Fan theory- Modern Family is a Married With Children sequel

This is my own speculation, it’s not based on any statements from the creative team or actors or anything.  But I noticed a few things, and the presence of Ed O’Neill playing the family patriarch on both shows helped.

The cast is the big giveaway.  In Married With Children, we’ve got a family consisting of Al and Peg Bundy, and their children Bud and Kelly.  The marriage is rocky, they don’t get along well.  Al constantly dreams of finding a hot wife to replace Peg.  It’s worth noting, though, that when the shit hits the fan, Al is loyal to his family.  Hmm… Crazy ex wife, hot and nice current wife, loyal to his family, and played football in High School?  Sounds like Modern Family’s Jay Pritchett.  Seems you can do well for yourself once you don’t have a crazy person sucking up most of your income.

The kids?  Bud Bundy was bad with women, but constantly seeming to work himself into a parody of hypermasculinity.  While far from universal, or necessarily even common, some people do this to hide being gay.  Bud, if he was such a gay man, once he learned to accept himself could have turned out much like Mitchell Pritchett of Modern Family.

Kelly was a dumb, promiscuous blonde.  On Modern Family, we’ve got Claire Dunphy(neé Pritchett), who is blonde and was implied to have gotten around a bit during high school in an episode where she met up with an old friend.  While Claire shows much greater mental capabilities than Kelly typically did, several episodes of Married With Children implied that Kelly was, fundamentally, brilliant.  She never used or developed her intellect, but it was there.  With the right motivation, she could easily become as intelligent as Claire.

Fanfic writers, I expect the thrilling tale of the Bundys busting up a meth ring and going into witness protection.

I wish I had an internet connection worth a damn.  I’d have supported this with direct episode references, embedded YouTube videos of key scenes, and so on.  IF you want to help buy me better internet(or beer if I don’t pull in enough for internet which requires moving out), there is that little donate button on the bottom right.

On The Ethics of Vampire Slaying in Buffy the Vampire Slayer

On The Ethics of Vampire Slaying in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Interesting viewpoint here.  Buffy/Angel spoilers, if you happen to be concerned.


The clearest way to resolve this would be, as Greta suggests, some fundamental limitation to the re-ensoulment magic.

In the case of Spike, this seems fairly obvious.  He had to endure a painful ritual to regain his soul back.  He, without a soul, had to make a free choice to attempt to earn it back.  I really don’t see a great many vampires even considering this, and I got the feeling that the ritual would not have worked if Spikes motivation wasn’t pure- if he was doing it as a means to some evil end, he probably would have failed.  Possibly even met his final death.

The Angel situation might be repeatable, in theory.  If it wasn’t done, I’d assume there’s a reason with how the magic works.  Difficult to replicate material components, the spell needing to be crafted to a specific vampire, something would have had to get in the way.  But it might have been interesting to see a subplot where they tried to develop a more generally applicable, more easily repeated version.  They wouldn’t need to succeed, or even focus heavily on it, but once in a while, mention it.  Maybe when Willow had showed up on Angel, she could have said something like “We haven’t finished, but we’ve made progress- I can do this without <random material component they needed the first time>”.  Just to recognize that the issue is there.


Just ran across a new initialism. “GSM”. Not the cell phone network type- “Gender and Sexual Minorities”. Roughly equivalent to LGBT, it seems.

I think I like it more. While less specific, it also seems to be more inclusive. I’ve seen extensions of “LGBT” that attempt to improve inclusivity, but these quickly spiral out of control- an initialism that needs to be spelled out every time it’s used has little to no linguistic utility. Inclusive, maybe, but some of the ones I’ve seen get into “this hurts rather than helps communication” territory.

GSM, though, if you are trying to refer to the entire “not cisgender straight” world, is general enough to acutally include everyone without breaking language by being far too long. And it can even include people who are cisgender and straight, but do not perfectly conform to expected gender roles.

To be fair, this broadness, while useful as an umbrella term, might compromise its utility in specific discussions.  But- those sorts of discussions shouldn’t be using an umbrella term anyways.

Bi: Notes for a Bisexual Revolution by Shiri Eisner- Intial review through Chapter 1

Picked this one up on Amazon for all of 99 cents.  By Shiri Eisner

Started reading it- It’s interesting.  It opens with an explanation of the authors view of radical politics- taking things down to the root of the problem and attacking it there, with little to no regard for existing power structures- viewing them as the problem.  I’m not sure I agree with the need to tear down the existing structures so completely, though I do think it was quite good to lay out the basis of where the author is coming from.  This is a strongly political book, and the call for revolution is not simply a clever title or euphemism.

There was a long list of what Eisner’s preexisting biases and privileges are, which is good as well.  Even if the book wasn’t explicitly political, sexual orientation is a politically charged topic in much of the world.  Pre-existing biases on the part of the writer can be relevant, so it’s good this was discussed.  I do think there were issues with the explanation of privilegs- she gave a terribly long list of all the privileges she has that she could think of at the time.  But- there was little explanation of what privilege is.  To be fair, a 101 level discussion of privilege every time it comes up isn’t necessarily required, but for a book random people might pick up without much background, at least a pointer to where the reader could get more information would have been helpful.

It goes on to a discussion of the history of bisexuality as a concept.  Some interesting background, with a few interesting insights where they might have been on to something useful.

The next major part of the first chapter explains what bisexuality is.  The standard “attracted to men and women” is quickly discarded- two more useful definitions are proposed.

The first- I don’t like.  “Attracted to more than one gender”.  This definition, while inclusive, is overbroad to the point of uselessness.  It says very little about the people it is applied to- and if a label doesn’t, in some way, help you understand the thing it is applied to- what is the point?

The second I like quite a bit.  “Attraction to genders similar to ones own, and different from ones own”.  I like this one.  It’s inclusive of non-binary gender identities, it’s close enough to the common meaning that there’s little risk of misunderstanding, and it tells you something about the people it is applied to.  Eisner also points out that it encourages more questions about gender, what is similar, what is different.  While less inclusive than the first, it carries information.  And even if I bought Eisner’s thesis that the entire existing system needs to be torn down, to do that, you need to be able to interface with people in the system.  The greater backwards compatibility of this definition can be quite useful.

There’s some coverage of bisexuality myths.  Some interesting ideas.  I’m still thinking about Eisner’s commentary regarding the “standard” bisexual response, vs the more radical response she seems to advocate.

I’ll review further sections as I read further.  Overall, I agree with some, disagree with some, and am undecided on some.  I’m keeping an open mind though- I’m ready to be convinced otherwise on all points.

Pat Sajak Thinks You’re an “Unpatriotic Racist.” This Response Is Perfect. | Mother Jones

Pat Sajak Thinks You’re an “Unpatriotic Racist.” This Response Is Perfect. | Mother Jones.

Racism?  Really?

If you are looking at the facts and deciding they best support climate change, that’s not racist.  Not at all.  I suppose there might be racist reasons for believing in it, and certainly proposed responses might be tainted by racism, but a blanket statement that mere belief is itself racist is ridiculous.

The unpatriotic charge is also a bit suspect.  Again, why you believe, and your proposed response, may well be unpatriotic.  But mere belief, what?

Boris backs BBC DJ over Sun Has Got His Hat On racism row – Yahoo News UK

Boris backs BBC DJ over Sun Has Got His Hat On racism row – Yahoo News UK.

For a mistake he was willing to apologize for on the air, I don’t think this should have gotten to the point of firing.  An ass chewing, sure, and a note in his personnel file that would count against his next raise/promotion, but firing?  That seems a little too far.  He should have paid more attention to the music he was playing, but I don’t think this should be a firing offense.

This does, of course, assume that the guys disciplinary record is otherwise clean.  While I wouldn’t fire someone over this alone, I could certainly see it being a last straw that leads to firing after a history of misconduct and/or incompetence.

Five Stupid Things About HIV/AIDS Denialism – YouTube

The stupid thing to me- Treatments based on the idea that HIV causes AIDS work in delaying progression to AIDS, very often to the point where when the person does eventually die, it’s of something entirely unrelated to HIV or AIDS.  This is well documented.  Denying HIV/AIDS causation is basically saying that these treatments only work by pure luck.  And then as HIV evolves around it, these drugs that can’t be working by fighting HIV(because then they wouldn’t help AIDS) evolves around it, by random chance, the drugs stop working.  Modifying the drugs based on the HIV changes gets them to work again.  And all this happens, and happens consistently, by pure chance?

That’s basically what the deniers claim.

Ok, not all of them, some of them that Steve discusses go way off the deep end and claim things like the AIDS drugs themselves cause AIDS, but these people are so wrong that correcting them would probably require a semester long course in epistemology and critical thinking before you could even start on the HIV stuff.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 95 other followers