

Think about it. This story requires Superman to fuck Lois, knock her up, and decide to run off into outer space. What a shithead. Seriously, Superman is a hit-it-and-quit-it type of guy? Really? Then, inside a few weeks of banging superman, she runs off and fucks her new man on the side (Richard). I mean, it had to be close enough that he thought the kid was his, right? They never say if she knowingly lied to Richard. Maybe she just underestimated the power of Super-Sperm. The end result is that she's either easy or desperate to cover up the bastard child. And since we see her hang all over Superman's jock once he's back, I'm betting she's just easy. I suppose she could have been involved with Richard while she was banging Superman. Still, not a set of choices that really casts her in a positive light.

But let's step back to Superman. The pillar of Truth, Justice and the American Way, right? Sleeps with a chick out of wedlock. Knocks her up, and the runs away for five fucking years. That American Way bit just isn't what it used to be, is it?

For additional points, I refer you to Superdickery.com Read it for a while. There is plenty of other evidence out there.

Superman sucks.

I've mentioned it before, and I'll probably do so again. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act sucks donkey balls. And so do most of the people that use it. It's poorly designed, vaguely written, and grotesquely overpowered.

I offer up as evidence, exhibit A: Viacom's attack on YouTube user Christopher Knight. Mr Knight is running for the County Board of Education of where ever the fuck he lives. So he made a funny little commercial that apparently aired on local TV. He also uploaded it to YouTube.

Because people were amused by it, it got a lot of views, and eventually VH1 got wind of it. They thought it was funny and decided to put it on their YouTube thievery show 'Web Junk 2.0'. Basically a show that looks out for the new hot video, and puts it on TV. Apparently because they can't be bothered to think of original ideas.

So, Mr Knight hears about it and laughs a little. He was amused by it and decided to take advantage of his little moment of fame. He took a clip of the Web Junk show airing HIS clip, put it on YouTube, and linked it in his blog.

Naturally, Viacom, owners of VH1, sent in a DMCA takedown notice. Totally fucked up. He has a clip of them broadcasting HIS clip, and they have the nerve to demand he take it down?

But it gets better. Oh yes. You see, VH1... never ASKED him if they could broadcast it. And just for bonus points, they violated YouTube's terms of service by stealing his video. His not-for-profit ad was pilfered by a for-profit corporation and they give him shit when he puts it up online?

Fuck them and fuck the DMCA

Stop it. Please for the love of all that is sacred... stop it.

Everything is not dominant. In the past month, you've said that this program was dominant, that band is dominant, those cars are dominant, and the headphones you wear are all dominant. And that song you love is dominating.

You describe everything as either dominant or not dominant. There are dozens of good synonyms you can use as an alternative. Supreme, prominent, authoritative, controlling. Hell, try something simple like BEST.

Quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of it. It's depressingly repetitious. And while you may like the word, the more you use it, the lower the standard seems to be for it. The over usage of it has made it into an everyday occurrence. The word carries significance when it's an uncommon. When you use it to describe every third item, it doesn't mean much to me. It's impossible to discern which instances are really remarkable. I don't have the time to check the credentials of everything you mention. So, my natural response is to assume that nothing you describe as dominant is actually that impressive.

Expand your vocabulary a little and people will pay more attention you your opinions.

In this huge nanny state, we have ratings and warnings and such things they tell us if we could be offended at the media we've decided to view. And if so, how offended they think we could be. They coach it in terms of protecting our youth, but it's really more of an offensive meter.

What I don't understand is how fucked up the system is. Or rather, the systems. They don't seem to agree on anything.

First off, there is no rating in print media. No book comes with a sticker telling you that it has some fucked up imagery inside. I suppose you could say the shrink wrap on skin mags equates to an adult only rating but I think that's a stretch.

Music has only 2 ratings. Explicit lyrics and Not. That means that music is either OK for kids or not OK for kids, without really defining what age that line exists at. For some reason, 2 groups is enough for music.

But not for say... Movies. Because it's visual, we apparently have to add a whole slew of new ratings. G for everyone, PG for older kids, PG-13 for teens, R for adult supervision and NC-17 for adults only Honestly, that seems pretty reasonable. The only real issue I have with it is that the NC-17 rating is used as a bludgeon to prevent movies from going overboard. It functions as an effective ban on the movie because it can't get into major theaters with that rating. That ban allows the rating board to effectively censor movies or force them to be edited into their guidelines, which are often vague, enigmatic and often enforce their own mores over the true content of the movie (please, go watch This Film Not Yet Rated for more).

Next up we have TV. Movie guidelines aren't enough for TV. They need more. Y for all children, Y7 for older kids, Y7/FV for.. older kids, but with fantasy violence... yeah whatever.... G for general consumption, PG for tweens, 14 for teens, and MA for adults. To me, the Y-G breakdown is odd, but I guess I can understand it for helping parents find programming for their child's age group.

Finally, we have video games. Which has yet another rating system. C for childhood, E for everyone, E+10 for everyone that's over 10 (not really everyone, right?) T for teen, M for mature (adults only) and AO for adults only. I know, it sounds like I stuttered, but I didn't. M and AO have the exact same requirements. The concept is like R and NC-17, but they failed at definitions because the rule is the same, only an adult can buy it. Also, much like the movie industry, the game industry uses AO as a bludgeon to force games to conform to a standard or risk a loss of sales.

I know, that's all a very long winded explanation of things you probably already know. But I think it's important to go through all of that to get to my point. Those systems have some generally easy to see crossover in ratings, on the surface. But once you go deeper, they don't really agree on much. Homosexuality in music is fine, but it's almost a certain R in movies. Violence is fine in movies, but not in games. Sex is cool for books, but right out in TV.

The problem is that all these systems use a different set of rules to define themselves. They can't agree on what is offensive or how offended to be by it. You can Fuck 3 times, but not 4. You can show nipple, but not ass. You can allude to drugs, but not show someone using them. Two guys can live together, but not if they're gay.

The ratings groups have a difficult job. They have to walk a fine line of moral objection across a diverse spectrum. But the way it is now, it's not useful. You have a bunch of systems that are close to one another in form and function, but diverse on the content of those ratings. And other media that is either totally unregulated or nearly so.

The whole set of systems are just fucked up. It's no wonder parents get confused.

Dude in Missouri held up a convenience store. Police were called in. He stole a car and attempted to evade police. During the pursuit, the suspect shot and injured a cop. They caught him and arrested him.

He was convicted of a number of crimes relating to the burglary, car theft, and shooting the cop. He was also convicted of 2nd degree murder. You might wonder, how did the murder bit get attached?

Well, apparently a cop was on route to the search area to join the pursuit. 40 miles from the area, with his lights on, siren blazing, the cop came over a hilltop. A tractor trailer crashed into him and killed him.

The jury found that the cop would still be alive if this guy hadn't committed his crime, so it was his fault.

Personally, it's bullshit. I'm all for tough laws and all, but the cop got killed by his own actions and the actions of an unrelated truck driver. Would he still be alive? Maybe, but that doesn't mean this guy is guilty of murder. It's pretty fucked up, IMO.

Honestly, throw the book at the guy for the stuff he was responsible for. Attempted murder on the cop he shot. Burglary, grand theft auto, whatever. But you can't assign guilt to the guy because some cop that was responding to the call ended up dead 40 miles away from the scene of the crime.

I've done this topic before. I know I have.

I picked up Unreal Tournament 2004 again. It's been six months or so and I thought I'd go a few rounds. Shake the rust off.

I spend a lot of time working my hit scan. Gotta get the aim dependent aim back, because the game is dominated by it. Sniper rifle, lightning gun and shock. If you don't have it, you're doomed.

I do not cheat. I do not have a program installed to help me aim. My aim isn't even that good (just over 35% in fact).

So, I'm amused that I'm received 5 accusations that I cheat in the past week. So here are some tips for those pathetic players out there who assume botting before they assume skill.

First off, CTF-Face is a sniper map. When I set up my tent and sniper rifle up on the ground in front of the base, you have to find a way to deal with it. If you try to just teleport past me, you'll discover that I can aim at you by tracking the movement of the translocator and shoot you the second you appear.... even in mid-air. Complaining about it won't help you.

Also, you are on the blue team. That means you're bright blue and show up nicely against the base color. So, when you go up top and slide down the side, you're visible, especially when facing a *ahem* accomplished sniper. This means that as you fell, I followed you down with my scope, and when you stopped on a ledge, I put a bullet through your head. Nothing mysterious there. No magic. No artificial aim. No radar. Simple, easy mouse movements and a fatal left click.

Want more tips? I got 'em. Just because you don't know my name or clan tag doesn't mean I'm an aliaser/botter. I know because I wear my clan tag and name proudly. It just means that you're a little punk bitch who hasn't been around long enough to be afraid when I announce that I'm on flag defense.

Claiming to spectate me and decide I'm cheating is also idiotic. I don't snap aim. I don't follow people through walls. I hit around 1 out of 3 sniper shots. Most of the people on the server can tell I'm not cheating because I move well and spam well. That's why they laughed at you.

So, when you accused me of cheating, it just pissed me off and makes me target you more. Consider that your last tip.

I want to injure someone. This isn't really unusual I know. But there is a new guy here at work. Works in a nearby office. Don't know him, don't have any clue what department he works for, don't give a fuck.

You see, he has his instant messaging on. Not a big deal. But he has the volume on high enough that we can hear it 25 feet away. And every time he gets or sends a message... a little BONG like a small church bell goes off. Much louder than the standard sound for AIM and MSN and all.

Every time. He's been IMing someone for about 3 hours now. Almost constantly. My headache is not pleased with this man and his annoying ass BONGing laptop.

I was going to just bash his hands and break the laptop speakers. But then I thought that it's better to destroy the entire laptop to get rid of the wav file. Finally, I decided that the only way to be sure is to nuke him from orbit.

As a hardcore video game player, it's well known that I value game play over aesthetics. But just for a moment, lets step back and LOOK at the games we play.

As graphics have improved, the industry has been pushing more and more realistic models and environments. Recently, one particular thing has stood out at me over and over again. In the drive to achieve aesthetic perfection, logical design has been cast aside. The key example here is armor.

It's not really that complicated to apply logic to armor. Torso and head should receive the bulk of the armor. Limbs and extremities receive less armor in order to allow greater flexibility. All logical, right?

So, explain to me why the foot soldiers in Gears, UT, Quake and other games all put the majority of their armor on their shoulder pads? Why do they wear boots that look to weigh over 40 lbs? Gloves that would do justice to Hellboy? Why do the women expose their bosoms to the world instead of wearing the light chest plate the men wear? Open face plates, but heavily armored ankles??

Seriously?

I dunno. As I'm sitting here looking aqt preview pics of UT3, the thought occurred to me, so I followed it up. All the sci-fi shooters do the same thing. I just can't figure out why anyone would think to design armor that way.

Yesterday could have been a new first for the Senate. There was a guest chaplain in to read the opening prayer. A Hindu prayer. The first time that religion's voice had been offered that honor.

Not a monumental or amazingly special first, but a good one.

And if that was all that happened it would have been a footnote in the historical archives of a country that prides itself on religious freedom. Most likely, no one would have heard about it or thought overly much about it.

But sadly, it's not. Some dumb fucks decided to interrupt the guy just before he spoke.

"Lord Jesus, forgive us father for allowing a prayer of the wicked, which is an abomination in your sight." Continuing into "No Lord but Jesus Christ!" and "There's only one true God!" as they were taken from the senate floor.

Seriously people. Try not to be ignorant bigots. You make the rest of the Christians look bad. Most of them are good people. But idiots like you are a fucking dark mark on them.

So, Operation Save America, who drove all the way to DC from North Carolina to be dicks. They even put out a press release taking responsibility and making some very common misstatements about the Founding Fathers.

Fuck you, asshats. You fail to live up to the precepts of your religion and, at the same time, besmirch those who practice your faith. Sit down, and shut the fuck up.

Let me introduce you, loyal readers, to my latest target of rage and disgust.

Jennifer Roback Morse. PhD even. God only knows what she got her doctorate in, but it certainly couldn't have been the medical profession. I fucking hope it isn't at least.

Why has she earned her place on my list of ignoramuses?

Well, she recently penned one of the most idiotic articles I've ever seen. Once again, as loyal readers, you know that sets the bar pretty fucking high. Ok.. To be fair... top ten. Worst is pretty harsh. Still, I had difficulty even attempting to catalog all of the lies and distortions in her article on contraception and sex ed.

You see, she wants to get the government out of sex ed. By that, she means Planned Parenthood and similar groups that teach about various methods of safe sex. Not the abstinence only crowd. They should be allowed to suck the government teat.

I can accept that viewpoint. I disagree, but I accept the position. What I find reprehensibly unacceptable is lying to achieve your goals. Distorting facts to confuse people. And alluding to causation with unrelated correlation.

She's a liar, and a bad one.

For example, she uses interesting versions of statistics. Instead of the proper usage failure rates of condoms, she lists the "common usage" as though it was the norm. So, instead of the 2% failure rate of properlly used condoms, she lists the rate as 15%. 15% is the rate of failure including improperly used protection. Because the failure rate is so high, she contends that we must give up on teaching condom usage and focus on abstinence, which has a 100% success rate.

Couple problems here, beyond her woeful ignorance of course. First off, the lack of real sex ed is what leads to improperly used condoms. The real interesting usage of that stat is to say that 13% of condom failures are due to people using them in an improper manner, so education is needed to close that gap. But hey, she's a slack jawed idiot. My expectations are probably too high for her. Secondly, I bring up a argument regarding her usage of the 100% rate. Yes. She's right. It is. If you do it right. If you don't, not so much. See? Since we're including improper usage, can we get some stats on kids that failed to use abstinence protection properly? That is, how often did the people who fucked without protection get pregnant? We ARE including improper usage, right? Idiot.

But she's not done. Oh no. That sort of stupidity is just the tip of her mental juggernaut. She goes on to say that a cohabitating teenager on the pill has a 48.4% failure rate. That's amazing. Simply amazing. You'd think someone would have noticed the pill doesn't work as well for teens 'living in sin'. I mean, seriously... how do you think the pill is designed to detect that? I mean, it would have to have some sort of sensor to alter it's chemical structure in order to fail more than the .3% failure rate associated with proper usage. Because short of chemical change, usage is the key factor. If it fails that much in certain socioeconomic groups, we're not talking about a drug failure. We're talking about an education problem.

And that's what she's trying to block. Getting sex ed out of schools. Abstinence only. No funding for educational programs like Planned Parenthood that offer alternatives and medicinal advice on how to prevent parenthood and have safe sex.

Honestly, this bitch is the fucking problem she's trying to solve. I suggest suicide.

The White House has once again told Congress to pack sand. They're not going to turn over documents and are claiming executive privilege. The democrats are making some simpering little grunts about maybe doing something about it.

Know them, it'll be non-binding and pointless. Wouldn't want to accidentally serve the country if it could potentially look bad during the elections. (By the way, thanks a lot Ken Star. Your little witch hunt has made it impossible to effectively check the President's power without looking like a partisan hack)

Whatever.

I find it difficult to summon outrage over it. Hell, annoyance is getting harder to summon at this point.

Honestly, that bothers me a little. When something is as fucked up as this administration, I should be able to be pissed at them and remain that way until it's resolved. But they're wearing me out. That's obviously their intention.

But I find myself more and more just shrugging it off and sighing. They won't stop fucking up. No one can apparently stop them from doing it. Checks and balances are fucking broken. The people are pissed at Bush. And pissed at Congress for sitting there and not doing anything about it. Not so much as a pro forma censure.

It's hard to bring up that same level of outrage day in and day out. I guess people can get used to just about anything. Real life boiling frog syndrome.

Earlier this week, some dumb rich bitch got out of jail. Not news.

However, I admit that I did see a tiny glimmer of hope out there. MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski refused to cover the story. They gave it to her 3 times and she responded by attempting to burn it, ripping it up and shredding it. Now, it's possible this was staged.

Even if it was, it's a good thing. Not just because they showed a disdain for Paris's plight, but because they actually took a step forward and said that it was not newsworthy.

That good. But it's not enough. It's easy to brush aside the Paris Hilton and Britney Spears type of story. News has to go further. I'd say a little less than half of the stories covered on 24 hour news channels are really newsworthy. Local news is closer to a quarter.

Imagine a world where the news covered just news. Informed you of the world around you on a local and national scale. Maybe ever, dare I say, global level? Because there is certainly enough real news out there. I know rich white girls equal ratings. But that really doesn't mean the need to discussed ad nauseum.

This is a good first step I suppose. But it's just that. And if it's not followed up with the second step, it doesn't mean a thing.

Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical -- and it is not the only option before us.

Bush said that in a speech concerning his planned veto of the new stem cell research bill.

I find it interesting. Destroying life is unethical, even to save life. Interesting position. If that is his stance, how does he mesh that with the Iraq war? Even to save lives (ours or Iraqi) it would be unethical to attack because it would destroy life (Iraqi soldiers, citizens and American soldiers). Sounds like a Gandhi-style position of non-violence to me.

I suppose they didn't consider the ramification of such a broad ethical claim?

I tell you, we've got some winners in Congress. We really do. Take Rep. Bachus from Alabama's 6th district. He's smart. And wily.

Sadly, it's more like Wile E Coyote.

So, they had hearings this month on internet gambling. And of course, the dangers of children having access to such an immoral and wretched past time.

At this point, they're interviewing a guy named Radley Balko. And Bachus brings out his 'trump card'. The exchange is baffling. You can click the link in the title for the full transcript, but I'll give you the gist here.

Bachus talks about an internet gambling site and notes that they have profiles of popular players. He notes the bio of Ross Boatman. The bio indicates that Ross first learned to play cards at the age of 10 by watching his brother and friends play. They didn't let him play because he didn't have money. But he watched.

Bachus looks up from reading the bio out loud and says "I guess the verification system didn't work."

Wow. Big throw down there. Really showed those internet gambling people, didn't he? Proof that the system is flawed.

Tiny problem... Ross was born in 1965. Which means when he was 12 (1977), the internet didn't really exist. And gambling sites certainly didn't.

Seriously, that was his big finish? That a 42 year old learned to play cards when he was 12? With real cards? That's how he's going to shut the door on INTERNET GAMBLING?!?!?!

So, the guy being interviewed point that little fact out. Bachus just wondered why the bio is still on the site.

Still?? It's not like it's been up since 1977. It's a BIO. Of a player. It's going to include how that guy freaking learned to play.

Freaking hell. Stupid fucking politicians. If you don't know shit about it, you shouldn't be allowed to write up regulations for it.

Go directly to hell.

Do not pass go.

Do not collect fucking $200.

Just fucking go to hell.

Mr Wayne Albert Bleyle admitted to molesting children. Specifically, he admitted to eight counts of forcible lewd acts upon a child and four counts of exhibiting a minor in pornography.

Prosecutor Laura Gunn told a judge then that Bleyle targeted children who were "the most brain-damaged, most comatose, most nonverbal — children who could never say anything about it."

What the fuck. Seriously.

Or even better, this fucking part:

Bleyle confessed to federal agents that he molested "countless" disabled patients, the prosecutor told the court last year.

"One of the agents who interviewed him said, 'How many kids are we talking about?'" Gunn said. "The defendant, who was in New York at the time looking out at the snow, looked out at the snow and said, 'How many snowflakes are there out there?'"

He's getting 45 years in jail. That's a good start. But short of my recommended sentence of "one hour alone in a room with each of the fathers." Failing that, I recommend some ancient medieval execution. Not the nice guillotine type of thing either. Something that takes a bit of time. And hurts like a mother fucker.

I don't even know where to begin with this son of a bitch.

Sometimes... we're just too civilized to do what we need to do.

I watch the Sopranos. I missed most of the first couple seasons, but I've caught the last 3 and some of the one before that.

Good show, very quality. One of the few TV shows that I actually followed.

This was the last season. Last episode was last night. This is not news. We've all known it since last season started. This was it. The writers knew it. The audience knew it. The actors knew it. If you're trying to avoid spoilers about it, stop reading now.

Still with me?

Good. Lets move on.

All was good. This season slowly built up the tension leading toward the end. Lots of things became very tough for Tony. Money problems. Legal hurdles. Fights with the NY mob. Lots of his people got whacked. The works.

So, he finally sets some things right. Goes to sit down with his family in a local restaurant. He gets there first. Then the door opens and his wife shows. Then the door opens and it's his son. Then it cuts to his daughter parking. Badly. Finally get settled into a spot. Goes running into the restaraunt. You hear the door open, Tony looks up.

Than nothing. Black screen.

Roll the credits.

Fuck you HBO. It was an entirely unsatisfactory ending to a great show. Was it just 'life goes on'? Did Tony get killed? Was it just the daughter coming into the shop? Or did the FBI finally decide to arrest Tony?

Who knows. It's all bullshit. Fuck you producers, writers and actors for taking such a crappy end to the show. You've made mistakes with the show before, but this was the worst. If you didn't expect the entire world to hate it, you're on fucking drugs.

So, our friendly neighborhood legislators in New York have penned a new law. They introduced it, and passed it in both the state house and senate in less than a day. They have to work out a few differences between the two and then it'll go to be signed into law. Should be done before the recess at the end of the month.

The law makes it a class E felony to sell indecent, or violent games to minors. Also, it will make it illegal to sell game consoles that don't have parental controls built in (basically, new consoles only).

Amazing. Truly. And like many other lawmakers before them, they know it's unconstitutional. They admit that portions of it closely mirror prior laws that were struck down. They know precedent is against them. And they're aware that not only have those laws been struck down, the but the states that passed them have been put on the hook for the ESA's legal fees used fighting the law. Plus the cost that state will spend defending the damn thing. Hell, I bet the ESA lawyers already are on the clock racking up time on this.

The sponsor of one side even had the balls to say "We have nothing to lose by trying." So, since it's nothing, I vote the ESA receive funds directly from that guys personal bank account. I mean, since it's nothing, it shouldn't matter.

I mean, does New York have nothing better to spend money on? I vote every person that votes for the bill be impeached. Reckless disregard for the constitution. Mismanagement of state legal concerns and financial security.

Fucking idiots.

I just took a business trip to Connecticut. 600 miles round trip, give or take.

During this trip, I felt various things. Peaceful serenity of the open road. The thrill of speeding down the highway. And the blood boiling rage of hatred toward my fellow man.

I know I've bitched before. So have others. Let me reiterate because it fucking deserves it.

First, simple highway rules. Slow traffic right, fast traffic left. If you're moving at the same speed or less than the traffic to your right, you're in the wrong lane. Even if you're "speeding" if there is traffic backing up behind you that wants to go faster, you're in the wrong lane. Very simple rule. Easy to follow. Why FUCKING IDIOTS don't get it... I have no fucking idea. It affects traffic for miles when there is no way to get past the jackass blocking the left lane.

Second, Mr Truck Driver. You belong as far to the right as possible. You can move over one lane to pass a slow driver, no problem. But you should never ever ever be in the left lane of a four lane highway. You're worse than the slow fucker because you're both slow and fucking huge.

Third, design. This is not the fault of the drivers. But there is a roadway engineer out there that needs to be shot at the earliest possible chance. As a state, you can't put up signs demanding all cars left/all trucks right for miles of highway, and then suddenly switch it when you get to a bridge. I know you want the trucks on the top deck. But there had to be a better way to get them up there than putting the upper deck ramp on the left and the lower ramp on the right. It means we all get to shuffle suddenly. In NYC traffic, that's pretty fucking stupid. I'm sure most of the locals and truck drivers already knew about it, but I know for damn sure it wasn't obvious to the out of area drivers.

Finally, Mr Tailgater. I can't go any faster. You know I can't. You know I can't because there is a FUCKING TRACTOR TRAILER in front of me. You can easily see him over my tiny ass car. I can't pass him for the same fucking reason you can't pass him. There is ANOTHER FUCKING TRACTOR TRAILER next to him. So, kindly, back the fuck off. When I can't see your bumper, headlights, or your hood, you're too fucking close.

AARRRRHHHGGGG

Dr. Kevorkian will be released soon. That's right, Dr. Death is getting parole. HE said he's not going to aid in the suicide of any more patients, but will continue to speak out on the issue. His impending release has brought the issue of assisted suicide back into the light a little. Maybe not mainstream, but there is casual discussion about the topic.

I don't really understand the debate. Or at least, I don't understand one side of it. If someone wants to off themselves, what does it have to do with me? So long as they do it in a manner that doesn't risk anyone else's health or property, sayonara.

The key part there is that it not affect others. Jumping off a building stops traffic, and damages people/things that get hit by the falling body. Taking a lethal dose of a drug, not so much. But the culture of life folks think we should enforce societal norms on people that don't believe in them. Some group of people things that suicide is wrong, and if it's a big enough group, it gets to force that opinion on the minority. Democracy in action.

Of course, it's not just suicide. It's any number of things. Seat belts gets me. I understand forcing Gm to put them in, but I don't get why cops should enforce their use. IT messes with natural selection. The argument is that if someone is hurt or killed, the damages are high for the other driver. Simple fix: claims for injuries are not granted when the injured party isn't wearing seat belts. Same effect, but no nanny state BS. Choose to be safe, or choose not to. Let evolution weed out those dumb enough to forgo it's usage.

Or smoking. They're trying real hard to ban smoking. I get it in public buildings. Second hand smoke affects others. But, smoking outside doesn't. Setting up designated smoking areas doesn't. But they're pushing to expand smoking bans everywhere. There is an area of California that tried to ban smoking on the highway. Yes, even in your own car. Trying to protect you from yourself. Because heaven fucking forbid a person make their own choices in life.

Same concept as weed. You can't have pot. Why? Because. It's... umm... bad for you and stuff. Why not go drink a fifth of Jack Daniels instead? See how stupid that sounds? But hey, it must make sense to someone because we sure do lock up a lot of pot smoking people. More limits on the choices people have. All about controlling the population. Even though legalization would bring in untold millions of dollars in tax revenue and remove hundreds of millions of dollars spent in corrections and enforcement.

Nanny states hide behind platitudes. "For your own good" or "think of the {fill in the blank}." Sometimes it's just "improving our society". It's all the same. They want to make YOUR choices with THEIR rule book. That way, they're never forced to confront the fact that not everyone thinks the same way they do. And sometimes, they might even be wrong.

Michael Vick is the quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons. If you pay attention to sports, you know he recently got into some trouble. At a home in his name (I think he said his brother lived there), they found some dogs. Apparently they were being used for dog fights, or some such. There is a lot of controversy concerning it, because Michael says they're not his, and he doesn't live there, he just owns it, but the police say that they think he knew about it.

Whatever, that's the basic part of the story. Famous person may have done wrong and now they're looking into the issue.

Early this week, suddenly, the focus shifted entirely. Suddenly, Clinton Portis was the football player in question. He's a running back for the Washington Redskins. During a recent interview, he was asked about the Vick dog situation.

His reply went sorta like this: He doesn't see what the big deal is. If Vick fights dogs, so be it. Dog fighting isn't good, but there are a lot worse issues in the world, so he's amazed at how much focus the media is putting on this just because of the possibility of a scandal involving a famous player. He suggested that there were probably dozens of other dog fighting rings out there, but they don't get press coverage because they don't involve Vick.

It's a bad PR statement. I admit it. But, it was an off the cuff remark at a press conference for a totally unrelated subject. It's not like he had time to organize his thoughts or vet it through his agent. He just said what he thought.

So naturally... Vick isn't the story anymore. It's all about Portis. Which just drives me up a fucking wall. They've spent almost as much, if not MORE, time talking about Portis's comments than they have about the fucking target of the investigation, Vick. It drives me up a wall, it really does.

Seriously... let's focus on the issue people. The PR gaff isn't the issue. The broken law is the fucking issue. That's not juicy enough for the vultures out there though. They want to see if they can get more famous people involved. Sell more headlines.

Sickening really. People like to shrug it off by saying media is just trying to run their business and sell papers. That's true. But there is also a responsibility to the public to talk about the actual news. Not the concocted hub-bub around celebrities when they're asked about issues that don't directly relate to them.

It may be a business, but their model sucks.

My boss quit. She started in January or February. Now she's gone.

No real notice or anything.

She packed her stuff up Tuesday night. Left her badge. Went home.

Called out sick on Wednesday. And sometime after work, called and told her boss she quit. Had another job lined up or something.

Notice? You'll notice she's not coming back. Certainly nothing civilized like two weeks.

The thing that gets me is that it was premeditated. She packed her shit up two days ago, let it sit for a day while she was 'sick', then bailed. Now a temp manager is stuck pulling her weight in addition to his normal work. That sucks for him. The only other thing that sucks about her going is that she won't get to see her employee review. From comments around the water cooler, it ranges from poor to very poor. She deserved to get hammered for it.

Normally, that'd would piss me off so much that I'd be screaming and raging at her. But this is not that time.

I'm glad she's gone. She's a bad boss. I was hoping she'd be laid off soon. Barring that, flat out terminated. She did nothing useful. She was a waste of space and money. No people skills. No intelligence. Just some pseudo business-speak mixed with heavy doses of bullshit.

And now she's gone. YAY!

Ding Dong! The Witch is dead. Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch! Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead.

She won't be missed.

I don't normally watch the show. I admit that.

When I heard they were going to have a debate segment focusing on the belief in God, I was intrigued. The people debating... left me with a little bit of a sour taste in my mouth. They chose Kirk Cameron (oh yeah, banana boy!!) and Ray Comfort to represent the religious point of view. Now, for the most part, those two are junior varsity at best. Probably the practice squad. In no way would I consider them serious voices for the religious movement. They initiated the debate by claiming they would prove God's existence without requiring the use of faith, and they would also prove that evolution is a fairy tale. Bold words

Of course, that was until I heard who their opponents would be. The Rational Response Squad (from the Blasphemy Challenge fame) was chosen to represent the atheist / scientific viewpoint. These two are web idols that are every bit as much of a sideshow as Cameron and Comfort. However, they had a much easier position. They didn't have to prove that God doesn't exist, just that Cameron and Comfort failed to prove it.

With neither side well represented, my expectations were fairly low going into the debate. After finding video of the debate, I watched it. It was better than expected. Both sides made a number of fairly standard arguments on the issue. Comfort's opening salvo was an attempt to prove a creator with the argument from design (a painter needs a painting so the universe needs a creator). The RRS shot that down easily with the standard if all things need