Luna, a smiling, playful 3-month-old polar bear cub has made its public debut at the Buffalo Zoo in western New York, Friday March 1, 2013. (ABC News)
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Hey, Way to Go, History Channel!
Actress Roma Downey, Husband Mark Burnett Team on Epic Bible Miniseries
Now this sounds like it could possibly be a worthwhile venture, something like the "banned from the Bible" series that the History Channel did several years ago, when it was still interested in History, discussing the history of how the Bible came to be in its present form and which books were left out for various reasons, but no. No, this is something different.
Talk about damning with faint praise!
“We completely believe in the Bible, but beyond that, it's the most important book in history. It's the foundation of our society and our laws and has created so much art through the centuries,” he said.
Oh, great job, there History Channel! Let's have an historical revisionist make a series about history. The foundation of our society and our laws? Seriously? How many times do we have to go over this?
(http://wwwirritant.blogspot.com/2009/04/historical-revisionists.html)
So, this is going to be a literal depiction of the Bible, floods, talking snakes and all, and it's going to be presented as History.
I'm not saying there isn't history in the Bible. I know Herod the Great was an actual historical person (although not all that great from what I hear). I think Nebuchadnezzar was a real person, and I have no doubt that there was a First Century rabbi named Jesus of Nazareth who attracted a large following and was executed by the Romans because, from what I understand, Pontius Pilate would crucify you as soon as look at you, especially if you seemed like you might be a threat to his grasp on power, but that's not what we're talking about here. They intend to portray Moses as a man who parted the Red Sea by the power of Jaweh, and Jesus as a man who walked on water and that's fine if the show is going to be on CBN, but not the History Channel.
Oh, and this should come as no surprise:
Wow, really? This is really a thing that happens? Someone watched "The 10 Commandments" on TV and was inspired to join Christianity? Is that a thing that happens? Somebody rented "Battlefield Earth" and became a Scientologist? Or became Jewish after watching "Yentl?"
Yes, I'm sure they will. I'm sure that a Mark Burnett production will have the same staying power as one of the greatest Cecil B. DeMille epics. I'm sure that's exactly what's going to happen.
Television producer Mark Burnett and his wife, actress Roma Downey, have teamed to create a new 10-hour miniseries titled “The Bible” that will air next month on The History Channel.
My friend who recently came out was more comfortable touching his wife than Mark is.
Now this sounds like it could possibly be a worthwhile venture, something like the "banned from the Bible" series that the History Channel did several years ago, when it was still interested in History, discussing the history of how the Bible came to be in its present form and which books were left out for various reasons, but no. No, this is something different.
Burnett, an Emmy Award winner best known for creating a number of reality shows, including “The Apprentice,” “Survivor,” “Shark Tank,” and “The Voice,” said the forthcoming miniseries is the most important work he’s done to date.
Talk about damning with faint praise!
“We completely believe in the Bible, but beyond that, it's the most important book in history. It's the foundation of our society and our laws and has created so much art through the centuries,” he said.
Oh, great job, there History Channel! Let's have an historical revisionist make a series about history. The foundation of our society and our laws? Seriously? How many times do we have to go over this?
(http://wwwirritant.blogspot.com/2009/04/historical-revisionists.html)
The production features special effects depicting miracles such as Moses parting the Red Sea, Jesus walking on water, and Daniel with the lions. Burnett said the goal of not only the special effects but the music was to help create a work that will still be popular decades later.
So, this is going to be a literal depiction of the Bible, floods, talking snakes and all, and it's going to be presented as History.
I'm not saying there isn't history in the Bible. I know Herod the Great was an actual historical person (although not all that great from what I hear). I think Nebuchadnezzar was a real person, and I have no doubt that there was a First Century rabbi named Jesus of Nazareth who attracted a large following and was executed by the Romans because, from what I understand, Pontius Pilate would crucify you as soon as look at you, especially if you seemed like you might be a threat to his grasp on power, but that's not what we're talking about here. They intend to portray Moses as a man who parted the Red Sea by the power of Jaweh, and Jesus as a man who walked on water and that's fine if the show is going to be on CBN, but not the History Channel.
Although, now that I think about it. . .
Evangelical Christians are already praising the film.Of course, they haven't seen it, but that's never stopped them from having an opinion about a movie or TV show.
While film and television may not be an industry synonymous with religion and faith, Burnett said they can definitely be inspirational vehicles.
“We've met so many people who have made their introduction to faith from movies.
Wow, really? This is really a thing that happens? Someone watched "The 10 Commandments" on TV and was inspired to join Christianity? Is that a thing that happens? Somebody rented "Battlefield Earth" and became a Scientologist? Or became Jewish after watching "Yentl?"
“If you're going to step up and make a 10-hour series on the Bible, it needs to be able to go around the world and stand the test of time for the next 50 years. Just as we are still watching ‘The Ten Commandments’ on television, hopefully people will still be watching this in 50 years’ time,” Burnett said.
Yes, I'm sure they will. I'm sure that a Mark Burnett production will have the same staying power as one of the greatest Cecil B. DeMille epics. I'm sure that's exactly what's going to happen.
Thou shalt not even dream of it, loser!
Sometimes There's Good News
'Girls Gone Wild' Files for Bankruptcy
Among the four largest creditors that were listed, the largest was $10.3 million in disputed debt with Wynn Las Vegas. The dispute stems from a $2 million gambling debt Francis incurred during a trip to the resort in Feb. 2007, according to court papers.
Last year, a judgment of $7.5 million was given to the hotel for defamation "stemming from Francis's public attack falsely accusing Wynn of deceiving customers," according to the lawsuit filed by the resort. In September, a jury awarded Wynn another $20 million for punitive damages for slander.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Everything That's Wrong With American Culture in One Headline
Brandi Glanville's Dad Said Her Oscar Dress Showed "Way Too Much Boob"
Us Weekly – Tue, Feb 26, 2013 12:40 PM PSTOh, my God, so many, many things wrong here.
First: There is a headline about a person named "Brandi Glanville" and the name is just plopped in there like the US Weekly people just assume that you know who she is. Apparently, she is one of the loathsome "Real Housewives of some place or other," one of those despicable people who agree to act like drunken louts in front of TV cameras in exchange for being treated as tough they had accomplished something. And for some reason, this repugnant person is walking the red carpet at the Oscars. The Oscars!
Granted, the Oscars have lots of problems, they're certainly bloated, overlong, self-congratulatory and boring as fuck, but they do still reward people who have reached some pinnacle of artistic achievement. How did a "real Housewife" get invited to the proceedings? Who knows? Well, probably a lot of people do, but I don't and I'm certainly not willing to invest the time to find out.
Secondly, Did someone really ask her father to comment on his daughter's bosoms? And instead of responding with "How dare you, sir? I will bid you good day! I Said Good Day!" this creep answered the question? "Yeah, I thought my daughter's boobs were a little over the top!" Apparently, attention-whore disorder runs in the family.
Okay, I made the mistake of reading a bit of the article, and it turns out that no one asked ol' dad about his daughter's breasts. He just decided to volunteer the information. On Twitter.
Now, he could have taken his daughter aside and said "Dear, don't you think that dress might be a bit too revealing?" or some such thing, but that would be stupid when you could just post that shit on Twitter so everyone can see!
And she proudly re-tweeted his message because obviously her "fans" are going to want to know what her dad thinks about her tits! Because our pop culture is irredeemably fucked up.
I imagine that when this tweet hit the tweeterverse, Jesus looked over at his father and asked "This? This is what you wanted me to save? For this I left Heaven?" and then they both wept.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Fuckin Texas, Man
Texas bans shooting immigrants from helicopters
This would seem to be the sort of thing that one would not have to bother banning because who would just open fire on people from a helicopter?
A hot-air balloon, sure. But a helicopter?
back in Oct, 2012.
A Texas state trooper who fired on a pickup truck from a helicopter during a deadly chase through the desert was trying to disable the vehicle and suspected it was being used to smuggle drugs, authorities said Friday.
The disclosure came a day after the incident left two illegal immigrants from Guatemala dead on an isolated gravel road near the town of La Joya, just north of the Mexico border.
I suppose this is probably why they felt like they needed to ban this practice.
While announcing the new policy, Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw insisted that the ban on aerial shootings had nothing to do with the October 2012 death of two Guatemalan immigrants, who were gunned down by troopers in helicopter while they were hiding in the back of a speeding pickup truck near La Joya.
Oh, right. It's Texas!
If they said that this new policy was a response to these two deaths, that would be a little too close to admitting that they were wrong. And admitting you're wrong is the first step on the slippery slope to apologizing. And in Te4xas, they live by the rule set forth by John Wayne's character in "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon,"
Never apologize! It's a sign of weakness!
“I’m convinced that now, from a helicopter platform, that we shouldn’t shoot unless being shot at, or unless someone is being shot at,” McCraw told the state House Committee on Appropriations.
Wait, what? Up 'til now, you didn't even have to be getting shot at to shoot someone from a helicopter? No one needed to be getting shot at? You could just shoot someone from a helicopter if, what, they looked suspicious? (Guatemalan)
Apparently! Because they are finding no fault whatsoever with last October's shooting.
“Last Friday, after a review of the policy and looking at all of the different things, and this is not a reflection of what happened there, I’m a firm believer they did exactly what they thought they needed to do.”
If you think that what you need to do when someone is speeding and might possibly have some sort of contraband in the back of the truck is to open fire, maybe your thought process is a bit flawed. Maybe you shouldn't be in a position of responsibility with the ability to make life-and-death decisions.
Granted, I'm no expert on law-enforcement techniques, but someone did ask a guy who is:
An expert on police chases said the decision to fire on the truck was "a reckless act" that served "no legitimate law enforcement purpose."
In 25 years following police pursuits, I hadn't seen a situation where an officer shot a speeding vehicle from a helicopter," said Geoffrey Alpert, professor of criminology at the University of South Carolina.
I know, but I'm lazy.
Such action would be reasonable only if "you know for sure the person driving the car deserves to die and that there are no other occupants."
In general, he said, law enforcement agencies allow the use of deadly force only when the car is being used as a weapon, not "just on a hunch," Alpert added
Well, that sort of wimpy soft-on-crime attitude might play in hippie South Carolina, but this is Texas, man! Fuckin' Texas!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)