i am just going to be 100% honest with you, Loyal Reader: this update is incredibly late because i just wasn’t feeling the writing. maybe it’s because it’s 2012 now and i feel old and sad and would rather have just stayed in bed and eaten burritos all week long, but whatever the cause … so little motivation. but here it comes now! and i swear that i tried to add some jokes!
when the cover of the book has this kind of shitty computer art, you KNOW the book’s going to be a masterpiece
so one of the things that seems to happen fairly often, and which i am known to be critical of, is people comparing themselves to Shakespeare. people like Nicholas Sparks do this for reasons i can only assume to be things like “overcompensating for negative remarks by critics” and “effects of severe brain injuries suffered early in life,” but whatever the cause, i always find it childish and annoying. you can’t even attempt to compare yourself to writers in your particular genre? you HAVE to go right to Shakespeare?
however, i have now discovered there are worse ways to defame the memory of one of history’s greatest writers. i don’t recall where i found this link to James Edwards’ Romeo and Juliet: A Modern Day Sequel, but let me be frank: i assumed it was simply a modern day retelling of the story, like in that movie with Leonardo DiCaprio and a sexually-confused Harold Perrineau Junior, but it turns out i was wrong:
“Romeo Montague dies for Juliet and his spirit chases her through time. He awakens in this age on a volcano in Hawaii where he meets a wise Zen Master who teaches him about the modern world. Sadly for Romeo though, there is no sign of his beloved wife, Juliet. As the years pass, his memory of Juliet fades. Yet one day, Romeo logs into an Internet chatroom and meets a beautiful young actress by the name of Emilie. For some mysterious reason, both fall in love almost instantly. Romeo slowly comes to realize this intelligent, shy, and alluring young woman is his wife, Juliet — now reincarnated as the famous Hollywood starlet, Emma Gallant. As the two star-crossed lovers recount their past lives in ancient Egypt and Atlantis, they must fight through many obstacles before they can meet again.”
now, i’ve read a little Shakespeare in my day, to include Romeo & Juliet, and there are some concepts presented here that i do not recall having ANYTHING to do with the original work:
–anyone’s spirit chasing anyone else through time, or spirits traveling through time at all;
–Zen Masters of whatever sort;
–past lives in ancient Egypt and Atlantis;
–also, Atlantis existing at all?
plus, if you’ve setting up a concept that Romeo and Juliet’s spirits have traveled through time after death due to INCREDIBLE LOVE, is it really “for some mysterious reason” that “both fall in love almost instantly?” wouldn’t the reason be all that incredible, time-defying love? the only concept slightly more confusing than this is how James Edwards has not already hung himself in his bedroom closet after realizing what a terrible, terrible person he is.
what truly breaks my spirit (at least until it travels through time and finds my true love), though, was reading a customer review that gave this book five stars.
“As a meditation teacher, I was curious about James Edwards’ sequel to Romeo and Juliet. The idea of soulmates and reincarnation has always fascinated me. It was amazing to witness the intense, multi-life love affair as it is played out against the backdrops of Hawaii, New York City, Hollywood, Ancient Egypt, and Atlantis. We can feel our own past lives in each of these realities as James Edwards blasts opens the doors to these dimensions.”
all i want EITHER of these gentlemen (assuming that Michael Raboy is not James Edwards’ sad alias) to do is explain to me what all this Buddhist-praising, past-life-referencing has to do with the original play to such an extent that calling it a “modern-day SEQUEL” is justified. would it be correct for me to write the Tempest: A Future-World Sequel where Prospero is a space-wizard and Caliban and Ariel his alien robots? actually, now that i look at that idea written out… no one better steal my idea.
…and that’s the image result i got searching for “court OKs barring high IQs for cops”; it’s clearly too ridiculous NOT to use
yeah, it’s about what the title makes it seem like:
“A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.”
so while i understand the court was addressing the more narrow question of “was this particular man discriminated against,” and while i understand the logic behind their decision… what exactly is the logic behind the New London PD taking a PUBLIC position that “an IQ of 125 is just too damn high for our police officers to have?”
“But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training. The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.”
seems to me like the real solution here is to put it to the prospective officers this way: if they’re hired and then quit within (insert time frame here), they then owe the police department (certain amount of money to compensate for the wasted training), as opposed to saying, “what we REALLY need in this police department is more idiots who lack career options. let’s give them all firearms and the responsibility to monitor drug dealers with access to ready cash!”
plus, i’d like to know what the percentage of people undergoing training and then quitting REALLY is, because while this can happen at ANY employment that involves significant training, i also can’t imagine it’s THAT prevalent.
“Jordan alleged his rejection from the police force was discrimination. He sued the city, saying his civil rights were violated because he was denied equal protection under the law. But the U.S. District Court found that New London had “shown a rational basis for the policy.” In a ruling dated Aug. 23, the 2nd Circuit agreed. The court said the policy might be unwise but was a rational way to reduce job turnover.”
and also… a rational basis for the policy? either they CAN show some numbers (which, were i the New London PD, i would have immediately released in a PR move), or they expect me to believe that people of stupid-to-average intelligence don’t ever get bored with their work. let me tell you something: i have worked with stupid people. i have worked with people of average intelligence. many of them ALSO get bored and quit their jobs, or at least get bored and do their jobs badly.
but what do i know? my IQ is around 160; i am already bored with this story! needs more robots!
Cam’ron still appears to LOVE the color pink; Vado seems more conflicted
and now to close on a final note, i need to link/quote this following article on the grounds that i have found it to be the most hilarious thing i have read in the last few months. you see, there’s a site/blog/whatever known as Refined Hype that covers rap-related news; as a fan of hip-hop, i often read it. one of their writers has a regular feature (Rap Lines That Make No Fucking Sense) that i enjoy. it’s always good, but in this case, said article cited a line from the Cam’ron song “Motivation”:
“I’m pissed again / say his name wrong and get wrapped like a mummy / like that man from Michelin.”
Wait, Cam thinks the Michelin Man is a mummy? That’s secretly the funniest thing I’ve ever heard.
I can only assume he’s gone through his entire adult life believing the Michelin Man is a mummy – lord knows why he thought a tire company would use a mummy as their mascot. How many people has he mentioned this to in casual conversation? And no one’s bothered to correct him?
Cam’ron: “Yo, I never understood why Michelin uses a mummy to sell tires.”
Jim Jones: “That’s not a mummy man, he’s likeâ€¦a dude who’s made up of tires or whatever.”
Cam’ron: “That’s the dumbest fucking thing I’ve ever heard you say, Jim.”
Juelz Santana: “Yeah, it’s definitely a mummy.”
Jim Jones (shaking his head in disbelief): “Fine, whatever. It’s a fucking mummy.”
this fictional exchange makes me laugh uproariously EVERY TIME I READ IT. is it the sincerely insane notion that Cam’ron really thinks the Michelin Man is a mummy? is the the fictional Jim Jones (who himself is a ridiculous hobo-like figure known for appearing unwashed and mumbling nonsense) being the voice of wisdom? I HAVE NO IDEA. i only know you will never find it as funny as i do … assuming you find it funny at all. it’s possible you don’t.
next “week”: we’ll try to increase the percentage of hilarious material i am responsible for from around 66% to closer to 100%. hey, it could happen! DON’T JUDGE ME!