Huh. Who knew that fanatical murdering Islamists like to eat pancakes? And here we thought we had nothing in common.
Ever have an idea for an article, but when you finally get time to write it, you can’t remember the idea anymore? I gotta start making notes, I’m too old to just remember everything.
I was listening to Howard Stern interview Zachary Quinto recently. Quinto played Spock in the 2009 Star Trek and also in the 2013 Star Trek Into Darkness. He also came out of the closet in 2011, announcing that he is gay.
I don’t find Quinto particularly interesting, or the fact that he’s gay. What was interesting was the discussion that ensued with Stern about the tendency to not cast gay men into leading man roles. Stern’s a fairly big liberal, so it wasn’t surprising that he thought such a bias unreasonable.
Sticking with the Star Trek theme, let’s think about Captain James T. Kirk, played by William Shatner. The Captain Kirk character is basically a stud, a ladies man, a manly man. He’s not afraid to go after the girl, seduce her, and leave her wanting more. His attraction is so strong that women leave their men for him.
When we watch movies or TV shows, we want to get into the action and identify with the characters. Today they call it “immersive”. We learn to love some characters and hate others. We imagine their pain and revel in their happiness. A successful actor makes their character come to life, and makes them believable. Wouldn’t it have been hard for Shatner to make us believe he was really a studly womanizer if we knew in real life he was gay? In the back of our minds, when Kirk was kissing some woman, we’d know that the Shatner part of him wasn’t enjoying it at all.
Can a gay actor do a good job acting straight? I’m sure he can, just as a straight actor can do a good job acting gay. But if you’re casting someone for a straight leading man, wouldn’t you choose the MOST believable actor to play the part?
I recently heard a friend relating a conversation he’d had about which was better, the cookie part of the Oreo or the filling?
I thought about it, and about how each part is less than it could be without the other. The Oreo as a whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Then I suddenly realized that the Oreo can be seen as a symbol for the ideal relationship between a man and a woman. Bear with me here.
The hard cookie exterior is the man, protecting the soft sweet filling that is the woman. Each have their own qualities that make them different, and yet those qualities complement each other. On their own they are good, but when combined they change from being just two good things to being a new wonderful whole. Separate them and they are back to just being good. Like the cookie and filling, man and woman complete each other.
Prepare to be nauseated by what passes for manliness in the Brony community.
Well, apparently the Muslims have developed a Gaydar test. They’re going to test people and deny them visas if they don’t pass. I’m not sure if they’re worried about gayness rubbing off on the natives or what.
Here’s an advanced Muslim robot holding the Gaydar unit:
Hat Tip: Daily Caller
An Italian businessman says the traditional family is important to his business, and the loons are out in force trying to punish him: http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/26/barilla-pasta-company-facing-boycott-following-chairmans-anti-gay-remarks/
It looks like I’m going to be buying Barilla pasta when I buy groceries tomorrow. Not only do I agree with Mr. Barilla when he says, “For us the concept of the sacred family remains one of the basic values of the company,” I support his right to say it.
What’s stupid about the boycotters’ reaction is that Barilla never said anything bad in the interview about homosexuals. He even said he supported gay marriage. Not only that, if you read more about the original interview, the context of the questions were surrounding how they advertise and market their products. He was really referring to how they feel that their target audience is the traditional family, and that therefore they use traditional families in their marketing.
Apparently when you can’t compete, you pay people to buy your stuff. According to Forbes.com, Microsoft is going to be offering a minimum of $200 of in-store credit for an iPhone 4S or 5. You’d think a company with deep pockets like MS could come up with something innovative to challenge Apple and Google, but apparently not. Instead they’re just playing catch-up.
Now, can you imagine, if you’re already so paranoid that you suspect a bird of being an agent of the enemy, how badly do you panic when you eventually open the bird up and can’t find anything? Suddenly your sworn foe went from being so clever as to use a bird for a spy mission to being so insanely brilliant as to make the surveillance equipment undetectable? Instead of just being evil, they’re diabolical geniuses?