One Step Forward, Two Steps Back
by Scott Hardie on March 11, 2007
Ah, Newsweek. You deliver a comprehensive cover story about the current state of evolutionary theory, barely slipping in a quick nod to the cultural debate, in an article that sticks wisely to the science. What do you follow up with as the B story in this week's science section? Unlocking your psychic powers.
One Reply to One Step Forward, Two Steps Back
Logical Operator
The creator of Funeratic, Scott Hardie, blogs about running this site, losing weight, and other passions including his wife Kelly, his friends, movies, gaming, and Florida. Read more »
Kids Again
Kelly is a big Kids in the Hall fan, so I bought her tickets to see them for our first anniversary. And since they were playing at Universal Studios in Orlando, we decided to make a day of it at the theme park, which became a whole weekend getaway. And since I like sharing my opinions at length on the Internet, here's what I thought of each part. Go »Crash
There are some dangerous intersections in our neighborhood, where trucks come barreling through after the light turns red. This morning, Kelly and I were waiting at the light when she dropped her sunglasses. "Fuck beans," she muttered, unbuckling her seat belt and leaning forward just as the light turned green. Go »TACO TOWN!!
(link) Thanks, Jon. Go »Things I Learned About Disc Golf Today
- There are different kinds of Frisbees, like heavy ones for putting and thin ones for long drives. - There's no sweeter sound than the jangle of those chains when your disc drops in. - Yelling "fore!" Go »All King and No Kubrick Make Jack a Dull Boy
I recently got to talking with friends who liked The Shining, both Stephen King's novel and Stanley Kubrick's film adaptation of it, but who were unaware that King has always loathed the movie, despite its reputation as one of the best horror films ever made. It's hard to imagine that a writer doesn't know his own work better than someone interpreting it, but I think this is one of those rare cases where the writer is just too close to the story to get it. Here are three reasons why I think Kubrick's film better understands the material, and is better overall, than King's novel: 1) In King's version, Jack Torrance is a fundamentally decent man who wouldn't hurt a fly, but who is down on his luck and desperate. Go »
Lori Lancaster | March 13, 2007
[hidden by author request]