Law and Order: SVU

I love how they start with the standard "none of these characters/situations are real" spiel and then the episode starts and it's a very thinly veiled depiction of a recent famous case. Like this episode "Funny Valentine" is obviously Rhianna/Chris Brown (heck the character's name is "Caleb Brown"). An episode I watched a few months ago was about a soccer mom sidelining as a pimp (at the same time that this case was actually in the courts).

The problem with NIMBY

I would probably say that NIMBY, or "Not In My Back Yard", is the number one ailment of society in the US.

If a program truly is believed to be well run and a benefit to the society as a whole, then there's no way that it can possibly be a detriment to the neighborhood that it's placed near or within. Something cannot be both a benefit and a detriment. It's either a brilliant program and therefore a benefit. Or it's a worthless program (or might simply need to be run better) and is therefore a detriment. If it's a benefit, there are no real problems. If it's a detriment, then there is no real value. Anyone who says that it's a "brilliant program" but "not in my backyard", they're lying. They either think that there isn't any real benefit (meaning that they think the program will fail), or they're simply selfish. In either case, they're trying to appear to be better than they actually are.

I was watching a documentary about putting a women's veterans home into a high end neighborhood in I can't remember which neighborhood in Connecticut (it would be the states first home for homeless female veterans). I was sickened by the hypocrisy of people saying, "I'm sure it's a wonderful program, but..." That "but" means that they don't truly believe that the program is valuable because they see it as overall being a detriment to their society. One person compared the effects of the home on home values to a strip club or a sex shop--as though they're actually comparable given the benefits the "generous citizens" were happy to proclaim.

A well run homeless shelter can increase home prices because it shows that the citizens actually care about the world. A well run homeless shelter will also increase everyone's home prices as it removes the dredges of society from society (by helping them improve their lives rather than leaving them to die on the streets). Instead of living in a city of wealth vs. slum, a well run, well integrated homeless shelter brings us together as a society, illustrating that no person is better than another simply because of their luck or inherited wealth. Unless, of course, we really do live in a world where only those who are able to overcome hardship and "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" matter...which, to me, ignores the fact that it usually takes an army of people who care to convince an individual who knows nothing but hardship, oppression, and degradation to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps".

I mean, are there any highly successful people in the real world who didn't have a single person say to them at some point in their life "you can do it"?

Google Adwords

Hmm...while preparing to create a couple new ads through my Google Adwords account, I learned that my previous ad (that directs people here) was suspended because I violate some policy of theirs. I assume it's because of my frank discussions about "taboo" subjects. Undoubtedly my use of certain keywords in describing my posts (or the words I've used within my posts) triggered an internal server to disable my ad.

Oh well, I'm not going to fight it. I should look at it as a godsend because it means that I still have $94 to spend on ads given to me freely by Google for one reason or another (I'm still not sure, but I'll take free money to advertise my views). If you disagree with Google, feel free to send them an email on my behalf.

Book Trailers

I don't think I've ever seen a book trailer that didn't come across like an SNL spoof of a B-rated movie. Sigh.

Don't worry, I'll attempt to post lots of examples. :-)

I love the Dark-Hunters to death, but the guys...they just look silly in their action packed trailers. Or maybe it's the cheesy voice over with trailer-voice-dude. Ehh...I watched the Retribution trailer a second time w/out sound and it was sort of better.

 

Inferno's (which I cannot wait to read) trailer doesn't look so bad, but then it's only got like one line of voice-over.



Annnd...Time Untime  goes right back to the cheese-fest. Hmm...though now that I think of it, does perhaps my love of the story decide whether or not I rate the trailer extra-cheesy or not? 'Cuz I didn't like Time Untime nearly as much as I loved Retribution and to me the latter's trailer just made me want to cry.*



So...I guess the ultimate test is to see how bad Acheron's trailer is...Oh ma gad--that actually wasn't too bad. Wish they'd get a new voice-over-dude. It still smells like SNL or CollegeHumor, which pulls all the seriousness out of everything. I mean, satire is serious business, but real seriousness looses it's seriousness when I can't take it seriously because it reminds me of CHEESE!



And last but not least, I guess I should look up the trailer for Styxx since I cannot wait another 5-6 months for the book...and it does not exist yet. Sigh. Hmm...

Anywho. I'm going to look up some more of the book trailers for the dark-hunters for my own personal pleasure. I'll give them a ranking of 1 to 5 with 5 being cheesy enough for a certain mouse with a big head who owns his own chain of pizza parlors. :-)

No Mercy: 3 wedges of cheese



Uhh...this one isn't a trailer...I don't know whether it's fan made or not, actually. While hilarious, as a fan of Bubba, this isn't really the same guy as is in the book.

No cheese here. Ironically.



This next one is from The League series (same author and similar character personalities). Huh...short and sweet limits the room for cheese.

2 wedges of cheese (the voice) for Born of Ice



By the way, gotta give props to Kenyon or whomever for the choice of actor. Dark-hunter.com puts a real face to all the characters of her books and this character's name is Devyn which I can totally buy. He looks like a Devyn, ya know?

Born of Fire (same series as Born of Ice)is up next:

Well--it gains points for being short (like B.o.I.), but loses them (from me) because she shot him at least once in the book.

2 wedges of cheese.



Alright that's enough of those. Plus I ran out of videos available from this author, haha.

*I'd like to go into detail about why I dislike Retribution's trailer so much--it made Sundown look like a freaking gay porno actor :-(. Especially if you know what happened in that car...poor Andy, hahaha.**

**Clarification: read the book. It's really not as bad as I kind of made it sound just now--it's actually a very sweet story which is why I really don't like that trailer.

And finally, before I sign off--I think I finally successfully embedded a video into my post!! Yay! Given that I didn't change anything in my methods, I think that means that google finally figured out their stuff.

"Preacher's Daughters"

Oh my god--that mom with the 16 year old daughter with a boyfriend needs to trust her daughter. It pisses me off that we have video evidence of the fact that they weren't lying about the boundaries discussion and the mom is deluding herself into hating a REALLY great kid!

And then there's the parents of the party girl--uh, you're daughter is going to her first(?) real party at a friend's house and they didn't call the parents of the friend to double check her plans? I'm sorry, but if that was my kid, I would have at least casually asked the friend about the get together.

Double standard? Not really.

In case A, they're just talking and hugging when "caught". The boy has been very patient and respectful otherwise and has not given any indication that he wants to break the mother's rules (except getting out of a stuffy party to go outside said stuffy party to a place where everyone at said stuffy party can still see them--no bushes).

In case B, apparently (I don't have the first episode) the girl has talked about the freedom of porn stars, though I have no idea what the context is. Her parent's know that she's a "wild child" but hope that some small freedoms will keep her on the otherwise straight and narrow. It isn't infringing on that child's freedom to double check the details of the event in question. In fact, I'm sure Kolby (the one with the boyfriend) and the boyfriend will be more than happy for their friends to be questioned about their whereabouts since they have nothing to hide. Since the second girl (Taylor?) is going behind her parents back, she would rebel against such an inquisition.

If I were a parent, my children would either be happy to accept a few small questions and earn their freedom (and if they decided to have sex without breaking any state or federal laws, they'd better be using protection) or they'll spend their time locked in their room. The key to good parenting is training them young then letting go, confident that the training will help them make good decisions. If Kolby's mother isn't careful, her daughter is going to start going behind her back, though as an outside observer, I don't think the girl will get into any mischief. She does have a good head on her shoulders and her mother needs to encourage that.

I wonder which version of parenting Olivia (the third girl who has a baby of her own) had growing up.

Sign My Petition

During the 2012 Presidential election I got a lot of propaganda in the mail. Annoyed with it, I wrote corrections all over the stuff, added "return to sender" and sent it back.

Here's the thing. That stuff comes from an anonymous P.O. Box 9 times out of 10, so in order for it to make an impact, a lot of people need to send the stuff back. Then, the owners of the mailbox (either USPS or some mailbox store) can't just ignore it and will have to do something. Think of the impact that all the letters had in Miracle on 34th Street.

It's FREE and takes literally 20 seconds to write "RETURN TO SENDER" on the propaganda (if you have trouble locating a marker, maybe longer). You'd also better mark out the barcode USPS prints under your address or the computer that reads the to-addresses will send it right back to you in a never-ending circle. Then, you don't even have to find a post box since the postman will take outgoing mail left on your mailbox (just use a clothespin or other clip).

Take this link to the petition.

By the way, I like that a petition must get 150 signatures before it reaches the main petitions page--this is a very good way to vet petitions to keep out the bad ones.

Vanderpump Rules

I'm watching the first episode and I'm BEGGING Jax to dump Stassi. Seriously, he's not a saint and obviously has no problem flirting with other girls, but he deserves better than her. I honestly didn't realize that that type of girl actually exists (the possessive, jealous girlfriend who must be the center of attention). I can't believe he's stayed with her for 2 years given that he KNOWS exactly what type of girl she is. She must be great in bed because they're not going to last forever and if he's got any serious plans for permanence, she's not the girl he's going to pick (unless he's an idiot).

Good grief--Tom the Flat Iron. Oh god no. I just want to grab his hair and completely mess it up and if he complained, OUT!

I think I might have found a new favorite show. I just don't get people my own age--they're ridiculous.

By the way, I LOVE Lisa! She's a wonderful manager because nothing gets past her. New favorite Housewife.

Real Housewives Bev. Hills: Adirenne and Paul

Yeah, it's obvious that this marriage is crumbling as I watch this seasons episodes of Real Housewives: Beverly Hills--they seem very stiff and formal with each other as though it's all a front for the cameras. It's sad because I remember thinking that they were a very strong couple in previous years.

Can Man Live without God by Ravi Zacharias

Note: I rank books differently than Goodreads: 3 stars is "it's okay".

A pen pal sent me this, so of course I had to read it :-).

Before opening it, my conclusion has always been that yes, man needs faith, but not necessarily in the Christian God. After completing it, I'm at the same place. Since I'm a Deist, the existence of a God wasn't an argument he had to win with me. Unfortunately for whatever his point in writing was, it was the only argument that I actually bought.

He starts out completely misrepresenting what it means to be atheist. I've decided that he gives a purely philosophical view, but that view doesn't translate to the everyday life of an atheist and therefore invalidates his arguments. Besides, he uses atheism and anti-theism synonymously and according to /r/atheism, that isn't accurate.

His entire argument for the existence of Jesus as a deity is dependent on Jesus and the Bible being TRUTH, and he fails to prove this claim. If Jesus word were TRUTH, then it would be possible to show why they aren't false. His only defense seems to be that "if they were false, his "enemies" wouldn't also say that they're true"--so what evidence is there that these "enemies" weren't lying about that status? There was a complete lack of analysis here.

For all the bold claims he made in the introduction, he unfortunately fell short. As always, I went into this book blind and tried to be unbiased, hoping that he'd convince me, but it wasn't there.

On an interesting note, while replying to the pen pal in question, she had said that people can never have enough guns. What I found intriguing by this statement is that on pg. 36, in describing how "Reasoning Failed the Test on Reasoning", Zacharias laments the fact that skeptics forget the second qualifier of Kant's claim that morality can be found purely through reason, that "an individuals moral choices were not to be determined by the happiness test, meaning that one ought not to choose a certain path for life just because it makes one happy." He goes on to bash Marxism which apparently based a lot of itself on Kant (I haven't done this research, so I take his word for it) and (perhaps laughingly) finishes by saying our "new world of democratic utopia inscribed the pursuit of individual happiness as a fundamental right for all individuals at the cost of the collective good. In both arenas, Kantian ethics were deviously mangled."

I'm not a philosopher and will quickly admit that strictly philosophical reasoning often goes over my head, but I interpret this passage as, to some extent, agreeing with Kant (though I doubt Zacharias would admit to this) in that it's important to put the collective good above the happiness of the individual. So since I enjoy complicating arguments, wouldn't we agree that it's in the interest of the collective good to put reasonable restrictions on gun ownership (such as waiting periods, more thorough background checks, etc) even if it means inconveniencing legal gun owners? Granted, my argument is dependent on my reading Zacharias correctly and since he's vague more often than not, I cannot say that I did with certainty.

Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz

2009: Banned or challenged for occult/Satanism, religious viewpoint and violence.

2007: Banned for insensitivity, violence, being unsuited to age group, and occult/Satanism.

2001: Banned for violence, being unsuited to age group, and occult themes

I personally like the morals held within some of these stories. I also like that Schwartz included an interesting section at the end that gives a brief history of ghosts and ghost stories showing that they aren't just for fun, but hold cultural significance. I'm also laughing because there is a list of sources, something distinctly lacking in the work of "non-fiction" also on my reading list this week.

The Evolution of Human Intellect: Discover the Information that Schools and Religions Aren't Yet Teaching by L.N. Smith

The author sent me a "coupon" to read this book for free.

I find the method used to tell this story (the roller coaster ride) to be different, but useful and, to some extent, fun. But since I came into this book blind (in terms of the author's background and intent), I also find it to be questionable. 

There are two aspects to this book: evolutionary history and evolution of thought. I have a problem with the evolutionary history aspect because without a solid bibliography, we're left with a tale that is at best a thought provoking piece of fiction (by my own definition) and at worst a piece of blatant plagiarism. I personally demand evidence for any piece of information, even if it's just, "based on this, this, and this, I conclude this". I do not question the validity of evolution based on my own research, but I do not particularly condone any "non-fiction" which does not show it's own train of research since no scholar reaches a conclusion purely through their own abilities.

I do not know what work has been done by others on the evolution of thought, nor do I know how much is philosophical and how much is based on scientific evidence. Since this book lacks a bibliography, I do not know what parts are purely from Smith's own reasoning and what parts come from other research done and that troubles me. 

His, I assume, philosophical conclusions are the reason I rate this book so highly. I like the idea of human intellect being metaphorical bridges evolving over time and I like that Smith does build his argument on good foundations...I just wish those foundations had better foundations themselves. 

I rank this a 5 for enjoyability and thought provoking conclusions. I rank it a 3 for scholarship.

Full disclosure: I link to the books below because I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they're very similar to the book I reviewed which at 52 pages (at the link I was provided) seemed like it was a chapter or two from a much longer work, either one or the other or maybe some combination of both. I have no desire at this time to read either book I'm offering links to.

"Race to the Top" and Alaska

So apparently Obama's "Race to the Top" education campaign is to reward schools who preform well with cash incentives and to remove limits to charter and alternative schools. I don't understand why Alaska WOULDN'T participate when Palin says herself that Alaskans want to leave school curriculums in the localities where they exist. My "stupid" question for her would be to ask how Obama's plan doesn't encourage the same ideas. If Alaska has the best schools because they encourage individuality, then what possible way does Obama's plan interfere with their way of life? All they're doing is turning down more money.

Vanderpump Rules/Bravo Bio

Umm...yeah. If I haven't mentioned it before, I'm a big fan of the Real Housewives. It's so ridiculous, I'm actually surprised that there's a spin-off that I think I'll enjoy watching: Vanderpump Rules. I now know why SUR has been mentioned on Beverly Hills so much with the staff actually being allowed to speak.

Anywho, I'm reading up on it on Wikipedia and I see that the staff have bios on Bravo. Yeah...folks, here's my 2 cents--your profession is what pays the bills--PERIOD. I mean, you don't see The Big Bang Theory fans calling Penny an Actress (notice the laughs this gets from the studio audience whenever she tries it)--she's a Waitress at the Cheesecake Factory. So, get it together and revise those bios, Bravo. Only an "actor" describes themselves as such when the reality is that it's a pipe dream.