Weird as always. Weird as always.
Tags:
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Batty Boop: A Culture Kills Comic
Cooked up in that black and white crock pot at Strip Generator.
Weird as always. Weird as always.
Weird as always. Weird as always.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Week 46: Pageant of the Transmundane
Hello. Today we come to you from the scenic gardens before the Crystal Palace... or where it used to be rather. Again, my travel agent is going to hear about this. Anyway, I shouldn't let these conditions deter me from handing out an award this week.
This week, I discovered a blog called Brass Goggles, which celebrates the joyous anachronisms of Steampunk, and as someone who has a degree covering that period, well, it is interesting stuff to me, what with all the gears and cranks and brass.
Now, I admit that at times I am rather hard to impress, but somehow Tinkergirl, while perusing another forum discovered a most magnificent piece of firearm artistry: a Scrollwork engraved MP5K. Being Canadian, I am not huge on guns, but looking at that piece of work makes even me wonder if I've been mistaken these past few decades. I am in awe.
And in honor of this sense of wonder I feel, I just had to go with a bit of Homer Simpson iconography that represented that 19th century feeling. Some of you may recognize it as something you've seen rather recently. I am pleased to award this week's Homer Simpson Transmundanity Award to Tinkergirl. Huzzah!
Congratulations Tinkergirl. Here is a badge that you are free to use on your own site if you wish.
The rules of this little contest: Every week I will be selecting one blog post that I have seen from the vast reaches of the blogosphere to bestow with the Homer Simpson Transmundanity Award for being one of the freakiest(in a funny way) things I've seen or read during a 7 day period. It doesn't necessarily have to have been written during the week, I just had to have encountered it. That means that if you find something interesting and repost it like a movie or whatever, if I saw it at your blog first, you get the prize. Of course, creating your own content is also a very good way to win.
Now, if you see a post that you think is worthy of this illustrious prize, just drop me a line at campybeaver@gmail.com and we'll see if we can't get your suggestion up and award-ready while giving you some credit and a link to your own blog.
This week, I discovered a blog called Brass Goggles, which celebrates the joyous anachronisms of Steampunk, and as someone who has a degree covering that period, well, it is interesting stuff to me, what with all the gears and cranks and brass.
Now, I admit that at times I am rather hard to impress, but somehow Tinkergirl, while perusing another forum discovered a most magnificent piece of firearm artistry: a Scrollwork engraved MP5K. Being Canadian, I am not huge on guns, but looking at that piece of work makes even me wonder if I've been mistaken these past few decades. I am in awe.
And in honor of this sense of wonder I feel, I just had to go with a bit of Homer Simpson iconography that represented that 19th century feeling. Some of you may recognize it as something you've seen rather recently. I am pleased to award this week's Homer Simpson Transmundanity Award to Tinkergirl. Huzzah!
Congratulations Tinkergirl. Here is a badge that you are free to use on your own site if you wish.
The rules of this little contest: Every week I will be selecting one blog post that I have seen from the vast reaches of the blogosphere to bestow with the Homer Simpson Transmundanity Award for being one of the freakiest(in a funny way) things I've seen or read during a 7 day period. It doesn't necessarily have to have been written during the week, I just had to have encountered it. That means that if you find something interesting and repost it like a movie or whatever, if I saw it at your blog first, you get the prize. Of course, creating your own content is also a very good way to win.
Now, if you see a post that you think is worthy of this illustrious prize, just drop me a line at campybeaver@gmail.com and we'll see if we can't get your suggestion up and award-ready while giving you some credit and a link to your own blog.
Tags:
Odd Stumbleupon finds: March Edition
March was a very busy month for me on Stumbleupon, and so this list is much longer than it has been in previous editions.
Comics:
An Odd Iron Man Parody
Bigger than Cheeses: You Didn't Read that Part of the Bible?
Truck Bearing Kibble: Bubbles the Clown
Geek Legends
Mario the early years
The Warehouse: Why God Why?
VGcats: A Brief History of Pacman
Rob and Elliot go to the movies
Consumerism/Advertising:
A really cool billboard ad
Revenge CD with earplugs
Want an uncomfortable couch
Videos/Cartoons:
What a 3 year old girl is going to do to a monster
A little dog vs. an electronic soccer ball
Top Gear vs. the State of Alabama
The Bear that Wasn't, a Chuck Jones cartoon
Writing/Lists:
Secret Cat Diary
10 Worst Cartoon Characters of All Time
Field Guide to North American Hipsters
Worst NCAA Mascots Evar
I think it might take you a month to get through all this stuff now ;)
Comics:
An Odd Iron Man Parody
Bigger than Cheeses: You Didn't Read that Part of the Bible?
Truck Bearing Kibble: Bubbles the Clown
Geek Legends
Mario the early years
The Warehouse: Why God Why?
VGcats: A Brief History of Pacman
Rob and Elliot go to the movies
Consumerism/Advertising:
A really cool billboard ad
Revenge CD with earplugs
Want an uncomfortable couch
Videos/Cartoons:
What a 3 year old girl is going to do to a monster
A little dog vs. an electronic soccer ball
Top Gear vs. the State of Alabama
The Bear that Wasn't, a Chuck Jones cartoon
Writing/Lists:
Secret Cat Diary
10 Worst Cartoon Characters of All Time
Field Guide to North American Hipsters
Worst NCAA Mascots Evar
I think it might take you a month to get through all this stuff now ;)
Tags:
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Views on day-care
In Slate, Emily Brazelon looks at the evidence on day-care and its impact on various developmental outcomes. She concludes that it is OK unless it is of poor quality.
The more interesting questions is why these studies -- regardless of how well conducted -- always receive prominent news attention. My theory is that day-care is a divisive issue because parents have made choices in this regard and will always seek to justify them. Let me, however, first declare my biases and actions. First, on the actions. All three of our children have been in day-care from very young ages (ranging from 2 to 6 months depending on the child). They were in for three, four or more days a week as they grew older. Second, on my beliefs regarding the impact of day-care, my view is that it has been wonderful. They are more social, engaged and happy than they would have been had one of us stayed at home full time.
Now for my theory: your beliefs about how good or bad day-care is has a one to one correspondence with the decision you have taken. Now, on the one hand, so it should. One would expect nothing less than your decision has been based on your beliefs and so we should expect this. However, I also think that that causality can go back the other way. The fact that you have chosen one path or another shapes your beliefs.
The reason is this: either decision is actually quite hard on a day to day basis. If you stay at home, you have a constant struggle. To maintain your sanity and also justify forgoing career, etc., it really helps to believe in what you are doing at a moral level. If you leave your child at day-care, you have a different struggle. You miss your children and sometimes feel guilt about this. Again, to maintain your sanity, you justify this at a moral level. Staying at home would not be good for the child. You could not provide them with the same care, etc.
Thus, every day you choose one path over the other, you are investing in the moral righteousness of your decision. So when you encounter others who have made different choices, there is little common ground. Things get debated and offense is easily created. Not surprisingly, stratification and segmentation arises and the like hangs out with the like.
Which brings me to the media interest in the science or otherwise of day-care. One side or the other will consume a given piece of evidence voraciously and will dismiss the others. In either case, the science is a consumption rather than an information good.
Overwhelmingly, the science says there is little in the way of vast systematic differences in outcomes and that other things matter alot more. This means that the vast differences in day-care views are relating to other matters -- perhaps my theory of belief formation here. Chances are whatever you are doing in this choice is good for your child and what is more if others are doing something different that is no reflection on you. Time for a little common ground.
The more interesting questions is why these studies -- regardless of how well conducted -- always receive prominent news attention. My theory is that day-care is a divisive issue because parents have made choices in this regard and will always seek to justify them. Let me, however, first declare my biases and actions. First, on the actions. All three of our children have been in day-care from very young ages (ranging from 2 to 6 months depending on the child). They were in for three, four or more days a week as they grew older. Second, on my beliefs regarding the impact of day-care, my view is that it has been wonderful. They are more social, engaged and happy than they would have been had one of us stayed at home full time.
Now for my theory: your beliefs about how good or bad day-care is has a one to one correspondence with the decision you have taken. Now, on the one hand, so it should. One would expect nothing less than your decision has been based on your beliefs and so we should expect this. However, I also think that that causality can go back the other way. The fact that you have chosen one path or another shapes your beliefs.
The reason is this: either decision is actually quite hard on a day to day basis. If you stay at home, you have a constant struggle. To maintain your sanity and also justify forgoing career, etc., it really helps to believe in what you are doing at a moral level. If you leave your child at day-care, you have a different struggle. You miss your children and sometimes feel guilt about this. Again, to maintain your sanity, you justify this at a moral level. Staying at home would not be good for the child. You could not provide them with the same care, etc.
Thus, every day you choose one path over the other, you are investing in the moral righteousness of your decision. So when you encounter others who have made different choices, there is little common ground. Things get debated and offense is easily created. Not surprisingly, stratification and segmentation arises and the like hangs out with the like.
Which brings me to the media interest in the science or otherwise of day-care. One side or the other will consume a given piece of evidence voraciously and will dismiss the others. In either case, the science is a consumption rather than an information good.
Overwhelmingly, the science says there is little in the way of vast systematic differences in outcomes and that other things matter alot more. This means that the vast differences in day-care views are relating to other matters -- perhaps my theory of belief formation here. Chances are whatever you are doing in this choice is good for your child and what is more if others are doing something different that is no reflection on you. Time for a little common ground.
Television Kids: Who's really your daddy?
When I am watching a sitcom(and to a lesser extent dramatic series), there is something that always pulls me out of believing the setup of a family: kids and parents whose hair color really doesn't match.
Take Everybody Loves Raymond for example. Deborah and Ray Barone are both brunettes... and yet they have three blond children. And because through the course of the show, we are introduced to all the grandparents, none of whom are blond. It does not make sense. Or Full House, where brunette Danny Tanner(Bob Saget) and the sister of black-haired Jesse Katsopolis(John Stamos) managed to produce 3 blond children(I always suspected that Dave Coulier's Joey Gladstone was their true father). I can think of a lot of other examples of this, but in mentioning them, well, my reputation as a snobby pop culturist would be shattered, so we'll stay with those two at the moment for the blond/brunette discrepancy.
The red-haired teenaged girl seems to be another one of those types of anomalies, especially for shows that are based on the premise that the parents got married very early in life(Grounded for Life, Still Standing, The War at Home). I mean, where are these weird genes coming from? On The War at Home, there is a blond son, a dark haired son and a red-haired daughter. Since Michael Rapaport is blond and Anita Barone has blond hair and dark eyebrows, I can see where two of those kids got their genes. But the daughter does not make sense in that equation. And I have a feeling that this problem isn't confined to North American television either. I am sure there are shows in Britain and Europe that have the same problems.
I think The Simpsons even makes fun of this kind of thing, as Homer is a brunette, Marge is blue-haired, and yet they have three blonde children. Then again, they could just be blond because their characters are a lot easier to draw that way.
Take Everybody Loves Raymond for example. Deborah and Ray Barone are both brunettes... and yet they have three blond children. And because through the course of the show, we are introduced to all the grandparents, none of whom are blond. It does not make sense. Or Full House, where brunette Danny Tanner(Bob Saget) and the sister of black-haired Jesse Katsopolis(John Stamos) managed to produce 3 blond children(I always suspected that Dave Coulier's Joey Gladstone was their true father). I can think of a lot of other examples of this, but in mentioning them, well, my reputation as a snobby pop culturist would be shattered, so we'll stay with those two at the moment for the blond/brunette discrepancy.
The red-haired teenaged girl seems to be another one of those types of anomalies, especially for shows that are based on the premise that the parents got married very early in life(Grounded for Life, Still Standing, The War at Home). I mean, where are these weird genes coming from? On The War at Home, there is a blond son, a dark haired son and a red-haired daughter. Since Michael Rapaport is blond and Anita Barone has blond hair and dark eyebrows, I can see where two of those kids got their genes. But the daughter does not make sense in that equation. And I have a feeling that this problem isn't confined to North American television either. I am sure there are shows in Britain and Europe that have the same problems.
I think The Simpsons even makes fun of this kind of thing, as Homer is a brunette, Marge is blue-haired, and yet they have three blonde children. Then again, they could just be blond because their characters are a lot easier to draw that way.
Tags:
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
How not to be seen in Halo
I was playing with stumbleupon last night, as I'm apt to do, and I found a most wondeful video... ahem... a rather funny video that is.
What do you get when you mix one part Monty Python sketch and one part popular first person shooter? You get How not to be seen in Halo, a wonderfully wry mashup of both items.
And now for something completely different.
What do you get when you mix one part Monty Python sketch and one part popular first person shooter? You get How not to be seen in Halo, a wonderfully wry mashup of both items.
And now for something completely different.
Tags:
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Walking with muppets
Well, actually, the farthest thing from muppets in the general puppet space; Walking with Dinosaurs: The Live Experience. I took the 8 year old and the 6 year old to see the show this afternoon and, suffice it to say, these are the biggest, hulking, loudest puppets you are ever going to see. No wonder it had to be an arena spectacular.
I must admit that having watched the BBC TV show, I kinda knew how this was going to all turn out; so it was a little slow in places. The dinosaurs were also a bit slow moving for my part; being a child of Jurassic Park. It was also short on carnage. Basically, the dinosaurs themselves must be pretty darn expensive and also probably much more fragile than their real world inspiration. They would roar (or chirp) alot at each other rather than chow down. To be sure, a baby dinosaur was plucked live from its egg and later on some raptors feasted on a pre-killed dinosaur but I was left wondering how the carnivores survived for 165 million years.
The show stealer was the T-rex (both mother and child) and, for those of you who watched Jurassic Park and thought that it would have been a going proposition without carnivores, the crowd reaction I saw would be massive evidence to the contrary. But in the end, despite being accurately life size, they were smaller than my children imagined and so this all had a coming down to earth feel. They were also notably puppets and so there was no foolin' anyone. Nothing truely scary here. I believe the 2 year old would have enjoyed the experience to. Most kids will love it as mine did.
If you go to one of these shows, try and get seats closer to ground level. We were above the dinosaurs. I think looking up at them would have been the way to go. Also, if they could make these things more robust, it would be more fun to actually walk with the dinosaurs. The only person doing that was the narrator and I, for one, kept hoping one of the dinosaurs would grab him; just to liven things up.
I must admit that having watched the BBC TV show, I kinda knew how this was going to all turn out; so it was a little slow in places. The dinosaurs were also a bit slow moving for my part; being a child of Jurassic Park. It was also short on carnage. Basically, the dinosaurs themselves must be pretty darn expensive and also probably much more fragile than their real world inspiration. They would roar (or chirp) alot at each other rather than chow down. To be sure, a baby dinosaur was plucked live from its egg and later on some raptors feasted on a pre-killed dinosaur but I was left wondering how the carnivores survived for 165 million years.
The show stealer was the T-rex (both mother and child) and, for those of you who watched Jurassic Park and thought that it would have been a going proposition without carnivores, the crowd reaction I saw would be massive evidence to the contrary. But in the end, despite being accurately life size, they were smaller than my children imagined and so this all had a coming down to earth feel. They were also notably puppets and so there was no foolin' anyone. Nothing truely scary here. I believe the 2 year old would have enjoyed the experience to. Most kids will love it as mine did.
If you go to one of these shows, try and get seats closer to ground level. We were above the dinosaurs. I think looking up at them would have been the way to go. Also, if they could make these things more robust, it would be more fun to actually walk with the dinosaurs. The only person doing that was the narrator and I, for one, kept hoping one of the dinosaurs would grab him; just to liven things up.
Get Fuzzy: Renewing my love of the daily comic strip
I've been impressed by the quality of Get Fuzzy for a while now, but in recent weeks, it seems that it has really hit its stride. For those of you unfamiliar with the strip by Darby Conley, the setup is something that could have gotten boring very fast. I mean, a comic about a dog and a cat and their master is sort of old now and it doesn't get very good mojo from Garfield. In fact, most comics get bad mojo from Garfield.
And yet, Darby Conley found a niche that is infinitely interesting. He made his characters very expressive, and the world they occupy is also quite detailed, and it is that very attention to detail that I most admire. There was a few weeks back in late 2005-early 2006 where he had an arm injury and the art style of the strip was greatly simplified, so it became very easy to see just how much work goes into each panel of the comic daily.
Over the past few months, there has also been an influx of new characters, each with a distinctive personality that allows the three main characters to play off them. Whether it is the Brit cat Mac Manc McManx, Shakespug, Foodar or any of the other strange characters that now inhabit that little apartment building on Boston's Longwood Avenue, they all bring something new to the experience and it is a joy to read.
I look forward to reading the comics every day now, and in a comic strip world without Calvin and Hobbes and The Far Side, well, that is saying something.
Tags:
Monday, March 26, 2007
Portroids: Celebrity photography with a difference
I discovered a wonderous site over the weekend called Portroids, and you all should check it out too.
Rick DeMint, the founder and photographer of the site, takes portraits of celebrities(and people he knows) with his polaroid camera(thus the title of the site... PORTrait + poloROID), and has them sign them, and through this process, an astonishing panoramic view of a certain world emerges, a world that I've never been privy too and one that fascinates me endlessly. It isn't just the fact that the people he tends to snap are ones I've talked about before here(like Patton Oswalt, America Ferrera and Tommy Chong), but that he has rules to how he does it(one picture, person must sign it before it develops, they are not for sale etc). That is what makes it such a great project, because by having these people sign the pictures, it introduces an additional element to the interaction.
Plus it is fun to look at some of the weird signatures(Mary Lynn Rajskub's sticks out in my mind). And Matt Groening's looks exactly like you would expect it would.
What is truly surprising is how good some of these people look even under these harsh conditions. After all, polaroid cameras are usually not held up as the highest standard of photographic quality. Maura Tierney... wow.
Portroids... a concept whose time has come. Huzzah!
Rick DeMint, the founder and photographer of the site, takes portraits of celebrities(and people he knows) with his polaroid camera(thus the title of the site... PORTrait + poloROID), and has them sign them, and through this process, an astonishing panoramic view of a certain world emerges, a world that I've never been privy too and one that fascinates me endlessly. It isn't just the fact that the people he tends to snap are ones I've talked about before here(like Patton Oswalt, America Ferrera and Tommy Chong), but that he has rules to how he does it(one picture, person must sign it before it develops, they are not for sale etc). That is what makes it such a great project, because by having these people sign the pictures, it introduces an additional element to the interaction.
Plus it is fun to look at some of the weird signatures(Mary Lynn Rajskub's sticks out in my mind). And Matt Groening's looks exactly like you would expect it would.
What is truly surprising is how good some of these people look even under these harsh conditions. After all, polaroid cameras are usually not held up as the highest standard of photographic quality. Maura Tierney... wow.
Portroids... a concept whose time has come. Huzzah!
Tags:
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Daylight saving and sleep
This weekend, although it was kept relatively secret for some reason, daylight saving time ended in most states in Australia and we started spending it again. We would do so until the daylight deficit grows to much and will in one sharp shock go back into surplus in October.
Regardless of whether it is the beginning or end of daylight saving time, that day and a week after, is generally good news for parents. We are no exception. The problem we face is that young children are particularly disrespectful of time standards. They are set in their old ways and many rise with the sun and also refuse to sleep until it has gone down. Now effective 'within room' light management can give you a measure of control but it is rarely perfect.
What this means is that, by the time the end of summer rolls around, your child is going to bed later than you want and it is also hard to get them up for school in the morning. So the end of daylight saving time is a blessing. For a good week, they will drop off nicely and also by easy to get up in the morning; in the Gans household that is something we value but I could see why others might not.
Of course, this can all go to far. By the springtime, we face the opposite problem. The sun is rising very early and with them the children. On the other hand, they are ratty by the end of the day. The start of daylight saving is also a blessing as it allows more sensible readjustment towards from what the angle of the Earth's axis is dictating.
As I thought about this some more I came to the realisation that when it comes these sorts of problems with children sleeping, society is to blame. After all, we should not face these issues. If a child is getting up at what society claims is '4:30am,' that is only an issue for you because you have a meeting at '8:30am.' If your meeting was at '6:30am' there would be no difference between a child waking up then or two hours later. It is the meeting that needs to adjust for the sleep patterns which after all are biological and therefore not our fault.
True freedom would allow one to keep their own time and have others adjust accordingly. Would it be so bad if we all followed a schedule based on sunrises and sunsets rather than on artificial time? Time shifting using DVRs and VCRs on TV schedules has already allowed us to achieve this in small measure.
Now before you think that I am some sort of freak against daylight saving, what I am arguing for is continual daylight saving and spending. Not radical hourly shocks twice a year but continuous readjustment. If we could sync all clocks over the Internet then we could achieve this. The time keeper (I think at the moment that is the Vice President of the US) would dictate what time it was with minor adjustments taking place every night. For everyone, we would just find out the time the usual way but looking at our Internet synced clocks and watches. No one would know the difference, we wouldn't have to remember to adjust our clocks, all the benefits from daylight saving would be realised (both energy saving and lives), and we would be at one with nature so parents did not have to hold out for the clocks to change. A truly responsive society would give us that much.
Regardless of whether it is the beginning or end of daylight saving time, that day and a week after, is generally good news for parents. We are no exception. The problem we face is that young children are particularly disrespectful of time standards. They are set in their old ways and many rise with the sun and also refuse to sleep until it has gone down. Now effective 'within room' light management can give you a measure of control but it is rarely perfect.
What this means is that, by the time the end of summer rolls around, your child is going to bed later than you want and it is also hard to get them up for school in the morning. So the end of daylight saving time is a blessing. For a good week, they will drop off nicely and also by easy to get up in the morning; in the Gans household that is something we value but I could see why others might not.
Of course, this can all go to far. By the springtime, we face the opposite problem. The sun is rising very early and with them the children. On the other hand, they are ratty by the end of the day. The start of daylight saving is also a blessing as it allows more sensible readjustment towards from what the angle of the Earth's axis is dictating.
As I thought about this some more I came to the realisation that when it comes these sorts of problems with children sleeping, society is to blame. After all, we should not face these issues. If a child is getting up at what society claims is '4:30am,' that is only an issue for you because you have a meeting at '8:30am.' If your meeting was at '6:30am' there would be no difference between a child waking up then or two hours later. It is the meeting that needs to adjust for the sleep patterns which after all are biological and therefore not our fault.
True freedom would allow one to keep their own time and have others adjust accordingly. Would it be so bad if we all followed a schedule based on sunrises and sunsets rather than on artificial time? Time shifting using DVRs and VCRs on TV schedules has already allowed us to achieve this in small measure.
Now before you think that I am some sort of freak against daylight saving, what I am arguing for is continual daylight saving and spending. Not radical hourly shocks twice a year but continuous readjustment. If we could sync all clocks over the Internet then we could achieve this. The time keeper (I think at the moment that is the Vice President of the US) would dictate what time it was with minor adjustments taking place every night. For everyone, we would just find out the time the usual way but looking at our Internet synced clocks and watches. No one would know the difference, we wouldn't have to remember to adjust our clocks, all the benefits from daylight saving would be realised (both energy saving and lives), and we would be at one with nature so parents did not have to hold out for the clocks to change. A truly responsive society would give us that much.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Friday, March 23, 2007
Week 45: Pageant of the Transmundane
Welcome to the Wonderful World of... Pismo Beach? How did we end up here? I guess I should have taken that turn at Walla Walla. I really have to fire that travel agent.
Anyway, on with the show (Overture, cut the lights... ) This week's winner is A Biscuit of Many Parts, this blog's first win. How was victory achieved this week? Paul discovered a blog that dissects douchebaggery, and in reviewing it, he just let the site do the talking. As with the videos and images that have won this award, sometimes minimalism is the best way to go.
I wanted Homer in the pink shirt, but somehow this picture felt fitting. I don't know why, but it just leapt out of the collection this week(probably because Homer is showing a little douchebaggery himself there), and I just had to use it. So this week's Homer Simpson Transmundanity Award is a bit embarrassing... much like getting caught in a photo with a douchebag.
Congrats Paul. You've almost won it a few times, and now here you are in the winner's circle.
The rules of this little contest: Every week I will be selecting one blog post that I have seen from the vast reaches of the blogosphere to bestow with the Homer Simpson Transmundanity Award for being one of the freakiest(in a funny way) things I've seen or read during a 7 day period. It doesn't necessarily have to have been written during the week, I just had to have encountered it. That means that if you find something interesting and repost it like a movie or whatever, if I saw it at your blog first, you get the prize. Of course, creating your own content is also a very good way to win.
Now, if you see a post that you think is worthy of this illustrious prize, just drop me a line at campybeaver@gmail.com and we'll see if we can't get your suggestion up and award-ready while giving you some credit and a link to your own blog.
Anyway, on with the show (Overture, cut the lights... ) This week's winner is A Biscuit of Many Parts, this blog's first win. How was victory achieved this week? Paul discovered a blog that dissects douchebaggery, and in reviewing it, he just let the site do the talking. As with the videos and images that have won this award, sometimes minimalism is the best way to go.
I wanted Homer in the pink shirt, but somehow this picture felt fitting. I don't know why, but it just leapt out of the collection this week(probably because Homer is showing a little douchebaggery himself there), and I just had to use it. So this week's Homer Simpson Transmundanity Award is a bit embarrassing... much like getting caught in a photo with a douchebag.
Congrats Paul. You've almost won it a few times, and now here you are in the winner's circle.
The rules of this little contest: Every week I will be selecting one blog post that I have seen from the vast reaches of the blogosphere to bestow with the Homer Simpson Transmundanity Award for being one of the freakiest(in a funny way) things I've seen or read during a 7 day period. It doesn't necessarily have to have been written during the week, I just had to have encountered it. That means that if you find something interesting and repost it like a movie or whatever, if I saw it at your blog first, you get the prize. Of course, creating your own content is also a very good way to win.
Now, if you see a post that you think is worthy of this illustrious prize, just drop me a line at campybeaver@gmail.com and we'll see if we can't get your suggestion up and award-ready while giving you some credit and a link to your own blog.
Tags:
3 Rules for Choosing a Movie Tie-In game
It used to be that the words Movie Tie-in game were synonymous with disaster. I mean, thinking back to my days playing Atari and Nintendo, there was a long line of horrifyingly bad games that really shook my confidence in gaming itself. But I've recently become a little more optimistic about the prospects of movie-based games after a good run of them, and in thinking about it, I discovered three rules which made choosing between the good and the bad a little bit easier.
The Game adds something new to the story: For instance, The Warriors game starts many months before the movie, so there were many avenues to tell new stories and to enhance the story told in the movie. And in The Godfather: The Game's missions were parallel to those of the movie... you act as a facilitator to the events that other major characters in the series undertake so you again gain a greater understanding of the events of the movie it is based upon. The Thing and Chronicles of Riddick:Escape from Butcher Bay both explore a setting or character at a time that was before or after the events of their respective movies, and again, they came out rather successfully.
The Game features some of the original talent: I've mentioned The Warriors and The Godfather already, two games that not only brought something new to the movies they were spawned from but also had producers who knew that to get the best results, they had to have at least some of the original actors play their roles all over. I think it was this factor which also contributed to the success of the Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay game as well, as Vin Diesel not only did voice work on the game, but founded a production company that coproduced it. Meanwhile, the makers of Reservoir Dogs were only able to get Michael Madsen to come back to reprise his role, and inevitably the game suffered for it. I think an argument could be made that the more willing the actors involved with the movie were to be in the game, the better that game likely is, as their commitment likely indicates that the script was worth doing.
The Game was NOT released around the same time as the movie: Usually, those games that released before or just after the theatrical release of a movie are rather cynical attempts to cash-in on the marketing dollars being put into the film, so the people behind these games (the higher level management) don't really care if they are really good. They'll try to make the best product they can with the time alloted, but in all honesty, much like the tie-in novels, you shouldn't set your expectations too high. Granted there are rare exceptions to this rule. After all, the task of making a game match a movie that is still being put together is a herculean task for even those with the purest of intentions. Whereas a game that is based on a movie that was released a few years ago or longer likely has more time and greater resources to put out a higher quality title, as well as having a finished film (and possible special editions, audio commentaries and other commerically available materials) to work from, and because the decision to make a game comes much later, the people involved most likely really like the movie they are turning into a game so it is almost a labor of love.
The Game adds something new to the story: For instance, The Warriors game starts many months before the movie, so there were many avenues to tell new stories and to enhance the story told in the movie. And in The Godfather: The Game's missions were parallel to those of the movie... you act as a facilitator to the events that other major characters in the series undertake so you again gain a greater understanding of the events of the movie it is based upon. The Thing and Chronicles of Riddick:Escape from Butcher Bay both explore a setting or character at a time that was before or after the events of their respective movies, and again, they came out rather successfully.
The Game features some of the original talent: I've mentioned The Warriors and The Godfather already, two games that not only brought something new to the movies they were spawned from but also had producers who knew that to get the best results, they had to have at least some of the original actors play their roles all over. I think it was this factor which also contributed to the success of the Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay game as well, as Vin Diesel not only did voice work on the game, but founded a production company that coproduced it. Meanwhile, the makers of Reservoir Dogs were only able to get Michael Madsen to come back to reprise his role, and inevitably the game suffered for it. I think an argument could be made that the more willing the actors involved with the movie were to be in the game, the better that game likely is, as their commitment likely indicates that the script was worth doing.
The Game was NOT released around the same time as the movie: Usually, those games that released before or just after the theatrical release of a movie are rather cynical attempts to cash-in on the marketing dollars being put into the film, so the people behind these games (the higher level management) don't really care if they are really good. They'll try to make the best product they can with the time alloted, but in all honesty, much like the tie-in novels, you shouldn't set your expectations too high. Granted there are rare exceptions to this rule. After all, the task of making a game match a movie that is still being put together is a herculean task for even those with the purest of intentions. Whereas a game that is based on a movie that was released a few years ago or longer likely has more time and greater resources to put out a higher quality title, as well as having a finished film (and possible special editions, audio commentaries and other commerically available materials) to work from, and because the decision to make a game comes much later, the people involved most likely really like the movie they are turning into a game so it is almost a labor of love.
Tags:
Thursday, March 22, 2007
You too can be the star of a bloated self-indulgent musical...
...just hire Aaron Sorkin to write it, as the Flaming Lips have done.
I am not making this up. The Flaming Lips are bringing their 2002 album Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots to the stage in New York.
So rarely does such a perfect storm of pretention manifest itself in one project. Yes, Sorkin wrote A Few Good Men, so he is technically qualified to work on this musical on some level, but still, I don't like where this is going.
I am so clearly not a devotee of the lively arts, but even I can see the horror that could unfold. After all, they do shoot musicals onto film as well, cast with the creme de la creme of the currently hot actors and actresses in Hollywood. And because the Flaming Lips have a popular following, well, I have a feeling that at some point I am going to hear Bebe Neuwirth or Patti Lupone singing "Ego Tripping at the Gates of Hell" on a news program or talk show, and then I will lose it. That will be the breaking point of the Western Cultural Experience for me. Or how about "Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots" night on American Idol while a cast member of the West Wing sits beside the judges' table weeping. I also know that as soon as I typed that, it is exactly what is going to happen, because no one had thought of doing that until I entertained the idea(which is the only entertaining thing ABOUT this whole show).
It is a tragedy waiting to happen.
Though with this news, I think it is VERY safe to assume that indeed the sinking ship Studio 60 has finally hit the ocean floor after being swept away by popular apathy, which is a silver lining to this rather threatening cloud.
I am not making this up. The Flaming Lips are bringing their 2002 album Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots to the stage in New York.
So rarely does such a perfect storm of pretention manifest itself in one project. Yes, Sorkin wrote A Few Good Men, so he is technically qualified to work on this musical on some level, but still, I don't like where this is going.
I am so clearly not a devotee of the lively arts, but even I can see the horror that could unfold. After all, they do shoot musicals onto film as well, cast with the creme de la creme of the currently hot actors and actresses in Hollywood. And because the Flaming Lips have a popular following, well, I have a feeling that at some point I am going to hear Bebe Neuwirth or Patti Lupone singing "Ego Tripping at the Gates of Hell" on a news program or talk show, and then I will lose it. That will be the breaking point of the Western Cultural Experience for me. Or how about "Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots" night on American Idol while a cast member of the West Wing sits beside the judges' table weeping. I also know that as soon as I typed that, it is exactly what is going to happen, because no one had thought of doing that until I entertained the idea(which is the only entertaining thing ABOUT this whole show).
It is a tragedy waiting to happen.
Though with this news, I think it is VERY safe to assume that indeed the sinking ship Studio 60 has finally hit the ocean floor after being swept away by popular apathy, which is a silver lining to this rather threatening cloud.
Tags:
Tommy Chong on Youtube
Well, it is official. Tommy Chong is vlogging on Youtube now. There is only 5 entries so far, but it looks like he is updating his playlist regularly so I expect more little interludes of comedy and chat to be posted soon.
The best entry was one entitled Where's Cheech?
Check it out.
The best entry was one entitled Where's Cheech?
Check it out.
Tags:
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Remembering Pootie Tang
It occured to me last night that TV detectives Andy Richter and Kristen Bell appeared in a movie together as father and daughter, and in making that realization, I knew I had to write about that very same movie today.That movie was Pootie Tang. It is a BAD movie.
Now there are all kinds of bad movies, but Pootie Tang exists in a very special category... that being the bad movie you have to watch every time it is on because you can't believe that someone would have the balls to make it.
And it is funny, don't get me wrong, but it is still a bad movie.
Written by Louis C.K. and starring Lance Crouther, Wanda Sykes, Robert Vaughn and Chris Rock, Pootie Tang follows the title character's life as a belt-wielding folk hero, but there is a catch of course. He doesn't speak any recognizable language. He just spouts funny sounding gibberish. It reminds me of Eddie Murphy's version of Buckwheat taken to the furthest extreme. There is a framing interview between Bob Costas and Pootie Tang that really sets the scene(as everyone acts like they understand exactly what he is saying.
He is a role model for little kids, and a much sought after advertising spokesperson, but he is also a man of principles, so he won't do ads for products that are bad for kids. But he meets his match and is forced into signing a contract with an evil CEO and he has to find a way to get his reputation and powers back. There are a lot of detours, but that is basically the jist of the movie.
The Chris Rock quips about how Pootie Tang is going to kick someone's ass are almost a precursor to those Chuck Norris/Jack Bauer "facts" so they are also worth seeing in a historical perspective:
Pootie Tang will draw you a picture of how he gonna kick your ass, then mail it to you ten days in advance. The picture gets there right? You're goin', "What the hell is this?" and then Pootie Tang knocks on your door, Promptly kicks your ass and you still won't know what happened to you!
And because Louis C.K. is a standup comedian, a lot of his peers also appear in the movie, like Dave Attell, Todd Barry, Laura Kightlinger and David Cross. Of course, Dane Cook does not make an appearance, and from my point of view, thankfully so.
It is one of those movies I know is bad, and yet I can't look away. It is still compelling every time I see it on cable. It is like I HAVE to watch it.
Don't judge me.
Tags:
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Chickens and eggs
Breakfast discussion this morning ...
Me: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
Child No.1: "The chicken."
Me: "But how was the chicken born? Didn't it have to come from an egg?"
Child No.1: "No."
Me: "Why not?"
Child No.1: "Because dinosaurs made the chicken."
Me: "But don't dinosaurs have eggs."
Child No.1: "They don't have chicken eggs, they have dinosaur eggs and those are buried in the ground."
I withdrew at that point. This debate has clearly been resolved.
Me: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
Child No.1: "The chicken."
Me: "But how was the chicken born? Didn't it have to come from an egg?"
Child No.1: "No."
Me: "Why not?"
Child No.1: "Because dinosaurs made the chicken."
Me: "But don't dinosaurs have eggs."
Child No.1: "They don't have chicken eggs, they have dinosaur eggs and those are buried in the ground."
I withdrew at that point. This debate has clearly been resolved.
The Importance of History in Fiction: A personal commentary
I was a history major in university, and I am sure more than a few of my readers think the subject is quite frankly boring, but it is still something that fascinates me to this day.
And much like those experts in forensic science that wince when they watch CSI, the physicists who cringe when watching science fiction and the lawyers who shake their heads at every legal drama, I too recoil in horror when I encounter the lack of historical thinking that occurs in the work of a lot of science fiction/fantasy authors and filmmakers.
From most of the writing books I have ever read, one of the key points is usually always something akin to "know the world you are writing about", and from my viewing/reading habits, well, it seems like these creators just don't have that good of an understanding of the history of their settings and societies. They make elementary mistakes which are clear to someone who has studied the development of cultures, technologies and nations, mistakes which seriously put the rest of the premise they are trying to present under immense strain.
Usually when you are introduced to a character and a plot, well, the details behind how we got to this particular point are usually very sketchy. You may be presented with a few relevant bits and pieces from the immediate past(like the fact that a war has just taken place), but the steps the society took to get to that point are woefully inadequate to support the story, or what's worse, the causality of the events make absolutely no sense from a historical point of view, like in fantasy books, having almost every character be literate when they've grown up in a society that has no books. Or having a science fiction universe where every planet is one culture, language, religion and race, or in fantasy where a hero can go from one end of a continent to another and can converse with everyone in the same language without explaining that there may be a universal language that transcends the vernacular(like Latin amongst the educated classes in Europe for centuries). I know it is easier to write a story when you don't have to worry about those pesky little details like having to deal with a cosmopolitan society, but it makes me die a little inside every time I see it.
And when they show some of these places, it is like they just pulled that planet/city/empire out of a shrinkwrapped box and plopped it in there. Sure, the buildings may be burned out or falling apart, but when you look at the places they occupy, well, it is like someone just put them up yesterday, like it is some odd futuristic version of a Levittown. There is nothing organic about these places, they don't feel lived in. And in fantasy, there are castles, but you never read about the wars and interregional rivalries that caused them to be built.
There are also those allegorical tales that use certain Earth-based historical events, figures and nations as the basis of their societies (Nazi Germany/Soviet Russia were used quite a bit... ok, more than quite a bit really), but they usually don't explain how things got to that point. We are instead supposed to just take the artist's word that this is just how things are, and usually they are making these entreaties for is to believe them while presenting other information which completely invalidates that reality. Like having a huge, megalithic fascist regime that supposedly controls the lives of everyone, and yet, everyone has access to as much information as they could ever want or has easy access to the very systems would will eventually bring down the entire empire.
And the products of culture are rarely explored in these types of work. Sure, there may be some consumer products and the occasional work of scholarship in these created worlds, but there is a huge intellectual output that is created by a society that is rarely explored.
I mean, if you picked up a novel that was set in Northern Virginia, 1864, you have a good idea of the context in which the events of the book take place, just as you may if it was set in 1960's San Francisco/Saigon. And for exotic and unknown settings like 1540's Europe or 2nd century East Asia, you have other resources to discover this information, but when an author/director is building a world, you have to take their word for it and hope that we will follow them along for the ride. If someone was willfully ignorant of their setting in these cases, we wouldn't accept it. Why is it anymore acceptable when the world is being created from the ground up then?
I am not saying that I need to know the entire history of a world to get into a story, but there are a lot of times when I don't think the creators of these worlds could answer some basic questions about them either, and that is my point. I am not looking for them to make up the entire historical background for everything that ever happened on that world like Tolkien devised, but I do have a reasonable expectation that if asked, an author/director should be able to tell you about the conflicts between two groups of people or how a species reached the stars or united as one on a planet. Because really, how can we be expected to understand a character when the author doesn't fully understand them either?
And much like those experts in forensic science that wince when they watch CSI, the physicists who cringe when watching science fiction and the lawyers who shake their heads at every legal drama, I too recoil in horror when I encounter the lack of historical thinking that occurs in the work of a lot of science fiction/fantasy authors and filmmakers.
From most of the writing books I have ever read, one of the key points is usually always something akin to "know the world you are writing about", and from my viewing/reading habits, well, it seems like these creators just don't have that good of an understanding of the history of their settings and societies. They make elementary mistakes which are clear to someone who has studied the development of cultures, technologies and nations, mistakes which seriously put the rest of the premise they are trying to present under immense strain.
Usually when you are introduced to a character and a plot, well, the details behind how we got to this particular point are usually very sketchy. You may be presented with a few relevant bits and pieces from the immediate past(like the fact that a war has just taken place), but the steps the society took to get to that point are woefully inadequate to support the story, or what's worse, the causality of the events make absolutely no sense from a historical point of view, like in fantasy books, having almost every character be literate when they've grown up in a society that has no books. Or having a science fiction universe where every planet is one culture, language, religion and race, or in fantasy where a hero can go from one end of a continent to another and can converse with everyone in the same language without explaining that there may be a universal language that transcends the vernacular(like Latin amongst the educated classes in Europe for centuries). I know it is easier to write a story when you don't have to worry about those pesky little details like having to deal with a cosmopolitan society, but it makes me die a little inside every time I see it.
And when they show some of these places, it is like they just pulled that planet/city/empire out of a shrinkwrapped box and plopped it in there. Sure, the buildings may be burned out or falling apart, but when you look at the places they occupy, well, it is like someone just put them up yesterday, like it is some odd futuristic version of a Levittown. There is nothing organic about these places, they don't feel lived in. And in fantasy, there are castles, but you never read about the wars and interregional rivalries that caused them to be built.
There are also those allegorical tales that use certain Earth-based historical events, figures and nations as the basis of their societies (Nazi Germany/Soviet Russia were used quite a bit... ok, more than quite a bit really), but they usually don't explain how things got to that point. We are instead supposed to just take the artist's word that this is just how things are, and usually they are making these entreaties for is to believe them while presenting other information which completely invalidates that reality. Like having a huge, megalithic fascist regime that supposedly controls the lives of everyone, and yet, everyone has access to as much information as they could ever want or has easy access to the very systems would will eventually bring down the entire empire.
And the products of culture are rarely explored in these types of work. Sure, there may be some consumer products and the occasional work of scholarship in these created worlds, but there is a huge intellectual output that is created by a society that is rarely explored.
I mean, if you picked up a novel that was set in Northern Virginia, 1864, you have a good idea of the context in which the events of the book take place, just as you may if it was set in 1960's San Francisco/Saigon. And for exotic and unknown settings like 1540's Europe or 2nd century East Asia, you have other resources to discover this information, but when an author/director is building a world, you have to take their word for it and hope that we will follow them along for the ride. If someone was willfully ignorant of their setting in these cases, we wouldn't accept it. Why is it anymore acceptable when the world is being created from the ground up then?
I am not saying that I need to know the entire history of a world to get into a story, but there are a lot of times when I don't think the creators of these worlds could answer some basic questions about them either, and that is my point. I am not looking for them to make up the entire historical background for everything that ever happened on that world like Tolkien devised, but I do have a reasonable expectation that if asked, an author/director should be able to tell you about the conflicts between two groups of people or how a species reached the stars or united as one on a planet. Because really, how can we be expected to understand a character when the author doesn't fully understand them either?
Tags:
Monday, March 19, 2007
Happy Birthday Gumby
Gumby is 50 today, and to celebrate, I found the first short he was ever in online(apparently, they are all coming to Google/Youtube soon legally). Gumby on the Moon
And a few more funny Gumby related videos. One is a Gumby Christmas special from Saturday Night Live starring Eddie Murphy... and Mystery Science Theatre 3000's take on a short called "Robot Rumpus" is also hilarious.
I remember watching Gumby on tv back in the mid-1980's, and it is comforting to think that soon the entire back catalog of shorts will be available. I miss quality claymation, I really do.
Watching these shorts really take me back to my childhood. Ah Sweet Gooey Nostalgia.
Tags:
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Red Assed Monkey Love: A Culture Kills Comic
Yeah, there is nowhere to go but down after a title like Red Assed Monkey Love. You will have to admit it is an eye catcher though.
Made with Strip Generator Technology
Made with Strip Generator Technology
Tags:
The electronic babysitter
If I had a dollar for how many times I have heard the following story ...
There are dark ages for kids on flights -- I'd say from about 1 to 6 or 7. After that age, they can entertain themselves with a Nintendo DS or a book. But prior to that you are left with the following options: (a) reading to them (max 20 minutes); (b) little drawing kits (max 15 minutes) and (c) eating (max 20 minutes but fraught with danger). Let's add that up: 55 minutes. If you are "lucky" you can get another 10 minutes with the in-flight nappy change -- including the five minutes while you and your spouse negotiate incredible long-term concessions to get the other to do it.
The DVD player can fill the void. Even if your child can only be occupied for half hour spurts; put these in between other activities and you can extend your range to three or four hours. Long than that and you will need drugs to induce sleep.
What is more, a DVD player for a child on a flight is a positive externality. It is great for passengers around you. Indeed, if you don't have a child and are worried about this, you might carry a DVD player just in case as an option for misguided parents.
A similar but localised issue arises with regard to mechanical swings. These are things you can put a baby into and they are rocked gently and otherwise amused. We got one of these for our third child and could not believe that we had not got one before. It frees your hands and saves your mind. For the baby that does not understand that you have things to do in their interest (washing, preparing food, going to the bathroom), this will convince them.
Like all things, there is a time and a place for an electronic babysitter. Blanket policies never using them are unlikely to be the way to go. But handing your child over to the machine when the costs of not doing so are high, seems like a no brainer. Certainly, not worth an extended debate on each and every one.
"I thought we should get one of those portable LCD DVD players for the kids on the flight but my partner was dead against it. I ended up buying it anyway and suffice it to say, we both now agree it is the best purchase we ever made."There are times when electronic babysitters appear to be a must have. Flights are a good example. When you are traveling with a little baby, things are relatively easy. The baby is contained and your only issue is noise disturbing others. When they get older, the chief fear is restlessness. Put simply, they have to sit in a chair for what for them is a record-breaking long time and any parent is fooling themselves that they can sustain entertainment for them for any flight of longer duration than an hour.
There are dark ages for kids on flights -- I'd say from about 1 to 6 or 7. After that age, they can entertain themselves with a Nintendo DS or a book. But prior to that you are left with the following options: (a) reading to them (max 20 minutes); (b) little drawing kits (max 15 minutes) and (c) eating (max 20 minutes but fraught with danger). Let's add that up: 55 minutes. If you are "lucky" you can get another 10 minutes with the in-flight nappy change -- including the five minutes while you and your spouse negotiate incredible long-term concessions to get the other to do it.
The DVD player can fill the void. Even if your child can only be occupied for half hour spurts; put these in between other activities and you can extend your range to three or four hours. Long than that and you will need drugs to induce sleep.
What is more, a DVD player for a child on a flight is a positive externality. It is great for passengers around you. Indeed, if you don't have a child and are worried about this, you might carry a DVD player just in case as an option for misguided parents.
A similar but localised issue arises with regard to mechanical swings. These are things you can put a baby into and they are rocked gently and otherwise amused. We got one of these for our third child and could not believe that we had not got one before. It frees your hands and saves your mind. For the baby that does not understand that you have things to do in their interest (washing, preparing food, going to the bathroom), this will convince them.
Like all things, there is a time and a place for an electronic babysitter. Blanket policies never using them are unlikely to be the way to go. But handing your child over to the machine when the costs of not doing so are high, seems like a no brainer. Certainly, not worth an extended debate on each and every one.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Week 44: Pageant of the Transmundane
If it is Tuesday, this must be Belgium... what? It's Friday? Oh, then this must be the Bowery then. Sorry for the confusion. Hopefully the Lizzies don't get me before this awards ceremony is out.
Anyway, this week's winner is the man with the plan... Jess from Apropos of Something, a blog that the judges at Culture Kills have become very familiar with over the past year or so.
And one of the features that makes Apropos of Something so unique is the reinterpretations of old comics for comedic effect, usually while reference other pop cultural forces, and well, seeing as this is also a pop cultural blog, that sort of meshes well with my sensibilities.
And this week, Jess took those icons of the 1980's animation, The Smurfs,and combined them with one of the most iconic movies on the 1990's, Pulp Fiction, to make Smurf Fiction. It is short and sweet... just like a shooter.
And because Jules and Vincent really should have had shotguns for that shit, well, it seems appropriate for the award to reflect that, so it seemed fitting that Homer's wacky invention, the makeup gun would end up as the Homer Simpson Transmundanity Award this week.
Congrats Jess... here is the graphic for winning this week.
And as another three time winner, you also get the Transmundanity Triple Crown. It has been a prolific year for them so far.
The rules of this little contest: Every week I will be selecting one blog post that I have seen from the vast reaches of the blogosphere to bestow with the Homer Simpson Transmundanity Award for being one of the freakiest(in a funny way) things I've seen or read during a 7 day period. It doesn't necessarily have to have been written during the week, I just had to have encountered it. That means that if you find something interesting and repost it like a movie or whatever, if I saw it at your blog first, you get the prize. Of course, creating your own content is also a very good way to win.
Now, if you see a post that you think is worthy of this illustrious prize, just drop me a line at campybeaver@gmail.com and we'll see if we can't get your suggestion up and award-ready while giving you some credit and a link to your own blog.
Anyway, this week's winner is the man with the plan... Jess from Apropos of Something, a blog that the judges at Culture Kills have become very familiar with over the past year or so.
And one of the features that makes Apropos of Something so unique is the reinterpretations of old comics for comedic effect, usually while reference other pop cultural forces, and well, seeing as this is also a pop cultural blog, that sort of meshes well with my sensibilities.
And this week, Jess took those icons of the 1980's animation, The Smurfs,and combined them with one of the most iconic movies on the 1990's, Pulp Fiction, to make Smurf Fiction. It is short and sweet... just like a shooter.
And because Jules and Vincent really should have had shotguns for that shit, well, it seems appropriate for the award to reflect that, so it seemed fitting that Homer's wacky invention, the makeup gun would end up as the Homer Simpson Transmundanity Award this week.
Congrats Jess... here is the graphic for winning this week.
And as another three time winner, you also get the Transmundanity Triple Crown. It has been a prolific year for them so far.
The rules of this little contest: Every week I will be selecting one blog post that I have seen from the vast reaches of the blogosphere to bestow with the Homer Simpson Transmundanity Award for being one of the freakiest(in a funny way) things I've seen or read during a 7 day period. It doesn't necessarily have to have been written during the week, I just had to have encountered it. That means that if you find something interesting and repost it like a movie or whatever, if I saw it at your blog first, you get the prize. Of course, creating your own content is also a very good way to win.
Now, if you see a post that you think is worthy of this illustrious prize, just drop me a line at campybeaver@gmail.com and we'll see if we can't get your suggestion up and award-ready while giving you some credit and a link to your own blog.
Tags:
Kid logic
Last week, This American Life dealt with kid logic. This is where kids look at the evidence, use logic and draw incorrect conclusions. Their initial example was of one kid who told another that their father was the tooth fairy. Then for years that kid thought their friend's father was the tooth fairy and evidently, her parents played along by signing his name to notes when she left a tooth out. You can listen to the full episode here.
So we have one of these stories. It is to do with Child No.1, when she was four. It was then that she revealed to me that her mother controlled traffic lights. I found this out while we were stopped at a light waiting for it to turn green and I uttered some complaint. She told me that if Mum were hear she could change the light and we could go.
I enquired more as to why this was the case.
"Well, her car has a stick that if you move it down and press that pedal, the light turns green. Your car doesn't have that."
Ah ha. So what had been happening was this. Her mother -- who likes sports car feel and drive -- had a supped up VW Golf. When the light turned green she would whip into gear right away and off they would go.
To my daughter these events were virtually simultaneous. So she formed the view on causality that it was the stick shift that caused the light change rather than the other way around.
I asked her today whether she still believes this (at 8) but she doesn't. She does remember that she did once think so but has re-written her memory to suggest that this was claimed by her mother rather than some false hypothesis.
Update: here is a site that collects these things.
So we have one of these stories. It is to do with Child No.1, when she was four. It was then that she revealed to me that her mother controlled traffic lights. I found this out while we were stopped at a light waiting for it to turn green and I uttered some complaint. She told me that if Mum were hear she could change the light and we could go.
I enquired more as to why this was the case.
"Well, her car has a stick that if you move it down and press that pedal, the light turns green. Your car doesn't have that."
Ah ha. So what had been happening was this. Her mother -- who likes sports car feel and drive -- had a supped up VW Golf. When the light turned green she would whip into gear right away and off they would go.
To my daughter these events were virtually simultaneous. So she formed the view on causality that it was the stick shift that caused the light change rather than the other way around.
I asked her today whether she still believes this (at 8) but she doesn't. She does remember that she did once think so but has re-written her memory to suggest that this was claimed by her mother rather than some false hypothesis.
Update: here is a site that collects these things.
Friday Night "Yeah RIGHT's"
Simon Cowell thinks he is bigger than Bruce Springsteen: In an upcoming 60 Minutes interview, Simon Cowell states that he is worth more to Sony BMG than the Boss. Listen Simon, I know you think you are all that, but in 50 years, who do you think people will still be talking about, you and your motley band of manufactured acts or the Boss, a man who has made iconic music for almost four decades now, and when the American public decides that they no longer like the middling brand of mediocrity American Idol brings to their home every season, Springsteen will still be selling albums. You may have a beef about your compensation, but really, taking it out on someone else who has paid their dues is sort of pathetic.
The Hypocrisy of Viacom: Viacom is suing Google's Youtube for 1 Billion dollars because the company's copyrighted materials were being uploaded by individual users. However, Viacom also owns Ifilm... which as you guessed it, has unauthorized digital content from other companies on it. Hmmm... isn't that just so interesting. And at the same time, Sumner Redstone is the chairman of CBS that has a deal with Youtube and Google. Sorry for the aneurysm as you try to figure your way through that load of conflicting interests.
The RIAA has to pay: A Oklahoma mother beat the Recording Industry Association of America twice in court and as such, she received a judgment which allowed her to collect legal fees... and in determining what is a reasonable amount of money for her claim, the court has demanded that the RIAA provide their time sheets and billing records for the case. And the thing is, they don't want to do that. Hmmm. I wonder why a litigious organization like the RIAA wouldn't want to turn over documents when they have sued 20000 Americans in recent years.
The Hypocrisy of Viacom: Viacom is suing Google's Youtube for 1 Billion dollars because the company's copyrighted materials were being uploaded by individual users. However, Viacom also owns Ifilm... which as you guessed it, has unauthorized digital content from other companies on it. Hmmm... isn't that just so interesting. And at the same time, Sumner Redstone is the chairman of CBS that has a deal with Youtube and Google. Sorry for the aneurysm as you try to figure your way through that load of conflicting interests.
The RIAA has to pay: A Oklahoma mother beat the Recording Industry Association of America twice in court and as such, she received a judgment which allowed her to collect legal fees... and in determining what is a reasonable amount of money for her claim, the court has demanded that the RIAA provide their time sheets and billing records for the case. And the thing is, they don't want to do that. Hmmm. I wonder why a litigious organization like the RIAA wouldn't want to turn over documents when they have sued 20000 Americans in recent years.
Tags:
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Referrals/Recommendations
I like telling people about things they might like. It is a natural quality I have. I do it on my blog all the time, and in real life as well. I am never looking for anything out of it in return, I just really enjoy doing it.
And some of you have probably received emails from me after I see something online that, from my experience reading your blog, I think will interest you. I have no ulterior motive in doing so as I was accused of doing yesterday by a fellow blogger yesterday.
So, if I've ever given you a referral/recommendation to a video/blog entry/image by email and you don't want me to do that anymore, well, I am fine with that. Just tell me, and I won't email you links anymore.
And some of you have probably received emails from me after I see something online that, from my experience reading your blog, I think will interest you. I have no ulterior motive in doing so as I was accused of doing yesterday by a fellow blogger yesterday.
So, if I've ever given you a referral/recommendation to a video/blog entry/image by email and you don't want me to do that anymore, well, I am fine with that. Just tell me, and I won't email you links anymore.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
24 Movie-Related Questions from Culture Kills
Samuraifrog picked up the Charlie Brown Anime thing I put up a few weeks ago, and since turnabout is fair play, I took this meme off his blog for my own.
This is the result.
1. Name a movie that you have seen more than 10 times.
Hmmm... I saw 100 Girls about 60 times when it was on cable, and when I was a kid, I watched Willow a great number of times, though recently, it would probably be A Bridge Too Far, The Good The Bad and The Ugly and The Warriors.
2. Name a movie that you've seen multiple times in the theater.
Sin City. That was something I just had to see again and again.
3. Name an actor that would make you more inclined to see a movie.
Jean Reno, Ving Rhames and Paul Bettany have gotten my ass into a seat or to the rental counter for one of their movies.
4. Name an actor that would make you less likely to see a movie.
I won't name one particular actor/ess because a category does it better. Scientologists.
5. Name a movie that you can and do quote from.
Well, the Big Lebowski comes immediately to mind, though A Knight's Tale, Pulp Fiction and Raising Arizona also float to the top.
6. Name a movie musical that you know all of the lyrics to all of the songs.
Um, musicals aren't really part of my movie background, so this is a tough, tough question. I have to pass.
7. Name a movie that you have been known to sing along with.
Kill Bill... seriously. I know all the English language songs.
8. Name a movie that you would recommend everyone see.
Krzysztof Kieslowski's Trois couleurs: Blanc
9. Name a movie that you own.
I take this to mean in a way like that article about movies owning songs.... so what movie does everyone think of when they know me... The Big Lebowski, because I am Dude-like and if you haven't seen it, I show it to you.
10. Name an actor that launched his/her entertainment career in another medium but who has surprised you with his/her acting chops.
Former football player Terry Crews. He is a joy to watch as he is very expressive as a comedic actor, especially in his recent television gig as Chris Rock's father on Everybody Hates Chris. Apparently he is also an accomplished painter as well.
11. Have you ever seen a movie in a drive-in? If so, what?
The age of the drive in ended just before I could experience it.
12. Ever made out in a movie?
Guilty on multiple counts. I don't know if having Showgirls on the list of movies that this took place in is a good thing or a bad thing.
13. Name a movie that you keep meaning to see but just haven’t yet gotten around to it.
I haven't seen a Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings film after their first installments.
14. Ever walked out of a movie?
I've never walked out of a movie. I almost walked out of XXX: State of the Union.
15. Name a movie that made you cry in the theater.
E.T. If it wasn't for the "in the theatre" part, well, this would be a much longer list.
16. Popcorn?
Yes please.
17. How often do you go to the movies (as opposed to renting them or watching them at home)?
I have to really want to see it to go to the theatre now. I like the extras DVD's provide.
18. What’s the last movie you saw in the theater?
Smokin' Aces
19. What’s your favorite/preferred genre of movie?
Good Action movies with Comedy coming a close second.
20. What’s the first movie you remember seeing in the theater?
Snow White in 1983
21. What movie do you wish you had never seen?
Mission Impossible II... blech!
22. What is the weirdest movie you enjoyed?
Julie Taymor's Titus
23. What is the scariest movie you've seen?
The Thing still gives me the creeps.
24. What is the funniest movie you've seen?
Raising Arizona is to me a masterwork in the comedic arts.
If anyone else wants to do this, go for it. No tagging is involved.
This is the result.
1. Name a movie that you have seen more than 10 times.
Hmmm... I saw 100 Girls about 60 times when it was on cable, and when I was a kid, I watched Willow a great number of times, though recently, it would probably be A Bridge Too Far, The Good The Bad and The Ugly and The Warriors.
2. Name a movie that you've seen multiple times in the theater.
Sin City. That was something I just had to see again and again.
3. Name an actor that would make you more inclined to see a movie.
Jean Reno, Ving Rhames and Paul Bettany have gotten my ass into a seat or to the rental counter for one of their movies.
4. Name an actor that would make you less likely to see a movie.
I won't name one particular actor/ess because a category does it better. Scientologists.
5. Name a movie that you can and do quote from.
Well, the Big Lebowski comes immediately to mind, though A Knight's Tale, Pulp Fiction and Raising Arizona also float to the top.
6. Name a movie musical that you know all of the lyrics to all of the songs.
Um, musicals aren't really part of my movie background, so this is a tough, tough question. I have to pass.
7. Name a movie that you have been known to sing along with.
Kill Bill... seriously. I know all the English language songs.
8. Name a movie that you would recommend everyone see.
Krzysztof Kieslowski's Trois couleurs: Blanc
9. Name a movie that you own.
I take this to mean in a way like that article about movies owning songs.... so what movie does everyone think of when they know me... The Big Lebowski, because I am Dude-like and if you haven't seen it, I show it to you.
10. Name an actor that launched his/her entertainment career in another medium but who has surprised you with his/her acting chops.
Former football player Terry Crews. He is a joy to watch as he is very expressive as a comedic actor, especially in his recent television gig as Chris Rock's father on Everybody Hates Chris. Apparently he is also an accomplished painter as well.
11. Have you ever seen a movie in a drive-in? If so, what?
The age of the drive in ended just before I could experience it.
12. Ever made out in a movie?
Guilty on multiple counts. I don't know if having Showgirls on the list of movies that this took place in is a good thing or a bad thing.
13. Name a movie that you keep meaning to see but just haven’t yet gotten around to it.
I haven't seen a Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings film after their first installments.
14. Ever walked out of a movie?
I've never walked out of a movie. I almost walked out of XXX: State of the Union.
15. Name a movie that made you cry in the theater.
E.T. If it wasn't for the "in the theatre" part, well, this would be a much longer list.
16. Popcorn?
Yes please.
17. How often do you go to the movies (as opposed to renting them or watching them at home)?
I have to really want to see it to go to the theatre now. I like the extras DVD's provide.
18. What’s the last movie you saw in the theater?
Smokin' Aces
19. What’s your favorite/preferred genre of movie?
Good Action movies with Comedy coming a close second.
20. What’s the first movie you remember seeing in the theater?
Snow White in 1983
21. What movie do you wish you had never seen?
Mission Impossible II... blech!
22. What is the weirdest movie you enjoyed?
Julie Taymor's Titus
23. What is the scariest movie you've seen?
The Thing still gives me the creeps.
24. What is the funniest movie you've seen?
Raising Arizona is to me a masterwork in the comedic arts.
If anyone else wants to do this, go for it. No tagging is involved.
Tags:
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
No, not Snake Plissken too
I guess Hollywood is just aching to wreck every movie I loved as a kid by remaking them. The latest victim, if it wasn't obvious from my title, is Escape from New York, the 1981 John Carpenter film based on the premise that New York City was turned into a maximum security prison, and when an international crisis looms, there is only one man tough enough to go in and do the job... Snake Plisskin, an eye-patch wearing anti-hero played brilliantly by Kurt Russell.After the success this weekend of the 300, the name bandied about to replace Russell in the remake is Gerard Butler, the actor who also played the title role in Dracula 2000 and appeared in Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life and Timeline
Now, I am not saying that Gerard Butler is a bad actor, not at all. It is just that Kurt Russell IS Snake Plissken, it is one of his iconic characters, much like the Man with No Name and Dirty Harry ARE Clint Eastwood or Mel Gibson IS Mad Max. There is nothing any film maker can do to make me forget those performances.
And those of us who have played the modern versions of the Metal Gear Solid series know that the English language version of Solid Snake was heavily influenced by the Kurt Russell performance in that movie.
In short, Snake Plissken is one of those great B-movie badasses, and I am very distraught that someone else may play that role.
I still stand by my conviction that remakes, especially of John Carpenter's work, basically suck.
Tags:
Monday, March 12, 2007
Saying Goodbye to Richard Jeni
I generally don't write posts about the death of a celebrity (Anna Nicole Smith was a notable exception), but again, I feel the need to write about someone who has recently left this mortal coil.
I was on the phone with a friend last night, and we were discussing celebrity gossip and she asked me to find a particular story on Perez Hilton. As I scrolled down the first page, I came across the story regarding Richard Jeni's apparent suicide.
You do not want to find out about something like that from Perez Hilton, even though the blog was very respectful of his passing. I had to pause the conversation for a minute to allow the enormity of the event to sink in(and to seek additional verification).
I was stunned to hear about this turn of events, and saddened as I remember the playfulness of his comedy and the personality that made those same jokes so appealing.
The world has lost another great comic before his time.
Elayne Boosler wrote a fitting farewell for Jeni at the Huffington Post, and I think it is worth reading as is an entry about his suicide by Andy Nulman, the CEO of Just for Laughs entry. There is some real insight from these two people who knew him, though it doesn't make the event seem any less momentous.
I was on the phone with a friend last night, and we were discussing celebrity gossip and she asked me to find a particular story on Perez Hilton. As I scrolled down the first page, I came across the story regarding Richard Jeni's apparent suicide.
You do not want to find out about something like that from Perez Hilton, even though the blog was very respectful of his passing. I had to pause the conversation for a minute to allow the enormity of the event to sink in(and to seek additional verification).
I was stunned to hear about this turn of events, and saddened as I remember the playfulness of his comedy and the personality that made those same jokes so appealing.
The world has lost another great comic before his time.
Elayne Boosler wrote a fitting farewell for Jeni at the Huffington Post, and I think it is worth reading as is an entry about his suicide by Andy Nulman, the CEO of Just for Laughs entry. There is some real insight from these two people who knew him, though it doesn't make the event seem any less momentous.
Tags:
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Re-living the 80s
The other week I picked up the first season of Mork & Mindy on DVD. I fondly remembered it from my childhood; especially the performance of Robin Williams. My hunch was that my 8 and 6 year old might enjoy it in a wholesome sort of way.
Well that turned out to be definitely true. They loved the humour. "Oh he keeps sitting on his head!" and of course, "Nanoo nanoo" which has become a new greeting around the home.
But what was more interesting was that they liked the storylines. When it comes down to it, they identify with Mork. He doesn't understand how the world works and is working it out as he goes along. Much of what he doesn't understand are things kids also have trouble with. How money works? Why people date? Why people lie?
Mork amusingly stumbles through this and eventually ends up with a little life lesson to Orson at the end of the day. It is hockey but right at their level. I can highly recommend it as family viewing all round.
Well that turned out to be definitely true. They loved the humour. "Oh he keeps sitting on his head!" and of course, "Nanoo nanoo" which has become a new greeting around the home.
But what was more interesting was that they liked the storylines. When it comes down to it, they identify with Mork. He doesn't understand how the world works and is working it out as he goes along. Much of what he doesn't understand are things kids also have trouble with. How money works? Why people date? Why people lie?
Mork amusingly stumbles through this and eventually ends up with a little life lesson to Orson at the end of the day. It is hockey but right at their level. I can highly recommend it as family viewing all round.
The Cat in the Anniversary Hat
The Cat in the Hat was first published 50 years ago today (12th March, 1957). Here is the history and here is the celebration site. It remains one of the ten best selling children's books of all time.
For us it was The Cat in the Hat Comes Back (the 1958 sequel) that remains the favourite. It was read to our first born so many times that, at the age of 3, she was able to convince parents of other children that she could read. She would sit there and go through all 40 pages without error. Surely, only a reader could do that! But no, she had heard it so many times that she knew it by heart. And so, of course, did we.
What this meant is that by Child No.3, that book hadn't come back out. I noticed the other day when I looked for it that it was the 40th Anniversary Edition. How time flies ...
For us it was The Cat in the Hat Comes Back (the 1958 sequel) that remains the favourite. It was read to our first born so many times that, at the age of 3, she was able to convince parents of other children that she could read. She would sit there and go through all 40 pages without error. Surely, only a reader could do that! But no, she had heard it so many times that she knew it by heart. And so, of course, did we.
What this meant is that by Child No.3, that book hadn't come back out. I noticed the other day when I looked for it that it was the 40th Anniversary Edition. How time flies ...
Saturday, March 10, 2007
A little lesson on eBay
Our kids have an exciting couple of days watching us try to procure a computer game on eBay. The game in question is the now 'out of print' Pikmin 2 for the Nintendo GameCube/Wii. You may recall from an earlier post that Pikmin itself became a household obsession for us over the summer holiday. The Thirty-Six year old finally finished it yesterday. But the Six year old had been using his new found 'finder' (i.e., Google) on the computer to discover that there was a Pikmin 2. He also believed that it could be purchased from Target. Sadly, this appeared to be in the US and so out of our reach.
A hunt for Pikmin 2 ensued with the Thirty-Six year old favouring a new version but discovering that one we found would cost $100. I suggested eBay as an alternative where Pikmin 2 seemed to be selling for about $50.
This seemed like a good opportunity for some learning about how auctions and bidding worked for the kids. There was a mild budget constraint (the price of the new one) so that was an issue. Nonetheless, the notion of eBay as an alternative to bricks and mortar stores was a novelty.
The first auction closing was from someone who had some red flags in reputation. So we avoided that. The second, however, looked good (here is the link for as long as it lasts). You will notice that we were the highest bidder (at $37) until about an hour before the auction closed. The Eight year old was still up and so we deliberated over whether to up our bid above $50. I didn't want to as there was another auction closing the next day. It seemed to me that we could go for that with one fewer bidders and surely do better. That was the economist speaking.
The Eight year old was concerned we wouldn't get that one. So I decided to make a deal. I told her that we could bid on that auction. If we won, then we would look at the price tomorrow's auction closed at. My daughter would agree to pay the difference. I pointed out that there might not be any difference or tomorrow' might close for more. However, she didn't want to take the risk of forking out her own money and was now happy to wait a day. That auction closed at $55.
So today was a day spent in constant refreshing of the auction page. We had to go out so we put in a maximum bid of $60. For most of the day we were the highest bidder (at $41). We got home with 10 minutes to spare and were still winning. My daughter refreshed the page every five seconds as the tension built. Then, one minute before the end, the price started to rise. Someone was bidding against us. 30 seconds before the end we were trumped. The next bid was $61.
At that point I did something I probably shouldn't have. I decided not to let it go. I put in a bid at $65 (not enough) and then $66 (it was). That last bid was at one second. We had sniped the sniper. (You can see the bid history here for as long as the link is open).
To say there was much rejoicing is an understatement. The Eight year old has her own blog (it is open to family and friends only) but here is what she wrote:
Actually, the rejoicing did not include me. Had we gone for it yesterday we may well have been $10 better off. (It has hard to tell what some more competition would have pushed the price to). Suffice it to say, I should have got it for a little less today but didn't. Economic theory failed me this time around.
Now, of course, came the news they would have to wait some days for the item to be shipped from Tasmania. A clear disadvantage to eBay.
But this all brought the realisation that we could sell stuff on eBay and get money. The Eight year old, however, is currently reluctant to part with any of her stuff.
A hunt for Pikmin 2 ensued with the Thirty-Six year old favouring a new version but discovering that one we found would cost $100. I suggested eBay as an alternative where Pikmin 2 seemed to be selling for about $50.
This seemed like a good opportunity for some learning about how auctions and bidding worked for the kids. There was a mild budget constraint (the price of the new one) so that was an issue. Nonetheless, the notion of eBay as an alternative to bricks and mortar stores was a novelty.
The first auction closing was from someone who had some red flags in reputation. So we avoided that. The second, however, looked good (here is the link for as long as it lasts). You will notice that we were the highest bidder (at $37) until about an hour before the auction closed. The Eight year old was still up and so we deliberated over whether to up our bid above $50. I didn't want to as there was another auction closing the next day. It seemed to me that we could go for that with one fewer bidders and surely do better. That was the economist speaking.
The Eight year old was concerned we wouldn't get that one. So I decided to make a deal. I told her that we could bid on that auction. If we won, then we would look at the price tomorrow's auction closed at. My daughter would agree to pay the difference. I pointed out that there might not be any difference or tomorrow' might close for more. However, she didn't want to take the risk of forking out her own money and was now happy to wait a day. That auction closed at $55.
So today was a day spent in constant refreshing of the auction page. We had to go out so we put in a maximum bid of $60. For most of the day we were the highest bidder (at $41). We got home with 10 minutes to spare and were still winning. My daughter refreshed the page every five seconds as the tension built. Then, one minute before the end, the price started to rise. Someone was bidding against us. 30 seconds before the end we were trumped. The next bid was $61.
At that point I did something I probably shouldn't have. I decided not to let it go. I put in a bid at $65 (not enough) and then $66 (it was). That last bid was at one second. We had sniped the sniper. (You can see the bid history here for as long as the link is open).
To say there was much rejoicing is an understatement. The Eight year old has her own blog (it is open to family and friends only) but here is what she wrote:
Yay We Won Pikmin 2 !!!!!!!!!!!!You will notice that there was a little re-writing of history there (you just can't trust those bloggers!) but the sense of the day is conveyed well.
Yesterday there was an auction on ebay, we didn't win, because Dad didn't want us to.
But today there was another one, it was soooo...... close, but we just won!!!!
Me, my younger brother, and my younger sister were so excited!!!!!! Well my younger sister wasn't really excited she just pretended to. [Because we were].
YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually, the rejoicing did not include me. Had we gone for it yesterday we may well have been $10 better off. (It has hard to tell what some more competition would have pushed the price to). Suffice it to say, I should have got it for a little less today but didn't. Economic theory failed me this time around.
Now, of course, came the news they would have to wait some days for the item to be shipped from Tasmania. A clear disadvantage to eBay.
But this all brought the realisation that we could sell stuff on eBay and get money. The Eight year old, however, is currently reluctant to part with any of her stuff.
Friday, March 9, 2007
Week 43: Pageant of the Transmundane
Well, given the odor in the air, there are very few places this week's ceremony is taking place, though I suspect that we are somewhere in Northern New Jersey. Hopefully they aren't filming the Sopranos here, but you never know.
And if this is New Jersey, well, this week's winner is very close to this area. You see, Max Power at The Fifth Column posted an entertaining account of what he is going to do with the 370 million dollars he won recently. While I am envious of his recent winfall, I am more jealous about his ability to write an entertaining article.
So it is with great pride that I award the Fifth Column their first Homer Simpson Transmundanity Award for putting their money where their mouth was. Huzzah!
And if you remember, Max Power was also what Homer Simpson legally changed his name to in one particular episode, so again, this is a fitting award.
Congrats Max.
The rules of this little contest: Every week I will be selecting one blog post that I have seen from the vast reaches of the blogosphere to bestow with the Homer Simpson Transmundanity Award for being one of the freakiest(in a funny way) things I've seen or read during a 7 day period. It doesn't necessarily have to have been written during the week, I just had to have encountered it. That means that if you find something interesting and repost it like a movie or whatever, if I saw it at your blog first, you get the prize. Of course, creating your own content is also a very good way to win.
Now, if you see a post that you think is worthy of this illustrious prize, just drop me a line at campybeaver@gmail.com and we'll see if we can't get your suggestion up and award-ready while giving you some credit and a link to your own blog.
And if this is New Jersey, well, this week's winner is very close to this area. You see, Max Power at The Fifth Column posted an entertaining account of what he is going to do with the 370 million dollars he won recently. While I am envious of his recent winfall, I am more jealous about his ability to write an entertaining article.
So it is with great pride that I award the Fifth Column their first Homer Simpson Transmundanity Award for putting their money where their mouth was. Huzzah!
And if you remember, Max Power was also what Homer Simpson legally changed his name to in one particular episode, so again, this is a fitting award.
Congrats Max.
The rules of this little contest: Every week I will be selecting one blog post that I have seen from the vast reaches of the blogosphere to bestow with the Homer Simpson Transmundanity Award for being one of the freakiest(in a funny way) things I've seen or read during a 7 day period. It doesn't necessarily have to have been written during the week, I just had to have encountered it. That means that if you find something interesting and repost it like a movie or whatever, if I saw it at your blog first, you get the prize. Of course, creating your own content is also a very good way to win.
Now, if you see a post that you think is worthy of this illustrious prize, just drop me a line at campybeaver@gmail.com and we'll see if we can't get your suggestion up and award-ready while giving you some credit and a link to your own blog.
Tags:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)