I know this new Pope is cool and all but he seems to be swayed by Bill Donahue and the Catholic league in regards to Charlie Hebdo. This week he has suggested that freedom of expression should be limited when it is directed at religion. He stopped short of blaming the victim, as Donahue did, so full credit for avoiding that rhetorical pitfall.
Now I understand there need to be certain limits to freedom of expression. If your idea of freedom of expression is to get pictures of yourself peeing on local sports players in the middle of a game, that shouldn’t be allowed.
If, however, you want to make a cartoon criticizing religion or, as I do, regularly criticize religion in a blog, that freedom should absolutely be allowed and welcomed.
Religion is an institution. Like politics. Nobody argues that we should stop making fun of politicians because we might offend someone who voted for them, do they?
Yet a religion should be afforded a special right? We should limit those who would make fun of religion because…why? God can’t take it? Mohammed can’t take it?
Sorry, Francis. Charlie Hebdo’s satire may not be your cup of tea but freedom of expression means they have as much right to do what they do as you have to criticize it.
I just keep thinking if the dude is exploiting a loophole in your system and you want him to stop, you could just close the fucking loophole.
Instead of figuring out that problem, they are suing a guy who isn’t making any money. He just outsmarted them. What an asshole, right?
They have lawyers sitting around waiting for something to do. It’s probably cheaper for them to threaten this kid than it is for them to figure out how to fix the gap in their own procedures.
Or they could just accept that some people are going to get a cheaper fare and stop giving out free pop on flights. I mean, they’ll do that eventually anyway, right?
I don’t suggest clicking on the link above. I know very few people who would sympathize with what is written there.
As someone who tries very hard to support feminism, I see nothing of value in this woman’s rant about how men are clearly inferior to women. They aren’t. They are different. In some (mostly physical) ways men have certain advantages. In other ways they do not. When you remove the obstacles society creates for women, men and women are mostly equal.
The problem is people viewing this extreme point of view and calling it feminism. As if all feminists are out there just despising men for having the misfortune to exist.
When, in truth, hardly any of them are.
Every point of view has it’s extremes. The problem becomes people viewing the extreme position as representative of the entire position. Feminism is about working to fix a society that is off balance. It is not about creating a “utopia” where men don’t exist.
So if you are going to Omegacon this weekend, here is a sneak peek at the Movie room schedule. Most people at Omegacon aren’t interested in watching movies all weekend and that’s cool. But if you need a two-hour break from Settlers of Catan, here are some choices for you!
This year’s movie room theme is Toys and Games. I have no idea why it took me so long to use the theme for the movie room. It’s kind of perfect.
This letter to Dear Prudence has to be a joke, right? I mean there probably are people who are this awful but most of them wouldn’t say it out loud, right?
Sadly, I expect this lady is real and she resents “poor” people coming to her house for the good candy. And by “poor,” I expect she means middle class suburban folks and not a bunch of unwashed inner city kids who aren’t worthy to sell her kids a hamburger at McDonald’s.
Her good candy is for the rich little boys and girls! Why is that so hard for the other 99% to understand? If they get full-sized Kit-Kat bars on Halloween instead of the fun size that they deserve, they will start expecting rich people to provide them everything! Isn’t it enough that they are job providers?
Holy shit, lady. If you have to hand out an extra hundred candy bars, are you suddenly going to miss a Porsche payment? Will your underprivileged children be unable to join you in Rome for Christmas? If you have such a problem giving to people who make less than you, just turn off your light so the kids from the rich families that aren’t as rich as yours don’t come to your house either.
I wish this lady had included her home address so everyone could go to her house this Halloween. We should all give her a fucking candy bar. Only the fun size though. We can’t afford the good stuff.
I’ll be doing some spoilers about major plot points so if that bothers you, don’t read on.
I’m not sure what The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance has to say about guns solving problems.
Jimmy Stewart is a hero because he killed a man who, based on all evidence, would have killed him first. It was never his goal to kill Liberty Valance but he was pushed to do so because he knew he couldn’t run away.
It complicates things when we learn that Stewart did not, in fact, kill Valance. Given that fact, is the killing of Valance self-defense, murder, or something else?
Valance was shot to save someone’s life. Unlike other Westerns where everyone is a crack shot, the reason Valance is dead is because his killer aimed at the easiest part of the body to hit. Makes sense. He only had one shot.
So where does that leave us? How do we feel about the whole situation? We know that Stewart is conflicted about it. He doesn’t want to be a hero for killing a man. Yet, it is also true that he may be able to do more good for others if he accepts that he is a hero.
To me, Stewart is far more heroic than he believes because he went to face Valance with the knowledge that he was going to be shot to death. Had John Wayne failed to act, the outcome of the duel was unquestionable. Everyone knew that.
The old west that we see in classic films doesn’t exist with the same standards of morality as our world does. Stand your ground laws notwithstanding.
Alfred Hitchcock is one of the directors film fans must watch. His worst movies are still crafted well and his best movies are – well – as good as anyone’s best movies. Ever.
I’m a film fan, not a film student. I can recognize why certain movies are shot well and why other movies are shot poorly. If you want me to explain why Hitchcock’s films are film school standards, I’m not going to do a great job. I just know that there is something to like in nearly all of his films.
As I’m going through all of the movies in my collection (oh so slowly at the moment), I’ve gone through many of Hitchock’s early films that are part of a set I own encompassing all of his British work.
Some of the movies in that group are not particularly good. Others, like this one, are considered part of his lasting legacy.
All of them are possibly the shittiest quality film transfers you can ever hope to see.
Here’s the thing – you get what you pay for.
If you pay $40 for a Criterion edition of The Seven Samurai, you are going to expect a really top quality transfer of the film in addition to thoughtful and well produced extras.
If you pay $40 for 30 Hitchcock films, you are aren’t going to get anything that even approaches that level of quality.