Monday, August 20, 2007
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Shoot Thug
Sure, a few NBA officials gamble; yeah, some baseball players juice; so what if a football player enjoys animal cruelty: they've got nothing on Kansas City. Cnnsi.com reports, 'Royals player shoots reporter ... with plastic gun.' That's right, a helpless reporter took a pellet to the noggin. Sadly, it was neither Len Dawson, nor the ever-outspoken (but rarely out eaten) Jason Whitlock. Here's an excerpt from the report:
""I was just messing around in here," Brown said. "I feel terrible about it. Karen is one of the nicest persons that I've met, especially as far as the media is concerned. This happening to her, I feel absolutely awful about it."
Brown said he tried to call Kornacki to apologize but was unable to reach her.
An assistant team trainer treated Kornacki and gave her an ice pack. The station said that Kornacki, who has been with the ABC affiliate for more than 20 years, shattered her contact and scratched her eye when the pellet hit."
Poor Karen Kornacki.
My question: where can I purchase shatterable contacts?
"The Incident, courtesy cnnsi.com"
""I was just messing around in here," Brown said. "I feel terrible about it. Karen is one of the nicest persons that I've met, especially as far as the media is concerned. This happening to her, I feel absolutely awful about it."
Brown said he tried to call Kornacki to apologize but was unable to reach her.
An assistant team trainer treated Kornacki and gave her an ice pack. The station said that Kornacki, who has been with the ABC affiliate for more than 20 years, shattered her contact and scratched her eye when the pellet hit."
Poor Karen Kornacki.
My question: where can I purchase shatterable contacts?
"The Incident, courtesy cnnsi.com"
Friday, July 27, 2007
Sweeney Todd, This Christmas
When did Johnny Depp start visiting Cruella DeVille's hairstylist? Either way, count me impressed.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
The ball hits your face.. almost
FPP: First Person Pinball
http://www.fursr.com/mov/furminator.html
"You enter a virtual world, but it's not really virtual; it's a mechatronic environment."
http://www.fursr.com/mov/furminator.html
"You enter a virtual world, but it's not really virtual; it's a mechatronic environment."
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Thriller as Performed by the CPDRC Talent Squad
I can't decide what I find more impressive: the inmates' raw talent , the routine's genius organization, or the "woman's" uncanny resemblance to Toshiro Mifune.
Monday, July 23, 2007
When Are We Going To Stand Up and Stand Up?!
Tonight, the wanna-be videographers of YouTube joined the wanna-be presidents of the democratic party for a program less resembling a debate and more a circle-jerk. Do you find So You Think You Can Dance exciting? Watch these presidential candidates shout circular arguments with more enthusiasm than Benji and Lacey: "Call 1-800-VOTES-08".
Here's what I learned (In descending order):
10.) YouTube + CNN = The Missing Link: Whether I personally enjoyed the debate, this type of programming may spell the future for YouTube and those akin. What a good way to combine the internet/tv paradigms. I wouldn't be surprised to see all of this running smoother, and, ideally, entirely interactive by the major debates of '08, and definetely by '12.
9.) Public School, Good; Private School Bad Apparently, if you want to take office you must keep the kids with the common folk. Not-so-surprisingly, no one mentioned whether they attended public school.
8.) Girls Wear Pink: Either out to prove her womanhood or simply a case of style-over-sensability, Hillary sport a svelte pink Kimono-like dress. Hot or Not? Obama says not.
7.) Don't Smile for the Sake of Smiling: I'm looking at you Kucinich. No one wants their president to resemble the child predator in an ABC after school special.
6.) Gay Marriage is so Gay: Democrats, once known for being liberal, refuse to grow a pair and support that pair marrying another pair.
5.) War's Confusing: There were two major opinions on an Iraqi exit strategy: "Get the Fuck Out" or "Shut the Fuck Up." On one hand we need to get away from Iraq (an impossible task, certainly one eager to bite the ass of any candidate supporting the instant exit strategy soon enough), or we must calm down, and figure things out for the (relative) long-haul. The audience cheered for both sides. So, what do we want?
4.) The Circle Jerk Policy: People like to show off, a truth apparent in the majority of YouTube videos. Regretfully, they lacked anything to show. Faulty editing, cheap jokes, and high-school loners fell flat. Outside of the RedState/BlueState breather and the forward "Do you support gay marriage" video, no questions matched the opportunity: real people asking direct questions, not political fodder. Other primary videos included eye-straining silent films, and a series of "my child's in Iraq, you have no idea what that's like." Well, obviously, but what does this PR-bred empathy have to do with a presidency? How many times can candidates apologize to people they don't (and never will) know? Instead of answers we got "sorrys" and catty snipes at one another about miniscule policy differences.
3.) Darfur I'm lost. When did this become a topic American's cared about beyond the color of their iPod? Why does every candidate have wild idea about how to solve it? Why does no one bring up Bill Clinton's inability to participate in the major international dilemna's during his candidacy, or, more so, the congress that tied his hands with a stain on a dress? I need to get a book on Darfur STAT.
2.) Anderson Cooper is No Wolf Blitzer - Fact or Fiction: Regretfully, fact
1.) Biden FTW: He wants it. Of all the candidates, I feel Joe Biden wants it. He's more willing to give direct answers; he's more likely to show real emotion; he's, more or less, out of this race before it starts. Poor guy. I imagine simple mantra gets him through the day: 'At least I'm not Kucinich.'
Here's what I learned (In descending order):
10.) YouTube + CNN = The Missing Link: Whether I personally enjoyed the debate, this type of programming may spell the future for YouTube and those akin. What a good way to combine the internet/tv paradigms. I wouldn't be surprised to see all of this running smoother, and, ideally, entirely interactive by the major debates of '08, and definetely by '12.
9.) Public School, Good; Private School Bad Apparently, if you want to take office you must keep the kids with the common folk. Not-so-surprisingly, no one mentioned whether they attended public school.
8.) Girls Wear Pink: Either out to prove her womanhood or simply a case of style-over-sensability, Hillary sport a svelte pink Kimono-like dress. Hot or Not? Obama says not.
7.) Don't Smile for the Sake of Smiling: I'm looking at you Kucinich. No one wants their president to resemble the child predator in an ABC after school special.
6.) Gay Marriage is so Gay: Democrats, once known for being liberal, refuse to grow a pair and support that pair marrying another pair.
5.) War's Confusing: There were two major opinions on an Iraqi exit strategy: "Get the Fuck Out" or "Shut the Fuck Up." On one hand we need to get away from Iraq (an impossible task, certainly one eager to bite the ass of any candidate supporting the instant exit strategy soon enough), or we must calm down, and figure things out for the (relative) long-haul. The audience cheered for both sides. So, what do we want?
4.) The Circle Jerk Policy: People like to show off, a truth apparent in the majority of YouTube videos. Regretfully, they lacked anything to show. Faulty editing, cheap jokes, and high-school loners fell flat. Outside of the RedState/BlueState breather and the forward "Do you support gay marriage" video, no questions matched the opportunity: real people asking direct questions, not political fodder. Other primary videos included eye-straining silent films, and a series of "my child's in Iraq, you have no idea what that's like." Well, obviously, but what does this PR-bred empathy have to do with a presidency? How many times can candidates apologize to people they don't (and never will) know? Instead of answers we got "sorrys" and catty snipes at one another about miniscule policy differences.
3.) Darfur I'm lost. When did this become a topic American's cared about beyond the color of their iPod? Why does every candidate have wild idea about how to solve it? Why does no one bring up Bill Clinton's inability to participate in the major international dilemna's during his candidacy, or, more so, the congress that tied his hands with a stain on a dress? I need to get a book on Darfur STAT.
2.) Anderson Cooper is No Wolf Blitzer - Fact or Fiction: Regretfully, fact
1.) Biden FTW: He wants it. Of all the candidates, I feel Joe Biden wants it. He's more willing to give direct answers; he's more likely to show real emotion; he's, more or less, out of this race before it starts. Poor guy. I imagine simple mantra gets him through the day: 'At least I'm not Kucinich.'
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Friday, July 13, 2007
Charles Barkley on Worth
When asked whether A-Rod was worth his estimated $30 million a year value, Charles Barkley replied,
"You're worth whatever they give you."
"You're worth whatever they give you."
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Monday, July 9, 2007
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Monday, July 2, 2007
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Thursday, June 28, 2007
yippe kay critic
It's a popcorn-flick, so why does Claudia Pulg spew cheap spins like these:
Live Free or Die Hard (* * out of four) is diverting enough if you want to see plenty of fast-paced action sequences, some heart-stopping chase scenes and plenty of things blow up.
If you're looking for a plausible doomsday scenario or sharp dialogue, this is not your movie. But who goes to see a Die Hard sequel for pithy wordplay?
USA Today, Claudia Pulg
My frustration doesn't stem from a blind allegiance to the Die Hard films (though I enjoy them), but from a writer, Pulg, misunderstanding her audience. Die Hard is an action franchise, and has an action franchise audience. People watch these movies to see "plenty of fast-paced action sequences, some heart-stopping chase scenes and plenty of things blow up." Yet, Pulg has the snobbishness of a film student, building her argument that a couple cheap thrills has its audience, they're just not people with taste.
I won't even get into the pompasity of the "pithy wordplay" comment. Rather, I have a question for everyone: is it better to have real, graphic violence in the case of films like Saving Private Ryan or Irreversible, or to portray the violence in a cartoonish way, like Die Hard, where the narrative strides far from reality? Or, does quality aesthetic qualify graphic brutality?
What if the 'deep messages' of the former is misunderstood, leaving the viewer confused, trying to interpret brutal muck? For example, the suicidal grenade scene in "Letters From Iwo Jima" went on long enough for me to feel confused, check my watch, look at other people's disgust, and still catch another two bloody deaths. Is that any better than John McClain stabbing a man with an icicle?
Really?
Live Free or Die Hard (* * out of four) is diverting enough if you want to see plenty of fast-paced action sequences, some heart-stopping chase scenes and plenty of things blow up.
If you're looking for a plausible doomsday scenario or sharp dialogue, this is not your movie. But who goes to see a Die Hard sequel for pithy wordplay?
USA Today, Claudia Pulg
My frustration doesn't stem from a blind allegiance to the Die Hard films (though I enjoy them), but from a writer, Pulg, misunderstanding her audience. Die Hard is an action franchise, and has an action franchise audience. People watch these movies to see "plenty of fast-paced action sequences, some heart-stopping chase scenes and plenty of things blow up." Yet, Pulg has the snobbishness of a film student, building her argument that a couple cheap thrills has its audience, they're just not people with taste.
I won't even get into the pompasity of the "pithy wordplay" comment. Rather, I have a question for everyone: is it better to have real, graphic violence in the case of films like Saving Private Ryan or Irreversible, or to portray the violence in a cartoonish way, like Die Hard, where the narrative strides far from reality? Or, does quality aesthetic qualify graphic brutality?
What if the 'deep messages' of the former is misunderstood, leaving the viewer confused, trying to interpret brutal muck? For example, the suicidal grenade scene in "Letters From Iwo Jima" went on long enough for me to feel confused, check my watch, look at other people's disgust, and still catch another two bloody deaths. Is that any better than John McClain stabbing a man with an icicle?
Really?
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Monday, June 25, 2007
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Friday, June 22, 2007
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Monday, June 18, 2007
Barkley '08: Another look
On Rasheed Wallace:
"If you're a grunt for CNN, those people are exploited. The guy behind the camera I talk to, he's exploited. This guy is making $17 million, and he's exploited? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. "
God, I love this guy.
(More at: http://www.counterpunch.org/zirin06052004.html )
"If you're a grunt for CNN, those people are exploited. The guy behind the camera I talk to, he's exploited. This guy is making $17 million, and he's exploited? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. "
God, I love this guy.
(More at: http://www.counterpunch.org/zirin06052004.html )
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Friday, June 15, 2007
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Barkley '08
Charles Barkley recently interviewed with The New Republic, offering his opinion on today's politics. What does Barkley want to discuss? The War in Iraq? Gay marriage? Rap lyrics?
How about economics?
So is that what interests you primarily–economic issues?
America is divided by economics strictly. You know, people always talk about race, and we have racial problems in this country. Of course we do. But the real issue is the rich against the poor. We’ve got to get poor white people and poor black people and Mexicans to realize they are all in the same boat. If you in one of those three groups and you are poor, you are going to be in a bad neighborhood, you are going to go to a bad school, and you are going to have strikes against you. You can’t commit crimes in good neighborhoods. They will get your ass. Their kids go to private school, or they go to school in a good economic area. But the poor people, they are all in the same boat but they divide you based on race or stuff like that. A lot of these politicians say things like “We’ve got to stop all these illegal immigrants.” I am like, “That is so easy to stop.” They are not working for other immigrants.
Has your perspective on these issues changed in the last few years?
Yes, when I realized that rich people will always be rich and the poor people are like crabs in a barrel. They are going to fight with each other, but they are really in the same boat. They want you to argue about gay marriage. They want you to argue about the war in Iraq. There is not a single person in this country in good conscience who can say the war in Iraq is going well. But then when you see someone criticize it … some other guy from the other party says he is badmouthing the troops. And I am like, “No he’s not.” We are able to disagree, and saying that the war in Iraq is not going well is not treason. Some of these guys want to try people for treason. The war in Iraq is not going well.
And of course the obligatory Obama comments:
In some quarters Barack (Obama) has been criticized for not being black enough.
Well, that’s because black people are fucked up. One of the reasons that black people are not going to be successful is because of other black people. We tell black kids that if they make good grades, they are acting white. If they speak well, we tell them that they are acting white. We have a lot of demons in our own closet–in our own family–that we have to address. But first of all, we want black men to be intelligent and articulate and things like that. That’s not acting white. That’s the way it should be.
The Starting Five covers the story:
http://thestartingfive.wordpress.com/2007/05/11/barkley-busts-out/
And the source (subscribers-only, free subscription available):
http://www.tnr.com/user/nregi.mhtml?i=w070507&s=chotiner051107
How about economics?
So is that what interests you primarily–economic issues?
America is divided by economics strictly. You know, people always talk about race, and we have racial problems in this country. Of course we do. But the real issue is the rich against the poor. We’ve got to get poor white people and poor black people and Mexicans to realize they are all in the same boat. If you in one of those three groups and you are poor, you are going to be in a bad neighborhood, you are going to go to a bad school, and you are going to have strikes against you. You can’t commit crimes in good neighborhoods. They will get your ass. Their kids go to private school, or they go to school in a good economic area. But the poor people, they are all in the same boat but they divide you based on race or stuff like that. A lot of these politicians say things like “We’ve got to stop all these illegal immigrants.” I am like, “That is so easy to stop.” They are not working for other immigrants.
Has your perspective on these issues changed in the last few years?
Yes, when I realized that rich people will always be rich and the poor people are like crabs in a barrel. They are going to fight with each other, but they are really in the same boat. They want you to argue about gay marriage. They want you to argue about the war in Iraq. There is not a single person in this country in good conscience who can say the war in Iraq is going well. But then when you see someone criticize it … some other guy from the other party says he is badmouthing the troops. And I am like, “No he’s not.” We are able to disagree, and saying that the war in Iraq is not going well is not treason. Some of these guys want to try people for treason. The war in Iraq is not going well.
And of course the obligatory Obama comments:
In some quarters Barack (Obama) has been criticized for not being black enough.
Well, that’s because black people are fucked up. One of the reasons that black people are not going to be successful is because of other black people. We tell black kids that if they make good grades, they are acting white. If they speak well, we tell them that they are acting white. We have a lot of demons in our own closet–in our own family–that we have to address. But first of all, we want black men to be intelligent and articulate and things like that. That’s not acting white. That’s the way it should be.
The Starting Five covers the story:
http://thestartingfive.wordpress.com/2007/05/11/barkley-busts-out/
And the source (subscribers-only, free subscription available):
http://www.tnr.com/user/nregi.mhtml?i=w070507&s=chotiner051107
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)