-
All responses Most smiled responses
-
It would be the "makin' copies" guy, because I wouldn't want to be just a one-joke character. That "makin' copies" guy, man! He NEVER got old!
-
Magnificent question. Just stellar.
When you're constructing your crime-fighting squad, you need to fill the following roles:
1) Strong guy. He's there for your clobbering, your lifting stuff, throwing cars. Think Colossus or The Thing.
2) Smart guy. He's going to be able to whup something up for you all scientific-y like, and also provide you exposition like, "Sweet Fancy Moses! The ultra-polarized Planck particles have destabilized the vortex! We've only got a matter of seconds before it forms a BLACK HOLE!" Examples of this type would be Mr. Fantastic or Barack Obama.
3) The Wisecracking Loner. Plays by his own rules. Cracks wise and/or cynical. Usually ultra popular. This is your Wolverine slot.
4) Laser Guy. You gotta have somebody who shoots lasers. Come on. Do you want those crimes stopped or not? This is a Cyclops/Human Torch/Green Lantern sort of chap.
5) The chick. Boobs.
Also, at least one of these needs to be able to fly.
So here's my team.
1) Strong guy. This is going to be Panthro from the 80s cartoon Thundercats. Panthro is a very strong pick here because he can also fix any of your vehicles for you.
2) Smart Guy. My smart guy is going to be none other than the Doctor himself. If you've got Doctor Who on your team, you've got the time travel as well.
3) Wisecracking Loner. Animal, of course. Berserker rages and crime-stopping drum solos.
4) Laser Guy. Here I'm going with Kit, the talking car from "Knight Rider."
5) The chick. Jessica Alba. Yeah, I'm pretty sure she's fictional. -
asked by houkazan
To answer this question, I'd have to put myself in the mindset of a Republican presidential candidate, and I've already done enough laughing-into-weeping-into-screaming today.
The best I can do from this safe vantage is say that I think they are incentiveized toward ignorance and handsomely rewarded for it, except for Rick Santorum, who believes that being 'handsomely" rewarded is dangerously close to gay, and so would like to be rewarded in Michael W. Smith CDs. -
You're too kind, but the "Q" actually stands for "Q. Kevin Bouillabaisse." It's a family name.
-
-
asked by houkazan
Other media's slightly different, I think, for a very specific reason.
Reading is an active medium. It requires you to bring something to it, and whatever you are able to bring to it is going to affect how much you're going to find in it. So, to use the previous example, the guy getting cut in half in "Catch 22", read on the page, is not probably going to horrify in the same way. It's going to stay very abstract. It's not experiential. A kid isn't going to be able to imagine much of it, because the way it is described, while very evocative to somebody with a more advanced sense of language, simply won't key those same reactions for a kid. A kid has to make their own choices about what those words mean, and while they may be disturbing to that kid, they won't be any more disturbing than that kid themselves can make them.
TV and movies and even video games are more passive, in that all the imagining is essentially being done for you. Now you don't need to bring your limited frame of reference to the work, because somebody else is imposing their frame of reference on yours in a way that is significantly more invasive. This filmmaker is saying "THIS is what it looks like when a guy gets cut in half. Here's the blood. Here's the guts. Here's the death, in all the vivid detail that can be imagined -- not by you, but by ME."
You see?
So there is no way my kids are allowed to watch, let's say "Seven." It is worth pointing out that there is no way they would WANT to. It's not a cartoon. It's slow. It's about dull grownups doing dull grownup things. And when it got scary, they'd know it was too much for them. They wouldn't want it on. But I wouldn't allow them to watch it.
There are limits to what I'd let them read in a book, probably. Stephen King, for example, is vivid in much the same way that "Seven" is. In fact, I'd say the reason he's so compelling is that he forces his frame of reference on you in a more cinematic way than most writers do. So maybe I'd tell my girls they can't read "IT" right now. But you know what? By the time they are able to read fiction that long? I probably trust them with it. They'll just get a whole lot of attention from me.
Popular Magazines (as opposed to some trade magazines and hobby magazines which can be quite excellent and interesting) are a different story, because they are, for the most part, not trying to be artistic in any way. They are mainly just a long-form printed advertisement for a specific frame of reference that is trying to foist itself on you. "US Weekly" is basically saying, "Celebrities are like you, but much much much more important!". Most women's magazines are saying, "Women's Options Are Very Limited! Here's Why That Is A Good Thing!" Magazines like Maxim are saying, "Women Are Boobs!" Magazines like Playboy are saying "Woman Are Boobs With Nipples And Well-Manicured Pubic Hair!" Sports Illustrated is saying, "Here is Why Sports Are Interesting!" I am not particularly compelled by these messages. I'm hoping that my example will cause my kids to be less than compelled by them, also.
And so forth. I guess I'd like to limit exposure to those sorts of frameworks. If one of my kids was into one of these frames of reference, they'd probably get a whole lot of attention from me as we talked about the assumptions that the magazine was making about reality, and what conclusions we could draw about those assumptions.
I think by now you've seen that the pattern here is: The more challenging/inappropriate/concerning the thing that my child is consuming is to me, the more direct attention they will get from me.
If THAT isn't a deterrent to whatever they are reading/watching, nothing will be. -
Tricky question, this.
I don't think there are no boundaries. Obviously I wouldn't let my seven-year old read something that I think would be totally harmful to their soul, like a Glenn Beck book (note: this is what is known as a "joke", sort of). But there are very few boundaries.
I think it's likely that most books that have adult content are generally also going to be written with adult context, which will officially make that book boring to a kid. There's a bit of auto-regulation here. As an example, let me suggest "Catch 22", one of the great novels of the 20th century. In "Catch 22", there are disembowelings and lots of sex with whores and filthy language and a guy getting cut in half with a propeller and any number of rude doings. But it's also written in an experimental style with a fractured timeline and a lot of difficult wordplay. It's totally impenetrable to a kid.
Obviously, there are books that are on the border here; books that might be easily understood but which contain what the MPAA Ratings Board refers to as "thematic elements" (this is code for "drugs and boobies and boners"). Let's use as an example a Kurt Vonnegut novel. The words, though brilliant, are not that tough to understand. A precocious kid might just find something there.
Bottom line, I think, is this. If my kid wants to read, I think that's great. If my kid is able to make their way through a book, they may just be ready to read that book. Of course, they likely won't get most of it. That's why re-reading a book is such a rewarding experience, right? So, if don't get the sense that my kid is just picking through it to get to the naughty bits (which wouldn't be actually 'reading'), yeah, I would let them read just about anything. The difference is that if they are reading a "Little House" book, I will probably just let them go for it (though I would probably want to talk them through the casual racism). But if they are picking up "Breakfast of Champions", then they will probably get a whole lot of attention from me, because I will see to it that they are having their questions (and there would sure enough be some questions) answered within a context that I would provide.
Also, if it was a really great book, like Neil Gaiman's graphic novel "Sandman", that I thought had parts that were just too disturbing, I'd say, "This is one of the best things ever written, but I think it has parts that would be too scary for somebody your age." When we say that (this has primarily been in the context of movies), I've found that our kids are more vigilant than we are about self-regulating. They trust us that it would be too much, and they know they don't want too much. Nobody likes nightmares. Well, except for Neil Gaiman's character Sandman. Some of his best friends are nightmares. -
asked by JuanitoM
First of all, I really must, in all good conscience, strongly discourage you from taking this dangerous course. As everybody knows, the Harry Potter books are drenched in demons and can turn a child from a Precious Moments figurine into a latter-day Charlie Sheen within pages.
However, if you will not be persuaded, I will tell you how you might 'clean' a Harry Potter book that you get from your nearest devil-mall. (I trust you are not foolish enough to keep these books in your house!) You are going to need to perform a demonic extraction, for which you require the following items:
(1) a hydraulic vice with computerized pressure controls and digital readout
(2) an autographed picture of either Barbara Bush or Sarah Palin [1]
(3) a King James Bible
(4) first hardcover printings of the entire "Left Behind" series
(5) a vial of Glenn Beck's tears [2]
(6) a very sharp Exacto knife
(7) heavy-duty rubber gloves and respirator
(8) a welder's helmet
INSTRUCTIONS
First put on the gloves and respirator.
Next, you will want to use Glenn Beck's tears to consecrate the vise. Instructions for this can be found by inspecting the first two words of every 7th page of each of Beck's scholarly books (not the novels) in reverse order by publication date.
Next, use the knife to carefully cut out each page of your demonic Harry Potter book. Discard the cover, which is where most of the demons are found (most scientists [3] agree that there can be as many as 30, 50 or even 100 times as many demons in a cover as in a single page).
Perform the following steps for each page of each book:
Place the book between the autographed picture and the King James Bible. Place the entire grouping into the vise and tighten to exactly 77.7 psi for 7.7 hours. Put the page in between the pages of the Left Behind series, which will provide a sterile environment for the pages [4].
The pages are now almost entirely demon free! [5] Since you have no regard whatsoever for your child's soul, they may now put on the welder's helmet and read the devil-loving liberal Satan book with minimal risk of infection. (for extra safety, play some lite Christian pop music while reading).
WARNING: IT IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED that you have your child read the pages within one day of this procedure! The pages WILL re-accrue demons by their very nature. BE SURE TO DESTROY THE PAGES WITH FLAMES IMMEDIATELY AFTER THEY ARE READ. The ashes will still be highly dangerous. Scatter them in California, because let's face it, what's the difference?
_______________________
FOOTNOTES
[1] Photos of other members of the Palin household, such as Willow, Trig, Bristol, Scratch, Fudge, and Big Country, can be used, but we recommend doubling the application time. DO NOT use a photograph of Levi Johnson.
[2] I know what you are thinking. You're thinking, "Wouldn't Ronald Regan's tears be more effective?" The answer is, of course, yes. Ronald Reagan's tears obviously would be much more effective, but if you think allowing your brats to read an Evil Book is a good use of our country's greatest treasure, then you go march over to the Heritage Foundation and tell them why you want to stop making the country safe from Muslim vampires. That's what I thought.
[3] We mean of course real scientists, not common charlatans and voodoo doctors. For purposes of clarity, we define 'real scientists' as 'scientists who consulted on the Creationist Museum.'
[4] Remember to throw away the Left Behind books after this process. Though sterile, they will have absorbed trace quantities of demonic influence and thus may now contain watermarked images of Barack Obama.
[5] According to FDA regulations which allow up to 3 parts per 10 million of demon in printed materials. If that's good enough for you, then by all means let your child expose themselves to JK Rowling's Instruction Manual For Little Satanists. -
Miss Mia Wallace. Unconscionable oversight. Should have been a 4 or a 5 seed.
-
-
You obviously haven't found my Funny Cat Story blog. Keep looking!
-
I don't know much about donuts, so I'll give this one a pass.
-
Totally. Latest one is up now.
-
Seriously, I think the questions are getting better than the answers at this point.
If Godzilla existed, then obviously Emeril would have made a sauce out of mesquite renderings and Rachael Ray blood, with hints of orange and lavender, specifically for its ribs. I suspect that would be the best sauce, but you just know the philistine yahoos at Tony Roma's would drown them in A-1 like everything else. -
-
-
Probably not. At this point, I have the simple life of a scribe and am not overwhelmed with a desire for fame and fortune. Are Famenfortune and SLOAS fungible?
-
You can't fire me! I quit!!!!
-
Before getting to the meat of the question, there are a few points that need to be made for clarification.
First, we have sadly been learning more and more about how alive slavery is today, so it very unfortunately can't be said that slavery has been ended in the world. I presume the caller was referring to the violence of the Civil War, and the ending of legally recognized institutionalized slavery in the United States.
It should also be pointed out that the Civil War was not technically fought over slavery -- it was fought over the secession of the Confederate states, and the federal government's unwillingness to allow them to do it. Of course, the trigger for secession itself was the abolition of slavery represented by the Emancipation Proclamation, so clearly slavery was involved, but it is a point worth making that the war itself was not directly fought over slavery.
However, it is clear that it took the Civil War to stop secession, bring the seceding slave-holding states back into the Union (some slave-holding states did not secede), and end slavery at that particular moment in time. So I think it needs to be conceded even by staunch pacifists that it took violence to end institutionalized slavery in the United States at that particular time.
What would have happened without violence? It's pretty much impossible to say, but I think we can make a few fairly safe assumptons.
First, slavery would have continued in the Confederate States of America for a period of time following secession. How long is a total guess, but I would have to think, given how violently civil rights was contested in the United States (and particularly in the South) up until the 1960s, that it would have been many decades, maybe even a century.
Secondly, it seems almost unfathomable that slavery would not have ended in the Confederacy at some point. Even by the early 1800s, many European nations were outlawing slavery. Britain in particular was entering into dozens (I think) of pacts with various countries to end or curtail the slave trade. By the 1860s, the world mood was generally one of abolition, with the United States one of several notable holdouts. So imagine if you will the level of animosity, sanction, and pressure leveled by the international political and economic community against a nation in (let's say) 1971 that still believed in buying and selling human beings as though they were livestock, which is essentially what they were under the law. Imagine South African circa 1980, but worse. It's hard to imagine a country not caving in to this pressure eventually, via comparatively more peaceful means, as South Africa did. And of course, then would begin the long and tumultuous process of Jim Crow laws and segregation and institutionalized racism and disenfranchisement -- but five or seven or fifteen decades behind schedule, and with all that extra corrosive water under the bridge, to boot.
(Incidentally, if any of my Southern friends would like to educate me on the true causes and motivations behind the War of Northern Aggression, and why they think -- if they do think this -- that the South being allowed to secede would have been a long-term good thing for the South, I am quite sincerely all ears. It seems like it would have been a total friggin' disaster for the Confederacy.)
So, I don't think that I would agree with that NPR caller that violence was necessary to end legal institutionally recognized slavery in the United States. Justice will win in the end. It's sort of a tortoise and the hare thing. Violence was 'merely' necessary to end it right at that moment in history. But the ramifications of letting that string play out would have been momentous, and logically it seems unlikely that the effects would have been positive. Ask a descendant of slavery if they think it would have been favorable to keep that institution around for another 70 years or so. Be careful how you word the question, though.
But more than that, it's possible that the world that we now inhabit, so hostile to slavery, might not exist in the same form today that it now does. To give just one obvious example, during the amazing upheavals of the two World Wars, the United States as it was composed would not exist. We would have been two countries -- one industrialized, urban, and perhaps like the United States as we understand it to have been at that time, but certainly greatly diminished by its loss, and the other agrarian, slave-holding, and as a result almost certainly alienated from other European countries (such as France and particularly Britain), with whom we aligned ourselves in those conflicts, and perhaps, just maybe, more amenable to a doctrine of race purity. It's difficult to know what worlds may have turned upon the decision to go to war with the Confederacy over secession.
That is a lot of speculation, especially at the end. But I don't think I'm going too far afield with it. I think we pacifists may have to wrestle with the fact that sometimes a thing is so unjust that ending it immediately is the best outcome, even if violence is the tool used to arrive at that outcome.
Then again, without violence, perhaps something even better would have occurred. It just doesn't seem likely.
To answer your other question: Yes. I'm still answering political questions. -
-
Loading...
Julius Q. Goat’s Bio
I occupy the unused space in silverware drawers.
