Dear Wikipedia,

I miss you. I don't know why you're not responding to my connection requests and causing my browser to become impatient. Is your server experiencing high demand or a temporary outage? I'm not unable to browse other sites, so I don't think it has to do with my connection or firewall or proxy settings. I don't think consulting my network administrator or Internet provider for assistance is going to help either. I don't need counseling or reassurance, Wikipedia -- I need you.

Please come back to me soon, okay?

xoxo Wes

In other news, Scary-Crayon was updated Friday -- in addition to finally getting that Mai & Chun-Li figure review up, we've also posted a quick haiku and the exciting second installment of Mickey's Sarah Jane Smith Fashionista Fever! And for those of you who just watched "Turn Left" Friday night, you might want to check the review I did of it a few weeks ago. 🙂

Also, here is a quick review of Hancock that I originally posted on a forum! Spoilers are hidden after the cut, so I don't advise clicking if you haven't seen the film and care about having certain plot developments revealed.

I don't think Hancock was actually good, mind you, but I went in knowing nothing about it except what I'd seen in the trailers -- so when Hancock morphed into something I wasn't expecting, I was kind of intrigued. I do think the movie cheated by telegraphing the wrong finale (the wife basically intimated that Hancock was a jerk who lets people down, yet he'd actually spent the last millennium or so protecting her?), and the stuff with the bad guys was pretty lame, but the new backstory and dynamic were interesting enough to me that I could divorce them from the movie in which they appeared. Plus, I thought the movie suggested that the alien couple was essentially broken up by the bigotry and discrimination in America (or at least that's what I read into the notion of the couple getting attacked and references to fires in earlier days), which was also of interesting to ponder... especially in light of the notion that they were created by some superintelligent alien beings (who presumably would have been able to predict the future that their superpowered couple would inherit).

Anyway, I guess my opinion of Hancock is akin to how I might feel about an inoffensive but mostly unfunny joke that ends with an even less funny yet interesting suggestion about time travel and quantum physics. I'd have trouble calling the joke a success in terms of what it set out to do, but I'd appreciate the thought-provoking effect it had upon me.

All for now, then! Until next time, folks.

The first sentence in the CNN political ticker report about the death of Tony Snow reads:

Former White House press secretary Tony Snow -- who once told reporters "I'm a very lucky guy" -- died at the age of 53 early Saturday after a second battle with cancer.

Why would they choose that quote, only to follow it up with something that is so decidedly unlucky? I enjoy an ironic and/or morbid crack as much as and probably even more than the next guy, but even I would curb my wicked sense of humor when writing news articles about the deaths of public figures (excluding entertainers, of course). That's just tacky.

A few days ago, I asked a question... and now, it's answer time! But first, let me say that you shouldn't feel too bad if you didn't get this one. Not that you would or should feel bad, of course -- and if you do, keep in mind that I wouldn't have asked it if the answer were completely obvious. Moreover, even if you answered incorrectly, you likely based your conclusion on correct premises. You might also have guessed correctly based on incorrect premises, in which case you're just lucky. 😉 (more...)

Phoenix (Jennifer Widerstrom) is well fit... (more...)

Lots of posts these past few days, eh?

So the first of the two commercials mentioned in the title was for some new kind of eyedrops. It was a testimonial advertisement featuring an eye doctor who, apparently as a sufferer of some common form of dry eyes, was thrilled to discover this new product because it can help users to "make more of their own tears." Now, I know what it means -- tears moisten eyes, so the product will ostensibly prevent sufferers from having to endure dry, itchy, red eyes -- but I found the phrasing odd. It can help you to produce more of your own tears. But given that we typically associate tears with pain and/or sadness, I found myself thinking that I could probably accomplish the same thing by beating the hell out of an individual and murdering his/her loved ones. And I giggled to myself.

Yes, my sense of humor is strange.

The second commercial was for Toaster Strudels, and its explicitly and repeated contention was that "Pop-Tarts can't compare to the taste of Toaster Strudels." (According to the Wiki, this is a pretty common line of argument for Toaster Strudels... though this is the first time I can remember seeing it. Weird.) This amused me as well, but for different reasons. First of all, this is a matter of personal preference -- and while you could say that with respect to almost anything, it's especially true here. Why? This is directly related to my second point: that comparing Pop-Tarts and Toaster Strudels is like comparing apples to oranges (in the sense that you legitimately can, as they're both kind of similar -- both breakfast pastries, both fruits -- yet also different). But an even better analogue is potato chips to french fries. Imagine an Ore-Ida commercial that boasted, "Potato chips can't compare to the taste of french fries!" Maybe not -- depending upon the person -- but since that's not their freaking goal, who cares?!

If you're into Pop-Tarts, no amount of argument is going to convince you that Pillsbury's wares are somehow better... unless, that is, Pillsbury releases a product that is directly comparable to Pop-Tarts. I mean, I like them both (though not enough to buy either on a regular basis) -- and while I would prefer Toaster Strudels in a head-to-head comparison, Pop-Tarts do have several advantages over Toaster Strudels. They don't need to be kept in the freezer, so you can take them almost anywhere. (I used to bring a packet to work with me for lunch, and I recall us having them with us on a high school camping trip. In fact, one of the sexier -- and definitely bustier -- girls on the trip noted that they were her favorite food, which at the very least ensured that I will associate Pop-Tarts with pleasant thoughts for as long as that memory endures. Every time I buy Pop-Tarts, Kellogg's should send her a commission fee.) Admittedly, most of their other advantages are related to this point -- their versatile nature means that you don't need a toaster to enjoy them, whereas even if you want to eat Toaster Strudels frozen (which you can do; they are quite good) you'll still have to find some way to unfreeze the frosting -- but still.

Instead of trying to raise their product above Kellogg's, Pillsbury needs to make ads featuring unfortunate cartoon Toaster Strudels that poorly-drawn children go out of their way to trap and devour. 😐