Sick stuff.

I’m not sure what I find more depressing about this MeFi thread: that there exists an artist who thinks that killing animals so she can pose their carcasses in odd ways for her photographs is just fine, or that so many MeFites are defending her work.

I’m no vegetarian, and I have no problem at all with using animals for food. But I see a big difference between killing animals for sustenance and killing them because it’s fun to kill them, or because some “artist” thinks it would be a cool way to “stir the shitstorm”.

Share This Post

Boil two cups water….

Darth Swank (my source for Asian goodness) links a fascinating item about, of all things, Ramen noodles. As a college student, these were a staple in my diet — there’s just something about getting eight meals for a buck that appeals to the “get through the next two weeks on six dollars and forty-two cents” set. I still eat them once in a while, maybe once a month or so, just because I’ve always enjoyed them. The Wife, however, decided upon her graduation from college that she was done with whole Ramen concept, and I completely respect that.

It interests me that there’s actually an ongoing effort to “develop” and “refine” Ramen noodles. I’m really not sure how the concept can really be perfected beyond where it is right now, but then, that’s why I’m not getting paid the Big Bucks. Lack of imagination, don’tcha know.

Share This Post

Apropos of nothing….

One reason why I don’t mention The Store by name in this space is that I don’t want anything I write here to be construed as being representative of, or reflective of, The Store. So I don’t think it would be entirely appropriate for me to mention, or link, the good news that The Store received today, except to note that I’m very proud of it.

Luckily for me, though, Alan the Buffalo Pundit is under no such restriction (self-imposed though it may be).

Yay us! All hail The Store! Bow down and quiver, mere mortals, before the awesome might that is The Store!

Share This Post

Sunday Burst of Weirdness

It seems that a physics professor doesn’t like the fact that he has to redo his lesson plans, syllabi, exams, and whatnot each year because the dates change. So he thinks the entire world should switch to a new calendar in which dates always fall on the same day:

“For many years, I’ve had to make up a new schedule to tell my class when homework is due,” says Dick Henry, a physicist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, US. “Here I am putting all this totally unnecessary work in and I decided I better do something about it.”


Damn, I feel bad for this guy. The indignity of it all! How can we possibly expect a guy with tenure to do his own admistrativia! The horror!

He’s got it all figured out, too:

To keep the calendar in synchronisation with the seasons, Henry inserted an extra week – which is not part of any month – every five or six years. He named the addition “Newton Week” in honour of his favourite physicist, Isaac Newton.

“If I had my way, everyone would get Newton Week off as a paid vacation and could spend the time doing physics, or other activities of their choice,” he says.


Well, Newton’s OK if you like that sort of thing, but I want to have Newman Week instead.

And then there’s this:

Henry hopes to have rallied enough support for his plan to start it on 1 January 2006, when New Year’s Day in both the old and new calendars falls on a Sunday. And he is not stopping with dates – Henry says the entire world should operate on Greenwich Mean Time. People in the eastern US, for example, would have to get used to eating their midday meals when the clocks read 1700. “People are adaptable if benefits are there,” says Henry.


Yeah. Good luck with that.

I love science and all, but come on. This scheme is something that this guy would dream up, just before getting pantsed by this guy. “He’s gone now, but you gotta admire his spirit!”

(via Simian Farmer)

Share This Post

Blogs, and the Female Bloggers who Rename Them

A blog on my blogroll called Experiments in Writing, Singing and Blogging has been re-christened Me, My Muse, and I. Nice title, but I cry “Foul!” on Kellie renaming her blog just a week after I got done re-alphabetizing my blogroll.

In other news, I’m considering renaming Byzantium’s Shores. The front runner is “Instapunndit”. I’m also partial to “Isntapundit”, “Insatpundit”, “Instapunditt”, and “Reflections in D-sharp Minor”.

Share This Post

Begun, the Clone War has.

I was noodling around for a specific image from Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, and I happened upon this fascinating article that is spun around this thesis:

Yet Attack of the Clones is quite sophisticated cinema, being an intricately constructed allegorical and symbolic tale with a powerful moral message: it is only by mastering the evils that lurk within themselves that its heroes ultimately conquer those that threaten them from without.


It always makes me happy to see the wisdom spread. Long live the Prequels!

Share This Post

More Football Media Gaffes

A couple of oddities:

:: On one of the Buffalo sports talk shows this morning, one radio guy said of today’s matchup between the Broncos and the Colts, which is a rematch of a playoff game a year ago in which the Colts blew out the Broncos: “I don’t think this is going to be the blowout that this matchup was last year.”

The second-quarter score as I write this: Colts 35, Broncos 3. Ouch.

:: Phil Simms, just a short while ago: “Why can’t you get to the Super Bowl with an amazing offense that scores a lot and a defense that mostly looks to make big plays and keep you in it?”

You mean, using the formula that got the Bills to four Super Bowls in a row from 1990 to 1993, and that got the Rams to two Super Bowls in three years (1999 and 2001), winning one of them?

Share This Post

The Writer’s Tool Kit

John Scalzi is having some trouble wrapping his mind around the idea that some writers might not prefer to do their work on one of them newfangled word-processing computator thingies, like what they have down to the corner Circuit City:

So, writers: Can you honestly imagine trying to write a full-length book or novel (we’re talking 60,000+ words) without a computer? Or, for those of you alive and publishing in the terrifying days before computers, can you imagine going back to that? I’m simply curious.


Well, yes, actually, I can imagine it. In fact, I’ve done it. (With the important caveat here that I am as yet unpublished, unless doing The Promised King myself as a blog-based serial novel — read it today! — counts as being published, which it most obviously does not. Shameless plug over.)

Virtually all of the short fiction I’ve written in the last four years has been done first in longhand, as were the very first drafts of The Promised King. As proof, here’s what the original manuscript to The Promised King, Book Two: The Finest Deed looks like:


Those pages aren’t numbered, so I don’t know how many there are, but that’s at least a third of a ream of blue paper (I use colored paper because it’s less harsh on the eyes), and since I’m now converting that manuscript into a typed one, I guesstimate that the word count there is in the ballpark of 150,000 to 200,000 words.

I’m sure I’ve discussed my reasons for writing longhand here before, but I’m too lazy just now to dig through my archives to find that post or posts, so here are my reasons, once again:

1. I like pens. This is big. If you like certain things, you’ll invent reasons to use them. For most people, pens are just items of utility — you carry one to jot down notes on Post-its, or to sign checks, or to scrawl the phone number of the woman with whom you had a good time upon the bathroom wall. But for some people, pens themselves are pretty cool — not those crappy Bic or Papermate things, but fine pens. For me, my weakness is the fountain pen. There’s just something inherently cool about a fountain pen to me. It feels like the natural evolution of writing instrument, from sticks dipped in pigment for cave walls to quills on parchment to glass dip pens to steel dip pens to fountain pens.

2. I’ve always had trouble with my fingers being able to type faster than my brain is able to come up with words. Most writers tend toward the reverse problem, I know, but for me it was very real. (Although, to paraphrase Monty Python, “I got better”.) I would type along, producing crap, because I wasn’t able to produce good material at the same rate that I was able to type it. I’ve made substantial inroads into defeating this particular problem in the last year, but it still crops up for me now and then.

3. Writing longhand is a good way to get around what I call “Desk Jockey by day, Writer by night” Syndrome. This is when a person who loves writing has the unfortunate luck to work a full-time day job that also involves sitting in front of a computer the whole day. I can safely vouch that after spending eight hours at my telesales job, the last thing I wanted to do when I got home was sit down at another computer for my “second job”. Writing longhand, frequently on a cushioned lap desk in my comfy armchair, made writing at night a lot more palatable.

4. I just like the tactile sensation of writing on paper — the sound of the pen scratching the page, the feel of the paper on the wooden desk, et cetera. I even like the lighting, coming from the desk lamp and a couple of candles, as opposed to the omnipresent backlight of a computer monitor.

Now, writing longhand is undoubtedly of less use to someone who is producing work on a deadline, and I almost never write non-fiction — my reviews for GMR, my occasional essays for submission elsewhere, or my posts for Byzantium’s Shores — in longhand. And I haven’t really done any longhand work in nearly a year, although I’ve been hankering to do so again (to the point where I recently bought a fresh bottle of Sheaffer Skrip ink). And obviously, this is one of those “No right answer” things. John Scalzi has had considerable success writing at his computer exclusively, and Neal Stephenson wrote his recent Quicksilver trilogy in longhand. What matters is what makes the writer comfortable with the work.

Share This Post

Just say “Joe”!

I always forget that the first two games of the NFL playoffs, the wildcard games played on the Saturday of the first playoff weekend, are always televised on ABC, with the latter game being anchored by the good Monday Night Football crew (Al Michaels and John Madden), and with the earlier game being anchored by the much less-good ESPN Sunday Night Football crew (some guy whose name I never remember, Paul McGuire, and — wait for it — Joe Theissman). So I always forget that with the end of the regular season, I still have one game of Joe Theissman’s inanities to sit through.

He was in usual form yesterday, during the Rams-at-Seahawks game — most of the time he was just babbling really loudly about nothing particularly insightful. But you can always count on Joe to open his mouth at some point during the proceedings and uncork an utterance so dumb that it makes one’s entire scalp itch. Yesterday’s such utterance — the one I heard, anyway — came near the very end of the game. With about a minute left in the fourth quarter, the Seahawks were trailing 27-20 and were driving toward the end zone for what they hoped would be the tying touchdown. It was a tense ending to a pretty entertaining game (even though neither team stands a Buffalo January snowball’s chance in Hades of not melting of moving past the next round), with the decision coming when a Seahawk receiver failed to rein in a nearly perfect pass on fourth and goal.

But I digress — back to Joe, who about with a minute left takes careful note of the game situation and offers this bit of insightful comment:

“This situation will either end with the Seahawks scoring and sending the game to overtime, or with the Seahawks losing the game.”


Really! I hadn’t realized that the Seahawks were trying to tie the game to avoid losing! Amazing! Thanks be to Joe for spelling it out!

PS: Actually, there was a third alternative: the Seahawks score the touchdown to make the game 27-26, and then go for a two-point conversion to win outright. Of course, nobody on Earth would be insane enough to go for two instead of kicking the point-after-touchdown to go to OT in such a situation.

PPS: I watched Die Hard a couple of weeks ago, and I suddenly realize who Joe Theissman reminds me of: the doltish news anchor at the TV station where that smarmy, opportunistic reporter works. The one who, when a terrorism expert mentions something called the “Helsinki Syndrome”, offers the helpful clarification, “As in, Helsinki, Sweden.” The terror expert says, “Uhh…Finland“, and then goes on as the anchor carefully positions his lantern-like jaw for proper TV display.

PPPS: Actually, I now recall that former University of Nebraska head coach Tom Osborne attempted the two-point conversion to win at the end of the 1984 Orange Bowl. Trailing 31-30 after scoring a TD with less than a minute left, he went for two, which would have given the Cornhuskers a 32-31 win. Instead, the conversion failed and the Huskers lost 31-30 to the Miami Hurricanes. But I seriously doubt anyone in the NFL would ever try this. Well, Mike Martz might do it. But nobody else.

PPPPS: By the way, has a less-disciplined game ever been played in the NFL than yesterday’s contest between the Jets and the Chargers? You had the Jets having ten men on the field twice, the Chargers having twelve men at one point, Marty Schottenheimer actually going onto the field of play, a roughing-the-passer penalty on fourth-and-goal that gave the Chargers the chance to tie the game (which they did), missed field goals, bad snaps, failure to run in situations that clearly called for it, et cetera? It was like watching a Gregg Williams-era Bills game.

Share This Post