I'll come up with something in a minute.

Prime Time!

Wed, 14 May 2008 00:50:46 GMT

All the best TV shows in the 80s had openers, you ever notice that? A little bit just before the theme song that let you know what the whole show was about in a few sentences.

Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of Dr. Samuel Becket. Convicted of a crime he didn't commit, he stepped into the Quantum Leap Accelerator and vanished into the LA Underground. His five year mission, to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to put right the things that once went wrong. If no one else can help you. If there is no one you can turn to, and if Al can find him, maybe you can hire The S-Team!

Cue music!

Things greyweirdo doesn't like

Tue, 13 May 2008 22:01:26 GMT

#1 being late for a dentist appointment
#2 Dentist appointments (but I hate being late more)
#3 Not having anything interesting to talk about

I acutally laughed out loud at this.

Tue, 13 May 2008 10:54:20 GMT

You know... for kids

Tue, 13 May 2008 04:56:37 GMT

I've been working on a list for Holly, or rather for her sister and nephew. Her nephew is supposed to be quite bright, but is bored in school. Had she not told me this while I was driving it would have lead me to running around with my arms flailing screaming "Danger Will Robinson! DANGER!" because I happen to know how it feels to be bored in class and hate school as a result. Most my problems in school revolved around the glacial pace that classes were required to go so that we didn’t loose the kid who could be outsmarted by Skippy the Wonder Hamster.

So I said I would suggest some documentaries that might brighten the kid up a bit to the idea that learning doesn’t actually have to suck. Now I've got to convince her to go directly to her sister because she had a conversation with her mother and her mother said that they'd thought of a couple things but thought it might be too advanced for him. Again, if I hadn't been driving, I would have tested the structural integrity of the nearest solid object with my forehead while screaming "Grandparents are all fucking STUPID! They don't remember anything about having a child that age!"* However, as I was driving, I had to settle for merely berating her parents to her without the therapeutic head smacking.

Suggesting that something, anything, might be too advanced for any kind of kid is the kiss of death. Once you’ve decided that it’s too advanced without trying it out on the kid first, you’re already giving up on expanding their horizons. Some of it should be too advanced and there should be stuff they don’t understand. Not understanding is how we’re encouraged to learn.

I decided to write the following list, based mostly on things I enjoyed as a kid and the sorts of things I'm thinking a kid who is bored at school is likely to enjoy. The only reason I threw a few things away was that I figured the doco in question might be a little too slow for them. I know that I personally struggled to keep my eyes open when I watched Stephen Hawking's Universe, so that had to go.

But then I thought of you out there. Some of you have children who need a little more speed and agility in their education, so I decided to publish my list publicly. You'll notice a theme with my suggestions. Lots of subject movement, and nothing too terribly deep. You can get a kid excited about something, give them a wide range of ideas, and then take them to the library to learn more. Or, you can get them more documentaries. (I'm ADD, dyslexic and I've got a dodgy right eye, reading is very VERY hard for me)

If you can’t afford to buy all of these, you can go to your library and ask them if they can get the videos. Or you can track things down online on bit-torrent sights or you tube. Yes, yes, bit-torrent is very naughty and copyright is the word of all mighty Ceiling Cat and those who disobey shall be cast into the pits blah, blah, blah, but fuck that noise we’re talking about getting kids to learn here! Besides, you’d be amazed how many documentaries are out there that are perfectly legal to torrent. Anyway here is my list…

My List of Documentaries That Won’t Bore the Shit Out of Children.

Connections 1, 2 &3 – by James Burke A good run of science history lessons. The format of the show means that things keep moving and you never really get a chance to get bored. Having it on DVD means you can go back and re-watch something if you missed it.

Cosmos – by Carl Sagan More general science, but packaged in a very nice way. Still 98% up to date too.

A History of Britain – by Simon Schama English history on a rocket sled. Again, the emphasis here is on speedy explanations and then getting on with things. Avoid boredom while actually teaching something.

BBC Shows
Any of the “Walking With” Prehistory Shows - Because Prehistoric animals are F'ing cool damnit! The complete Walking With Collection, doesn't actually have Walking with Monsters in it, but that's only because of when it came out. Chased By Dinosaurs is really cool too.

Planet Earth & Blue Planet - Animals! Fairly fast paced, but slightly tilted towards images. Good stuff to get a kid going though and if it’s new to them there will be a wealth of information.

Rome: Power & Glory - Roman history is cool. This goes from rise to fall, it doesn't get boring, and there are probably some things mother wouldn't approve of but are really quite harmless in it. Perfect for a 10 year old on all counts, because you need to learn some things mother wouldn't approve of when you're ten.

BBC's History of World War II Set - I'm slightly hesitant on this one because there are some bits that could bore a kid. It's a collection of docos, so you can pick and choose. Maybe The History Channel's version, being slight more light weight and a little faster in places, might be a better choice. The point is, get the kids some stuff about war. War is good because wars move history along at a fast pace. I've suggested in the past that wars are mostly there so that kids can go manage to get through all the philosophers and stuff, with the promise that there will be blood to come. When I was a kid, I could listen to a teacher talk about Abolitionism all day if I know the battle of Gettysburg was coming as my reward. That's the best thing about History Class! Eventually... there WILL be blood!

*My apologies to any of you who either are or have grandparents, but it's true. I spent most my childhood having my father tell people to shut the fuck up and let me read/watch what I wanted because if I was enjoying it then I probably understood it. I was very fortunate that my parents shielded me from people telling me that the books I was reading or the movies I was watching were too advanced for me.

And yes, all the profanity is totally necessary.

kitty

Mon, 12 May 2008 23:40:19 GMT

more cat pictures

Little poll

Mon, 12 May 2008 21:30:22 GMT

View Poll: Star Trek

DVD question

Mon, 12 May 2008 16:18:35 GMT

Does anyone here have a Blu-Ray Player?

I am still putting off getting one, and it occured to me that I don't think I know anyone who has one. Standard Def DVDs are still doing it for me, I would need a new TV to get the full HD experiance, and they Blu discs are more expensive at a time when I feel the need to stretch my entertainment dollar.

Open Letter

Sun, 11 May 2008 07:22:56 GMT

Dear Senator Clinton,

Let me tell you a little something about my family.

My mother’s maiden name is Collier, and that’s a Welsh word for Coal Miner. Yeah, guess what that side of the family did before coming to America to be farmers. My mother’s side is mostly your average Dutch-Irish collection with some Welsh and English thrown in for good measure. Mostly hard working people who lived honestly, until the 1880s when a bunch of Collier boys were hung for horse thievery out west. Still, basically honest, hard working, white Americans.

My father’s name is Lashuay, as is mine (duh) which is derived from a French name I can’t spell. I’ve been told that it translates to something like “The Game player” or “The Gambler” or something like that. We come from Lyon. It’s hard to track anyway because as I understand it my ancestor left France under something of a cloud. It seems he ran to America because he’d run out of places to run away to in France, along with the daughter and the silverware if you catch my drift. From there he went to Canada (back when French Canada went further south) and eventually settled in. The Lashuay’s then started experimenting in spelling their names six different ways (Ways, the Aways, and the Uays… along with others) and spreading like a virus across the land.

While we were here, the country actually became a country, since when we showed up it was a collection of colonies. Then while Colliers and Lashuays were hanging out in the Ohio Valley, they Civil War broke out and three Lashuay Boys fought under a Collier Colonel*. After that, they all settled down to be farmers and factory workers.
*Unless I’ve got the rank wrong.

So, what I’m saying here is that my family has been here a long time. We were here before it was America, we were here before immigrants became a bad thing, we were here before a lot of things. The only people who have been here longer are religious lunatics and the indigenous population. The indigenous population, who we helped kill… sorry about that guys. We’ve been hard working Americans for the time we’ve been here (when we weren’t stealing stuff) and to an extent, we have prospered. White collars, blue collars we’ve even been known to have green collars when the nation needed it. As far as I know, mine if the first in four generations not to have anyone wear a uniform. We represent a cross section of the Middle Class American strata really.

I come from thieves and honest, hard workers. So basically I’m a hard working thief, and a damn charming one when I need to be. Also, I never went to college, I barely got a GED. So, you’ve got a hard working, white American who doesn’t have a college education who still ain’t gonna vote for your sniper dodging, 3am phone call making, constantly “misspeaking” ass! If I am a bit lefty, I came by it honestly by meeting people and learning about things on my own. I consider myself more a centrist, its just the last 10 years or so has been to such an insane extreme that it makes people who look central seem like a lefty by comparison.

I did a little run down of the group. We’re a family of working Americans. A family of hard working Americans. In fact a family of hard working WHITE Americans… and most of us in my little informal poll are more likely to support Obama right now. Those that aren’t thinking of supporting Obama, are going to vote for McCain because they want to vote for a Republican or they like his style or whatever.

I’ll be honest, it wasn’t you saying that white folk weren’t going to support a black man that did it, but that sure didn’t help. It made you go from someone we didn’t agree with, to someone we find truly distasteful. That sort of statement tilted you into a light that you really can’t recover from I’m afraid. It’s got too much of the “A drunk man’s words are a sober man’s thoughts” feeling about it. Sorry, but I don’t want that, and neither does my hard working white American family.

We want someone who won’t think they’re coming under sniper fire just because it’s 11 at night and doesn’t “misspeak” every time they open their damn mouth. We’ve had 8 years of an idiot shooting his mouth off without thinking, we don’t need more. If you’re trying to be president, you need to think about what you say and not just yell “Bring it on” because those phrases will come back to haunt you.

I still don’t fully support Obama, which I know causes some consternation for a few people, but it’s how I feel. I’m not behind him yet, not enough to say that I’m with him. I think I probably could support him if he’s the final candidate, because he’d likely be a better choice than the other two. Got nothing to do with his color, or mine. It's got to do with him as a candidate.

EDIT: I put the town of Lashuay origin as Leon when it should be Lyon. I thought we were from the south east part of the country. Trust the fucking French to actually have a town that makes me think my typos are the correct spelling.

This is not the greatest spoon in the world

Fri, 09 May 2008 21:27:01 GMT

First I want to show you something fugly. I mean, wow! It's so ugly it's almost beautiful.

Next I want to talk about cereal premuims.

My first piece of Indiana Jones merch for this cycle!

Even says "Indiana Jones" in case you get confused.

And of course, it lights up!

Now I know what you're thinking. You're thinking did he take 6 pictures or only 5?
Actually you're thinking "Didn't something like this come around at the last Star Wars?"
Yes, yes it did.

Actually it makes the new spoon seem like trying to shoe horn Indy into an old idea.
These aren't the best spoons I own though, this is.

My Quick Bunny spoon!

He rocks the block. Also, he can actually be used. Those plastic spoons are terrible, even for cereal.

Group shot!

And then there is the Tomato Salad that I made last night. hollygrahm wanted a shot because she said it looked so pretty.

And another go at the grifon because it's so damn cool

Stuff

Fri, 09 May 2008 00:41:39 GMT

So a bunch of people did this 35 questions thing and I don't want to pop over to each and every one of you with my answers because I fear missing someone. Also, I have to admit I've been the worst LJ friend in the world these last two weeks. I've barely glanced at what you guys have written if it was over 5 words long. Don't wanna talk about it, I'm still not back up to speed.

1) Are you currently in a serious relationship?
I think I’ve answered this to everyone’s satisfaction. More information can be found here.

2) What was your dream growing up?
I was walking down a long corridor, and there was a jar of custard laughing at a Known Nothing candidate for Class Cheese Grater. I’ve always had sort of fucked up dreams.

3) What talent do you wish you had?
I would like to be able to play an instrument. I have no patience for practice, my own fault really.

4) If I bought you a drink what would it be?
I don’t know. What are you likely to buy me?

5) Favorite vegetable?
Green peppers probably.

6) What was the last book you read?
Read as in paper and sitting quietly? I do a lot of audio books and am currently going through a Raymond Chandler period. The last paper book I read was Robert B. Paker’s Chance, about two weeks ago.

7) What zodiac sign are you?
Leo for Greek. Dragon for Chinese.

8) Any Tattoos and/or Piercings? Explain where.
Nope and/or nope.

9) Worst Habit?
I’m too damn sexy for my own good.

10) If you saw me walking down the street would you offer me a ride?
It would depend if I recognized you along with other factors

11) What is your favorite sport?
None.

12) Do you have a Negative or Optimistic attitude?
I have a realistic attitude, which means that it depends.

13) What would you do if you were stuck in an elevator with me?
Wait for the elevator to get fixed.

14) Worst thing to ever happen to you?
Not for public consumption.

15) Tell me one weird fact about you.
I can give you dozens. Just click this link.

16) Do you have any pets?
I have some cats that live with me. I think we’re their pets.

17) What if I showed up at your house unexpectedly?
For the most part I would wonder why you came to Michigan without warning. Then I would wonder why you didn’t call. Most people live very far away from me.

18) What was your first impression of me?
This being a catch all list, and being about my flist, I can say that my first thoughts were “WOW! SEXAH!” because I have the hottest f-list in all of LJ.

19) Do you think clowns are cute or scary?
Depends on the clown really. I’m not prepared to condemn or commend an entire group, which is made out of individuals.

20) If you could change one thing about how you look, what would it be?
More fit as things are now.

21) Would you be my crime partner or my conscience?
Depends on the crime.

22) What color eyes do you have?
Dark brown.0

23) Ever been arrested?
No

24) Bottle or can soda?
Depends on the soda.

25) If you won $10,000 today, what would you do with it?
Pay bills, save, buy a swordy sword.

27) What's your favorite place to hang at?
Rope are favorite.

28) Do you believe in ghosts?
Maybe

29) Favorite thing to do in your spare time?
Stuff

30) Do you swear a lot?
Fuck no! What asshole told you that load of bullshit?

31) Biggest pet peeve?
About 6 feet and fuzzy all over. His name is Simon.

32) In one word, how would you describe yourself?
Me

33) Do you believe/appreciate romance?
Probably if pressed.

35) Do you believe in God?
This all has to be someone’s fault. My belief that I’ll get to kick someone in the fork is the only thing that keeps me going some days.

Star Trekin'

Thu, 08 May 2008 14:52:35 GMT

I may have mentioned that I watched the third season of Star Trek this week and then having actually finished watching the show bought the movies. I noticed something about Star Trek while watching. Fully half the women in the federation are either doctors or have important jobs. The other half are relegated to the “Lieutenant Upskirt” position, but then NBC had executives and guys in suits can only understand things on so many levels. It was 1968 after all and if they didn’t get to look up girl’s skirts the guys in suits got terribly depressed and threatened to cancel the show, which they did anyway.

My point was though that there are a lot of women who were intelligent on that show. Not only were they smart, but they had short skirts to show of their simply smashing legs. Hot babes with brains! The Avengers was quite popular when Mrs. Peel was around too for some strange reason that I can’t manage to put my finger on at the moment. Something about brains and boots I think.

I also noticed that Star Trek had a boat load of women writers. This even included Sheri Lewis, yes that Sheri Lewis of Lamb Chop fame. As a side note the episode she wrote is where I actually coined “Lieutenant Upskirt” comment while trying to explain to Holly what had happened in the first 40 minutes and why the camera seemed to be aimed directly up her skirt (she was laying down on a sickbay bed). Phrases like “Well, Lieutenant Upskirt here is beset by the naughty photo element of the week” came all too easily. Despite the unfortunate camera angles, it’s actually a pretty good episode.

I don’t have enough TV shows from the sixties to compare, but it seems like there were a lot of women working on Star Trek. Since the rest of entertainment was pretty dominated by men I assume that writing generally was as well. It does make me wonder about how other shows, more modern shows to be precise, compare in terms of their writing staff. Highlander had a few women writing, but it’s really hard to get numbers down because of how credited writing works within a TV show.

Horrifying admission

Thu, 08 May 2008 09:22:22 GMT

I have something terrible to tell you, my sweet dear internets. It’s so bad, you might have to take me off your friend’s list, delete all the comments I ever made to your LJ, and then come over to my house and cave my skull in. It’s so bad, I have to put this horrifying admission under a cut.

I think the whole Princess Leia’s Metal Bikini thing is seriously played out.

I’m not saying that it isn’t still sexy, but it’s been done to death and I don’t really find it interesting or exciting anymore. I saw recently that Deal or No Deal was doing a Star Wars theme and it occurred to me that the only reaction I gave to the idea of their dozen suitcase holders being dressed in the signature gear was to roll my eyes.

I think that this is purely a case of over exposure causing me to loose interest. I get the same feeling I would get if you offered to show me on of Pamela Anderson’s Mid-90s Playboy spreads i.e. “Seen it!”

In fact, that’s one of the major reasons I barely glance at the pics in Playboy before reading the articles. It’s because the poses haven’t changed since 1961. They might as well not even photograph new women, since it’s roughly the same photos over and over again. I don’t think I’ve really looked at a Playboy spread since about 1995. It’s not because I realized it was needlessly objectifying women, it’s because it was so damn repetitive. We’ll talk about my sliding scale of objectification later.

Frankly at this point I would be more impressed if a girl got some green make up and went as a chick from Orion or some other Star Trek hottie. Lord knows there were enough hotties on Star Trek, and lots of them exposed as much flesh as late 60’s TV would allow. It would require roughly the same amount of exposed flesh, and it would be something different. This assumes the girl in question is interested in dressing up in something sexy and exotic. Otherwise you could just dress up like Zoe Washburne or Susan Ivanova for all I care.

I understand why it’s supposed to be sexy, so don’t bother telling me all that. I know it’s sexy and I know why people want to dress up like that and why other people want to see people dressed up like that. My problem is that I’ve seen it so many times that it barely registers anymore. Sadly, it’s like so many things that used to be cool. Over exposure has, once again, made the very cool become very bland.

Or perhaps, particularly in the case of the game show, it’s the group doing the daring thing that got to me. One girl in a costume is a lot sexier to me than a dozen girls in the same kind of costume. This probably says something about my ideas on vulnerability as it relates to near nudity or some such thing like that, but I do find the single girl dressed like that more interesting than a dozen girls dressed like that. I would probably find a single guy dressed like that more interesting than a dozen guys dressed in the outfit, but as I’ve yet to find even one guy willing to go that far the question will have to remain academic.

20 simple rules for writing my mystery.

Thu, 08 May 2008 04:54:56 GMT

Every once in a while I go back and check on S.S. Van Dine’s 20 rules for writing detective stories, just to see if I can get away with breaking any. At the time he wrote these rules, they were good rules, and as I understand it stemmed from his frustration with many bad stories. Most of the rules are still useful, for the most part anyway. The problem is that some of them have become cliché and trying to hold to them can be damaging for a good story.

Let's see how I feel about them, shall we?

1. The reader must have equal opportunity with the detective for solving the mystery. All clues must be plainly stated and described.
I sort of agree. I like the idea of the detective not really solving the case though. I like the idea of having the solution fall in his lap because he didn't really solve it. As a writer, I’m perverse in that way. I like things that work out while the main character doesn’t really understand why or how they worked out.

2. No willful tricks or deceptions may be placed on the reader other than those played legitimately by the criminal on the detective himself.
I’ll grant this one for the most part. You’ve got to give the reader at least the appearance of a chance.

3. There must be no love interest. The business in hand is to bring a criminal to the bar of justice, not to bring a lovelorn couple to the hymeneal altar.
Blah! I like a love story now and then. With some of my favorite mystery books, the use of a love interest as a distraction or a foil elevates the story greatly.

4. The detective himself, or one of the official investigators, should never turn out to be the culprit. This is bald trickery, on a par with offering some one a bright penny for a five-dollar gold piece. It's false pretenses.
I’m on the fence about this one. I’ve seen it done well, and I’ve seen it done VERY badly. Probably, on balance, I would say you should stick to this one. The only way you can manage is if none of the main investigators for your story are the culprit. A cop, or fellow detective can do it, but they should be more on the sidelines. Even then, a good portion of the story should really be dedicated to proving it and the unmasking should come early.

5. The culprit must be determined by logical deductions — not by accident or coincidence or unmotivated confession. To solve a criminal problem in this latter fashion is like sending the reader on a deliberate wild-goose chase, and then telling him, after he has failed, that you had the object of his search up your sleeve all the time. Such an author is no better than a practical joker.
It depends on how real you want to be. In real life, murderers are often caught by accident and happenstance. People do confess at odd times, when they think they’re more trapped than they really are or because they aren’t thinking about what they’re saying. You can do it, but you need skill.

6. The detective novel must have a detective in it; and a detective is not a detective unless he detects. His function is to gather clues that will eventually lead to the person who did the dirty work in the first chapter; and if the detective does not reach his conclusions through an analysis of those clues, he has no more solved his problem than the schoolboy who gets his answer out of the back of the arithmetic.
I’m going to give this one two thumbs and one big toe up. While I believe in accidents (see above) I also believe that a lot of work still needs to be done after that.

7. There simply must be a corpse in a detective novel, and the deader the corpse the better. No lesser crime than murder will suffice. Three hundred pages is far too much pother for a crime other than murder. After all, the reader's trouble and expenditure of energy must be rewarded.
To be honest, murders are cliché. If one looks at Agatha Christie’s work, it’s amazing there are any occupants of country manor homes left for Bertie Wooster to go visit. The constant deaths get boring after a while and just every once in a while I like an investigation over a stolen necklace or something.

8. The problem of the crime must he solved by strictly naturalistic means. Such methods for learning the truth as slate-writing, ouija-boards, mind-reading, spiritualistic se'ances, crystal-gazing, and the like, are taboo. A reader has a chance when matching his wits with a rationalistic detective, but if he must compete with the world of spirits and go chasing about the fourth dimension of metaphysics, he is defeated ab initio.
I am in agreement! Unless you’re going to base the entire story around magic, which brings everyone back to a level playing field and still requires the reader to put information into a cogent collection or something. But then what you’ve got is more a fantasy than a full blow mystery story.

9. There must be but one detective — that is, but one protagonist of deduction — one deus ex machina. To bring the minds of three or four, or sometimes a gang of detectives to bear on a problem, is not only to disperse the interest and break the direct thread of logic, but to take an unfair advantage of the reader. If there is more than one detective the reader doesn't know who his codeductor is. It's like making the reader run a race with a relay team.
I like Nero Wolfe’s team of guys actually. While those stories are told first person by Archie, they still have a team feel and I like that. You should be careful, but you can do it.

10. The culprit must turn out to be a person who has played a more or less prominent part in the story — that is, a person with whom the reader is familiar and in whom he takes an interest.
I agree here too. You need time to get to know the culprit, if only a little bit.

11. A servant must not be chosen by the author as the culprit. This is begging a noble question. It is a too easy solution. The culprit must be a decidedly worth-while person — one that wouldn't ordinarily come under suspicion.
Oh screw this! What is this – 1842? Let the butler do it once in a while! Stop claiming that just because someone works for their money that they aren’t a worth-while person.

12. There must be but one culprit, no matter how many murders are committed. The culprit may, of course, have a minor helper or co-plotter; but the entire onus must rest on one pair of shoulders: the entire indignation of the reader must be permitted to concentrate on a single black nature.
If you’re doing a simple story, maybe. Me? I like things to get a little more complex once in a while. It can lead to a more interesting story.

13. Secret societies, camorras, mafias, et al., have no place in a detective story. A fascinating and truly beautiful murder is irremediably spoiled by any such wholesale culpability. To be sure, the murderer in a detective novel should be given a sporting chance; but it is going too far to grant him a secret society to fall back on. No high-class, self-respecting murderer would want such odds.
While I don’t disagree 100%, I do disagree a little. I’ve seen the secret cabal things work a few times, and I’ve seen it fail a few times.

14. The method of murder, and the means of detecting it, must be be rational and scientific. That is to say, pseudo-science and purely imaginative and speculative devices are not to be tolerated in the roman policier. Once an author soars into the realm of fantasy, in the Jules Verne manner, he is outside the bounds of detective fiction, cavorting in the uncharted reaches of adventure.
I see no problem with a Fantasy mystery story, so long as everyone is more or less equally fantastic. See my answer for 8.

15. The truth of the problem must at all times be apparent — provided the reader is shrewd enough to see it. By this I mean that if the reader, after learning the explanation for the crime, should reread the book, he would see that the solution had, in a sense, been staring him in the face-that all the clues really pointed to the culprit — and that, if he had been as clever as the detective, he could have solved the mystery himself without going on to the final chapter. That the clever reader does often thus solve the problem goes without saying.
I’ll go with this one.

16. A detective novel should contain no long descriptive passages, no literary dallying with side-issues, no subtly worked-out character analyses, no "atmospheric" preoccupations. Such matters have no vital place in a record of crime and deduction. They hold up the action and introduce issues irrelevant to the main purpose, which is to state a problem, analyze it, and bring it to a successful conclusion. To be sure, there must be a sufficient descriptiveness and character delineation to give the novel verisimilitude.
Oh I don’t know, Raymond Chandler thinks he did quite well with all that flowery talk. Robert B. Parker seems to not be going broke with his descriptive passages.

17. A professional criminal must never be shouldered with the guilt of a crime in a detective story. Crimes by housebreakers and bandits are the province of the police departments — not of authors and brilliant amateur detectives. A really fascinating crime is one committed by a pillar of a church, or a spinster noted for her charities.
Actually, by now it’s fairly interesting and may I say unexpected if the killer ISN’T a church pillar or something. That’s my problem, these rules have become the cliché in many ways.

18. A crime in a detective story must never turn out to be an accident or a suicide. To end an odyssey of sleuthing with such an anti-climax is to hoodwink the trusting and kind-hearted reader.
Oh go on! Just once, for a novelty. No one will EVER see it coming.

19. The motives for all crimes in detective stories should be personal. International plottings and war politics belong in a different category of fiction — in secret-service tales, for instance. But a murder story must be kept gemütlich, so to speak. It must reflect the reader's everyday experiences, and give him a certain outlet for his own repressed desires and emotions.
I see no reason why a person can’t kill for political reasons. Once could argue that the idea of person is different for each person.

20. And (to give my Credo an even score of items) I herewith list a few of the devices which no self-respecting detective story writer will now avail himself of. They have been employed too often, and are familiar to all true lovers of literary crime. To use them is a confession of the author's ineptitude and lack of originality. (a) Determining the identity of the culprit by comparing the butt of a cigarette left at the scene of the crime with the brand smoked by a suspect. (b) The bogus spiritualistic se'ance to frighten the culprit into giving himself away. (c) Forged fingerprints. (d) The dummy-figure alibi. (e) The dog that does not bark and thereby reveals the fact that the intruder is familiar. (f)The final pinning of the crime on a twin, or a relative who looks exactly like the suspected, but innocent, person. (g) The hypodermic syringe and the knockout drops. (h) The commission of the murder in a locked room after the police have actually broken in. (i) The word association test for guilt. (j) The cipher, or code letter, which is eventually unraveled by the sleuth.
Kind of hedging to make a list of 20 here aren’t we? I’ll grant most of these are cheats, but any of them could be suggested as a bit of business for the hero to work through. The red herring possibilities are great fun.

Pixar, the early years.

Thu, 08 May 2008 00:23:10 GMT

Cornhole an Ewok's Mullet (Can't wait to see what kind of search results I get for that one)

Wed, 07 May 2008 09:05:38 GMT

While it’s not entirely true, I do like certain lists of “Oh we ALL did that, quit pretending.”

You might know what I mean, like how people who are in their early to mid 30s like to pretend that they always hated the Ewoks, despite the fact that everyone loved the Ewoks back when they were 6. I mean c’mon, I still love them. Consider how awesome they really are. “Yeah, that’s right Empire. You’ve got a big metal ball of death, we’ve got fighting midgets in teddy bear costumes. Where’s your Force now?” Only now, when they’ve grown up do they want to pretend they never liked them in the first place despite still having that stuffed plush Ewok in a place of honor on their bed.

The first time I ever heard it was when someone was talking shit about bell bottoms in some 80s show and the other character mentioned that everyone wore nothing but bell bottoms only a few years ago and the first character damn well knew it.

Also the mullet. People talk shit about the mullet now, but have you ever checked how many people used to have them? It only became a thing a few years ago, long after the mullet went out of fashion. Lots of people still have them actually, what with 70s hair being “in” again for the last few years it’ll likely come back any minute now. I mean if polo shirts are acceptable (in 2008! For fucks sake what the hell is wrong with us?) then can the mullet be far behind?

I know people who didn’t have a mullet, never wore bell bottoms and hated the Ewoks from the word go. It seems though, that too many people try to pretend that they always were against what looks like dumb fashions now. I can dig that people thought the mullet looked dumb in the 80s, but I have a problem believing it when I can look up old photos and prove that they had one. I also have trouble buying their foresight when I’ve watched them pick up every other stupid fashion that’s come and gone since then.

I always want to invent things, just to see if anyone will call me on how popular they used to be. This of course does lead to the looks I get for saying things like “Oh quit pretending. We were all into cornholing in the 90s, stop acting like you never did it!” but frankly, that’s just part of the fun.

Mostly this whole post was me trying to figure out a good reason to use cornholing, because I agree with George Carlin that it doesn’t get said enough anymore.

It's a plothole as big as all outdoors.

Wed, 07 May 2008 02:02:53 GMT

Got Star Trek - The Original Crew Movie Collection cheap. Star Trek: TMP is just too darn slow and into the idea of being a big screen movie for it's own good.

But what I want to say is...

In Star Trek 2, the Wrath of Kahn Chekov recognizes Kahn, and Kahn recognizes Chekov.

Except Space Seed is a Season 1 episode and Chekov wsn't introduced until Season 2!
You know what I think is the cause?

TIME PARADOX!
Time to do the time plot again.

EDIT: Also, what the hell is with Chekov pronouncing all his V's as W's? I've heard real Russians speak, they never say wessel if they mean vessel. What the fuck?

Bad writers

Tue, 06 May 2008 22:12:15 GMT

Recently, enderfem was talking about a conversation where her friend asked "Name the worst author you've read and kept reading."

To which he replied Laurell K Hamilton.

Mine is Jack Higgins, specifically his Sean Dillon novels. Although I have to point out that I haven’t actually read one since Bad Company, which was so bad it soured me. I actually have the two books that come after that, and I should probably read them with the understanding that Bad Company was just a fluke. It was such a bad book though. It takes place (more or less) in 2003… and it’s about an old Nazi… with ties to Saddam Hussein… and I was reading if AFTER Hussein was caught which kind of killed the suspense. It had everything that made a Higgins novel bad with nothing that made it good.

So I'm wondering, who is your worst author that you just keep reading? And if you're feeling expansive, tell me why.

A type of stereo

Tue, 06 May 2008 18:29:53 GMT

So I’m reading the f-list right? And I come across this bit written by eurisko97 in which he laments some of the stereotypes that the gay community has to put up with. The constant orgies, the drug use, so on. My impression is that he’s looking more in at the gay community than looking out at the rest of the wide world in his complaint.

While there is drug use and some orginess* among gays, there is drug use and orginess amongst straight people too. I suspect that humans just occasionally use drugs and have group gropes. In fact, I know that humans just have group sex sometimes. It’s a thing we do.

So why all the stereotypes? Well I have an idea that I’ve heard mentioned a few other places and I’m going to tell you about it here. The problem is that straight people hear sex and we stop thinking. We hear “Homosexual” and at the “sex” part of that word the straight brain just sort of shuts down. Now, the only thing a straight person can think of when thinking about a gay person is their sexuality, and thus the only activity they can picture them doing is sexual.

When the only activities someone can picture a person doing are sexual activities, they usually imagine that person must spend all day dedicated to that. It makes a bit of sense, they’ve all got to fill the same 24 hours and if they don’t go shopping or play squash, they must be having sex.

When you’ve already got people who have it in their heads that gay people are either having sex or on their way to have sex, you can see how the rest of it falls into line. In their tiny little minds they must see how people can get worn out rather quickly, so gays must be trying to get fresh recruits for their constant sex all the time. When a person of limited realistic thinking capabilities starts on that line, they sort of allow any hedonistic activities to the list. Drug use, sex bars, musical theater, all the little evils that the straight mind can produce come flowing out.

Now add to this dilemma the fact that the first experience most straight people have with gay people is when they’re all kids and you really have a problem. Since most straight people meet gay folk when they’re young and just learning about this whole sex thing. While many gay people report that they always knew something was different, I’ve talked to enough people who only really thought about sex when they hit puberty to think that a good number of gay folk must have run along the same track. The problem is that a gay person has society telling them to run one way and their feelings telling them to run the other. This regularly means a goodly amount of trying to run the proper way, getting tired, running the other way when no one is looking, and a metaphor that really doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

When you throw in the bisexuals who during those years sometimes aggressively run both ways and normal teenage/young adult experimentation into the mix, you can see how gay people get dismissed so much. Here is a little secret that no one else will tell you. Lots of people went through a “why don’t I touch a member of the same sex to see what it’s like” stage in their sexual development. While some of those people evolve into bisexuals and some of those people turn out to be homosexuals, for a lot of people it turns out to have been a phase they went through. People dismiss sexual deviance (as in a deviance from the heterosexual so-called norm) as a phase because lots and lots of people went through a similar period as a phase. As a result, any slightly straight behavior from a homosexual will be pointed to as signs that they are coming out of their phase, which is rather silly when someone points to an 87 year old queen kissing his sister on the cheek, but they do it anyway.

When a person’s mind already has a few stereotyped images in their head, they will ignore anything that doesn’t fit the stereotype. Often, if they’ve got a really narrow mind, they will ignore things that don’t fit quite actively. Often screaming and shouting at a person and demanding that they do the stereotypical things in secret if they’re not seen doing it in public. They will rant and rave about how they must be doing Activity X because and I quote “They all do it! Look at them! You know they’re up to something!**” even when the person in question is quietly sitting in the corner trying to read a news paper. The need for someone to fit a rigidly defined set of characteristics is so strong for some people that their tiny little minds can’t handle anything outside of those characteristics. The problem is that there is a limited amount of things the people being stereotyped can do to change those perceptions, beyond getting to know as many people as possible so that more straight people will smack the one bigot and tell them not to be an asshole.

Sadly, that’s really how change comes. Not from presenting a better front as a community, but by getting to know people in the other community who will then deal with their own. When the two camps sit across from each other, it doesn’t matter how good they look across the field, because we’re all sure the nice business like demeanor is just a front and all the debauchery is in the back. Yeah, basically we all think society is just a mullet. Business in the front, party at the back, and a pretty nasty party it is too. So I guess I’m looking at a tangled mullet that hasn’t been washed in some time and probably has remnants of the time they tried to dye half their head red that one time still left over.

*Totally a real word, don’t care what spellcheck says. Spellcheck doesn’t even recognize itself as a word so who can trust it?

**Now I come to think of it, the person I’m quoting also said that about Blacks, Jews, Latinos and The Irish.

Current things not up for discussion.

Tue, 06 May 2008 05:21:02 GMT

Things we don't talk about...
1. Fight Club
2. Fight Club
3. Canada (see Black Books Series 2 Ep 6)
4. What happened in Vegas.
5. The War
6. How Klingons got those head ridges.

Trek Question

Fri, 02 May 2008 20:33:04 GMT

In Wink of An Eye, why do Kirk and Spock not give the Scalosians the antidote? If the Scalosians are now doomed because the crew is going to warn everyone away from the planet, why not put the Scalosians right with everyone else? It seems odd to leave them to their doomed fate like that.

feh

Fri, 02 May 2008 00:33:54 GMT

meh

Disturbing

Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:00:32 GMT

I've been disturbed by some comments I've seen about the Miley Cyrus photo thing.

I've still not seen the actual photo, and I don't really care about that to be honest. It's not the picture itself that's been bugging me. What's been bugging me is the huge number of comments I've seen stating that we shouldn't be surprised at the Cyrus family allowing those shots to be taken because "They're not our kind of people you, donchaknow?"

I've not seen these coments on LJ, because my flist hasn't been talking about it, but whenever I've seen it discussed, the terms "hillbilly" and "trailer trash" get drawn out pretty quickly. The implication being that of course they would allow their daughter to be used like that, because they're low class or from the south, or from bad stock or whatever reasoning is behind it. It's kind of distasteful to see how quickly those sorts of comments came flying out.

Just not cricket gentelmen.

And further

Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:55:28 GMT

This article (opinion piece really) states perfectly the problem I had with Batman Begins, i.e. the third act destroyed all the good will the first two acts built up. Although I will say that I had many problems during the first two acts as well. Pretty much once Katie Holmes gets shown the factory in the bowels of Arkham, nothing goes right from that point on. Which was a shame really, because they'd come so close just to screw it up so badly at the end. I think many people forgave Begins huge faults because there were no nipples on the Batsuit.

Also, I agree with the author that I would love to see Batman get away from the mopey Goth routine for a while. He's been doing it off and on for 30 years now* in both comics and movies and it's getting kinda stale.

*There was that horrifying period where he was clearly into LSD and whip-its though. May the days of Joel Shumaker never return.

EDIT: If at some point during The Dark Knight some on asked "What are you?" and bats responds "Are you dense? Are you retarded or something? Who the hell do you think I am? I'm the goddamn Batman!" then all will be forgiven.

stuff

Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:42:34 GMT

You may remember I got 10 Kitano Takeshi movies in the mail last week. They were a Korean set, that strangely doesn't include his first movie Violent Cop. It also doesn't have Takeshis' either, but that seems less odd. If the set came out before that movie, then it makes some sense. Actually, it's not totally bizarre, since as far as I know neither of those movies were released in Korea. It still feels wrong since the DVD of Hana-Bi has a big number 6 on it, while the movie clearly states that it's Kitanto Takeshi Vol. 7, meaning his seventh movie.

Not the point though.

The point is that now I've watched about half of them.
3-4 x Jûgatsu (or ３－４Ｘ１０月 or Boiling point… depending on who you ask) is about as bad as advertised. It’s a mess of a film, though you can see moments of brilliance in there. Not totally without merit, but not great by any standard.

A Scene at the Sea was too slow for me when I tried to watch it. I’ll go back to it later. Shouldn't have tried it right after 3-4x10

I’ve seen Sonatine before, so no comment necessary.

Hana-Bi would be like a slap in the face if I didn’t see it coming. Having seen most his other films I kind of knew what I was in for. I think that the talk about this movie is right though, probably his best movie.

I’ve seen Kikujiro, Brother and Zatoichi already. Brother bugged me though because the Korean version is an uncut version, but it has no English subtitles. I think someone decides that since three quarters of the movie is in English they didn’t need the subs. That last quarter though, that’s were a lot of the stuff that got cut is. Grumble.

The quality of these DVDs isn’t quite as good as the Region 1 stuff, but considering how hard it would be to try and find all of them and for a similar price so I'm not complaining.

The Politics of Awesome

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:12:20 GMT

Proper politics

We now present Political messages from parties you’d probably prefer to vote for.

The Dark Party
The world is a more dangerous place. Wars, food shortages, costumed lunatics and terrorists are rampant. Difficult problems lurk all around, like muggers in a dark alley. Our enemies are a cowardly and superstitious lot, ready to kill you and your family. Who can you trust to fight for you at such a time? Who has the experience? Who will answer the red phone when it rings? Who can protect you and your family? Who can you vote for to save America?
What are you dense? Are you retarded or something? Who the hell do you think you should vote for? On November 4th, vote for the Goddamn Batman!

The Tōdōza Party
The problems facing the country seem obvious. You may have found screamed in frustration that even a blind man could see the difficulties we face today. Could it be that ONLY a blind man could see the problems? It’s well known that the blind have greater senses to make up for the loss of their sight, this of course includes a great Common Sense as well.
When you cast your ballot this fall, vote for the man who has no actual sight, but can see things clearly. Vote Zatoichi.

The Interstellar Alliance Party
EXPERIENCE! That’s what America needs right now, an experienced leader. Who is the only person to shoot down a Mimbari ship? Who commanded the White Star? Who came back from Z'ha'dum alive? Who defeated both The Shadows AND Earth Alliance in the same damn season? John Sheridan! That’s who!
John Sheridan is the sort of leader you’re looking for. A man of integrity, a man of action, and a man with a hot Mimbari wife. John Sheridan, he took control of Babylon 5, he’s already been president of the Interstellar Alliance, surely president of America should be a walk in the park for him.
John 'Nuke 'em' Sheridan, because sometimes they’ve had it coming for 4 damn seasons.

The Relax and Have a Party
People are getting too tense, they’re worrying too much, they need a lager and a vindaloo. Dave Lister might not be as smart as some of the other candidates, he might not have as strong a work ethic and he may have never read… a book, but he’s still the best damn space hippy ever to end up as the last representative of humanity.
Dave Lister! What the hell, it could be a laugh.

The Federation Party
Diplomacy. It may be more important now than ever before. The world needs a cool, calm thinker, not a rash cowboy. Jean-Luc Picard is the thinking man’s leader. Jean-Luc Picard has had one of the most diverse command crews out of any of the candidates. Jean-Luc Picard has dealt with more races, more Gods, and more diplomatic situations than any other human living or dead. Through it all, Picard has always found the intelligent and mutually beneficial solution to almost every problem he’s had to deal with. Except the Borg. The Borg have to be machine gunned down.
Jean-Luc Picard, let’s try thinking intelligently for a change.

The Spartan Party
This election, we vote in hell.
THIS IS SPAAARRRTAA!!!!

The Tardis Party
Who has more experience in solving problems than anyone else? Who has a longer track record of diplomacy and intelligent problem solving? Who has an unbroken string of consistently hot side-kicks? Who always has the right tool at the right time? Who can always regenerate incase of an assassin’s attack? Who can survive all difficulties, including BBC cutbacks?
Say it with me… HE IS THE DOCTOR!

The American Party
Some men don’t wear flags on their lapels, while other men wear the flag at their entire outfit. Captain America has always loved this country. Captain America has always protected this country. Captain America named himself after this country. Captain America doesn’t have patriotism, Captain America IS patriotism! America, FUCK YEAH!

The Krypton Party
Truth, Justice and the American Way. For more than half a century, he has stood for all of these and more. As leader of The Justice League, he has consistently kept the world safe from evil. He’s weathered the storms, coming back from death and poor sales. To this day, he’s faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Superman, he’s the leader you’ve been waiting for.

The Treadstone Party
He knows all about government corruption, and he knows how to root it out. He’s done more for our nation in a few years than most men have done in a lifetime. He can always get things done with whatever is at hand, saving money on special equipment. No leader on earth would be able to take him in hand to hand combat.
Jason Bourne is the man to lead this country into the Next Millennia.

The Shadow Party
He knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men. He knows that the weed of crime bears bitter fruit. He knows that as we sow evil, so shall we reap evil. The Shadow has been protecting the good people of America longer than any other candidate going. The Shadow has long since been a leader who uses teamwork for the betterment of justice and America at large.
How do we make America great again? How do we protect our country from evil? How can we solve our problems? The Shadows KNOWS!