Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Monday, March 10, 2014
HBO is usually a no-go for me. I don't hate nudity so much as I don't care for poorly simulated and largely gratuitous sex scenes. Also I like the assurance that something graphic and horrible isn't going to happen because it's a day that ends in "Y"; and the Home Box Office can't deliver on any of those issues. In fact they seem to derive great glee in their exact opposites.
But this True Detective is a show that I feel could be done right. I haven't watched it, but it's been a long time since the thing that some people label "weird fiction" saw decent treatment on the screen. I could bring myself to financially support the right product, if only I could be assured that such a thing was being brought to term.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Saturday, March 8, 2014
Friday, March 7, 2014
The money quote is when he says, to paraphrase, "I know what's going on, but the fans have no clue." Because there's not enough extant material available for people to form opinions about how Batman and Superman should act? I'm starting to think Warner Bros secretly wants DC to fail.
Thursday, March 6, 2014
I'm not coming down hard, mind you, mainly because I haven't read the ruling, but my initial reaction to the brouhaha in Massachusetts over Upskirt Photo Guy is to say that the court made the right call. That, and everything else below, is based on my own personal inference.
From what I understand, the law in MA criminalizes taking photos of someone in public who is nude or partially nude. The prosecution was arguing that nudity could be created ad hoc based upon the perp's act of "bypassing" a victim's clothing. The court said that a plain reading didn't support that interpretation. And let's face it, the court was probably right.
We're talking about a law that for all intents and purposes seems directed at public decency and not personal privacy. So sorry, no naked photo shoots in Government Center. Someone's expectation of privacy - leaving aside whether that expectation is reasonable, for a moment - is not applicable.
Of course, you hear the standard whining about the "spirit of the law" being about privacy, but we appoint judges for their objective analytical skills, not their ability to engage in speculative scrying into the misty world of "legislative intent." The amazing thing about this case, to me, is not that the court ruled the way that it did; it's that the court was in MA.
Now if they want to snap a pic under my kilt, they'd better be ready for what they'll get...
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Short answer: Yes.
In reality, Pluralism in its oft-described form is actually a lie, because a cohesive community of people cannot, in point of fact, tolerate infinite diversity. Case in point, this article sent to me some time ago by Angry Lemming. The topic is simple: should a religious group that does not believe in making use of medical science be pursued under the law for negligence or abuse when adherence to those beliefs causes harm to an innocent third party such as a child. The article's author makes no plans at concealing his position that there should be no protection.
How does that jibe with freedom of religion? It doesn't. Freedom of religion can only ever exist in a qualified state. Any community that hopes to last for longer than this week has to bind its membership with a set of common, core moral tenets. You fall outside that core, you fall outside the community. I just wish more people could acknowledge this fact of life without feeling like they're some kind of bigot.
Posted via Blogaway
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Right on time for Valentine's Day.
This is some of the best marriage advice I could ever hope for, and it comes from a guy who's celibate. Go figure. He's also pretty obviously Italian, since the paraphrase of the advice is "argue all you like, throw plates if that's what it takes to get out of your system, just make sure you go to bed reconciled." Love this guy.
Okay, popesquee over, carry on.
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
From the article:
What kind of a pathetic and dreary goal is that, anyway -- just wanting to be "accepted," tolerated, put up with? That's not why we're put on this planet. Life is not about gaining "acceptance." Life is change. It is not static and stagnant, do you really want your relationships to be?
We don't emerge into the world as eternally entitled princes and princesses. We come into it as naked, crying, helpless babies. Our job is to grow out of that condition. And that will take a lot of changing and a lot of learning about what parts of us are unsuitable and insufficient and unacceptable. Sadly, some of us are unwilling to endure that process, so we never grow, and in failing to grow we fail to live. It's a tragedy.