“Asian” ≠ Chinese / Indian

When did the politically-correct liberal hippie freaks co-opt the term Asian? Since when does it refer only to the Chinese (and surrounding countries)? Asia is a very large continent (the largest on Earth) which consists of dozens of countries, not just China. Besides the Orient and India (Indo-Chin) Asia also contains the middle-east and Russia for pete’s sake. They can’t be going by size of the country since Russia is clearly larger than China and India put together. I suppose they could be going by population per capita but that is ridiculous since either country is still just a fraction of the total continent.

The only rationalization that I can find to explain this is that for some reason it is deemed offensive to use the term Oriental because it situates the UK in the middle of the world. Uh huh, and the acceptable term middle east doesn’t? Why is middle-east okay, but oriental is not? Time for a new term: hypocrisy. If middle-east is okay, then so is oriental. If oriental is not okay, then neither is middle-east and everybody must start referring to Iran, Iraq, Russia, Afghanistan, and so on as Asian. Don’t be a douche!

Moreover, the GMT timezone is in the UK. Are you going to start using something else as the +0:00 offset?

The term Asian should not be reserved for just Chinese or Indian people it should be used to refer to anyone from the continent of Asia.

[Social] The world’s First Color… Uh, Colored Coin

No this isn’t about racist currency. It’s about cheapness and lies.
Recently Tim Hortons—Canada’s answer to Starbucks—began running a campaign advertising a new coin. Why would a coffee franchise advertise a coin? Because Tim Hortons designed the coin and got it passed as national legal tender and is now in circulation. The big deal about this coin is that it is according to the ads “the world’s first color coin”. It is a 25 cent piece (a quarter) that looks a lot like a previous quarter issued. It consists of a large maple leaf (surprise, surprise) with a banner below it with the word remember in both English and French. The center of the maple leaf is blocked out with a small circle within which is a red poppy outlined in black with a black center.

When I first heard about this I first thought “cool, a color coin” followed shortly by “what took so long?! it should be really easy to color the metal allowing all kinds of cool color coins” Then there was the whole issue about how Canada was the first to issue a color coin. That would normally be a reason for national pride (for those who are into that sort of thing), and no doubt it did fill some with a warm glow.

Unfortunately that glow was short lived. Upon closer inspection it turns out that the coin is not in fact color but rather colorED. That is, the red and black are merely paint. What’s worse is that the poppy is barely even engraved at all, there is a very light outline of the poppy in the smooth circle while it is the paint that makes it recognizable at all.

Naturally this is causing quite a bit of a stir. First of all it obviously does not count as a color coin and thus Canada’s status as the first is stripped. Second it is quite an embarrassment, as Jimmy would say I mean come on! Finally and arguably most importantly, it is like a slap in the face to the very veterans whom it is supposed to honor. They are up in arms about this and are trying to nag to whomever they can to complain and have this dealt with… but how? What could make up for this enormous faux pas?

Bah! Canada and Tim Hortons are in a lot of hot water now. On the bright side they can now make a whole bunch of coffee.

[Society/Language] But It’s Not Really Sex… Is It?

Three minutes ago I was sitting on the bus. For the second time this month I heard young people talking about what constitutes sex. Both times they were talking about whether or not anal sex counts as sex and in both cases the results came back the same, the girls decided it did not count as sex and the guys were happy either way.

Anal sex is not the only intimate physical act who’s status is in question; President of the United States of America William Jefferson Clinton’s libido and lack of will power set a problematic precedent. Oral sex is now even less often considered sex than anal sex is and thanks to its ease and the fact that it requires less time, privacy, and preparation it is even less so than ever.

It is interesting that these people who question whether an activity is sex or not seem to miss the fact that the word sex is part of the name. It sounds like a case of selective blindness to me, they only see what they want, what allows them to do what they want without conflict.

Some even go so far as to look up the word sex in the dictionary. They grab a dictionary, flip to SEX, are then directed to COPULATE, COITUS, or any number of synonyms, and invariably end up at INTERCOURSE. Once there, they are presented with a definition describing penis-in-vagina thrusting. They then conclude that because the activity in question is not penis-in-vagina thrusting, it is not intercourse, and therefore not sex. That’s quite a feat of logic and reasoning for someone who no doubt is not all that intelligent. Had they been intelligent, they would have realized that the dictionary started by Merriam Webster, Encyclopedia Britannica, or whom have you was created hundreds of years ago. Back then penis-in-vagina was the only kind of sex there was; that’s why that is the definition given. Other forms of sex were rare, private, and in fact secret at best. (If one has doubt about this, then one should do a little research on the Marquis de Sade.) If the dictionary founder had been informed of these other forms of sex where other body parts are inserted into other body parts, then they would no doubt first have been horrified and disgusted (presumably), and then when told that there are more than just one person in the world doing them would have expanded the definition to include them all.

If one has a doubt on if an activity is sex or not and is honestly interested in the answer rather than merely trying to justify messing around without guilt then it is easier to determine than one would be led to believe. If you can answer yes to more than one of these factors then the activity is indeed sex:

  1. Are genitals involved?
  2. Is there some sort of pleasure?
  3. Is there some sort of orgasm?
  4. Is there more physical rubbing than what would occur in a crowd or bus?
  5. Is there nudity involved?
  6. Is it private?
  7. Are there bodily fluids/solids?

On top of this ask yourself, would you do this activity with your mother/father? sibling? son/daughter? grandparent? a random stranger? etc? If so, then either it is probably not really sex, or you are one sick s.o.b. 😀

[Society] Expire That Holiday

I just saw a news article about a movement to convert remembrance Day (Memorial Day in America) to a national holiday. This came at a most interesting time because just this week I have been thinking the opposite, that they should get rid of it altogether. I mean what, are we supposed to observe it for all eternity?

Now before you infuriatingly yell at me let me explain. I believe that most if not all holidays and observances should be treated like food, they should be given expiry dates; here’s why.

There is a push now to make November 11th a full holiday which I assume means that nobody goes to work or school that day. November 11th commemorates an event that happened over 50 years ago. Recently September 11th has become notorious and is likely to draw similar efforts. There are also a couple of dozen other national and countless municipal holidays and observances. As time goes by there will no doubt be more events that will compel new holidays and if this keeps up one day we will wake up to find that not only are we not going to work or school that day but we haven’t for as long as we can remember. What I’m trying to say is that eventually the calendar which has a mere 365 days a year will be packed full of holidays and observances.

The above prediction is why I propose that when a new holiday is created, as part of the specifics an expiration date be specified. This would mean that it would be officially observed for a given amount of time after which it will be rescinded. Once it has expired it can continue to be observed privately although it would no longer qualify for holiday benefits like staying home.

Doing this would not only keep the calendar free from clutter but would also allow people to focus on contemporary issues and events. If we dwell on the past forever than we will start to lose sight of the present and future.

I understand that there are a few holidays that are excruciatingly special and ancient like Christmas. I also understand that getting rid of it would upset many people because then they would be left with one less day to receive presents. And even though technically it does not have any reason to be exempt, I’m sure it would have enough support to become so. You might think it would be acceptable to do this with a few select holidays but then we would eventually be in the same boat. Once enough events that are significant enough have occurred, we would have a calendar filled with exempt holidays. You could give Christmas a longer expiry date.

In case you were thinking that this “problem” that I have described is ludicrous and would not occur for many hundreds or even thousands of years, you have to stop and think a little bit. Shortsightedness is a deadly mistake. In the same news segment as the Remembrance Day piece was piece about how there is an eight nation report on how the polar ice caps are melting a LOT faster than anyone had ever anticipated. What’s worse is that we will not be able to repair the damage in time. It turns out that human beings have successfully managed to destroy the planet in less than 75 years. How? Shortsightedness. People thought “Meh, why should I inconvenience myself? The garbage won’t pile up too much for a long time, the ozone will survive a long time, the fuel will last a long time.

A long time is never as long as you think, hope, want, or need.

[Media – Television] Don’t Air Things That Don’t Belong On Your Network

I watched The Haunting again this weekend. I originally watched it the way I watch most movies, on video. This time I watched it on television, TBS to be specific. I was extremely, but not surprisingly disappointed. They cut out a lot of it. They cut out several parts that involved violence including the part where Luke’s head gets bitten off by the giant lion’s-head fireplace flue and rolls onto the floor.

Of course as I said this was not surprising because as anyone who has watched TBS knows that it is a VERY sanitized network. They cut—or at the very least clean—any and all violence, nudity, course language, sexuality, and mature subject matter; you know, the things networks put in the warnings after commercials.

This however was not the worst/stupidest offence that TBS has committed. A while back they actually had the audacity to air Striptease. Striptease?! Really? I mean come one, would the Disney Channel air Pulp Fiction? No. There’s a reason that they wouldn’t air it, because it is not appropriate subject matter for their network. TBS however does not seem to understand that simple concept, well, either that or they are just bloody greedy and want to air anything they can. I really cannot understand what would posses someone to air an R rated movie on a channel where they do not even allow mildly course language. When you think about it however, you will realize that this occurs on TBS all of the time, they cut out a whole heck of a lot, how else do they manage to do 5+ minute commercial breaks? As you would expect the resulting movie ends up being a terrible amalgam of disjoint scenes and looking like it was made by some lobotomized cutter. I suppose nobody complained about them airing Striptease because later they got the balls—pun intended—to start airing Sex and the City. *I am rolling my eyes so hard right now I think I may now be permanently cross-eyed.*

TBS may be the worst but is far from the only network to do this. Last night I watched Fast Times at Ridgemont High on CityTV and was happy to see the classic pool scene. ;D It had it again on City today but this time the pool scene (and all nude scenes) were cut to crap, and by that I mean completely cut out; without the intervening scene, there was quite a disconnect between the now-adjacent scenes. Not only that but last night all the language and everything else was intact, but today they were all gone. What is the purpose of this? Give the adults the full monty so to speak at night, then present a watered down version for the children to enjoy during the day? Maybe it’s just me but that seems very bizarre. If some of it is not appropriate for children, then none of it is. If it’s an adult themed movie or show, then cutting it up will just piss off the grown ups.

There’s a few other examples that I may add at a later date, but for now my blood is boiling just thinking about these stupid people.

Networks should pick what they want to be and stick to that instead of taking stuff that doesn’t fit into their model and chop it bits until it does because what’s left will be worthless, trash, garbage, crap, *%!@$*#. Okay, I’m getting too mad at this point, that’s enough for now.

[Media – Television] Welcome Back ABC (Your Dreams Were Your Ticket Out)

After a long absence from television the American Broadcasting Corporate (ABC) has returned. For the past few years—that’s read, almost a decade—ABC has had nothing. It’s best show “The Practice” had been declining for a while because of ABC’s sabotage (time slot terrorism). ABC had even cancelled “The Practice” for while until Dave Kelly managed to force them to not only un-cancel it but also give into his demands. Unfortunately it eventually died. ABC has also had “Alias” which is somewhat popular but still not enough to give the network a leg to stand on.

It had gotten so bad that until this season I had not watched ABC at ALL, EVER for the past several years. In fact Rogers (my crappy cable provider) in yet another selfish nationalist channel banishment had moved one of the ABC affiliates from channel 16 to 62 and I did not even notice.

I think that part of the reason ABC has been doing so badly for so many years is because of it’s acquisition by the Disney Corporation. Disney Corporation, hmmm… that’s an odd phrase. When Disney bought ABC it took the expression “make it your own” to the extreme.

This season however ABC has made an unprecedented comeback. They now have two hit shows. Not only are they hit shows, they are a couple of the greatest, best executed, most gripping shows in the history of television. This season ABC made the wise decision to pick up “Lost” and “Desperate Housewives”.

“Lost” is not just another stranded-on-a-deserted-island show. It is not “Gilligan’s Island” meets “Fantasy Island” meets “Survivor” meets “Lost World” meets “Amazon”. “Lost” is very intriguing, gripping, and surprising. From the very first minute it has been shocking and intense with surprises keeping on the edge of your seat and then knocking you right off a few times per week. At the end of each episode something always happens to make you desperate to watch the next episode; it did not let up until the end of the fifth episode.

Speaking of desperation, “Desperate Housewives” is also very intriguing, gripping, and surprising. From the first minute you are introduced to a mystery that holds you throughout the season. Besides the underlying mystery, “Desperate Housewives” also has the interesting stories of the four main women, the question of the new guy on the block, and quite a bit of great humor. If that is not enough it has a very attractive cast great for both men and women.

ABC has been dragging it’s feet for far too long and now it has a chance to more than redeem itself. Let’s hope that they don’t blow it and endanger these two great shows by moving them or some other shortsighted maneuver.

[Media – Television] Always a human example in science fiction

I’m watching a sci-fi show right now and once again got hit with an annoying little consistency that seems to be prevelant in sci-fi shows that have aliens and alien cultures in it everywhere. What happens is that someone in the show will mention something and give a few examples—usually historic ones—which will pretty much always include at least one human reference and at least one alien reference. For example lets say a character is talking to another character about art and wants to give a few master artists as examples, then they’ll say something like “…great art from people like Michaelangelo, Greetblaczag, or Blorgjlob.” or “…like Zeepledorb, Marktong, or Cézanne.” They’ll always give a few alien examples to indicate that this is a sci-fi show with aliens, but always include a human example. I suppose it could be because it’s a human show, or maybe because humans think they’re so great. Maybe it’s because the writers think that viewers would feel alienated if they didn’t included at least one human reference each time. *Pardon the pun.*





Nov.16.04 – 1:28am *UPDATE*



It’s worse than I thought. I was watching an episode of Star Trek: Voyager the other day and noticed the above statement taken to the extreme. Instead of just listing a couple of alien examples and a human example, they were talking about human matters (Starfleet captains) and two unknown captains were listed as well as one well known one. I found this fitting but shocking because this is not a lone incident, in all situation where a science fiction show self-references in a list, they will list a few names you have never heard of, but will always throw in a name from a previous episode, previous series, or film, or something that you DO know.

Just once I would like to hear someone list a few things that are completely unknown and leave it at that.