Today's Moment of Hilarious Racism
- Unnamed individual: "I hated Blood Diamond because it was a fake social issues movie. Everybody knows that diamonds come from Jews."
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Dietary Changes
So I decided to eat less, eat less fat, and eat more fiber for no particular reason. A few strange things happen besides the obvious (namely always being hungrier).
1) Taking a dump is a lot more of a workout. Before all that junk would race right through me. Now it feels like I'm voiding a boa constrictor.
2) I'm less excited to eat. I think this is the key to 'healthy' foods leading to weight loss. When you think about eating, you think, "well, I'm not missing much anyways.'
3) Good food starts tasting bad. I put some sprite in my mouth, it tasted nasty. What gives? Is there no going back to the days of yore when food tasted good?
4) All that stuff about more energy, feeling lighter, etc. Especially when I'm done taking a dump.
So I decided to eat less, eat less fat, and eat more fiber for no particular reason. A few strange things happen besides the obvious (namely always being hungrier).
1) Taking a dump is a lot more of a workout. Before all that junk would race right through me. Now it feels like I'm voiding a boa constrictor.
2) I'm less excited to eat. I think this is the key to 'healthy' foods leading to weight loss. When you think about eating, you think, "well, I'm not missing much anyways.'
3) Good food starts tasting bad. I put some sprite in my mouth, it tasted nasty. What gives? Is there no going back to the days of yore when food tasted good?
4) All that stuff about more energy, feeling lighter, etc. Especially when I'm done taking a dump.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Travesty: The Wasted Career of Alicia Keyes
It is said that the Strativarius violin is an irreplicable instrument. It isn't the craftsmanship that makes it superior, it is the nature of the wood from that era. A unique combination of the age of the trees and the nature of the climate produced a particular sound well suited to the violin that is unlikely to be replicated.
Something similar took place in music in the first half and a little beyond of this century with black women's voices. The lack of video and the invention of the phonograph allowed the voice to take center-stage. The music was jazz and blues, and the combination of new black ambition and mobility combined with the ache of the Depression-era, war-era, and segregation-era childhood stilled weighed heavy in the voices of the greats, Nina Simone, Billie Holliday, Ella Fitzgerald, Odetta. It is a timber of true suffering perfectly matched to the music of the age from a larger framed female that created a musical style that today's singers cannot match.
Certainly Aretha Franklin, and later Whitney Houston have beautiful voices and not without sorrow. But it is not the same sorrow as that of the women above. It is a domesticized sorrow, tamed, and far more so in Whitney, commercialized. The same holds true today for Beonce and any number of talented singers. Lauryn Hill best epitomized what has become of black women and their suffering - it is a spiritual sorrow, not a material one. It is about religion in a secular age, about the loss of that true suffering, the hollowness of comfort. And it's also about a bit on anachronistic racism that doesn't speak to this generation. And hence, she's disappeared, to trying to be real to be commercialized, a deliberate anachronism to an audience quick to move to the next thing.
And then there's Alicia Keyes. Alicia Keyes is not a Strativarius. Alicia Keyes is a new instrument. That's how talented she is. Nobody knows how to play it, let alone include it into the music being put out. When you see her live, say on a music Awards show, you let her do her own thing w/ the other stars and everyone's mouth drops as soon as she opens hers. She puts everyone else to shame. She hits Mariah's notes with ease and flourish.
And yet her albums are fairly lame. She has a few great songs that she wrote for herself, but they are generally very simple melody-wise. Her production values, backbeats, everything is off. Does she get stuck w/ lousy producers because she's so good herself? Everything she does is better in its live version. That is generally pretty telling that the pros aren't doing their jobs.
Can we please fix this? You never know when a person's voice will change, when celebrity or alcohol or health will give way and snatch that talent away.
Can we please stop wasting this woman's career? Is she doing it to herself?
It is said that the Strativarius violin is an irreplicable instrument. It isn't the craftsmanship that makes it superior, it is the nature of the wood from that era. A unique combination of the age of the trees and the nature of the climate produced a particular sound well suited to the violin that is unlikely to be replicated.
Something similar took place in music in the first half and a little beyond of this century with black women's voices. The lack of video and the invention of the phonograph allowed the voice to take center-stage. The music was jazz and blues, and the combination of new black ambition and mobility combined with the ache of the Depression-era, war-era, and segregation-era childhood stilled weighed heavy in the voices of the greats, Nina Simone, Billie Holliday, Ella Fitzgerald, Odetta. It is a timber of true suffering perfectly matched to the music of the age from a larger framed female that created a musical style that today's singers cannot match.
Certainly Aretha Franklin, and later Whitney Houston have beautiful voices and not without sorrow. But it is not the same sorrow as that of the women above. It is a domesticized sorrow, tamed, and far more so in Whitney, commercialized. The same holds true today for Beonce and any number of talented singers. Lauryn Hill best epitomized what has become of black women and their suffering - it is a spiritual sorrow, not a material one. It is about religion in a secular age, about the loss of that true suffering, the hollowness of comfort. And it's also about a bit on anachronistic racism that doesn't speak to this generation. And hence, she's disappeared, to trying to be real to be commercialized, a deliberate anachronism to an audience quick to move to the next thing.
And then there's Alicia Keyes. Alicia Keyes is not a Strativarius. Alicia Keyes is a new instrument. That's how talented she is. Nobody knows how to play it, let alone include it into the music being put out. When you see her live, say on a music Awards show, you let her do her own thing w/ the other stars and everyone's mouth drops as soon as she opens hers. She puts everyone else to shame. She hits Mariah's notes with ease and flourish.
And yet her albums are fairly lame. She has a few great songs that she wrote for herself, but they are generally very simple melody-wise. Her production values, backbeats, everything is off. Does she get stuck w/ lousy producers because she's so good herself? Everything she does is better in its live version. That is generally pretty telling that the pros aren't doing their jobs.
Can we please fix this? You never know when a person's voice will change, when celebrity or alcohol or health will give way and snatch that talent away.
Can we please stop wasting this woman's career? Is she doing it to herself?
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Flags of Our Fathers: A Cinematic Hate Crime
This film made me want to urinate on Steven Spielberg.
Disclaimer: I'm not referring to the book. Indeed, the trials and travails of those who went on the War Bond tour may have been just as depicted in the film, but I doubt it. No one has such poor taste, and time, as to carve a desert in the form of six soldiers putting up a flag, and then pouring strawberry sauce on it. It is the most blunt, despicable sort of symbolism imaginable, which leads us to:
THE 5 CARDINAL SINS OF PRETENSION
1) Preachy. Oh my. I guess Spielberg had already covered this ground in 2-3 movies, the ground that no one fights for an idea, that no fights are noble, that all soldiers are noble just for being there but they are only in it for each other. And there are no heroes. So he handed this one to Eastwood. And instead of telling a story about soldiers fighting a great battle, we have a seemingly interminable lecture on the marketing of the war. The movie begins with a lecture, almost every line is a lecture, every moment is a lecture, with every ludicrous twist of fate to match a lecture line, the movie moves from pedantry to pedantry with almost no humor, no character development, heck, it takes a good 2 hours just to get a handle on whose name is whose because the movie does such a bad job of getting you to know the characters before killing them off or having them do important plot points for reasons that aren't truly discernible. Oh, and just to fill the cup of pedantry to overflowing, they poured in almost endless racism against Native Americans, besmirched the memory of President Truman, reduced the Japanese to comically faceless villains, and added some good old-fashioned ugly American tourism, just to make sure it was clear that everything is wrong w/ American life. Simply put, the preachiest movie I've ever seen. I hated being a Californian and seeing all of this hatred spewed into film, especially a film that, for about 1/4, has at least the hints of a good film about the Marine Corps and its most treasured battle.
2) Political. I know it's tough to separate out the two. So just to make sure, the film begins and ends w/ ludicrous Olympics-Lifetime background story lighting and makes sure you get the point, especially in the opening lecture, that it's important that a blanket statement about a current war be made in a movie about Iwo Jima.
3) Psychosexual. Luckily we weren't forced to suffer the sex is art phenomenon. Apparently there weren't a lot of babes on Iwo Jima. In fact, the brief character building scene (that's right, there's only one for all the faceless heroes the movie supposedly honors) has a cute sex joke that seems completely out of place in an otherwise wooden film.
4) Too Long. Nellly WAYYYYY TOOO LOOONNNGGGGG. We endure repeated repetitive emphasis of pedantic points repeatedly repeated through tedious way too long sections on the war bond campaign. Did I mention the repetition? Good. Because the whole time you're just sitting there thinking "COULD I WATCH THE F-ING BATTLE!!!???" You know, like the part where they won the freaking thing? The part where the other guys stopped shooting and the beachhead was secured? That part didn't warrant...6 seconds? Ryan Phillipe got at least an hour of standing awkwardly still while words came out of his mouth in mostly literate format. The winning the battle part isn't worth 1/100th of Ryan Phillipe? Or a little more testimony to Japanese courage? That wasn't worth Phillipe reiterating his concerns for the 5th time? Honestly, Ryan Freaking Phillipe??? Why not just suit up Laura Flyn Boyle and Elijah Wood and see how they look as Marines and Navy Corpsmen.
5) Whiny Hero. I guess to make up for the lack of psychosexual nonsense they went so overboard with the whining that Fran Drescher would blush. Every single character in the movie, supposedly stoic soldiers who refused to talk about their experiences, spends much of the film crying and blubbering and voicing their self-doubt to any who will listen. Do people in Hollywood ever think anything they don't say? Are they so surprised by the existence of real emotions that they have to talk about them? Or are they so unaccustomed to the phenomenon, and incapable of, you know, pretending, that they just blurt them out instead? The answer? Ryan Phillipe. I swear, at least 3 times in the movie he smirked to himself like, "What the hell am I doing pretending to be a Marine for Clint Eastwood? It's just preposterous!" Why even have a casting department?
As if that weren't enough, they put the book/script author in the movie!!!! This has to be Cardinal Sin #6 (Cardinal Sin 5.5 being the use of an Arab choral voice and violin to convey exoticism and gravitas). Do not put yourself in the movie. We'll call this the Tarantino Rule. I don't care about your freaking catharsis and your relationship with your father. I don't want to be reminded that you decided to turn that catharsis into cash in book format. I don't want to see you or know you. I came for a movie about Iwo Jima, not you. Your life is not interesting. You are a writer and a chump. Go away.
Just a note - yes, dipstick, there are real heroes. They win Medals of Honor. Audie Murphy and Alvin York were not made up for our sake. They rocked on the battlefield. I'm sorry that you don't want to distinguish between great soldiers, good soldiers and not-so-good soldiers. Yes everyone who didn't run away gets credit. But, dude, the guy everyone says was the best marine of the bunch gets no airtime until they're like, "Oh yeah, that dude rocked. Let's show him getting killed."
You want to make a good movie about Iwo Jima. MAKE IT ABOUT IWO JIMA!!!! How hard is that? Don't make it about Iraq, or about commercialism, or about your emotional catharsis about not knowing your father, or about all your petty Hollywood self-absorption. Make it about the freaking battle idiot. That whole, "Oh, and about the flag, funny story..." is the kicker to the soldier's story of the battle. It's not the story. The movie never felt like it was about the 40's, that it had people from the 40's in it. It looked like a bunch of Gen-Y punks feeling decidedly awkward trying to pretend to be the dudes on Iwo Jima. It felt like they took some extra footage from Jarhead and put it in this movie. Apparently hardly anyone looks like a soldier in Hollywood.
This was as dumb as making a movie about Alexander the Great that focuses on the fact that he, like a lot of Greek dudes at the time, was bi. Not the whole, conquer the world, strangely whiny, but immensely talented, wreckless ambition thing. No, it was the sex life that was important. Nobody would be dumb enough to do that, right?
Thanks to this repeated catastrophic stupidity, as it consistently leaches money from solid film ideas, let's just sum up the advise to avoid the cardinal sins of stupidity: 1) tell the story as it happened, not as it applies to your petty current events agenda. 2) Don't put yourself in the movie. don't put writers in the movie. 3) Don't use blunt symbolism to pretend you're an artist. 4) FREAKING A, FIRST RULE OF FILM SCHOOL: SHOW ME DON'T TELL ME.
I swear Spielberg, quite dodging me. I will pee on you the next time I see you.
This film made me want to urinate on Steven Spielberg.
Disclaimer: I'm not referring to the book. Indeed, the trials and travails of those who went on the War Bond tour may have been just as depicted in the film, but I doubt it. No one has such poor taste, and time, as to carve a desert in the form of six soldiers putting up a flag, and then pouring strawberry sauce on it. It is the most blunt, despicable sort of symbolism imaginable, which leads us to:
THE 5 CARDINAL SINS OF PRETENSION
1) Preachy. Oh my. I guess Spielberg had already covered this ground in 2-3 movies, the ground that no one fights for an idea, that no fights are noble, that all soldiers are noble just for being there but they are only in it for each other. And there are no heroes. So he handed this one to Eastwood. And instead of telling a story about soldiers fighting a great battle, we have a seemingly interminable lecture on the marketing of the war. The movie begins with a lecture, almost every line is a lecture, every moment is a lecture, with every ludicrous twist of fate to match a lecture line, the movie moves from pedantry to pedantry with almost no humor, no character development, heck, it takes a good 2 hours just to get a handle on whose name is whose because the movie does such a bad job of getting you to know the characters before killing them off or having them do important plot points for reasons that aren't truly discernible. Oh, and just to fill the cup of pedantry to overflowing, they poured in almost endless racism against Native Americans, besmirched the memory of President Truman, reduced the Japanese to comically faceless villains, and added some good old-fashioned ugly American tourism, just to make sure it was clear that everything is wrong w/ American life. Simply put, the preachiest movie I've ever seen. I hated being a Californian and seeing all of this hatred spewed into film, especially a film that, for about 1/4, has at least the hints of a good film about the Marine Corps and its most treasured battle.
2) Political. I know it's tough to separate out the two. So just to make sure, the film begins and ends w/ ludicrous Olympics-Lifetime background story lighting and makes sure you get the point, especially in the opening lecture, that it's important that a blanket statement about a current war be made in a movie about Iwo Jima.
3) Psychosexual. Luckily we weren't forced to suffer the sex is art phenomenon. Apparently there weren't a lot of babes on Iwo Jima. In fact, the brief character building scene (that's right, there's only one for all the faceless heroes the movie supposedly honors) has a cute sex joke that seems completely out of place in an otherwise wooden film.
4) Too Long. Nellly WAYYYYY TOOO LOOONNNGGGGG. We endure repeated repetitive emphasis of pedantic points repeatedly repeated through tedious way too long sections on the war bond campaign. Did I mention the repetition? Good. Because the whole time you're just sitting there thinking "COULD I WATCH THE F-ING BATTLE!!!???" You know, like the part where they won the freaking thing? The part where the other guys stopped shooting and the beachhead was secured? That part didn't warrant...6 seconds? Ryan Phillipe got at least an hour of standing awkwardly still while words came out of his mouth in mostly literate format. The winning the battle part isn't worth 1/100th of Ryan Phillipe? Or a little more testimony to Japanese courage? That wasn't worth Phillipe reiterating his concerns for the 5th time? Honestly, Ryan Freaking Phillipe??? Why not just suit up Laura Flyn Boyle and Elijah Wood and see how they look as Marines and Navy Corpsmen.
5) Whiny Hero. I guess to make up for the lack of psychosexual nonsense they went so overboard with the whining that Fran Drescher would blush. Every single character in the movie, supposedly stoic soldiers who refused to talk about their experiences, spends much of the film crying and blubbering and voicing their self-doubt to any who will listen. Do people in Hollywood ever think anything they don't say? Are they so surprised by the existence of real emotions that they have to talk about them? Or are they so unaccustomed to the phenomenon, and incapable of, you know, pretending, that they just blurt them out instead? The answer? Ryan Phillipe. I swear, at least 3 times in the movie he smirked to himself like, "What the hell am I doing pretending to be a Marine for Clint Eastwood? It's just preposterous!" Why even have a casting department?
As if that weren't enough, they put the book/script author in the movie!!!! This has to be Cardinal Sin #6 (Cardinal Sin 5.5 being the use of an Arab choral voice and violin to convey exoticism and gravitas). Do not put yourself in the movie. We'll call this the Tarantino Rule. I don't care about your freaking catharsis and your relationship with your father. I don't want to be reminded that you decided to turn that catharsis into cash in book format. I don't want to see you or know you. I came for a movie about Iwo Jima, not you. Your life is not interesting. You are a writer and a chump. Go away.
Just a note - yes, dipstick, there are real heroes. They win Medals of Honor. Audie Murphy and Alvin York were not made up for our sake. They rocked on the battlefield. I'm sorry that you don't want to distinguish between great soldiers, good soldiers and not-so-good soldiers. Yes everyone who didn't run away gets credit. But, dude, the guy everyone says was the best marine of the bunch gets no airtime until they're like, "Oh yeah, that dude rocked. Let's show him getting killed."
You want to make a good movie about Iwo Jima. MAKE IT ABOUT IWO JIMA!!!! How hard is that? Don't make it about Iraq, or about commercialism, or about your emotional catharsis about not knowing your father, or about all your petty Hollywood self-absorption. Make it about the freaking battle idiot. That whole, "Oh, and about the flag, funny story..." is the kicker to the soldier's story of the battle. It's not the story. The movie never felt like it was about the 40's, that it had people from the 40's in it. It looked like a bunch of Gen-Y punks feeling decidedly awkward trying to pretend to be the dudes on Iwo Jima. It felt like they took some extra footage from Jarhead and put it in this movie. Apparently hardly anyone looks like a soldier in Hollywood.
This was as dumb as making a movie about Alexander the Great that focuses on the fact that he, like a lot of Greek dudes at the time, was bi. Not the whole, conquer the world, strangely whiny, but immensely talented, wreckless ambition thing. No, it was the sex life that was important. Nobody would be dumb enough to do that, right?
Thanks to this repeated catastrophic stupidity, as it consistently leaches money from solid film ideas, let's just sum up the advise to avoid the cardinal sins of stupidity: 1) tell the story as it happened, not as it applies to your petty current events agenda. 2) Don't put yourself in the movie. don't put writers in the movie. 3) Don't use blunt symbolism to pretend you're an artist. 4) FREAKING A, FIRST RULE OF FILM SCHOOL: SHOW ME DON'T TELL ME.
I swear Spielberg, quite dodging me. I will pee on you the next time I see you.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Barry Bonds or Kenny Rogers?
So, who is the worse cheater?
On the one dirty hand, obviously, steroids are controlled by the law and cause longterm health damage. So they are worse for the game's image and worse for their influence on the kids. They cause medical and legal issues that far outreach anything pinetar does to you.
On the other dirty hand, at least steroids are a form of self-improvement. You still have to work out like crazy, and you are trying to better your internal skills. Doctoring the ball involves no skill. It is an external cheat, a quick fix.
Plus, if you take steroids, everyone can see you are cheating. You're practically boasting. The whole point of the pinetar graft is to pretend you are honest.
I don't buy that "everyone does it" line. Everyone takes steroids too. Friends in major college sports tell me everyone on the baseball team is dirty, either serially or for a onetime boost.
No one talks about 'greenies', amphetamines that improve gametime performance. These are the worst in my opinion - you are absolutely breaking the law, you are damaging your health, of course you are cheating, but no one can see it, and it is a quick fix.
But no one does a story on those things. Didn't anyone wonder, "Hey, why did Rick Ankiel have a complete meltdown and disappear from baseball?"
The real issue here is that steroids are new, new as in within the past 2 decades. Aging pitchers have been doctoring balls forever. That doesn't give it a pass in my book.
So I would say that it is probably worse for the game and it's image for Bonds-style cheating over Rogers-style cheating. But as far as sportsmanship goes, I'd feel less wronged by giving up a bomb to Bonds than whiffing on an oblong ball from Rogers.
So, who is the worse cheater?
On the one dirty hand, obviously, steroids are controlled by the law and cause longterm health damage. So they are worse for the game's image and worse for their influence on the kids. They cause medical and legal issues that far outreach anything pinetar does to you.
On the other dirty hand, at least steroids are a form of self-improvement. You still have to work out like crazy, and you are trying to better your internal skills. Doctoring the ball involves no skill. It is an external cheat, a quick fix.
Plus, if you take steroids, everyone can see you are cheating. You're practically boasting. The whole point of the pinetar graft is to pretend you are honest.
I don't buy that "everyone does it" line. Everyone takes steroids too. Friends in major college sports tell me everyone on the baseball team is dirty, either serially or for a onetime boost.
No one talks about 'greenies', amphetamines that improve gametime performance. These are the worst in my opinion - you are absolutely breaking the law, you are damaging your health, of course you are cheating, but no one can see it, and it is a quick fix.
But no one does a story on those things. Didn't anyone wonder, "Hey, why did Rick Ankiel have a complete meltdown and disappear from baseball?"
The real issue here is that steroids are new, new as in within the past 2 decades. Aging pitchers have been doctoring balls forever. That doesn't give it a pass in my book.
So I would say that it is probably worse for the game and it's image for Bonds-style cheating over Rogers-style cheating. But as far as sportsmanship goes, I'd feel less wronged by giving up a bomb to Bonds than whiffing on an oblong ball from Rogers.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Men's Underwear Options: The Definitive Study
The purpose: Most men wear boxers. Boxers are aesthetically the most comfortable option. No one sees anything untoward. But are they really the ideal?
Definition of Terms: To avoid offending youths who might need this guide, we will using a euphemism chosen at random for certain parts of the body: the Letter-to-the Editor and the Business Reply Mail.
FACTS: We have 4 real underwear options once we're potty trained. We started with the tighty-whitey. We graduated to boxers in Junior High and High School. Somewhere along the line, someone added the boxer-briefs to the mix. And then there's that enigmatic commando option. There is the exotic option, the banana hammock, which deserves little consideration because a) it looks ridiculous, b) it's horribly uncomfortable, and c) no one wants to look like a European guy at the beach...UNDER THEIR CLOTHES NO LESS!!!
This study proposes to look at our options and make the proper suggestions.
1. Tighty-whiteys. There are good reasons why we start with these - they absorb excess dripping, they provide support, guiding The Letter-to-the-Editor and the Business Reply Mail through that reckless phase when we don't realize their importance and we like to run into things. And indeed they remain the best option for athletics throughout life, keeping the Letter-to-the-Editor and the business reply mail safely in the mailbags. But we all realized their limitations - they make it hot and sweaty in there, and eventually smelly. They're like diapers, they hold the Letter-to-the-Editor's hand through the roughdrafts.
2. Boxers. These made us feel like men - yes, I am wearing shorts underneath my pants. They clean up, the weather is tolerable. I'm flipping, I'm flopping. I've got a Letter-to-the-Editor and it deserves notice. So does the Business Reply Mail. Heck, boxers are even fit for more frequent reuse than the old T-W...they don't get dirty as fast. Sports are a concern, yes. But we're ok.
Then slowly, damningly, the disadvantages set in. First there's the riding up, the rising in. The Letter-to-the-Editor and the Business Reply Mail voice some dismay. But then the laundry process sets in and you are slowly drawn in to an inevitable cycle of discomfort. The boxers folks realize that their item doesn't need replacing like a razor or even like a normal piece of clothing - who cares if the colors fade if you can't see them. Sure boxers aren't like jeans...no one's going for the 'pre-worn look' but a faded boxer never scared anyone off.
The boxers' makers really only have one item working in their favor - fast-food. The inevitability of a man's laziness, unwillingness to cook, and naturally slowing metabolism mean that the rear's growth is all but a foregone conclusion. We eat like we're at the training table long after they take high school football from us. The boxer must widen accordingly.
This may come as news to you. When I bought my first pair, I asked my dad about sizes. He said, "Just get your waste size." I had a strange look on my face - wasn't there 1-3 things that needed a little more consideration? So he laughed, "What did you think the sizes went by?" Laugh as he may, my concern was warranted. How can my Letter-to-the-Editor not get a little more consideration? You see, some of us are Asian, and some of us are Italian. And apparently, all the boxers' makers are Asian women. Because you would have to buy boxers whose elastic barely stretches around your waist to enough room for your Letter-to-the-Editor. Sure, it seems alright before you put your pants on. But once the pants go on, the mail gets sorted, and it needs to pick a direction. And in that choice, you're right back in tighty-whities.
To make matters worse, they make the elastic shrink. I swear they use sweater fabric on boxers because they shring WAY faster than normal clothes. The idea is simple - as the Letter-to-the-Editor gets choked off at the opening sentences and the Business Reply Mail piles up, we'll go out and buy more boxers. They've transplanted the idea behind the lightbulb business to our beloved postal business!
The Boxer-Brief - the boxer-brief is really supposed to be the beginning stages of phasing out the tighty-whitey. That's the idea. But I have grave concerns about this new contender. Yes it is more aesthetically pleasing and politically correct than the tighty-whitey. It still gives out hints about the contents of the Letter-to-the-Editor for the audience's sake. The idea seems to be - guys will be more comfortable walking around in these things in the lockerroom, and the ladies will get what they need. But it's one of those ideas like New Coke or the Hair Plugs that sounds great in theory but goes woefully awry in practice.
You see, as a man, you have a choice. You can go tight for support for your letter-to-the-editor, but then you're forcing yourself into a pair of underpants that are DESIGN TO RISE UP. Or you can go loose, and you're basically getting a pair of boxers with an ungodly vendetta against your business reply mail.
Commando - At first glance, it sounds crazy. No underwear? What substances are you inflicting on your poor pants! What if someone pantses you or, heaven forbid, an unfortunate XYZ situation lets everyone read both your letter-to-the-editor and your business reply mail when they are in no condition for public consumption. Indeed, commando is a wholly unsuitable option through any age in which a pantsing is a possibility. There's the occasional situation in which you will be taking off your pants...say a physical...when you'll obviously want something to keep matters under control.
But reexamine the possibilities - you get all the room you could need, there's no rising up, no riding in. Kramer may have grossed you out, but was he a genius? Your humble correspondent can say that, in the interests of this study, he tried it, and his letter-to-the-editor and his business reply mail couldn't be happier. However, don't go jogging in this condition...ever. Women are only human and you can cause a traffic accident.
Until the boxers makers employ some men, and I mean straight men, not gay men forcing us towards bizarre dreams of a legion of banana-hammock wearers, I must reccomend a multifold strategy based primarily on the Commando and the tighty-whitey or boxer brief. The commando for work and relaxing, the briefs for sports. Then you can keep a few pairs of boxers on hand for when you go to the doctor.
The purpose: Most men wear boxers. Boxers are aesthetically the most comfortable option. No one sees anything untoward. But are they really the ideal?
Definition of Terms: To avoid offending youths who might need this guide, we will using a euphemism chosen at random for certain parts of the body: the Letter-to-the Editor and the Business Reply Mail.
FACTS: We have 4 real underwear options once we're potty trained. We started with the tighty-whitey. We graduated to boxers in Junior High and High School. Somewhere along the line, someone added the boxer-briefs to the mix. And then there's that enigmatic commando option. There is the exotic option, the banana hammock, which deserves little consideration because a) it looks ridiculous, b) it's horribly uncomfortable, and c) no one wants to look like a European guy at the beach...UNDER THEIR CLOTHES NO LESS!!!
This study proposes to look at our options and make the proper suggestions.
1. Tighty-whiteys. There are good reasons why we start with these - they absorb excess dripping, they provide support, guiding The Letter-to-the-Editor and the Business Reply Mail through that reckless phase when we don't realize their importance and we like to run into things. And indeed they remain the best option for athletics throughout life, keeping the Letter-to-the-Editor and the business reply mail safely in the mailbags. But we all realized their limitations - they make it hot and sweaty in there, and eventually smelly. They're like diapers, they hold the Letter-to-the-Editor's hand through the roughdrafts.
2. Boxers. These made us feel like men - yes, I am wearing shorts underneath my pants. They clean up, the weather is tolerable. I'm flipping, I'm flopping. I've got a Letter-to-the-Editor and it deserves notice. So does the Business Reply Mail. Heck, boxers are even fit for more frequent reuse than the old T-W...they don't get dirty as fast. Sports are a concern, yes. But we're ok.
Then slowly, damningly, the disadvantages set in. First there's the riding up, the rising in. The Letter-to-the-Editor and the Business Reply Mail voice some dismay. But then the laundry process sets in and you are slowly drawn in to an inevitable cycle of discomfort. The boxers folks realize that their item doesn't need replacing like a razor or even like a normal piece of clothing - who cares if the colors fade if you can't see them. Sure boxers aren't like jeans...no one's going for the 'pre-worn look' but a faded boxer never scared anyone off.
The boxers' makers really only have one item working in their favor - fast-food. The inevitability of a man's laziness, unwillingness to cook, and naturally slowing metabolism mean that the rear's growth is all but a foregone conclusion. We eat like we're at the training table long after they take high school football from us. The boxer must widen accordingly.
This may come as news to you. When I bought my first pair, I asked my dad about sizes. He said, "Just get your waste size." I had a strange look on my face - wasn't there 1-3 things that needed a little more consideration? So he laughed, "What did you think the sizes went by?" Laugh as he may, my concern was warranted. How can my Letter-to-the-Editor not get a little more consideration? You see, some of us are Asian, and some of us are Italian. And apparently, all the boxers' makers are Asian women. Because you would have to buy boxers whose elastic barely stretches around your waist to enough room for your Letter-to-the-Editor. Sure, it seems alright before you put your pants on. But once the pants go on, the mail gets sorted, and it needs to pick a direction. And in that choice, you're right back in tighty-whities.
To make matters worse, they make the elastic shrink. I swear they use sweater fabric on boxers because they shring WAY faster than normal clothes. The idea is simple - as the Letter-to-the-Editor gets choked off at the opening sentences and the Business Reply Mail piles up, we'll go out and buy more boxers. They've transplanted the idea behind the lightbulb business to our beloved postal business!
The Boxer-Brief - the boxer-brief is really supposed to be the beginning stages of phasing out the tighty-whitey. That's the idea. But I have grave concerns about this new contender. Yes it is more aesthetically pleasing and politically correct than the tighty-whitey. It still gives out hints about the contents of the Letter-to-the-Editor for the audience's sake. The idea seems to be - guys will be more comfortable walking around in these things in the lockerroom, and the ladies will get what they need. But it's one of those ideas like New Coke or the Hair Plugs that sounds great in theory but goes woefully awry in practice.
You see, as a man, you have a choice. You can go tight for support for your letter-to-the-editor, but then you're forcing yourself into a pair of underpants that are DESIGN TO RISE UP. Or you can go loose, and you're basically getting a pair of boxers with an ungodly vendetta against your business reply mail.
Commando - At first glance, it sounds crazy. No underwear? What substances are you inflicting on your poor pants! What if someone pantses you or, heaven forbid, an unfortunate XYZ situation lets everyone read both your letter-to-the-editor and your business reply mail when they are in no condition for public consumption. Indeed, commando is a wholly unsuitable option through any age in which a pantsing is a possibility. There's the occasional situation in which you will be taking off your pants...say a physical...when you'll obviously want something to keep matters under control.
But reexamine the possibilities - you get all the room you could need, there's no rising up, no riding in. Kramer may have grossed you out, but was he a genius? Your humble correspondent can say that, in the interests of this study, he tried it, and his letter-to-the-editor and his business reply mail couldn't be happier. However, don't go jogging in this condition...ever. Women are only human and you can cause a traffic accident.
Until the boxers makers employ some men, and I mean straight men, not gay men forcing us towards bizarre dreams of a legion of banana-hammock wearers, I must reccomend a multifold strategy based primarily on the Commando and the tighty-whitey or boxer brief. The commando for work and relaxing, the briefs for sports. Then you can keep a few pairs of boxers on hand for when you go to the doctor.
Friday, September 01, 2006
The Reggie Bush Curse Begins
First off, perhaps it's better to call this the Football Jesus curse or in honor of the Big Easy, The Voodoo Football Jesus Curse.
The elements should be familiar to Red Sox and Sonics fans - drafting an overhyped oaf over Michael Jordan or passing Babe Ruth over to your rival.
It's clear now that a lone Katrina survivor who was relocated to Texas has hexed the Houston Texans for unspecified reasons. Perhaps sheer spite for Texas not catching much hurricane flack while New Orleans suffered.
The result: Reggie Bush goes to New Orleans. Next thing you know, steady running back starter for Houston Dominic Davis has knee bones grinding together. Out for a while? The year? Forever? I've only heard that description used for Terrell Davis and Curtis martin, both done for good. Watch out Houston RB's, your future is in jeopardy.
First off, perhaps it's better to call this the Football Jesus curse or in honor of the Big Easy, The Voodoo Football Jesus Curse.
The elements should be familiar to Red Sox and Sonics fans - drafting an overhyped oaf over Michael Jordan or passing Babe Ruth over to your rival.
It's clear now that a lone Katrina survivor who was relocated to Texas has hexed the Houston Texans for unspecified reasons. Perhaps sheer spite for Texas not catching much hurricane flack while New Orleans suffered.
The result: Reggie Bush goes to New Orleans. Next thing you know, steady running back starter for Houston Dominic Davis has knee bones grinding together. Out for a while? The year? Forever? I've only heard that description used for Terrell Davis and Curtis martin, both done for good. Watch out Houston RB's, your future is in jeopardy.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Ranking the Coen Bros. Films
Given that they're the most talented filmmakers of their generation, and they seem to be on sabbatical, it's time to rank their films. The Coens have 3 distinct traits, not always employed and not always employed well when employed: intelligence, humor, and style. Keep those in mind. Starting with the worst:
11. Barton Fink - A movie about writer's block. Predictably boring. This film is sorely lacking in humor and is only mildly stylized. That leaves us with an intelligent film, but an intelligent film about writer's block and a bitterness towards Hollywood that is generally lacking in the Coens usually boisterous, light ribbings.
10. The Ladykillers - A film with too disparate a hodgepodge to pull together. Certainly the characters are good but the film lacks consistency and seems to bounce around aimlessly. A disappointing effort apparently done for the sake of Hanks' interest and a need to make money.
9. O Brother Where Art Thou - Because the film is good and soundtrack changed music, if ever so briefly, it may be a surprise to find this film so low. That said, kitchy journey stories like the Odyssey are a cop out. The film has strong moments, is beautifully shot, and features strong performances. But it wears thin.
8. Blood Simple - The Coen's first film is lacking in style and humor, but is brutal and smart. Very effecting but only a glimpse of potential.
7. Intolerable Cruelty - Extremely uneven. At its best moments, it is fantastic. Unfortunately, it is clear that the Coens took the project on and made it good rather than creating it from the ground up. There are mismatched elements and a bum stretch towards the end, plus a surprisingly humorless turn from Cedric the Entertainer, makes it lose steam. Still a very underrated film featuring moments of astounding comedic brilliance and real heart.
6. Raising Arizona - The first true Coen film, in parts bizarre, funny, and smart. Cage is good, Tex is better, and all around it is a genuinely likeable film. An appropriate midpoint to hold hands with the #5 film, which is very similar, only better in every sense.
TIMEOUT: I would just like to mention To the White Sea. To the White Sea was an essentially dialogueless adaptation of a very brutal novel by the writer of Deliverance about an American airman trapped behind enemy lines. To be done in black-and-white, and hopefully with a better ending than the novel, it was an artpiece to surpass all there other art pieces. They got the interest of the generation's most underrated actor, skill-wise, Brad Pitt. This was going to be their best art film...but they couldn't budget it. If only we had phlianthropists who made films for the hell of it.
5. The Big Lebowski - The best of the basically plotless comedies, a worthy cult classic. Nothing need be said here except that I think moview with real narrative features to be inherently superior.
4. The Man Who Wasn't There - The best of their art films, a dark, very intelligent, very powerful film, superbly scored (as always), brilliantly written, directed, and acted. There are, again, flights of fancy a bit too silly...it would have been better to play this one a little straighter. But a very impressive effort, a travesty to have received no Oscar attention. Whose shoes did these guys spit on that no one wants to nominate them? Perhaps it's because they're too smart for Hollywood and don't make dull overtly-political tripe.
3. Fargo - A controversial choice. Many Coen fans find the more mainstream dramas of the mid-90's to be a travesty against true Coendome. Others would say that Fargo is without question their best effort. The truth is that Fargo is a good film but not a deep one. It lacks the artistic flares, the repeated symbolism that would push it to the top of the list. But it is a great movie.
2. The Hudsucker Proxy - A delightful film, funny, consistently themed, a rare topic, well-acted and tight as a drum. Only second to:
1. Miller's Crossing - The only time the Coens blended everything perfectly and added a touch of Godfather to the mix. Funny, quirky, and intelligent, the film is missing the missteps and goofiness and inconsistency that takes away from many of the other films. It adds a literary stroke of intelligence and a slow, well-measured descent from light comedy to an extremely mature conclusion.
Given that they're the most talented filmmakers of their generation, and they seem to be on sabbatical, it's time to rank their films. The Coens have 3 distinct traits, not always employed and not always employed well when employed: intelligence, humor, and style. Keep those in mind. Starting with the worst:
11. Barton Fink - A movie about writer's block. Predictably boring. This film is sorely lacking in humor and is only mildly stylized. That leaves us with an intelligent film, but an intelligent film about writer's block and a bitterness towards Hollywood that is generally lacking in the Coens usually boisterous, light ribbings.
10. The Ladykillers - A film with too disparate a hodgepodge to pull together. Certainly the characters are good but the film lacks consistency and seems to bounce around aimlessly. A disappointing effort apparently done for the sake of Hanks' interest and a need to make money.
9. O Brother Where Art Thou - Because the film is good and soundtrack changed music, if ever so briefly, it may be a surprise to find this film so low. That said, kitchy journey stories like the Odyssey are a cop out. The film has strong moments, is beautifully shot, and features strong performances. But it wears thin.
8. Blood Simple - The Coen's first film is lacking in style and humor, but is brutal and smart. Very effecting but only a glimpse of potential.
7. Intolerable Cruelty - Extremely uneven. At its best moments, it is fantastic. Unfortunately, it is clear that the Coens took the project on and made it good rather than creating it from the ground up. There are mismatched elements and a bum stretch towards the end, plus a surprisingly humorless turn from Cedric the Entertainer, makes it lose steam. Still a very underrated film featuring moments of astounding comedic brilliance and real heart.
6. Raising Arizona - The first true Coen film, in parts bizarre, funny, and smart. Cage is good, Tex is better, and all around it is a genuinely likeable film. An appropriate midpoint to hold hands with the #5 film, which is very similar, only better in every sense.
TIMEOUT: I would just like to mention To the White Sea. To the White Sea was an essentially dialogueless adaptation of a very brutal novel by the writer of Deliverance about an American airman trapped behind enemy lines. To be done in black-and-white, and hopefully with a better ending than the novel, it was an artpiece to surpass all there other art pieces. They got the interest of the generation's most underrated actor, skill-wise, Brad Pitt. This was going to be their best art film...but they couldn't budget it. If only we had phlianthropists who made films for the hell of it.
5. The Big Lebowski - The best of the basically plotless comedies, a worthy cult classic. Nothing need be said here except that I think moview with real narrative features to be inherently superior.
4. The Man Who Wasn't There - The best of their art films, a dark, very intelligent, very powerful film, superbly scored (as always), brilliantly written, directed, and acted. There are, again, flights of fancy a bit too silly...it would have been better to play this one a little straighter. But a very impressive effort, a travesty to have received no Oscar attention. Whose shoes did these guys spit on that no one wants to nominate them? Perhaps it's because they're too smart for Hollywood and don't make dull overtly-political tripe.
3. Fargo - A controversial choice. Many Coen fans find the more mainstream dramas of the mid-90's to be a travesty against true Coendome. Others would say that Fargo is without question their best effort. The truth is that Fargo is a good film but not a deep one. It lacks the artistic flares, the repeated symbolism that would push it to the top of the list. But it is a great movie.
2. The Hudsucker Proxy - A delightful film, funny, consistently themed, a rare topic, well-acted and tight as a drum. Only second to:
1. Miller's Crossing - The only time the Coens blended everything perfectly and added a touch of Godfather to the mix. Funny, quirky, and intelligent, the film is missing the missteps and goofiness and inconsistency that takes away from many of the other films. It adds a literary stroke of intelligence and a slow, well-measured descent from light comedy to an extremely mature conclusion.
Monday, August 21, 2006
ESPN embarrasses itself.
With baseball playoff races still only percolating and football a few weeks off, ESPN has hit one of its low points in desparately trying to stir up controversy.
Points A and B: Reggie Bush and Terrell Owens.s
First TO:
TO and Bill Parcells are favorites because they feed ESPN stories to soak up time. So you put both of them together on America's team and ESPN starts shivering in ecstasy. So TO tweaked a hammy, now ESPN has to ride this story "TO not working hard, already causing controversy", "Parcells disgruntled" despite the fact that there's no story. He tweaked a hammy. Plenty of guys take it easy in preseason with a bum hamstring. There is no controversy, except now ESPN has forced TO back on the practice field, whether he's ready or not.
WORSE: Bush
Bush is really good. So ESPN wants to hype him. First, he missed a day of training camp unsigned and ESPN was reporting he would sit out the season. He practiced the next day. Then ESPN covered his Monday night performance. They knew it was something very..., they just didn't know what. They couldn't get their story straight. The Sportscenter crew was creaming itself like every cut he made was the next coming of Barry Sanders' highlight reel. Then they cut to the sideline reporter's post game interview, and she was blitzing Bush with questions about getting "completely stuffed".
Stop. Stop. Stop. Cover the event, stop embarrassing yourselves. It's too lame to even demand creativity.
With baseball playoff races still only percolating and football a few weeks off, ESPN has hit one of its low points in desparately trying to stir up controversy.
Points A and B: Reggie Bush and Terrell Owens.s
First TO:
TO and Bill Parcells are favorites because they feed ESPN stories to soak up time. So you put both of them together on America's team and ESPN starts shivering in ecstasy. So TO tweaked a hammy, now ESPN has to ride this story "TO not working hard, already causing controversy", "Parcells disgruntled" despite the fact that there's no story. He tweaked a hammy. Plenty of guys take it easy in preseason with a bum hamstring. There is no controversy, except now ESPN has forced TO back on the practice field, whether he's ready or not.
WORSE: Bush
Bush is really good. So ESPN wants to hype him. First, he missed a day of training camp unsigned and ESPN was reporting he would sit out the season. He practiced the next day. Then ESPN covered his Monday night performance. They knew it was something very..., they just didn't know what. They couldn't get their story straight. The Sportscenter crew was creaming itself like every cut he made was the next coming of Barry Sanders' highlight reel. Then they cut to the sideline reporter's post game interview, and she was blitzing Bush with questions about getting "completely stuffed".
Stop. Stop. Stop. Cover the event, stop embarrassing yourselves. It's too lame to even demand creativity.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Traffic Flow Dynamics for Dummies
(That means you idiot!)
My brother has a theory on driving and politics - we're all sympathetic to Democrats when we use public transportation - we all suffer together, we're all in it together. Then we get in our cars and realize, "I'm living in a nation of assholes."
It's bad enough that the traffic lights aren't synchronized...we all have to deal with drunkards, senile people, immigrants who come from countries with different theories than the "shortest route is between two points" standard, ladies afraid of the highway, and people who are lost and think the way is found by going as slow as possible.
So here are a few tips for sane, thinking people to consider when driving down the street to keep the traffic flowing and the roadrage safely controlled by CDs or talk radio.
1. The fast lane is for going faster than the speed limit.
2. Get out of the traffic and into the exit/turn lane...THEN SLOW DOWN.
3. Never go the same speed as the lane next to you
4. Merge at freeway speed
5. Do not use the brake on the freeway unless there is a traffic jam...taking your foot off the accelerator will slow you down sufficiently
6. It is possible to drive while it is raining.
7. Your blinker signals your intentions.
8. If you are pulling up to a red light and do not plan to turn right, please vacate the right lane so that those who do intend to do so can use it.
9. Cell phones, sandwiches and the radio are to be fiddled with only for those capable of driving their car normally while using them. Don't turn into a senile Asian woman just because you're talking to your girlfriend.
10. For heaven sakes do not NOT NOT drive slower than the speed limit up to a green light and then speed through it when it turns yellow with other cars left at the red behind you. THIS IS WORSE KARMA THAN CLUBBING BABY SEALS.
(That means you idiot!)
My brother has a theory on driving and politics - we're all sympathetic to Democrats when we use public transportation - we all suffer together, we're all in it together. Then we get in our cars and realize, "I'm living in a nation of assholes."
It's bad enough that the traffic lights aren't synchronized...we all have to deal with drunkards, senile people, immigrants who come from countries with different theories than the "shortest route is between two points" standard, ladies afraid of the highway, and people who are lost and think the way is found by going as slow as possible.
So here are a few tips for sane, thinking people to consider when driving down the street to keep the traffic flowing and the roadrage safely controlled by CDs or talk radio.
1. The fast lane is for going faster than the speed limit.
2. Get out of the traffic and into the exit/turn lane...THEN SLOW DOWN.
3. Never go the same speed as the lane next to you
4. Merge at freeway speed
5. Do not use the brake on the freeway unless there is a traffic jam...taking your foot off the accelerator will slow you down sufficiently
6. It is possible to drive while it is raining.
7. Your blinker signals your intentions.
8. If you are pulling up to a red light and do not plan to turn right, please vacate the right lane so that those who do intend to do so can use it.
9. Cell phones, sandwiches and the radio are to be fiddled with only for those capable of driving their car normally while using them. Don't turn into a senile Asian woman just because you're talking to your girlfriend.
10. For heaven sakes do not NOT NOT drive slower than the speed limit up to a green light and then speed through it when it turns yellow with other cars left at the red behind you. THIS IS WORSE KARMA THAN CLUBBING BABY SEALS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)