I’m not sure if TeenNick is different from Nickelodeon insofar as it’s a different channel or insofar as it’s a different sort of programming on the same station a la Nick@Nite, but whatever it is, it has some damned smart executives:
TeenNick will dust off old faves like Rugrats, Kenan & Kel, Pete & Pete, The Amanda Show, All That and Clarissa and air them in a new midnight-to-2 a.m. programming block dubbed (appropriately enough) The ’90s Are All That. The tween cabler came up with the idea after seeing the huge interest in early Nickelodeon programming on social media sites. There are several Facebook pages — followed by millions of fans — that are devoted to Nickelodeon shows from the ’90s.
Naturally, no one gives two shits about anything Keenan Thompson has ever done, but I like the idea of bringing back good shows like Pete & Pete. I’m unlikely to watch very much, if any, of this programming, but it embiggens my heart to know that another generation gets to experience some of the same programming I had growing up. It’s a lot like how Nick@Nite made me an expert in I Love Lucy and The Dick Van Dyke Show by bringing them back so many years after the fact. (Do you know there are people who don’t remember That Girl, much less Marlo Thomas?) I’m glad today’s tween generation has a quality opportunity to get familiar with some quality television of the past.
Of course, there are several shows missing from the lineup already. Salute Your Shorts, Hey, Dude!, Are You Afraid of the Dark? These are key 90’s Nickelodeon pieces of art. When you go retro you pick the best of the best of a generation (which makes the presence of All That confusing here).
I don’t think that God is going to allow some crazy guy like Ahmadinejad to blow up the world with an atomic weapon. I just don’t think he’s going to allow it. Now, God may bring a meteor on us, and we’ll know who did it. But he’s not going to turn this world loose to the crazies.
Here’s an incredible statement from an interview Newt Gingrich did with the 700 Club that shows exactly how not to show remorse for having done something wrong. When asked about his multiple infidelities and hypocrisies, this is the very first thing he said:
There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.
See, he wasn’t driven by passions of the flesh, he was driven by passion for his country. And that’s why “things happened” — not the passive voice. He didn’t do something wrong, something wrong merely happened as a result of having too much patriotism. How utterly pathetic.
This is a tactic that gets used all the time. It removes responsibility from actual people and shifts it to some nebulous floating whatever. Slimey, sure. But good rhetoric? You betcha.
I’m tired of hearing America is the best at this or the best at that all the frickin’ time. It’s a fat country with bad health care, bad politics, bad education, bad infrastructure, bad religion, a horrific income gap, a load of violent crime, moronic drug laws, rampant racism, people who deny the rampant racism, sexism, people who deny the rampant sexism, an active and overt hostility to higher education, and a population that consists of large blocs devoted to ideology over real-world pragmatic answers.
And to top things off, it’s filled with the sort of people who give idiotic responses to all these facts by saying, “Well, if you don’t like, why don’t you leave?” Morons.
But isn’t it interesting how the Republicans are always justifying how ridiculous CEO salaries are okay because companies need to attract the best talent, yet when we’re talking about teachers that argument goes out the window?
Illinois abolished the death penalty Wednesday, more than a decade after the state imposed a moratorium on executions out of concern that innocent people could be put to death by a justice system that had wrongly condemned 13 men.
Gov. Pat Quinn also commuted the sentences of all 15 inmates remaining on death row. They will now serve life in prison with no hope of parole.
It’s always satisfying when one finds out that planned murder has been thwarted.
I will give up not having enough sex, drugs, and rock n’ roll in my life. I need to increase all of these things to Charlie Sheen levels. Now, now, worry not. I realize that my face may melt off, but I believe I also have Adonis DNA, so I’m willing to risk it. And really, this is Lent. Let me have my baseless faith like everyone else who is arbitrarily giving something up, okay? I mean, at least what I want to give up can only improve my life.
Now excuse me while I go look at some mildly exposed skin, take some aspirin, and listen to a little Creed. (What did you expect? It is a Christian event.)
In my run-in with a few caricature feminists last year, I disagreed over something pretty simple. There was a picture of two fat women next to an article about fat women and medical care on CNN. The caricature feminist, Suzanne Franks, said that it was a sexist picture because it didn’t show their faces, instead only focusing on their “boobs and vagina”. Several people, including myself, pointed out that it would be wildly inappropriate to feature their faces, and besides, the article was about fat people. The objectification was on fatness, not women per se. For that I was deemed horrifically sexist; I clearly must hate all women. In fact, I was accused of only disagreeing because the blogger was a woman. In reality, I actually had assumed she was a man. A small part of the reason is that most bloggers are men, but there was also this reason:
As I (audaciously!) explained in previous posts, I never said my assumption (that the post was by a man) was good or bad. What’s more, I was also going on the fact that Franks looks like a man with long hair in her picture. I didn’t originally raise that point for the sake of not being so crude, but if she’s going to hammer on the point, then that’s what’s going to happen.
So in my effort not to be insulting of her face, I had to say I had an assumption I knew wouldn’t going over well where I was. But I figured I had at least won the point: If I assumed the blogger was a male, then I couldn’t possibly be disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing with a woman. Of course, actually addressing that point would be embarrassing; people don’t like to admit when they’re wrong on the Internet. Instead, everyone focused on the fact that I had such a crazy! assumption in the first place. I freely admitted that it wasn’t a great assumption to have, even if most bloggers actually are male, but that didn’t really matter to anyone. Assumptions?! YOU HATE [whatever that person likes]!!!
So that brings me to a recent post by PZ. He talks about some new book that says 21st century men are immature and not living up to any real standards. The reason? Feminism, of course! It’s clearly a stupid premise.* However, just as stupid is the claim PZ makes that men aren’t growing up for the intrinsic reason that they are men. If there’s a problem with this generation, it isn’t just with one sex or the other. (Not that I think there’s something horrid about this generation: PZ is an old guy, so he’s falling into the trap into which most every old person before him has fallen – he thinks young people suck and we didn’t have to walk 15 miles in the snow to get to school just so we could get our daily whipping!)
But his unusually muddled post aside, several of the commenters take the time to mention video games when talking about immature men. Jadehawk had this to say:
meh. I don’t mind the non-marrying, non-settling down sort of man. I don’t even mind the video-game playing, spending all night on the internet type. In fact, I’ve got one of those at home.
It’s the entitled douchebags I mind. Those who think all women are supposed to play mommy for them.
While I’m glad Jadehawk (look at me, not assuming his or her sex!) took the time to differentiate between these type of men, I still really hate the association between video games and the immaturity PZ discussed. It’s just an ugly assumption. And aren’t assumptions like that just shitty? They were when I made them about Franks being male.
But on video games: first of all, video gamers are nearly split 50/50 between male and female today. Second, if someone goes on and on about the acting or the storyline or the plot twists or the cinematography of a movie, why, that’s just an avid movie goer; that person really appreciates a form of art. But video games? Nah. That’s just childish baby-baby stuff. It’s totally different because, um, well, uh, um, um, um, it just is, okay?!
You know, I don’t think my points here are too crazy. 1) The connection between feminism causing immaturity in men is just as nebulous as the connection between men and some magical intrinsic immaturity. 2) The assumptions we make, while almost always more common and with more impact from the dominant side, are often a fault. 3) Video gamers are composed of an ever-increasing even mixture of men and women, neither of which is immature for wanting to have some virtual fun.
But I’m sure that’s horribly fucking sexist in someone’s eyes.
*According to the comment section on the post, it looks like that isn’t really the premise of the book. The website reporting it, WorldNutDaily, seems to have given things their own spin.
The best way, in my experience, to stump or trap or trip up a Christian is to just ask questions. Every time I’ve pounded on a point and demanded answer after answer from Christians they always change the subject, refuse to answer for some BS reason, or otherwise attempt to divert attention from their beliefs. It makes people uncomfortable to be put on the defensive, and it especially puts people not used to being challenged in a very difficult situation. That makes for the perfect set-up. Give it a try.
Naturally, no one gives two shits about anything Keenan Thompson has ever done, but I like the idea of bringing back good shows like Pete & Pete. I’m unlikely to watch very much, if any, of this programming, but it embiggens my heart to know that another generation gets to experience some of the same programming I had growing up. It’s a lot like how Nick@Nite made me an expert in I Love Lucy and The Dick Van Dyke Show by bringing them back so many years after the fact. (Do you know there are people who don’t remember That Girl, much less Marlo Thomas?) I’m glad today’s tween generation has a quality opportunity to get familiar with some quality television of the past. 
For the Sake of Science 