h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

They're *not* dull at all

"CHANG: But then walk over to the fish truck and you'll find Doug Neil, a retired dentist. He says he can't vote for Shea-Porter because she doesn't stand for anything of her own.

DOUG NEIL: She'll roll out the same old, tired nonsense with income inequality, minimum wage; she's going to fight for the women. It's just the same old malarkey that the Democratic Party seems to roll out because they really don't have an awful lot to run on."

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=351607083

Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word nonsense that I wasn't previously aware of. Income inequality, minimum wage, women's rights - not an awful lot to run on really.

Ted Cruz dubbed the Democrats an "extreme, radical party".

The hypocrisy is strong with this one.


My favorite comment on reddit regarding this:

>>>>>>>>>>>>

You can always tell what Republican strategists are worried about in terms of their own party's weaknesses, because that's always what they use to attack the Democrats.
George W. Bush's record of "service" in the Vietnam war looks a little shaky? Accuse John Kerry of cowardice and malingering.
John McCain was born in Panama? Accuse Barack Obama of not being an American citizen.
Ted Cruz's government shutdown strikes some people as "extreme" and "radical?" Etc.
-pensee_idee

<<<<<<<<<<<<

Income inequality, minimum wage, women's rights...

I thought round your way those things were heretical, just like evolution.

Sounds like the shallow end of the gene pool are at it again

"The 1881 masterpiece had been estimated to sell for up to $35 million (£21.9m)."
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-29930481

Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word masterpiece that I wasn't previously aware of.

You all probably know that I have some forthright views about art, and even more forthright views about the people create some of it, and even more forthrighter views about the people who pay silly moneys for some of it (emperor's new clothes and all that).

I like the impressionists, a lot. I really do. They evoke in me a true sense of a time and a place, and their work is very pleasing to my eye. But looking at the image of this particular piece on the BBC website, I can't help feeling that if a modern artist painted it now it would be dismissed as chocolate box schmaltz. It even has a feel of paint-by-numbers about it.

In real life it's probably far more impressive and worthy.

Meh, art has no intrinsic value so therefore no price can be too high or too low. Art is as intangible as it gets and its value is as arbitrary as it gets.


Actually, I think if this sells for as much as they're expecting, it might say more about economics and the great, huge, brobdingnagian masses of wealth the 0.1% now have.

"We're witnessing the death of democracy in Florida"
http://www.npr.org/2015/01/05/375201430/same-sex-marriages-start-in-florida

Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word democracy that I wasn't previously aware of.

This is another way of saying 'activist judge'. Whenever a judge makes a decision someone doesn't like, regardless of whether what they like is against the law or the constitution, this is what they fall back on and try to make their case with, even though it's patently wrong.

Someone with an agenda tries to make something happen by putting it on a ballot, even though it violates the constitutional rights of a group of people. Many more people with the same agenda vote for it and it becomes law. One of the people whose rights have been curtailed sues and a judge strikes it down, because that's one of the things judges do - strike down laws which shouldn't happen.

What's the first thing the people who instigated the ballot do? Claim activist judges are opposing the will of the people, and that - oh, the irony - the people's rights have been violated

"I used social media to fulfil a campaign promise to provide transparency in the courts"
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-32513074

Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word transparency that I wasn't previously aware of.

I hate it when certain words or phrases become, I was going to call them buzzwords but I'm sure if that's the right description. It probably is. Several years ago everyone in (British) government, especially the Tories who were in power at the time, started using the word 'prudent' whenever they were talking about policy. More recently we've had all kinds of people saying that something is going to be 'robust', as in 'There will be a swift and robust inquiry into this matter'.

Now we have 'transparency. Everything has to be transparent, whether it should or not, so in this instance it's not just the use of the word that irks me, it's also the idea that everything should be known to everyone. No. Sometimes there are things that shouldn't, especially when it comes to court cases.

It still staggers me that, because of the first amendment, so much more of what pertains to a court case can be made public in the US, whether it be lawyers for the defendant or the accused talking about the case to journalists and going on television ahead of the trial, or jurors talking about it afterwards (which may or not be allowed in the UK, but I don't recall it happening), or details of the accused being made public ahead of the trial. I recall seeing a film many years ago starring the actor who played BJ in MASH. I think he was playing someone wrongfully accused of a rape, or some kind of sexual offence, being hounded by the press before the trial began. At one point he says something very close to "If this was the UK they wouldn't be allowed to know who I was".

I reckon by now we've all heard stories about jurors who have been convicted of contempt of court for talking about their case on social media while it's in progress, or simply looking something up during the trial and finding out something about the defendant which would not have been admissible as evidence, such as their previous form.

So the idea that a judge should think it's okay to do something similar, in the name of transparency beggars belief. She may think she's only saying things that are already public information, but that's only her judgement (no pun intended), and even if they are, making certain things which only professionals or those directly connected with a court case simply isn't necessary. She says that she was trying to "encourage members of the public to follow the proceedings".

Why? I can see how it might encourage one or two people to take up a career in the law, but given how people react and overreact on social media these days based on no evidence whatsoever, I can see her actions as doing nothing more than fuelling similar overreactions, assumption-making, conclusion-jumping and rushing to judgement.

She's a judge in my county.





Oh, and you were thinking of Alan Alda. I don't believe I saw the film though.

No, it was definitely BJ. Half a mo, let me find the film. To the IMDB-mobile Robin

This is the one: Prime Suspect http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084534

You're correct.

My mind conflated BenJamin with B.J.

Mike Farrell would be more notable for M*A*S*H since Alda has done SO many more films and TV projects. Sure, when I think of M*A*S*H, I think of Alda, but when I think of Alda I think about more than just M*A*S*H. If I think of Mike Farrell I ONLY think of M*A*S*H.

Same here, although I can;t really recall too many of the other things I know Alda for. Or any of them, except Same Time, Next Year http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078199/ It's an interesting film, although not one I reckon I'd watch again now because of the schmaltz quotient. I can't do schmaltz any more.

Well, yeah... come to think of it, he hasn't done much else that's truly memorable. He mostly does character parts and TV roles. And according to IMDb, Mike Farrell has had more roles, mostly TV, than Alda (88 to 62 respectively).

I guess Alda is just more... iconic.




I grew up watching M*A*S*H. It'll always have a special place in my mind. No one missed it when it was on and it was on "my whole life" it seemed. I haven't watched it in decades now, not since it was on regular syndication after the evening news. I wouldn't mind watching the first several seasons now. It was an odd show. We knew it wasn't really about Korea. Not that it was really about Viet Nam, but some of the things it wanted to say was. It rather was about some fairy tale war painted with tones of many wars. It was so idealized, yet not at the same time.

Still, at least it wasn't a sitcom set in a German concentration camp.

I used to watch MASH every week too, at least until too many of the original cast had left. You can just about have MASH without Trapper John. You can sort of have MASH without Henry. You can almost have MASH without Frank Burns. But you can't have MASH without Radar. You just can't.

I can still recall that feeling when I first started watching it. You know how when you first discover a television show and you're not yet familiar with the situation or the characters and it's all new and fresh, and it's all a bit impenetrable and unknown First impressions. After a while you begin to understand more and you get to know more about it, and you lose that feeling.

It really was 'odd', in that you can sort of imagine some of those things happening and you can sort of imagine there would have been characters like those, but you know the oddness gave the writers the opportunity to write some surreal stories and situations

Okay Netflix, what's the point of having all three discs of series one, none of series two and only disc three of series three of a programme as big and as iconic as MASH?

I learned the 24 hour clock because of MASH. I never did get to see the series finale, though, because it was on a school night Sue, I could hunt it down and watch it now, but it wouldn't be the same...

It was rather brutal, emotionally.

So it would've been a bit rough for a *thinks--the living room looked like *that* so it was the house on Berthoud and it was towards the end of the school year, so...* third grader? Or was it not 1983, and it's some other show I'm thinking of...?

I don't think I ever saw the last episode. I know I'd rather lost interest in MASH by then, and I knew they were going to make a big deal of it so I figured it'd be a bit OTT.

Ah:
"In the United Kingdom, where the show was broadcast by the BBC (and therefore also without advertising breaks), the laugh track was entirely absent from all episodes.

On all released DVDs, both in Region 2 (Europe, including the UK) and Region 1 (including the U.S. and Canada), there is an option to watch the show with or without the laugh track."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M*A*S*H_%28TV_series%29#Laugh_track

Good to know.