http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/27/michaelrichards.ap/index.html
That's an article showing just how damned silly Jesse Jackson can be. I hate to say that, as the man has done a great deal of activist work in this country. Martin Luther King rubbed off quite a bit on this man, who, understandably, demands equality in the face of adversity.
But it's just a fucking word. It can't be "unprotected." And hell, if we ban the word (were that somehow enforceable), we would just be opening doors for some sort of replacement. Banning a word doesn't ban hatred. It's akin to the war on terror, really. We've become so hooked on this idea that declaring war on a concept or inanimate object will somehow make the thing go away, as long as we keep the propaganda flowing and the angry pundits yelling; somehow, it seems, it will all go away eventually.
Not unlike it's predecessors, the war on drugs and the war on terror, the War on Vocabularism (a word I've handily crafted on my own) is another adorable distraction that will do Mr. Jackson's arguments more harm than good. No racist is going to pick the word "friend" over the word "nigger," especially when there are plenty of quaint antiquities in the racist lexicon to keep them warm for many a long, bitter, hate-filled winter to come. Sure, they may not say it in public, but they'll always be thinking it. Hell, if a black man somehow finds a way to enforce the idea that "nigger" is unprotected, I'm fairly certain there will be plenty of racist douchebags who feel slightly more hatred for the black community because of it.
What Mr. Jackson needs to learn, along with the other purveyors of the Wars on Concepts, is that there is only one key to keeping bigotry out of the mouths of babes - education. Yet for some reason our country refuses to tackle it. The "no child left behind" act has been a colossal failure so far, not meeting its goals. And yet we persist on fighting these wars and even creating new ones when some off-the-radar lame-ass celebrity who dropped from A-list to Z-list faster than anyone I can think of goes off on some bigoted rant that, inexplicably, brings him up a few positions on the totem pole of fame.
The lesson to be learned is this - Exposing racists doesn't really solve anything. Trying to stop a racist from being a racist by preventing him from expressing himself is un-American in the worst way. You can protect your children from monsters like hatred, ignorance and bigotry by telling them they don't exist. Teach them to identify these monsters, hate them and keep them out of our country clubs.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Fight or Protest?
Read this: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/20/selective.service/index.html
You'll feel your own way about it, but what amazes me is that the damned draft was eliminated for a reason. Now, had the Iraqis come over here on the boats we sold them and busted down our borders with the missiles we gave them and killed my friends and family with the guns we gave... I'm sorry. I don't want to give some sort of false picture "Hey, look at us, we give out guns to our potential enemies..." That's not true. We sold them those guns.
If all that had happened, certainly, I'd line up, or at least be defending my own home with that crappy samurai sword I bought on eBay and my pellet guns with my pet cat's laser-pointed duct-taped to the barrel. That would be fine. But it looks like, should anyone actually support a renewed draft, I'ma have ta' get my shit arrested.
The guy proposing this suggests that it will be a quicker way to the end the war when, in all honesty, the quickest way is pulling out. Why don't they want to do that? Because it would leave an unstable government? Sure, sort of. But they're more concerned that that "unstable government" will have a taste for "running colors," to quote many an articulate and sensible bumper sticker. And honestly, I would hate that.
I need to quickly address the Iraqi people. As most of you know, my rarely-viewed and occasionally updated blog is the one source of information most post-Saddam Iraqis trust. So here's the deal Iraq - Those of you who hate the US, please hate the government. I know they talk about our "freedom" of the vote and speech and of choice, but what you need to understand is that the vote is just a winding of the key, as it were. Sure, they're on your side when you turn it, but they're left to their own devices and the seemingly random will of those other mechanical devices nearby them. Most of the time they just wander off the table, taking us with them. Yes, we choose the douchebags who run the country, who "speak for us" rather than at us. But we don't control them. As for that age-old idea of rebellion? We can't, we really can't. We've been given opportunity and most of us are taking it to survive. Don't look at us as all being Paris Hilton or George Bush. We all know who they are and most of us don't approve of either of them. Some Americans even wish them death. But there's little we can really do about it until an election comes around.
With one exception.
There is the protest. Most of the time a huge waste of time and energy, if only because the government seems to respond strictly to exit polls. For whatever reason a survey you could easily lie on is more trusted than a few hundred thousand people yelling to you that you might just be wrong in one breath.
Now, there are the douchebags who are there just to protest. And a lot of them have WAY too much time on their hands, painting Hitler 'staches on Bush and devil horns on Cheney, affording the media and the government a much easier target with which to debilitate the entire movement against them or their policies. Not to mention the huge possibility of government infiltrators, a concept relegated more often to nutjob conspiracy theories than to the simple fact that that's what CIA agents are trained to do.
What do we do in this case? It's hard to say, and that's how they'd have it. Protest and you're crazy. Become apathetic and you're not doing enough. Work on a campaign for a person or an issue and you might not fade away. Vote and you give someone a chance based entirely on faith, despite the separation of church and state. When this intermittent chance to change things is our only option, its obvious, at least of late, that we understand this is our chance to do something. But it isn't satisfying. I'll agree with Bush on one thing - We do want immediate change. We are desperate for instant gratification in this country, and if Bush actually does feel the way his mouth says he does, I'll gladly say I agree with him. But I'll also point out the fact that change doesn't seem to be in his nature at all. Being uncompromising on every issue doesn't make you decisive. It makes you stubborn. Yet we, as a whole, sort of voted for him. Four years later, we sort of voted for him again - we didn't change. We had the chance for instant gratification, but we refused it. I can't doubt that we deserve our freedoms, I just think we need more opportunities to express and use them. Like everyone else, I don't have a plan, I just know I'm dissatisfied, and I don't expect the Democrats to fix a damned thing. They've already forced the Republican PR machine to take the image of moderate, uncompromising, uniting and collaborative. With a few strokes they've taken advantage of every little early weakness the Democrats have shown.
My only solution right now? Draft Karl Rove.
You'll feel your own way about it, but what amazes me is that the damned draft was eliminated for a reason. Now, had the Iraqis come over here on the boats we sold them and busted down our borders with the missiles we gave them and killed my friends and family with the guns we gave... I'm sorry. I don't want to give some sort of false picture "Hey, look at us, we give out guns to our potential enemies..." That's not true. We sold them those guns.
If all that had happened, certainly, I'd line up, or at least be defending my own home with that crappy samurai sword I bought on eBay and my pellet guns with my pet cat's laser-pointed duct-taped to the barrel. That would be fine. But it looks like, should anyone actually support a renewed draft, I'ma have ta' get my shit arrested.
The guy proposing this suggests that it will be a quicker way to the end the war when, in all honesty, the quickest way is pulling out. Why don't they want to do that? Because it would leave an unstable government? Sure, sort of. But they're more concerned that that "unstable government" will have a taste for "running colors," to quote many an articulate and sensible bumper sticker. And honestly, I would hate that.
I need to quickly address the Iraqi people. As most of you know, my rarely-viewed and occasionally updated blog is the one source of information most post-Saddam Iraqis trust. So here's the deal Iraq - Those of you who hate the US, please hate the government. I know they talk about our "freedom" of the vote and speech and of choice, but what you need to understand is that the vote is just a winding of the key, as it were. Sure, they're on your side when you turn it, but they're left to their own devices and the seemingly random will of those other mechanical devices nearby them. Most of the time they just wander off the table, taking us with them. Yes, we choose the douchebags who run the country, who "speak for us" rather than at us. But we don't control them. As for that age-old idea of rebellion? We can't, we really can't. We've been given opportunity and most of us are taking it to survive. Don't look at us as all being Paris Hilton or George Bush. We all know who they are and most of us don't approve of either of them. Some Americans even wish them death. But there's little we can really do about it until an election comes around.
With one exception.
There is the protest. Most of the time a huge waste of time and energy, if only because the government seems to respond strictly to exit polls. For whatever reason a survey you could easily lie on is more trusted than a few hundred thousand people yelling to you that you might just be wrong in one breath.
Now, there are the douchebags who are there just to protest. And a lot of them have WAY too much time on their hands, painting Hitler 'staches on Bush and devil horns on Cheney, affording the media and the government a much easier target with which to debilitate the entire movement against them or their policies. Not to mention the huge possibility of government infiltrators, a concept relegated more often to nutjob conspiracy theories than to the simple fact that that's what CIA agents are trained to do.
What do we do in this case? It's hard to say, and that's how they'd have it. Protest and you're crazy. Become apathetic and you're not doing enough. Work on a campaign for a person or an issue and you might not fade away. Vote and you give someone a chance based entirely on faith, despite the separation of church and state. When this intermittent chance to change things is our only option, its obvious, at least of late, that we understand this is our chance to do something. But it isn't satisfying. I'll agree with Bush on one thing - We do want immediate change. We are desperate for instant gratification in this country, and if Bush actually does feel the way his mouth says he does, I'll gladly say I agree with him. But I'll also point out the fact that change doesn't seem to be in his nature at all. Being uncompromising on every issue doesn't make you decisive. It makes you stubborn. Yet we, as a whole, sort of voted for him. Four years later, we sort of voted for him again - we didn't change. We had the chance for instant gratification, but we refused it. I can't doubt that we deserve our freedoms, I just think we need more opportunities to express and use them. Like everyone else, I don't have a plan, I just know I'm dissatisfied, and I don't expect the Democrats to fix a damned thing. They've already forced the Republican PR machine to take the image of moderate, uncompromising, uniting and collaborative. With a few strokes they've taken advantage of every little early weakness the Democrats have shown.
My only solution right now? Draft Karl Rove.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Ouch...
Number 1: Boy was I wrong.
Number 2: I am NOT the only person who hates this usage of the word "Random."
Number 3: I am in no way the anrgiest person, or at least I'm one of the least articulate detractors. Check it out on the one, the only, UrbanDictionary.com.
Number 2: I am NOT the only person who hates this usage of the word "Random."
Number 3: I am in no way the anrgiest person, or at least I'm one of the least articulate detractors. Check it out on the one, the only, UrbanDictionary.com.
Oh My God, That's SO Random!
This is a word people need to stop using. After reading some quite well-formed Dane Cook bashing today, I was quite happy that my dislike for him of late has been echoed, and much better-put than I ever could have. But then I kept imagining how one of his all-too-loyal fans might respond to some of the things I've read. It's almost guaranteed that you'd see someone using the word "random" to justify something that isn't actually comedy being funny.
The problem is that you can't describe a person as random. Well, maybe Dane Cook you could. Some people would call it an unfortunate accident that his genes combined just the way they did to make him who he is. But outside of the selection and formation of who one is, a person cannot, by defnition, be random.
One can say random things, certainly. But one's humor can't be random, and just because you didn't expect something in a conversation doesn't mean it's random. It's a non-sequitir. You could certainly say "You must have picked that interesting or funny observation at random from the items in your brain." Then you'd be speaking what we like to call English.
I'm certain I've suffered this mental block before, using random as an adjective. And I'm almost certain that its showed up on UrbanDictionary.com as meaning "funny." Be specific when you use the word. And don't let it define your love for Dane Cook. And then realize you don't. Dane Cook is evil. Not just because he's successful. But because he's successful by saying nothing.
The problem is that you can't describe a person as random. Well, maybe Dane Cook you could. Some people would call it an unfortunate accident that his genes combined just the way they did to make him who he is. But outside of the selection and formation of who one is, a person cannot, by defnition, be random.
One can say random things, certainly. But one's humor can't be random, and just because you didn't expect something in a conversation doesn't mean it's random. It's a non-sequitir. You could certainly say "You must have picked that interesting or funny observation at random from the items in your brain." Then you'd be speaking what we like to call English.
I'm certain I've suffered this mental block before, using random as an adjective. And I'm almost certain that its showed up on UrbanDictionary.com as meaning "funny." Be specific when you use the word. And don't let it define your love for Dane Cook. And then realize you don't. Dane Cook is evil. Not just because he's successful. But because he's successful by saying nothing.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Fucking Blah...
Well, I just found out today that a guy I've been working on getting a film made on has a producer interested in his story. It's always been the agreement that if someone big came along, I'd step aside. Still, I'm hurt. My stomach is starting to hurt in a way it hasn't in a long time. Strange, but it feels like a break-up. Perhaps I wasn't suited to make it anyhow, though I'm not sure, but it still really sucks, especially after realizing how many hours I spent trying to write the screenplay, then lately at least thinking up new plans for a documentary.
He also said in his e-mail that:
Sure, I fucking understand that. That's not the issue. You always sort of hope for something new and different to come along. So I wrote him a sort of cold e-mail, using passive-aggressive phrases like "I guess you have to go where the money is," etc.
Cold and pissy at the same time. I hate feeling so goddamned cut off, and as if I ask to work on it to some degree, I'm practically begging to be a PA. I wouldn't have a huge role in it - and again, I wasn't promised any such thing - and there's a chance I wouldn't be happy. Quite frankly though, I would want to work on it because I have to go where the money is, too. I really can't be angry at him. Or shouldn't. But something is pissing me off. I should go eat.
I guess what's pissing me off is that quite frankly I never put enough time into it. And now I'm paying for it.
Fuck this noise.
He also said in his e-mail that:
"My agent says that if you are in the film business, you understand how these things work, and that any rumblings from other quarters could mess up the deal."
Sure, I fucking understand that. That's not the issue. You always sort of hope for something new and different to come along. So I wrote him a sort of cold e-mail, using passive-aggressive phrases like "I guess you have to go where the money is," etc.
Cold and pissy at the same time. I hate feeling so goddamned cut off, and as if I ask to work on it to some degree, I'm practically begging to be a PA. I wouldn't have a huge role in it - and again, I wasn't promised any such thing - and there's a chance I wouldn't be happy. Quite frankly though, I would want to work on it because I have to go where the money is, too. I really can't be angry at him. Or shouldn't. But something is pissing me off. I should go eat.
I guess what's pissing me off is that quite frankly I never put enough time into it. And now I'm paying for it.
Fuck this noise.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Fizzled vs. Fired
It's depressing that the tastiest bits of news one can find lately, even without scrounging, are celebrity-related. It's not as though George Bush was caught wearing an "Osama Who?" t-shirt or finally went to court because he's a douchebag. No, I have to be satisfied, nay - elated even - that Tom Cruise was fired. Or as CNN.com reports his business partner Paula Wagner put it, negotiations just fizzled.
Specifically, Viacom, who owns Paramount, says they ended their 14-year relationship with Cruise's company because of the image he's created for himself within the last year. They even slid by slandering him, saying they "like him personally," though, for some reason, being a raging egomaniac is bad business.
Sure, Tom's films have grossed assloads (literally, I've done the math) of cash for Paramount and, therefore, Viacom. But at the same time, he hasn't been performing quite up to standards, in the ratio of money spent to money earned back. Yet his company insists it's just one of those things, you know, that happens.
Firstly, a deal with one of the biggest, or formerly biggest, stars in Hollywood, is hardly something you let slip through the cracks. Hell, even Sony is holding on to the Wayans brothers, though no one can figure out why. There is no way in this world that even Viacom, headed in all probability by some type of fallen angel, would let someone as big as Tom Cruise get away unless the things he was doing created a big enough image problem as to threaten the profits of Paramount pictures, who is as used to the teeter-totter of bankruptcy and fortune as any company in Hollywood.
All Tom can do now is sort of flit about, a moth so drawn to the flame of fame that he's slowly baking. Sure, Tom could admit that he, master of the box office, is quickly becoming poison because of some PR missteps, to put it lightly. But that would involve admitting that, in all likelihood, almost everything positive or intriguing we've heard about Tom this year has been completely machine-generated. Of the fans he has left, only those obsessed with the fallacy of Tom's God-like infallibility would stay aboard for Tom's next films.
So for now, we live with the lie - which, realistically, is nothing. We shouldn't care. But as with Mel, we do. We don't want our money go to liars. And yet we still pay taxes.
Specifically, Viacom, who owns Paramount, says they ended their 14-year relationship with Cruise's company because of the image he's created for himself within the last year. They even slid by slandering him, saying they "like him personally," though, for some reason, being a raging egomaniac is bad business.
Sure, Tom's films have grossed assloads (literally, I've done the math) of cash for Paramount and, therefore, Viacom. But at the same time, he hasn't been performing quite up to standards, in the ratio of money spent to money earned back. Yet his company insists it's just one of those things, you know, that happens.
Firstly, a deal with one of the biggest, or formerly biggest, stars in Hollywood, is hardly something you let slip through the cracks. Hell, even Sony is holding on to the Wayans brothers, though no one can figure out why. There is no way in this world that even Viacom, headed in all probability by some type of fallen angel, would let someone as big as Tom Cruise get away unless the things he was doing created a big enough image problem as to threaten the profits of Paramount pictures, who is as used to the teeter-totter of bankruptcy and fortune as any company in Hollywood.
All Tom can do now is sort of flit about, a moth so drawn to the flame of fame that he's slowly baking. Sure, Tom could admit that he, master of the box office, is quickly becoming poison because of some PR missteps, to put it lightly. But that would involve admitting that, in all likelihood, almost everything positive or intriguing we've heard about Tom this year has been completely machine-generated. Of the fans he has left, only those obsessed with the fallacy of Tom's God-like infallibility would stay aboard for Tom's next films.
So for now, we live with the lie - which, realistically, is nothing. We shouldn't care. But as with Mel, we do. We don't want our money go to liars. And yet we still pay taxes.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Premiere "Locked-Down"
That title seems to indicate that getting a movie premiere in LA is like a military action. For something smaller-scale, that's hardly the truth. Hell, on a good month, I could afford something like this for one of my projects. Within a year, who knows.
But for now, it's Ray's day in the sun. His documentary has been called, as I probably already wrote, "The Anti-Fahrenheit: 9/11." That's not just praise, that's staggering. To me, anyhow. And Matt and I just set up a premiere, which you'll find out more about, and be able to buy tickets for, at 911PressforTruth.com. It's at CineSpace in Hollywood on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 at 8 PM.
I'm fairly excited, despite a likely silently growing ulcer, about the coming week. On the 17th of August, Matt Saxe and I meet with one of the heads of The History Channel to speak with them about "Vice-Precedence: Being Number Two in the White House." It's a comedic documentary in the vein of our online series Inform Nation, and in fact we're selling it branded with the Inform Nation name.
Everyone who's seen the six-minute spec has really liked it - even in its rough stages (i.e. missing the all-important "this is all ACTUAL FACT" disclaimer that were oblivious to the need for until we realized it could come off as merely "based in fact"). And our polished piece, though not perfect, is what we're showing to the History Channel exec. We're hoping the under-$200 budget excites him and the occasionally sub-par (read "camera mounted") sound doesn't turn him off.
We've made all of our shorts for pennies and we plan to keep it that way, though we hope the pennies increase enough to make this a life-long, life-sustaining enterprise. We've studied the demographics, too, and we think the comedic historical actually hits The History Channel's audience AND that of Comedy Central. We want to pull in the Daily Show viewers that wouldn't normally watch history, but do enjoy their funny news.
But for now, it's Ray's day in the sun. His documentary has been called, as I probably already wrote, "The Anti-Fahrenheit: 9/11." That's not just praise, that's staggering. To me, anyhow. And Matt and I just set up a premiere, which you'll find out more about, and be able to buy tickets for, at 911PressforTruth.com. It's at CineSpace in Hollywood on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 at 8 PM.
I'm fairly excited, despite a likely silently growing ulcer, about the coming week. On the 17th of August, Matt Saxe and I meet with one of the heads of The History Channel to speak with them about "Vice-Precedence: Being Number Two in the White House." It's a comedic documentary in the vein of our online series Inform Nation, and in fact we're selling it branded with the Inform Nation name.
Everyone who's seen the six-minute spec has really liked it - even in its rough stages (i.e. missing the all-important "this is all ACTUAL FACT" disclaimer that were oblivious to the need for until we realized it could come off as merely "based in fact"). And our polished piece, though not perfect, is what we're showing to the History Channel exec. We're hoping the under-$200 budget excites him and the occasionally sub-par (read "camera mounted") sound doesn't turn him off.
We've made all of our shorts for pennies and we plan to keep it that way, though we hope the pennies increase enough to make this a life-long, life-sustaining enterprise. We've studied the demographics, too, and we think the comedic historical actually hits The History Channel's audience AND that of Comedy Central. We want to pull in the Daily Show viewers that wouldn't normally watch history, but do enjoy their funny news.
Monday, August 07, 2006
Krunk (Completed 8/23/2006)
When Conan O'Brien first hit the scene, I was thirteen, and I thought he was an idiot. How dare he replace Dave. Then one day, at 16, I decide to give him a chance. It's Thanksgiving-time, and the first thing I see is an ostrich pooping presents out onto the audience. Despite where you might think this is leading, I wasn't sold yet...
One way or the other, I ended up hooked. It was slow. Conan was an acquired taste befored he was required watching. Now, if you want to talk about late-night success leading to even bigger things - like The Tonight Show - you can't not mention Conan. You don't have to mention, however, how lame Jay Leno's show is, how Craig Kilborn was a miserable failure, how lame Craig Ferguson is (Dave really wants a Craig to follow in his stead, it seems) and how dull Dave can be. Conan, though, reigns supreme, whether he's making a good joke, a predictable joke, or laughing at how horrible something he's just put on national TV is. Though you can't shit gold forever, Conan, at least, has the crown at the moment.
Unless you're still into Clinton/Lewinsky jokes.
Now something recently came to my attention. Something I'd regrettably forgotten about those early years of Conan. Conan and his writers invented a term as "the ultimate swearword," a word so ahead of it's time that contemporary censors wouldn't know to bleep it. And so he (and Andy?) used the word on a regular basis for quite awhile, though as a citation in WikiPedia states, Conan seems to have forgotten that the etymology of the word "krunk," includes - perhaps is - Late Night With Conan O'Brien.
Sure, now, thanks to Lil' Jon, the word is everywhere, and people have tried to define it as "crazy-drunk," or some other arbitrary definition likely pulled out of thin air to sate parents that their kids aren't listening to dirty words.
I just wonder if anyone has asked Conan, mentioned it to him, said "Do you realize that on top of everything else you've done for the world of comedy, your own terminology - perhaps one of the greatest practical jokes ever (except, maybe, "Freestyle Walking") - has made it into the cultural fabric of today's youth?" He'd probably laugh or, as he did with Finland, take charge of the whole thing and make a spectacle of a mock-trial with hip-hop community. Someone really needs to tell him, and they need to do it on air.
Conan is my hero.
Crunk on Wikipedia
One way or the other, I ended up hooked. It was slow. Conan was an acquired taste befored he was required watching. Now, if you want to talk about late-night success leading to even bigger things - like The Tonight Show - you can't not mention Conan. You don't have to mention, however, how lame Jay Leno's show is, how Craig Kilborn was a miserable failure, how lame Craig Ferguson is (Dave really wants a Craig to follow in his stead, it seems) and how dull Dave can be. Conan, though, reigns supreme, whether he's making a good joke, a predictable joke, or laughing at how horrible something he's just put on national TV is. Though you can't shit gold forever, Conan, at least, has the crown at the moment.
Unless you're still into Clinton/Lewinsky jokes.
Now something recently came to my attention. Something I'd regrettably forgotten about those early years of Conan. Conan and his writers invented a term as "the ultimate swearword," a word so ahead of it's time that contemporary censors wouldn't know to bleep it. And so he (and Andy?) used the word on a regular basis for quite awhile, though as a citation in WikiPedia states, Conan seems to have forgotten that the etymology of the word "krunk," includes - perhaps is - Late Night With Conan O'Brien.
Sure, now, thanks to Lil' Jon, the word is everywhere, and people have tried to define it as "crazy-drunk," or some other arbitrary definition likely pulled out of thin air to sate parents that their kids aren't listening to dirty words.
I just wonder if anyone has asked Conan, mentioned it to him, said "Do you realize that on top of everything else you've done for the world of comedy, your own terminology - perhaps one of the greatest practical jokes ever (except, maybe, "Freestyle Walking") - has made it into the cultural fabric of today's youth?" He'd probably laugh or, as he did with Finland, take charge of the whole thing and make a spectacle of a mock-trial with hip-hop community. Someone really needs to tell him, and they need to do it on air.
Conan is my hero.
Crunk on Wikipedia
9/11: Press For Truth
So my producing partner, Matt Saxe, and I are organizing the LA premiere of this amazing documentary entitled "9/11: Press for Truth." It outlines the events leading up to September 11th and the day itself. More specifically, it chronicles the stories that got lost. Not a conspiracy theory, but hardly apolitical. It's nonpartisan to such a degree that it's already been called the "Anti-Fahrenheit: 9/11." It's the non-manipulative exploratory film we need, based on Paul Thompson's "The Complete 9/11 Timeline." We're hoping for a huge reception. They already have the East Coast and Midwest covered. Now it's our job to find people to pack the house. E-mail me at ,jklamm@stolendress.com if you're interested in coming. We're nailing down theatres this week, so you'll know soon. Ticket prices wil be somewhere in the range of $5-$10.
Friday, August 04, 2006
Poor Beyonce? No. Poor PETA? Hardly. Poor Mel? Oh, that's adorable.
After TMZ.com broke the Mel Gibson story recently (a feast by itself), I started to check the site out a little more. I had heard about it on the LA station KROQ and to listen to how seriously Harvey Levin takes this stuff, I was excited. A little disappointed, when he could so easily be going after important people, but denying celebs their perceived entitlement is a worthy goal.
So I checked it out today and found this story about Beyonce. The gist of it is that PETA won an auction for a dinner with Beyonce. Mind you, she didn't know it was PETA, and they ambushed her. Or so TMZ described it. I hate to admit I didn't watch the all-important video. All I know is that, no matter what, PETA, as much as I enjoy their sneakiness, had done a stupid, stupid thing.
I posted this quick response, which sums up my beliefs nicely:
"Firstly, I'm a vegetarian. I'm anti-fur, anti-hunting, anti-killing of
anything. And that's good for me. Certainly, I disagree with her wearing
or selling fur. I don't like it. To me, it's tacky and supports a business
with a brutal base. And that's fine for me. But I'm still not going to
join some divisive special interest group like PETA and attack someone for
what they believe. The reason the people of PETA do this, or do anything
for that matter, is that they don't know how to debate. Sure, they give you
some interesting, helpful facts, but then they go and pull shit like this,
making liberals look like completely incompetent, mushy douchebags. PETA
has an agenda, not a set of morals. I may not care for what Beyonce does,
or her music, or what have you, but I would have NO place attacking the
woman. Sure, I probably won't be able to ever wrangle her into a debate,
but I don't care. I'm secure in how I feel and I don't have the agenda PETA
needs to keep itself running and paid for."
Like any comment on an article on the web, this rant was meaningless in the grand scheme. But at least it's gramatically sound, fairly concise (for me) and is genuinely from my heart. I hate PETA. I used to like them, and I really do agree with them. But being a radical is one thing - Being a fucking idiot and in the process making me look like one, is unacceptable. Poo on PETA. Yeah, I said it.
But on to Mel. What a divisive little issue this is. And over the guy who spawned the likes of Russell Crowe and Hugh Jackman. We shouldn't care. But he said some stupid shit. While drunk-ish - legally drunk in California is a blood/alcohol level of .08. His was .12. Hardly balls-to-the-wall, choking-on-your-own vomit drunk, and even less so for a confessed alcoholic.
He's got more to deal with than that, though. Something so deep I can't comprehend it. I understand intolerance a little, I suppose. I grew up in the village of Laurens, in upstate New York. With a population of around 1,200, the percentage of white people is effectively 99%. And, though not ashamed, I'm a bit embarassed to admit that, when moving to the big city (Chicago) at the age of 20, I was a little uncomfortable around black people. But in a diverse city, even someone like me, with nasty OCD, can realize my discomfort was completely in my head, especially considering my liberal upbringing. So I kind of sort of understand it.
But look at it this way. Mel Gibson went to my elementary school before moving to Australia. Which says something for the impression that area of upstate must have had on them, that they felt the need to move far enough away that winter was during a different time of year. He came from the same little village, became a success at the hands of jews, and still has this nagging problem. Could be the whole "his dad denies the holocaust" thing. Which I think is where the secret probably lies. I used to blame my hometown for my problems. Then my family - Can't deny they're responsible for some things deep down. But at the end of the day, we're responsible for expressing ourselves, dealing with our problems, forgiving and forgetting, and most of all what comes out of our mouths and teaches our children.
And you don't have just "Fur is Murder" and "Jews are bad" to choose from.
So I checked it out today and found this story about Beyonce. The gist of it is that PETA won an auction for a dinner with Beyonce. Mind you, she didn't know it was PETA, and they ambushed her. Or so TMZ described it. I hate to admit I didn't watch the all-important video. All I know is that, no matter what, PETA, as much as I enjoy their sneakiness, had done a stupid, stupid thing.
I posted this quick response, which sums up my beliefs nicely:
"Firstly, I'm a vegetarian. I'm anti-fur, anti-hunting, anti-killing of
anything. And that's good for me. Certainly, I disagree with her wearing
or selling fur. I don't like it. To me, it's tacky and supports a business
with a brutal base. And that's fine for me. But I'm still not going to
join some divisive special interest group like PETA and attack someone for
what they believe. The reason the people of PETA do this, or do anything
for that matter, is that they don't know how to debate. Sure, they give you
some interesting, helpful facts, but then they go and pull shit like this,
making liberals look like completely incompetent, mushy douchebags. PETA
has an agenda, not a set of morals. I may not care for what Beyonce does,
or her music, or what have you, but I would have NO place attacking the
woman. Sure, I probably won't be able to ever wrangle her into a debate,
but I don't care. I'm secure in how I feel and I don't have the agenda PETA
needs to keep itself running and paid for."
Like any comment on an article on the web, this rant was meaningless in the grand scheme. But at least it's gramatically sound, fairly concise (for me) and is genuinely from my heart. I hate PETA. I used to like them, and I really do agree with them. But being a radical is one thing - Being a fucking idiot and in the process making me look like one, is unacceptable. Poo on PETA. Yeah, I said it.
But on to Mel. What a divisive little issue this is. And over the guy who spawned the likes of Russell Crowe and Hugh Jackman. We shouldn't care. But he said some stupid shit. While drunk-ish - legally drunk in California is a blood/alcohol level of .08. His was .12. Hardly balls-to-the-wall, choking-on-your-own vomit drunk, and even less so for a confessed alcoholic.
He's got more to deal with than that, though. Something so deep I can't comprehend it. I understand intolerance a little, I suppose. I grew up in the village of Laurens, in upstate New York. With a population of around 1,200, the percentage of white people is effectively 99%. And, though not ashamed, I'm a bit embarassed to admit that, when moving to the big city (Chicago) at the age of 20, I was a little uncomfortable around black people. But in a diverse city, even someone like me, with nasty OCD, can realize my discomfort was completely in my head, especially considering my liberal upbringing. So I kind of sort of understand it.
But look at it this way. Mel Gibson went to my elementary school before moving to Australia. Which says something for the impression that area of upstate must have had on them, that they felt the need to move far enough away that winter was during a different time of year. He came from the same little village, became a success at the hands of jews, and still has this nagging problem. Could be the whole "his dad denies the holocaust" thing. Which I think is where the secret probably lies. I used to blame my hometown for my problems. Then my family - Can't deny they're responsible for some things deep down. But at the end of the day, we're responsible for expressing ourselves, dealing with our problems, forgiving and forgetting, and most of all what comes out of our mouths and teaches our children.
And you don't have just "Fur is Murder" and "Jews are bad" to choose from.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Worst Marketing Move Ever
I'm no gamer. And I'm no marketing analyst. But I'm pretty sure I can see a stupid move when I see one. Not a move that will cost the gaming industry millions of dollars, but one that cuts off the pretty solid edge of pre-sales word-of-mouth that they afforded themselves with E3.
E3 was the biggest gaming trade show in the world, where the likes of Nintendo and Microsoft show their wares months (years?) before they'll be available to their thirsty, often drooling public. Now they've closed their doors to most, making it invitation-only and, so I'm told, more Big Game-friendly than many would like.
The problems should be obvious. Firstly, they say they're cutting their typical patronage from 30,000 to more like 5,000 so that the media can get more personal responses from game companies. Certainly, making sure these people understand the games is necessary to getting readers and internet users to getting excited about product.
But what they haven't thought of, it seems, is the fact that games are now a part of show business, in a way that Pong, Super Mario Brothers and Duke Nukem never were. Gaming was poised to win over every other medium, struck and won. It's a business that's almost pure profit, which is surely the reason they just don't seem to give a damn. But even the film and TV industry, though stuck in a rut, would never give up festivals, distributor shows - ways to expose product to anyone willing to pay. Because it's a tried and true idea.
The gaming industry is creating an even greater elitist image, of the conglomerate who cares less about getting people excited about product and more about doling out that responsibility to hand-picked journalists who are sure to be at least a little more favorable with their new status. Sure, you could argue that these trade shows put on a great but dishonest face, when a lot of games and systems seem not to be delivering of late. But as Microsoft recently proved with Vista's voice recognition abilities, there's a lot to be said for what you can learn at a trade show.
Gaming is visceral. Pure and simple. Passive gamers just aren't gamers. E3 is running the risk of appearing, perhaps becoming, passive about their product. And with the shut-out of smaller zines and blogs and smaller software companies, the industry also risks what Hollywood risked and lost in the late seventies - Credibility and creativity.
Too many cooks will spoil the pot, and people will be stuck with the "Family Matters" of gaming. Which will, likely, be "Family Matters" the game.
E3 was the biggest gaming trade show in the world, where the likes of Nintendo and Microsoft show their wares months (years?) before they'll be available to their thirsty, often drooling public. Now they've closed their doors to most, making it invitation-only and, so I'm told, more Big Game-friendly than many would like.
The problems should be obvious. Firstly, they say they're cutting their typical patronage from 30,000 to more like 5,000 so that the media can get more personal responses from game companies. Certainly, making sure these people understand the games is necessary to getting readers and internet users to getting excited about product.
But what they haven't thought of, it seems, is the fact that games are now a part of show business, in a way that Pong, Super Mario Brothers and Duke Nukem never were. Gaming was poised to win over every other medium, struck and won. It's a business that's almost pure profit, which is surely the reason they just don't seem to give a damn. But even the film and TV industry, though stuck in a rut, would never give up festivals, distributor shows - ways to expose product to anyone willing to pay. Because it's a tried and true idea.
The gaming industry is creating an even greater elitist image, of the conglomerate who cares less about getting people excited about product and more about doling out that responsibility to hand-picked journalists who are sure to be at least a little more favorable with their new status. Sure, you could argue that these trade shows put on a great but dishonest face, when a lot of games and systems seem not to be delivering of late. But as Microsoft recently proved with Vista's voice recognition abilities, there's a lot to be said for what you can learn at a trade show.
Gaming is visceral. Pure and simple. Passive gamers just aren't gamers. E3 is running the risk of appearing, perhaps becoming, passive about their product. And with the shut-out of smaller zines and blogs and smaller software companies, the industry also risks what Hollywood risked and lost in the late seventies - Credibility and creativity.
Too many cooks will spoil the pot, and people will be stuck with the "Family Matters" of gaming. Which will, likely, be "Family Matters" the game.
Why I've Decided My First Blog Won't Be About This Being My First Blog
As these little weblogs have been floating about the interwebs for awhile now, it's become more than commonplace to have your first sentence be something akin to "They finally lured me in," or "I still hate the internet (wink, wink." No matter what, they all say the same thing "I have nothing new to say. That's why the internet is for me." That's why you'll find no such sentiment in my first blog post.
My first post will be about the amazing things I do with my life:
1) StolenDress.com
2) VicePrecedence.com
3) JK2020.com
There are more, but these are the important ones. Why? because any one of them could well make me a rich, very famous man. You know, I think it might be a bit more refreshing to be honest and point out that I have little new to say, except for everything that happens to me. That's always new, and occasionally interesting. If you're expecting a new perspective on life, I suspect you won't find it here. Nor will you find answers. That's what Scientology's for.
Enjoy my websites and tell me what you think in a calm tone. Thank you and enjoy your stay.
My first post will be about the amazing things I do with my life:
1) StolenDress.com
2) VicePrecedence.com
3) JK2020.com
There are more, but these are the important ones. Why? because any one of them could well make me a rich, very famous man. You know, I think it might be a bit more refreshing to be honest and point out that I have little new to say, except for everything that happens to me. That's always new, and occasionally interesting. If you're expecting a new perspective on life, I suspect you won't find it here. Nor will you find answers. That's what Scientology's for.
Enjoy my websites and tell me what you think in a calm tone. Thank you and enjoy your stay.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)