Do you generally dislike yourself and others? Then I have a show for you!
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia returns to the FX network on September 18th.
Here's the site. Turn down your speakers, work slackers.
Oh, go off and watch your quality programming. I know Mad Men returns at the end of the month. I'll watch that, too, but mostly I'll be watching "Sunny".
Showing posts with label television. Show all posts
Showing posts with label television. Show all posts
Monday, July 07, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
Olympics are coming...
We did absolutely nothing this weekend. Money is tight, and so expenditures need to stay low.
Saturday and Sunday, NBC was showing Olympic trials for "women's" gymnastics. And we also ended up watching some diving trials.
I confess, as I'm growing old and cynical, I'm increasingly skeptical of the whole Olympic enterprise. And poor Jamie, who loves the Olympics, is probably tired of hearing it, but...
The modern Olympics were sort of a friendly match of upper crust gentlemen meeting and playing some games, giving each other medals and going home. Today its been turned not just into a weird sort of opportunity for McDonalds to get their BigMac ads in between pole vaults (which is actually pretty understandable), but any notion that this is "friendly" competition seems naive at best, and propaganda at worst.
Somehow we've morphed what was amateur competition into young people loading themselves up with steroids (Ex: Marion Jones), and the weird mix of children who show promise and who are lucky enough to have stage parents who get their kids to practice 12 hours per day, almost every day in some gym so they can get their fifteen seconds. And forget the methodology employed in other countries where things are a little less democratic.
How many athletes don't we see who don't make he cut and make it to the Olympics and are still a part of the culture of doping and, (depending on how you think of it) exploitation of children, all we ever see are the folks who make the cut. Even the NBC coverage of the trials only focuses on the few who the NBC producers assume will make it. And, really, if you listen to the commentators, there's so much that's assumed about the trials, one has to wonder about how much is determined by scores and statistics, and how much is subjective in sports where winners aren't determined by things like "who threw the shot put the furthest", but by a squad of judges using some odd, indecipherable alchemy.
Perhaps its a blind spot in my make-up. I have no idea.
But I'll tune in. There are too many other sports and athletes who aren't pumping themselves (to the best of my knowledge) with HGH. There are sports that don't have a weird culture built in of judges, coaches and parents all wrapped up and making decisions that affect the outcome of the competition. And athletes I don't look at and wonder how much is weird parents, coaches, etc... trying to gather a bit of the glory, and how much is athletes trying to please those same people when that's the life they've known since they were eight or nine.
Saturday and Sunday, NBC was showing Olympic trials for "women's" gymnastics. And we also ended up watching some diving trials.
I confess, as I'm growing old and cynical, I'm increasingly skeptical of the whole Olympic enterprise. And poor Jamie, who loves the Olympics, is probably tired of hearing it, but...
The modern Olympics were sort of a friendly match of upper crust gentlemen meeting and playing some games, giving each other medals and going home. Today its been turned not just into a weird sort of opportunity for McDonalds to get their BigMac ads in between pole vaults (which is actually pretty understandable), but any notion that this is "friendly" competition seems naive at best, and propaganda at worst.
Somehow we've morphed what was amateur competition into young people loading themselves up with steroids (Ex: Marion Jones), and the weird mix of children who show promise and who are lucky enough to have stage parents who get their kids to practice 12 hours per day, almost every day in some gym so they can get their fifteen seconds. And forget the methodology employed in other countries where things are a little less democratic.
How many athletes don't we see who don't make he cut and make it to the Olympics and are still a part of the culture of doping and, (depending on how you think of it) exploitation of children, all we ever see are the folks who make the cut. Even the NBC coverage of the trials only focuses on the few who the NBC producers assume will make it. And, really, if you listen to the commentators, there's so much that's assumed about the trials, one has to wonder about how much is determined by scores and statistics, and how much is subjective in sports where winners aren't determined by things like "who threw the shot put the furthest", but by a squad of judges using some odd, indecipherable alchemy.
Perhaps its a blind spot in my make-up. I have no idea.
But I'll tune in. There are too many other sports and athletes who aren't pumping themselves (to the best of my knowledge) with HGH. There are sports that don't have a weird culture built in of judges, coaches and parents all wrapped up and making decisions that affect the outcome of the competition. And athletes I don't look at and wonder how much is weird parents, coaches, etc... trying to gather a bit of the glory, and how much is athletes trying to please those same people when that's the life they've known since they were eight or nine.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
The League Likes ABC Family's "The Middle Man"
ABC Family has a new show, called "The Middle Man".
It's fun, comic-book style, mad scientist, basic-cable-budget, sci-fi, slackery goodness. JimD will find the dialog too precious, but otherwise, I think the show is a good summer-time surprise.
Update: Check out the review at Chris's Invincible Super-Blog.
It's fun, comic-book style, mad scientist, basic-cable-budget, sci-fi, slackery goodness. JimD will find the dialog too precious, but otherwise, I think the show is a good summer-time surprise.
Update: Check out the review at Chris's Invincible Super-Blog.
Monday, June 09, 2008
NBC's "Fear Itself"
I watched the new NBC horror anthology TV show "Fear Itself" on Friday (courtesy, DVR).
Here's the NBC promo:
It had fairly high production values, and might appeal to fans of "Tales from the Crypt", low-budget horror, possibly "The Twilight Zone", etc... This is going to sound odd, but it was a bit predictable in its attempt to remain unpredictable. Partially because of the audience's knowledge that this is a horror anthology, so there are really only so many ways this is going to go.
But, being an anthology show, its not serialized television, so next week will be all new actors, directors and story. And I find that pretty appealing.
Once upon a time I was pretty into shows like "Twilight Zone" and "Amazing Stories". I appreciate the short-story as television idea, and I think the confinement of Standards and Practices for network TV forces creators into corners where they need to be creative to build suspense rather than depending on splatter-fests, a la most of today's horror.
As I get older, I'm definitely handling horror better than when I was a kid. Back then, a 50's-era B-movie about a disembodied, floating brain could send me running away from the TV in terror. But its also funny how the rules of Horror don't really change. Especially in the short-story format. It always ends with a twist ending, a la Twilight Zone or Tales from the Crypt. Evil is rarely actually defeated. It's almost like the short story form gives the viewer the opportunity to see the futility of a struggle against the grotesque, one way or another.
I think movies and novels tend to want to give you a bit more pay-off for time invested. After all, I don't want to read a 500 page book and then have a conclusion that feels neither final nor is unsatisfying in any way.
That said, I've avoided the "Saw" movies, "Hostel," etc... like they'd give me the clap. What little I understand about those movies doesn't seem very much up my "the best horror movie ever is 'The Haunting'" take on horror. Perhaps they've begun employing a bit more of the scorched earth policy of short horror fiction.
Of course, a little of all that can go a long way. After all, audiences sort of gave up on M. Night Shyamalan in the 3rd reel of "The Village". But when you don't know...
It should be noted that "Fear Itself" was a bit on the graphic side. Or, at least, they can get away with movie level stuff on TV these days. So don't expect a Vincent Price movie, with just a trickle of blood.
3 things I didn't like:
a) I'm not really comfortable with the co-option of the phrase "Fear Itself" for the title of the show. But, kids... what do they care about history?
b) The opening was oddly reminiscent of the opening of the Fox's late-90's show "Millenium". But not really.
Millenium
Fear Itself (and its really not good theme song. actually, that theme song is ridiculous. I guess that's four things I don't like.)
(SPOILER: Also, there's a scene where a guy is alive and they sew his mouth shut. Also in the pilot for Millenium. I'm just saying...)
Also, Jason pointed out that opening sequences in horror have all had a certain sameness since "Seven".
c) And this is REALLY nitpicky, but all of the female leads in the episode "Sacrifice" are supposed to be 3 amish sisters (ie: no hair dye), but all of them have very obviously dyed blonde hair in a sort of Heather Graham-ish style. I just thought it was sort of unnecessary, and it took me out of the movie a few times.
But, you know, by and large, I thought it was good B-horror, without getting schlocky. For that, I turn you to the Sci-Fi Channel and their insistence on a new movie each week, no matter how awful (see: Never Cry Werewolf. Or, rather, don't.).
Here's the NBC promo:
It had fairly high production values, and might appeal to fans of "Tales from the Crypt", low-budget horror, possibly "The Twilight Zone", etc... This is going to sound odd, but it was a bit predictable in its attempt to remain unpredictable. Partially because of the audience's knowledge that this is a horror anthology, so there are really only so many ways this is going to go.
But, being an anthology show, its not serialized television, so next week will be all new actors, directors and story. And I find that pretty appealing.
Once upon a time I was pretty into shows like "Twilight Zone" and "Amazing Stories". I appreciate the short-story as television idea, and I think the confinement of Standards and Practices for network TV forces creators into corners where they need to be creative to build suspense rather than depending on splatter-fests, a la most of today's horror.
As I get older, I'm definitely handling horror better than when I was a kid. Back then, a 50's-era B-movie about a disembodied, floating brain could send me running away from the TV in terror. But its also funny how the rules of Horror don't really change. Especially in the short-story format. It always ends with a twist ending, a la Twilight Zone or Tales from the Crypt. Evil is rarely actually defeated. It's almost like the short story form gives the viewer the opportunity to see the futility of a struggle against the grotesque, one way or another.
I think movies and novels tend to want to give you a bit more pay-off for time invested. After all, I don't want to read a 500 page book and then have a conclusion that feels neither final nor is unsatisfying in any way.
That said, I've avoided the "Saw" movies, "Hostel," etc... like they'd give me the clap. What little I understand about those movies doesn't seem very much up my "the best horror movie ever is 'The Haunting'" take on horror. Perhaps they've begun employing a bit more of the scorched earth policy of short horror fiction.
Of course, a little of all that can go a long way. After all, audiences sort of gave up on M. Night Shyamalan in the 3rd reel of "The Village". But when you don't know...
It should be noted that "Fear Itself" was a bit on the graphic side. Or, at least, they can get away with movie level stuff on TV these days. So don't expect a Vincent Price movie, with just a trickle of blood.
3 things I didn't like:
a) I'm not really comfortable with the co-option of the phrase "Fear Itself" for the title of the show. But, kids... what do they care about history?
b) The opening was oddly reminiscent of the opening of the Fox's late-90's show "Millenium". But not really.
Millenium
Fear Itself (and its really not good theme song. actually, that theme song is ridiculous. I guess that's four things I don't like.)
(SPOILER: Also, there's a scene where a guy is alive and they sew his mouth shut. Also in the pilot for Millenium. I'm just saying...)
Also, Jason pointed out that opening sequences in horror have all had a certain sameness since "Seven".
c) And this is REALLY nitpicky, but all of the female leads in the episode "Sacrifice" are supposed to be 3 amish sisters (ie: no hair dye), but all of them have very obviously dyed blonde hair in a sort of Heather Graham-ish style. I just thought it was sort of unnecessary, and it took me out of the movie a few times.
But, you know, by and large, I thought it was good B-horror, without getting schlocky. For that, I turn you to the Sci-Fi Channel and their insistence on a new movie each week, no matter how awful (see: Never Cry Werewolf. Or, rather, don't.).
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Monday, May 19, 2008
Monday, May 12, 2008
The Understated Brilliance of Sesame Street
Denyce Graves and Elmo
Somehow the "Grover as Waiter" skits had a profound impact on me as a child, leading to some sort of pre-school existential despair as I commiserated with Grover's lot in life.
This is sort of how I understand the classics, anyway.
DeNiro and Elmo
Friday, May 09, 2008
Loss of Faith in Humanity/ Getting out of Town
Part of why I do not understand the world
I saw on TV the other day that Kim Kardashian, who has no skills and is famous only because of a 6th degree separation to the OJ Simpson trial (it's insanely complicated, but a quick check of Wikipedia whould clear it up) is making $25,000 a night "hosting" parties in LA.
If there were ever any time I would think God would be within his rights to smite a place from the Earth...
Gas is going to $3.60 a gallon, it costs $80,000 to get a graduate degree, the NSF is struggling for funding, schools are underfunded, and we're having food riots across the world... But somehow there's an economy in LA that says its reasonable and profitable to pay this person with a horrible "reality" show on basic cable $25K to show up and have a drink at a party. Which means, and this is the scary part, that people actually want to be at a party hosted by this person of no talent and no influence enough that the $25K will turn a profit.
The fact that the poor of LA haven't put the heads of the Kardashians and their ilk on spikes and redustributed their wealth tells me only that the American dream is mutated from work hard and it will pay off to instant wealth for becoming a personality.
Ladies and gentlemen... I ask of you... What kind of a world do we live in where Screech has to appear on Celebrity Fit Club to make ends meet and this person is making a dime?
Somebody give me my reality show, already. I'm ready to be rich. And I think America is ready to fall in love with Melbotis and his wise-cracking side-kick, Jeff the Cat.
Radiohead - Next week we're going to see Radiohead in Houston and do a bit of late Mother's Day celebrating. I'm excited.
Costa Rica - At the end of the month, The League and Jason are taking a two-man trip to lovely Costa Rica.
I'm a bit nervous. I've only ever been on one non-family oriented trip, and that was our honeymoon which was at Disneyworld. (Look, its tough coming up with stuff to do and still have access to dialysis, so shut up).
Jason and I are going to the rain forest for two days to see a large volcano and fight monkeys. The next day we're headed to the coast for a few days of drinking cheap whiskey by the shore and fighting beach monkeys.
As I mentioned, I haven't traveled much in my life and I haven't seen much of the world, so this will be very new to me. I've never even had need for a passport until this trip as I never made the college trip to Europe or went anywhere on spring break, and our "alternative lifestyle" doesn't lend itself easily to travel.
One thing that's always turned me off about vacations is that the second you mention you're even thinking of vacation, everybody comes out of the woodwork to tell you where to go, what to do, how to do it, and that no matter what you're thinking of, you're doing it wrong. And I get that. People have a good time on vacation. They want to relive their vacation by sending you on a duplicate of their vacation so they can verify that you had the same fun they had on their trip and feel that they're time away was well spent.
At least I'm now past the age where people went to Europe and came back (a) declaring how much better everything is in Europe from food to transportation to whatever, and (b) declaring how they were moving to Europe and leaving loser Americans (ie: you) behind for the greener grass of The Continent.
I confess, one of the big upsides of my trip to Disneyworld was countering this discussion with how much more ideal things are in the Magic Kingdom. The public transportation of Monorails and huge paddle boats and submarines where you can see mermaids. There's so many varieties of foods, time periods, and alternate realities. If America were more like Disneyland, things would be so much better here.
Anyway, my travel experience is extremely limited. The League has never been anywhere or done anything, and, we confess, it really gets us down sometimes, so the trip to Costa Rica is very welcome. And I am pretty sure my check from Uncle Sam intended to stimulate the American economy is going to be going to fruity, girly drinks in some cabana on a beach.
And that, Leaguers, is as close as you're going to see me sticking it to the man.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Meatloaf and Advertising
Around 1995, after the Holiday festivities at my folks' house had wrapped for the day and the relatives were headed off to bed, Jason and I headed to a longtime Kuykendahl-based watering hole, Molly Maguire's. The place is dark, smelly, has a few pool tables, etc... and the sort of local color one would expect so close to the edge of 1960 and Kuykendahl. Plus a barkeep who I believe may have actually been Irish (I didn't press the point).
It being Spring by Houston, at the end of the 1990's, the scene in Houston was very cheap-beer-rock-centric. Houston loved its ACDC and ZZ Top, to the point where every time I would re-enter Houston from 1993-1997, I was literally able to find ACDC playing somewhere, on some station. And this bar's jukebox was littered with 70's and early 80's rock classics, a fact I was entirely unable to appreciate at the time (but, seriously, they should have enshrined that @#$%ing jukebox as a time capsule representing a time and place).
In that Jukebox, they also had Meat Loaf's "Bat Out of Hell". I had never shown Meatloaf any respect, honestly. As a child born of the 1970's, I knew the name. By middle-school, Meat Loaf had disappeared. I would learn later (via VHI's "Behind the Music") that he was battling the usual set of addictions one associates with superstardom when, somehow, he became associated with the following Marvel comics ad:
click on the pic for a better size of Mr. Loaf's advertisement
You can read Dave's(of Dave's Longbox) review of the ad here.
I didn't think this looked a darn bit like Meat Loaf. And I didn't remember Meat Loaf playing much guitar or giving two flips for Special Olympians. And I wasn't going to cut up my X-Men or Cap comics on Meat Loaf's say-so. Especially with the creepy finger of Mr. Loaf still attached to the coupon.
In high school I finally rented "Rocky Horror Picture Show", and was surprised to find that Meat Loaf was featured as Eddie (what a guy!). And I dug the song he played. Plus, you know, Little Nell as Columbia rocked my socks (perhaps a future DITMTLOD?).
Hot patootie, bless my soul!
As I entered college, Meat Loaf released "Bat Out of Hell II: Back Into Hell". An album I decided I would have to be too hip for, and for that I apologize. Especially to Peabo, who defended the single "I'd Do Anything for Love (but I Won't Do That)". The video was the sort of high-budget, mini-movie that Aerosmith had developed with "Janie's Got a Gun", and Guns'n'Roses had perfected with "Use Your Illusion". And because I was trying to be awesome and punk rock, I wasn't about to be into a middle-aged dude's rock opera nonsense (even if I kinda liked Queen).
The video also featured the lovely Dana Patrick (lip-synching to Lorraine Crosby), who I never heard of or saw in anything else. Which is a shame.
It was during that dark night, on what was turning into a lengthy Christmas break that Jason headed back to the table from the jukebox and announced "I just put in money. We're going to listen to all of 'Bat out of Hell'".
"Oh, hell, no."
"You don't like Meat Loaf?"
"Dude..."
"You got to give Meat Loaf his respect."
Steanso was pretty keen on teaching his younger brother to show respect for all sorts of stuff. This was not new.
Anyway, we had our cheap beer, and they hadn't carded me, so I wasn't going to put up a fight.
I didn't become a Meatloaf nut on that night, and I never really have gone completely crazy for Meat Loaf. But I do, now, as they say, respect the man. I respect the hell out of Meat Loaf, and I have "Bat Out of Hell" on my iPod. And as much as I like big, overblown songwriting that delves deep into the melodramatic without blinking (I own, like, six Roxy Music albums), how could I not be a sucker for "Paradise by the Dashboard Light"? I love that song. I love how absolutely HUGE Meat Loaf knows a rock song can and should be. It doesn't always work, but when it does, man... that's not just a rock power ballad, you've got yourself an anthem.
The man at the height of his powers
Meat Loaf has a crazy expansive career, including acting. If you didn't love him in Fight Club, well, more's the pity.
Most recently "Paradise" was adapted for a commercial for something called a Go-Phone. Johanna did a bit on it over at "Comics Worth Reading".
I'd seen a shortened version of the video with Jamie, and saluted Mr. Loaf for being a sport. I still think its hard to forget the context of the original song when watching the commercial, which makes it... odd... to say the least.
But, anyway, here's the commercial:
Apparently the Mom in that commercial? That'd be Tiffany, who is better looking than I remember as she's aging (although I sort of thought the Debbie Gibson/ Tiffany battle was a fight in which we all were losing, at the time), and certainly a much more entertaining performer.
So, a salute to Meat Loaf. He's a hell of a performer, and apparently he's got a pretty good sense of humor about himself.
It being Spring by Houston, at the end of the 1990's, the scene in Houston was very cheap-beer-rock-centric. Houston loved its ACDC and ZZ Top, to the point where every time I would re-enter Houston from 1993-1997, I was literally able to find ACDC playing somewhere, on some station. And this bar's jukebox was littered with 70's and early 80's rock classics, a fact I was entirely unable to appreciate at the time (but, seriously, they should have enshrined that @#$%ing jukebox as a time capsule representing a time and place).
In that Jukebox, they also had Meat Loaf's "Bat Out of Hell". I had never shown Meatloaf any respect, honestly. As a child born of the 1970's, I knew the name. By middle-school, Meat Loaf had disappeared. I would learn later (via VHI's "Behind the Music") that he was battling the usual set of addictions one associates with superstardom when, somehow, he became associated with the following Marvel comics ad:
click on the pic for a better size of Mr. Loaf's advertisement
You can read Dave's(of Dave's Longbox) review of the ad here.
I didn't think this looked a darn bit like Meat Loaf. And I didn't remember Meat Loaf playing much guitar or giving two flips for Special Olympians. And I wasn't going to cut up my X-Men or Cap comics on Meat Loaf's say-so. Especially with the creepy finger of Mr. Loaf still attached to the coupon.
In high school I finally rented "Rocky Horror Picture Show", and was surprised to find that Meat Loaf was featured as Eddie (what a guy!). And I dug the song he played. Plus, you know, Little Nell as Columbia rocked my socks (perhaps a future DITMTLOD?).
Hot patootie, bless my soul!
As I entered college, Meat Loaf released "Bat Out of Hell II: Back Into Hell". An album I decided I would have to be too hip for, and for that I apologize. Especially to Peabo, who defended the single "I'd Do Anything for Love (but I Won't Do That)". The video was the sort of high-budget, mini-movie that Aerosmith had developed with "Janie's Got a Gun", and Guns'n'Roses had perfected with "Use Your Illusion". And because I was trying to be awesome and punk rock, I wasn't about to be into a middle-aged dude's rock opera nonsense (even if I kinda liked Queen).
The video also featured the lovely Dana Patrick (lip-synching to Lorraine Crosby), who I never heard of or saw in anything else. Which is a shame.
It was during that dark night, on what was turning into a lengthy Christmas break that Jason headed back to the table from the jukebox and announced "I just put in money. We're going to listen to all of 'Bat out of Hell'".
"Oh, hell, no."
"You don't like Meat Loaf?"
"Dude..."
"You got to give Meat Loaf his respect."
Steanso was pretty keen on teaching his younger brother to show respect for all sorts of stuff. This was not new.
Anyway, we had our cheap beer, and they hadn't carded me, so I wasn't going to put up a fight.
I didn't become a Meatloaf nut on that night, and I never really have gone completely crazy for Meat Loaf. But I do, now, as they say, respect the man. I respect the hell out of Meat Loaf, and I have "Bat Out of Hell" on my iPod. And as much as I like big, overblown songwriting that delves deep into the melodramatic without blinking (I own, like, six Roxy Music albums), how could I not be a sucker for "Paradise by the Dashboard Light"? I love that song. I love how absolutely HUGE Meat Loaf knows a rock song can and should be. It doesn't always work, but when it does, man... that's not just a rock power ballad, you've got yourself an anthem.
The man at the height of his powers
Meat Loaf has a crazy expansive career, including acting. If you didn't love him in Fight Club, well, more's the pity.
Most recently "Paradise" was adapted for a commercial for something called a Go-Phone. Johanna did a bit on it over at "Comics Worth Reading".
I'd seen a shortened version of the video with Jamie, and saluted Mr. Loaf for being a sport. I still think its hard to forget the context of the original song when watching the commercial, which makes it... odd... to say the least.
But, anyway, here's the commercial:
Apparently the Mom in that commercial? That'd be Tiffany, who is better looking than I remember as she's aging (although I sort of thought the Debbie Gibson/ Tiffany battle was a fight in which we all were losing, at the time), and certainly a much more entertaining performer.
So, a salute to Meat Loaf. He's a hell of a performer, and apparently he's got a pretty good sense of humor about himself.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Or is this the best video ever?
From who else? Bjork.
Wanderlust.
Of course, this is a pretty typical day for Jamie, anyway, so she'll be wondering "what's the big whoop?"
Wanderlust.
Of course, this is a pretty typical day for Jamie, anyway, so she'll be wondering "what's the big whoop?"
Friday, April 04, 2008
New Batman cartoon
Looks like there's a new Batman cartoon coming in the next year or so, intended to replace the now canceled "The Batman" series. Which had more or less turned into a team-up series in the past year, anyway. I wasn't crazy about "The Batman". The first year or two, the creators changed things, more or less just to change them, not because it added anything to the show.
I was also never 100% sold on their character designs. And they just never really seemed to really dig in and build a world the way Bruce Timm had done. Moreover, their takes on the rest of the Justice League was a far cry from the excellence of JLU.
I have no idea what the new Batman series will be like or about, but I like two things here:
1) The Dick Sprang styling on Batman. Looks very kid friendly. I'm hoping for a fun take.
2) Jaime Reyes Blue Beetle!
I am a huge fan of the current Blue Beetle series and character. One of the best titles out there right now, and the character is really well thought out, as are all of the details of the book.
I think Jaime Reyes is a natural for a kids cartoon show, so I just hope they don't screw it up.
Huzzah!
Anyway, the series looks pretty straightforward. Batman teams up with someone new from the DCU every week and, I guess, saves the day. Anyhow, I'll tune in.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Best Video Ever?
You may have your opinion about what was the best music video ever, but I am here to tell you, you are wrong.
The best music video ever? Van Halen's peaen to school boy crushes on their teachers.
Ladies and Gentlemen: Hot For Teacher
Things you often love as a kid usually wind up a lot more complicated than you gave them thought for at the time. Truly, I don't think you could get away with this video again for about six or seven very legitimate reasons. Probably the number one being the utter objectification of the authority figure parading herself in front of a room full of children. Somehow I don't think that would fly. Sexist comes to mind. Possibly even misogyny (but I think that's unfair. I think the word is objectification).
Really, the video is hilariously awful. But wasn't that always the point of Van Halen's videos with David Lee Roth? They weren't exactly out there trying to uplift the intellect of mankind, unless you think Alex's drumming on "Hot for Teacher" is a breakthrough for humanity. In which case, you'd be right.
And, seriously, back in the 80's on MTV, this wasn't even close to some of the worst stuff you'd see when it came to ladies in bikinis. This was just the silliest. As immortalized in the classic "Tapeheads", in video music making, that's considered "production value". And if you don't believe me, watch any yound ingenue's video these days.
I think you have to give the director credit for the many pieces of the video which work so well together: the Harms-like Waldo character, the library table guitar solo, the Van Halen dance sequence, the young Van Halen equivalents, the ultimate destinies of each spelled out... Man. That's about five minutes of solid music video.
Sure, the video seems a bit as if it were cooked up by eighth graders, but that's appropriate to the subject material.
The video also gave us the phrase "Siddown, Wall-do!", which I think I need to start using around the office.
Anyway, its much better than the video for Sussudio (which I spelled correctly on my first try, thank you).
What was your favorite?
The best music video ever? Van Halen's peaen to school boy crushes on their teachers.
Ladies and Gentlemen: Hot For Teacher
Things you often love as a kid usually wind up a lot more complicated than you gave them thought for at the time. Truly, I don't think you could get away with this video again for about six or seven very legitimate reasons. Probably the number one being the utter objectification of the authority figure parading herself in front of a room full of children. Somehow I don't think that would fly. Sexist comes to mind. Possibly even misogyny (but I think that's unfair. I think the word is objectification).
Really, the video is hilariously awful. But wasn't that always the point of Van Halen's videos with David Lee Roth? They weren't exactly out there trying to uplift the intellect of mankind, unless you think Alex's drumming on "Hot for Teacher" is a breakthrough for humanity. In which case, you'd be right.
And, seriously, back in the 80's on MTV, this wasn't even close to some of the worst stuff you'd see when it came to ladies in bikinis. This was just the silliest. As immortalized in the classic "Tapeheads", in video music making, that's considered "production value". And if you don't believe me, watch any yound ingenue's video these days.
I think you have to give the director credit for the many pieces of the video which work so well together: the Harms-like Waldo character, the library table guitar solo, the Van Halen dance sequence, the young Van Halen equivalents, the ultimate destinies of each spelled out... Man. That's about five minutes of solid music video.
Sure, the video seems a bit as if it were cooked up by eighth graders, but that's appropriate to the subject material.
The video also gave us the phrase "Siddown, Wall-do!", which I think I need to start using around the office.
Anyway, its much better than the video for Sussudio (which I spelled correctly on my first try, thank you).
What was your favorite?
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
A DITMTLOD special report: Sarah Jessica Parker = Not Teh Sexy?
Apparently Maxim, the magazine for guys too cowardly to justgooutandbuysomepornfortheloveofmike, has put out a list of female celebrities who are assumed to be sexy in the media, but with whom Maxim begs to differ.
They've presented a list of the 5 Unsexiest Women Alive.
There are two gut reactions to this list:
1 - Oh, those poor women.
2 - HA ha ha ha ha ha. (pause) BWAH HA HA HA HA HA.
The League believes both reactions are appropriate. It can't be fun to be Sandra Oh and to wake up one morning to find out you've been deemed one of the 5 Unsexiest Women Alive. I would say she's never really tried for sexy, but I have cable, and I once stumbled across "Dancing at the Blue Iguana". And it was not the gritty slice of life picture it was trying to be. It was so dull, I made it only long enough to see Sandra Oh in it, say something negative about Arli$$, and move on.
What is interesting is that Sarah Jessica Parker tops the list. For many a year, fans of the show "Sex in the City" have insisted that SJP was everything that a sexy, independent, urban-chic woman should be.
Others on the list are a bit more obvious.
Coming in at #5 is trainwreck Britney Spears, the subject of last night's highly disturbing episode of South Park.
#4: Madonna. Who sort of quit being sexy right after "Express Yourself", just as she was gearing up to try to chastise America for not wanting to be sexy with her, leading to her eventual move to the UK, where she morphed into a Disney villain.
#3: Sandra Oh. Poor, sad, Sandra Oh. Who is just trying to be a working actress, for chrissake.
#2: Amy Winehouse. Because a crack-smoking 20-something burning away her talent with the crystal meth and deeply in need of an intervention in public is funny-sad, and in no way sexy.
So why does SJP hit #1? She's together. She's got a career that hasn't involved becoming a public nuisance. There are plenty of other actresses who are unconventional for TV and the big screen.
All of the women on the list are generally attractive, I suppose. But that's not really what Teh Sexy means.
In many ways, we have no idea who Sarah Jessica Parker is, but we do know who Carrie Bradshaw is. And, according to the editors of Maxim, is it possible that it is not SJP, but Carrie Bradshaw that has been found wanting? Is it possible that Carrie bradshaw, and not SJP, has been deemed the least sexy woman alive?
Is it a schizm between what fans of the program feel is sexy and fun versus what frat boys who can't work up the courage to buy real porn find sexy? Does SJP not fit within the mold of the typical Maxim girl? (20, in her underwear, and apparently just come in from out of the rain?) No doubt that's part of the case.
To some extent, sure... the women on the list don't really meet the imaginary standards of the girls in Maxim. Young, somewhat coltish and seemingly available to the kind of guy who might pick up Maxim, anyway. And different kinds of guys like different kinds of girls. I don't think Tina Fey would show up for a Maxim photoshoot.
I have gone on record, stating that I understand that Nicole Kidman is supposed to be gorgeous, but I have yet to find a dude who considers her a Dame in the Media they Might Dig. I see the high cheek bones, the huge eyes, the perfect skin... but what is there to hang onto? Perhaps a different case from Sarah Jessica Parker, who is a bit less conventional, but it is an example of someone that the Entertainment Tonight's and TMZ's of the world would insist that we all must be ga-ga over. But are we? Who made that decision?
Is it a case of what I shall call "The Julia Roberts Effect"? Where the press insists that we all find someone fascinating and beautiful, when, really... meh. That might be what women relate to, or even aspire to, but...
But, mostly, I sort of think Sex in the City, despite the promise of the name of the show, was a major turn-off.
Not Teh Sexy?
Fans of Sex in the City love Carrie Bradshaw because she wears cute outfits that are not office appropriate. She gets in daffy, messy romantic entanglements with sensitive guys who want to work things out. When they don't work out, she learns a little life lesson and/ or is able to re-assert the fabulousness that the show promises regarding her lifestyle. She has a big apartment in Manhattan and great shoes and seems to afford the cost of it all by writing one column a week where she talks about the thing she knows and loves best: herself. She has friends who she doesn't work with who can always make it for lunch, and nobody minds that they all get wrapped up in each other's very personal business (nor do the boyfriends seem to mind that every intimate detail is openly discussed). She goes out every night of the week. Through countless sexual and romantic entanglements in the show's run, nobody was ever really hurt. Nobody ever seemed to actually react in the kind of crazy ways people do when real entanglements come to an end. And, anyone who has seen as few episodes as I've seen would still know that at the end of the day Mr. Big was there as the safety net, the safe guy who would always be there when our heroine got done sowing her oats and decided she wanted for someone else to pay for her expensive shoes.
And they call superhero comics an escapist, adolescent fantasy...
To the point, what is attractive to any guy about Carrie Bradshaw?
Do you find someone sexy who is going to describe your romantic entanglements in a weekly column? Or who has a back-up plan in a rich, good looking guy who rides around in limos?
I don't think this is a question of gender inequality in programming. Could a show with the same basic premise, starring four men, have made it on the air with a title called "Sex in the City"? And if it did, it certainly wouldn't be heralded as empowering and glimpse into the world of urban sophisticate. Quite the contrary, I'd guess.
What little online reaction I've read seems to be women surprised to hear that men do not love SJP/ Carrie Bradshaw the way her fans do. They've pointed to SJP's inner beauty, the fact that maybe she is pretty, but not so pretty that she clearly wouldn't hang out with you... But most of what they're praising is not actually Sarah Jessica Parker, it's Carrie Bradshaw, plus the costuming department for her show.
Returning to "The Julia Roberts Effect"... Maybe this is sort of the same thing as when guys are baffled that women might not find their action hero of choice, the one they'd like to be like, to be the perfect male specimen. For example, I do not think Jamie wants for me to be:
-Jet Li from "Fist of Legend"
-Ash from "Army of Darkness"
-Clint Eastwood from "The Outlaw Josey Wales"
-Kareem Abdul Jabbar
-George Reeves.
But I think she'd appreciate it if I were more like Harrison Ford circa 1980 or so.
For the record, I think SJP is reasonably attractive. And I certainly believe Teh Sexy doesn't come in a certain Maxim-approved package. I'm not sure if my DITMTLOD columns have always reflected that belief, but there you are.
No matter how much SJP's defenders may wish it to be true:
-shoes are almost never that exciting to guys
-it takes a sepcial kind of guy to want to have his physical and personal shortcomings detailed in a weekly column. One that his folks could read.
-Making a career out of whining about your seemingly endless string of failed personal relationships when you're pushing 40 is in no way cool.
-(In fact, a little self reflection that isn't taking place in a weekly column might be good)
-Guys do not care what designer you are wearing. Consider how many guys you've ever heard of who watch the Oscars "just to see the dresses"
-that tutu? Kind of stupid.
I am not sure this was helpful.
Discuss.
They've presented a list of the 5 Unsexiest Women Alive.
There are two gut reactions to this list:
1 - Oh, those poor women.
2 - HA ha ha ha ha ha. (pause) BWAH HA HA HA HA HA.
The League believes both reactions are appropriate. It can't be fun to be Sandra Oh and to wake up one morning to find out you've been deemed one of the 5 Unsexiest Women Alive. I would say she's never really tried for sexy, but I have cable, and I once stumbled across "Dancing at the Blue Iguana". And it was not the gritty slice of life picture it was trying to be. It was so dull, I made it only long enough to see Sandra Oh in it, say something negative about Arli$$, and move on.
What is interesting is that Sarah Jessica Parker tops the list. For many a year, fans of the show "Sex in the City" have insisted that SJP was everything that a sexy, independent, urban-chic woman should be.
Others on the list are a bit more obvious.
Coming in at #5 is trainwreck Britney Spears, the subject of last night's highly disturbing episode of South Park.
#4: Madonna. Who sort of quit being sexy right after "Express Yourself", just as she was gearing up to try to chastise America for not wanting to be sexy with her, leading to her eventual move to the UK, where she morphed into a Disney villain.
#3: Sandra Oh. Poor, sad, Sandra Oh. Who is just trying to be a working actress, for chrissake.
#2: Amy Winehouse. Because a crack-smoking 20-something burning away her talent with the crystal meth and deeply in need of an intervention in public is funny-sad, and in no way sexy.
So why does SJP hit #1? She's together. She's got a career that hasn't involved becoming a public nuisance. There are plenty of other actresses who are unconventional for TV and the big screen.
All of the women on the list are generally attractive, I suppose. But that's not really what Teh Sexy means.
In many ways, we have no idea who Sarah Jessica Parker is, but we do know who Carrie Bradshaw is. And, according to the editors of Maxim, is it possible that it is not SJP, but Carrie Bradshaw that has been found wanting? Is it possible that Carrie bradshaw, and not SJP, has been deemed the least sexy woman alive?
Is it a schizm between what fans of the program feel is sexy and fun versus what frat boys who can't work up the courage to buy real porn find sexy? Does SJP not fit within the mold of the typical Maxim girl? (20, in her underwear, and apparently just come in from out of the rain?) No doubt that's part of the case.
To some extent, sure... the women on the list don't really meet the imaginary standards of the girls in Maxim. Young, somewhat coltish and seemingly available to the kind of guy who might pick up Maxim, anyway. And different kinds of guys like different kinds of girls. I don't think Tina Fey would show up for a Maxim photoshoot.
I have gone on record, stating that I understand that Nicole Kidman is supposed to be gorgeous, but I have yet to find a dude who considers her a Dame in the Media they Might Dig. I see the high cheek bones, the huge eyes, the perfect skin... but what is there to hang onto? Perhaps a different case from Sarah Jessica Parker, who is a bit less conventional, but it is an example of someone that the Entertainment Tonight's and TMZ's of the world would insist that we all must be ga-ga over. But are we? Who made that decision?
Is it a case of what I shall call "The Julia Roberts Effect"? Where the press insists that we all find someone fascinating and beautiful, when, really... meh. That might be what women relate to, or even aspire to, but...
But, mostly, I sort of think Sex in the City, despite the promise of the name of the show, was a major turn-off.
Not Teh Sexy?
Fans of Sex in the City love Carrie Bradshaw because she wears cute outfits that are not office appropriate. She gets in daffy, messy romantic entanglements with sensitive guys who want to work things out. When they don't work out, she learns a little life lesson and/ or is able to re-assert the fabulousness that the show promises regarding her lifestyle. She has a big apartment in Manhattan and great shoes and seems to afford the cost of it all by writing one column a week where she talks about the thing she knows and loves best: herself. She has friends who she doesn't work with who can always make it for lunch, and nobody minds that they all get wrapped up in each other's very personal business (nor do the boyfriends seem to mind that every intimate detail is openly discussed). She goes out every night of the week. Through countless sexual and romantic entanglements in the show's run, nobody was ever really hurt. Nobody ever seemed to actually react in the kind of crazy ways people do when real entanglements come to an end. And, anyone who has seen as few episodes as I've seen would still know that at the end of the day Mr. Big was there as the safety net, the safe guy who would always be there when our heroine got done sowing her oats and decided she wanted for someone else to pay for her expensive shoes.
And they call superhero comics an escapist, adolescent fantasy...
To the point, what is attractive to any guy about Carrie Bradshaw?
Do you find someone sexy who is going to describe your romantic entanglements in a weekly column? Or who has a back-up plan in a rich, good looking guy who rides around in limos?
I don't think this is a question of gender inequality in programming. Could a show with the same basic premise, starring four men, have made it on the air with a title called "Sex in the City"? And if it did, it certainly wouldn't be heralded as empowering and glimpse into the world of urban sophisticate. Quite the contrary, I'd guess.
What little online reaction I've read seems to be women surprised to hear that men do not love SJP/ Carrie Bradshaw the way her fans do. They've pointed to SJP's inner beauty, the fact that maybe she is pretty, but not so pretty that she clearly wouldn't hang out with you... But most of what they're praising is not actually Sarah Jessica Parker, it's Carrie Bradshaw, plus the costuming department for her show.
Returning to "The Julia Roberts Effect"... Maybe this is sort of the same thing as when guys are baffled that women might not find their action hero of choice, the one they'd like to be like, to be the perfect male specimen. For example, I do not think Jamie wants for me to be:
-Jet Li from "Fist of Legend"
-Ash from "Army of Darkness"
-Clint Eastwood from "The Outlaw Josey Wales"
-Kareem Abdul Jabbar
-George Reeves.
But I think she'd appreciate it if I were more like Harrison Ford circa 1980 or so.
For the record, I think SJP is reasonably attractive. And I certainly believe Teh Sexy doesn't come in a certain Maxim-approved package. I'm not sure if my DITMTLOD columns have always reflected that belief, but there you are.
No matter how much SJP's defenders may wish it to be true:
-shoes are almost never that exciting to guys
-it takes a sepcial kind of guy to want to have his physical and personal shortcomings detailed in a weekly column. One that his folks could read.
-Making a career out of whining about your seemingly endless string of failed personal relationships when you're pushing 40 is in no way cool.
-(In fact, a little self reflection that isn't taking place in a weekly column might be good)
-Guys do not care what designer you are wearing. Consider how many guys you've ever heard of who watch the Oscars "just to see the dresses"
-that tutu? Kind of stupid.
I am not sure this was helpful.
Discuss.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
101 Disappointments
As you may know, Disney has a policy to release its favorite movies every 8 years or so in order to give every generation of kids a chance to enjoy their movies/ get indoctrinated into Disney entertainment and therefore become lifelong customers.
This used to mean theatrical releases, but these days it means release to DVD (and then the cynically produced straight-to-DVD sequels. Disney does not DO theatrical sequels. Or they didn't until Jungle Book II.)
One of my childhood favorites is being released again to DVD. And in order to market the movie, they're running a TV commercial, which is not a surprise.
What is a surprise is that Disney has chosen to put out a commercial where they've added a joke to the movie which doesn't actually occur in the movie. For some reason, they've added a fart.
Today's kids would be shocked to learn that in 1961, farts were not usually the central focus of childrens' entertainment. In fact, farts just really didn't find their way into movies until the notorious Bean Eating Incident of Blazing Saddles (1974). But I think it sort of speaks volumes that Disney felt that their classic, which has survived generation after generation over almost 50 years as a beloved classic, and which runs about 80 minutes, needs to now add a scene where a horse breaks wind in order to appeal to today's kids.
Not to mention... I think, but I am not sure, that they've added a bit of a digital visual trick to briefly expand the horse's hind quarters during said fart.
Look, I'm one for lowbrow humor as much as the next guy, but... does Disney really need to add farts, which won't occur in the movie, to their movies in order to move DVD's? Is the audience really that in demand of yet another animal breaking wind?
I mean, I know the answer is "yes". That was a rhetorical question.
But you'd kind of like to think that Disney's ability to amuse and delight people for generations was due to their ability to put together some quality entertainment, and not, you know, because they went for the gimme of a horse fart to get a laugh.
Moreover, I'd like to hope that the audience is kinda pre-sold on 101 Dalmatians, even without the promise of a good bit of gas. But, hey, I don't work in marketing.
This used to mean theatrical releases, but these days it means release to DVD (and then the cynically produced straight-to-DVD sequels. Disney does not DO theatrical sequels. Or they didn't until Jungle Book II.)
One of my childhood favorites is being released again to DVD. And in order to market the movie, they're running a TV commercial, which is not a surprise.
What is a surprise is that Disney has chosen to put out a commercial where they've added a joke to the movie which doesn't actually occur in the movie. For some reason, they've added a fart.
Today's kids would be shocked to learn that in 1961, farts were not usually the central focus of childrens' entertainment. In fact, farts just really didn't find their way into movies until the notorious Bean Eating Incident of Blazing Saddles (1974). But I think it sort of speaks volumes that Disney felt that their classic, which has survived generation after generation over almost 50 years as a beloved classic, and which runs about 80 minutes, needs to now add a scene where a horse breaks wind in order to appeal to today's kids.
Not to mention... I think, but I am not sure, that they've added a bit of a digital visual trick to briefly expand the horse's hind quarters during said fart.
Look, I'm one for lowbrow humor as much as the next guy, but... does Disney really need to add farts, which won't occur in the movie, to their movies in order to move DVD's? Is the audience really that in demand of yet another animal breaking wind?
I mean, I know the answer is "yes". That was a rhetorical question.
But you'd kind of like to think that Disney's ability to amuse and delight people for generations was due to their ability to put together some quality entertainment, and not, you know, because they went for the gimme of a horse fart to get a laugh.
Moreover, I'd like to hope that the audience is kinda pre-sold on 101 Dalmatians, even without the promise of a good bit of gas. But, hey, I don't work in marketing.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Clinton/ Obama debate
I watched my first debate of the political season this year, tuning in to the Clinton/ Obama debate.
The debate was in Austin, about a mile from my office, and Jason and Jamie made me watch it instead of watching basketball or something involving Superman.
I haven't read any post-game analysis yet, but a few things are pretty obvious to me. Both front-runners for the Democrats hold very similar viewpoints, and its going to come down to how you think they should go about approaching their goals rather than what goals they're considering in order to make a selection. This means that you're talking a few degrees of separation in policy the two are advocating. Which means a lot is going to come down to a gut or emotional reaction to the two.
Congrats to both candidates for, at no time, attempting an awkward "howdy, ya'll!"
Both agreed on the basics of getting the uninsured insured, border fences (and I wasn't particularly blown away by either candidates' approach on that one), major points on Iraq and that George Bush has dug a hole they believe they're going to have to climb out of.
So, once again, you're left with a gut reaction. While Obama lacks national-stage political experience, its tough to point to Clinton's national-stage political experience without noting on whose coattails she rode to get there. Both have worked on legislation which is appealing to a lefty like myself. Both have voted for some things that leave me unimpressed.
Them's the brakes.
So left to gut feelings about twenty years of Bush/ Clinton rule of the White House, its appealing to want to go to the unknown factor. But I'm not sure Obama has the political experience or clout to move things through, just as I'm not sure that a Clinton in the White House wouldn't re-mobilize the GOP and make sure Clinton was unable to pass a single initiative in four years. No one is sure what would happen with Obama in the White House. He could start dressing as a crazed Admiral and firing cannons from the roof of the White House for all I know.
I'll tell you one thing that drives me berserk about Clinton: The smirk
I'm not sure why nobody has not spoken to Clinton about this, but sitting next to your opponent and smirking while he answers is really... unbecoming. It's kind of like the "heh, heh, heh!" that Bush has become famous for. Or Gore's wandering around the stage during the debates.
Anyhow, I can't tell if she's thinking "I've got this sucker on the ropes", if that's some nervous tick, or if she's remembering last night's episode of Venture Bros. But, seriously... Senator Clinton. I implore you. Stop it.
Now, while waiting for Clinton to finish her thoughts, Obama does this weird "I'm a Vulcan" bit, where he presses his fingers together and tries to look serene. Not annoying, but... I guess it's inappropriate to be texting friends or playing with the cover-flow feature on your iPod when your opponent is speaking. I'm fairly ADD, so I know in either of their places, I'd be making faces or, when the moderator wanted me to respond, I'd say "Wha-...? Can you repeat that whole last thing you just said?" and then go off on a tangent about a jet-pack in every household.
Otherwise, I thought both did a great job, even when I didn't necessarily agree with them.
I didn't hear much on education aside from some perfunctory opening statements.
I guess I'd now be willing to watch McCain and Huckabee debate, but I'm not sure there's a point until McCain is up against his Democratic opponent later this year.
I'd also like to salute them for their basic collegiality. There weren't any low-blows. The one moment where Hilary took a dig at Obama, I sort of felt fell back into karmic balance when she alluded to Bill's indiscretions. I grew to really, really dislike the political process during the past few years, and last night's debate made me feel a wee bit better about the whole thing.
We'll see what happens when it gets down to the GOP/ Dem debates, but I believe McCain is basically sane and decent, even when I disagree with the guy. So I'm not foreseeing anything too ugly. And, hey... I could be convinced. Let's see what McCain's got.
The debate was in Austin, about a mile from my office, and Jason and Jamie made me watch it instead of watching basketball or something involving Superman.
I haven't read any post-game analysis yet, but a few things are pretty obvious to me. Both front-runners for the Democrats hold very similar viewpoints, and its going to come down to how you think they should go about approaching their goals rather than what goals they're considering in order to make a selection. This means that you're talking a few degrees of separation in policy the two are advocating. Which means a lot is going to come down to a gut or emotional reaction to the two.
Congrats to both candidates for, at no time, attempting an awkward "howdy, ya'll!"
Both agreed on the basics of getting the uninsured insured, border fences (and I wasn't particularly blown away by either candidates' approach on that one), major points on Iraq and that George Bush has dug a hole they believe they're going to have to climb out of.
So, once again, you're left with a gut reaction. While Obama lacks national-stage political experience, its tough to point to Clinton's national-stage political experience without noting on whose coattails she rode to get there. Both have worked on legislation which is appealing to a lefty like myself. Both have voted for some things that leave me unimpressed.
Them's the brakes.
So left to gut feelings about twenty years of Bush/ Clinton rule of the White House, its appealing to want to go to the unknown factor. But I'm not sure Obama has the political experience or clout to move things through, just as I'm not sure that a Clinton in the White House wouldn't re-mobilize the GOP and make sure Clinton was unable to pass a single initiative in four years. No one is sure what would happen with Obama in the White House. He could start dressing as a crazed Admiral and firing cannons from the roof of the White House for all I know.
I'll tell you one thing that drives me berserk about Clinton: The smirk
I'm not sure why nobody has not spoken to Clinton about this, but sitting next to your opponent and smirking while he answers is really... unbecoming. It's kind of like the "heh, heh, heh!" that Bush has become famous for. Or Gore's wandering around the stage during the debates.
Anyhow, I can't tell if she's thinking "I've got this sucker on the ropes", if that's some nervous tick, or if she's remembering last night's episode of Venture Bros. But, seriously... Senator Clinton. I implore you. Stop it.
Now, while waiting for Clinton to finish her thoughts, Obama does this weird "I'm a Vulcan" bit, where he presses his fingers together and tries to look serene. Not annoying, but... I guess it's inappropriate to be texting friends or playing with the cover-flow feature on your iPod when your opponent is speaking. I'm fairly ADD, so I know in either of their places, I'd be making faces or, when the moderator wanted me to respond, I'd say "Wha-...? Can you repeat that whole last thing you just said?" and then go off on a tangent about a jet-pack in every household.
Otherwise, I thought both did a great job, even when I didn't necessarily agree with them.
I didn't hear much on education aside from some perfunctory opening statements.
I guess I'd now be willing to watch McCain and Huckabee debate, but I'm not sure there's a point until McCain is up against his Democratic opponent later this year.
I'd also like to salute them for their basic collegiality. There weren't any low-blows. The one moment where Hilary took a dig at Obama, I sort of felt fell back into karmic balance when she alluded to Bill's indiscretions. I grew to really, really dislike the political process during the past few years, and last night's debate made me feel a wee bit better about the whole thing.
We'll see what happens when it gets down to the GOP/ Dem debates, but I believe McCain is basically sane and decent, even when I disagree with the guy. So I'm not foreseeing anything too ugly. And, hey... I could be convinced. Let's see what McCain's got.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Awesome ending to a Superbowl
Well, we hadn't really planned to watch, but changed our minds this morning and went out and got some food.
The last quarter of the game was not the best quarter of football I've ever seen, but it was the best ending to a Superbowl I can recall. The seemingly unstoppable Patriots went down, the Giants' Eli Manning was the second Manning in two years to win a Superbowl, and the final drive by the Giants was amazing.
The first three quarters were deadly dull as the two grat defenses wailed on each team's offense, but... heck.. the Giants' season couldn't have been better if it had been written by a Hollywood scripter.
I will now quit saying "Eli's really good, but it's got to be tough having Peyton Manning for a brother."
I do want to call BS on the poll for MVP for Animal Planet's Puppybowl IV. The Golden got too little screen time, and where are the labs?
The last quarter of the game was not the best quarter of football I've ever seen, but it was the best ending to a Superbowl I can recall. The seemingly unstoppable Patriots went down, the Giants' Eli Manning was the second Manning in two years to win a Superbowl, and the final drive by the Giants was amazing.
The first three quarters were deadly dull as the two grat defenses wailed on each team's offense, but... heck.. the Giants' season couldn't have been better if it had been written by a Hollywood scripter.
I will now quit saying "Eli's really good, but it's got to be tough having Peyton Manning for a brother."
I do want to call BS on the poll for MVP for Animal Planet's Puppybowl IV. The Golden got too little screen time, and where are the labs?
Oh no
The least fortunate part of politicking has now arrived in Texas.
I just saw my first televised campaign ad of the 2008 presidential race. God bless each and every one of you living in states where you've already slogged through a primary.
The ad was a fairly simple ad for Mike Huckabee (I'm going to nail the "out of business" sign on the IRS. Perhaps you've seen it?)
It was on during the first bit of pre-Superbowl broadcast I flipped to this morning, and I am wondering if the campaigns can actually afford Superbowl time. After all, the campigns aren't selling cheap, watery beer or powerful trucks. How much advertising can they afford?
Anyhooo.... so it begins. And will end in November, I suppose.
Hooray for my DVR and my ability to FFWD thru the commercials.
I just saw my first televised campaign ad of the 2008 presidential race. God bless each and every one of you living in states where you've already slogged through a primary.
The ad was a fairly simple ad for Mike Huckabee (I'm going to nail the "out of business" sign on the IRS. Perhaps you've seen it?)
It was on during the first bit of pre-Superbowl broadcast I flipped to this morning, and I am wondering if the campaigns can actually afford Superbowl time. After all, the campigns aren't selling cheap, watery beer or powerful trucks. How much advertising can they afford?
Anyhooo.... so it begins. And will end in November, I suppose.
Hooray for my DVR and my ability to FFWD thru the commercials.
Friday, February 01, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
The League ain't afraid of no ghost
You know which show I can't quit watching, but which is some oddly irresponsible television? A&E's new program Paranormal State features a team of college undergraduates who are true believers in the paranormal. Not UFO's, mind you, but they fancy themselves to be ghost hunters, but without any pesky skepticism.
Their goal is, ostensibly, "investigations" into the paranormal, but that's not really what seems to happen. Somehow the show has teamed up the undergrads with several other charlatans of the supernatural, and these folks are brought in to (a) assist in the investigations and (b) enjoy something of the limelight which they seem to be seeking.
The "director" of the Penn State Paranormal club is probably just a shade or two away from the sort of conviction in utter nonsense you really only find in con-men and people building compounds who don't let their flock speak to their families any more (for their own good). He leads the team with the charmless charisma that will one day make for low-level cult leader status as he rambles on about the presence of ghosts and demonic spirits, and plays the expert in mystical matters to not just his band of followers, but the people whose houses he invariably exorcises by the end of each episode. As an undergrad, I'm not sure exactly what his credentials are supposed to be (I've ruled out critical thinking as one of his strong suits), but his followers seem oddly devoted and willing to defer to him in all of the decisions for the group. No doubt, this guy is going to be asking them to sign over their worldly possessions in five years and buy matching purple jumpsuits.
What's really sort of out of whack is that the folks who the group comes to "help", are in fact, in need of real help. Generally these folks seem distraught by whatever it is they believe is living with them in their house. I admit that, in some twisted way, this means that the group of undergrads is helping the people in question. I just am not sure a seance and having some 20-year old kid semi-politely asking the "spirit" to leave is what these folks actually need. But, according to the show, whatever magic they work gets rid of what's ailing the subjects of each episode. Or, you know, the people just really don't want the nerds coming back.
Now, let me qualify this somewhat: I watch Ghost Hunters on Sci-Fi all the time. It's the only one of the basic-cable paranormal shows that I think applies basic logic to... uh... ghosts. At least there's some half-assed investigation put into it and not just "psychics" wandering about sensing angry feelings. And I give the show kudos for trying first and foremost to try to explain away the bumps and creaks in the night, and for understanding that sometimes people leap to bizarre conclusions. And sometimes people have really bad pipes and wiring in their homes.
In short, unlike most of these shows, I don't think Jay and Grant, of Ghost Hunters are crazy. Well, I do think spending your evenings running around some stranger's house with a video camera is a bit... odd. But their first inclination is not to believe every hiss in a tape is an attempt by the dead to communicate. But I also don't think they're outright fibbing in order to get exposure and money.
Sadly, I don't really believe in ghosts. But, I would like to make a buck off of other people's paranoid fears. Jason and I have often spoken of what we might charge for capturing and containing one of the departed in true Ghostbusters fashion.
"We're ready to believe you!"
Their goal is, ostensibly, "investigations" into the paranormal, but that's not really what seems to happen. Somehow the show has teamed up the undergrads with several other charlatans of the supernatural, and these folks are brought in to (a) assist in the investigations and (b) enjoy something of the limelight which they seem to be seeking.
The "director" of the Penn State Paranormal club is probably just a shade or two away from the sort of conviction in utter nonsense you really only find in con-men and people building compounds who don't let their flock speak to their families any more (for their own good). He leads the team with the charmless charisma that will one day make for low-level cult leader status as he rambles on about the presence of ghosts and demonic spirits, and plays the expert in mystical matters to not just his band of followers, but the people whose houses he invariably exorcises by the end of each episode. As an undergrad, I'm not sure exactly what his credentials are supposed to be (I've ruled out critical thinking as one of his strong suits), but his followers seem oddly devoted and willing to defer to him in all of the decisions for the group. No doubt, this guy is going to be asking them to sign over their worldly possessions in five years and buy matching purple jumpsuits.
What's really sort of out of whack is that the folks who the group comes to "help", are in fact, in need of real help. Generally these folks seem distraught by whatever it is they believe is living with them in their house. I admit that, in some twisted way, this means that the group of undergrads is helping the people in question. I just am not sure a seance and having some 20-year old kid semi-politely asking the "spirit" to leave is what these folks actually need. But, according to the show, whatever magic they work gets rid of what's ailing the subjects of each episode. Or, you know, the people just really don't want the nerds coming back.
Now, let me qualify this somewhat: I watch Ghost Hunters on Sci-Fi all the time. It's the only one of the basic-cable paranormal shows that I think applies basic logic to... uh... ghosts. At least there's some half-assed investigation put into it and not just "psychics" wandering about sensing angry feelings. And I give the show kudos for trying first and foremost to try to explain away the bumps and creaks in the night, and for understanding that sometimes people leap to bizarre conclusions. And sometimes people have really bad pipes and wiring in their homes.
In short, unlike most of these shows, I don't think Jay and Grant, of Ghost Hunters are crazy. Well, I do think spending your evenings running around some stranger's house with a video camera is a bit... odd. But their first inclination is not to believe every hiss in a tape is an attempt by the dead to communicate. But I also don't think they're outright fibbing in order to get exposure and money.
Sadly, I don't really believe in ghosts. But, I would like to make a buck off of other people's paranoid fears. Jason and I have often spoken of what we might charge for capturing and containing one of the departed in true Ghostbusters fashion.
"We're ready to believe you!"
Ryan Goes America
For reasons I cannot explain and upon which I do not wish to elaborate, I can empathize with Charlie in this clip.
Really, Jason and Jamie are, at all times, about ten seconds from hearing me burst out into similar song.
Really, Jason and Jamie are, at all times, about ten seconds from hearing me burst out into similar song.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
