Does this really need to be a thing?

I'm stodgy. I will readily admit that. Whenever a new piece of in-home technology (smart phones, HD TVs, blu-ray players, etc.) comes out, I tend to start muttering things about the under-appreciated simplicity of the rotary phone and the forgotten joys of taping shows using a VCR. Before long I'm eating Shredded Wheat in a ratty bathrobe demanding that neighborhood kids stay off my lawn.

I don't have a lawn.

I'm not entirely stuck in the past: I think wi-fi is the most wonderfully magical thing ever, I text (very slowly), and I consider my DVR an island of hope and stability in the sort of chaotic world where two awesome shows would be cruelly scheduled against each other in some sort of twisted ratings death match.

It's just...do we really need 3D TV? I just genuinely don't get it. I can agree that some movies benefit from the depth that 3D adds, but if a movie isn't still good on a regular-ass TV than it wasn't that great to start with. Plus, there aren't that many TV shows that I feel wildly compelled to see in rendered in three dimensions either. I've never found myself watching an episode of Bones and thinking "man, the only thing that could make this increasingly blatant Toyota product placement better is if it felt like the cars were driving right at me."

But the main reason I just really do not understand the joy of 3-D TV is this:Image from Samsung's website

The Samsung 3D Active Glasses. Your $2000 TV will come with two pairs. Additional pairs are $200 each. So if your kid stomps on them? $200 bucks. If you friend drops them in a beer? $200.

So if you want to invite a bunch of friends over to actually watch your snazzy new TV, you could easily tack on another $1000.

Ok, I know that to some people it might be worth it, but with $200 I could buy new actual glasses. Like, ones I can use the see. And even if I were to buy a party-sized set of 3D glasses, when a single pair = a month's worth of groceries, I would require security deposit before I even let anyone near them.

I'm sure that 8 years from now (when they're cheap) I'll totally have a 3D tv, and I'll have moved on to bitching about some other new and exciting advancement (unless it's a car that drives itself, because I'm so down for that). For now, though, I'm good with my TV being flat.

I'm all for Patriotism

It would have been cool if the US beat England in today's World Cup match, but I'm kind of glad it was a draw.

Mostly because I had this fear that if the US won, the BBC would temporarily shut off BBC America in retaliation. I know that's completely ridiculous, especially since a little vengeance is hardly worth the loss in ad revenue, but do we really want to chance it? Especially on Doctor Who night?

And by "on Doctor Who night", I mean something significantly cooler sounding than copping to building my Saturdays around the fact that I'm a giant nerd. Like, "on my poker-playing/micro-brew-drinking/knife-juggling night".

Gross, Mars Company. Just Gross.

Ok, first watch this:



Gross, right?

I mean, "working the polls"? Seriously? Do we actually need to use a naughty double entendre to sell M&M's? I just... it's yucky. Having an anthropomorphic chocolate candy make bedroom eyes does not make me want to buy candy. I could also note how lame it is that the only female M&M character is only there to be leered at, but that would be too ridiculous because it's an anthropomorphic chocolate candy.

But still, why does she have to be such a ho?


Also- this is the first time I've ever embedded a video and, even though it was super-easy and takes zero knowledge about coding and such, I'm really proud of myself.

Edited to add: I'm slightly less proud of myself now that I can't figure out how to keep the video from blocking the archive links in the sidebar.

Yay!!!

I know what I'm doing next Christmas. That is all.

Have you seen this?

Image by Tasty Kitchen user ivoryhut

Do you know what this is? It's Gin & Tonic Sorbet. It's a dessert made of drunk. Seriously. The iPhone 4 can suck it; this is the must-have product of the year (though I may be a bit biased by the fact that, unlike the iPhone 4, I can actually afford Gin & Tonic sorbet).

I even have an ice cream maker, so I can actually make this for myself/others/mostly myself in the near future. However, should someone want to make if for me, that would be cool, too.

Thank you for being a friend

Rue McClanahan passed away today. She was funny and a fantastic actress and she will be missed.

We can leave out the shoulder pads, though.

Can someone please bring back Designing Women? Franchises that are younger than your average fifth grader are being remade and rebooted, so why not the Sugarbakers? Television is faced with a tragic shortage of kicky broads just being awesome, and Designing Women is the obvious cure (well, ok Golden Girls is probably the actual obvious cure, but there are somethings that one simply doesn't screw around with). Know one could ever quite live up to Dixie Carter, but I'd like to see someone at least try.

I can't really think of a show since the 90s that's really been a bunch of women hanging out and being awesome. Desperate Housewives seems to be (I've seen it about .65 times) having sex/scandals/drinks. All of which has it's place on television and in my heart, and my interest in the show is certainly elevated by the fact that both the late Dixie Carter (Queen of Awesomeness) and John Barrowman have done guest spots, but what makes Golden Girls and Designing Women great is that the dating stuff always felt kind of...secondary.

That's the main reason I can't really support the idea of Sex and the City as having been a full-on heir to the throne. Yes, it had a group of women as central characters, and yes they rejected the idea that a good boyfriend is all it takes for a girl to be happy (though I've read reviews asserting that the new movie has embraced the man-as-ultimate-goal idea pretty strongly), but it seems like - though all of the characters mattered - Carrie and Carrie's relationships were at the core. A lot of major arcs seemed (and I say this having been a fairly casual viewer of the show) to be about the development, growth and failure of serious relationships. Viewers were supposed to know if they wanted an Aidan or a Big. And it's not that that stops it from being a good show, it just stops it from fitting the Designing Women/Golden Girls bill. Seriously, for all the dating that took place on Golden Girls I can't name five boyfriends. I only get to five because I know Miles, Stan (which feels like cheating), George's brother and that guy Leslie Nielsen played. Was it Leslie Nielsen? I think it was, so we're just going to go with it. Even with Designing Women I mostly remember that Hal Holbrook was Reese and Scott Bakula was Mary Jo's ex.

It's not that I'm opposed to manufactured reality TV drama, or scripted salaciousness. Those things are awesome. It's what most of my Sundays are made of. It's just that awesome female characters can get a little sparse, and a new Julia Sugarbaker could do a hell of a lot to change that.