Mosher'sUnimaginativelyEntitledBlog
–**– The Blog Without A Bloody Annoying Tagline –**–
After giving a quick plug to another puzzle site recently, I discovered Puzzle Baron. It’s along the same lines with around a dozen different mental games. You can play some online, some are available to print out as PDF files, and others you can do both ways.
Definitely worth a look. It’s the first site I’ve found with free logic problems (you know, the ones with the grids?) as well as a version of Boggle.
Enjoy!
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i0.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?w=840)
Today’s the Champions League Final in Rome. For the first time in ages, the two teams competing are actually both current champions of their respective leagues – Manchester United from England, and FC Barcelona of Spain. The thing is, who should I give a shout for and who would I rather see going home empty-handed?
In ye olde days, tradition in this situation would be to shout for the “home” team – in this case Man U. The thing is, they’re not much of a home team now. Followed by more people outside of their residential city then in, managed by a guy from another country, owned by an American gnome and featuring players predominantly from other nations.
Barca are no better with over half their squad being non-Spaniards – although in the fairness of balance both teams could field good squads under the bandied-about 6+5 rule.
Both teams are international phenomena, with supporters worldwide who’ve never even been to the relevant country, let alone the city, stadium or a game. But isn’t that just football, these days? Both have a lot of success in their past and a lot of people will naturally dislike a winner. Others will flock to them.
I can see a lot of English supporters pulling for Barca. Conversely, I can see a lot of Spaniards crossing their fingers and hoping that Man U do the job. It’s a difficult decision to make.
But I’ve made it.
Eventually, the decision – for me – hinged on one word and one word alone: Ronaldo.
I just want to see the diving, pretentious, self-centred, arrogant little bastard in tears at the end of the night. I don’t care one way or the other about any of the Barcelona squad. Most of the rest of the Man U lot I have no strong opinion on. But I bloody hate Ronaldo.
And for that reason I’ll be silently cheering on Barcelona.
[As a quick aside, I hear there are worries of violence in Rome and that a large area has been served with a temporary drinking ban to help prevent this. I hope every single fan going there to watch the game has an awesome time and comes home in one piece. It’s still only a bloody game.]
Clear Channel are an advertising company. They have chosen to accept money from the BNP and provide advertising space for them in the run-up to the European Elections. I would urge anyone to get in touch with them via the email addresses, snailmails and phone numbers on this page and inform them that you will be boycotting any and all other companies who use Clear Channel as their advertising partner.
I note that the name of the PA to the Regional President is somewhat non-British. I wonder how they feel about their employer providing advertising for the largest group of organised racists in Britain?
While I am all for free speech, any company has the right to decide where they want to get their money from. In a way, that’s them using their freedom of expression. A publisher doesn’t have to print a book decrying Islam should they choose not to. Likewise I’d not expect a printers run by and for Christians to print copies of Anton LaVey‘s Satanic Bible. In the same way, Clear Channel did not have to accept the BNP’s cash in exchange for advertising space.
All it takes is a quick email to let Clear Channel know that people aren’t exactly pleased.
I did get a (form) reply back regarding this so it seems they must have had a few emails already. I do thank them for the response, and I can accept their viewpoint that every party has a right to be heard and advertised at the standard rates. Where my view would differ, though, is that a party is not a normal customer. It has certain viewpoints and beliefs which it stands for. To help them express those beliefs shows either some agreement by the advertising company(I am not saying this about Clear Channel)Â or – alternatively – an attitude whereby they don’t mind as long as money’s coming into the coffers.
While all political parties have a legal right to be heard, no company is obliged to accept that advertising. By refusing to be a part of the BNP’s campaign, Clear Channel could have made quite a statement.
If Clear Channel had not accepted the advertising budget, I’m sure someone else would have. It’s business after all. I just find it sad that cash is coming before principles, as is all too common in the world today.
If you’re not aware of the BNP, how about the following as some recent zingers from their membership?
“Rape is simply sex. Women enjoy sex, so rape cannot be such a terrible physical ordeal… [it] is like suggesting force-feeding a woman chocolate cake is a heinous offence.” – Nick Eriksen
“I honestly don’t hate asylum seekers – THESE PEOPLE ARE COCKROACHES and they’re doing what cockroaches do because cockroaches can’t help what they do, they just do it, like cats miaow and dogs bark.” – Mark Collett
“This wicked, vicious faith has expanded from a handful of cranky lunatics about 1,300 years ago, to it’s now sweeping country after country before it, all over the world. And if you read that book (the Koran), you’ll find that that’s what they want.” – Nick Griffin on Islam
“A FRIENDLY DISEASE because blacks, drug users and gays have it.” – Mark Collett on AIDS
“WHITE WORKING CLASS SCUM will be swept away by a future BNP government.” – Simon Smith
Actually, if the last one means “chavs” or “BNP members” then I can kinda see the appeal.
While I enjoyed Get The Munchies (or Go To White Castle in the US), I can’t say the same for Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay. Most of the (very few) laughs are bundled into the opening 15 minutes, the supporting characters are either superfluous or annoying and the editing of this Unrated Edition is dire in places.
Plot-in-a-nutshell: Fresh from the first film, Harold and Kumar get on a jet bound for Amsterdam. And then get promptly arrested and thrown into Guantánamo Bay as they’re mistaken for terrorists. Escape and an attempt to clear their name ensues as they try to get to Texas and the one person who can help them.
The film has moments, but that’s it – moments. The whole thing is disjointed, particularly in one party scene where it’s painfully obvious that dialogue is being dubbed from a scene that should be on the screen in front of you. Instead, I assume to make the most of the “unrated” label, the camera pans around a load of semi-naked women instead. I mean, naked chicks are all fine and good but that could have been done as well as the acting taking place off-camera.
Overall, though, the entire film plays as a lot of little scenes just cobbled together with no real fluidity.
As I said, the supporting characters are just annoying. Hell, even Kumar’s annoying in this one. Why anyone would stay friends with a complete ****** like this is beyond me. I know this is a comedy, and a stoner one at that, but the viewer still have to have some amount of belief in the characters and situation, surely.
Ron Fox (Robert Corddry) tips the believability scale far too far as an insane Homeland Security representative, surrounded by people who know he’s a dick. The scene where his “translator” can’t understand Harold’s parents because they speak English is simply painful. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not Corddry’s fault. It’s the character that’s awful to watch, not the actor. And the guy who plays George W. Bush couldn’t look any less like the “real” one – hell, my dad would do a better job and he’s got a beard.
Neil Patrick Harris, however, makes a welcome return as himself, and does a great turn in making himself out to be a complete drug-addled tool. Sadly, he’s the only standout in the entire cast.
John Cho has gone on to pilot the Enterprise in the new Star Trek film. Kal Penn has just been offered a job as an Assistant Director in the White House. Hopefully this will keep them away from making a third film.
Having a film all about drugs is one thing, but having to ensure your audience is ****** up to the eyeballs on weed to find any of it funny isn’t really good marketing.
Nothing To Lose is the twelfth Jack Reacher novel by Lee Child, soon to be joined by a thirteenth. It’s also, in my opinion, probably the weakest so far.
In this escapade, Reacher finds his way to a town called Hope where he’s welcome though just passing through – as ever. Just down the road is neighbouring Despair which is far less friendly. Of course, Reacher wants to know why they want him out of town so badly. Out come the old investigative skills and a small smattering of justified violence.
The thing is, Child seems to have used Nothing To Lose as a frame to hang some anti-religious and anti-Bush sentiments from and then shoe-horned a plot in afterwards. There are the usual number of pages, but not really enough story to fill them and when I got to the end I just felt a little cheated.
In fairness, this is partly down to having enjoyed the previous books so much. I think the main issue is that the overall premise (I won’t give it away) is just too far-fetched. Every clue Reacher comes up with is knocked on the head by the “bad guy” of the piece with a fairly acceptable rejoinder. The conclusion is more down to luck than anything else – is he really a bad guy or not? I’m just not used to this vagueness in a Reacher novel.
Otherwise, it’s as well written as ever. Plenty of detail, some good action, great descriptive work and no spoilers for earlier books in case you read them out of order.
I’d still recommend it, but don’t start the series with this one as it may disappoint.
