Various shtuff

Randmoe post, with me being UTP@ to a small degree.

There is only one remaining episode of The Shield left. Six days. And then it's all over for The Strike Team and the folks who populate their universe. If the final episode is even half as affecting as the penultimate was, I'll be thinking about it for weeks.
If anyone out there wants to play massive catchup in the next six days, I highly recommend it. (Although S4 and S6 are both somewhat weak, imo. Seasons 2, 3, 5 and the last half of seven are amazing.)

I spent the first 30 years of my life without cavities. I am most certainly making up for lost time now.
And I gotta say - not a big fan of the pain factor.

Discussion at work today - what makes a monster a monster? Is it just physical appearance - must they be grotesque looking - or is it (as I believe) entirely the actions of a being that make it monstrous (or not)?
I believe it's gotta be the things that are done that determine whether the monster label applies. I mean, Frankenstein's monster looked evil and monstrous, but wasn't (at first). It was his actions and reactions that caused him to become a creature of evil.
King Kong is another example. He was terrifying to look at, but at heart he was just a big ol' softie. (Until he got chained up and transfered across the planet and made a spectacle of and shot at.)
And going the other way, many attractive men and women are, in fact, monsters. Dracula had sex appeal, for example. And yet, he was all killy.
Vic Mackey can certainly be charming as all get-out (Lord knows I've rooted for the guy) but he's not exactly a role model. (Okay. Done letting the Shield get in my thoughts)
So, yeah. I think it's gotta be "judge a monster on what it does, not what it looks like."

There've been rumors for a while now that a movie based on Monopoly (the board game) will be made. And that Ridley Scott would be directing.
I just... Monopoly? Really?
Well, one of my all time favorite movies EVER was (loosely) based on a board game, so who knows. And I've wondered for a while why more movies aren't based on board games. But ...Monopoly??

I saw three separate houses completely decked out in Xmas lights tonight. And I know for a fact that two of them were not done yesterday, so... the only conclusion I can draw is that crazy is contagious.

One of the things not discussed in the comments from last time I posted was Knight Rider still being on the air. Here's something even MORE confusing - more people are watching *that* crap than the too-damn-cool-for-network-television-anyway show, Pushing Daisies. What is wrong with Americans?

I'm hungry. Chimichanga, perhaps?

I need to get back to wrok on Wolf. Although I feel that the title might be better changed to Wolf World. ...except htat as soon as I typed that, I hated that title. I guess just Wolf works, it's just irritating that the title ahs been sullied by that '94 movie with Jack Nicholson.

Speaking of wolves, a quick poll (I've asked this before of some (all?) of you, but sometimes public opinion changes, plus I've forgotten what the consensus was): Scarier - werewolves who walk on 2 legs, or werewolves who walk on 4?

I've got a post on 2009 predictions to write that I've been thinking of for a bit. I can only hope that I actually get around to doing it before 2009. (Although if I wait long enough, making the predictions about the year will be a lot simpler. Maybe I'll make some 2007 predictions first. I bet I'll get them all right!)