I was once asked on the streets during my travels if I believed in Jesus. I replied with a big fat NO. Which then just led them to ask what it would take for me to accept Jesus as my own personal savior. I was extra confused by this, considering if I don't believe in him, how could I accept a non existent idea or person as a personal savior?
While I'm strongly holding on to my atheist lack of beliefs, it did make me wonder, what would "Jesus" or "God" need to do for you, in order for you to accept this silly fairy tale. Maybe a tour of the universe would suddenly set your beliefs in motion?
Then again, if he took me on a sight seeing tour of the universe and answered some pretty important questions, I probably would just assume that I went crazy and/or was high on bath salts. So I'd probably still wouldn't believe, nor would I even feel sane anymore.
I guess what can be said is that atheism, in its own right, is already a religion. It's just not the popular kind - and really that's the important part. Once you become a majority with your religion, you get the bragging rights and people stop thinking you're crazy...
Okay, they still think you're insane, but they just sort of laugh behind your back instead of in front of it. The whole concept of faith is silly for the very reason that you have to have faith in order to be faithful. It's not proof. So the excuse of he wants us to have FAITH, so see, that's the catch, I can't prove it to you, but you just gotta believe. It never struck me as anything but silly bullshit. It makes you wonder why even have faith in the first place.
Besides that, there is no logical reason why a supreme being, a jealous god and all that other shit, would require faith, except that it is absolute fucking rationalized bullshit. What is more likely of a situation, you tell me - no god at all or a trickster god that hides fossils to "test our faith"?
Just because some incredibly powerful extraterrestrial exists, I'm supposed to give it adulation? What a load of horseshit. I do believe in unconditional love, which is something that I think both exists and is pretty horrible.
We could have very easily had some sort of creator. But to assume that they give a shit about us anymore than you give a shit about that fifth grade project you made for biology and just sort of tossed into the corner, is a little far fetched. What is illogical is that if anything was that all powerful to create us, why the fuck would he be hanging around stalking us like so?
In the end, it's all about just making each of us feel like we're not completely purposeless. Cause hey, if you have God looking at you all the time, then you have to put on a show. You have to make something of yourself or feel like you're letting someone else down.
Here's a Mad Men game: Try to find an article or interview with Christina Hendricks that DOESN'T mention her body.
Trick question: There's no such thing!
Yes, that's right -- Mad Men's sexy secretary Joan Holloway, played by Christina Hendricks, who, any jelly girl will point out first that she's not naturally a redhead, but does that really matter? Did you know that the highest percentage of natural redheads in the world is in Scotland - about 13%, followed closely by Ireland with 10%. In the US, about 2% of the population are natural redheads. - So let's just get it out of the way, I don't care about shit being a dye job.
Another fun fact is that redheads were considered witches in Germanic culture. From 1483 to 1784, thousands of suspected witches were nearly always stripped and searched for "marks of the devil." Which was freckles and red hair was certainly considered an abnormality.
Anyhow, back to Christina Hendricks.. If you're going to go through withdraws after tonight because you don't have your Joan fix, well now you can have your very own Joan Holloway:
Dolled up: Mad Men stars to be made into Barbies It is a move that would have the male denizens of Sterling Cooper reaching for their whisky and cigarettes. Don Draper, a symbol of pre-sexual revolution male values from the hit TV show Mad Men, is to be made into a Barbie doll.
The licensing rights to Draper and three other characters from the critically acclaimed series have been acquired by the toy firm Mattel to be part of a line called the Barbie fashion model collection.
The featured dolls – Draper, his wife, Betty, and colleagues John Sterling and Joan Holloway – will cost $74.95 (£50.16) each.
Mattel's senior vice-president, Stephanie Cota, told the New York Times: "The dolls, we feel, do a great job of embodying the series. Certain things are appropriate and certain things aren't."
Given the drinking, infidelity and smoking that marks the show's chronicle of life at a New York advertising agency, the line of dolls will be aimed at the adult collectibles market and not the young girls who comprise Barbie's massive fan base.
The Mad Men dolls will be in shops this summer, just in time for the start of a fourth season of the show.
Then again, that news is pretty damn old. I'm sure that all the creepy folks who want to have Hendricks in their greasy grips already bought them all and you'll have to pay an inflated price on ebay for it.
Barbie better beware that she's going to steal Ken's attention away. I mean, Barbie is pretty much atomically incorrect as it is, while Christina Hendricks, as every magazine likes to point out, is a wonder to human DNA. Though I'm sure the Don Draper doll will get into Barbie's panties without any problems.
It does bring up an interesting subject. Does this Don Draper doll represent the first doll that kids could look to and see that he's a womanizing piece of shit alcoholic? I mean, Barbie was a bad role model in herself, but to kick it up a notch and make it so that your kids are playing with an adultery inspired character. Now that's throwing it into the realm of improper role models. Ironically enough, they don't come with cigs, ashtrays, alcohol glasses or cocktail shakers. So I guess you can't go full tilt in immersing yourself into the doll's world.
Besides, it's not like kids are going to be asking for these or ever play with them anyway. Only spurgin' adults, who have so much expendable income and lack of hobbies that they're willing to buy dolls based off an AMC drama (to be fair, I guess Walking Dead has toys made for it as well) will be getting them. So maybe they should have tossed in a martini glass or two. What else are the fans going to do for the year that it takes to come out with a new season?
Christina Hendricks: "I'd love to play Wonder Woman"
I have to say this.. but I can't believe I am doing so, but she's too busty for the role. I like Hendricks, but I just don't think she's right for the role. She's more suited for Power Girl. I always thought Joss Whedon had it right when he said Morena Baccarin was born for the role. She may not be as busty as the way Wonder Woman is typically drawn, but she has the "Amazonian" look down.
Do you need further proof? Esquire Magazine did name her the hottest woman of last year.
Mad Men's Christina Hendricks has been named America's most beautiful women in this year’s Esquire contest, reports PopEater. The actress, who received a whopping 30 per cent of the votes, will appear on the cover of the May issue of Esquire magazine looking stunning -- although, oddly, more like a young Julianne Moore than herself.
Although the official interview has yet to been published online, it seems that Hendricks’s wit matches her beauty. She offered some advice to her male fans: "No man should be on Facebook.”
Back to the subject of any interview with her always has to go back to her body... at the very least touch on it (tee hee) Just look at how in this interview she's giving into the Patriarchy and went on a diet..
Is Mad Men's curvy star going on a diet?
Please, Joan, say it ain’t so.
Christina Hendricks, who plays smoking hot office manager Joan Holloway on Mad Men, is reportedly going on a diet to squeeze herself in to Hollywood’s waifish standards.
“Christina has got sick of all the talk of her being the curviest woman in Hollywood. For her it basically meant she was being called fat,” an unnamed source told Britain’s Daily Mail newspaper.
“Now she’s gone against everything she believed in before by going on the first diet of her life. Christina’s cut out carbs, and alcohol, although she’s not a big drinker. She’s eating fish oil to break down fat and pak choi and edamame nearly every meal.”
The source said Hendricks aims to lose about 30 lbs.
Hendricks has yet to confirm the rumour, but it’s already shocked the blogosphere.
“If Christina Hendricks is indeed caving to the pressures of Hollywood to be skinny, I’ll be particularly disappointed,” wrote Wendy Atterberry, a contributor to Thefrisky.com, adding that Hendricks and her character “have been an inspiration to me.”
Another blog reacted with shocked disbelief. “Is she crazy, men love her curves, and most women would kill to have such a hot bod,” wrote Astrochicks.com.
Hendricks has won plenty of praise over the years for her curvy figure. Earlier this year, for instance, she was voted the best-looking woman in America by Esquire magazine’s female readers in a survey published in April.
But the 35-year-old actress has also had to bear the burden of being a female star with actual curves. This past summer, she lamented that no fashion designers would give her a dress for award shows since they only lend out a size 0 or 2, she said.
While Hendricks should be free to lose (or gain) weight as she wishes, it’s a shame that “curvy” has become a bad word. It’s also disappointing that the demands to be thin in Tinseltown are as pervasive as booze is in the offices of Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce.
Welp, I guess I should just wrap it up now. Another woman succumbs to beauty standards set by an industry filled with vengeful gay men. But don't you love it when people go on fad diets and lose 15 pounds of water weight and maybe half a pound of fat and muscle in 2 weeks. Then they feel more accomplished than if they just went on a normal healthy diet where they would lose 1-2 pounds a week, but all of it would be fat and the long term benefits would be large and wide better than they would with this stupid diet?
But hey, that's more if you want to maintain a healthy weight, like if you just want to make a permanent lifestyle change instead of just yo-yoing between diets forever. I know, a little un-American, but then again, America is a primitive culture that worships big titties, and what does make up breast other than fat? Crushed dreams. That's right.
I guess it's just a matter of simple fact that women's bodies are, will and always will be the subject to the whims and prejudices of society. We're better off killing everyone. Though I guess this blog post showing off many many different attractive pictures of her isn't any help to the patriarchy, now is it?
On the flip side, I bet you that she gets really fat women coming up to her all the time telling her how brave she is that she's comfortable in her own body and embraces the word "curvy", even though that word has been ridden on more than Paris Hilton. That would probably really piss anyone off. People of her physique should probably just get a better word than curvy. Curvy has picked up a lot of connotations at this point and is used as a descriptor for 5'0'' women who weigh 250 pounds...
No, seriously.. I can understand how she is upset by being called 'curvy' because that word has been hijacked by the beached whale community and is usually code for plain old 'fat'. The horror.
But all of this puts me in a tough position in wondering if there is any way I can say that I find Christina Hendricks attractive without it being 'a problem'? Because, let's face it, I think she's the bee's knees. Maybe I have to be attracted to her on the basis of her academic achievements, political viewpoints and/or have personal experience of her delightful personality. Then again, my M.O. for attraction is typically red hair + white + boobs. So let's face it, she's hitting all those marks on my weakness levels.
I leave you with an amazing combination. Christina Hendricks and Broken Bells
New York City plans to enact a far-reaching ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and street carts, in the most ambitious effort yet by the Bloomberg administration to combat rising obesity.
The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces - about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle - would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.
The measure would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages; it would not extend to beverages sold in grocery or convenience stores.
"Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, 'Oh, this is terrible,' " Mr. Bloomberg said in an interview on Wednesday in the Governor's Room at City Hall.
First they came for the big gulps, but I said nothing because I was not a big gulp. Then they came for the extra fries, but I said nothing because I was not an extra fry.
It makes you wonder at first why everyone is hating on the banning of drinks? I say we should ban the drinks... ALL OF THEM! I agree that the drinks should be banned. But on the other hand, Mayor Blomberg is a complete piece of shit. So now I'm conflicted.
And even though the whole notion seems strange to me. Considering that you can go into any Deli in New York, and let me tell you, they're good deli's -- and get yourself a massive pile of heart attach between two pieces of rye bread with no problem at all. Not even a health warning, but the moment you try to buy a 16 or more ounce of soda, you're limited on who can sell that to you?
How on earth does anyone drink half a liter or more of coffee in one cup, I will never know. Shit, large is 20oz, so your average American does it a fucking lot. If anything, it's all too little, too late. you're better off banning that crap from the schools and youth. Catching it in adults is just not doing anyone any good.
I think they got it all wrong. If anything in NYC was on the chopping block to getting banned, why not start with loud mouthed, obnoxious people?
Prescott urges inquiry into Jubilee work experience claims
Ministers are being urged to look into reports that unemployed people hired as unpaid stewards for the Diamond Jubilee pageant ended up having to sleep outside and change in the rain.
Some volunteers from the government's work programme scheme had to spend the night under London Bridge and had no access to toilets, the Guardian said. Ex-deputy prime minister Lord Prescott said the reports were "unbelievable". The firm in charge of stewarding has apologised to those involved. Close Protection UK said staff arriving from outside London on Sunday morning - ahead of the pageant on the Thames - should not have been dropped in the capital at 0300 BST with nowhere to stay.
The company, one of those awarded a stewarding contract for the Diamond Jubilee events, said this was a misunderstanding on the part of the coach driver who was two hours ahead of schedule.
The Guardian reported that volunteers bussed in from Bristol, Plymouth and Bath had to spend part of the night under London Bridge, one telling the newspaper that conditions were "freezing" and another saying it was impossible to pitch a tent due to the concrete surface. 'Appalling'
They also told the newspaper that they had to change into their clothing - which included a plastic poncho for protection against the rain and high-visibility jacket - in public and had no access to toilets during the 14-hour shift.
Lord Prescott has urged the home secretary Theresa May to launch an urgent inquiry into the allegations.
He tweeted: "This is unbelievable. If true, it is appalling."
The firm said it took on 80 people to act as stewards over the three-day event through the government's apprentice and work programme schemes - which aim to help the long-term jobless back into work.
Of these, 50 people under the age of 25 were paid the government's standard rate for apprentices of £2.60 per hour and the other 30 either accepted the same rate or refused payment because it would adversely affect their benefits. Work experience is a compulsory part of the NVQ2 qualification in stewarding - which is essential for work at major events such as the Olympics. 'Trial'
Close Protection said the unpaid roles were a trial for paid positions at the 2012 Games, which it also has a contract to supervise.
The company, which is based in Wigan, said it paid for meals for all the Jubilee volunteers, accommodation on the night after the event as well as supplying their clothing, equipment and licences to undertake the work.
The charity Tomorrow's People, which set up some of the placements at Close Protection UK under the work programme, said it did not approve of unpaid work but in this case believed that it was valid work experience.
However, it is seeking further clarification from the stewarding company. The Department for Work and Pensions said the work programme used organisations such as charities to help get the long-term unemployed back into work and while on such schemes individuals continued to receive their Jobseeker's Allowance.
For those who don't have the time to read all that shit, the unemployed people were bussed in to work at the Queen's Jubilee and then they were left to sleep under a bridge, changed clothing outdoors in the rain, and then worked 14 hour shifts without access to facilities. After all this, they were told they'd be paid -- a pittance-- but then they weren't.
I guess seeing that they based all this on a Canaletto painting from the eighteenth century, I guess they just felt they had to make it really authentic. And hey, at least they got some work experienc..... kljflksdjljfdslkjsl fs FUCK!
FUCK THE ROYALS! I really hope they at least got plenty of opportunity to steal from tourist. When you think about it, the peasants living under feudalism probably got a better deal overall than these people. You could at least be punished for treating your serfs badly back then. Nothing will come of any of this.
I just have to wonder at what extent "refusal wouldn't have affected your JSA" is an outright fucking lie? Even if it wasn't just sidestepping the point that refusal would hurt their chances of getting future shitty work -- you know, since the jobs are farmed out via companies like this.
So again, I ask -- why even have Royalty still anyway?
I guess since royalty are fairly annoying pests that you can keep under control through various means, but to get flat out rid of them for good, you have to call the exterminator. The remaining Western monarchs are in an elaborate display box for now, but suppose a freak earthquake knocks it off the shelf and no one notices in the confusion until they're infested the whole place again? That's why we shouldn't keep them around.
And I seem to bring this up every time someone mentions Kim Jong Il and personality cult I like to troll by comparing it to Princess Diana and Steve Jobs. Because, really, they're all the same in the end.
But hey, why should I get mad at any of this. This is just an event for an increasingly irrelevant institution that is held in an increasingly irrelevant country. Nothing to see here, moving right along.
Hard hitting questions: Did Dinosaurs Eat Pizza??!
Well?! It's a hard hitting question and I just don't think I know the answer. Just look at those Toppingsauruses. They sure don't look happy -- on the flip side, they don't look properly cooked either.
They said SCIENCE hasn't solved this one, I think science needs to step up to the plate on this and get it solved. But at least there's one thing I do know, I like how they're scientifically accurate in that there's no cheese on that pizza. You know, on account of there not being any mammals during that time.
So what do you think? Did they eat pizza? If so, what kind of style - Chicago or New York?
This is going to be yet another unpopular opinion piece, but since the season is over, it's all going to be considered nothing more than white noise anyway. But I have to say, Game of Thrones has been pretty god damn boring. Even the season finale was a snoozer.
Just look at the Game of Thrones finale. It was really disjointed and strange. People keep talking about how the show is laying pipe down for future events, but that's basically the entire show -- laying pipe for future events that hardly ever come and when they do, they only amount to just more pipe being laid down.
I'm not saying I won't watch season 3, because hey, that pipe is already laid down, but what's even the point anymore? You have lost a loyal customer this day, HBO! Or should I call you HBBLOW!
Just think about it, it's a pretty blatant "Oh shit, I bet you want to see the next season of this show now, right?!" Which, I guess is kind of whatever, but that's basically what they did last season, so it's not like they're coming out of left field with it. But I can still be annoyed with it, can't I -- mainly because it's nothing but more pipe being laid down.
It's an endless journey with minimal payoff, and the writing isn't that good. At least not good enough to make the journey satisfying in itself. I got sick of waiting to see five minutes per episode of characters' stories and just went ahead and read the books... Book 3 has one of my favorite lines so far;
"I took her castle and she took my heart."
It's got to be maybe the best line of everything ever written on earth.. God-fuckin'-damn it. At best, it's great if you want a sprawling, low-magic pot boiler and you have really low empathy for women and/or are a man.
I can tell that season 3 is going to be the worst thing ever, especially because that's when Shae "betrays" Tyrion by testifying against him. Everything about that is just going to piss me off, especially the outrage by the nerds on the internet. But hey, you still have to watch the show because you get to see all the really great costumes involved in it.
Maybe it's just not the shows fault. The first book, after all, was better suited for adaptation. The story was pretty well tied together, you had Ned as a sort-of-main character. After that it becomes a real sprawling ensemble thing. Some books don't even have anything about characters you care about. So you end up getting more episodes where each plot line gets a whole two to five minutes to move forward ever so slowly.
The blackwater battle episode this season was probably the best episode, mainly because it focused entirely on the one plot line and maybe four or five key characters, giving everything room to breathe, as well as having one narrative arc and event from start to finish, instead of jumping around like some backwoods tick.
I have to say, it would be better if they did more episodes like that in the future, but I doubt they will because if anything, the plot gets even more sprawling and the characters get even more disparate and separated from one another.
In short, it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
Did you know that today is a day when you should go vote? Yes, that's right - Vote early and vote often! Then again, it's California -- no matter what we do, we're going to be doing something wrong.
voting time is next tuesday. and I Have No Time For Your Bourgeois Electoral System and all but i'm still really pissed about prop 14, it's just such an awful way of running an election. anyway here's the two statewide initiatives on the ballot this time around:
Proposition 28: Limits on Legislators' Terms in Office. The current term limits on state legislators are six years in the Assembly and eight in the Senate. Proposition 28 would do away with these two limits and replace them with a 12-year total limit in the legislature, without regard to the house.
It seems that prop 28 is one I'm voting NO on. It's a little deceptive and increases the amount of time a legislator can spend in any particular house. They're billing it as thought it decreases term limits, which is technically somewhat true, but the actual effect is that most legislators' terms will be increased, since you won't have to try your luck running for senate once your assembly time is up when you can just hang out in the assembly for an extra six years. I mean, this is all assuming that the term limits are meaningful anyway, which I'm not completely sold on to begin with.
Then you have Prop 29, which I will gladly vote NO on. It's nothing more than a regressive tax. You don't get to pick and choose which addicts we help and which ones we should punish. Besides that, cigarette taxes are just ways of keeping the state afloat without taking anything from the rich.
It's like hmmm, perhaps I could ask my rich pals to chip in so my kids don't starve or suffer from cancer, but I've got all these addicts who can't help themselves if I want to steal the money out of their small paychecks instead.
Sure, let's fund research on the backs of addicts. No mixed incentives or future revenue problems could possibly come out of that, I tell you! And I doubt that this is really going to stop people from puffing in up in public. But shit, places like Midtown Manhattan, all you have to do is yell out something like "Loosies" a few times in a crowd and some dude will show up with individual cigs smuggled tax-free off an India Reservation for you to buy.
Once was a writer, tho, you see words to your left, so I guess I'm still that to some degree.
You can find my scribbles and mind ranting on this and various other places as a means to keep the creative, satirical and costco talk muscles worked out.
Was once apart of the tv industry, but I'm sure the NDA's are still in effect so let's move on from that. Now I spend my time slinging beer and keeping a building in one piece.
Posts
