Uncategorized
The One All About the Glorious Stephen Fry
Jan 31st
I was reading some British news stories, and I saw a 2010 BAFTA speech from Stephen Fry where he went on to attack Dr. Who as not a show for adults.
I then found some commentary written on the issue where someone agreed with Fry.
And while we’re at it, let’s toss in an episode of QI featuring Jeremy Clarkson and the Bible.
Rude Awakening (Showtime Series) w/ Tim Curry
Jan 31st
I actually forgot Tim Curry was ever in this show, let alone in a bunch of episodes…this guy has uploaded a number of episodes featuring Curry. Now, if we can just get someone to upload the rest of them, as the torrents are all unseeded at this point.
ZO2 (NY Daily News Profile)
Aug 4th
NY Daily News has a nice profile on the band ZO2 from the IFC series, Z ROCK. Yes, they’re an actual band, and yes they (used to) do kids CDs as well to make a living. The series is on IFC every Sunday night…check it out- it’s raunchy hilarity.
Check out the Brooklyn-based band’s NY Daily News profile here.
The boys from ZO2- starring in ZROCk on IFC
Tony Shalhoub Interview (Final Season of Monk Starts Aug 7)
Jul 29th
UPDATE: Check out the full transcript from this interview in my new post!
Tony Shalhoub was nice enough to sit down with several media outlets yesterday to talk about Monk and the upcoming 8th and final season. The transcript will be posted here soon. Until then, I will mention a few things he brought up during the call.
Tony was asked about the new season and which characters we would see return from past seasons. The one that has made the biggest news is Sharona (Monk’s first assistant, played by Bitty Schram), who left after season 2. She will return, and we will get some wrap up there with her character.
He’s fairly certain we won’t see Ambrose again, as Turturro’s schedule is just too hectic for him to make it back in for shooting. We will, of course, see Dr. Bell and the always annoying Harold Crenshaw (whom Monk has a seemingly neverending feud with).
All the big mysteries of the series WILL be revealed, including the death of Monk’s late wife, Trudy, who was killed in a parking garage explosion while working on a story for the newspaper she wrote for. Asked if it he always thought they would have to reveal the mysteries or leave it to the viewer to decide, Shalhoub said that the audience was definitely owed the answers, and that they would have all of them by series’ end.
Speaking of wrapping plotlines up, Tony talked about the final season, explaining that the first 11 episodes would be regular stand alone stories, and the final 5 would take care of the wrap up, including the last 2 episodes- these two will make up one story played as a 2 parter. In these 2, we will learn what happened to Trudy- the case that Monk could never resolve but finally will.
Shalhoub and Tucci in BIG NIGHT
Shaloub was asked about his most memorable moment filming Monk, and he said that it would have to be a scene in the episode with Stanley Tucci. Tucci’s character reaches part of the way around Monk, and Tony said it reminded him of working on Big Night with Tucci several years earlier, so that definitely had an impact on him. Especially considering that Big Night really allowed Shalhoub’s career to take off.
Tony explained that he had several long discussions with Monk creator and head writer, Andy Breckman, and Andy thought he may only have had 6 seasons in him. It turned out he had 8, but they all want to move on and resolve the mysteries, and they definitely want to go out on a high. Asked if, a few years down the road, another network might try to revive Monk, would he return, Shalhoub said that he never says “never,” but he doubts it. He definitely doesn’t see himself doing any TV movies with Monk like Peter Faulk did with Columbo, and he hopes that he will be swamped with other, new work to even be able to fit much of it into his schedule. Again, though, never say never.
Look for season 8 to include an episode titled Mr. Monk Is Someone Else, where Adrian finds himself dealing with a case of a Monk doppleganger. Turns out that the Monk lookalike is actually a hitman, and Monk has to take on his persona, go undercover, and solve the case in disguise.
Look for this season to include guest stars galore including Jay Mohr, Elizabeth Perkins, Meatloaf and others!
Check out USA Network’s MONK page for videos, photos, and behind the scenes information!
![\"Posted](\"http://www.shozu.com/resources/messages/logo_blog.gif\"){kind=logo}
Stupid Darwinian Explanation on Why We’d Rather Follow “Gossip” Over “Substance”
Aug 25th
The Washington Post has an article today regarding an evolutionary psychology explanation as to why Amerians are usually more interested in “fluff” rather than “substance.”
As they set up the scenario:
Scandal A: A prominent politician gets caught sleeping with a campaign aide and plunges himself into an ugly paternity dispute — all while his cancer-stricken wife is fighting for her life.
Scandal B: A prominent politician’s signature health-care plan turns out to have been put together badly, and he is forced to confess that the plan will cost taxpayers billions more than expected.
It’s a no-brainer which scandal is likely to catch — and keep — our attention. The interesting question as the presidential election heads into the homestretch is why we care more about some stories that do not affect us directly, even as we tune out other stories that do.
That’s interesting, except it doesn’t hold true at all. Scenario A is considered fluff and something that doesn’t affect us personally, while B is considered substance. They are both clearly substantive issues. It definitely affects us personally in what sort of person John Edwards is. His character clearly plays a pivotal role in sort of overall leader he is, the decisions he would make, etc. If he’d so easily cheat on his cancer-stricken wife, imagine what sort of decisions he’d make in the highest office in the land!
One explanation is that cultural mores attune us to certain stories — we live in an era where gossipy scandals rule. To test this, psychologist Hank Davis at the University of Guelph in Ontario examined hundreds of sensational stories on the front pages of newspapers in eight countries over a 300-year period, from 1701 to 2001.
Remarkably, he concluded that the themes of sensational news were identical not only across the centuries but also in diverse geographic locales — from the United States to Bangladesh, from Canada to Mauritius. The stories that editors put on the front pages of newspapers — presumably stories that interested readers — included headlines such as “Crocodiles Tear Apart Thai Suicide Woman.”
The stories were sometimes about important things and sometimes not, but they nearly always involved the kind of themes that people who are part of small groups like to know about one another: lying and cheating, altruism and heroism, loyalty and disloyalty.
Davis and other evolutionary psychologists argue that the reason John Edwards‘s adultery has more zing in our heads than a dry policy dispute that could cost taxpayers billions of dollars is that the human brain evolved in a period where there were significant survival advantages to finding out the secrets of others. Since humans lived in small groups, the things you learned about other people’s character could tell you whom to trust when you were in a tight spot.
“We are continuing to navigate through the modern world with a Stone Age mind,” Davis said.
In the Pleistocene era, he added, there was no survival value in being able to decipher a health-care initiative, but there was significant value in information about “who needs a favor, who is in a position to offer one, who is trustworthy, who is a liar, who is available sexually, who is under the protection of a jealous partner, who is likely to abandon a family, who poses a threat to us.”
Bologna. This theory assumes that the reason we’d rather discuss Edwards and his issue is because we love gossip and the stupid human brain hasn’t evolved to discuss important issues. That assumption seems completely wrong. I think the more likely assumption would be that people tend to discuss issues they can more easily understand, easily relate to others, and that are similar to things that have happened in their own lives.
Clearly, health care plans are massive, complicated, hard to understand, and hard to relate to others. This is almost definitely the reason that people would rather discuss Edwards cheating on his wife, as opposed to a complicated health care plan that is so obtuse that even those who originally put it together it don’t fully understand it. As for infidelity, it’s something most of us have had some contact with on some level. How many of us have created a health care plan for the nation? How many of us could even follow a health care plan that someone else created?
This theory also assumes that the human brain is relatively simple in the sense that it’s built to deal with problems that only arose 100, 000 years ago. Who says the human brain hasn’t changed since then? If this is true, and it has not changed since then, why would ANY of us create health care plans, let alone discuss, or want to discuss, them? Are those who find health care plans fascinating less evolved or more evolved than the rest of us?
I think both scenarios above are full of substance, and neither are fluff. Character is important even if we never come into contact with the president personally. Why they think that because we’ll never meet the president in person that character is somehow unimportant, I’ve no idea…it doesn’t stand to reason though. Character is vital either way. John Kerry’s activities in Vietnam aren’t fluff, they played a key role in how we thought he would make decisions, how he worked with others, and if he was trustworthy or not- not only on a personal level one-on-one, but to all of us who would need to trust him as our leader in tough times.
Darwinism can explain everything, it seems. It just seems the explanations make no sense at all.
Obama’s Ego: A Different Take on His 143 Days of Experience
Aug 4th
Republicans keep bringing up the fact that Barack Obama had a mere 143 days in the US Senate before he decided to run for the presidency. Now, a lot of people have asked the question, “are 143 days enough experience to lead the nation?” That’s a fair question. It’s actually a very fair question. Experience is an important part of the picture. 143 days in the senate is a very short time. Serving in the Illinois state senate a bit longer than that doesn’t even add much experience to the game.
But…
My question is more about Obama’s ego. It seems an odd thing to enter the US Senate, serve for 143 days, then decide- ‘ya know what, I’m ready for the big time. I want to lead the free world now.’ One, it says a lot about Obama’s character. Many have mentioned Rev Wright and have defended Barack against charges of being an anti-American racist by declaring that he only got close to Wright, because that’s what you do in southside Chicago politics. You don’t have a chance of winning a thing unless you cultivate these necessary relationships. I still argue Obama is a racist, and no sane person who doesn’t harbor deep racism could sit in Wright’s pews for 20 years, but let’s argue that he did do it for political gain as most theorize.
That tells me that Obama is crafting an image. An image that is, from what can tell, partially manufactured and phony. That doesn’t sit well with me at all. It also tells us that Obama has a very big ego. That sort of goes along with the territory of public office, but Barack seems to have an especially inflated ego.
The decision to run for senate after a mere 143 days specifically tells me that Barack has a massive ego. He did promise to fulfill his senate term, which he can’t possibly do if he becomes president. It takes a big ego to blatantly lie to your constituents. It takes a massive ego to go about the country and the world declaring that you were the anti-war candidate who always opposed the war, even tho you were never in the senate to face such a vote, so such claims are rather pointless in the overall scheme of things.
Barack, as his actions speak very loudly, never wanted to serve Illinois in the US Senate. The senate seat was merely a stepping stone in his quest to become The One. The leader of it all. The big cheese. The annointed one. Afterall, he is The One he’s been waiting for.
When you take the 143 short days into consideration, you really start to understand the messianic undertones in the campaign. Along with those pesky drooling cult-like fans of his. The campaign symbol of Barack leading us down a path to glory, the senator but a figure in the clouds, bigger than all of us. It all makes sense in light of his inexperience. Barack Obama truly is the biggest celebrity of them all. And we shall now bow our heads and pray…
The Death of Critical Thinking, Kid Lies to Bill O’Reilly on National TV
Jul 1st
Let’s face it- critical thinking is a rare commodity lately. Especially with young people, who often times seem to have no ability to think for themselves, merely taking the information handed to them by others, distorted, and served on a platter with a side of complete ignorance.
Here’s an example:
Now, the title of this video is “Bill O’Reilly Gets Owned By Kid.” Which would be fine and dandy, except the kid is caught in a lie…a lie that supports what O’Reilly said.
In regards to an event at a Boulder, Colorado high school where one of the speakers talked about maybe doing ecstasy with the students if he had some. Bill tells the kid that the speakers said: “If I had some ecstasy here, maybe I’d do it with you…I don’t know who ‘with you’ was.”
The kid replies, he didn’t say that at all, I actually have the quote right here. He never said anything about doingt ecstasy with any of the students.” Then when asked to quote the speaker, the kid says: “Even today there are psychiatrists who will do sessions under the influence, if I had someone, maybe I’d do it with somebody, but I don’t, ya know…”
Now, O’Reilly paraphrased the speaker and didn’t get the quote exactly right, but his point wasn’t the exact words, his point was that one of the speakers condoned the use of illegal drugs to a bunch of high school kids. And that’s precisely what he did! The kid, defending the speaker, keeps arguing that he never condoned drug use, but that it was a joke that was probably in poor taste. Clearly, the kid’s wrong and O’Reilly’s point stands. Making a joke about wanting to do drugs if you had some with you IS inherenly a condoning of drug use. Not only that, but it’s massively idiotic and irresponsible from an adult in front of a bunch of kids. This isn’t a George Carlin act in a comedy club, it’s a high school function.
Then, of course, the arrogant kid (who is being dishonest as he can possibly be) distorts a comment O’Reilly made in his book, The O’Reilly Factor for Kids. He says he finds it ironic, because “I think it’s ironic that you would point out condoning drug use, when in your own book, The O’Reilly Factor for Kids”, you liken a high school student, a model student, quote unquote toking on Saturday nights to a brain surgeon enjoying a martini while not on call.”
Wow, this kid really has him in a tight spot here, huh? That makes O’Reilly a massive hypocrite! But, wait…let’s use a little critical thinking here and find the page where the kid claims O’Reilly said smoking dope was like a brain surgeon enjoying a martini in his downtime. Unfortunately for the dishonest student, (already caught in the lie about the speaker) condoing drug use is nowhere to be found in the book. If you look at the page he mentioned, page 67, you get the following:
(CLICK PICTURE FOR LARGER VERSION)(Book found at Google Books here)
As you can see, Bill was speaking of drugs being a bad thing. That you might get some smart kids who do well in school who toke on the weekends, but that, in the long run, they’re probably going to pay the price for these poor decisions. Before this segment, O’Reilly was trying to make the point that all drugs are unsafe, but in the scheme of things some drugs are safER. That, however, doesn’t change the fact that you still shouldn’t do them, and for most kids it will wreck their lives…most kids won’t be able to be the brainy kids while smoking pot or doing any other drugs. So, no, this section of his book isn’t at all ironic in the context of making sure we don’t allow adults to condone drug use in front of kids.
This kid is clearly a bald-faced liar, and he shows that he not only has no respect for his elders, but he has zero respect for the truth itself. I bet his parents are proud. I do have to wonder what potential colleges think of his little charade here.
So, critical thinking allowed us to simply check google books to find that this kid was telling a whopper of a lie by completely distorting what O’Reilly wrote in his book for kids. If you come in with a planned attack that you know is dishonest, you can’t expect any part of your argument to be taken seriously…once you prove yourself dishonest, that’s going to be a hard thing to shake off. Critical thinking tells us that this kid, in no way, “owned” O’Reilly, but instead was shown to be dishonest himself.
Instead of heaping praise on him, most of those who commented on this video should take a page of the book of critical thinking. Sadly, this sort of lacking of independent thought is running rampant. People are, often times, too stupid or too lazy to actually get the facts for themselves.
XM Radio’s Deplorable Customer Service
Jun 20th
If you’re like me, and you love your XM radio, pray you never have an issue and have to call customer care. Wow. Horrible stuff. I called XM the other day to change my credit card number on my account. Simple enough. Might take 5 minutes. After going thru about 10, 000 options, finally getting a human on the other end of the phone, I gave the guy my new cc number and thought we were finished.
Wrong.
First off- why on earth do these companies have you input your phone number, account number, last 4 digits of your social security number, library card number, and every other piece of info. on earth…but then when a living breathing person gets on the phone, they ask you all of this again? Hell, they say hello to you and have no idea why you’re calling, except I just pushed 1 to let them know my call was from a current account holder, I pressed 2 to confirm my call was about billing, I pressed 5 to confirm I was changing my billing info, then some D-bag says “hi, can I get your name and acct. info? Okay, now that I have that, how may I help you today?” I assume most customer service is generally run by retards, set up by retards, and then the process is checked by retarded monkeys. It’s madening.
He immediately told me about every single plan they have on planet earth. ‘I see on your account you can save money by signing up to be billed yearly. We can also bill you upfront for 2 years. Or 3 years. Or 4 years.” That takes ten mins to get thru. Instead of asking me if I’d like to do any of that, he just says “now, I need your credit card number so I can get you those savings and sign you up today for that 3 year billing plan.”
I tell him, no thanks. I’ll stay month to month.
He then says, get this- “I’m disappointed in you that you’re not choosing to get these great savings.” Disappointed, huh? Well, asshole, I know you’re just following your idiotic script, but how about you find a real job? Agressive selling is one thing, harassment by XM staff is another. I can imagine older people or easily confused individuals not realizing what’s going on with these slick sales people talking fast and then asking for your CC info. Next thing you know, they’ve billed you nearly $300 for a service you might not use for 3 years just to save $50. I find it hard to recommend any company that is so agressive and sly with their sales.
The guy then says I need to sign up today to get these savings. I tell him no again. He then says my account shows I’m eligible for a new radio for $49. The radio is a $100 value. “How would you like to pay for your new radio and subscription savings?” Are you flippin’ deaf? NO!!
“I understand sir. Let me tell you about our new offer. If you buy our 1 year billing plan, you will save $20″ Didn’t we already go thru this?! “Let’s get you signed up and save you that money.”
By this point, I wan’t to stick parts of this dude’s body into a meat grinder.
I finally get off the phone after he basically tells me a few times that I’m not being a smart fella by passing up all these savings and that he’s disappointed in me and my decision for not choosing to save money.
It was annoying, and luckily I rarely deal with these fools, but I can’t imagine how many people out there who do deal with them, get confused, and get stuck with massive bills they never wanted. Companies like XM need to get their acts together- if you treat your customers like this, what does that say about the company as a whole? Only bad things if you ask me, and I wouldn’t want that stigma attached to any business I took part in.
Recent Comments