The whole season is "Let's make a Seinfeld reuinion episode, as an excuse to get Cheryl back", with the last episode actually having clips of "the show" as part of it. The fact that Larry is still living with one of the Black's and Michael Richards is in the season leads to an inevitable, but hilarious, end of episode punchline.
Bachmann is winning for now. Palin is pretending to run for president in order to make money to take free vacations for her family, and doesn't actually have a job as an elected official. Bachmann is in Congress and actually running for president (and is second place of the GOP in most polls). Thus, while both ae horrible, only one has a direct impact on horrible things happening. Palin is basically Glenn Beck, while Bachmann could be George W. Bush.
PACs can't really give money to candidates directly. They mostly do things like buy ad time which "indirectly" support a candidate by attacking their opponent's and calling attention to 'issues', etc.
I could very much see Stephen "in character" supporting various Rebuplicans in a way that paints them in a horrible light. "This person had the brass balls to say 'I don't care if my supporters hate the idea of killing Medicare to pay for huge tax breaks for rich people, I have to vote for what I believe in'."
The book is always from a first person perspective (it hops from narrator to narrator). So any battle is seen either in a historic context, or from that character's perspective. They do have some big battles that are shown from multiple perspectives later on, but it's more about chaos of the fight, with a person just doing their small part.
They have included some scenes that weren't in the books (i.e. the stuff where someone like the Maester or Littlefinger, etc are 'alone' because anything where one of the main characters isn't present isn't shown. I think some of the scenes were rearranged from stuff existing in the book. (i.e. the scene where Littlefinger describes his back story while 'directing' a lesbian porn film, was from a later book where he tells one of the 'narrators' about it instead of just some of his whores).
The stuff that ussually gets described is small scale stuff, which we did see (Snow vs. Zombie, Brom fighting to save Tyrion, Tyrion and Caitlyn vs. Ambush, Dancing Instructor vs. Mooks, various Dothroki fights). And, having Jaime captured offscreen, which also happens in the books, is a mix of suprise, but also maintaining his baddass nature.
While Louis CK's opinion did contradict Morgan's (second) official statement. That is true. However, it's quite possible that Tracy Morgan's (second) official statement isn't his actual opinion. Whether it is or not, it definitely is the 'correct' opinion. Considering that even his co-workers were criticizing him, he pretty much had to do whatever he could to defuse the situation.
It's quite possible that Louis see's Morgan's final opinion on the matter as a bullshit spin move, and that he doesn't think a comedian should have to do that.
Not saying I agree with Louis CK, but it's not as simple as "well, Tracy Morgan has had a genuine change of heart and/or clearly revealed his true feelings on the matter, so Louis CK shouldn't add his two cents".
I remember reading an article somewhere about how laughter may be a sort of evolutionary reaction to "benign violation". Basically, a violation causes stress, but realizing it's not a real threat, causes a 'relief' reaction. So, when someone you trust tickles you, they are violating you, but also mean no threat. So you laugh. If you try to tickle yourself, it doesn't work, since it's not a violation ... and if a creepy stranger tries it, it's not benign.
So, in comedy, you get things like juxtaposition which is a violation in that it challenges logic or sense of right "I thought the word you were using meant this, but it turned out to mean that instead". However, there is no 'threat' involved, so you laugh in relief, etc.
Just like the tragedy is a something bad happening to me, comedy is something worse happening to you cliche, it's about context. It's easier to find something funny if it's not personally painful to you ... and given enough time, it's like it happened to someone else, even if it did happen to you. It's also the reason why some very horrible things that happen in a joke (i.e. the Aristocrats) can be funny ... they are hypothetical things happening to hypothetical people ... and thus more benign than a 'true' story.
I don't respect anyone's opinion on Doctor Who until they've seen the whole original series ... - Strawman McCounterpoint
Some shows can be picked up midway through, but The Wire is short enough (and recent enough) that watching from the start shouldn't be too daunting. Also, unlike other shows, likely didn't radically change from season to season.
I thought the saddest thing was the "they weren't going to take our arms" thing. It's one thing to get the lantern thing wrong and think it was bells, but thinking that the Revolution was about Gun Rights? That's a scary level of stupid.
But if she's an alderman, she's not working for him anymore, and the rule no longer applies. It's "hide the affair, get elected, then 'start' the relationship when it's no longer against the rules", so she's not actually choosing the job over Adam Scott, but she would probably be putting it on hold until they could take it public. The risk of losing her job vs. risk of losing the election (and her back up job) is about the same ... but getting a job on city council would get her out of the "can't date him" rule.
Well, ultimately there are two options:
A) Life from non-life
or
B) Life didn't come from non-life. Since there IS life, that would mean that life came from life ... and thus there was ALWAYS life. We know that the universe had a starting point (pre-universe there was neither time nor space). So, unless life began at the moment that time-space began, it would have to start afterwards, and thus would require that it come from non-life.
Even the explanation of a creator takes what is essentially non-life and transform it into life. So the assumption that life spontaneously appearing in the universe from nothing at all, or life existing from the very beginning of the universe, appear less plausible.
Also: Bruce Campbell
And wrestling, which in terms of cable at least, is almost always number 1 or close to it on Monday Nights.
Also, with NBC there is a bunch of affiliates and stuff, so a lot of stuff it does is local, while the USA channel is basically the same no matter where it gets sent to.
Also, it was the network that brought us Duckman.
Enough people liked 300 for Hollywood to think people wanted to see another 300 (get it? you get it) movies that are basically the same but don't bother to try to be better, are therefore are worse, or at least, less interesting because they don't feel new anymore.
Also, as soon as they did get the birth certificate, the birthers IMMEDIATELY moved on to other "issues" like Trump going into "How did he get into Harvard? I have rich friends with smart kids that couldn't get into Harvard!" He basically was just one step away from going "Cough*AffirmitiveAction*Cough*. Or that he couldn't have possibly written those books on his own. He's basically accusing the President of either being illeterate or barely literate. He didn't say those things, that would get him fired from NBC amongst other things. But he can imply them heavily.
The whole thing comes down to "How could HE become president?" They may not be able to put their finger on it, but they see him as "other". They want "their" america back. Because things were better in the past ... if you were white and christian and not an immigrant or the child of one.
It's very much a case of it being important enough in the story that changing it would be difficult. They could have, hypothetically, cast the various races and groups "blind", having everyone be essentially a mix regardless of their location, but they can't really just change how certain groups are without fundamentally changing the story. If it was a totally new story, than yes, they could have made changes, but they can't just make the Dothraki NOT be a barbarian horde since well, that is the entire reason they are in the story. To be the start of an army which could be used to take back the Throne.
Similarly, while the world of the books/TV series is mysogonistic, there are a number of strong female characters that thrive either by working inside the system and using it to their advantage, as well as those that succeed in spite of the system.
In general, the opening of the books gives you a VERY superficial look at many of the characters, so that as it goes on, it can go deeper and show they are much more than just what they first appear. Characters that start out as antagonists eventually become protagonists (the chapters are always from one character's perspective, which changes from chapter to chapter, so in later books some existing characters start to get their own chapters to show their perspective).
On the whole Happy Holidays thing ...
If someone ever got upset about it, I'd probably respond with:
"Ok then, Merry Christmas and have a horrible New Year, since apparently having more than one holiday being happy is offensive to you."
It makes sense because the Republican plan is:
Give rich even more money
Have government do nothing (debt doesn't matter if they just get replaced by the corporations)
Eliminate all the entitlements, so the poor die off ... only the rich will be around in the future (i.e. HIS children) especially as they will be the only ones to afford the oxygen and fresh water they'll need to survive since "caring about our children" has nothing to do with actually addressing the debt OR the environment.
The "picture" while not funny/in bad taste/etc ... was relevant in one way. That picture would seem to e the "end" of the meme. There were some photoshops afterwards, but it was basically the one picture too far that took the fun out of the meme for a lot of people. So, as a post declaring the meme already over, the picture fits contextually as the photo that probably had something to do with the meme showing up in a parade to Rick Roll in person.
I was going to say something like "I'm only a hipster ironically". But I couldn't face being accused of being a plagarist commentater.
Psyche!!! I don't give a care
Even when it was a bit cliche, like "slow motion dive into the water" or "run away from explosion" they ended up using at least one scene like 4 or 5 times. Nothing says cliche like not being able to find enough examples so you just use the same clip over and over ...
Gossiping would be something that would benefit society in the early days as in the smaller societies most ethics were enforced through shaming and the like. If someone wasn't pulling their weight for the group, everyone would know about it eventually, and they would take corrective measures, etc. Part of how ethics were slowly built up. As the size of villages/cities/etc grew, they needed to have other ways of enforcing behaviour like laws, police, religion, etc. But, when civilization was small enough groups, no one was anonymous, so it gossip about each other became a way to keep track of what other people were doing and make sure they are being "good".
Well, a dead American body that is shown on TV. If someone went out and just shot a random person, they wouldn't see that as a win. It's about publicity as much as murder. Terror-ism, the word is in the title. Spreading fear. Killing people, and having it known (or at least suspected) that terrorists are responsible is great (for them), but the continuous after the fact fear of possible future attacks continues their campaign of fear without them having to do anything about it.
Andy: "The big difference between these types of representations and those of South Park and the Danish cartoonists is that they’re respectful devotional items, while the cartoons are pointedly mocking and derisive, critiquing with an attitude of authority something which they have not tried very hard to understand."
Actually, the first, completely uncensored and not at all talked about depiction of Muhammad on South Park was the closest to derisive or pointedly mocking, as he was a super hero along with other religious figures like Jesus, Moses, etc ... And Seaman. However, it didn't actually mock or deride him.
The first episode that was censored, which was mostly about making fun of Seth McFarlane (i.e. the Worst) was just going to show him. Like with the most recent episode, they were making no attempt to mock or deride Muhammad. They were mocking and deriding the very idea that he cannot even be shown because of the threat of violence. And then, of course, they get censored even FURTHER, not just removing his image, but censoring audio as well. Because of the threat of violence.
It's basically a trap of course, as South Park saying they want to show Muhammad would cause one to ASSUME that it would be derogatory. However, since they know they'll get censored anyway (or in hopes of avoiding censorship) they do anything in their power to make it as non confrontational as possible. Passive aggression at it's finest. The original episode that was censored was to have Muhammad sitting at a table and drinking tea. Definitely something to be offended about and make threats of violence about.
Comments