Epidermis Lobby Planning to Halt Skin Cell Harvest for Stem Cell Creation

One of Washington's most powerful lobbies is already gearing up to stop skin cell harvesting in its tracks. As news broke today that embryos may no longer be essential to creating stem cells, the Epidermis lobby bristled at the notion that "ordinary skin cells" might take their place.

"As a representative of the Epidermis lobby," a representative said today "I am appalled at this attempt to subvert the American way of life. I speak for all of the Epidermis. We are not just a cluster of people - we are a lobby all our own, covering much more surface area than any of the other lobbies. And we demand to be heard."

Though members of the Epidermis are usually short-lived, with a turnaround time on average of only thirty-five days, new members seem to spring up almost immediately in their place, leaving the Epidermis a vital body in Washington.

"We cannot stand by while the skin cells of good American citizens are harvested willy-nilly," said Craig Harriman, Vice Chair of Epidermis. "On that note, I must resign and cede the seat of Vice Chair to Leslie Oates." "Thank you," said Vice Chair Oates.

The controversy around the use of skin cells as potential stem cells is many-fold. Says an official Epidermis pamphlet "These are the building blocks of life. What does it say when we scrape off a sample and try and bastardize nature's will by creating new building blocks? Are we not happy in our own skin?"

Says Colin Friels, research scientist "Skin cells aren't life. They are merely a part of life." Epidermis' official response: "Where does life truly begin? Whether it's one cell or a million, it's all life." Friels' response: "No."

Absence of Evidence...

So apparently technicalities and the rule of law outweigh common sense. It's like the government appointees that control this huge part of our lives are playing some kind of game where "touch blue, make it true" actually applies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/washington/16cnd-nsa.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Because the evidence - the word universally being used to describe the information submitted to a lower court, since that's what it is - submitted about domestic wiretapping falls under the "State Secrets" privelege, it can no longer be considered admissable in court.

Even though we KNOW the program exists and has been fully admitted to, it can't be constitutional because it technically never happened. Even though it did.

So now this particular domestic wiretapping program might never be declared unconstitutional, despite the wide agreement that domestic wiretapping as a concept is unconstitutional. I thought these technicalities were there to protect our civil liberties, first and foremost. Apparently rights are a privelege.

Local College Student Reads Entire Issue of "The Onion" Out Loud to Disinterested Roommate

Spokane, WI -

Local college student Greg Lipsky, 22, spent two hours Saturday morning reading the latest issue of satirical news publication "The Onion," in it's entirety, out loud to his roommate, Jon Devlin, 20, who couldn't possibly give less of a shit.

"It's like he thinks he's as funny as the shit he's reading," Devlin said. "And he's really not." Among the articles read out loud to Devlin, who spent the better part of the morning trying to inch his way to the bathroom but instead politely stood there and smiled, was "Local Man Really Excited to Be Here."

"That one was pretty good," Devlin said, smiling for the first time during the interview. "They do that whole 'making something funny out of something mundane' thing pretty well. But that's them. Not Greg. Who is an ass."

Among Devlin's chief complaints is the fact that Lipsky, a Mass Communications major, barely took a breath between each article. "He had like twenty Safari windows open at the same time so he didn't have to hunt down each article after the next." Sources have it that Lipsky, who defends his actions, was up until approximately 4:45 AM Saturday morning preparing the articles for his 10 AM marathon-read.

"I don't get what he's bitching about," Lipsky countered. "He's always reading the news and shit to me, like I care. What does that prove? That he knows that something just happened? Big effing deal. At least I'm proving to him I know humor when I read it." Lipsky's assessment, says Devlin, couldn't be further from the truth.

"He's a stupid dick. And he's not funny." Devlin now plans to spend the entirety of next weekend reading Wikipedia entries out loud to Lipsky in hopes he might "learn his fucking lesson. And learn he's not funny. What a dick."

That Character's an Ass! It MUST Be Based On Me...

I have yet to see the film "Running With Scissors," if only because I figured I could wait to see "The Royal Tenenbaums II" when I had a lazy day off. I have a lot of those now, but, as it seems, no time to watch this admittedly cute-seeming apparent mix of Harold and Maude and a Wes Anderson film. So, Harold and Maude meets Harold and Maude...

So the gent who wrote the original book from whence the recent film came was recently sued by his family. The book is called a memoir, though the names in the book are changed from the real people. They sued for defamation, invasion of privacy and emotional distress. Remember the days when emotional distress was there for you to grow as a person? I know I don't, I just assumed they must have existed at some point.

It's just curious that would you would outright admit that any caricature is based on you. Unless you paid this gentleman at a county fair to write a novel based on your worst traits and then sell it at Barnes & Noble, it would be fairly insane to do that. But his family has done it and managed to sue for a few loose concepts. Luckily, the settlement simply calls for the word "memoir" to be omitted from part of the book's intro, the word "book" there instead. And we all know how much the real-life introduction informs our take of an entire, lengthy work of fiction. Well done, family.

My favorite part of the CNN article I gleaned this all from is a quote from the family which tickles my semantic funny bone: "We have always maintained that the book is fictionalized and defamatory..." Isn't fictionalized what makes it not defamatory? Could be wrong. But I'm not.

Original CNN Article

Gay or Not, This Dude LOVES the Cock

Senator Craig here was recently caught almost-sort-of propositioning and undercover cop for some oral pleasure in an airport bathroom. But, says Craig, who works with a lot of groups with anti-gay leanings, he isn't gay. One thing he hasn't denied, though, is loving the pole.
Wouldn't it be refreshing for guys like this to at least admit they have some sort of leaning towards the wang? At least say "Despite evidence to the contrary, I am not gay. I'm TOTALLY bi-curious, though, and I may try something with Billy at the party this weekend. I don't know. I'm thinking about it."

He's even gone so far as to say his admitting guilt to "disorderly conduct" was the only mistake he's made. Smart PR move, of course, turning one big mistake into a seemingly smaller one with bigger consequences. He's being so secretive about it - then again, he was trying to get some in a public restroom - that it's coming across as totally evil, like he's the Senator who was propositioning his pages a year or so back. It's not dirty, Senator. Not unless you're getting it in a notoriously unsanitary place.

Here's what you do: Ask the wife to give you a little time. You go to a club, you dance a little, you become a Log Cabin Republican. Imagine a 62-year-old formerly anti-gay Senator all up in the Rainbow Connection, completely comfortable with himself, not having to hide that insatiable oral fixation. Maybe his wife would be into it, who knows? Just cause he likes the cock doesn't mean he can't swing a little, right? Like I say, as long as she's into it.

It's sad and hilarious that these guys are still dumb enough to try something dirty. You don't find women senators trying to go down on women cops in bathrooms. And seriously, it's a lot easier to say "I fell" in that situation than it would have been in Craig's. It's just evidence of the inherent problems of having a penis. There must be some inner desire to be more "outgoing" with our sexuality and this "need" to suppress it to protect ourselves. Invariably, though, we bring ourselves down. Sure, he didn't mean to get caught. But he knew he could.

Dirty, dirty Senator. Here's my proposal. Instead of a bunch of hate mail, or a barrage of jokes aimed at bringing him down further, what if we all send him a bunch of cards that reflect how pleased we are to have a bi-curious (at least) Senator. Don't include money, but feel free to include a picture of your family holding up "Gay Senators Do It with Each Other" signs. And when he's collected them all and decoupaged them - We know our magic has worked.

Gonzales Resigns?

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' resignation is expected to be made official in a statement by President Bush at 11:50 AM EST this morning. (Read more: CNN)

According to the CNN article, no one in Gonzales' camp had ANY IDEA this was going to happen. Which begs the question - What did this guy actually do that he's being blackmailed into quitting his job NOW? After all the illegal firings and his inability to recall, well, anything, what could possibly be his reason for leaving? The only thing that could have happened is that he must have seriously and violently raped a panda. He did everything he could to hold on to the job, but after Karl Rove's resigning to "be with his family" (see "baby seal rape"), it's obvious Gonzales' playboy lifestyle has caught up with him.

But what will possibly come of this huge shakeup in Washington? Surely, after all of the wiretapping and misplaced habeus corpus, President Bush will be installing a competent, established lawmaker to turn the system around, in the person of... Michael Chertoff?...

...Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff who defended the government's response to Katrina by saying they couldn't have been prepared... for a disaster? Why do I have a slight feeling we'll be hearing Chertoff say "We couldn't have possibly prepared for Mr. Gonzales' retiring, but we'll be funneling aid to the Attorney General's office immediately to stave off any problems."?

The Gay Marriage Solution

If we’re really serious about eliminating gay marriage, I think we need to take it a step further. We need to make sure that no other groups try the same thing in their stead. We need to eliminate interracial marriage. We all know that marriage is between a man and woman of the same color. God didn’t intend it any other way. We’re all God’s children, but he wants to make sure he can tell us apart.

We should also make it clear that the children God wants to marry in general are the ones he wants to breed. Eliminating the breeding of the other races allows for a pure gene pool.

Additionally, as we all know, God prefers men, otherwise they wouldn’t be in power. Eliminating women from being married prevents lesbians from marrying should they decide they aren’t “gay” per se, but, rather "lesbians." This leaves those purest white of men to marry at their hearts content.

Problem solved. Mr. Nobel, ball is in your court.

Bush to Be Interim Vice President During Cheney's Pacemaker Surgery

Washington, DC -

The White House announced today that due to surgery to replace Vice President Cheney's pacemaker battery scheduled for Saturday, July 28th, President Bush will be named the Interim Vice President in his absence.

"We cannot allow the Executive Branch to be compromised," Bush said at a press conference earlier today. "This is simply a matter of keeping checks and balances strong."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/27/cheney.ap/index.html

Murderess, This is 85% of Your Life

A nurse who dismembered her husband has just been sentenced to life in prison:

http://www.courttv.com/trials/mcguire/071907_sentencing_ctv.html?cnn=yes

The best part isn't the conciliatory added sentences of 10 and 5 years for "minor" offenses like desecrating human remains. It's the end: "McGuire will be eligible for parole after serving 85 percent of her sentence."

I know she killed a dude, but come on, isn't just giving her that sentence cruel and unusual? She'll go nuts racking her brain for the rest of her life trying to figure out when she's actually eligible for parole. How do you figure for 85% of X when X is always X?

What if she says "I'm going to kill myself in six months"? Then they'd have to make her eligible in 5. Genius.

iClone

Hello. i am iClone. How can i buy your product today?

May i get in line and wait for hours on end? Thank you.

May i pay a premium to wait two days to have your product activated? Thank you.

May i stave off the irony of hating Bill Gates while giving money to Steve jobs by reveling in my iPhone's many non-phone uses? Thank you.

iClone. Buying things to be different since 2001.

Who's the Real Victim Here?

I think it's obvious. When you're a black homophobe, the most respectable thing to do once you've been fired for causing undue controversy to darken a show's reputation is to point out the obvious - You were the victim here. A victim of racism.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/06/29/people.isaiahwashington.ap/index.html

Yes, the man is indeed putting Isaiah down. They were completely offended by his refusal to walk around the hospital gnawing on a watermelon and be whipped when a surgery went poorly. As we all know, "Grey's Anatomy" creator Shonda Rhimes wants nothing to do with well-spoken, well-represented black people on the screen. It was all about his color.

Sure, Rhimes herself is black in a predominantly white-run industry, but she really doesn't know what it's like. She hasn't had the experiences Washington has had. She hasn't seen what he's seen. She didn't have to live through minstrel shows and Jim Crow laws. Isaiah Washington did. Because he is, in fact, 97 years old.

They say black people age better than white people, but my god. Isaiah looks good. And back in his day, when vaudeville demanded even he put on black-face and shuffle around the stage, Washington had to deal with so much more than the white-ified Shonda Rhimes. He had to deal with racist laughter coming from the audience of boater-hat-wearing Fuller Brush salesmen. And, being in theatre, he also had to deal with them. Big old homos.

It's not his fault. Ask any 97-year-old black man and he'll likely tell you he's seen a lot of change in the last century. Isaiah relates to that situation better than any of us can possible imagine. Part of that change was the over-abundance of queers. We need to open our hearts to Isaiah. We need to understand that he deserves a break.

Like the old saying goes: When the chips go down, the race card trumps the douchebag card.

We've Got Politics Covered

About that...

Comedy Central usually has a policy against taking new political humor. Yet somehow... God, somehow the worst piece of "political satire" made it not only across their desks but onto the air, and without the scent of a celebrity or sense of humor in site. I'm speaking, of course, of "Lil' Bush."

There are too many points to detail here, like the horrible Bush impersonation that sounds like the actor is just straining to say everything and kind of has his mouth full, or the horrible animation that I could honestly accomplish with much less money than they're likely given to do it. What's important to discuss is how this show ever got on a channel with "Comedy" in the name.

Let's begin with how to accomplish good political satire. Firstly, all of your jokes should have some kind of real-world analog - hence, the point of satire in the first place. And that seems to be where "Lil' Bush" stops being political satire. It has a starting point, but it makes the same jokes over, and over, and over. Take the 8-year-old version of George W. Bush's use of the word "decider" - If they had picked a good point in their story to use it, it might have been a little more than a tired joke. Instead, they say "decider" at least twenty times, not counting the song in which it's featured another twenty or so.

Somehow the writers get away with being more juvenile than their titular character, hitting you over the head constantly, whether Lil' Dick Cheney's dad is Darth Vader or whether Lil' Dick Cheney himself is drinking blood fresh from a chicken, there's not an ounce of subtlety. And as we know, an ounce of subtlety is worth a ton or so of ham-handedness.

If you're going to do political satire, do it right. Don't do another show surrounding Bush, thinking it will somehow succeed ("That's My Bush," a mock-sitcom, by the creators of South Park, was a miserable failure) and then tell young undiscovered talent that you have politics covered. Maybe you do, but the people who write your shows don't.

And looking at their credits on IMDB, other than one of them working on the most recent miserable failure in Comedy Central's history, "The Naked Trucker and T-Bones Show," there's not much to write home about. These aren't the tried-and-true satirists of The Daily Show or The Onion (from which TDS likes to recruit). These are comedy writers. Give them another sketch show. Give them some other cartoon. But leave politics and, frankly, any kind of satire, to people with smaller hands. You know what they say about guys with big hands. They hit too many keys at once and write crappy scripts.

I Think, Therefore It's True

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/20/travolta.drugs.ap/index.html

As always, more and more Scientologists are doing a great job of painting a great picture of themselves, at least partially. Let's say half of the numbers have been colored in. John Travolta had a few things to say, in an interview mind you, about psychotropic drugs:

"I don't disagree with anything Tom says," Travolta says in the July issue of W magazine, on newsstands Friday. "How would I have presented it? Maybe differently than how he did, but it doesn't matter. I still think that if you analyze most of the school shootings, it is not gun control. It is (psychotropic) drugs at the bottom of it."

"I don't want to create controversy; I just have an opinion on things, and there is nothing wrong with stating your opinion if you are asked," he continues. "Everyone wants that right, and because you are famous doesn't mean you have less of a right."

He's right. He does have an opinion. But what needs to be looked at, again and again, is how so many Scientologists are filled with and love to express OPINIONS rather than scientific fact. He said "I still think that if you analyze most of the school shootings... it's drugs at the bottom of it." Fine, I think that if you analyze the Earth's composition, you'll find a gooey marshmallow filling.

Descartes never said "I think therefore it's true." But that seems to be the tenet of famous Scientologists who, for whatever reason, be it a balance of the spiritual or fiscal nature, want to believe something and express it as fact because L. Ron or one of his closer disciples determined it to be so. It's unfortunate that the "E-Meter" they use to judge stress started out as a medical tool, because I'm sure that's something they use to feel legitimate.

John Travolta, like Tom Cruise (as much as he's trying to distance himself from Tom's image) is blatantly irresponsible. Not to say that he shouldn't be able to speak. But he shouldn't be speaking unless he understands the science of what he's saying. It's reckless, like Tom Hanks coming out and telling the world "You shouldn't be wearing cotton, because I believe it to be a fact that cotton causes AIDS." No, Tom, you're wrong. You should do your research.

Has John Travolta ever read a paper? I won't say you should always believe what you read, but it seems obvious that the most deadly school shooting in history was perpetrated by a kid who was mentally ill, who wasn't on psychotropics, and who, had he found Scientology, would at some point have gone off the deep end somewhere in Hollywood. You can't save everyone by talking to them. Me, in high school, with fantasies of fake school shootings (my daydreams consisted of me, pre-Columbine, in my trenchcoat, pulling out a toy shotgun and scaring everyone), you could have saved by talking and proper attention. I was, in fact.

But some people need extra help. Not all psychologists will flat-out dope up their patients. Yes, it happens. Yes, it can be irresponsible, as in the times many friends and relatives of mine have been diagnosed with depression and given drugs that made them arguably more suicidal. But if you find a responsible psychiatrist, you'll find someone willing to talk, to explain the problem, and to medicate only if necessary, only for balance, and only along with regular therapy, aka "Talking shit out."

Ruling out everyone in one group just isn't right. Which is why I choose to deal with some Scientologists. They aren't all retarded. But for one group to reject any other whole group so effusively implies that they feel threatened by psychologists. Let me illustrate my point thusly. If I were to go around telling everyone that "Dentistry Kills" that means I can take care of my own teeth. It doesn't mean that no one else should get fillings. And actually, upon closer inspection, I'd eventually realize I need fillings, too. Unless I try to do it myself. And making your own fillings is pretty much nuts.

Words are Awesome...

http://www.courttv.com/trials/spector/photo_gallery/index1.html

Just briefly, here's my favorite part:
"[Spector] faces 15 years to life if convicted of murder and another 10 years if the jury finds he used a gun in the shooting."

I'm sorry, your honor, he is guilty of shooting Miss Clarkson dead. That is a known fact. But he didn't use a gun. He did, in fact, use a My Little Pony doll, saying "Pew! Pew!" as he did so. Miss Clarkson then fell dead, the sheer spectacle of Spector's insanity blowing a hole through her head.

Do you think they'll imprison him behind bars of sound? That would be kind of cool.

Minding Mencia

I cringe every time I see a promo for "Mind of Mencia," Carlos Mencia's sketch show on Comedy Central. I can never tell exactly why. Maybe it's because I'm sick of the phrase "Equal Opportunity Offender." It was funny the first time. Find something new, lame comedians, please. But I think it goes deeper. Maybe it's something about the way he plays on camera. Then today I realized what it was:

Carlos Mencia thinks acting is being sarcastic.

No matter what wig they put on him, no matter who he's playing, he bugs out his eyes and seems to be gritting his teeth as though he's frustrated with the character he's playing. He doesn't know that to act comedy you have to play it as straight as possible. Long explanation short, he's not a comedian.

Now he's plenty good at being sarcastic and he can throw out a good anti-racism joke here and there. But if I hear him say "beaner" one more time I swear to God, I will slap him. He has a series of gags and beats he always plays, what they call a "bag of tricks." But unlike comedians of old, he was tired from the second he started. Maybe to some people the things he says are refreshing. But like Dave Chapelle before him (I think it's okay to compare the only two minority sketch comedy stars of the last five years seeing as that's why Mencia was hired - to replace a popular, offensive minority comedian) he doesn't know where to draw the line.

Not that he's crossing it, mind you, that's acceptable if you have a point to make. He just has no idea where the line is, and his offensiveness switch is always in the "on" position. And it rarely makes a point, and never a new one. I get that some people find catharsis in mock-racism, but half the time I'm just not certain he's mocking. I don't think he's a racist, mind you, I just plain don't think he knows how to be funny.

An example: At the county fair in Upstate New York about 10 years ago, I was waiting in line for the swing ride - you know the one, the lame bunch of spinning swings - and I heard a comment come from a grandmother to a companion "Oh, a colored man is running the ride." Normally, I'd laugh her silly, old-fashioned ignorance off as outmoded. Unfortunately, her young grandson was in earshot. Not one to be outdone in offending sensibilities, I decided to blurt out "Yeah, be careful, you might catch black." One of my proudest moments ever. And I knew what I was doing, spelled the joke out for her. Didn't get a response. My job was done. I was sixteen. Carlos Mencia is not. And even if he could muster the ability to write that joke he'd probably bug his eyes out and put up his hands as if to indicate "I don't know!"

As an end note, who the fuck considers "de de dee" a catchphrase? It's not even a phrase! When I sell my sketch show, can I talk to the audience and throw out some onomotopoeia and pretend it's funny? "Crackle, crackle, crackle!" Oh, me, I certainly do tell it like it is.

That Borat... He's so funny when he does things and stuff...

Apparently Borat is writing a travel book.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/05/25/books.borat.reut/

I'll bet it's called something long or something foreign-sounding! Like "Advicings on Travellings to Foreign Prefectures Withs Borats!" I'm going to sue them if that's the title. Seriously. (Okay, I just looked closer and found out the two HILARIOUS titles: "Borat: Touristic Guidings to Minor Nation of U.S. and A." and "Borat: Touristic Guidings to Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan." Boy, That Borats!)

He's also getting sued by another person who didn't agree to be in the movie, having been blurred in the trailer but not the film itself - He's a lawyer running away from Borat's hug. He's arguing his civil rights are violated. When's the last time a white guy said that and got away with it?

Anyhow, he makes and interesting legal point, one which is rebuffed by the all-too-protective Fox, though I have to sort of cheer them on for protecting "artistic freedom," aka box office receipts. He didn't sign a release, so he should be protected, but even New York City is defending Borats.

To be honest, I don't care so much that this guy says he was humiliated. What I do care about, however, is the idea that 20th Century Fox is going to get around the age-old rule of needing a likeness release, and in a huge film, no less. I've been making short films for years, and in fact just did some undercover improv, and I've always had to blur out people's faces or get releases. No exceptions. Then again, I don't have Glorious Nation of NewsCorp backing me.

I would just like to see them lose the one case. And seriously, the movie is only good for one watchings anyway. Oh, balls in the face - what a surprise, this second time I've seen it... Ehh.

That is the BEST pitch I've heard in years. But no one would ever watch it...

My co-producer, Matt Saxe, who does all of our cold-calling, made a call today about our labor of love, Vice-Precedence: Being Number Two in the White House." We've been trying for almost a year now to get this thing sold, but today we hit that point that is so typical it's laughable. Matt's talent for pitching actually comes from somewhere strikingly surprising. He can say the words "Well, I disagree with you..." and somehow not get hung up on. He gets to finish the pitch. That's a talent, and one he probably learned from being an actor. To quote Galaxy Quest "Never Give Up, Never Surrender." It's gay, but I don't care.

Well, today, as usual, Matt's perseverance got him through the pitch and a little further. The woman he talked to then proceeded to say "I have to tell you, that's one of the best pitches I've heard over the phone in years. But there's just not the audience for it." She threw the same tired lines at us - "People will be sick of politics by then (November '08, when we thought would be ideal to put a doc about the Vice-Presidency on the air)." That's where Matt and I strongly disagree with the good people of cable television.

This might be a moot point, but tell Comedy Central that people are somehow sick of politics by the time the election comes around. Originally, the cable network in question presented to US the idea of prepping it for then. We liked that idea. This particular network also is well known for saying they want to find a young audience. We can deliver that audience, regardless of the subject matter.

Actually, that's the point of the film in the first place. People won't really know they're interested until they start to watch. That's why you play the funny promos we have written featuring our young, Seth-Green-esque host, and get people curious as to why we would dedicate so much time to the Vice-Presidency in the first place. Why would we? It should be obvious, and since it isn't that's an even better reason to do it...

The Vice President is always chosen as the guy from the other half of the country. People ONLY vote for a president, or even the team, not considering that, given some unforeseen traumatic event, whatever schlub we put in that office could completely botch the job of running the country. You need to vote for two presidents. The show is called "Vice-Precedence" for a reason- It seems like a second-banana job, but its only that way until we vote someone strong in.

Seeing as the Vice President has no official job other than to preside over the Senate (indicating his other job is just waiting to be President 'just in case'), the man makes the job, and not the other way around. Point is, there's a lot of material, and a lot of funny material at that.

Paris Finds Her Place in the World

To quote AOL "News," Paris Hilton, who broke probation recently, "will spend about 23 days in a "special needs housing unit" at the Century Regional Detention Center in suburban Lynwood." I don't know if I can explain how happy that makes me. No, no, not that justice was served. But that the State of California officially recognizes Paris Hilton as having "special needs."

Despite the fact that in this case it likely means needing tiny soaps and visits from her pet rats, it makes me smile inside and out, which is a wonderful thing indeed. Though normally I wouldn't give her credence enough to dedicate words to her, as she doesn't deserve fame, I like the idea that she's getting jail time. However, I hate the idea that her jail term, which was just cut in half from 45 days, had already been cut in half from 90. Yes, California's jails are overcrowded, but... Why can't we get what we really want- a real-life celebrity hanging?

Mel Gibson got chastised, Michael Richards apologized to the "Afro-Americans," and celebrities regularly get away with being special needs, but they never really get punished. Okay, maybe Michael Richards got all that could be expected, considering speech is free but nightclub admission isn't, but Paris, despite "only" having broken probation, needs to swing, even if she is just setting an example.

It'd certainly be better to see that happen to someone who supposedly deserves to be famous, like Tom Cruise (when do you think they're going to sell Suri to Angeline Jolie?). He's a douche, beyond being a B-list talent on the A-list. He's the Jerry Falwell of Scientology but we can't seem to catch him in the act of something illegal. Maybe he doesn't do anything illegal, just stuff we find so incredibly creepy that even if Scientology WAS legit and even offered us money and chocolates most of us wouldn't come near it. Just saying, if he broke probation, I'd be happier to see him cry than poor, helmet-wearing Paris. That deserves another giggle. Tee-hee.

Well, I just lost a few minutes of my life to writing about celebrities. When I become famous, maybe I won't care so much. I'll just care about the world, and try to make it a better place by adopting non-American children and donating my money to non-American, non-essential charities while simultaneously breaking American laws and spouting off about the American non-celebrities I hate. Fame is sweet.

Jason Lee

Read this. Believe it if you like. I don't know where they got this "on-set" information but it does sound like many things I've heard Scientologists say. And I respect Jason Lee for keeping his faith to himself:
http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2006/05/26/jason_lee_sets_the_record_straight_about

Scientologists have beliefs that sound scientific. Like "We believe that a woman screaming bloody murder (during birth) traumatizes the child." An interesting notion, perhaps true - But where is the science to back it up? And haven't 99% of people in the history of mankind - People who have done much better things for the world than a pulp science fiction writer - been born in just that way? Consider how much you are screaming just from the shock of cold air and breathing through lungs for the first time - That's fucking traumatic, too. We are MEANT to come through the world in a way that prepares us for pain. Do they really want us to be that surprised when people hurt us - that FURTHER traumatized when pain comes later in life? Am I wrong, or doesn't it seem slightly off to say you're helping someone prepare for the world by denying them any understanding of its harsh realities?

Sure, if you want to bring a baby into the world ill-prepared, that's your decision. If you want to prepare your young kid for their first party by giving them a glass of ginger ale and having nice, comfortable conversation about what a waste of your life drugs and alcohol are, okay. But the unexposed are innately the more curious and the more easily damaged. Preparation is the key.
This is why I have a problem with the tenets of Scientology. They tell people like Jason Lee, John Travolta and Tom Cruise a bunch of "facts" that sound scientific, that these guys gladly take for face value and tell their friends these things matter-of-factly without considering that no scientific evidence exists for any of it.

I'll be honest - I appreciate a great deal of the tenets of Scientology. The idea of healing one's self is more than respectable. The problem is the degree to which they adhere to these ideas. That if L. Ron said something there is NO possible exception, that the extremes are the only solution. If you are so far to one side that you can't see the middle ground, then you're completely lost, and you're just as likely to wander off further in the direction you were headed than to find your way back.

I personally held a few of the same beliefs as a Scientologist friend when I first met her a few years ago. She's sweet, and expressed to me a few ideas which I happened to relate to. I still do, but as years have gone by, I have personally grown slightly less liberal in order place myself in a position to reason better, even if I disagree with an opposing view. When I first met her, I didn't notice that look in her eyes - intelligent, calm, wondering - but when I noticed her stare it suddenly reminded me of a deer caught in headlights. When confused and unsure we so often push ourselves to believe something we want to, and that's what it said to me.

Surely, I had my own preconceptions of this faith which is, purely, just that - faith. Though not a Christian I have grown up around their stories just as much as anyone who lives in a predominantly Protestant and white American town. Naturally, it's hard even for me, a near-atheist, to cast too much doubt on Christianity, understanding that balance and true understanding of the point of religion - to get along in this often hellish world - are where the true magic lies. But somehow the more I hear about this faith the less I respect it. I don't disrespect its members unless they attempt to punish non-believers. A mark of my friend the Scientologist was that she understood that this was her belief and didn't need to be mine. She only told me what I wanted to know when I expressed interest. I'm aware she might have done the same if I simply "seemed lost" but I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt.

When a faith or religion insist upon loose or false science and then claim that all their tenets are based upon that same "science," there is a problem. If the point of Scientology was "Use your will power to defeat your inner problems," then I could get behind it, even if my individuality would never let me join. If it said "Pills can cause a lot of negative problems for their positive effects, but in some cases, they are a necessity because certain problems are beyond social help," then I could gladly say I don't question my own Jason Lee fanhood. But when he is insisting upon something he doesn't understand - couldn't, in fact, explain to me scientifically even if his life depended on it - I can't help but see more of Earl Hickey in him than he'd ever admit is there: a wide-eyed innocent wanting desperately to make good but completely unaware that this kind of simple-minded idea, as beautiful and perfect as it may seem, only pays off in the movies.

The Right to Bear Gays

That's as creative a title as I could come up with. But it occurred to me today, as I was flipping through a wonderful online version of the U.S. Constitution that I've never heard a good constitutional argument for gay marriage. Not that I, personally, would normally see a need for one, but legally you don't often hear much about the rights of gay people. You hear a lot of rhetoric on both sides.

Naturally, states have the right to determine this and that, except, of course, when limited by the Federal Government. Take a look at Amendment 9:

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Naturally, that was superseded by slavery, and with the adoption of Jim Crow laws. In the first case because black people weren't citizens, and in the second because apparently states have the right to deny people whatever they feel appropriate.

Now let's look at another amendment:

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I won't break that all down for you, as I assume you're smart enough to get the basics here. A lot of people argue that marriage isn't a right, but it's guaranteed in the simple right of liberty and the fact that no one is denied a right simply through its exclusion from the specific text of the Constitution.

A lot of anti-gay marriage activists say that marriage is a sacred institution. However, what we need to keep in mind that the U.S. Constitution is sacred to most Americans. It guarantees our rights, not our comfort. If your argument is that it's an issue of what God wants, then you're sadly out of line. Separation of church and state exists for that very reason. You have freedom of religion and so does your pastor or cleric or rabbi. They can choose not to marry gays. You can choose not to watch. But, as the constitution clearly states, no one can deny anyone the right to liberty. Without the freedom to marry, liberty fails.

Lastly, I give you the final part of Amendment 14"

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Let's hope someone realizes that this is what they were voted in to do, rather than bicker and play the politics game. Yeesh, that soapbox had splinters in it.

It's Time We Show Ann Coulter Some Compassion

Poor Anne Coulter. She was in the news today for making some "insensitive" remarks about John Edwards. Why must she constantly be chastised for her opinions? Especially when its so obvious she's going through some problems of her own.

I'm sure she must have that occasional booster when a book becomes a best-seller or she gets a zinger in on a talk show, but Ann Coulter is in a constant battle with a very real, very threatening problem. Yes, she did refer to John Edwards as a "faggot." But what people have failed to mention in EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE is that Ann is obviously afraid she herself might be a gay man. I say it's time we get together and support her coming out.

E-mail her here: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2001/07/05/the_swampland-of-government_clause

or Sign the Petition Here:

http://www.petitiononline.com/anncoult/petition.html

And tell her you support her rights as a gay man. We'd all like to see her realize who she truly is so that when she calls someone a faggot, it's finally okay to do, because she herself is a big, flaming ball of fabulous homosexuality.

Our hearts go out to you, Ann.

Love,

Jason

Ooh Secretiveness... Tivity... Tude...

So I'm in this movie that comes out in late April entitled "Losing Patients," a documentary on the US healthcare system poised to beat Michael Moore's healthcare doc to the screen, thereby possibly competing with it on the national level. Now, I can't say too much about it, only that there are some doctors who aren't entirely excited with me at the moment. Luckily, they don't know my name.

It was blisteringly exciting to be the only actor in this film, doing some undercover work, knowing that I was possibly doing something important, and most importantly doing something damned funny. There's a cut of the scene finished already, and I can't wait to see it. Stay tuned here and to http://PharmaRep.net for more, and possibly a few specifics.

Extras Spotting 01

So if you live in LA and seriously want to get into the film business you'll probably, at some point or another, give extra work, or "background work" a shot. I've done it. More times than I can count. It's fun for most people who do it, though they say the turnaround time on it is something like three months. But, again, that's probably a good thing, as minimum wage and 17 hour days can be deadly.

But for someone like me, it's a dream most of the time. You may hate the waiting, which is mostly what "background actors" do the entirety of the day, but when you get on set, wearing your costume, you're in Hollywood. Sure, six weeks later all you've got is a few moving blurs that seem to have your hair cut, but you were there, usually with some star in your proximity, soaking in that intoxicating fantasy.

I should point out, though, that most extras are pretty stupid. This includes myself, at least early on. There's something about being there and that unfortunate assumption that all you have to do is walk and get paid. That assumption is, of course, true, but what it does to you is the same affect LA in general has to most transplants - You assume you don't have to try.

Simple instructions like "Cross camera into that hallway, count to three, and come back" go in your ear, but somehow the body can't manage it. Sure, some people are just there for the money, barely listening. But others, like myself, get so afraid of failure - to walk, I guess - that they just can't operate right. They run into cameras, get in the way of a principal actor, walk slower than a normal person might. And yes, I've done all of those.

All of those things aside, I saw something tonight unlike anything I've ever seen in the world of background work. As an extra on something like twenty shows (nothing, really, compared to the vets) I've become accustomed to fairly accurate identification of myself or friends as our resultant blurs on various TV shows. I've been lucky enough to be in focus a couple of times, but in general you have to watch attentively to nail down which one you are so that you can call home about it.

As I was hunting for captures of my girlfriend's grandfather from a film entitled "8 Million Ways to Die," I found something spectacular. I simply can't imagine what happened when this guy called home: http://www.stolendress.com/extras/extra_01.shtml No, I don't mean Jeff Bridges. Pretty sure Lloyd was used to seeing his son on film. I mean the guy crossing behind him and Miss Arquette. I've heard plenty of interesting instructions from Assistant Directors to extras in my time, like "cross in front of him" or "stick close to the wall so you don't cast a shadow." But never before has an Assistant Director turned to me and said "Okay, when you cross camera, walk like a crab and keep your eyes closed."

Watch it again. What was he doing? He wasn't close enough to Jeff Bridges to slide carefully past him in order not to wrinkle his blazer. And if that was blinking, he needs to see a doctor. Maybe he was afraid to look in the camera, so he avoided looking at things in general just to be safe.

That image will haunt me for the rest of my days, I'm certain. He's something of an inspiration to me, now. Whenever I'm on set, whether I'm an extra or a director, I'll have a leg up on everyone around me. I'll have seen and studied the Blind Crab Extra countless times, understanding the true meaning of commitment. I'll understand that when I was on CSI in a Nevada State Trooper's uniform, my little mantra of "think of something coppish" wasn't nearly enough. I should have found a way to become that character in a new way. I should have picked an animal and a handicap and gone with it. And I, Jason Klamm, would have gone down in history as the greatest marmot with Down's Syndrome there ever was. Little did I know at the time.

Wherever you are, Blind Crab, I salute you.