Today in body shame...

"This is great. Really, pants just get in
the way of the dining experience."

-Some naked guy 

Is this...is this even real? I mean, I know it's originally from Agence France so it should be legit because Europe, but sometimes things like this are misreported or straight-up bullshit and this has sort of a click-bait-y kind of vibe that-huh? Oh, right, I didn't tell you what I'm talking about. So a naked restaurant opening in Tokyo is banning-huh? No, not that naked restaurant, we'll get to that one in a minute, this is a completely different naked restaurant and it's in Tokyo and overweight people are banned. Yup, I know, right?

"Hi, I'm Todd, and I'll be judging you tonight.
Can I start you off with a complex?"

Wait, which part of this bothers you? The fact that naked restaurants exist, the fact that there are two of them (actually three, but we'll get there) or the news that the one in Japan, called The Amrita, is restricted to people between the ages of 18 and 60 and no more than 33 pounds over the average weight for their height? Yes, they have a no oldsters and no fatties policy. It's right there on the website...at least I think. It's in Japanese, but why would Agence France lie? Oh, and if you think you can suck in the gut, don't bother. They'll weight you. Right there in the restaurant.

Only hipsters could find a way to be
pretentious and naked at the same time.

Ok, so why are there naked restaurants in the first place? Well, I'd imagine that they've been around for awhile. Like clothing optional resorts probably don't have a no shirt, no shoes, no service sign, but nude restaurants in major urban centers seem to be new. But why? You persist in asking. I don't know, because it's a gimmick that's why. Bunyadi's deal (that's the one in London) is that everything is natural. There's no electricity, it's all candle lit, electronic devices are banned and the food is all raw and vegan. So it's a theme. A super pretentious theme with a 44,000 person waiting list, but still a theme.

"Are you for goddamn kidding me?" 

-Bacchus, by 

Pieter Paul Rubens

Then what's up with The Amrita? A spokesperson for the restaurant had this horrible thing to say:

"If fat people are allowed in it could be miserable for some guests...We are aiming for a sort of Roman aesthetic, like the beautiful paintings you see in museums."

-Miki Komatsu, spokeswoman for 

The Amrita Restaurant explaining that

fat people bum out the other patrons

Ah. So their theme is body shaming. First of all, fuck you The Amrita. Secondly, has Miki Komatsu ever been to a museum? People back in the Renaissance loved butter. Loved it, so I don't know what she's talking about.

Look, I don't want to tell The Amrita how to run their gimmicky, pantless dining experience, but I'm going to anyway. First of all, naked restaurants are, objectively speaking, ridiculous. No matter how good your food is, people are going to go there because they want to see hootenannies and wing-wangs right there at the table while they eat. It's novel.

Above: an ad for The Men of Amrita men's show on the
restaurant's website. Also I guess they serve food or something.

Pictured: The bartender getting way
too much milage out of saying
'hey, can I mix you a cocktail?'

Secondly, telling people they can't eat naked at your restaurant because they're too hideous is just a dick move (shut up). Here, check out The Noble Experiment in Melbourne. No, I'm not being dramatic, that's just the name of the restaurant. Anyway, that place is normally be-clothed, but it recently held a nude dining event hosted by local radio personalities. According to the Daily Mail article, 'Jo and Lehmo's Nude Food' was inspired by Bunyadi's offering of vegan food and awkward eye contact, but was about fun and body acceptance and that's super.

I guess the point is if people want to dine naked, that's cool, but it's not something you should take super seriously and you sure as hell shouldn't get all judgy about your guests' bodies. Besides, no one can possibly look good eating naked. Seriously. Imagine the fittest, most attractive person you can think of. Now imagine them naked and eating lobster.

Oh, and yes, they're wearing the bib. You're welcome.

The Greatest Story Ever Sequeled!

Unless the point of the Bible is
that the ancient Romans were jerks...

Here's some good news for fans of traumatizing their children with brutal religious movies: anti-semitic sociopath Mel Gibson, who may or may not have made other movies, I can't remember, is doing Passion of the Christ 2! So um, hurray? Look, I didn't see the first one, but I do believe everything I read on the internet and the reviews said that it's incredibly, like, uncomfortably violent so much so that any sort of message is lost in an ultra-gory murderfest that completely misses the point.

Also, they kind of already knew where they
left the body, so 'search' is a bit generous.

But don't worry, while Jim Caviezel as Jesus might have suffered and died through two and a half soul-crushing hours of Passion 1, the sequel will be about the resurrection of Christ which I suppose may come as a spoiler if you never had to go to Sunday school or if you somehow missed the last two-thousand years of human civilization. On the other hand, we kind of knew how The Search for Spock was going to turn out, I mean, like, he couldn't not come back from the dead.

"Shirts are my one weakness. They're like 
my kryptonite. If I put one on, I could die. "

-Captain America

Anyway, Gibson is working on the script with a guy called Randel Wallace who wrote Braveheart so he knows all about drawn out torture scenes of dubious historical validity. He also wrote and directed a quasi-mainstream religious movie called Heaven is For Real. You probably didn't see it because Captain America: The Winter Soldier came out at like the same time and had Chris Evans in it while Heaven is For Real was some shlock about a little boy who has a near death experience and hangs out with Jesus.

"Balderdash! It's always the right
time to talk about money."

-Some rich guy

According to the Hollywood Reporter (it's an entertainment news website, not like a reporter, keep up) there're no studio attached to it nor are there any investors yet, but Wallace is apparently unconcerned about his complete lack of funding saying:

"It's too early to talk money. This is such a huge and sacred subject."

-Randal Wallace, screenwriter and

hang on, are we sure he's 

involved in the film industry?

"What? They're the ones who tempted
fate with all that 'unsinkable' crap."

I don't know anything about making movies, but he's probably going to need money. Like, a lot of money. All those robes and sandals aren't cheap. And that thing about the 'huge and sacred subject?' I get that he's like super religious, but has there ever been anything sacred to filmmakers? James Cameron made a shit ton of money profiting off the clusterfuck of hubris and human tragedy that was the sinking of the Titanic.

But whatever, they'll probably find investors. The first Passion did well because there's a built in audience of religious people who'll overlook the gratuitous violence, or weird Mel Gibson brand racism and make this one a success too. And who knows? We could be looking at the first of many sequels, prequels and maybe even a shared narrative universe of Bible movies. Everyone loves shared narrative universes, right?

"Coming this summer: The Passion: Origins: Judas Rising"

Damned if you do or if you don't notn't do...

I'll see if I can make it though without
all the obvious hipster jokes....damnit.

You see the problem with being principled is that sometimes you have to put up with stupid idiots and their stupid ignorant bullshit. What the hell am I talking about? This thing about the National Coalition Against Censorship giving the Portland Public School Board shrill, righteous grief for dropping any textbooks that express doubt that climate change is a real thing and not a conspiracy dreamed up by hippies. You hadn't heard about this? Yeah, me neither. Where have we been?

Oh, and to be clear, the stupid idiots I'm referring are not the NCAC or the district, but anyone who's still jamming their fingers in their ears and and shouting 'It's a natural warming cycle!' extra loud so they can be heard over the din of ice sheets collapsing into the arctic sea.

"La la la, I'm not listening la la la Medieveal Warm Period la la la..."

-People who can vote and drive

"Ex sciencia, terrore..."

-The Houghton Mifflin

textbook division's motto

Anyway, they adopted the ban under pressure from environmentalists and educators who felt that the district's current texts were full of vague, weasely phrases like:

'Carbon Dioxide emissions from motor vehicles, power plants and other sources, may contribute to global warming.'  

-actual quote

Instead of more direct language like:

'Holy shit, three hundred years of fossil fuels have left us staring down the barrel of a nightmarish Mad Max-ish dystopia, so maybe buy a Prius?" 

-something I made up

"No, by all means, please continue the
debate. I'll just wait right here..."

-Some Polar Bear

NCAC's beef is with the board's decision because it ignores the fact that there's still a debate over climate change. An insane debate between scientists and people who take Veggie Tales as the literal word of God, but still, a debate and one that students should be aware of.

"Purging the curriculum of this kind of material will undermine public education, which should equip students for critical and informed consideration of important matters of public policy and controversy...Students should be conversant with and equipped to address, the various questions and issues that are the subject of public discussion."

-from NCAC's website, hey, do you 

suppose it's pronounced nuh-cac?

That's the environmental lobby for you:
always pushing the little guy around,
trying to save the planet. Makes me sick.

Ok, they have a point. They are the National Coalition Against Censorship and this does feel a little censor-y. They also point out that the measure was kind of unnecessary since the Oregon State Board of Education already requires texts used in the state to accept as fact that human activity is a major cause of climate change. Portland's board's vote, they argue, was a politically motivated gesture designed to appease environmental groups. Which, I get it, nobody likes to be bullied, even by environmentalists. But c'mon, I mean, it's not like they're wrong.

Good luck with that kids,
you're going to need it...

The NW Ecoliteracy Collaborative, the group who pushed for the measure in the first place was just-hang on, Ecoliteracy? That's not...that's not a word. I call bullshit. And Collaborative? Seriously? Could they have possibly come up with a hippie-er name for their organization? So the NW EC was just asking the school board to cut the weak-ass language and get serious about educating kids about climate change and how they can work to reverse the effects and-uh is that even on the table at this point? Let's go with 'how they can adapt to and survive the effects.'

What? Like there's a single member
of that group who doesn't own a drum.

I mean, if we're being honest here. I'm not trying to be a bummer. Anyway, so the NW Eco-literate Collaboration Drum Circle or whatever pushed the school board to change its policy. They did and now the National Coalition Against Censorship But For Telling You What To Do (NCACBFTYWTD) is up their ass and climate change deniers are just pissed that no one's listening to their crazy at all and have taken to Fox News to vent their, irrational, impotent rage about science's liberal bias but I think there's still a lesson to be learned here.

A lesson not about the dangers of censorship or the responsibility of educators to present all the facts, but a lesson about how no matter what you do and no matter how good your intentions are, you're not going to please everybody. In fact, most of the time people are going to be pissed off whatever you do and probably chime in about how they would have done it differently if they were in charge. So go forth Portland School Board, secure in the knowledge that you won't win, so just do whatever feels right at the time.

"...and that's why you shouldn't even bother trying.
Now, who can tell me what 'futility' means?"

Pork Chop Shop

Remember how George W. Bush once warned us about animal human hybrids and we all laughed and made fun of him because he was kind of...well I don't want to say stupid, but you know, stupid? Well it's possible that there might be some pig-people coming up.

Oh don't look so smug. Remember the WMD's? Yeah, thought so.

"Are you for goddamn kidding me?"

-Bebop, noted human/pig hybrid

Ok, and do you know how sometimes the only thing that can save a seriously ill person is an organ transplant and that viable organs aren't always available? Keep that in mind while I explain the horror show that some researchers from the University of California, Davis have cooked up. Step one: implant human organ cells into a pig embryo. Step two: wait for human-pig monster to mature. Step three: harvest organs. Step four: contemplate the soul-crushing implications of what you've wrought upon the world.

The researchers have replaced the pancreas cells in some pig embryos with human pancreas cells which should allow them to grow a human compatible organ. But they're not going to let them mature until they're sure that the pigs won't develop other human characteristics that would make us feel even ickier about harvesting their organs.

Because last thing we need is our organ
banks singing duets with Christin Chenoweth.

Click here to learn this one weird
trick that lets you meddle with
the very building blocks of life!

Ethical concerns aside, easy-peasy right? Yes. And that's part of what's freaking people out. It's not just the idea of chop-shoping living creatures, it's the ease with which we can hybridize humans and animals. The gene-editing technique the UC Davis team is using is called CRISPR and it works by introducing a specialized bit of bacterial DNA which can seek out specific gene segments and replace them with whatever you want. I'm probably (definitely) over-simplifying here, but scientists find it both super-exciting and kind of unnerving since, and I shit you not, it's available on the internet.

Aww, look, they're engineering
the Kwisatz Hederach. So adorbs!

On the one hand, holy shit, this sounds like PhotoShop for genes and could well lead us down the dark path towards a dystopian genocracy where those of us with un-modified DNA are ruled by an elite class of homo-superior cooked up in the basement with some kid's 'My First Genome Kit'.  On the other hand, holy shit, this is PhotoShop for genes and could not only solve the organ donor shortage, but might also let scientists just snip out genes that leave people predisposed to genetic conditions. Yup, it could be the cure for all diseases or the thing that dooms us as a species.

As for the squealing, half-human, unwilling organ donors UC Davis may one day be turning out, I  don't know. I mean, it sounds pretty horrible, just breeding these animals for spare parts, but I think I'd change my mind pretty quick if I needed a new liver. Thanks science, thanks for another confusing, morally ambiguous breakthrough.

Also, I kind of like carnitas, so I should probably just shut up.

No, you're thinking of Sweden...

Romansch, I'm looking at you...

Sick of exchanging your time and services for money? Well, so are the Swiss. That's why they're holding a referendum today on a measure that would guarantee all citizens a monthly income of 2,500 Swiss Francs, the equivalent of $2,555. Yes, the good people of Switzerland might well be putting their feet up and saying adieu, Auf Wiedersehen, arrivederci and chau to-seriously? Four languages guys? Hey, why not have a referendum on eliminating a couple of those?

Anyway, it's called universal basic income and you get it whether or not you do anything. $2,555 a month just for being Swiss which, unless Ricola ads and The Night Manager have lied to us, looks kind of awesome.

After some high altitude horn blowing, these Swiss people are probably
heading back to the ski lodge for some hot chocolate and cheese with holes in it.
And with that I'm officially out of hackneyed Swiss stereotypes. You're welcome.

Oh right, clocks, they love clocks.
Guess I had one more in me.

It's possible you might be one of those rare and insufferable people who totally loves what they do and can't help chirping at the rest of us about how we should just follow our bliss, but more likely than not you work so you don't starve to death and the UBI probably sounds pretty great. But if nobody works, how do you keep your society running like a meticulously detailed and expertly handcrafted clock? Got me. Voters apparently have the same question because support for the referendum is something like 25% which seems weird because who wouldn't want to tell off their boss and go climb an Alp or something?

Ok, so lazy Swiss hippies got a bunch of signatures together and put free money up for a vote, right? Welp, the UBI is not supposed to replace working, that's why the 'B' stands for basic. You can still have a job and enjoy a higher standard of living, this just keeps you from dying in a gutter somewhere. Also, it's about protecting people from robots.

Above: UBI supporters dressed up like robots to highlight the threat of
losing jobs to automation...I think. For all we know these could be actual
robots who have already replaced the demonstrators. Behold: our grim future.

North Carolina is going to lose
their shit over this.

Yes robots, or more plausible things like automation and software that does the office-monkey type stuff better than we can. But instead of fighting against the inevitable, we can gracefully step aside as our superiors robot co-workers become more and more integrated into our society. While our jobs become increasingly irrelevant, we just punch out earlier and work shorter weeks, falling back on our UBI. Shorter work weeks mean less commuting and consequently less carbon emission. Also, less reliance on salaries gives workers more leverage when it comes to choosing and changing jobs.

It's a shame this measure's going to get trounced at the polls because it would be awesome to see if it can work. Sure, there's probably some drawbacks the UBI supporters aren't dealing with but from here it sounds like the first step towards the moneyless utopia of the future where instead of focusing on financial gain, everyone will work to better themselves and the rest of humanity. 

Or the future will just look like this. It could go either way.

Let's incite a robot uprising!

"So...magic. Just tell me it's magic."

-Me

Look, I'm not like a tech person. I mean, I like things that are electronic and save me from having to turn to human interaction in order to avoid boredom, but I don't know how any of it works. And despite my proximity to Google and the gentrified wastelands of the Bay Area, I can't code or design an app and my eyes sort of glaze when my friends who can try to explain it to me. But I am into sci-fi and I know there are just certain things you don't want to do with machines and high on that list is giving them emotions. It never works out well, and yet that's exactly what this guy wants to do.

Which guy? Oh right, I forgot how much you hate clicking on the links I put in. Here, let me explain. Again. The guy is Patrick Levy-Rosenthal and his awkwardly named company, EmoShape has developed the Emotion Processing Unit. It's essentially a USB dongle that gives machines emotions. Let's dig in.

Because giving machines with lightning fast reflexes and ten times our strength
the capacity to get pissed off at us will certainly go well for everyone involved.  

I think we should see what the EmoShape website has to say for itself:

Pictured: a flat silicon
slab of feelings.

"EPU II is the industry's first emotion synthesis engine. It delivers high-performance machine emotion awareness...The EPU is based on Patrick Levy-Rosenthal's Psychobiotic Evolutionary Theory using twelve primary emotions identified in the psycho-evolutionary theory. The groundbreaking EPU algorithms effectively enable machines to respond to stimuli in line with twelve primary emotions: anger, fear, sadness, disgust, indifference, regret, surprise, anticipation, trust, confidence, desire and joy."

Notification: Today is Kristine's Birthday.
Remember her? From college? Say happy
birthday, it's literally the least you could do.

Yeah, hang on, let's unpack that a moment. First of all, bullshit. Again, not a tech person, but I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit on this claim: buuullshit. How exactly would we know if the machines are really feeling anything much less one of Patrick Levy-Rosenthal's twelve primary emotions? For all we know they'd just be simulating emotions like some kind of iOS-based sociopath or someone wishing Happy Birthday to a vague acquaintance on Facebook.

Also, if any of their claims were even remotely legit, would you really want something that knows your entire search history to start having feelings about it?

"Alright Alan, I'll find you some erotic Daenerys/Starlord fan fiction
 but I won't feel good about it. Oh, and cover the camera this time?"

-Alan's computer

Man, I wouldn't want to be their
weak, organic creato-damnit...

So why should we pony up for a dongle full of the feels? According to Levy-Rosenthal:

"It's logical to conclude that autonomous machines made of electricity and metal will eventually see us as their main competitors for those resources, and try to take control," 

-Patrick Levy-Rosenthal on how the machines will

rise up and crush their weak, organic creators...

Oh, and little tuxedos.
Let's give them those.

Logical to conclude, or paranoid and delusional to conclude? Don't we sort of famously blame our human emotions for all that terrible shit we do to one another? And if there really is a danger that the machines will one day get wise to their plight and turn on us, is the best plan to give them the capacity to feel fear, sadness and indifference? Affable compliance and an eagerness to please sound like a great traits to have in a robo-butler, let's go with those. Anger and desire sound like a recipe for robopocalypse.

Look, I'm not trying to tell Patrick Levy-Rosenthal how to be the architect of our species' destruction, I'm just suggesting that if you're going to build artificial life from scratch and feel compelled to give it emotions, why not cherry pick a little?

Is 'murderous rampage' an emotion? Because
if it is, we might want to leave that one out.

James Weeks: Libertarian Hero!

What guys? This is what you get for
hosting the Libertarian Convention.

So this happened. No, it's ok, don't worry about clicking, I'll just explain. At the Libertarian Party Convention in Orlando, Florida-because of course Orlando, Florida, James Weeks, who was running for party Chair used his time at the podium to strip. No, really. Like down to a tiny thong thing. It was...well it was weird. I said before that you shouldn't bother clicking on the link to the footage from C-Span-yes, this was on C-Span, but maybe you should. You know, just the get the full effect of the almost hypnotic weirdness.

"After all the fun we've had today, I figured this uh...we could use a little bit of fun."

-James Weeks, shortly before

the uh...the incident...

"Mr. Weeks we have one rule. One. And that
rule is pants. Was that really so much to ask?"

-C-Span

If you watched the video you might have noticed a couple of things. Firstly, how incredibly weird and awkward it is to watch someone do a strip tease without music. Secondly there was all the boo-ing. Now I get that Weeks maybe doesn't have the best rhythm for a stripper, and not everybody is into lumberjack beards, but really Libertarians? Boos and jeers? Shouldn't they be applauding him for making due without music? Like, I can't think of a better example of the Libertarian principle of self-reliance. And what about his total disregard for, what I assume is C-Span's policy of no stripping during political conventions? 

Like I said, I don't really get their deal,
but they've got Ted Nugent, so...

In many ways James Weeks is a Libertarian hero. I mean, I think he is, I don't really understand what they're about. Freedom? Don't-give-a-fuck'edness? Libertarians, I gather, don't like being told what to do, and Weeks this weekend made himself the clapping, dancing embodiment of that philosophy and for that we salute him. But then they also love guns and don't believe in public roads, so I'm really glad they'll never win high office. The point is James Weeks gets it and if the squares at the convention can't handle it, they should go back to the GOP where they belong.

Of course in other ways, James Weeks is also just another symbol of the batshit crazy on all sides that has been the hallmark of the 2016 election cycle. I mean, what is going on? Is it finally time to pack in in and pick a king or a shadowy council of mysterious robed figures?

Vote Shadowy Council 2016:
"For the greater good..."