Show Binge Withdrawls.

It's an odd effect that will I first experienced watching a several seasons of Alias in short order, but the effect of having a show watching it up to date and suddenly having nothing is an odd sort of emotion. It's like the end of a show, a good finale that you can't really believe it's all over and want more but know that there's nothing else to do. I just finished watching the first and second seasons (up til now) of Treme, an HBO drama about post-Katrina NOLA. Fill up your free time with pure binge and now you'll get a weekly trickle. It's not even like it's over, or canceled it's just I can't mainline it with a needle straight into my eye.

It's like a dear friend to stop me from partying and getting doped up sent me into working on an oyster boat between occasional chauffeuring into town to play some music. I know it's coming. I've done such things before. But, it always ends, not with a bang but a whimper.

Dinosaur Scifi... Ah. The wonders of TV.

(Via Paleo Errata)

Dinosaur scifi is such a limited field down to just about Jurassic Park and a couple episodes of Sliders. But, time traveling to the past seems like such an awesome idea if you have a lot of nice technology. Though, I wonder how hard it would be to get the science right. Somehow it should undoubtedly be a bunch of dinosaurs in a modern looking place, and older-style dinosaurs. So pretty much not difference in the age of the critters or when they actually properly existed and there will doubtfully be any of them with feathers. That's my standard issue complaint about anything with dinosaurs now... not enough feathers.

WOW! Futurama For the WIN!

Seriously, you need to find, watch, have, and know the latest episode 609. It's just fantastic.It's about evolution and creationism and holy crap is it good... for about the first ten minutes.

From the flying spaghetti monster appearing and talking, the whole missing links giant line, and several other bits are to be quite likeable. Overall the message gets tweaked to the point where it's stupidish. I'm sure there was a better episode that they got talked out of making.

The parallel structure and suggestion of tiny nanobots to start life off and then it evolving from there is a bit stupid when you look at the science behind abiogenesis (there's no first sort of nanobot). The structures and forms of evolution just take normal meat and fat form, which is a little silly. And then the complete ignoring of how exactly evolution actually works is pretty bad. But, for the first ten minutes it's the greatest episode. Well, last weeks episode was pretty fricking awesome too.

Scholarly papers on TV shows...

O wonder!

How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world! That has such people in't!

What Has Your Free Will Gotten You?

It's sort of strange that some analysis of TV shows are absolutely fantastic, but I suppose I did one read a collection of essays about Firefly and was floored by Mercedes Lackey's take on the problem of providing food and support to the outer colonies and the need for black market trade.

Damn it Mal! Watch the gorram heartstrings!

* Nathan Fillion in Castle.

It's shiny to see 'em browncoating again, but even after half a decade... the wound's still a might fresh.

Dollhouse, almost good. (wha?)

Apparently Dollhouse had planned a great closer (with things left open) episode in case the show got canceled and didn't get a second season. However, watching the episode "Epitaph One" just kind of reminds me how crappy the show is. This episode is actually Firefly quality (I don't say that lightly). And they have the first episode thus far when they stop being whores. I'm very annoyed by the whole, "they are all whores" thing and the show has so much potential but seems to pretty slowly drudge on with silly plots about people being hunted by crazy people shooting arrows at main characters and such. It's a bit like my suggestion at the time to save the long canceled Hidden Palms.

TV is so depressing sometimes.

Extras: I might actually have to watch that show.

I saw the first episode or so but generally lost interest. I might have to pick it up again.

Did Darwin Kill God, Part 1: Religion

So, I managed to watch a copy of Did Darwin Kill God, put out by the BBC. Where Conor Cunningham walks around with a bizarre view of the world making outlandish claims and being utterly and completely wrong about everything from every side. This 'philosopher and theologian' (perhaps only worthy of the second title) tried to force an utterly and completely stupid set of arguments and insinuations down our throats for the length of the program. It was utterly disappointing, not simply because it was completely wrong but because it was a good question which if properly explored would have been absolutely delightful.

The debate has been hijacked by extremists... cue Richard Dawkins, the flagbearer of Ultradarwinists! Cunningham must be uninformed that there actually is something called ultradarwinism and it heavily surrounds the idea that Darwinian evolution would produce no junk DNA. That it would have every nucleotide in our genetic code useful for something, it's fairly and utterly debunked and the only actual flashes you get of it come from creationists who suppose that that is what evolution demands and therefore junk DNA disproves evolution. What scientific support there was for the idea and assumption vanished decades ago. He uses the term to be the same to as the term "Darwinian Fundamentalist" as he also uses later on in the program.

Conor believes that Christ was risen from the dead but Creationists are wrong to read Genesis literally. So apparently Christ died to free everybody from original sin originating from a figurative story. So spends the first half of the program hammering on the idea that Christians never *really* believed Genesis. He does this by lying through his teeth, whitewashing history, and pointing out that science disproves much of Genesis so clearly nobody could have believed it.

His arguments throughout are paperthin and anybody with a cursory understanding of history and the arguments and events involved will easily detect a large array of various problems with his arguments.

He starts off by pointing out that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are contradictory, so clearly it's all figurative. Philo suggested that the Bible always has two meanings and there's some allegorical sub-meaning. Clearly, because there were some apologetics even very early on it must be the case that the 'Tillich-ish everything is figurative' explanation must be right. This is absolutely dishonest. Philo was not widely accepted and the insinuation that early attempts to rectify Genesis with proper science means that nobody took it literally is worse than even an outright lie.

While it is certainly that the first chapter is far more outlined and far more detailed it doesn't mean that they are allegorical or descriptive of the fallibility of man or how ex nihlo was a gift from God. There are some changes in the order between the two versions, but the standard apologetic is probably correct: Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are the same story with Genesis 2 going into more detail about Adam and Eve. This doesn't remotely suggest that it is therefore allegory than the fact that the Prologue in Romeo and Juliet quickly tells the entire story you're about to see makes Romeo and Juliet allegory.

If Cunningham wishes to argue that a few odd contradictions between two different versions means it's allegorically perhaps he'd like to read the Gospels side by side! It's telling the same story with varying details... this clearly means that everybody reads it as if it's false, right?

"Reading the Genesis as myth and metaphor is not a modern trend, this has always been the mainstream view." - FUCK YOU, LIAR!

To defend this indefensible claim he suggests that Augustine agrees with him. While Augustine did suggest that the Bible should not be treated like a science book, that doesn't remotely suggest that he thought it was metaphor. He just said they should avoid the parts that are scientifically wrong.

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

Augustine was saying that they should keep the parts that are clearly wrong on the DL. Not that they aren't part of Genesis or that Genesis isn't how the universe was made. Just that some parts are clearly wrong and don't scare off the converts by sounding like an idiot when it comes to these parts. It's not scientifically accurate and you should try to avoid sounding like a dumbass in front of the potential converts. Augustines explanation was that God just didn't share those details with us because they weren't important:

In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

God knew how the skies worked, but simply didn't teach men because they don't need to know how the skies work, they need to know how to get saved. You don't need to be curious about the world or to progress in understanding. All you need is salvation, and the Bible is all you need to be saved. God didn't include a lot of science in the Bible because the Bible is about getting saved not understanding the world.

Cunningham then makes the claim that many of the Church fathers were transmutationalists. I find this utterly unbelievable and frankly considering how loose and fast he plays with the facts, think it is largely false.

There were a great number of scientific arguments from God and quite often the argument from design and perponderence of evidence fell squarely at the feet of religion. The early evolutionists and transmutationalists like Anaxamander and others had completely nonsensical theories about life progressing, whereas religious defenses from scientific points of view such as those of Galen and others were straightforward and showed that life was simply too complex to happen in the ways suggested by the early evolutionists. The early church fathers were often dismissive of science and scientific virtues but others were scientifically minded and they too were largely religious.

Cunningham is suggesting that nobody ever treated the Bible as literal because many of the early church fathers didn't treat the Bible as scientific. They still argued that that was how God made man, but that the science wasn't needed. It was the way to salvation and science doesn't help with salvation.

Early church fathers dismissed the couple little snafus that cropped up in the centuries after the Bible was written by pointing saying it wasn't written to convey science but to convey what God wanted us to know to be saved.

Cunningham draws this out to imply that they would be absolutely fine dismissing every damned word of Genesis as being false. This is completely unacceptable. Dismissing a few silly things like calling the moon a lesser light when really it reflects light from the sun, is forgivable because God just didn't want to share science with man, only salvation. Using this to conclude that, therefore, the Church fathers would be okay with reading it all as absolute fiction is not acceptable.

"Avoid the silly parts when you're trying to convert people" != "It's all bullshit".


Usher believed the Bible. He calculated the start of the universe as 4004BC, this "eccentric speculation" as Cunningham calls it is actually very robust. Usher, to his credit, did the math correctly. The Bible actually does give all the dates needed to make the calculation. Cunningham dismisses this as a bizarre and freakish misappropriation of the Bible because the Bible should be read as something false rather than something true and nobody has ever believed it. Usher is an anomaly. If you don't realize the utter idiocy of this, you need to hit the books.


Victorians had fossils and had uncovered dinosaurs, so clearly they would avoided doing anything as silly as interpreting Genesis literally. This middle of the line claim seems a bit stupid on a number of levels. Cunningham suggests that dinosaurs and fossils didn't contradict Genesis (because nobody really believed Genesis), rather it kept Christians on the straight and narrow of not really believing Genesis.

However, those fossils did contradict Genesis and the theory of extinction took a good while to become accepted. It was widely expected that these large fossil animals had to be alive somewhere (they survived the Ark after all) and it wasn't until we explored a lot of the world that it started dawning on people that they were dead and gone. It took a while to convince very influential and brilliant geologists that there never was a global flood. They believed Genesis literally and it took a large mass of evidence to pry those beliefs away from the scientific establishment. There's a reason why history starts in the Middle East around 4000 BC, because it use to start with the Bible. There's a reason why human fossils and primitive migrations aren't taught in history class (they are classified as prehistoric because they occurred before history that started with the Bible).

Simply because some of the early church fathers were okay with the moon not emitting light itself, doesn't mean that they would be fine with all life on this planet evolving over billions of years.

Cunningham is lying himself into a corner, suggesting that dinosaurs and other things that contradict Genesis are actually evidence in favor of his theory that the mainstream understanding was to 'read-Genesis-as-false'. His argument seems to be that Genesis has always been false, so when a scientific explanations come around and take huge chunks out of Genesis that's fine. Sometimes better than fine because it shows how obvious it must be that it wasn't actually read as literal.

When Origin of Species came out, it explained the intricacy, development, design, and understanding of life and demolished Genesis... or so Cunningham tells us we've been told. But, Cunningham has been arguing for the last 18 minutes that nobody ever read Genesis literally! Not Philo who was unpopular and non-influential, not Augustine who suggested maybe if you're trying to convert people you should read the silly bits, not Victorian England which already had plenty of stuff that contradicted Genesis. So why would anybody make this outlandish claim (other than having read any bit of the debates and arguments going on at the time).

However, England was going through the Industrial Revolution and a new idea of God came around about God who's main proponent was William Paley who compared life to a watch. And argued that it was so complex it could only have been made by God. --- Cunningham is so utterly full of shit. -- First off Paley 18th century, not 19th century, the argument had nothing to do with the industrial revolution and the argument was very old (several thousand years). Hume in the 17th century (writing before Paley) addressed the argument in depth in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Paley was required reading when Darwin went to college and rightly so. Darwin himself was very influenced by Paley and the parts that Paley failed to explain were the parts that troubled Darwin the most and helped him come to the conclusions he did. Why should each island have a different set of nearly identical finches or turtles or lizards?

The argument was and still is quite compelling. Basically Paley outlines all the rather amazing bits and things in life today and says 'show me how this could possibly happen without a designer, how could you possibly do any of this marvelous detail without God?', to which Darwin responded: 'here's how'.

The argument from design was not only widespread but it was the foremost theory as to how life could have possibly originated. When Galen challenged the evolutionists of the 2nd century, he did so by showing the intricacy for which no theory of evolution could account. The argument from design is *still* the best argument for God to ever be made (it falls short on a number of points but still clearly ranks best) and it was the foremost explanation for thousands of years and the fact that it went hand in hand with religion is actually fairly moot. Paley is more an explanation of life than an argument for God.

"Darwin killed God, but only Paley's God, who was at odds with the founding fathers of the Church." Conor Cunningham is a lying stupid piece of shit. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It's insulting to Darwin, Paley, and the Early Church fathers. I have much respect for each of these three groups and the suggestion the Cunningham makes is wrong on a number of levels. Putting Paley as a silly-misguided footnote is beyond pathetic, beyond dishonest, and missing a very valuable set of points.

Cunningham now cites some apologetics start to develop concerning evolution by natural selection in the church. As these apologists suggest that Darwinism doesn't necessarily lead to atheism, clearly it must be true. We are treated to the idea that if there's an apologetic for something it simply must be true! They are doing exactly what Augustine suggested they should do, when some embarrassing bits of science come up and make your religion look silly, sweep it under the rug as best you can.

Darwin lost his faith because his daughter died not because of evolution. While this is clearly true, that his daughter's death lead to his lost of faith, it isn't true that evolution played no role. His ignoring the what Richard Dawkins so aptly noted: Evolution allows one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. This is the sense in which Darwin killed God. This glanced over point, should have been the core of the program. Evolution doesn't lead a person to atheism, but it lets their theism lapse without any nagging thoughts. I'll come back to it in Part 3.

He glances over a later copy of Origin which included the word "Creator" at the end due to the public outcry that Cunningham suggests never happened. If nobody cared up until then why would do people think they did... because, "the war had not yet begun."

It's really that the battle started in the US as the Scopes trial and had "nothing to do with science or religion and everything to do with politics and morality!" Really? Cunningham at this point seems to try to outdo himself on the stupidometer. When the scopes trial started everybody was shocked, SHOCKED, because they all accepted evolution... THE STUPID IT BURNS!

Part 2... coming soon.

United States of Tara & Propaganda

New show United States of Tara seems fantastic when it's not dropping odd propaganda against the morning after pill. Somehow the pilot episode referred to Emergency Contraceptives as "kill pills" and very specifically said "I didn't want that fertilized egg hitting my uterus."

That's not how they work. They stop the ovarian follicles from popping releasing the egg in the first place. They send up a strong signal that says, no egg now, and prevent fertilization in the first place.

Stop dissing the unexamined life...

It comes in HighDef with 7.1 Surround Sound... that's gotta impress even the most fuddy of the duddies around.

True Blood: Werewolf

I think Sam Merlotte on True Blood is a werewolf.

1) Picture of a dog saving a girl on his wall.
2) Called the dog, that always hangs out nearby, "brother".
3) Runs out during the full moon and gets seen running home naked.
4) Sookie can't quite hear his thoughts.

... yeah, kind of random but werewolf I says...

Okay please tell me I'm not the only one that sees that Sam is most likely a Werewolf. I mean the signs are everywhere. Because if I am everyone needs to pay more attention to the episodes and less to the hot guy characters. - suicidalbarbie08

The Guild

"I was quick to establish parameters. I started cry hysterically and then he put his pants back on."

Wow, why didn't I watch this earlier.
(via ERV)

It stars Felicia Day well known from her roll as Penny in Dr. Horrible (which you've also seen if you have any taste).

British TV is not mediocre.

Somehow in my years of TV watching I've observed a few trends. British TV is rarely mediocre. Either they comedies are amazingly funny like Coupling or they aren't like everything else. Either the Dramas are good like Spooks or they aren't like other shows. The shows are either really really good or really really bad. BBC has a new show called Bonekickers which since I had the bad sense to watch, and haven't blogged in a short while, I feel inclined to share. It's horrible. I mean wow. The first episode had them hunting down the cross of Jesus. I mean, that crap alone is enough to make you wince. That doesn't even cover the odd evangelical preacher and the kids he's brainwashed into being faith-warriors and hunting down and killing people... like some Muslim student who said that you probably shouldn't pull swords on people for no good reason... and it ends in a giant underground fire burning up all the different Crosses of Jesus. Zounds!

"There is always something down there," says serious but sexy archaeologist Dr Gillian Magwilde (Julie Graham) at the start of the new digger drama Bonekickers.

"Oh no there isn't," she should be told.

Bones Season 3 Finale.

Well there I was catching up on Bones having a nice several days worth of watching TV episodes. Hulu was useful in this respect have S1 of the show, and it's pretty good. Corny at times and the same general rote plot. I do enjoy the open atheism and any list of TV atheists includes Bones (one of the two eponymous atheist TV characters who come to mind). Some of the writing making her awkward in social situations are a bit heavy handed and suggests she is somewhere on the autism spectrum unable to understand some exceedingly basic social cues. In any event, the season finale was just so utterly shit that I have to write about what a steaming pile of nonsense it was.

Be forewarned of spoilers even though if you watch the show you saw this crap months ago. So one of the reoccuring cases is Gormogon serial killer who murders different people and assembles the pieces into a skeleton passing on the trade to an apprentice. Formed to rid the world of the influences of secret societies. Which ties into Dr. Jack Hodgins' character who is rather conspiracy theorist/lefty-pinko/out-there-guy. I honestly hate this aspect of his character because he's all evidence and reasoned most of the time then he's the go to guy to insert a bit of crazy and not-so-crazy into the episodes. The writers can't tell the difference between belief in extra-terrestrial visitors and belief that the Iraq War was sold to the American people under false pretenses.

Well one of his more absurd insertions is talk of secret societies as evil agents of mass importance. A cursory look at the evidence suggests they are little more than grown up frats with stupid stories. The Straight Dope has pretty good explanations of the Masons. The idea that Hodgins would accept whacked out conspiracy theories beyond what there is pretty reasonable evidence for is already bad enough. Then, in the plot of the Finale, it was reveled that the apprentice to the Gormagon was none other than than the lovable character Dr. Zack Addy who blew himself up to buy time for the Master Gormagon to steal the statue from the vault (where they stored the stuff they grabbed in a previous episode).

When asked why he would join a cannibalistic (I mentioned the guy ate their faces right?) serial killer anti-masonic murderer he claimed that the logic was impeccable. Because, secret societies exist. Secret societies are harmful to society (because Hidgins' talks about them). Killing members of secret societies eating their faces and making stupid statues of them out of the bones is therefore the moral course of action.

I'm sorry, but I am suppose to believe that first one scientists believes this and second another one takes his word for it when even cursory research would determine that secret societies are mostly stupid (save if there's some reciprocal business dealings I suppose) and that eating faces in a mass murder spree is a poor choice of action.

Some of the stuff in the show was previously stupid and oddly wrong. Booth (main character, partner of Bones) mentions that it takes hundreds of years to evolve and Bones corrects him and says "thousands and thousands" when modern research says that years and decades are enough for viruses and bacteria and human evolution has been progressing at a remarkable clip for several hundred years. Some of the ham-fisted attempts to make Bones seem socially naive have been almost mind-numbing, like not understanding why anybody would want children. Some things have been remarkably stupid... but they weren't plot. This is plot being pinned on the crappiest foundations of a really stupid character aspect of another character. Frankly it's utterly stupid and makes no sense.

I blame Fox. Fox airs Bones. Most shows don't go braindead retarded save for a few of those on Fox. There was a House episode where some junky told House that he had a near death experience and it was the shit, so House stuck a fork into a light socket because he simply must know. This bit of Bones plot was that dumb but that bit in House was just a bit and not plot... and not just plot but major plot.

Okay, off to change my TV.com avatar from Dr. Zach Addy to something else. I mean, it was okay when he was just the geeky semi-anti-social scientist ex-grad student of Bones... but when they made him a complete moron who murders people based on really really bad argument and really really bad evidence... I've gotta get something else. In part, I connected with the character and feel that this plot would be about as stupid as me entering the seminary and part-timing as a face-eating cannibal.

...

Okay, I changed my Avatar to Adama from BSG. If he's a cylon... I quit.

Occam's Dildo and Ghost Hunters

What was that! Spooky! I bet it was a ghost. My goodness that was totally impressive.

Shows with the basic premise of bringing a bunch of cameras to someplace dark and allegedly creepy (cemeteries, castles, insane asylums, old houses) and being afraid of the dark make for horrifically bad television if you ask me. It's amazingly stupid to attribute every sound to a ghost and every smudge to a ghost. These shows constantly exploit Occam's Dildo, rather than preferring the simplest explanation people opt for the most titillating explanation.

Curing Autism?

I watched the Comedy Central 2008 Night of Too Many Stars benefit for autism education and was repeatedly confused as a number of people commented about "curing autism". This repeatedly struck me as odd. First, I don't think you can cure autism it's a developmental condition. Second, I don't know if it is a good idea. I understand those on the far side of the spectrum are often times closed off from the world but it seems an odd desire that people be open to the world. I don't see too much reason to demand this interaction with the world of people. There seems to be a remarkable desire among neurotypicals to share things. Capital of Spain. First three digits of pi. Favorite movie. Just saying these things makes me eagerly jump in with the answer. What if people lacked that motivation? They'd seem pretty closed off, what if they never forced these interactions or honed these skills (or picked them up like they are second nature)? I don't think Autism is wrong or really needs curing. Seems like they probably think differently and I'm not sure we're correct equating different with wrong.

Ps. Vaccines don't cause autism... if you picked this up somewhere forget it. It's beyond idiotic. *pokes nutters with stick*

Update: Some have commented that my comments about not fixing autism are due in part to my own anti-social tendencies. I am however, in no way autistic, I'm a loser. There's a rather massive difference. I highly recommend this piece on Wired about the subject.

The Riches isn't dead.

Last year a new favorite show of mine came and went staring Eddie "Danger" Izzard and Minnie Driver as gypsies who take over the lives of honest folk. Well, according to some sites it was canceled, but sure enough new episodes started to show up.

Hm.

A happy surprise.

Kyle XY, levitation is hella lame... but restarting a heart!

Kyle XY is a "sci-fi" (and I use that term loosely) show which currently involves a few people who can do certain impossible things. It involves that old canard of using only 10% of your brain and somehow longer gestation in the womb means an even bigger brain so they get special abilities like levitation by changing the polarity of their electromagnetic field in order to repel the electromagnetic field of water (in case you're not sure, that's the biggest load of bullshit ever).

I suppose the show comes on ABC family so I shouldn't expect a Joss Whedon caliber show... but in the season finale the secret cabal of shadowy scientists were extremely impressed with Kyle's ability to restart somebody's heart. That's right, ability to fly is lame... but being a glorified defibrillator... WOW!

In a previous episode there was need to make whether Kyle cured somebody's cancer ambiguous because that's so much harder than lifting objects with your mind. The amazement of the task magically performed seems to correlate with how much people would want to help other people out medically rather than the actual requirements.

Boo, a cheap ABC family show, having fairly crappy writing. What's next? Is Wildfire's broken leg going to heal after all on the show Wildfire? Wonders will never cease!

Sarah Connor Chronicles...

Why do some awesome shows have crap for intros?

Battlestar Galactica use to, as a general rule, spoil the episode before showing the episode during the intro. Sitting down to watch the show and *pow* what you're going to see in this episode you've already decided to watch!

Well, Sarah Connor Chronicles isn't that annoying but the intro was written by a MORON!

In the future, my son will lead mankind in a war against Skynet, a computer system programed to destroy the world. It has sent machines back through time, some to kill him, one to protect him. Today we fight to stop Skynet from ever being created. To change our future. To change his fate. The war to save mankind, begins now!

No. Skynet was not programmed to destroy the world. Skynet isn't trying to destroy the world... it's trying to kill all humans. Skynet was not programmed to destroy all humans. It became conscious and decided to do that! The former (destroy world) would be a stupid thing for a robot to do, and, being human, I reserve judgment on the latter (kill all humans). Skynet never sent the "one [robot] to protect him". -- Clearly that robot is reprogrammed and being used to protect him, but was not sent by Skynet!

My shows are coming back...

Ah... no more writers strike.

Daily Show + the funny... I can't wait.