October 03, 2007
STUPID PAN
There's a new Arby's commercial with river dancing chimpanzees.
I already don't like chimps, but to have them doing like the Lord of the Dance... it's just wrong. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
Here, Bite Down On This
Are you looking to pull some more traffic to your site?
One good way to do that is to share some link love. You link to someone and they link to you and it's a great, big link love-in.
Well, Venomous Kate of Electric Venom does some link sharing every Tuesday. TODAY! And she gives two links just for one.
So, if you're looking to improve your Google stats, Technorati links, or whatever... try sharing the love!
Note to Self
If you're going to joke with someone who comes to a meeting late by saying, "So, you decided to sober up and join us, huh?" be sure they aren't an alcoholic first.
Skipping the Grid
In a strange fit of banner ad awareness, I clicked on one of those things and found myself on a truly cool website: Gridskipper.
Gridskipper, the decadent urban travel guide. Scouring the globe for chic hotels, hot restaurants, sweet nightlife, and pretty people.
It's like a blog plus google maps plus restaurant/spa/hotel/event recommendations. They even have localized versions that are super-cool. The New York version has lots of great suggestions for places to eat. My parents are headed to San Francisco tomorrow on their anniversary trip (they take a trip every year) and I sent the link over to them. A friend is moving to London... sent it. And now I've blogged it.
It's pretty awesome. You should bookmark it.
Getting Ready to Move
Pixy Misa, the mastermind behind Munuviana, has been working on migrating my site to the new blogging system. I am SO excited about it. There are lots of really nifty new tools that I will be able to use.
One day, you guys are going to drop by and it will look WAY different and then slowly I will be tweaking it to get it into the look and layout that I like. It'll be a fun process. You'll love it.
Over the Top
I've noticed over the past few weeks that neither of my roommates are willing to replace the toilet paper on the roll. Actually, since I know one of them is hardly ever there and he does most of the cleaning, I strongly suspect it's the other one who IS there most of the time and tends to leave messes.
It's really strange to me because it's not like the toilet paper roll holder thing is all that hard to work. And it's not like you have anything else really pressing to do when you're sitting there. And further, leaving the new roll on the back of the toilet requires twisting around in an awkward position to retrieve it when you need it.
It seems like any sensible person would just replace the roll.
I've done it a few times, but since I noticed it was always this way, I stopped doing it. I'm not home most of the time, so it doesn't really affect my life with much frequency.
I just find their unwillingness or indifference to replacing the roll somewhat perplexing.
October 02, 2007
Redefining the Terms
CNN.com: Blackwater boss defends contractors' 'honorable' work
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The founder and chief executive of Blackwater USA defended his company against allegations that his contractors were trigger-happy mercenaries Tuesday, saying that his personnel have distinguished records and have never intentionally killed civilians.
I'm actually surprised that this story took so long to break. Mister Bookworm has a friend who works for some oddball organization that has been working on this story for a while now. She told me about it and I was actually surprised by the basic facts -- even without the allegations of war crimes.
Maybe I'm naive, but when the news says "defense contractors" or "military contractors" I've always thought they meant people involved with logistics like delivering food supplies, rebuilding infrastructure and such. I did not know that they are armed personnel conducting military/police efforts.
I did not realize that the US government was in the practice (at least in modern times) of hiring mercenaries. Forget the trigger-happy part. These are missionaries. Calling these people "contractors" leads a person to believe that they are engaged in legitimate business activities.
I am more than a little miffed that I have been led to believe that these people are anything other than hired guns.
First of all, policing another country and helping them rebuild after a war is not a legitimate function of our military or government.
Second of all, being a mercenary is not a legitimate business activity under the Constitution of the US. That our government is hiring them is simply outrageous.
It's late. I have to go to bed, so I will likely talk more about why mercenaries are not allowed in a free society tomorrow.
I Banned You Because You're Stupid
I am far less patient with commenters on my site than most people. I will delete comments and ban people quite readily. Recently, a commenter came to my site and decided to try my patience with this style of argumentation:
Me: Even though Y is the most popular solution, sometimes X is the correct approach.
Them: So, you think you should never Y?
Me: No, don't be stupid. You should do Y when that's the right thing to do, but Y isn't always the right thing to do, so you should do X when appropriate.
Them: I can't believe you called me names! AND you think you should never Y. This is the opposite of everything anyone has ever said about this topic ever. Y is better than X. I can give numerous examples of cases when you should do Y and I am just going to pretend like you haven't given reasons or explanation about why you might X because OBVIOUSLY the topic of your post was about the fact that you should never do Y.
Me: I'm deleting your last comment and banning you from this site, you idiotic, obtuse asshat.
See, I don't respond well to people with very poor reading comprehension skills and even weaker powers of reasoning. I've been known to skim over an important qualifying phrase before, so I cut people a little bit of slack, but there is a limit to even my vast oceans of generosity and patience.
So, gentle readers, please be warned. This ain't the Old Testament. I don't always give you directions for avoiding the smite, but I am god on my little blog. Tremble ye before my mighty IP banning powers!
Theocracy
Story time!
Once upon a time, there was a beautiful kingdom of smart, freedom-loving people. They decided that they needed to form a more perfect union, so they held some truths to be self-evident and set about passing some laws to ensure domestic tranquility and some other really good things.
Slowly, over time, the smart, freedom-loving people of this beautiful place in which puppies and ice-cream were plentiful, the people grew complacent and lost sight of the rational foundations for their liberty. Some people shouted quite vociferously that the our wonderful land of freedom had come about by some mystic provenance. Others blamed global warming.
One thing is true: everyone agreed quite early on that murder should be illegal and so they passed a law that said that murder is illegal and that murderers should be punished harshly indeed. Murderers across the land were all very sad, but had to admit that they didn't want to live among murderers either.
At first, people said that murder should be illegal because it violates an individual's right to his own life, not to mention his person, property, and general freedom from having other people's ill-temper being upside their heads.
As time passed, however, some folks looked to their holy books and found a quaintly stated form of the same law. The law books said, "Murder is illegal" and the holy books said, "thou shalt not killeth thy neighbor, neighbor's wife, nor neighbor's ass."
It wasn't long until several high magistrates of the land who were going around saying that murder is wrong because the Ghost of the Small, White Bird said so. Quite in spite of irrefutable arguments that there is no such thing as the Ghost of the Small, White Bird.
The magistrates were intractable and obtuse about everything about which they felt the Ghost of the Small, White Bird had spoken and the Ghost of the Small, White Bird was quite a talker. Not only was it wrong, according to the bird, to murder, it was also wrong to allow women to teach, it was wrong to eat shellfish, and it was wrong to suffer a witch to live. In addition to being very chatty, the Ghost of the Small, White Bird was apparently jealous of other made-up things like witches, mermaids, and garden gnomes.
Fortunately, for the people of this fair land, women were widely recognized as satisfactory, nay, competent even at teaching, shellfish was regarded by most as delicious and completely edible, and witches had long agreed that turning someone into a newt is rude even if they do eventually get better.
But the magistrates who believed in this imaginary Ghost of the Small, White Bird were clear that they didn't think women should teach, shellfish should not be eaten, and witches should not be allowed to live. They also recognized that they couldn't do anything to stop the women, shellfish, or witches, though, and endured their continued presence in their land. Although they never came right out and said that they thought that all the laws in the land should be based on those given them by the Ghost of the Small, White Bird, the magistrates did continually try to pass laws accordingly. They weren't always successful thanks to people who, for reasons of their own, weren't so into listening to what the Ghost of the Small, White Bird was alleged to have said, but the magistrates did try.
The magistrates who believed in the Ghost of the Small, White Bird were quite popular among the commonfolk and it seemed that with every passing day they grew more popular. They grew popular not just because they claim to commune with the Ghost of the Small, White Bird, but that was undeniably a part of their campaign strategies.
Some people, seeing how influential the GSWB Magistrates were getting, complained about the lamentable rise of religion and how it influenced the law in the decaying land of these pretty much freedom-loving people. They said that these magistrates who were citing religion as their reason for making laws were being theocrats. They said, "To make murder illegal because you think the Ghost of the Small, White Bird told you is theocratic!"
Other people of whom we charitably assume are well-intentioned people even though what I'm about to tell you might make you think they shouldn't be issued drivers licenses or be allowed to tie their own shoes without supervision said that the even though they agreed that the Ghost of the Small, White Bird is obviously foolish, the description of those magistrates as "theocratic" was an exaggeration. "Their popularity is distressing, yes, but there are other, more pressing issues to worry about in our fair land."
It wasn't long before a dopey sort of bloke with a funny accent claimed that the Ghost of the Small, White Bird called him on his mobular phone to tell him he would be president. And while people were busy fretting over whether or not a theocrat could hold the office of president, senator, representative, or chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, that dopey bloke laughed his way to the oval office in the big white castle of the president of that fair land. And while the debate continued to rage over whether or not one could actually see a forest when there are so many trees in the way, more magistrates who thought they could hear the Ghost of the Small, White Bird chirping in their ears were elected to office to help pass laws against teachers, shellfish, and witches.
The End
This story brought to you by commenters on Diana's site whose foolishness astonishes me.
General Pace is a theocrat, by the way. Mitt Romney is one, too. George Bush thinks he hears the Ghost of the Small, White Bird.
Mine isn't a very good story. Hopefully it didn't put you to sleep because it's time for people to wake up and call a spade a spade and a theocrat a theocrat.
Moving Forward or Moving On
I just had my annual review and it went well. I got "exceeds expectations" and "strong" on pretty much everything.
I had decided that I wasn't going to tell my boss that I wanted that other position in the company, so I entered my review thinking that I would reiterate my career objectives and expectations.
The conversation went really well, though, and I told my boss my "wish I could" goal for staying within the company. He responded positively to that and suggested that I move into that other position in the company -- the one I had decided I wasn't going to tell him I want. Apparently, you can't move straight from my position to that "wish I could" spot even though my position and that other position have been described as being peers in the past. (Never mind my resume which well qualifies me for the move.)
Anyway, he suggested trying out that other position and I responded telling him that I would be interested in exploring that option.
Overall, the conversation was very positive and encouraging. I ended the conversation saying to him, "I want to make sure that we're on the same page and that you know that am at the point where I need to know that I am either moving forward or moving on." I didn't say that threateningly, but as a firm qualifier for my expectations about the near future.
Again, he responded well to this and thanked me for letting him know and asked that I just give him a chance to work on it.
The average job hunt takes six months. I haven't really earnestly pursued finding a new job, but I am poised to do so. I think I will take a couple months to organize and refocus some other areas of my life to allow the business situation to shift and see if anything turns up for me here. If so, fantastic. If not, I will have to start a serious job hunt around the New Year.
An Eye on the Brights
Stephen Pinker has written a new book The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature.
Has anyone heard anything about it?
I'm suspicious of it just because of the circles that Pinker travels in; he's one of the Brights. I would be interested to know what someone who is better versed in epistemology has to say about the book.
My Letter to Robin & Company
As you may recall, I wake up every morning to CNN HNN's Robin & Company.
I love Robin. She's pretty and she's perky. She's a little bit silly and a total sweetheart. When I first started watching her, I loved how she would call out "Good morning, sunshine!" as if she were really talking to me. Again, she's a little bit silly and a sweetheart, but I love it. So, I would say, "Good morning, Robin!"
Well, lately, she has been saying, "morningsunshine" and it's more like a cast-off phrase. I do NOT like that at all. It's insincere and I do not need that in the morning from my newscasters. So, I had to write a letter.
Hi, Robin!
I've been watching you for a few years now. I started watching when I lived in Jefferson, GA and for a long time you've been a dose of sunshine and sweetness even when I'm sleepy or the weather is gray. I especially look forward to hearing you chirp, "Good morning, sunshine!" and I used to say back to you, "Good morning, Robin!" and bounce out of bed. How could anyone stay sleepy or sad after that??
But lately, I've noticed that you've been saying your trademark "Good Morning, Sunshine" more like an afterthought. And it's rushed like "morningsunshine."
Now, as mentioned, I adore you but I would prefer that you not say it if you're going to say it like that. That is not really sunshine.
Please give Bobby, Jennifer, and Richard my best and thank your production staff as well.
Have a great day!
Sincerely
Flibbert
I hope she reads my note and takes it to heart because the "morningsunshine" thing really bugs me.
Insomnia
Last week, I saw an interview with Martha Stewart and she mentioned that she is an insomniac.
My best friend is convinced that she wasn't being completely honest when she said this; he prefers to believe that she chooses to sleep only a couple of hours a night because she is an incredibly driven and productive individual. There is some reason to think that may be the case as she has said in past interviews that she doesn't like to sleep because there is so much to do. At the same time, she's also stated in other interviews that when she can't sleep at night she gets up and irons her linens.
When I can't sleep, as I can't tonight, I usually watch a lot of television. I rarely do anything productive. I should perhaps give some thought to changing that because usually when I can't sleep it's because my mind is racing.
The problem with a racing mind apart from the fact that it keeps me from sleeping is that it is really difficult to focus. My thoughts are scattered across the surface of my mind that so much spilled sugar on the kitchen floor. Hard to make a cake like that.
I think one of the reasons that I don't just get up and do something productive is because it's hard for me to just give in to the idea that I really just can't fall asleep. I'm usually good at falling asleep. I think that if I were to launch into some project, it would really just keep me from getting down to the business of falling asleep. I don't know that spending more time trying to sleep actually results in falling to sleep faster than doing something until one feels calm and tired.
Well, I just have this episode of Doctor Who to watch and then my DVR is pretty much empty. I may have to then actually resort to forcing myself to go to sleep by remaining still and quiet and meditating until I doze off. I don't like doing that, though.
OK. Doctor Who is halfway done. Gonna go watch it and then make myself sleep.
October 01, 2007
Too Clever by Half
If you've seen a trailer for Ben Stiller's new movie, The Heartbreak Kid, you may have noticed a guy wearing a red shirt that says "(1940 - 1980)".
These shirts are, apparently, all the rage. They were recommended in last Friday's Get Trio newsletter and now I see them in that movie, anyway.
The shirts are by Trong G. Nguyen and they're sold out in Brooklyn somewhere.
Humanitarians Not Heroes introduces "time-span" t-shirts that mark birth and death dates of notable artists and individuals, as well as significant events and eras in history.
The t-shirt in the movie is the years of John Lennon's life.
There's a certain geeky appeal to these shirts because the name of the figure whose birth and death years appear on the shirt is denoted on a tag that you cut off before you wear it, so unless someone already knows the years or is a good guesser (I figured out Jesus Christ, but only because it was presented to me in a list of years.) they won't know what it is. I guess this could be a good conversation starter, too.
But the hipsterish of it kind of annoys me.
It's definitely not very good design. The font is a regular old Courier -- or is it Courier New? There's nothing to them, really. All of the "creative" value in it is this whole putting the years of things. Makes one wonder if it's ever been done before. Not quite, I guess.
The name of the brand, Humanitarians not Heroes, and the description of the reason for the "design" scheme smack of relativism to me.
The numbers on each shirt represent both the specific and arbitrary. They hint at the actions and accomplishments of individuals as much as they are general reminders of our mortality. As markers of history, they consider such things as achievement, stardom, and ignominy. As just a bunch of numbers, they are vague (No where is the name of the individual disclosed except on the removable label card). It is up to us to ascribe a value to them. Here, they apply to chronological value - Time. It is numerical Time - the big dasher and parenthesizer of all things - that these shirts ultimate glorify. For worse or better.
I'm on the fence about this, really. Even if I don't like the idiotic reasons they give to explain these things, I do like the geekishness of it. I like the curiosity piquing aspect of it.
Anyway, now you know. This is me bringing you the latest in trends.
She Has What Where?
Mister Bookworm started watching the documentary Inside Deep Throat at his apartment at some point last week and when he got to my place, he wanted to watch the end of it. It was On Demand, and so he did and that was fine.
Except now, every time I fast forward one of my recorded shows on my DVR, it says that the show title is "Inside Deep Throat" and that it is one hour and 23 minutes into the show. It doesn't move to show that I'm fast-fowarding or rewinding either.
It just says "Inside Deep Throat."
It's SUPER annoying.
A Lesson in the Obvious
TMZ: Britney Spears Has Lost Her Kids
Apparently, if you're trying to retain custody of your children in a messy, public divorce suit, you should not do the following:
- Wave your vulva around in public
- Show up late to your job
- Show up apparently drunk with margarita in hand to your job
- Allow the help see you naked, drunk, and high around the kids
- Totally bomb your "come back" which was staged in front of the whole entire world
- Be photographed driving with your baby in your lap
- Run your car into someone else's car and then drive off
To do any of those things, let alone all of them, leaves one wondering: did she even WANT custody of those children? Seriously.
All my lurve to Buddhista for keeping me plugged in on this.
New York City Charges More to Avoid Mechanical Ineptitude
I know you all stay riveted to your televisions, newspapers, and globular tubal-webs for news about NYC, so I don't have to tell you that the MTA has proposed some pricing changes for subway rides.
It's actually kind of smart in terms of revenue management. The current price is $2 per ride all day long. They're changing this to $2.25 for rides during peak hours and just $1.50 during off-peak hours.
This in itself doesn't affect me too much because I buy the 30 day metrocards. Unfortunately, the price of those is going up from $76 to something like $82. Anywhoodles, that's not what I want to tell you about.
I have just learned from Subway Blogger that the reason the hike is $2.25 instead of just $2.10 is actually because the Metrocard machines can't dispense dimes.
WCBSTV.com: Commuters: MTA Fare Hikes 'Turnstile Injustice'
As CBS 2 HD reported Tuesday night, one reason the MTA is seeking a 25-cent fare hike instead of just 10 cents is because the machines don’t deal in dimes, only quarters and nickels. Buying a $2.10 ticket with a $5 bill would give you 58 nickels or 11 quarters and 3 nickels in change, which is why they say they dealing with quarters is more convenient for everyone. Almost everyone.
I like the subway a lot, but I also have a long list of complaints. To make matters worse, I don't believe that this fare hike is going to address any of those complaints. Most of it will likely go to placating those surly little autocrats employed at the MTA.
Value of Trash
1. anything worthless, useless, or discarded; rubbish.
2. foolish or pointless ideas, talk, or writing; nonsense.
3. a worthless or disreputable person.
4. such persons collectively.
5. literary or artistic material of poor or inferior quality.
6. broken or torn bits, as twigs, splinters, rags, or the like.
7. something that is broken or lopped off from anything in preparing it for use.
8. the refuse of sugar cane after the juice has been expressed.
9. Computers. an icon of a trash can that is used to delete files dragged onto it.
–verb (used with object)
10. Slang. to destroy, damage, or vandalize, as in anger or protest: The slovenly renters had trashed the house.
11. to condemn, dismiss, or criticize as worthless: The article trashed several recent best-sellers.
12. to remove the outer leaves of (a growing sugar cane plant).
13. to free from superfluous twigs or branches.
By the very definition of the word, trash is worthless -- at least to those who discard it. It is assumed that when you put something out on the curb or put it into a garbage can or dumpster that you are relinquishing ownership of it to whomever either owns the garbage can/dumpster or whoever picks the trash up from the curb.
We can also safely say that whoever takes the trash away to the landfill or recycling center is getting something for their trouble. Maybe the city pays them some dollars to pick up trash (that's how NYC does it) or maybe you pay them directly (that's how it worked in Georgia where I lived) or maybe you do it yourself to keep the trash from burying your house.
I don't know that in any of those situations, it is actually more profitable for the trash taker-awayers to haul off MORE trash. I don't know about NYC, but in Georgia I paid the same amount no matter how much trash and recycling I put out there. And if I took it to the landfill myself, I would have to pay more based on the weight/amount.
So, I am perplexed by a new law in NYC that seeks to increase fines for people who steal recyclable trash.
New York Post: City Council Increases Fines for Theft of Recyclable Trash
The City Council unanimously passed a bill yesterday that would sharply increase fines for people who steal recyclable material from curbsides — to $2,000 from $100 for a first offense, and $5,000 for each subsequent offense within a year.
Officials say the bill is aimed at organized enterprises that use vehicles, which would be impounded under the new law, adding that the $100 fine had not been large enough to prevent these thefts. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is expected to sign the bill, according to an administration spokesman.
According to that same article, the city is actually making SOME money on the recyclable materials they cart off, but that's not to say it's a profit.
Sanitation officials estimated the city might be losing as much as 15,000 tons of paper a year from Manhattan alone. Based on the city’s current recycling contract, which pays $10 to $30 a ton, that means an annual loss of $150,000 to $300,000.
Nevertheless, the article also states that the city's recycling program has been historically woefully unprofitable. Apparently, "theft" of trash has caused an overall 2% drop in the amount of paper available for the city to haul off.
I object to this whole thing for a couple of reasons.
First of all, we can't call this "theft." The trash doesn't belong to anyone. The owners, by placing it on the curb, have clearly stated that they are relinquishing ownership of the articles in question. The things there do not yet belong to the city as the sidewalk is "public property" and the garbage trucks have not claimed it yet. (I also object to the notion of public property, but that's a whole different topic.)
Also, it seems capricious to extend this law to just recyclable materials.
What if some band of unmarked trucks came in and started picking up all the trash? I dare say the city would not complain. Instead, they see that they have a chance to make a little bit of money back on their misguided recycling program and they're using the law to bully private concerns from getting at it. Again we see that the state sees no need to compete for its dollars: it merely threatens.
If the city wants that money so badly, why don't they wake up earlier? Or clean up more frequently? Oh, that's right, it would cost them more.
Just a few weeks ago, Mister Bookworm and I were walking down the sidewalk and found that someone had tossed out lots of piles of books for the garbage man. We went through them and picked out several that we wanted. This is a common occurrence in NYC, actually. People put their "trash" on the curb and if you see something you like -- such as an old sofa, books, lamps, whatever -- you pick it up and take it. My roommates and I were unloading our car from Home Depot one afternoon and had to push away some vultures who thought we were throwing out perfectly good potted plants, pant, and our other purchases.
I doubt that this scavenging is considered illegal and according to Joe. My. God., the city swears that the law isn't intended to be used against homeless people either. I don't care about the homeless, but if they want to pick up trash, that's their business as much as it is mine to be rid of it.
This law also gives me very strong suspicions that it is illegal to run or hire your own trash collection service in the city.
Papi, Can Ju Hear Me?
These are two ad spots for the 2007 Seattle Lesbian & Gay Film Festival. Hilarious!
Hat tip to Joe. My. God. for the news.
China is Evil
I don't like China. That probably could have gone without saying.
Businesspeople love China because they're a billion person market that for a long time has been closed to outside investment but in the past decade has been opening its doors to more and more outside interests. A billion people. Even if they are all poor, a small fraction of that market is a huge amount of money to be made. (Oh, and apparently China is basically propping up the American dollar. I don't know how that works exactly, but that's what I keep hearing.)
But China is still evil. They're communist and unashamed of it. They're also unashamed about the hypocrisy involved with allowing private companies in, but that's another issue.
Anyway, the Beijing Olympics for 2008 irritates my mounting disillusionment with the Olympic Games.
That said, I have to applaud this audacious criticism in the form of a cartoon.
That's exactly what I'm talking about.
Update: I am often astonished by some people's ability to completely miss the point. I was reading through the comments on that blog and some people apparently think that it is a criticism of China's death penalty which, apparently, involves a firing squad. One person in the comments even thought it had something to do with Japan.
Granted, there really isn't much in the cartoon that would tip you off to China's well-published human rights violations, but one has to wonder why these people need it pointed out to them.
Movie Review: Resident Evil: Extinction
Mister Bookworm and I saw Resident Evil: Extinction this weekend.
Before I dig into the movie, I just want to say that I love Milla Jovovich. She is strikingly beautiful and I love her as an action hero. I loved her in The Fifth Element and as Ultraviolet (even though that movie sucked). She has good moves and she looks great.
So, this movie is pretty dumb.
I have only a hazy memory of them, but as I recall, the last two movies were exciting and there was this undercurrent of mystery about the Alice character. This movie lacks mystery. Actually, saying it lacks mystery is a bit of an understatement. The movie has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer and I'm saying that with full awareness of the fact that this is a shoot 'em up zombie movie.
I guess it's a compliment to say that there were lots of parts that were surprising and made me and Mister Bookworm jump, but none of those parts were all that inventive.
The most irritating part about it to me was the ending. I hate hate HATE when the main conflict of a film remains unresolved at the end. If minor conflict remains unresolved and that leaves it open for another movie, I'm find with that. You know, like if the bad guy's hand bursts from under the rubble or something. That's fine. But if you start out the movie saying, "We have to stop the Umbrella Corporation" and everything people do is trying to get to that and at the end you still haven't done it... Well, that pisses me off. Pirates of the Caribbean 2 did that and I didn't like that either.
So, basically, I didn't much care for this movie. Would I recommend it to you? Wait for it to come on the SciFi channel.
Final Bow!?!?!
Cox & Forkum is stopping regular creation/publication of their editorial cartoons!
The fact that they've been able to create and publish such high-quality cartoons on a daily basis for so long is impressive to say the least. Of course, it is the fact that they did publish them on a daily basis that got me hooked on the site. It was often through them that I became aware of many issues on the political news scene and so I am very sad to see them go.
