Apparently, this week's host had taken some rather anti-American stances in his descriptions of the posts, including a post by Zendo Deb at TFS Magnum. The host, "Dr. Zen", wrote:
Not satisfied with being shot when they venture overseas, Americans like to shoot each other. Zendo Deb at TFS Magnum sure likes the notion. She is angry that those filthy liberals think the law is something to be respected. Apparently, this old geezer was arrested for concealing a weapon, which he used to shoot and kill an assailant. Deb asks what the old man should have done. Well, Deb, he should have just given the kids his money and rung the coppers. So he loses his wallet. Never mind. Get the criminal compensation board to pay him back what he lost. Don't have one? You would if you were a liberal. Human lives will never be worth as little as the contents of your wallet, Deb, not in any place Dr Zen has even the smallest say. I don't care who does the shooting, you or the mugger. The old guy should get life for murder, pure and simple, and idiots like you should cool your boots and learn what really has value in this life.
Obviously, Dr. Zeb missed the point completely, because the old man wasn't saying "My wallet is worth your life." The robbers attacked a 64-year-old man. They had a gun. As far as he knew, they were telling him that his wallet was worth his life. They were telling him his life was worth less to them than his wallet, and as soon as the threat (on his life, not his wallet) was there, he had every right to send each and every one of them to the hospital or the grave.
Kevin put some emphasis on the assertion that the old guy should get life for murder; the part that caught my eye was the fact that the old man should've just given up his money and gotten his money back from the "Criminal Compensation Board." My initial response? "The what?!"
The context seemed to imply that it was a governmental organization that would pay citizens for the losses they suffer due to crime, but that seemed simply ludicrous. I mean, it's bad enough that honest people have to work to earn money to support those people who won't work for their money (and we all know that the welfare system has more than its share of deadbeats; it doesn't just help those who're in dire straits due to some tragic event and just need a small boost to get back on their feet), but to support people who commit crimes for a living?! If the government encourages Mr. X to give his money to the criminals without protest, and the government refunds Mr. X, then the government is merely using Mr. X as a courier to pay the criminals! I knew there was no such thing here (yet), but surely no other country was that insane, right?
Still, lots of people believe some absurd things, so I figured I'd check up on it. (Google, as Kevin points out in another post, is a wonderful thing.)
Turns out, the Criminal Compensation Board is a government organization that provides victims with money. The perpetrator has to pay, which makes sense. That sounds good, doesn't it? "If you have been a victim of crime then you are likely to suffer trauma, confusion and distress, at least in the immediate aftermath of the incident. However, it is also important to remember that you have rights and may be eligible for compensation from the perpetrator of the crime..." Unfortunately, the sentence doesn't end there. "...or from the government."
More:
You can also apply to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) for compensation, although this option is only available to victims of crimes of violence. The CICA came into existence as the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in 1964, taking on its present form in 1996. It handles about 80,000 cases and pays out about £200 million in compensation annually.
200 million pounds! 200 million pounds extorted from law-abiding citizens to make up for the fact that other people committed violent crimes! At the very best, all this does is distribute individual's losses due to crime to everyone else -- it doesn't solve anything
Of course, that makes a little more sense if the government was responsible for your protection, but it isn't, and indeed, it can't be. The fact of the matter is, the old man in Zendo Deb's story did something more important than protect his own wallet. He did something more important, in my mind, than saving his own life. He helped to protect society. Every time the government in England tells its people to lie down and take it, it encourages them to become victims. This old man and those like him who are willing to defend themselves are, by contrast, helping to make our society a more stable one by discouraging violence. I don't know about you, but I'm a hell of a lot less likely to try robbing someone if he might fight back.
We don't have a "Criminal Compensation Board" here, but that's because we don't need it. Our government doesn't yet find itself in a position where it must either admit that its policies that were intended to reduce crime are actually encouraging it or pay off the victims so they don't look too closely at the system. We may be moving toward that place, as the Wisconsin case shows, but we're not there yet.
]]>He is proud to serve, and we are proud beyond words of him and his sacrifices. And we are ashamed that you, as a US Senator and would-be president (that'll be the day), would be soliciting military families to give you sound bites for your personal political gain.Shame on you, you pathetic vulture. Release your Form 180.
One of my cousins works a couple of blocks from me, and every once in a while, we have lunch together. If we walk to the mall on a Friday, there are usually protesters outside, holding up a set of signs that list those soldiers who've died in the "invasion and occupation" of Iraq. Those signs drive me mad.
My cousin either doesn't get it, or his tolerance for that kind of disrespect is much higher than mine. Every time I see these people, I tell myself that I'm going to go home and look for stories of people who died heroically in Iraq, knowing that they were fighting for the liberation of the Iraqi people and for the safety of the American people they'd sworn to protect. I want to find one of those names on those signs, and I want to demand that those protesters explain how they can use the noble death of a hero to argue against he cause he willingly risked (and tragically lost) his life for.
To my shame, I haven't yet done that. I can't decide if that's because I've grown weary of trying to use facts to penetrate the skulls of the chronically stupid, or if it's because I'm afraid of the confrontation that would ensue. Tragically, I fear it may be the latter.
]]>Since my reviews will, undoubtedly, contain spoilers, I'm putting them "below the fold", in the extended entry. I'll put the score (on a scale of 1-10) in the list of comics for the week, so if you're really uptight about spoilers, you may just want to read that and then move on.
(Those issues without links on the list don't have full reviews; you'll have to settle for just the score. Sorry; I didn't have that much to say about those two books, despite enjoying them.)
]]> This week's haul:Batman: Legends of the Dark Knight #190
Mr. Freeze is committing a set of robberies that bear little resemblance to his normal M.O. Batman investigates.
I collect all the Batman comics, but they're usually the last things I read each week, and I'm usually very disappointed. I really enjoyed this one, though. I like Mr. Freeze fairly well, and the idea that he's finally giving up hope on reviving his wife (that is what he's doing, isn't it?) makes his motivation very understandable. In fact, I wondered, for a little while, why Batman was interfering at all (then I remembered that there was the small matter of the stolen items that Freeze was planning to be frozen with). I'm not clear on whether Freeze is planning to kill himself (he's a scientist, and I can't see him packing these items for the afterlife) or whether he's developed a system that will allow him to cryogenically freeze himself as well as his wife in hopes of seeing her revived.
This is a fun little Batman story, and I give it 7/10.
As one of their own mutates into something... else, Detectives Montoya and Kelly go to Keystone City in hopes of getting help from the Rogue responsible, Doctor Alchemy.
I'm enjoying this storyline immensely. The Gotham detectives, as good as they are, aren't really equipped to deal with the Flash's Rogues. They know they can't trust Alchemy, but they don't feel they have a choice, and predictably, it goes poorly for them.
There's only one page in the whole issue not devoted to the main plot, but it's a doozy. Montoya's father, who hasn't really spoken to her since she was "outed" a while back, stops by her apartment and meets Daria Hernandez, his daughter's girlfriend, who tells him his daughter's out of town and then invites him in for a little while. While the main plot of the book is the reason I buy it, I have to confess to being concerned about this storyline as well. I've always liked Montoya, and the rift between her and her family bothers me.
The last page sets up what should prove to be a good conclusion to this story, as Batman and the Gotham City PD face off with Doctor Alchemy and whatever he's turned Officer Kelly into. For the first time since I've been collecting this book, I honestly can't wait for the next issue. 8 out of 10.
Drakon's back, and he's kidnapped Arsenal. The Outsiders arrive to help Green Arrow retrieve his former sidekick.
I wasn't so sure about the last page. First, didn't GA just have a run-in with the Riddler? Also, if it hadn't been for the riddle left for GA, I would never have recognized Nygma on the last page. I kind of understand why DC would want to move away from the green costume, but couldn't they have given us something to know who he was from the art?
Anyway, that quibble aside, this had a fun little fight between Arsenal and Drakon, some nice emotional bits with the Green Arrows (is Connor still using the name?), and the appearance of the real Nightwing (the one we so seldom get to see in his own book). I give it a solid 7/10.
Marvel Knights: Spider-Man #13
I'm the first person to admit that my hatred of Wolverine probably went a long way toward earning this comic its poor rating. I think he's incredibly overrated, and with the exception of Daredevil, there's not a person on the new Avengers team who couldn't kick Wolverine's behind with both hands and one foot tied behind their backs.
So, how is it, in Spider-Man's own title, Wolverine gets to not only snap Spider-Man's webbing like it was Silly String, but he gets to completely override Spidey's spider-sense and stab a hero who's a hell of a lot faster and stronger than him?
I know there was more to this book than that, but most of it didn't hold my attention all that well - there's a Clark Kent analogue working at the Bugle with Peter, who's out of a job for the summer months; Peter's living in Stark Tower (which should do wonders for his secret identity, don'tcha think?), and he's testy about the fact that Jarvis and Logan have dropped by for a visit; The Absorbing Man's escaped; Logan's apparently flirting with MJ, and Peter's jealous. (Never mind that it's probably the man who owns the building that he should be worried about, not the "hairy midget," as MJ put it.) The quip about Scott Summers did bring a smile to my face, but it's the only thing in the book that came near to doing so, so the 1 out of 10 rating seems pretty fitting, to my mind.
The cover of this issue seems to say that Nightwing will finally be moving "From the Shadow of the Bat," but as every comics fan should know, Dick Grayson moved out from Batman's shadow when he became Nightwing in the first place. Granted, the trend in the Bat-books of late has been to portray Nightwing more like a rebellious son who was struggling to make his own way apart from his "father", but I still prefer to think of their relationship as having progressed beyond that. Dick has grown up, and while I don't expect that he and Bruce should have a close, chummy relationship (simply because that's not really what Bruce's personality would allow him to have), I hate the animosity that seems to fill the scenes where the two of them are together.
Still, cover aside, this book has next-to-nothing to do with stepping out of Batman's shadow. Dick's working (and living?) with a mobster, and has started working as the guy's enforcer, despite his injury from the recent gang war in Gotham City. The story told here isn't much; we get a small glimpse into the mobster's family, and Dick beats a guy up in front of his girlfriend and her daughter.
The story isn't impressive, and a one-panel reminder of the Blockbuster murder doesn't help any. Combine that with a couple of annoying references to the tension between Batman and Nightwing (Dick saying he belongs "here" more than he did in Gotham, and an implication that he doesn't think Bruce is proud of him), and I have to give this one a 4 out of 10.
Not much to write about here -- this is basically just a filler issue. There's a brief profile of each of the characters, and some truly horrific art on the non-profile pages. Captain Marvel has taken the name Photon. The off-hand remark last issue wasn't a joke; he's taken Monica's name again. One of the members leaves the team because of Abe's involvement with Strucker in the previous issues.
This isn't a bad issue (except for the art, outside of the profile pages), but it's not a particularly good one, either, so it gets a 5 out of 10.
I wasn't a huge fan of the original Ultimates series, and I wasn't particularly keen on the "Trial of Bruce Banner" arc in this one. This newest arc, though, dealing with the nature of the Ultimate version of Thor, though, is more entertaining than I would've thought possible.
The team has learned that Thor is the result of a foreign country's version of the Super-Soldier project, and that he's gone insane and must be stopped. He insists that it's all a lie; his brother, Loki, has manipulated reality, and he really is the Thunder God. It's all done very well, and leaves just enough doubt that we can't be certain which explanation is the truth (though I'm leaning toward the manipulations of Loki).
There are a few chaotic moments during the fight, and the relationship between Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch leaves me more than a little uneasy, but this is the best of the issues I've read so far (at this point, though, I've still not read any of the first five books on the list above). 7 out of 10.
Professor Xavier learns that the Hellfire Club has taken steps to freeze his assets, and while he's at the bank dealing with that issue, a pair of mutant conjoined twins calling themselves "Syndicate" attempts to rob the bank.
This issue isn't a bad one, as a whole; it's interesting to see Professor X try to resolve a situation where he can't simply take control of the person in question. If not for the fact that the last page makes the Professor seem a little megalomaniacal, I'd probably have given it a better score. 6 out of 10.
]]>The movie tells a few separate stories about Basin City and its inhabitants, and is, all in all, an excellent film. I've read that it breaks several "rules" for a successful movie, but it breaks them well, which excuses the rule breaking.
The movie is in black and white. There is some considerable amount of gore. There are voiceover narrations, which may annoy some people (though, I can't imagine why; I like the voiceovers). If those things are going to bother you to the point where you can't simply sit back and enjoy the movie, then you're probably better off not going.
Otherwise, it's an excellent movie, and one that I think would definitely be better if seen while it's still in theaters. If you haven't seen it, go.
]]>As Brent asks in the first panel, isn't it the parent's job to teach their kids that cookies are a "sometimes food"?
]]>Since the user fee went into effect, I've been mildly annoyed. Sure, $1 isn't much, and even the accumulated $52 per year isn't likely to make me go broke any time soon, but I'm being taxed by the city government of a city in which I don't live and can't vote. Still, it's less than the price of a comic book every two weeks, so it's not worth getting worked up over.
I heard on the news this morning, though, that the State Supreme Court is expected to rule on the legality of the fee. A lawyer who was arguing that it was illegal explained why. The "taxation without representation" argument struck a chord with me. The argument that the tax is illegal because everyone pays the same amount did not. You see, if every Charleston worker pays the exact same amount, then the poor are spending a higher percentage of their income to pay this tax, and it's an unfair burden on them.
I wonder if he'd be making the same argument against a progressive tax, which places an unfair burden on those who earn more than minimum wage?
Anyway, that's not the point. The point is, I did my taxes last night, and I owe money. Not much money, mind, but it's the principle of the thing.
My sister, who recently graduated as an accountant and is making her living doing taxes for people, just happened to call as I was wrapping things up, and I'm afraid she caught the brunt of the emotion that I was directing at the entire idea of taxes. (And, of course, complaining that the government was taking my money that I'd worked for branched into a complaint about the ways it's being spent, which became a rant on politics, at which point she shut me up.)
Of course, throughout the year, part of my paycheck is taken away from me and sent to the government. That, though, is almost entirely transparent. Sure, there's a little number on my paycheck that tells me how much was taken from me in order to fund things like an internet study (Thanks to Rob for that link.) that took so long to finish that it's utterly useless, but that number is virtually meaningless to me, because I never see the money. In addition, it's a much smaller number than the real amount that the government steals, because we pretend that the other half is paid "by my employer," which is only true in the same sense that a five-year-old child "pays" for the groceries if they happen to be the one who gives the money to the cashier. Transparent taxes annoy me, but it's nothing like the feeling I get when I actually SEE the money and then it has to be sent to the government.
Of course, I know that taxes are necessary in order to fund the government's operations, but I don't think they need to be nearly as high as they are, and I wish we could move to a system more like the one described by the FairTax proposal.
I'm done ranting now. We now return you to your regularly scheduled internet surfing.
]]>That's not to mention the drivers. Apparently, all cars registered in North Carolina must have their turn signals removed in order to pass inspection. Either that, or not one person who lives there (this may or may not include all of my family, but it does apply to at least one of them) knows what those little blinking lights are supposed to signify. After getting slightly annoyed, I started paying attention. Every time I saw a turn signal activated, the car had an out-of-state tag. Changing Lanes? No signals from North Carolinians. Turning off onto another road? No signals. Making a freakin' U-turn in the Interstate on-ramp while several other people are trying to get on the Interstate? No signal.
I'm home again now, and if my trip to North Carolina is indicative of how future travels will go, I'm never leaving West Virginia again.
]]>I discovered My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy today through Hog On Ice. If half the things that Beth says in her Schiavo category are true, then there are some definite aspects to this case that need a closer look.
Steve H. at Hog on Ice wrote a lengthy post, "The View from the Front of the Bus", about the situation. While the whole post is interesting (especially the parts about the 'culture of death' in hospitals), the part that caught my eye was this:
That being said, there are many, many people out there to whom the marriage bond means much less than it does to me. These days, you marry someone you think you'll enjoy "hanging out with," and when it's not fun any more, you move on, because hey, you've got to look out for Number One. If Michael Schiavo sees marriage this way, he clearly has no business running his wife's life, and her parents should be in charge.
I'm curious how much of a husband you can consider a man who's got a long-term girlfriend and a couple of kids by said girlfriend. (I've seen that some people have suspicions that she was his girlfriend even before Terri was in this state, but I don't know one way or the other on that.) Unless they had an open marriage, I'm not sure why anyone would consider him her 'husband' any longer (Except, of course, that marriage as a term is meaningless if you try to define it using words like "love" or "commitment" in today's society; it's strictly a legal term to most people.)
I've been accused of being a Puritan, and I have a dear friend who calls me a "crazy Fundy", so maybe my take on this is a little bit off, but would it have been so hard for him to either stay true to his vows or divorce his brain dead wife? I know, I know: How could I ever dare to say that this man didn't have the right to move on, seeing as how his wife has been incapable of fulfilling his sexual or emotional needs? I'm not honestly looking too harshly on him and his new girlfriend; I'm just wondering why the husband who's replaced her in his life is considered a bigger expert on what she'd want.
I know that Terri's case is a contentious one, but I hope that everyone could agree on two things:
Let's suppose, first, that Michael Schiavo's version of the story is true. His wife has been dead for fifteen years now. Her family, tragically, is clinging to something that used to belong to her and treating it as though it is her.
What if they're right, and Terri is alive, and at least partially aware. She shows signs of recognizing those around her. She tries (and fails) to communicate. Whether her mind is truly human anymore, or if the brain damage has reduced her to something less, the cage that her body has become would be torturous. Especially if, as some of the proponents of letting her live claim, she could be helped by physical therapy but has been denied it for fifteen years.
If you fail to see the tragedy in either of those two situations, well, you're lucky that we live in a society that, thus far, doesn't encourage the execution of the less-than-human; being emotionally crippled is just as dehumanizing as anything Terri Schiavo's gone through. (Though, I suspect the emotionally crippled would be the ones running the executions of the less fortunate, so you'd probably be okay.)
There are those on both sides of this debate who act as though it's a simple dilemma. Either you should always aim for life, no matter the quality of that life, or you should let her go, period, no further discussion or thought necessary. Unfortunately for those people, whichever side they're on, the world isn't black and white. That doesn't mean we just pick whatever we want to be the "right thing", but sometimes finding the lightest shade of gray in the picture takes some time and thought. If they're not capable of giving either, then they should just step aside and let others get the chance to speak.
According to Michael, this has gotten him thousands of new visitors. I can't compete with that, I'm afraid, but I've noticed an upswing in my traffic since I mentioned Warner Brothers' plan to recreate Bugs Bunny and friends as the Lunatics on the WB. My current top 10 search strings:
I'm really surprised I didn't get more hits off that last one (or the post before it, which mentioned sex toys), but I probably shouldn't be. The competition for links in those topics is probably a lot fiercer than for the Lunatics (or even Mario Vasquez).
Anyway, it's obvious that my search numbers aren't as impressive as Michael's. If we add all of those Lunatic numbers together, I still only get 78 hits from it (80 if you count the other listing further down the list). So, mentioning the Lunatics isn't going to push you up into being an A-list blogger. Heck, it won't even make you a B- or C- list blogger. If you're like me, though, and you'd be content with just a handful of readers, mentioning the Lunatics travesty might just get you there.
]]>As I've said in the past, I usually agree with the staff of the local "independent" newspaper, the Clay County Communicator (and the associated website), on local issues. On national issues, though, I typically disagree vehemently.
Case in point, from their Current News page:
- March 15 pm Wedding Anniversaries are happy times. Anniversaries are for remembering good times, happy times. We've got a big anniversary coming this weekend but it's not a happr one.
- March 15 pm This Sunday makes two years in Iraq for the Coalition of the Killing, the USA. A year ago, President W said the hostility was over. He was wrong. The quagmire continues as the body count rises. There have been 1,687 coalition troop deaths, 1,514 Americans, 86 Britons, eight Bulgarians, one Dane, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Hungarian, 20 Italians, one Kazakh, one Latvian, 17 Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 17 Ukrainians in the war in Iraq as of March 14, 2005
- March 15 pm We were told Sadamn had nasty weapons of mass destruction tucked away all over the country just waiting to do America in. We now know, that was a lie. We're still there as occupiers. Our goal all along has been to gain control of the oil and payback Sadamn for trying to knock off King George the 1st. March 15 pm Our government started a policy of flying the wounded out of the war zone and landing them at hospital bases under the cover of darkness. The press is banned from taking pictures, witnessing the flights, or talking to the American heroes. To date, over 25,000 soldiers have been severely injured and removed from the sands of W's oil war.
- March 15 pm Our government keeps something else very quiet. Nearly 6000 soldiers have gone AWOL or not reported to duty. That info is held close to the chest for fear others may get an idea to use their brains.
- March 15 So dismal is the recruiting of new soldiers, our government has issued orders that soldiers must remain on duty well beyond their assignments. We call that, "stop loss" orders. Our government is calling up soldiers who long ago served their country and returned to civilian life. Now talk is to resurrect the draft of old. To take our high school seniors into harm's way.
- March 15 pm Two years into this unnecessary mess, mass media glazes over the stark reality of lies and cover up. To call this an anniversary, our English language is flawed.
Let's start at the top, shall we?
"This Sunday makes two years in Iraq for the Coalition of the Killing, the USA."
Is this supposed to indicate that the "Coalition of the Killing" only consists of the USA? If not, it's poorly worded. (If so, then it's blatantly wrong, as there are several other countries there.)
"A year ago, President W said the hostility was over. He was wrong."
I'm still looking for the text of these remarks, but as I recall, the President's speech had to do with the fact that Phase One of the campaign in Iraq was over, as we'd effectively toppled Saddam's regime. I don't remember any time when the President said that all hostilities were over -- every speech I can find from that time period on the war in Iraq says things like this:
There are still violent thugs and murderers in Iraq, and we're dealing with them. But no one can argue that the Iraqi people would be better off with the thugs and murderers back in the palaces. Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open? Who would wish that more mass graves were still being filled? Who would begrudge the Iraqi people their long-awaited liberation?
"We were told Sadamn had nasty weapons of mass destruction tucked away all over the country just waiting to do America in. We now know, that was a lie."
Do we? High ranking officials in Iraq have pointed out the systematic way that some weapons depots were looted, and there have been rumors that other nations may have helped Saddam get rid of his WMD supplies. Even assuming none of that is true, there were a number of politicians (Including Former President Clinton and Presidential candidate John Forbes Kerry) who stated publically that Iraq had WMDs. There may have been a failure in Intelligence, but that's not grounds for calling the President a Liar if he believed what he was saying was true.
"We're still there as occupiers."
Technically, we're there to assist in the rebuilding of Iraq after the violence involved in liberation.
"Our goal all along has been to gain control of the oil and payback Sadamn for trying to knock off King George the 1st."
If the goal is to gain control of the oil, then I'm looking forward to the release of the invoices that show that we've paid the Iraqis anything less than fair market value for their oil. If all we wanted was cheap oil, there are a myriad of much easier ways to get it. As a cost-benefit analysis will show, getting this oil through the Iraqi war is a pretty damned inefficient way of going about it.
As for the attempted murder of a former leader, yes, Saddam's violations of cease fire agreements from the early nineties did contribute to our destruction of his regime in Iraq, and in fact, the multiple violations of those agreements was one of the reasons given for the invasion.
"Our government started a policy of flying the wounded out of the war zone and landing them at hospital bases under the cover of darkness. The press is banned from taking pictures, witnessing the flights, or talking to the American heroes. To date, over 25,000 soldiers have been severely injured and removed from the sands of W's oil war."
And the press should have the right to invade their privacy and harass them while they're recovering. Obviously, that's the stance of Claywestvirginia.com.
"Our government keeps something else very quiet. Nearly 6000 soldiers have gone AWOL or not reported to duty. That info is held close to the chest for fear others may get an idea to use their brains. "
Are there more deserters in this war than in previous wars? Is the 6,000 AWOL an extremely high number of AWOL soldiers? I don't know the stats, but without that information, it's hard to know what this number means. "...others may get an idea to use their brains?" Is the Communicator implying that smart soldiers are the ones breaking the agreements that they signed when they entered the service? That they should get all the benefits of being paid by the citizens of these United States, but when they don't like the services they're expected to perform in exchange for those benefits, they should cut and run?
"So dismal is the recruiting of new soldiers, our government has issued orders that soldiers must remain on duty well beyond their assignments. We call that, 'stop loss' orders. Our government is calling up soldiers who long ago served their country and returned to civilian life."
Unless the government has broken the terms of the original agreement with these soldiers, I can't help but think this is a non-story.
"Now talk is to resurrect the draft of old. To take our high school seniors into harm's way."
The only talk I've heard of resurrecting the draft was from Democrats, as a scare tactic. I welcome links to any serious proposals having been put forth by the government after November 2nd.
]]>Wonderfalls stars Caroline Dhavernas as Jaye Tyler, a young woman who is plagued by inanimate objects that tell her what to do. Hearing the shows premise, I was intrigued, but not entirely sold. I mean, only four episodes of the show ever aired on television. There had to be a reason it was cancelled, right?
Still, the show has a connection to Firefly (another show unjustly cancelled by Fox) and Angel in its executive producer, Tim Minear, and the box set had nine unaired episodes on it (The words "Unaired Episodes" are a very big draw for me on DVD box sets), so I figured I'd give it a shot.
I'm very glad I did. The show is wonderfully quirky, and the thirteen episodes tell a pretty solid story, even if there are a few loose ends that I wish had been covered. All in all, this box set is worth every penny (but, to be fair, I would have said that if only for the four episodes that Jewel Staite is in...).
I'm sorry that the show didn't get better ratings when it was on the air, but I'd rather have these thirteen episodes with a complete story than have had it run a little longer and be less self-contained.
]]>I've never been a huge baseball fan, and my attitude toward the sport now is complete apathy. Still, there's a part of me that doesn't remember the year 1986 fondly for the sport of baseball, as it's the only time that I got to see "my" team, the New York Mets, win the Series. (They won in the late sixties, too, as I recall (1969?), but I wasn't quite around to see that one.)
(And, yes, this post is an indicator that my writer's block is still around.)
]]>Since I'm blocked, I'll just share this page with you. A friend of mine is going to Ireland, and would appreciate any help she can get to cover expenses. I told her I'd mention it here, but since my readership is, well, nonexistent, I don't really expect it to help her much.
Just in case my readership should grow dramatically, though, there's the link. Also, I'm getting tired of the bare walls in my office, and I'm thinking of buying some movie posters to decorate it. Right now, I definitely want Casablanca, and I'm very tempted by Back to the Future. I may hold out for Serenity, though, instead of BttF. If anyone has any other suggestions, though, I'm willing to listen.
]]>