Hell yes. Our tax dollars go towards this kind of research, the least we can expect is that the government should help provide a little pre-end-of-the-world nookie.
Unless, of course, this is another plank of the Religious Right's abstinence-only platform. Fighting for that to the bitter end, I gotta respect the tenacity.
But still...can anyone be that uptight? I mean, the world would be ending and all, you'd think being proved right about Revelations and Armaggedeon would be enough for them. But noooooo....
Did you not see - and completely believe - "Jurassic Park?" Nature will somehow "find a way."
Of course, it could also be argued that Nature was probably not interested in repopulating the species, seeing as it had just provided the big rock that killed us all in the first place.
Like omigod I cannot believe you just wrote that. 4 u 2 try and dis Lance is like so disrespectful I have to wonder if u are even smartt. 8-P He iz a beautiful artist! My friends and I luv his music! And so what if he didn't want to pay he iz a star and a star should not have to pay to go b among the starz, especially when Russia was getting such good publicity from the whole thing. They were like totally benefitting from attaching his name to the project totally. Not to mention its dangerous! Lance iz risking his life going up there just like Tom Hanks did in that space movie where he almost died.
so basically i have no respect 4 u and what u think. Nsync 4evah!
So we're one step closer to an army of fearless rodents. Kewl!
Actually, this behaviour is already evidenced in the animal world. Take pigeons - I mean have you seen how willing these guys are to brush by your hulking feet just for a mote of bread? Stunning.
And in humans, the evidence of a new subspecies lacking the fear gene can be summed in one word: Jackass.
>> My dog could become a TV critic, it doesn't take insight.
That's some special dog you got there - and I agree that if the pooch can write 18 column inches on deadline, you'd be wasting his talents having him pontificate on the lack of wit in "Inside Schwarz."
>> It's hardly an objective field of journalism, or even one that even attempts to utilize reason to come to conclusions.
That's why they call it criticism. Of course it isn't objective - any opinion of art is not "objective" - it isn't supposed to be, and never was. Of course, nor is actual "journalism" actually ever "objective," either, but that digression will have to keep.
Art criticism, film criticism, book/literary criticism - and government/political/cultural criticism that occurs in column writing on your op-ed pages - are all these worthless because they aren't "objective?" If you think so, that's fine - but that's also your _opinion._
As for not using reason to come to conclusions, I don't understand how this can be said, as I simply disagree with your assessment that critics don't use "reason" in their reviews. The very sanity-checking that you do to say that the writing is bad or that the plots are stale is a (lesser) imitation of the rational critiquing that critics in practically every piece on television I've ever read.
>>
So if you're looking for a career as a TV critic, taunting the inadequacies of a show that's not even remotely close to being the most popular will do little to tarnish your career goals.
At a minimum, I think TV critics at least warrant is an acknowledgement that they watch FAR MORE televison OF A WIDER RANGE than the average person. They have to - it's their job. So they are well aware of nearly everything new coming on the tube each fall season. They keep up to date on a far greater variety of shows than does the average viewer, because they can and because they need to - they budget it into their jobs.
Based on the previous post, you are acting as a critic. But I'm much less inclined to give weight to your words as I am somewhat confident you haven't put in nearly the amount of time or critical thought into your television viewing as have the professional critics you so disdain.
Nor do you have to give credit to my opinions, but here they are anyways: I have watched a lot of TV in my day, and "Buffy" is one of my favorite shows of all time, neck and neck with "The Simpsons." I love the writing, the development it provides the characters over time, and the acting performances that make those characters come to life. So I would disagree with most every point you raised about the weaknesses of the show and could try to argue point by point, but I won't - because you're entitled to your opinion...and because I'm glad you watch the show - its long mythology and the saga structure of the show doesn't lend itself to new viewers, and like any show, it benefits in many ways from having more viewers.
I'd be willing to wager a disproportionate amount of those viewers are critics. Because, make no mistake, among those "professional" television watchers that you dismiss, "Buffy" IS a critical darling. Rolling Stone called it the best show on TV in 2000. Various critics at Salon write frequently about the show, and have raved about it since its inception.
And then there's EW. My final question would be this: Why does Entertainment Weekly, the leading reporter for pop culture, feature the show seemingly every year on its cover and take up valuable column inches to write about it whenever something transpires that is remotely newsworthy - when by your own admission and one look at the ratings, it's not because such a huge number of people watch it compared to what else is on TV - if not because the critics and devotees amidst the staff there don't think it's an awesome show?
Sarah Michelle is cute and sells some magazines, but she ain't THAT cute,
Danny
The message was NOT that, by the power of the voters, this episode did not get enough votes to warrant a nomination. Saying that was inexplicable would be opinion.
The message is that the episode was COMPLETELY LEFT OFF the list of shows that could even be nominated for the Emmy - where, IIRC, EVERY drama has a right to have its chosen episodes included on the ballot for consideration. Due to a screw-up by the people who put the official ballot together, "Once More With Feeling" was not even included. This is news.
Poor Buffy. Foiled again. Danny
One name/nickname rooted in history of Brazil
on
World Cup Final
·
· Score: 1
In a game earlier in the Cup, the ESPN play-by-play announcer - I believe his name is Jack Edwards - provided a more specific answer that had to do with the development of the game there among the different classes. I'll do my best to rehash it here.
Edwards explained that originally, players from the lower classes of people were not allowed to play for the organized clubs in Brazil - a fact that seems to be accurate based on a web site I hit searching for more information: this page left over from a site dedicated to the 98 Cup. It provided the following:
"The first club formed was Sporting Club Rio Grande, on July 14, 1900, and for 20 decades (sic) football was the exclusive reserve of the white elite -- the poor, be they white, half-caste or black, were excluded."
Edwards went on to explain that the lower classes, denied access to the club teams, played pick-up games constantly - games that the elites were hesitant to play in due to the public embarassment that could result from associating with the lower class.
Shame, however, proved to be a lousy deterrent: the games proved too tempting for the elites to pass up for long. But reputation and family name were still important to a degree that they may not be today, apparently, from what I've read from other posters on the topic, and so in an effort to retain some level of anonymity when the matches were talked about (and written about in local papers, which happened as interest grew), the elites adopted the habit of using only one name - and often a nickname at that - to identify themselves for the games to protect their identity.
When the need for such secrecy ended (see below), the players and their names were still around and playing - and so the practice stuck.
I'm confident the basics above match Edward's narration on the subject.
Additional info: Assuming the story is accurate, Brazil can be proud of the way in which the sport that was to become its national pasttime helped open the society. The passion for the game, for the fun of it, broke down walls. I'm sure another important reason the gentry longed to mix into the lower class games was the quality of the competition, as can be evidenced by what happened when the lower classes were allowed to play for the clubs:
"The Rio de Janiero club Vasco de Gama, backed by Portuguese Country colonizers, was the first to break this taboo, forming a multi-racial team that won the Rio championship in 1923. Arthur Friendenreich, a half-caste nicknamed "The Tiger," was Brazil's first national football hero. Born of a German father and a black Brazilian mother, Friendenreich amassed 1,329 goals in a 26-year career. Football rapidly became the national sport..."
(Also from this page.)
So soccer was a unifying force for the people of Brazil almost from its inception, it seems, and oh, what a power that force has helped wrought.
Congratulations on the Penta - so happy for Ronaldo - and here's to another great Cup going into the books.
Danny
Don't let this happen to you: go to...
on
World Cup Final
·
· Score: 1
It has a mailing list that shoots out an e-mail with televsion times for games shown throughout North America - including flash updates when warranted...like when ABC lets it be known its affiliates are not all carrying the World Cup Final.
Beyond this, just wanted to add my $.02 to some of the other posters here:
1. The ABC family (ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNClassic/ABC) coverage seemed okay, from what little I saw because...
2. The Univision coverage (in Spanish) was ridiculously fun to watch (though I can hablo espanol pretty well added to it, I'm sure). And Telefutura carried practically all the games on tape delay the following day, which makes me think...
3. There was no reason the ABC family shouldn't have shown replays of the games at decent hours on its lesser channels, unless its contract were such could only show the games one time, even in which case...
4. It's ridiculous that the Final wasn't on SOME US network, guaranteed. If ABC affiliates weren't all going to take it, it's better off on one of the ESPNs. With any luck though, I predict...
5. This will be the last World Cup to get such shoddy treatment. Boosted by the strong performance of US national team, the television ratings here were high enough that something more solid should be in place come Germany 2006.
Fitting, yes, that Jar Jar Binks plays a pivotal role in bringing unspeakable pain to the galaxy.
Come to think of it, that's TWO galaxies he's ruined: his own of course, but also ours, which he terrorized as of 1999.
From "Why the Force is Still With Us", an article in the January 6th edition of the New Yorker by John Seabrook:
Harrison Ford told me that Lucas had only two directions for the actors in "Star Wars"; he replayed them for me over huevos rancheros on the trerrace at the Bel Air Hotel one Saturday morning, using his George-as-director voice-nasal, high, kind of whiny. The two directions were "O.K., same thing, only better," and "Faster, more intense." Ford said, "That was it: 'O.K, same thing, only better.' 'Faster, more intense.'"
Slashdot Mirror
Oh the possibilities.
Unless, of course, this is another plank of the Religious Right's abstinence-only platform. Fighting for that to the bitter end, I gotta respect the tenacity.
But still...can anyone be that uptight? I mean, the world would be ending and all, you'd think being proved right about Revelations and Armaggedeon would be enough for them. But noooooo....
Of course, it could also be argued that Nature was probably not interested in repopulating the species, seeing as it had just provided the big rock that killed us all in the first place.
Like omigod I cannot believe you just wrote that. 4 u 2 try and dis Lance is like so disrespectful I have to wonder if u are even smartt. 8-P He iz a beautiful artist! My friends and I luv his music! And so what if he didn't want to pay he iz a star and a star should not have to pay to go b among the starz, especially when Russia was getting such good publicity from the whole thing. They were like totally benefitting from attaching his name to the project totally. Not to mention its dangerous! Lance iz risking his life going up there just like Tom Hanks did in that space movie where he almost died.
so basically i have no respect 4 u and what u think. Nsync 4evah!
Actually, this behaviour is already evidenced in the animal world. Take pigeons - I mean have you seen how willing these guys are to brush by your hulking feet just for a mote of bread? Stunning.
And in humans, the evidence of a new subspecies lacking the fear gene can be summed in one word: Jackass.
That's some special dog you got there - and I agree that if the pooch can write 18 column inches on deadline, you'd be wasting his talents having him pontificate on the lack of wit in "Inside Schwarz."
>> It's hardly an objective field of journalism, or even one that even attempts to utilize reason to come to conclusions.
That's why they call it criticism. Of course it isn't objective - any opinion of art is not "objective" - it isn't supposed to be, and never was. Of course, nor is actual "journalism" actually ever "objective," either, but that digression will have to keep.
Art criticism, film criticism, book/literary criticism - and government/political/cultural criticism that occurs in column writing on your op-ed pages - are all these worthless because they aren't "objective?" If you think so, that's fine - but that's also your _opinion._
As for not using reason to come to conclusions, I don't understand how this can be said, as I simply disagree with your assessment that critics don't use "reason" in their reviews. The very sanity-checking that you do to say that the writing is bad or that the plots are stale is a (lesser) imitation of the rational critiquing that critics in practically every piece on television I've ever read.
>> So if you're looking for a career as a TV critic, taunting the inadequacies of a show that's not even remotely close to being the most popular will do little to tarnish your career goals.
At a minimum, I think TV critics at least warrant is an acknowledgement that they watch FAR MORE televison OF A WIDER RANGE than the average person. They have to - it's their job. So they are well aware of nearly everything new coming on the tube each fall season. They keep up to date on a far greater variety of shows than does the average viewer, because they can and because they need to - they budget it into their jobs.
Based on the previous post, you are acting as a critic. But I'm much less inclined to give weight to your words as I am somewhat confident you haven't put in nearly the amount of time or critical thought into your television viewing as have the professional critics you so disdain.
Nor do you have to give credit to my opinions, but here they are anyways: I have watched a lot of TV in my day, and "Buffy" is one of my favorite shows of all time, neck and neck with "The Simpsons." I love the writing, the development it provides the characters over time, and the acting performances that make those characters come to life. So I would disagree with most every point you raised about the weaknesses of the show and could try to argue point by point, but I won't - because you're entitled to your opinion...and because I'm glad you watch the show - its long mythology and the saga structure of the show doesn't lend itself to new viewers, and like any show, it benefits in many ways from having more viewers.
I'd be willing to wager a disproportionate amount of those viewers are critics. Because, make no mistake, among those "professional" television watchers that you dismiss, "Buffy" IS a critical darling. Rolling Stone called it the best show on TV in 2000. Various critics at Salon write frequently about the show, and have raved about it since its inception.
And then there's EW. My final question would be this: Why does Entertainment Weekly, the leading reporter for pop culture, feature the show seemingly every year on its cover and take up valuable column inches to write about it whenever something transpires that is remotely newsworthy - when by your own admission and one look at the ratings, it's not because such a huge number of people watch it compared to what else is on TV - if not because the critics and devotees amidst the staff there don't think it's an awesome show?
Sarah Michelle is cute and sells some magazines, but she ain't THAT cute,
Danny
The message was NOT that, by the power of the voters, this episode did not get enough votes to warrant a nomination. Saying that was inexplicable would be opinion.
The message is that the episode was COMPLETELY LEFT OFF the list of shows that could even be nominated for the Emmy - where, IIRC, EVERY drama has a right to have its chosen episodes included on the ballot for consideration. Due to a screw-up by the people who put the official ballot together, "Once More With Feeling" was not even included. This is news.
Poor Buffy. Foiled again.
Danny
Edwards explained that originally, players from the lower classes of people were not allowed to play for the organized clubs in Brazil - a fact that seems to be accurate based on a web site I hit searching for more information: this page left over from a site dedicated to the 98 Cup. It provided the following:
"The first club formed was Sporting Club Rio Grande, on July 14, 1900, and for 20 decades (sic) football was the exclusive reserve of the white elite -- the poor, be they white, half-caste or black, were excluded."
Edwards went on to explain that the lower classes, denied access to the club teams, played pick-up games constantly - games that the elites were hesitant to play in due to the public embarassment that could result from associating with the lower class.
Shame, however, proved to be a lousy deterrent: the games proved too tempting for the elites to pass up for long. But reputation and family name were still important to a degree that they may not be today, apparently, from what I've read from other posters on the topic, and so in an effort to retain some level of anonymity when the matches were talked about (and written about in local papers, which happened as interest grew), the elites adopted the habit of using only one name - and often a nickname at that - to identify themselves for the games to protect their identity.
When the need for such secrecy ended (see below), the players and their names were still around and playing - and so the practice stuck.
I'm confident the basics above match Edward's narration on the subject.
Additional info: Assuming the story is accurate, Brazil can be proud of the way in which the sport that was to become its national pasttime helped open the society. The passion for the game, for the fun of it, broke down walls. I'm sure another important reason the gentry longed to mix into the lower class games was the quality of the competition, as can be evidenced by what happened when the lower classes were allowed to play for the clubs:
"The Rio de Janiero club Vasco de Gama, backed by Portuguese Country colonizers, was the first to break this taboo, forming a multi-racial team that won the Rio championship in 1923. Arthur Friendenreich, a half-caste nicknamed "The Tiger," was Brazil's first national football hero. Born of a German father and a black Brazilian mother, Friendenreich amassed 1,329 goals in a 26-year career. Football rapidly became the national sport..." (Also from this page.)
So soccer was a unifying force for the people of Brazil almost from its inception, it seems, and oh, what a power that force has helped wrought.
Congratulations on the Penta - so happy for Ronaldo - and here's to another great Cup going into the books.
Danny
SoccerTV.com
It has a mailing list that shoots out an e-mail with televsion times for games shown throughout North America - including flash updates when warranted...like when ABC lets it be known its affiliates are not all carrying the World Cup Final.
Beyond this, just wanted to add my $.02 to some of the other posters here:
1. The ABC family (ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNClassic/ABC) coverage seemed okay, from what little I saw because...
2. The Univision coverage (in Spanish) was ridiculously fun to watch (though I can hablo espanol pretty well added to it, I'm sure). And Telefutura carried practically all the games on tape delay the following day, which makes me think...
3. There was no reason the ABC family shouldn't have shown replays of the games at decent hours on its lesser channels, unless its contract were such could only show the games one time, even in which case...
4. It's ridiculous that the Final wasn't on SOME US network, guaranteed. If ABC affiliates weren't all going to take it, it's better off on one of the ESPNs. With any luck though, I predict...
5. This will be the last World Cup to get such shoddy treatment. Boosted by the strong performance of US national team, the television ratings here were high enough that something more solid should be in place come Germany 2006.
Fingers crossed,
Danny
For TPM, you could buy Bantha-flavored Booger Candy if you could buy a t-shirt.
Fitting, yes, that Jar Jar Binks plays a pivotal role in bringing unspeakable pain to the galaxy. Come to think of it, that's TWO galaxies he's ruined: his own of course, but also ours, which he terrorized as of 1999.
From "Why the Force is Still With Us", an article in the January 6th edition of the New Yorker by John Seabrook: Harrison Ford told me that Lucas had only two directions for the actors in "Star Wars"; he replayed them for me over huevos rancheros on the trerrace at the Bel Air Hotel one Saturday morning, using his George-as-director voice-nasal, high, kind of whiny. The two directions were "O.K., same thing, only better," and "Faster, more intense." Ford said, "That was it: 'O.K, same thing, only better.' 'Faster, more intense.'"
If he coded 'em both himself, screw enlisting him - get him working on some of that newfangled "smart bomb" software.