vasaris: (cuddle cthulhu! by Vasaris)
Today I learned that Texas is not in the same time zone as Canada.

That being said, I find it pretty amazing that Canada left the continent when no one was looking. It's SUPER IMPRESSIVE and we should all bow down in awe.

*puzzled*

Feb. 27th, 2014 06:43 pm
vasaris: (cuddle cthulhu! by Vasaris)
...isn't the longest war in US history Korea? Last I checked, no peace treaty has been signed.

(That said, yes, Ms. Maddow, I would agree that Afghanistan and Iraq are definitely the longest conflicts of the modern generation.)
vasaris: (cuddle cthulhu! by Vasaris)
Originally posted by [livejournal.com profile] elfs at Evolution has an announcement to make
In a public press announcment, a spokesbeast for Evolution gave the following statement:
Recent news reports show that support for evolution has fallen below 50% among members of the Republican Party. Due to this, Evolution has decided to drop any support it currently gives to the Republican party. Evolution will not work on or for Republicans, and Republicans will cease evolving.

Evolution would like to remind Republicans that species that cannot, or will not, evolve in environments as dynamic as the American electorate quickly go extinct. Eventually, should the Republican party continue to avoid Evolution, the Republican party will be remembered only by its old and mouldy fossils.


Can't help it, I've got to giggle. I want to be as awesome as [livejournal.com profile] elfs when I grow up.
vasaris: (cuddle cthulhu! by Vasaris)
When I ask you where the hell the goods are, the answer is not 'oh, we'll look for it eventually' and the statement 'we don't know' is not acceptable. I now have less than 24 hours to try and fix the fuckup you made.

No love,
Me

Oh, snap.

Oct. 11th, 2013 04:36 pm
vasaris: (cuddle cthulhu! by Vasaris)
On Whether He (Benedict Cumberbatch), Matt Smith, and Tom Hiddleston Have Cheekbone-Polishing Parties:

We like nothing better than buffing our Zygoma. And imagining a horny time traveling long overcoat purple scarf wearing super sleuth nordic legend fuck fantasy. Get to work on that, internet.

I'm half tempted to take on WhoVengeLock, except I've never seen Dr. Who.
vasaris: (cuddle cthulhu! by Vasaris)
Cthulhu on a cracker. I'm mostly posting this because its simultaneously hilarious, ridiculous, and lachrymose.

Apparently, Alyssa at ThinkProgress thinks there's been no revelation of what average people think of superheroes in the Marvel Universe. There's no context, no background for SHIELD. She finds this disappointing, given the basic plot of Agents of SHIELD.

Never mind that the Marvel Universe is approaching its its 100th birthday. There's plenty of evidence for how average people feel about superheroes -- even in the cinematic universe, since Whedon made a point of montaging it in Avengers, and it comes up in the Iron Man franchise -- because it's been dealt with in a variety of ways in the comics. I never read them, but a brief dip into Wikipedia is enough to see that, yes, there's a context for SHIELD.

The TV show is a spinoff of movies spun off of multiple comic book series that are, in some cases 50+ years old. There is no feasible way for a TV pilot to back fill all of that in, especially when at least, what, ten movies including the overall Avengers (Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, Captain America, Avengers) franchise, the X-men/Wolverine franchise, and Fantastic Four movies haven't done more than hint at some of it.

Inasmuch as I can understand disappointment with the script, or the acting, but recognize that the base premise, in many ways, isn't Whedon's. He's working from a play book that has, in fact, already been written, in a universe already familiar to millions. He wants to entice those of us who are unfamiliar or marginally familiar, but his audience is made up of people who would be bored and turned off by exposition about a universe they grew up with.

And, quite seriously, I have to laugh at you, Alyssa. If you're interested in the "we need to discuss the deployment of superheroes in a public forum" I direct you to the Civil War storyline. Also - did you even notice how you implied that superheroes are weapons and not people? Fictional people, true, but still -- not objects. The idea that a show about the structures that might support superheroes or superhero teams should be deliberately exploited for political purpose and debate in essentially real time? Please. Don't get me wrong, philosophical underpinnings are undoubtedly there, but that isn't the purpose of the show. Being disappointed that a vaguely-campy-already-has-a-fanbase show doesn't live up to your LET'S BE TOPICAL BECAUSE REASONS! expectations is ludicrous.

Okay, whut?

Aug. 6th, 2013 07:23 pm
vasaris: (cuddle cthulhu! by Vasaris)
Dude, what is the point of asking a chef for a vegan/vegetarian restaurant if she'd be willing to use test tube grown beef? For that matter, what is the point of asking three chefs who appear to be anti-meat/anti-science to comment on it? I mean, wow, a breakthrough in the possible future of low impact food production that could potentially feed the world cheaply and we're going to discuss how food should be more expensive to drive demand down? We're not even going to touch, say, whether similar methods might be used for veggies? Really? The only pro-for-the-idea person was the dude who is ex-PETA? Dear MSNBC, I don't expect perfection in journalism. I recognize your bias. But WTF was that?

(Btw, to the jack off who felt the need to whine about the amount of vegetable matter it takes to produce muscle. Please note that herd animals tend to consume vegetable matter humans cannot gain benefit from, often on land that is somewhat marginal for farming things humans can eat. By definition, it doesn't matter what the plant/meat ratio is, because we can't eat the plants anyway.)
vasaris: (cuddle cthulhu! by Vasaris)
The frequency of non-sequitur. It's a great place to practice abbreviated wit or snark, but sometimes the moment when someone re-tweets something you're not following and have no context for is more than a bit baffling.
vasaris: (cuddle cthulhu! by Vasaris)
MvDonalds and Visa put out this gem of a budget this week in the attempt to claim that a person can totally live on $8.25/hr. Ignoring obvious issues (no utilites other than electricity in that $600/mo apartment, gas/car payment $150 -- suuure... In my area, if your apartment is that cheap, you're generally making at least a 20 mile round trip), they've effectively admitted that people making $12-14/hr in their full time jobs are barely making enough to survive on.

Think about that for a moment.

Simply by saying "Well, you get a second job somewhere in the current market" they've admitted that they do not pay a living wage, and worse, they could pay their employees half-again more, and said employees would still wouldn't be making enough to do more than scrape by.

So, even the people making half again more than the McWageSlave should be pounding the pavement for 2nd jobs, which further saturates the market with people actually willing to be underemployed. Given the continuing saga of corporations eager to hire those they won't have to give benefits to, it's got to make them happy the jobless have to be willing to take whatever is offered, because its better than nothing. But there's the conundrum, for every person working 2 (3, 4) jobs, that's likely to be 5 (10, 100) who applied while having none. There aren't enough jobs out there for everyone to have multiple.

I'm not going to claim to know the magic solution, but I think I can state that I'm a little tired of the poor being blamed for being jobless or in need of assistance when a single job cannot support a single individual, much less one with dependents. Never mind "illegals" taking away jobs -- ever person who has 2 or more by necessity has increased the pool of un- or under-employed. Driving down prices by driving down pay still results in people not being able to afford your goods. It's an inevitable downward spiral.

So I find it rather bitterly amusing that instead of paying living wages, McDonalds would rather advocate continuing the problem without apparently realizing it.

Twitter:

Jul. 17th, 2013 07:58 pm
vasaris: (cuddle cthulhu! by Vasaris)
That awkward moment when someone says "It's crazy, because I can't be actual Protestant because of people who think it's some weird Catholicism?"

1. Protestantism has a lot of denominations. Not all fall under the conservative Christian label.

2. Yes, Protestantism is a "weird Catholicism" by definition. It splintered off of Catholicism, and each denomination carries varying levels of similarity to its parent religion. Some close, others widely divergent. Believe it or not, all y'all are Christian, though. Also, if you didn't have similar core beliefs, you'd be Pastafarian, or something.

*sporfle*

Jul. 9th, 2013 07:43 pm
vasaris: (cuddle cthulhu! by Vasaris)
I refuse to support an America where al-Qaeda insurgents and smelly hippies can sabotage our prosperity. -- phrasegenerator.com

Oh, FFS

Jul. 5th, 2013 01:36 pm
vasaris: (cuddle cthulhu! by Vasaris)
In discussing the morality of lying about birth control in order to get pregnant, why would I have to specify in each comment that I'm talking about lying about birth control? WTF?
vasaris: (cuddle cthulhu! by Vasaris)
This has been a remarkable week for feminine badassery -- whether one agrees with Texas State Senator Wendy Davis or not, it seems to me that one has to be impressed by any person who can talk for 11.5 hours and stay on topic (because the times they said she wasn't on topic -- it's only off topic if you're an ingorant twit), do so without water, food, or a bathroom break, and still look like they're willing (and able) to take on the world. Texas State Senator Leticia Van de Putte's pointed -- and timely -- comment still makes me smile. And Rep. Duckworth? She is a warrior goddess whose disguise as a double leg amputee does not work very well. I will never believe she is anything other than Adrasteia incarnate.

But this isn't about women being badass and awesome and amazing, this is about a man poorly representing his sex, gender, and political party. )
vasaris: (cuddle cthulhu! by Vasaris)
Or, possibly, watching the fallout of a marathon filibuster where someone actually had to talk. But that, literally, is another post.
vasaris: (cuddle cthulhu! by Vasaris)
And I want to have TX State Senator Leticia Van de Putte's metaphorical babies.

"At what point must a female senator raise her hand or her voice to be recognized over her male colleagues in the room?"

Brava, madam senator. Brava, brava, bravissimo.

You know, in the 1700s, a group of intelligent, brave men re-ordered the world as we know it by demanding no taxation without representation. Over the last hundred years, women and minorities have been echoing the spirit of the demand hat drove the birth of a country. In many ways it's a tenet of faith in our system to demand the equalization of privilege, and a voice recognized by those in power.

May we all remember the power wielded by words and steel determination. We have the same inalienable right to be heard and to resist as those who would oppress us. #standwithwendy
vasaris: (cuddle cthulhu! by Vasaris)
Players:
CL: confused lady
Me: guess who!

Phone: Brrrrrrrrains. Brrrrrains. Where da brrrrrrains?
Me: Thank you for calling, this is Vasaris.
CL: This is Confused Lady in the LA office.
Me: Hi, Confused! What can I do for you?
CL: I've got a rush shipment from Canada to the US. [Other Office] told me that you do that.
Me: ... Um er, so do they...? Okay. So... Where are the goods crossing?
CL: *sounding very lost* ...From Canada..?
Me: ...right.

In fairness, she's in LA and may have no reason to realize the Canadian border is very, very long and has more than one access point. Or, if I'm going to be nice, know which Canadian ports go with which US ports except she can probably use Google, that's how I figured it out. But "...it's coming from Canada?" will never stop being funny.
vasaris: (Default)
You know, it bothers me a lot less when a conservative tells me s/he thinks I'm wrong than when s/he says I'm unAmerican. Every time I even glance at the backlash against Obama's win, I come away with a sick horror. For all that I find a lot of the visible, frothing GOP to be OMG, WTF batshit, with a side order zealot-frosted krazykakes, I don't doubt that they're American. I totally understand disappointment, even fear (because I honestly do fear the GOP, not just on the front of human rights, but in how the GOP views America vs. the rest of the world, deities above, below, and in the deep blue sea...), but I cannot understand, or condone the "America died" and "We should secede" rhetoric, much less the claims of we weren't divisive enough, WTF?. Aside from the obvious issues (sovereign nations provide their own currency, security, and such, that I doubt right wing separationists have thought of), it boggles me that that is somehow a rational response.

In a GOP win, I would have tried to fight within the system, supporting issues at a state level, even if they couldn't be managed at the federal level. I would campaign, and call, and argue one person at a time if necessary.

But I would never have called GOP supporters unAmerican. I would never have said Washinton, California, and Oregon should secede from the Union (despite the fact I'm fairly certain they could be self supporting as a group). Because, yeah, I think they're wrong in ways that matter deeply to me, but I don't think they're magically not American.

So... Dear GOP: Get Over Yourselves, because We're Americans Too.
vasaris: (Default)
As a suggestion, you might consider having your chocolate-coconut vodka smell (and taste) more like Mounds than Nexxus Therappe. I feel like I should be pouring your vodka on my head, not in my mouth. Just sayin'.

(Yes, I randomly spend money on alcohol on the basis of "that sounds interesting". This is the first time I've found shampoo flavored alcohol. Seriously, WTF?)
vasaris: (Default)
Dear Republican Party Idiot,

You insult not just me, but your own party members with the following:

You can't trust the democrat, he's a politician. You can trust *blah* because he's a rich white guy.

Also: That evil bastard! He invested in green energy! And then supported green energy!

Tell me about your rich white guy! If I get a look at his portfolio, will I have to question every time he supports (as this is WA) aerospace, technology, energy companies, coffee, etc.? Because, wow, between Microsoft, Boeing, Starbucks, Amazon, BP, Arco, and everybody else, I find it unlikely your rich white dude is completely clean of "conflicts of interest".

Screw you very much. I know you aren't targeting me, but I find it terrifying that you use such arguments for your own people. Please stop being on your side, you're making your side look stupid.


Posted via m.livejournal.com.

March 2014

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
910111213 1415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Aug. 22nd, 2017 04:28 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios