It's not small, it's just far away.

I mean, this is why we can't have nice things, right? Huh? What is? And what things? Right, the Mona Lisa and the plan to move it to an underground bunker.

What? The bullet proof glass, cameras, and
phalanx of security guards aren't enough? 

Both because he's dead and because the
concept would be brain-meltingly alien to him.

According to this article on NPR, the famous painting is getting bad reviews on the internet which, I mean, I don't know why this surprises me, but it does. Not that it's getting bad reviews, which I'll get to in a minute, but that it is getting reviews on the internet. It shouldn't surprise me, like, the internet's combination of broad accessibility and functionally infinite room means every weird passing thought everyone has is given a platform. And that's great, I just never thought of reviewing a five hundred year old painting, nor do I think the artist would care what yelp thinks.

But what do people on the internet think of the Mona Lisa? Well, I'm glad I pretended you asked. The article cites complaints like long lines and getting only a brief chance to see the painting, but I did some independent research--meaning I googled it--and evidently some are disappointed by the painting's size. 

I mean, they don't let people get very close...is it possible 
they don't understand that far away objects appear smaller?

For Rome it was the Goths, for the Aztecs,
Conquistadors. For us? Portion sizes.

Obviously I was reading reviews in English, so that probably skews the results a little, but why do I suspect that the paintings size is mainly a complaint levied by American tourists? It's ok, I can say that, as much as I make a big deal about my Canadian grandmother, I am mostly American. Besides, it just seems like the kind of thinking that could only come from the country that invented Supersizing and Big Gulps, you know? Oh, I guess we also came up with the internet, and probably the concept of yelp reviewing renaissance art. 

Pictured: Des Cars, seen here
caving to whiney tourists.

Anyway, the museum president Laurence Des Cars plans to bow to internet pressure. Like a quitter.

"Nous réfléchissions à une amélioration des conditions de présentation de la Jaconde, qui me parait nécessaire aujourd'hui."

-museum President Laurences Des--wow, 

French people have to type all those accents? 

Like all the time? It's like three extra keystrokes

Above: Europe Fun Bucks.

Thanks to my high school French and some internet translation, I've learned that she's saying that the museum is planning some improvements. And by improvements she means--yeah, Jaconde. Everywhere else in the world the painting is called la Jaconde or whatever version of that sounds good in their language. I guess we're the only weirdos that call it the Mona Lisa. Anyway the plan is to spend something like half a billion euros to move it into its own underground exhibition area which I mean, yikes.

That's a lot, even more when converted into real money, but I guess it makes sense. It's not just the bad reviews. Remember a couple of years ago when climate activists were throwing soup at paintings? Well they did, and the Mona Lisa got souped as well so it might be a security issue as well. Although, if it were me, I'd save a few hundred million euros and just ask the guards to be on the look out for anyone carrying soup in the Louvre.

Don't worry, it turns out that bullet proof glass is soup proof as well.
The planet's still on fire though, so jokes on them, right? Wait...oh...

Conspiracies in the time of neck ruffs:

Just in time for his 459th birthday, new research suggests that people were doubting whether or not William Shakespeare actually wrote, you know, Shakespeare. 

Above: the grave in the Church of the Holy Trinity in which
Shakespeare's headless corpse rotates every time someone publishes
a new paper about how Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare.

The Internet: giving everyone a platform,
no matter how ill-informed, since 1983!

So just to be upfront, I am not an expert and only have a few lazy internet searches and a handful of books on the subject aimed at equally lazy laymen such as myself to go on, but I mean, seriously? This again? The paper, which was published but is evidently not yet available online--which is fine, because I'm pretty sure I won't be able to follow it--was written by Roger Strittmatter from Coppin State University in Maryland, and in it he uses a book by a contemporary of Shakespeare who thought that the Earl of Oxford was the actual playwright. 

According to The Guardian, the book--written by a guy called Frances Meres doesn't come out and say Shakespeare was secretly Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. Instead, Strittmatter thinks Meres left an elaborate "logic puzzle" for scholars to untangle and discover that Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford was writing under the name "Shakespeare."

If that sounds like some convoluted da Vinci Code nonsense,
that's the just because it's some convoluted da Vinci Code nonsense.

Pictured: the requisite amount of salt.

Which I mean, look, the internet is full of people chiming in on things they're not actually experts in, and I am 100% that guy right now. Yesterday, I was weighing in on Ninja Turtles. Take my opinion with the requisite amount of salt. Also, I have no personal stake in this whatsoever. Like, if someone digs up a confession in Shakespeare's own hand proving that he was actually the Earl, or Queen Elizabeth, or a couple kids stacked up in a coat, I will move on with my day. It doesn't change the plays or the influence Shakespeare has had in the world.

Pictured: the classic scene where the
cartoon lion cries out for vengeance.

But I feel like it's usually best to err on the side of the simplest solution. In this case that the person that's been credited for four hundred years as the writer of The Lion King, West Side Story, and Ten Things I Hate About You (what? It's Shrew. I don't make the rules) is indeed probably Shakespeare. Computer analysis has shown that he collaborated with other writers, and he may have even straight up stolen from some, but the simplest, least batty solution is that Shakespeare existed Roger Strittmatter is overthinking Frances Meres book a little.

But what do I know? It's not impossible, and I don't think people should stop asking the question of who wrote Shakespeare. I just think maybe people shouldn't get their hopes, thinking there's some elaborate, centuries-old puzzle just waiting for the right college professor to unravel the code.

But who knows? Maybe the entire Elizabethan Theatrical community
got together and cooked up a vast conspiracy designed to fool everybody
about the authorship for hundreds of years. For some reason.

I have a Vanilla Ice-based problem with this.

Far be it from me to yuck anyone's yum but--huh? I do it all the time? Wait--do I? Well, fine, but understand that before I yuck this particular yum, I'm just blogging here. I'm not like kept up at night by the thought of a dark and gritty take on the Ninja Turtles, but seriously, what is up with dark and gritty takes on Ninja Turtles? Were fans asking for that?

Gritty? Remember when they used to fly around on a blimp?

Above: Leonardo, seen here killing some dude.

I know that Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles started as a violent, bloody parody of comics full of stabbing and well, mainly stabbing. I mean, they are ninjas. And that's fine, but for nerds of a certain age, like myself, it was a cartoon that aired in the late 80's and early 90's. And a toy line. And bedsheets, lunchboxes, bubble bath, video games, a couple of Jim Henson movies, and absurdly, a live rock tour. Comic book artists Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird one day made the call that their creation would make way more money being kid-friendly and that was that.

So it's weird to me that the next TMNT movie is going to be a live-action R-rated revenge fantasy in which the last surviving turtle--that is, the other three are dead--fights fascism in a dystopian New York. 

Pictured: the Turtles, seen here enjoying some pizza, blissfully
unaware of the bleak future and violent deaths that await them.

Above: Michelangelo (you know, the party
dude?) being spurred on by the spirits of his
dead brothers in his suicidal journey of revenge. 

Um, yikes, right? It's based on a more recent revival of the stabbier take on the series called The Last Ronin, and I'm sure it's great if you're into that sort of thing. Like, movie studios do the math before they spend dime one and if there wasn't an audience for it, it wouldn't happen. And look, to be clear I'm not arguing that this shouldn't exist or anything, I'm just saying that I find the more adult version of TMNT both unsettling and puzzling. I mean, at some point fairly early on, the preponderance of Ninja Turtle...stuff, shifted from grimdark to Saturday morning and to my mind, there's no going back.

I realize they killed his dog, but there
is such a thing as a proportional response.

And was it even grimdark to begin with? My understanding is that it was a sendup of the self serious comics of the early 80's that then evolved into cartoony nonsense for kids. Some interpretations have veered a little more mature, like the early 2000's Fox Kids version, but mature here is thirteen year olds as opposed to ten year olds. So like, noticeably light on the John Wick-style tortured hero leaving a trail of dead in their wake. I guess I just have a hard time with the tonal shift or understanding why anyone wants to take this that seriously.

Is it weird that I, a gross ass adult, has a strong feelings about cartoon characters created for children? Yes. Do I have them anyway? Also yes, but I don't think I'm wrong.

What I'm saying is that once Vanilla Ice sings Ninja Rap in your movie,
there will be limits as to how seriously an audience can take your series.

I wouldn't hold my breath for that apology...

I don't want to tell J.K. Rowling how to be a hateful, uh, troll? Wait, there are trolls in Harry Potter, right? It's been awhile, here, let me look it up...yes! There are troll in the Potter-verse.

Pictured: a Troll hanging out in the bathroom, checking everyone's
genitals because they are under the preposterous misapprehension
that that's any off their goddamned business.

Her work feels somehow less
whimsical when you read her tweets.

Anyway, like I was saying, Rowling has hateful covered. What I don't understand is why does she keep piping up about it? Like, surely she must know that a lot of us find her views upsetting and think less of her for espousing them. And yeah, I guess one could argue that one should separate the art from the artist, but one could similarly argue that by reading her books or watching her movies, or by going to that theme park, we enable her hate speech. And if human decency won't sway her, does business? I mean, doesn't being a such vocal hate-monger, you know, hurt the bottom line or something?

Above: Rowling's views.

It's got to, right? And I don't like, have data on this or anything--the internet rarely requires that we know what we're talking about--but I'm genuinely asking. My personal experience as someone who works in a bookstore is that few people can admit to still being a fan of Harry Potter without adding something about how they think Rowling's opinions about trans people are a raging, four-alarm dumpster fire of TERF-nonsense and that they don't want to give her any of their money. 

I bring all of this up because Daniel Radcliffe, and Emma Watson who played Harry Potter and Hermione Granger respectively, have been voicing their support for trans folks and distancing themselves from Rowling. 

Above: Emma Watson's agent holding the long pole
which he would never let his client even touch J. K. Rowling.

Pictured: Rowling, probably thinking
about how much she hates trans people.

This prompted some right winger on Twitter to suggest that the actors will find themselves apologizing to Rowling, to which the author replied:

"Celebs who cosied up to a movement intent on eroding women's hard-won rights and who used their platforms to cheer on the transitioning of minors can save their apologies for traumatized detransitioners and vulnerable women reliant on single sex spaces."

-someone who writes children's books

So, couple of things: first, yikes. Secondly, studies reveal that people who transition have something like a less than one percent rate of regret. That is, it's vanishingly rare. And lastly it just sucks that someone who inspired an entire generation to read had to go and ruin it. To be clear, not just by having a shitty opinion about the gender identity of others, but by using her platform to hurt people with it.

Pictured: some boats, seen here all being lifting by the tie.

Peanut butter cups, but church and state

They're the cheese state, right?

And this is why we're doomed as a civilization. Well, ok, fine, one of the many reasons. I'm referring of course to this nonsense about the Cedar Grove Belgium School district's job search for a new superintendent. Why, you might reasonably ask, do you--refering to me--care about a job posting in a school district in Wisconsin? Obviously, I don't. I am, as I probably have mentioned before, a childless shut in. I do care about people getting their church peanut butter into America's state chocolate.

What? Don't eat that! You don't know
where his chocolate has been.

Yeah, I don't know why I'm reaching for a forty year old TV commercial as a metaphor anymore than I know why this woman is walking down the street eating a jar of peanut butter. What I do know is that I was enraged today by the story of the aforementioned school district including a line in their "desired characteristics" of applicants that reads "Must match the make-up of our community (conservative, christian values)." Which I mean, you can't do that. That's super-illegal, and these are educators. They should know that.

"How can we put this without sounding racist?
Oh! I know: "matches our community."

-Some focus group

What would possibly make these people think that in anno domini MMXXIV it would be acceptable to specify political view points and religion on a job po--oh, right. They 100% do know that it's illegal. They simply don't care. According to NPR, when questioned, the company the district hired to conduct the search took the line out and gave the unsatisfactory answer that that was just what the focus group came up with and it wasn't supposed to make it to the final posting.

Yes I know I bring this up a lot, but
I mean, this guy's running again so...

Which, I mean, couple of things: for one, that's not an apology, that's a we're sorry we got caught. And what's more, that's not even a promise that that's not going to be a search criteria in this listing for a public school position, it's just a suggestion that we weren't supposed to know about it. For another, what are Christian values? I mean, the conservative politics thing is bullshit. There's nothing conservative about conservative politics in 2024. These are the people who stormed the Capitol. 

Pictured: people espousing Christian values.

But for real, I know the Right likes to beat their chests about how they're the only ones practicing Christian values, but what even does that mean? Again, Sunday School is a hazy memory for me, but the list is something like: be kind to one another, love thy neighbor, don't steal or kill. Pretty basic stuff, and pretty universal. Americans of religious traditions other than Christianity and people who don't have any religious beliefs at all tick those boxes. So what are they getting at exactly?

Either "conservative, christian values" is just code for white, or these people genuinely believe that anyone not subscribing to their very specific Evangelical brand of Christianity is unworthy of consideration. Or both...it's both isn't it?

Prior public school administrative experience and an ability
to distinguish between store bought and homemade burgers
are all the qualifications a superintendent should need.

No one to blame but ourselves...and Reagan.

Are you as sick of hearing about the eclipse as I am? Sure you are. Luckily for us, we didn't live in the path of totality--which I suppose is a far more metal way to refer to the areas that for a full eclipse than is maybe warranted--but still, it was a thing here too. 

Or maybe you did? I don't know. I can't see you.

We got something like this.
Incidentally, don't spit at hippies.

Here being Santa Cruz, California where today, thanks to the kindness of some aging hippie--you can't spit without hitting an aging hippie in this town-- who lent me his eclipse glasses, I got to see the eclipse. Or at least part of it. From here it was something like 36% occlusion. That is, the sun was partially obscured by the moon. Which, while not the kind of thing people drive from hundreds of miles to see, wasn't nothing. What it wasn't though, is a sign. Or at least a sign of anything other than the predictable motions of celestial bodies.

What? You mean to tell me there isn't 
serious Venn diagram overlap between these
folks and people who believe in omens?

An yet we, as a civilization, are still platforming people who, thanks to some dubious at best, batshit at worst logic, believe that the event is a sign from God, like actual God, that America must mend our ways. And don't get me wrong, we've got issues, many of them caused by the very same people who buy this bad omen nonsense, but nevertheless, issues. But there's something, what's the expression? Cuckoo bananas hyper-hubristic? About ascribing secret messages from the almighty meant only for America to something as straight forward as the orbital paths of the Earth and Moon.

Staley, seen here definitely not thinking
about defrauding the elderly right now.

According to convicted fraudster Pastor Jim Staley, who insists he was targeted by the government for being Christian and not because of, you know, his many crimes:

"He's (God) warning America that our light will go dark if we do not turn from our wicked ways..." 

-Pastor Jim Staley, who's totally

trustworthy you guys

Why God, who, if I remember my Sunday School, created the entire universe, would have to resort to obtuse messages that can only be interpreted by convicted felons with YouTube Channels is beyond me. But I suppose something something faith, right? 

I mean, a talking plant that's on fire? Now that's a sign we can all get behind.

Pictured: Rochester, like, 55% of the time.

Anyway, the real victims here--again, other than the elderly people who gave Jim Staley money--are the people who spent hundreds if not thousands of dollars to drive or fly to areas of the country fortunate enough to be within the path of totality only to find that they are also in the path of an overcast day. This included by hometown of Rochester, NY where, for months now, hotels have been booked solid by eclipse fans who were disappointed this morning to wake up to cloudy skies and, one presumes, a no refund sign on the counter in the lobby.

But on the retina-damaging bright side, we can all stop talking about the eclipse now. It's over, and isn't, nor was it ever, a sign that the entire country is doomed. Of course, we probably are, don't get me wrong, it's just that it has nothing to do with the moon.

It might be fun to make this out to be some dire warning from the universe,
but really when it comes to what's wrong with America, we need look no further than
inadequate school funding, the healthcare system, lobbyists, and Reagan. Mostly Reagan.

Today in that time the algorithm got it right:

So just to be clear, I detest ads. Like, the YouTube countdown to when you can finally skip the ad is agony. I need them to just assume that there is no circumstance under which I am a willing viewer of advertisements. 

Above: YouTubes business model.

Pictured: the opposite of me.

And it's also the case that I have previously bemoaned the advertising algorithms that have so often misjudged my interests. The HO-scale Trump model train set, the socks printed with pictures of pets I don't have on them. Holiday themed dioramas. The list goes on. That said, I was scrolling through the Instant Gram today when I came across an ad for a furniture site, which is great, because I have actually been looking for furniture. I moved recently and need things to, you know, put things on and sit on.

Technology works! But that's when it got borderline creepy. I mean, look at this:

Notice anything...targeted?

The fact that I get riled up about people
not taking care of thirty year-old games
is why this ad is aimed directly at me.

Do you see it? Yeah. That thing? I mean sure, it's whatever. It holds your TV and your sound bar and and your classic video game console. Wai-wah? Specifically a Super Nintendo and games. Used games, as evidenced by the fact that someone has scribbled on the copy of Donkey Kong Country with a permanent marker. Anyway, this is 100% the kind of retro gaming nonsense designed to appeal to nerds of a certain age. So, exactly me. I mean, don't get me wrong, it absolutely didn't work. I'm still not going to buy the Opera Media Console. 

Is eight hundred dollars a lot for a sealed
Street Fighter II Turbo? Sure, but it's also a 
lot for a TV stand and I make poor decisions.

This is, after all, still an ad and at $829 it's well outside of my price range even if shipping is free. Oh, incidentally, shipping is never free anyone who said otherwise is a liar. And besides, I'd rather have eight hundred dollars worth of old Super Nintendo games. Or I could use the money to pay rent and eat, but my point is that I want to give them credit for trying. Whoever staged the photo was going for a vibe. And that vibe is adult child who still plays the same video games they were into as a pre-teen. Again, exactly me.  

My hat, should I ever wear one--I don't, my head is oddly shaped and doesn't take hats well--is off to you...uh, Burrow.com, or whatever you're called, nice try. Nice try indeed.

Wait, are those VHS tapes? What is going on with these people?

Groundhog-accurate technology!

Hey, like, I get that I'm a huge pinko-commie-liberal or whatever, but wouldn't just be easier and more effective to pass gun safety laws?

Pictured: Republicans.

Say what you will about Paul Verhoeven's
movies, but that man is a prophet.

I ask because the super high-tech AI-based weapon detecting machines they're testing in New York's subway stations are...what's the word? Sub-optimal? Barely functional? Boondogglian? Yeah, I like that one. Anyway, the plan is (possibly soon to be was) to install these in several stations a couple of months from now as a kind of test program to see if it's worth it. But it's not. The machines already have something like an 85% false positive rate. 

And yes, they're doing it anyway. The manufacturer, Evolv Technology are a Massachusetts-based--huh? What's that? No, that's how they spell it. Yes, it's dumb. Anyway, their website touts that they are "Creating Safer Experiences" but I mean, are they? Again, no. They're not. But they're selling these things anyway.

Evolv Technology: our scanners probably won't give you cancer...

What? I know he's cute and a tradition,
but he's like fifty/fifty. At best.

The issue is that their machines are going off for just about everything but weapons. According to this article, the pilot program at Jacobi Hospital in The Bronx seemed initially successful with the machines detecting dozens of weapons. But that was two years ago and since then there've been fewer than three hundred accurate detections out of fifty thousand. Fifty thousand false alarms which is like, sub-Punxsutawney Phil level-accuracy. You might as well flip a coin. This feel less like a pilot program and more like free beta testing.

All of us, yes, but I mean, mostly
these guys, right? God they're the worst.

Some of the blame probably lies with New York Mayor Eric Adams for pushing ahead with the program despite it's clear inadequacies, and part must lie with Evolv Technology for scamming the city with underdeveloped technology, but at some point this is on us. Ok, not you or me. Specifically. But on America. As a whole. A country where a security system detects dozens of guns at a hospital and we call it a success instead of a grim reminder of our nation's insane obsession with firearms. 

I understand that when Jesus flew out of the sky on the back of a bald eagle and handed George Washington The Bill of Rights engraved on the back of one of Ted Nugent's guitars, item two explicitly said thou shall never pass reasonable gun laws because freedom or something, but holy shit. This is embarrassing. 

Remember when we did things like invent new and revolutionary
technologies, land on the moon, and promote liberty and democracy around
the world? Yeah, me neither, but could we at least stop shooting one another?