One term that irks me is "free market". It implies that there is some sort of alternative wherein the market would not be free, or that the market can only be free if it is completely untethered. To me, simply "market" would be a better term. The economic situations exist because of the people involved, period. "Market" is also more inclusive, enabling one to include every single actor (including national governments, international governing bodies, and government agencies). Business types like to disregard these actors as simply getting in the way, but they get in the way as a function of the market. They act to improve it, not to hinder it.
Think of America about 100 years ago, before Roosevelt, before the Spanish-American war made it a burgeoning empire. Income disparity was huge, working conditions were awful, living conditions were awful, etc. There weren't any regulations in place, and as such, lower incomed peoples, who had little effect on the consumer market, bore the brunt of it. Do you think anyone who was in the market to buy a Pullman train car would actually care about the conditions of the people who physically make them? The same could be said for any modern equivalent -- care would only exist within the realm of charity cases one could make public. The workers then, as a market reaction, demand more. Having no actual power (another pool of employees could easily be brought in -- at least we're working) the government (or some actor, though it's hard to think of another) has to step in and say this is not cool, you guys.
The fact is, given a comparable result, give an industry the option to make something as cheaply as possible or the option to make it for more, but make sure everything is done "right" -- workers treated fairly, minimal to no environmental damage, etc -- most would pick the former. And the consumer? Who's to say they'd actually care the research the difference? Chances are they won't, and the more they end up being relatively the same price, the more it gets closer to a coin flip.
But enough of that. It was merely a defense of regulations, a defense of government acting within the market rather than staying aloof.
The modern equivalent of the industrial conditions of the late 19th century is the banking industry. Most western nations have seen their manufacturing economy replaced with the service economy, the backbone of which is banking. Regulations have slowly been taken away since the 1980s (making every government since then at fault, not just Bush or Clinton). This has been done under the auspices that regulation and taxation make them too cautious (as if wanting to stop an industry from losing money could be a bad thing).
Apparently we are now being led to believe that taxation stops companies from hiring more and expanding. Because taxes stop people from doing things? How could expansion and the increased revenues from expansion not be worth the taxes that would inevitably come with it?
Let's create a hypothetical scenario here. There is a man who makes his living hunting deer. Hunting was previously the only profession that was not taxed. The government wishes to add a tax so that 1 out of every 10 deer the hunter kills goes to the government. The hunter does not hunt for subsistence, he turns a profit selling extra meat and furs that he himself does not need. If this tax is imposed, would that stop the hunter from hunting? Would he hunt less? Neither of those is logical. Sure, paying taxes sucks, but everyone does it, and the threat of one existing isn't an economic deterrent in and of itself.
The other problem right now, and this is an issue that is probably larger within the tea party than the occupy movement, is how the industries themselves are ending up writing their own regulations. This is also wrong on so many levels, but i don't feel like coming up with any cute little allegories about why. I'll just say the end result -- the industry status quo is kept; up and comers within an industry may face actual regulations, while long timers face none, effectively monopolizing power (though given it's spread amongst a few partners, oligopoly would be a more precise term).
I'll prolly write something about patent and copyright law, and how it's holding back innovation later, but this is good for now.
-- Knuttel
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
10.24.2011
10.05.2011
Wherein Knuttel Points Out "X-Men: First Class" Raises More Questions Than Answers
I recently saw the movie mentioned in the title, and I'm just gonna keep saying movie from now on to save time and reading and etc; anyways, I saw it, and it raised soooo many more questions than it answered. As a prequel, it is supposed to do the opposite -- fill in back-stories and flesh out character and plot points from earlier movies. It sets the stage after the fact. I'm going to try and do this all as within movie context as possible -- I shouldn't try to judge it against Marvel comics or any other medium because, well, each medium deserves to exist as its own entity.
Without further ado, let's dive into this--
Why does Charles speak in a British accent? He's from New York. He's upper crust, sure, but that would mean a bi-coastal accent, like Kelsey Grammer or Franklin Delano Roosevelt, if anything not purely American.
Continuing with languages, how does everyone in the cast seem to know, equally well, English, Spanish, German, Russian, and French?
Why did the Hugh Jackman Cameo last longer than 5 seconds? That scene was done almost immediately, and yet it lingered as if Quinten Tarantino was directing it.
How does Hank McCoy find shoes big enough for his feet? If they are truly like hands for feet than he would need like Shaq sized shoes, which would definitely be by custom order in 1962. Unless expert shoemaking is one of his mutant abilities, someone else would know he is a mutant.
How does Moira McTaggert get to stay with the X-Men after they leave the CIA compound? She is CIA and the project was terminated by the government. She should be effectively gone.
How does Magneto crack Emma Frost's diamond form? If diamonds are the hardest substance then the metal rods of a bed stand should never be able to crack it.
How does Mystique know about Shaw's telepath proof helmet? He hasn't shown it to anyone outside of his team at this point besides Magneto.
How does Shaw know the helmet makes him immune to telepaths? How did he test it? Is there another telepath that the Soviets keep locked up? If Shaw is doing this all to help mutant kind, he probably would have rescued this telepath and made him/her part of his cadre. Emma Frost is in his team, but knows not of the helmet or its abilities.
Either Mystique physically shows ageing or she doesn't -- she is a shape shifter. So any age of shape shifting characters should be available to her, or only age appropriate ones.
Havoc's energy blasts were completely unexplained. Nothing further.
If Darwin's power is "reactive evolution", he should be able to withstand any amount of energy Shaw throws at him -- perhaps not do anything with it afterwards, but survival seems to be key to this power (like maybe in order to hold the energy back he is stuck in stone or metal form for a very long time, or even permanently, but shattering definitely seems to be out of the question).
If Cerebro helps them track down ALL of the mutants on earth at that point, what made them settle on that particular group? Were they the only ones who didn't say no?
How is Hank McCoy completely oblivious to his physical speed and strength besides being able to hang off things with his feet?
Why is Angel the only mutant to defect to Shaw's group? Mystique has shown a much larger identity issue at this point.
Why did Angel have to undo the back of her top to let her wings out, despite not having to do this later, and how would her top stay on completely ungrasped and untethered?
Charles and Erik's deep relationship of the previous movies seems boiled down to a business partnership in this movie -- a business partnership that Erik never had any intention of holding onto. Where did all the Charles and Erik time go?
Did anyone direct January Jones' acting? She seemed bored throughout the whole thing, and not bored in that upper-class "is that all there is, I've seen better" kind of character she is -- bored as in "I am reading my lines for the first time off this cue card".
Trying to explain how Banshee uses his screaming power to fly only raises questions about who's idea was this in the first place (actually throwing this one back on the source materiel instead of the movie).
How does Magneto throw everyone around at the end? He's shown no propensity for being able to do this before hand, and no one is really running slowly, so it can't really be metal in the new suits.
The "Children of the atom" theory has no basis within the context of the movie. Shaw already has his powers as an adult, and Raven, Charles, and Erik have theirs as children all DURING the war (not to mention Hugh Jackman's Wolverine is showing being in-universe, and was born in the 19th century)-- predating any atomic bomb being detonated. It would only apply to characters under the age of 17.
If Havoc is in prison, arguably for the terrible things he can do with his power, why do the upper levels of the CIA doubt the existence of beings with mutant powers?
Yeah, I'm done with this. It wasn't bad -- in the top 3 as far as X-Men movies are concerned, but almost everything is better than either Wolverine or X-3.
-- Knuttel
Without further ado, let's dive into this--
Why does Charles speak in a British accent? He's from New York. He's upper crust, sure, but that would mean a bi-coastal accent, like Kelsey Grammer or Franklin Delano Roosevelt, if anything not purely American.
Continuing with languages, how does everyone in the cast seem to know, equally well, English, Spanish, German, Russian, and French?
Why did the Hugh Jackman Cameo last longer than 5 seconds? That scene was done almost immediately, and yet it lingered as if Quinten Tarantino was directing it.
How does Hank McCoy find shoes big enough for his feet? If they are truly like hands for feet than he would need like Shaq sized shoes, which would definitely be by custom order in 1962. Unless expert shoemaking is one of his mutant abilities, someone else would know he is a mutant.
How does Moira McTaggert get to stay with the X-Men after they leave the CIA compound? She is CIA and the project was terminated by the government. She should be effectively gone.
How does Magneto crack Emma Frost's diamond form? If diamonds are the hardest substance then the metal rods of a bed stand should never be able to crack it.
How does Mystique know about Shaw's telepath proof helmet? He hasn't shown it to anyone outside of his team at this point besides Magneto.
How does Shaw know the helmet makes him immune to telepaths? How did he test it? Is there another telepath that the Soviets keep locked up? If Shaw is doing this all to help mutant kind, he probably would have rescued this telepath and made him/her part of his cadre. Emma Frost is in his team, but knows not of the helmet or its abilities.
Either Mystique physically shows ageing or she doesn't -- she is a shape shifter. So any age of shape shifting characters should be available to her, or only age appropriate ones.
Havoc's energy blasts were completely unexplained. Nothing further.
If Darwin's power is "reactive evolution", he should be able to withstand any amount of energy Shaw throws at him -- perhaps not do anything with it afterwards, but survival seems to be key to this power (like maybe in order to hold the energy back he is stuck in stone or metal form for a very long time, or even permanently, but shattering definitely seems to be out of the question).
If Cerebro helps them track down ALL of the mutants on earth at that point, what made them settle on that particular group? Were they the only ones who didn't say no?
How is Hank McCoy completely oblivious to his physical speed and strength besides being able to hang off things with his feet?
Why is Angel the only mutant to defect to Shaw's group? Mystique has shown a much larger identity issue at this point.
Why did Angel have to undo the back of her top to let her wings out, despite not having to do this later, and how would her top stay on completely ungrasped and untethered?
Charles and Erik's deep relationship of the previous movies seems boiled down to a business partnership in this movie -- a business partnership that Erik never had any intention of holding onto. Where did all the Charles and Erik time go?
Did anyone direct January Jones' acting? She seemed bored throughout the whole thing, and not bored in that upper-class "is that all there is, I've seen better" kind of character she is -- bored as in "I am reading my lines for the first time off this cue card".
Trying to explain how Banshee uses his screaming power to fly only raises questions about who's idea was this in the first place (actually throwing this one back on the source materiel instead of the movie).
How does Magneto throw everyone around at the end? He's shown no propensity for being able to do this before hand, and no one is really running slowly, so it can't really be metal in the new suits.
The "Children of the atom" theory has no basis within the context of the movie. Shaw already has his powers as an adult, and Raven, Charles, and Erik have theirs as children all DURING the war (not to mention Hugh Jackman's Wolverine is showing being in-universe, and was born in the 19th century)-- predating any atomic bomb being detonated. It would only apply to characters under the age of 17.
If Havoc is in prison, arguably for the terrible things he can do with his power, why do the upper levels of the CIA doubt the existence of beings with mutant powers?
Yeah, I'm done with this. It wasn't bad -- in the top 3 as far as X-Men movies are concerned, but almost everything is better than either Wolverine or X-3.
-- Knuttel
5.16.2011
Lady Gaga, as she were, May 2011
Anyone who knows me and my tastes in music knows that amongst the vast sea to which I listen, waves crashing upon the shore, Lady Gaga is certainly a larger wave. More to the point, anyone who has read these two past articles (seeing as how the older one, a review of The Fame, is from 2009, I'm clearly digging).
Hah, remember when I used to open all of my posts with quotes from old plays and literature. Those were the days, or I think it only lasted like a month or two, whatevs, it was a fun time. It was just getting too forced and, well, difficult to keep finding apt quotes for whatever I was writing. The Gaga one, however, was hella apt.
Hah, remember when I used to open all of my posts with quotes from old plays and literature. Those were the days, or I think it only lasted like a month or two, whatevs, it was a fun time. It was just getting too forced and, well, difficult to keep finding apt quotes for whatever I was writing. The Gaga one, however, was hella apt.
2.11.2011
Goddamnit, Man Up America
http://www.avclub.com/articles/casting-agents-say-superheroes-are-played-by-briti,51246/
From a pure casting standpoint, I only really care that Captain America be played by an American, and I would prefer Wolverine to be played by a Canadian. Last time I checked, Captain America is being played by an American, and Wolverine, well, let's not go there.
The fact that Supes isn't played by an American now, I mean, ok, the character is supposed to have that all-American aww shucks kinda demeanor, but that's just acting. Superman is kryptonian. He isn't American. And as far as Batman being played by a Welshman, whatever so long as the acting chops are there. Side note, it would be interesting if Bale used his natural Welsh accent for Batman.
As a trend, this is disconcerting, for all of the reasons listed.
I submit myself, adonis that I am, to rectify these issues.
I know, you may say, but Knuttel, your acting experience is minimal, you should be utilizing your talents behind the camera. -- I KNOW THIS. But this situation needs to be fixed, so I'm gonna have to do some Orson Welles up in this bitch.
-- Knuttel
From a pure casting standpoint, I only really care that Captain America be played by an American, and I would prefer Wolverine to be played by a Canadian. Last time I checked, Captain America is being played by an American, and Wolverine, well, let's not go there.
The fact that Supes isn't played by an American now, I mean, ok, the character is supposed to have that all-American aww shucks kinda demeanor, but that's just acting. Superman is kryptonian. He isn't American. And as far as Batman being played by a Welshman, whatever so long as the acting chops are there. Side note, it would be interesting if Bale used his natural Welsh accent for Batman.
As a trend, this is disconcerting, for all of the reasons listed.
I submit myself, adonis that I am, to rectify these issues.
I know, you may say, but Knuttel, your acting experience is minimal, you should be utilizing your talents behind the camera. -- I KNOW THIS. But this situation needs to be fixed, so I'm gonna have to do some Orson Welles up in this bitch.
-- Knuttel
1.26.2011
Extolling the Virtues of All Fiction
Sometimes I wonder why, in the literary world, science fiction and fantasy are often entirely ignored. Some of the most important literary works are forebearers of the genres, if not the genres themselves -- Frankenstein IS about the effects of reanimating a piecemeal corpse, Dracula IS about vampires, 1984, Animal Farm, Faust, Dorian Gray, I mean the list goes on.
Fiction to me is comprised of two worlds, two possibilites -- that which has not happened, and that which can not happen.
And yes, I will admit that much of the works in Science Fiction are derivative and/or cliche, but can't the same be said for regular fiction? The basic rule of thumb is 90% of EVERYTHING is crap, no exceptions -- 90% of my posts are probably crap.
"Oh, but we can't possibly take anything seriously about anything with elves, dragons, or spaceships"
Oh, well I can't possibly take anything seriously about how difficult it is to be European upper class, but then I'd have to ignore War and Peace. You see, it can't be done.
"Oh, but Foundation is just about smart people trying to outsmart each other ... in space." Aside from space, how is that different from Othello or Much Ado About Nothing?
Maybe I should clarify my argument -- I am not defending science fiction or fantasy, per se, but I am saying that genre is not equal to quality. I think it's ridiculous that in order for a fantasy work to be taken seriously, it must be called "magic realism," or for a science fiction work to be taken seriously, it must be called "speculative fiction." Every genre has its merits, and to ignore them entirely, or let them in on technicalities and exceptions, is pompous, arrogant, snobbish, and ignorant.
-- Knuttel
Fiction to me is comprised of two worlds, two possibilites -- that which has not happened, and that which can not happen.
And yes, I will admit that much of the works in Science Fiction are derivative and/or cliche, but can't the same be said for regular fiction? The basic rule of thumb is 90% of EVERYTHING is crap, no exceptions -- 90% of my posts are probably crap.
"Oh, but we can't possibly take anything seriously about anything with elves, dragons, or spaceships"
Oh, well I can't possibly take anything seriously about how difficult it is to be European upper class, but then I'd have to ignore War and Peace. You see, it can't be done.
"Oh, but Foundation is just about smart people trying to outsmart each other ... in space." Aside from space, how is that different from Othello or Much Ado About Nothing?
Maybe I should clarify my argument -- I am not defending science fiction or fantasy, per se, but I am saying that genre is not equal to quality. I think it's ridiculous that in order for a fantasy work to be taken seriously, it must be called "magic realism," or for a science fiction work to be taken seriously, it must be called "speculative fiction." Every genre has its merits, and to ignore them entirely, or let them in on technicalities and exceptions, is pompous, arrogant, snobbish, and ignorant.
-- Knuttel
1.24.2011
The Deadpool Cometh
Coming to the conclusion that I am ignorant of whatever Marvel is doing with Deadpool nowadays, I decided to find out.
The story begins with rocking an all you can eat sushi lunch special for 5 rolls at like 10 bucks. Dice, I know.
Moving on, the local comic shop is like right next to this sushi place, so I go in and check it out. I had forgotten how messy and unkempt these places can be, but that's exactly how they want them. Gotta keep out the outsiders, you know "hey, I just saw spiderman 3, can you show me some spiderman stuff, I like that venom guy, his face peels back when he talks, that is neat." Anyways, local businesses equal awesome businesses, usually (still gotta keep out the riff raff), and I'd rather support the community than some corporate headquarters in East St. Louis.
So I check out the Deadpool titles (yes, they are plural, they are legion).
The story begins with rocking an all you can eat sushi lunch special for 5 rolls at like 10 bucks. Dice, I know.
Moving on, the local comic shop is like right next to this sushi place, so I go in and check it out. I had forgotten how messy and unkempt these places can be, but that's exactly how they want them. Gotta keep out the outsiders, you know "hey, I just saw spiderman 3, can you show me some spiderman stuff, I like that venom guy, his face peels back when he talks, that is neat." Anyways, local businesses equal awesome businesses, usually (still gotta keep out the riff raff), and I'd rather support the community than some corporate headquarters in East St. Louis.
So I check out the Deadpool titles (yes, they are plural, they are legion).
1.14.2011
Trouble in Tuscon
So possibly this could be the first (and maybe) last time I write about Tuscon.
So everyone knows what happened by now. I don't need to get into the deets.
So let's get straight into fallout.
So everyone knows what happened by now. I don't need to get into the deets.
So let's get straight into fallout.
12.28.2010
Net Neutrality or Something or Other
It looks like I was planning on writing something on the "net neutrality" law that passed about a week ago, but it was like a week ago, so I'll just put up the shit ton of links i procured in preparation, then maybe write a little something.
TV's future: FCC decisions on Internet access, Comcast-NBC merger approaching
FCC set to enact new net neutrality rules
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/obama-fcc-caves-on-net-ne_b_799435.html
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/12/fcc-rule/
And so it goes...
Clearly there do need to be some rules in place. While the vast openness of the Internet is it's strength, without ANY regulation, it can quickly turn into a madhouse of spam, viruses, and unsavory material. However, favoring the companies which supply the internet itself seems to be one of the dumbest ways to go about it (an alternative though, I cannot think of). I do like the example of what will happen to Netflix, now that comcast can kill the bandwidth dealing specifically with streaming it in favor of their own on demand videos.
By giving control to the gatekeepers, they do in fact keep things under control. By giving control to the gatekeepers, they give unilateral control to the Internet providers. By giving control to the gatekeepers, an entire market is compromised and colluded. By giving control to the gatekeepers, the creativity and ingenuity of the Internet may be reduced to the trickle speed given to off-market sites.
I guess we'll see how this plays out. I don't think anyone was expecting true net neutrality in any case.
-- Knuttel
TV's future: FCC decisions on Internet access, Comcast-NBC merger approaching
FCC set to enact new net neutrality rules
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/obama-fcc-caves-on-net-ne_b_799435.html
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/12/fcc-rule/
And so it goes...
Clearly there do need to be some rules in place. While the vast openness of the Internet is it's strength, without ANY regulation, it can quickly turn into a madhouse of spam, viruses, and unsavory material. However, favoring the companies which supply the internet itself seems to be one of the dumbest ways to go about it (an alternative though, I cannot think of). I do like the example of what will happen to Netflix, now that comcast can kill the bandwidth dealing specifically with streaming it in favor of their own on demand videos.
By giving control to the gatekeepers, they do in fact keep things under control. By giving control to the gatekeepers, they give unilateral control to the Internet providers. By giving control to the gatekeepers, an entire market is compromised and colluded. By giving control to the gatekeepers, the creativity and ingenuity of the Internet may be reduced to the trickle speed given to off-market sites.
I guess we'll see how this plays out. I don't think anyone was expecting true net neutrality in any case.
-- Knuttel
10.02.2010
The Modern Anti-Hero
The modern day anti-hero is in our midst, upon the TV screen: Jersey Shore's Angelina "Jolie" Pivarnick.
But Knuttel, one might say, how could this possibly be?
It's quite simple, really.
First off, no one on the program displays true heroic qualities. None of them have any explicit virtue or anything like that. They may display "jerk with a heart of gold" qualities, but that rarely ever extends beyond their "family" or anyone else allowed within their group. This too extends to Angelina.
So what does she do that makes her heroic, in an anti-hero kind of way?
She remains (or at least remained).
She was an early departure on the first season, leaving the rest of the cast to bond without her. Sure, she did an annoying thing or two (notably cock blocking Mike and Pauly D in an extremely obvious way), but the whole cast annoys each other really. They're all immature, annoying assholes. It's what they do.
So why then does Angelina get outcast as such? Sure, she wasn't there for the first season, but that didn't stop the cast from accepting other second season people, such as her friend Jose.
Week in and week out she continuously took shit from the rest of the cast. She slowly worked at gaining their trust, only to have it taken back in a quarter of the time for something usually trivial, something any other cast member would be just as likely to do -- in the hot tub with Vinny's uncle hitting the ball into Snooki's face could easily be an accident, especially with someone who would probably not be very athletic or coordinated, something that Snooki could have very easily done to Angelina (except she would've brushed it off as nothing and no one would have left the hot tub terribly upset).
Among other things held against her was Vinny taking offense to Angelina saying that JWoww is talking about how drunk Pauly is, saying it like, "she's talking shit," when it's closer to, "she's talking a matter of factly, with little inflection of criticism." This of course leads to a fight. Later after a long dispute between her and Vinny, they end up drunkenly sleeping together. Vinny later states this act as doing it so he has something against her. Let me say that again, Vinny slept with Angelina so he could later hold it against her. How evil is that? Anyways, this comes within a day of Angelina saying she slept with Jose, when she didn't, leading to the later vitriolic accusation of sluttery -- you slept with two dudes under 24 hours. Nevermind the fact that MVP (Mike, Vinny, and Pauly) are either aspiring to or successfully doing this with their respective opposite gender the entire Miami stay.
And then the hammer comes down on her in the form of Mike, formalizing his anger against her and urging every second for her exit. JWoww offers advice to just stay and deal with it, Mike is an asshole, but the damage is done. The pressure is too great, as Mike is a forceful asshole who believes his opinions are synonymous with those of the rest of the house, and besides the advice, she gets no support.
The impetus behind the final argument is a misplaced menstrual pad, though I suspect it was moved by MTV's cameramen or staff. While I believe she is a sloppy and dirty person, I have a hard time believing someone would purposely do something like that -- leaving the alternate hypothesis to be something accidental, like as if she threw it at the trash can, it failed to make it in, and she didn't look back (which is still very dirty). Either way she had deniability.
In any case, her only true crime is being herself. She refused to submit in a culture of misogyny. Simply look at the relatively subdued personalities of the other female cast members, as well as the very one sided accusations of slutty behavior (Mike, for instance, is never criticized for sleeping with many women, rather sleeping with ugly women).
In summary: she is ostracized mainly for not fitting in, and takes abuse from the other house mates on a daily basis for doing this. For refusing to be someone besides herself (when all options are rather morally neutral at best), she is the modern anti-hero. At the very least, she carries the hero's burden. She doesn't want to simply be another guidette, she wants to be Angelina the guidette, and for this she should be commended.
-- Knuttel
But Knuttel, one might say, how could this possibly be?
It's quite simple, really.
First off, no one on the program displays true heroic qualities. None of them have any explicit virtue or anything like that. They may display "jerk with a heart of gold" qualities, but that rarely ever extends beyond their "family" or anyone else allowed within their group. This too extends to Angelina.
So what does she do that makes her heroic, in an anti-hero kind of way?
She remains (or at least remained).
She was an early departure on the first season, leaving the rest of the cast to bond without her. Sure, she did an annoying thing or two (notably cock blocking Mike and Pauly D in an extremely obvious way), but the whole cast annoys each other really. They're all immature, annoying assholes. It's what they do.
So why then does Angelina get outcast as such? Sure, she wasn't there for the first season, but that didn't stop the cast from accepting other second season people, such as her friend Jose.
Week in and week out she continuously took shit from the rest of the cast. She slowly worked at gaining their trust, only to have it taken back in a quarter of the time for something usually trivial, something any other cast member would be just as likely to do -- in the hot tub with Vinny's uncle hitting the ball into Snooki's face could easily be an accident, especially with someone who would probably not be very athletic or coordinated, something that Snooki could have very easily done to Angelina (except she would've brushed it off as nothing and no one would have left the hot tub terribly upset).
Among other things held against her was Vinny taking offense to Angelina saying that JWoww is talking about how drunk Pauly is, saying it like, "she's talking shit," when it's closer to, "she's talking a matter of factly, with little inflection of criticism." This of course leads to a fight. Later after a long dispute between her and Vinny, they end up drunkenly sleeping together. Vinny later states this act as doing it so he has something against her. Let me say that again, Vinny slept with Angelina so he could later hold it against her. How evil is that? Anyways, this comes within a day of Angelina saying she slept with Jose, when she didn't, leading to the later vitriolic accusation of sluttery -- you slept with two dudes under 24 hours. Nevermind the fact that MVP (Mike, Vinny, and Pauly) are either aspiring to or successfully doing this with their respective opposite gender the entire Miami stay.
And then the hammer comes down on her in the form of Mike, formalizing his anger against her and urging every second for her exit. JWoww offers advice to just stay and deal with it, Mike is an asshole, but the damage is done. The pressure is too great, as Mike is a forceful asshole who believes his opinions are synonymous with those of the rest of the house, and besides the advice, she gets no support.
The impetus behind the final argument is a misplaced menstrual pad, though I suspect it was moved by MTV's cameramen or staff. While I believe she is a sloppy and dirty person, I have a hard time believing someone would purposely do something like that -- leaving the alternate hypothesis to be something accidental, like as if she threw it at the trash can, it failed to make it in, and she didn't look back (which is still very dirty). Either way she had deniability.
In any case, her only true crime is being herself. She refused to submit in a culture of misogyny. Simply look at the relatively subdued personalities of the other female cast members, as well as the very one sided accusations of slutty behavior (Mike, for instance, is never criticized for sleeping with many women, rather sleeping with ugly women).
In summary: she is ostracized mainly for not fitting in, and takes abuse from the other house mates on a daily basis for doing this. For refusing to be someone besides herself (when all options are rather morally neutral at best), she is the modern anti-hero. At the very least, she carries the hero's burden. She doesn't want to simply be another guidette, she wants to be Angelina the guidette, and for this she should be commended.
-- Knuttel
9.26.2010
The downfall of western society: a Pixar story
So I finally saw Finding Nemo.
I was dissappointed, but not really. I didn't like it, but it was standard Pixar fare.
Without further ado, I shall now let loose my anger upon Pixar.
All they make are treacly little Oscar-bait pictures. The funny part, of course, is they'll likely never win any best picture Oscars for doing this, as animated pictures rarely ever win the best picture Oscar. Though animated Oscar-bait pictures are usually much more likely to make money than non-animated ones -- plus lower production costs; theyre running to the bank.
But my point is they don't challenge the medium in any way other than technical. They don't treat it like an art, they treat it like an exercise. All the stories are the same tug-at-your-heartstrings bullshit. Oddly enough, all the stories also have a very anti-human message.
I shall go through this latter part in list format, using the list of Pixar films made, according to wikipedia.
Toy Story, 1995 -- While the conflict is mostly between Buzz and Woody, it is brought up mostly by Andy the human kid's temporary taste in toys. Also, there's the kid next door who terrorizes and destroys all toys, though he would be considered a minor-antagonist. Add in the fact that humans aren't supposed to see the toys move ever, and really any human is an enemy of some kind in this movie.
A Bug's Life, 1998 -- I don't remember anything about this movie. It sucked too much for me. Plus it was a blatant knockoff of Dreamworks' 1998 movie Antz. Funny thing is when Dreamworks goes toe to toe with Pixar on films of comparable quality, Dreamworks usually makes the better film. This is the beginning of this trend. Are people even in this movie? Oh man, that's the most evil of all.
Toy Story 2, 1999 -- Already going into the sequel well on their third effort, the antagonist in this mediocre movie is the toy collector.
Monsters, inc., 2001 -- I don't really remember this movie, but I think the antagonist in this movie was the little kid that runs around the monster city.
Finding Nemo, 2003 -- The main antagonist in this movie is the Sydney dentist (how an ocean clown fish managed to survive the trip from the Great Barrier Reef to Sydney is beyond me). All the oceanic "enemies" were merely plot obstacles (were the jellyfish ever aware of their presence?). It is also one of the first movies to make a dramatic stand against people and what people stand for explicity, criticizing the "stealing" of fish from their natural environments, and really people "invading" upon any oceanic habitat. Also, anyone notice how the final "obstacle" was a fishing boat, of which the fish were at least aware of fishing grounds? Not to mention a clown fish would probably get tossed overboard during the sorting process as by-catch. Also, even though Shark Tales was decidedly mediocre, it was still better than this.
The Incredibles, 2004 -- The antagonist is, at first, the humans who ban superhero activities in public. This is used as a plot device to set up the main antagonist, a normal human who captures and fights superheroes with his robots.
Cars, 2006 -- I could only stand about 5 minutes of this crapfest. Too many awful car puns. Anyways, I don't even think humans exist in the "Cars" universe. What is the purpose of a car's existence then, if not to propel the driver? Thus, existentially, humans are, too, the enemy.
Ratatouille, 2007 -- The enemy in this movie is every human which attempts to stop a single rat's attempts at becoming a chef.
WALL-E, 2008 -- The antagonist in this movie is natural human sloth. As people develop better and better technology, they become lazier and lazier, ultimately turning earth into a trash pile. The robots running the ship realize this, using it as their reason to keep the humans away from earth, even though it can now "support" life. Kung Fu Panda was superior to this film in every single way, even in only the first five minutes.
Up, 2009 -- Never saw it, don't plan on seeing it, but I can bet you there's an indictment against humankind somewhere in there.
Toy Story 3, 2010 -- The third sequel of the Toy Story franchise, it improves upon the second one. Humans exist as the usual background foe, special emphasis placed upon the little kids who destroy and go through toys, not understanding their limits. The main antagonist is mob-boss of the daycare, Lotso Hugs, but all of the conflict in this movie is driven by abandonment issues the toys feel from their human masters.
So there you go, Pixar hates people. I expect a Pixar remake of Soylent Green, rewritten as a feel good story.
-- Knuttel
I was dissappointed, but not really. I didn't like it, but it was standard Pixar fare.
Without further ado, I shall now let loose my anger upon Pixar.
All they make are treacly little Oscar-bait pictures. The funny part, of course, is they'll likely never win any best picture Oscars for doing this, as animated pictures rarely ever win the best picture Oscar. Though animated Oscar-bait pictures are usually much more likely to make money than non-animated ones -- plus lower production costs; theyre running to the bank.
But my point is they don't challenge the medium in any way other than technical. They don't treat it like an art, they treat it like an exercise. All the stories are the same tug-at-your-heartstrings bullshit. Oddly enough, all the stories also have a very anti-human message.
I shall go through this latter part in list format, using the list of Pixar films made, according to wikipedia.
Toy Story, 1995 -- While the conflict is mostly between Buzz and Woody, it is brought up mostly by Andy the human kid's temporary taste in toys. Also, there's the kid next door who terrorizes and destroys all toys, though he would be considered a minor-antagonist. Add in the fact that humans aren't supposed to see the toys move ever, and really any human is an enemy of some kind in this movie.
A Bug's Life, 1998 -- I don't remember anything about this movie. It sucked too much for me. Plus it was a blatant knockoff of Dreamworks' 1998 movie Antz. Funny thing is when Dreamworks goes toe to toe with Pixar on films of comparable quality, Dreamworks usually makes the better film. This is the beginning of this trend. Are people even in this movie? Oh man, that's the most evil of all.
Toy Story 2, 1999 -- Already going into the sequel well on their third effort, the antagonist in this mediocre movie is the toy collector.
Monsters, inc., 2001 -- I don't really remember this movie, but I think the antagonist in this movie was the little kid that runs around the monster city.
Finding Nemo, 2003 -- The main antagonist in this movie is the Sydney dentist (how an ocean clown fish managed to survive the trip from the Great Barrier Reef to Sydney is beyond me). All the oceanic "enemies" were merely plot obstacles (were the jellyfish ever aware of their presence?). It is also one of the first movies to make a dramatic stand against people and what people stand for explicity, criticizing the "stealing" of fish from their natural environments, and really people "invading" upon any oceanic habitat. Also, anyone notice how the final "obstacle" was a fishing boat, of which the fish were at least aware of fishing grounds? Not to mention a clown fish would probably get tossed overboard during the sorting process as by-catch. Also, even though Shark Tales was decidedly mediocre, it was still better than this.
The Incredibles, 2004 -- The antagonist is, at first, the humans who ban superhero activities in public. This is used as a plot device to set up the main antagonist, a normal human who captures and fights superheroes with his robots.
Cars, 2006 -- I could only stand about 5 minutes of this crapfest. Too many awful car puns. Anyways, I don't even think humans exist in the "Cars" universe. What is the purpose of a car's existence then, if not to propel the driver? Thus, existentially, humans are, too, the enemy.
Ratatouille, 2007 -- The enemy in this movie is every human which attempts to stop a single rat's attempts at becoming a chef.
WALL-E, 2008 -- The antagonist in this movie is natural human sloth. As people develop better and better technology, they become lazier and lazier, ultimately turning earth into a trash pile. The robots running the ship realize this, using it as their reason to keep the humans away from earth, even though it can now "support" life. Kung Fu Panda was superior to this film in every single way, even in only the first five minutes.
Up, 2009 -- Never saw it, don't plan on seeing it, but I can bet you there's an indictment against humankind somewhere in there.
Toy Story 3, 2010 -- The third sequel of the Toy Story franchise, it improves upon the second one. Humans exist as the usual background foe, special emphasis placed upon the little kids who destroy and go through toys, not understanding their limits. The main antagonist is mob-boss of the daycare, Lotso Hugs, but all of the conflict in this movie is driven by abandonment issues the toys feel from their human masters.
So there you go, Pixar hates people. I expect a Pixar remake of Soylent Green, rewritten as a feel good story.
-- Knuttel
9.16.2010
Division
Let's take a break from sports for a little bit. It's getting repetitive anyway.
There is a great political movement occurring right now, the tea party. When it first started, it seemed easy to write it off as a fringe movement, relegate it to third party status.
Instead of becoming a third party, they simply became something similar to a PAC. They either fielded or supported candidates from both parties, at least initially. Public figures, all of whom could be described in some manner as "Washington outsiders" started taking charge of the party.
The tea party grew increasingly on a more and more conservative base. Originally, it appeared to be made from libertarians who were fed up with being on the outside looking in as the government grew larger. Other right wing oriented groups latched on, also on the outside since the democrats took control of both electable houses of government in 2008.
And while the economic crisis continues, anger grows; more and more people become dissatisfied with the manner in which the country is run. The tea party becomes a symbol of those who feel ignored by the government, who feel even when they vote for the old party line, they vote for the same thing.
That is how Christine O Donnell beat Mike Castle for the republican senate candidate in Delaware.
By all accounts, Mike Castle had no reason to lose. He was a moderate republican in a Northeastern state. He had a long and competent service record -- currently serving as Delaware's lone house member, also served as Governor and Lieutenant-Governor. Aside from espousing the view that our President was born in the U.S.A., there shouldn't have been any issues, and he likely would have had the support of many democrats, winning the Senate seat.
But that's precisely why he didn't win. The tea party has taken over the right wing of the republican party, adding social conservatism along the way. Simply having a long government career was disastrous, no matter how long or esteemed. Not dealing well with conspiracy theorists also doesn't help when fringe movements close in on a party.
So now all of a sudden, Delaware is a race. What was sure to be a seat for Mike Castle and the republicans is now fair game to both parties.
O Donnel had previously run in the 2006 Primaries for Senate, and also ran on the main ticket in 2008 against Joe Biden. She lost on both occasions, but now has tea party steam backing her up. She's stood for some socially crazy positions, claiming to base it on religion (seeing as how I too am a catholic, I know she's full of shit), and etc, but I'm not gonna point that all out. I'll just direct you to a video which should be up in many places of her on a '90s MTV special when she was in her twenties.
I went to her website to try and figure out what exactly her positions are on anything, and well, I got this. Yeah, it just asks for donations, and doesn't say anything about her campaign or what she stands for. Even funnier, if you click to the next screen, it doesn't have her updated goal of $1,000,000 posted. For a movement that seems to have sprung quickly with the aid of the internet, I am really disappointed in a website like this one.
Why do I care about this? I don't live in Delaware, after all. Well, I live close enough. What happens in Delaware can effect me, and what happens in Delaware could also be a indicator of what is to come in southeastern PA politics. In addition, driving on I-95 in Delaware is already an unpleasant experience, and I do not want this to be even more unpleasant cos some crazy doesn't want to pay maintenance on it. I could decide it's fiscally irresponsible for me to pay car insurance, that doesn't mean I don't need it to drive my car, and doesn't reflect anything about fiscal responsibility.
Maybe conservatives want Obama, Pelosi, and Reid to be the figureheads of the democratic party in 2012, but I think liberals would likewise be interested to see Palin, O Donnel, and Angle as figureheads of the republicans.
What the hell ever happened to constructive lawmaking? You can't fix anything if you can't agree damnit.
There is a great political movement occurring right now, the tea party. When it first started, it seemed easy to write it off as a fringe movement, relegate it to third party status.
Instead of becoming a third party, they simply became something similar to a PAC. They either fielded or supported candidates from both parties, at least initially. Public figures, all of whom could be described in some manner as "Washington outsiders" started taking charge of the party.
The tea party grew increasingly on a more and more conservative base. Originally, it appeared to be made from libertarians who were fed up with being on the outside looking in as the government grew larger. Other right wing oriented groups latched on, also on the outside since the democrats took control of both electable houses of government in 2008.
And while the economic crisis continues, anger grows; more and more people become dissatisfied with the manner in which the country is run. The tea party becomes a symbol of those who feel ignored by the government, who feel even when they vote for the old party line, they vote for the same thing.
That is how Christine O Donnell beat Mike Castle for the republican senate candidate in Delaware.
By all accounts, Mike Castle had no reason to lose. He was a moderate republican in a Northeastern state. He had a long and competent service record -- currently serving as Delaware's lone house member, also served as Governor and Lieutenant-Governor. Aside from espousing the view that our President was born in the U.S.A., there shouldn't have been any issues, and he likely would have had the support of many democrats, winning the Senate seat.
But that's precisely why he didn't win. The tea party has taken over the right wing of the republican party, adding social conservatism along the way. Simply having a long government career was disastrous, no matter how long or esteemed. Not dealing well with conspiracy theorists also doesn't help when fringe movements close in on a party.
So now all of a sudden, Delaware is a race. What was sure to be a seat for Mike Castle and the republicans is now fair game to both parties.
O Donnel had previously run in the 2006 Primaries for Senate, and also ran on the main ticket in 2008 against Joe Biden. She lost on both occasions, but now has tea party steam backing her up. She's stood for some socially crazy positions, claiming to base it on religion (seeing as how I too am a catholic, I know she's full of shit), and etc, but I'm not gonna point that all out. I'll just direct you to a video which should be up in many places of her on a '90s MTV special when she was in her twenties.
I went to her website to try and figure out what exactly her positions are on anything, and well, I got this. Yeah, it just asks for donations, and doesn't say anything about her campaign or what she stands for. Even funnier, if you click to the next screen, it doesn't have her updated goal of $1,000,000 posted. For a movement that seems to have sprung quickly with the aid of the internet, I am really disappointed in a website like this one.
Why do I care about this? I don't live in Delaware, after all. Well, I live close enough. What happens in Delaware can effect me, and what happens in Delaware could also be a indicator of what is to come in southeastern PA politics. In addition, driving on I-95 in Delaware is already an unpleasant experience, and I do not want this to be even more unpleasant cos some crazy doesn't want to pay maintenance on it. I could decide it's fiscally irresponsible for me to pay car insurance, that doesn't mean I don't need it to drive my car, and doesn't reflect anything about fiscal responsibility.
Maybe conservatives want Obama, Pelosi, and Reid to be the figureheads of the democratic party in 2012, but I think liberals would likewise be interested to see Palin, O Donnel, and Angle as figureheads of the republicans.
What the hell ever happened to constructive lawmaking? You can't fix anything if you can't agree damnit.
9.10.2010
Sleep
So, I went to a bitchin concert Tuesday night.
Sleep has reunited for a fall 2010 tour. They broke up in 1997 after they had difficulty getting their album Dopesmoker released. It was made up of one hour long song. They tried again by cutting 8 minutes off, dividing it into sections, rewriting some of the words, and calling it Jerusalem. Both ended up being released in some way after the break up. They are mostly known for their landmark doom metal album Sleep's Holy Mountain, featuring sludgey Black Sabbath tinged riffs. After the break up, bassist/vocalist Al Cisneros and drummer Chris Hakius formed doom/tibetan chant outfit Om, and guitarist Matt Pike formed sludge metal group High on Fire. They have reunited for a few one off shows since the breakup.
Anyways, I found out about the show that morning, and decided I had to go. This was, after all, one of the two defining doom metal bands of the 90's (the other being Kyuss).
Opening was Iron Man. I was aware of this band, but not of the fact they still existed. When I first saw them on the billing, I thought it was merely a different band that had stolen the name, or some other copyright infringement of some kind. Anyways, they weren't bad. The singer reminded me of what Jack Black would be like at 50 if he had never made it as an actor.
Next on stage was A Storm of Light. They were a post-metal band from Brooklyn, so -- hipster noise metal. They were definitely the loudest on stage by volume. Interesting fact -- the band's frontman is the art/visual director for Neurosis.
Finally, what I was waiting for -- Sleep. They took the stage and just rocked the fuck out. No frills, just awesome riffage, awesome jamming, really just whole lots of awesome going all the way around. It's a unique experience going to a doom metal show, compared to other types of metal. Most metal shows would require or facilitate some form of aggression or moshing or something of that nature. Doom metal shows, on the other hand, if done right, just create a vibe, and everyone in the room is just feeling it.
This is a band that requires further listening.
-- Knuttel
Sleep has reunited for a fall 2010 tour. They broke up in 1997 after they had difficulty getting their album Dopesmoker released. It was made up of one hour long song. They tried again by cutting 8 minutes off, dividing it into sections, rewriting some of the words, and calling it Jerusalem. Both ended up being released in some way after the break up. They are mostly known for their landmark doom metal album Sleep's Holy Mountain, featuring sludgey Black Sabbath tinged riffs. After the break up, bassist/vocalist Al Cisneros and drummer Chris Hakius formed doom/tibetan chant outfit Om, and guitarist Matt Pike formed sludge metal group High on Fire. They have reunited for a few one off shows since the breakup.
Anyways, I found out about the show that morning, and decided I had to go. This was, after all, one of the two defining doom metal bands of the 90's (the other being Kyuss).
Opening was Iron Man. I was aware of this band, but not of the fact they still existed. When I first saw them on the billing, I thought it was merely a different band that had stolen the name, or some other copyright infringement of some kind. Anyways, they weren't bad. The singer reminded me of what Jack Black would be like at 50 if he had never made it as an actor.
Next on stage was A Storm of Light. They were a post-metal band from Brooklyn, so -- hipster noise metal. They were definitely the loudest on stage by volume. Interesting fact -- the band's frontman is the art/visual director for Neurosis.
Finally, what I was waiting for -- Sleep. They took the stage and just rocked the fuck out. No frills, just awesome riffage, awesome jamming, really just whole lots of awesome going all the way around. It's a unique experience going to a doom metal show, compared to other types of metal. Most metal shows would require or facilitate some form of aggression or moshing or something of that nature. Doom metal shows, on the other hand, if done right, just create a vibe, and everyone in the room is just feeling it.
This is a band that requires further listening.
-- Knuttel
7.04.2010
On America
Today is July 4th, the day the declaration of Independence was signed way way back in 1776. Because of this, it is often held to be the "birthday" of the United States of America. Of course the revolutionary war had been going on for roughly a year by this point, and the declaration itself was written on the 2nd, and the original government charter for the United States quickly became obsolete, so really I guess you could even say the nation wasn't born until the constitution was written many years later.
But really, I digress.
What is it to be American then?
Given the nature of our nation's birth, it is directly within our right to question authority. Given the nature of our nation's democratic elections, it is directly within our right to hold our elected officials accountable.
But there is a line, and I think we all know it.
It is most often crossed by those who are they themselves losing an argument, simply wishing to carry everyone down with them. Once this line is crossed, they cannot win. It is a simple matter of fact. Frankly it just sullies the entire system of argumentation and debate. It makes the actual idea of democracy seem unwanted, unfeasible, or even unnecessary.
The line is absurd comparisons. Most often it takes the form of Hitler comparisons, but really it could any force seemingly radical. And both sides (left and right wing nuts) are incredibly guilty of it.
Let me put it this way. Hitler was a human being (shocking, I know), and he ran a functioning government body (horrible, but functioning). Naturally, perhaps by mistake, his government and he were bound to do things right once in a while, naturally he might have had some human tendencies, being a human.
It is known he tried getting into art school as a painter. Does this make painters evil? Is the medium of painting forever tarnished by his youthful dream of becoming a painter?
That's really just one example, and it would really be a painstaking chore to try and redeem him anymore. Frankly, I don't think it should be done, but I was just trying to make a point.
You compare someone or something to Hitler and/or the Nazis, and you lose the argument. It shows you've lost respect for the argument itself.
Let's try it a different way, shall I?
George Washington was a butcher who was responsible for the deaths of many many lives, and was potentially a self-hating racist because a lot of them were British (Washington himself being of some sort of WASP heritage, as most of the founders were).
Of course all of these were during the course of war, both the Revolutionary and the French and Indian War. Facts can lie sometimes. They love to lie when you take them out of context.
The shocking thing is no one seems to bat an eye when this happens.
Being loud doesn't make your point right, and maybe if you listen to the other side you'll learn something. Insularity breeds ignorance.
Maybe we should compare our president to Hannah Montana.
I dunno, just spit-balling. Maybe it's less apt because Hannah Montana (despite her name) has never been involved with any sort of governing bodies.
-- Knuttel
But really, I digress.
What is it to be American then?
Given the nature of our nation's birth, it is directly within our right to question authority. Given the nature of our nation's democratic elections, it is directly within our right to hold our elected officials accountable.
But there is a line, and I think we all know it.
It is most often crossed by those who are they themselves losing an argument, simply wishing to carry everyone down with them. Once this line is crossed, they cannot win. It is a simple matter of fact. Frankly it just sullies the entire system of argumentation and debate. It makes the actual idea of democracy seem unwanted, unfeasible, or even unnecessary.
The line is absurd comparisons. Most often it takes the form of Hitler comparisons, but really it could any force seemingly radical. And both sides (left and right wing nuts) are incredibly guilty of it.
Let me put it this way. Hitler was a human being (shocking, I know), and he ran a functioning government body (horrible, but functioning). Naturally, perhaps by mistake, his government and he were bound to do things right once in a while, naturally he might have had some human tendencies, being a human.
It is known he tried getting into art school as a painter. Does this make painters evil? Is the medium of painting forever tarnished by his youthful dream of becoming a painter?
That's really just one example, and it would really be a painstaking chore to try and redeem him anymore. Frankly, I don't think it should be done, but I was just trying to make a point.
You compare someone or something to Hitler and/or the Nazis, and you lose the argument. It shows you've lost respect for the argument itself.
Let's try it a different way, shall I?
George Washington was a butcher who was responsible for the deaths of many many lives, and was potentially a self-hating racist because a lot of them were British (Washington himself being of some sort of WASP heritage, as most of the founders were).
Of course all of these were during the course of war, both the Revolutionary and the French and Indian War. Facts can lie sometimes. They love to lie when you take them out of context.
The shocking thing is no one seems to bat an eye when this happens.
Being loud doesn't make your point right, and maybe if you listen to the other side you'll learn something. Insularity breeds ignorance.
Maybe we should compare our president to Hannah Montana.
I dunno, just spit-balling. Maybe it's less apt because Hannah Montana (despite her name) has never been involved with any sort of governing bodies.
-- Knuttel
5.18.2010
THE CHAMPIONS
:cue awful champions league theme song:
I dunno, maybe I don't get it cos I'm not one of those fancy pants European types.
Maybe I don't get it cos I'm also aware of the CONCACAF Champions League, in addition to the UEFA version (I don't think I hear them say UEFA, in either abbreviations or in full during the song).
In any case, I digress.
This Saturday (a step up from last year, when it was Wednesday) Bayern Munich and Internazionale Milan will meet in the Champions League finals. The game will be held in Madrid, Santiago Bernabéu Stadium, the field of Real Madrid.
Real Madrid was, for many decades, a willing acceptor of privileges at the behest of the Franko dictatorship. This means that many of their titles should be considered null and void, or at the very least include asterisks. While many Champions League level teams boast many international studs, the Real Madrid teams that won the first decade of Champions League play was basically the Spanish national squad.
They have played against one another 4 times, twice as a result of being in the same group in the 88-89 UEFA Cup, the other two as a result of being in the same group in the 2006-2007 UEFA Champions League. The record stands as 2 wins for Bayern, 1 win for Inter, 1 draw.
Bayern Munich has won the Champions League 4 times, the last time being 2001, and has been the runner up 3 times.
Internazionale Milan has won the Champions league twice, the last time being in 1965, and has been the runner up another two times. All of these were achieved by using Catenazzio, a strategy that uses boredom to lull the refs, spectators, and sometimes the other team asleep.
Both of these teams are going for the treble, having both won their league titles by points and by the league cup.
Both of these teams are most notable for carrying all time soccer great, legend, and sometimes alter-ego of the Knuttel, Lothar Matthaus, for extended periods of time. Lothar had two stints with Bayern Munich -- 1984-1988, 1992-2000. He had one stint with Internazionale in the meantime -- 1988-1992.
So who wins the game? BREAKDOWN
History in the Champions League final -- Bayern
Geographic proximity to Madrid -- Inter
Tenure of Lothar Matthaus -- Bayern
Not having Marco Matterazi -- Bayern
Goalkeeping -- Inter
Defense -- Bayern (by a hair)
Counter-attack -- Bayern
Mid Field -- Bayern
Forwards -- Inter
Bayern 6 - Inter 3
It is closer than it looks though. This game, by no means, should be a runaway. The stregnths of Bayerns Center defense, attacking outside backs, and midfield should be enough to keep Inter busy. If they can get through, their forwards are better (forwards plural, I do realize Bayern has Klose, just little else), and their more experienced goal keeper should keep Bayern at bay.
As long as the game doesn't devolve into the Cattenazzio that Inter made famous in the 60s, the game should be enjoyable.
-- Knuttel
I dunno, maybe I don't get it cos I'm not one of those fancy pants European types.
Maybe I don't get it cos I'm also aware of the CONCACAF Champions League, in addition to the UEFA version (I don't think I hear them say UEFA, in either abbreviations or in full during the song).
In any case, I digress.
This Saturday (a step up from last year, when it was Wednesday) Bayern Munich and Internazionale Milan will meet in the Champions League finals. The game will be held in Madrid, Santiago Bernabéu Stadium, the field of Real Madrid.
Real Madrid was, for many decades, a willing acceptor of privileges at the behest of the Franko dictatorship. This means that many of their titles should be considered null and void, or at the very least include asterisks. While many Champions League level teams boast many international studs, the Real Madrid teams that won the first decade of Champions League play was basically the Spanish national squad.
They have played against one another 4 times, twice as a result of being in the same group in the 88-89 UEFA Cup, the other two as a result of being in the same group in the 2006-2007 UEFA Champions League. The record stands as 2 wins for Bayern, 1 win for Inter, 1 draw.
Bayern Munich has won the Champions League 4 times, the last time being 2001, and has been the runner up 3 times.
Internazionale Milan has won the Champions league twice, the last time being in 1965, and has been the runner up another two times. All of these were achieved by using Catenazzio, a strategy that uses boredom to lull the refs, spectators, and sometimes the other team asleep.
Both of these teams are going for the treble, having both won their league titles by points and by the league cup.
Both of these teams are most notable for carrying all time soccer great, legend, and sometimes alter-ego of the Knuttel, Lothar Matthaus, for extended periods of time. Lothar had two stints with Bayern Munich -- 1984-1988, 1992-2000. He had one stint with Internazionale in the meantime -- 1988-1992.
So who wins the game? BREAKDOWN
History in the Champions League final -- Bayern
Geographic proximity to Madrid -- Inter
Tenure of Lothar Matthaus -- Bayern
Not having Marco Matterazi -- Bayern
Goalkeeping -- Inter
Defense -- Bayern (by a hair)
Counter-attack -- Bayern
Mid Field -- Bayern
Forwards -- Inter
Bayern 6 - Inter 3
It is closer than it looks though. This game, by no means, should be a runaway. The stregnths of Bayerns Center defense, attacking outside backs, and midfield should be enough to keep Inter busy. If they can get through, their forwards are better (forwards plural, I do realize Bayern has Klose, just little else), and their more experienced goal keeper should keep Bayern at bay.
As long as the game doesn't devolve into the Cattenazzio that Inter made famous in the 60s, the game should be enjoyable.
-- Knuttel
4.04.2010
The Aesthetics of Music
Genres of music, I have found, are more often divided by their aesthetic than by their actual sound. Oddly enough, this proves to be more useful, as using the combination of sound with the aesthetics creates a more encompassing and complete definition of a particular style of music as an actual cultural movement or event.
Case in point -- hair metal is not metal.
Aesthetically, there are no similarities at all. Musically, there are distorted guitars, which also exist in other types of music. Culturally there is the lifestyle of debauchery, which while sometimes associated with metal, is really more indicative of the successes of popular music in general.
Its insistence that it is part of the metal scene bugs me to no end.
Let me put it this way. In America in the 1980s, there was mainly two styles of "metal" -- hair metal and thrash metal. Put on any Metallica/Megadeth/Anthrax/Slayer/Exodus/Testament album from 1982-1990 and compare it to the output of bands like Motley Crue and Poison from the same time period.
They are clearly not of the same genre, no matter how you look at it. Even with all of the wide encompassing definitions of metal music, hair metal is not metal.
The way I see it, metal is a type of music defined by a lack of comfort. It's loaded with dissonance and distortion, sometimes syncopation and staccato. It's meant to keep you on edge. Thematically, in fact, the lyrics are often on edge. Hair metal is the exact opposite of that. Not only is the music "comfortable" but it is often about getting more "comfort".
And again, radio has ruined the definition. The only kind of metal which regularly gets played on the radio is hair metal. The only thrash band that gets played is really Metallica, and even then its mostly their 90s rock stuff. Megadeth, really only the song "trust" in the year 1998 or whatever; Anthrax and Slayer, forget about it, unless some dude's been bugging the dj for about a week. And then besides that, really only the "classics", like Sabbath (but only the album Paranoid) or Zepellin (more of the classic rocky stuff, less of the metal stuff).
I could probably rant on this for alot longer, but im pretty tired. fuck. damn hair metal.
Now for some real fucking metal (pete, I don't think you can see these videos on buzz)
-- Knuttel
Case in point -- hair metal is not metal.
Aesthetically, there are no similarities at all. Musically, there are distorted guitars, which also exist in other types of music. Culturally there is the lifestyle of debauchery, which while sometimes associated with metal, is really more indicative of the successes of popular music in general.
Its insistence that it is part of the metal scene bugs me to no end.
Let me put it this way. In America in the 1980s, there was mainly two styles of "metal" -- hair metal and thrash metal. Put on any Metallica/Megadeth/Anthrax/Slayer/Exodus/Testament album from 1982-1990 and compare it to the output of bands like Motley Crue and Poison from the same time period.
They are clearly not of the same genre, no matter how you look at it. Even with all of the wide encompassing definitions of metal music, hair metal is not metal.
The way I see it, metal is a type of music defined by a lack of comfort. It's loaded with dissonance and distortion, sometimes syncopation and staccato. It's meant to keep you on edge. Thematically, in fact, the lyrics are often on edge. Hair metal is the exact opposite of that. Not only is the music "comfortable" but it is often about getting more "comfort".
And again, radio has ruined the definition. The only kind of metal which regularly gets played on the radio is hair metal. The only thrash band that gets played is really Metallica, and even then its mostly their 90s rock stuff. Megadeth, really only the song "trust" in the year 1998 or whatever; Anthrax and Slayer, forget about it, unless some dude's been bugging the dj for about a week. And then besides that, really only the "classics", like Sabbath (but only the album Paranoid) or Zepellin (more of the classic rocky stuff, less of the metal stuff).
I could probably rant on this for alot longer, but im pretty tired. fuck. damn hair metal.
Now for some real fucking metal (pete, I don't think you can see these videos on buzz)
-- Knuttel
3.27.2010
Champions League Quarter Preview
Now, let's take a break from the NCAA March Madness tournament, as march is winding down. I bring to you, from the other side of the ocean, SOCCER -- specifically the Champions League.
Champions League is like their equivalent to Major League Baseball -- it has the best teams from one region (MLB - North America, CL - Europe) from one sport (MLB - baseball, CL - soccer), all from different countries (MLB - USA, Canada, the south; CL - France, Italy, England, Spain, Germany, Russia, etc).
And now for my completely unbiased preview of upcoming Champions League play
Shit yeah, motherfucker
Anyways.
The games are played in pairs - one home and one away for each team. Winning both games guarantees advancing. If both games tie or end with one win/one loss, then goals are added up. The team with more goals advances. If that doesn't do the trick, then away goals count for more, and the team that scored more away advances. IF that doesn't declare a winner, then they play overtime or something in the last game.
Matchups are as follows:
Olympique Lyon vs Bordeuax
Bayern Munich vs Manchester United
Arsenal vs Barcelona
Internazionale Milan vs CSKA Moscow
Naturally, we all know Lyon is going to advance like a truck (a renault truck?) past oblivious Bordeaux. That's a given. What's not given, though, is why UEFA (the european soccer FIFA or whatever) decided to pit these two against eachother. Clearly UEFA is afraid of the dominance that is Ligue 1, and they are scared of France dominating the world of soccer, much like Zinedine Zidane dominated the belly of Marco Materazzi. By pairing these two teams against eachother, UEFA doesn't have to worry about 2 French teams being left in the semi-finals, and then 2 French teams facing off for the title. This way, they can nip it in the bud, deal with one at a time, divide and conquer.
I'm onto your games UEFA.
Bayern Munich vs Manchester United
This would be interesting if it were FC Shalke 04 vs Manchester City, but alas we're given these two teams instead. And it's not like they even have all their awesome players -- Ollie Khan, Lothar Matthaus, Christiano Ronaldo, George Best -- ALL GONE. All moved to the greener pastures of other, better, teams or retirement; or in the case of George Best, the green beneath him is simply his own vomit.
Arsenal vs Barcelona
Arsenal is an interesting story in that despite having the only undefeated team in the modern history of the English Premier League, they managed to remain completely irrelevant. This is also in addition to the fact that they are essentially London's team (yeah, I know London has like 20 teams, but only Chelsea recently actually plays dece). Yep. Irrelavent despite being from the capital city of the country who claims to have invented the sport (though to be fair, I think the English would claim invention of the potato if you gave them the chance). But alas I stray, point being, best player on that undefeated team is currently on Barcelona, who happen to be reigning Champions League Champions (sounds a bit redundent, hey I know, Europe isn't really known for refinement and culture). This best player (from Arsenal, he's probably not the best on Barcelona, at least not at this point in time) -- Thierry Henry, longtime legend of French soccer, who gloriously single handedly defeated Ireland to qualify France for the 2010 World Cup. Just saying.
Internazionale vs Moscow
The other team from Milan, the team that manages to not be more Evil than AC Milan (by holding scum like Marco Materazzi on the roster) faces down this years eastern europe cinderella story (fuck, I thought this was soccer, not basketball). Personally, I was looking forward to a Turkish team holding that title this year, or maybe even Olympiakos from Greece. Sparta Praha also would've been pretty dice, but they just haven't been the same since the fall of the Soviet Union. Anyways, of all the games, this is probably the one I am least likely to watch.
Predictions are for suckers and psychics (read:suckers)
-- Knuttel
Champions League is like their equivalent to Major League Baseball -- it has the best teams from one region (MLB - North America, CL - Europe) from one sport (MLB - baseball, CL - soccer), all from different countries (MLB - USA, Canada, the south; CL - France, Italy, England, Spain, Germany, Russia, etc).
And now for my completely unbiased preview of upcoming Champions League play
Shit yeah, motherfucker
Anyways.
The games are played in pairs - one home and one away for each team. Winning both games guarantees advancing. If both games tie or end with one win/one loss, then goals are added up. The team with more goals advances. If that doesn't do the trick, then away goals count for more, and the team that scored more away advances. IF that doesn't declare a winner, then they play overtime or something in the last game.
Matchups are as follows:
Olympique Lyon vs Bordeuax
Bayern Munich vs Manchester United
Arsenal vs Barcelona
Internazionale Milan vs CSKA Moscow
Naturally, we all know Lyon is going to advance like a truck (a renault truck?) past oblivious Bordeaux. That's a given. What's not given, though, is why UEFA (the european soccer FIFA or whatever) decided to pit these two against eachother. Clearly UEFA is afraid of the dominance that is Ligue 1, and they are scared of France dominating the world of soccer, much like Zinedine Zidane dominated the belly of Marco Materazzi. By pairing these two teams against eachother, UEFA doesn't have to worry about 2 French teams being left in the semi-finals, and then 2 French teams facing off for the title. This way, they can nip it in the bud, deal with one at a time, divide and conquer.
I'm onto your games UEFA.
Bayern Munich vs Manchester United
This would be interesting if it were FC Shalke 04 vs Manchester City, but alas we're given these two teams instead. And it's not like they even have all their awesome players -- Ollie Khan, Lothar Matthaus, Christiano Ronaldo, George Best -- ALL GONE. All moved to the greener pastures of other, better, teams or retirement; or in the case of George Best, the green beneath him is simply his own vomit.
Arsenal vs Barcelona
Arsenal is an interesting story in that despite having the only undefeated team in the modern history of the English Premier League, they managed to remain completely irrelevant. This is also in addition to the fact that they are essentially London's team (yeah, I know London has like 20 teams, but only Chelsea recently actually plays dece). Yep. Irrelavent despite being from the capital city of the country who claims to have invented the sport (though to be fair, I think the English would claim invention of the potato if you gave them the chance). But alas I stray, point being, best player on that undefeated team is currently on Barcelona, who happen to be reigning Champions League Champions (sounds a bit redundent, hey I know, Europe isn't really known for refinement and culture). This best player (from Arsenal, he's probably not the best on Barcelona, at least not at this point in time) -- Thierry Henry, longtime legend of French soccer, who gloriously single handedly defeated Ireland to qualify France for the 2010 World Cup. Just saying.
Internazionale vs Moscow
The other team from Milan, the team that manages to not be more Evil than AC Milan (by holding scum like Marco Materazzi on the roster) faces down this years eastern europe cinderella story (fuck, I thought this was soccer, not basketball). Personally, I was looking forward to a Turkish team holding that title this year, or maybe even Olympiakos from Greece. Sparta Praha also would've been pretty dice, but they just haven't been the same since the fall of the Soviet Union. Anyways, of all the games, this is probably the one I am least likely to watch.
Predictions are for suckers and psychics (read:suckers)
-- Knuttel
3.15.2010
Evolution of a Situation: The Real Danger of Teaching Creationism
Full disclosure: I am not a biologist, nor have I studied in depth the theory of evolution, but I fancy myself to have a better understanding than those discrediting it. I believe it to be an imperfect work in progress, but the closest thing we have to the truth. I also spent grades 4-12 in Catholic school, making my education during which I'd learn this very Christian.
That being said; ignoring the idea of evolution or teaching an alternate to evolution is nothing more than a disservice to the children. And to be honest, it has less to do with their beliefs etc. than one would imagine. The actual theory is really more of a biological history lesson in practicality, unless one becomes a biologist/geneticist whatevs, happening over such a long period of time that one would have a difficult time to perceive it, if it is perceived at all. I could go on bashing one theory while supporting the other, but that's really not the purpose of this article.
But first, some background information. Evolution was initially developed in the 19th century by Charles Darwin, who was influenced by Lamarke a century earlier. Until these two, the idea of an animal changing over the long course of time wasn't really proposed. It really wasn't a religious/scientific disagreement, it simply wasn't thought of.
Creationists/Intelligent Designers naturally get their start with Creationism, which is the larger theory based on the fact that God created the earth and everything as it is today period. This came about during the Protestant reformation. Up until then, religious scholars (both Christian and Jewish) were the ones who interpreted scripture, and had largely came to the consensus that the creation story as portrayed in the Bible (both Christians and Jews share this creation story in the old testament) was meant to be symbolic and allegorical. The fact that there appears to be two separate creation stories (I suppose subtitled part 1:the creation of the world, part 2:the creation of man) that aren't entirely congruous kinda points to this. With the Protestant reformation, people such as Martin Luther proposed more literal (some entirely) interpretations of the Bible. The word of God is for the people, after all, not for scholars. This, of course, led to the idea that if God created the world, the animals, and man; then God created the animals as is. The date of the creation of the world by these measures has also been up to some debate within evangelical circles, as there are no real specific things to go off of, datewise, except Jesus' birth, and that may have been erred itself. Many dates, even the one placed in the King James Bible, happen after the recorded beginning of civilized human history.
And there I start to ramble.
The problem with teaching creationist type theories has nothing to do with faith. It has to do with intellectual honesty, and intellectual laziness. If the facts present themselves to support one theory, perhaps not entirely; and at the very least, discredit the other; what choice is a rational person to make? Asking someone to ignore that which is more empirically based is dishonest and lazy. How do you teach the thought process of learning creationism? Faith is nice, but faith won't make one smarter, and it won't teach someone how to teach themself.
Frankly I have a hard time understanding how this is even an argument, and how entire schoolboards (and occassionally states) can decide that teaching creationism is ok.
This is entirely disregarding the separation of church and state that exists within our government. The United States of America is a nation of free religion. That doesn't mean you can practice whatever sect of Christianity you want. It means you can practice any religion in any sect (though the line I think is drawn where things like public safety are endangered), and why should a non-christian be forced to learn the christian teaching of creation in federally, state, and locally funded public schools.
Even Saint Thomas Aquinas would be horrified to see something like this, and he is one of the most important church scholars in history. If one can achieve sainthood while still pursuing rational and scientific pursuits, why is some of this nation scared of everything going to hell if we teach science?
Goddamnit, Texas
-- Knuttel
seriously, separation of church and state. only a matter of time before this is a court case, and its gonna be messy.
That being said; ignoring the idea of evolution or teaching an alternate to evolution is nothing more than a disservice to the children. And to be honest, it has less to do with their beliefs etc. than one would imagine. The actual theory is really more of a biological history lesson in practicality, unless one becomes a biologist/geneticist whatevs, happening over such a long period of time that one would have a difficult time to perceive it, if it is perceived at all. I could go on bashing one theory while supporting the other, but that's really not the purpose of this article.
But first, some background information. Evolution was initially developed in the 19th century by Charles Darwin, who was influenced by Lamarke a century earlier. Until these two, the idea of an animal changing over the long course of time wasn't really proposed. It really wasn't a religious/scientific disagreement, it simply wasn't thought of.
Creationists/Intelligent Designers naturally get their start with Creationism, which is the larger theory based on the fact that God created the earth and everything as it is today period. This came about during the Protestant reformation. Up until then, religious scholars (both Christian and Jewish) were the ones who interpreted scripture, and had largely came to the consensus that the creation story as portrayed in the Bible (both Christians and Jews share this creation story in the old testament) was meant to be symbolic and allegorical. The fact that there appears to be two separate creation stories (I suppose subtitled part 1:the creation of the world, part 2:the creation of man) that aren't entirely congruous kinda points to this. With the Protestant reformation, people such as Martin Luther proposed more literal (some entirely) interpretations of the Bible. The word of God is for the people, after all, not for scholars. This, of course, led to the idea that if God created the world, the animals, and man; then God created the animals as is. The date of the creation of the world by these measures has also been up to some debate within evangelical circles, as there are no real specific things to go off of, datewise, except Jesus' birth, and that may have been erred itself. Many dates, even the one placed in the King James Bible, happen after the recorded beginning of civilized human history.
And there I start to ramble.
The problem with teaching creationist type theories has nothing to do with faith. It has to do with intellectual honesty, and intellectual laziness. If the facts present themselves to support one theory, perhaps not entirely; and at the very least, discredit the other; what choice is a rational person to make? Asking someone to ignore that which is more empirically based is dishonest and lazy. How do you teach the thought process of learning creationism? Faith is nice, but faith won't make one smarter, and it won't teach someone how to teach themself.
Frankly I have a hard time understanding how this is even an argument, and how entire schoolboards (and occassionally states) can decide that teaching creationism is ok.
This is entirely disregarding the separation of church and state that exists within our government. The United States of America is a nation of free religion. That doesn't mean you can practice whatever sect of Christianity you want. It means you can practice any religion in any sect (though the line I think is drawn where things like public safety are endangered), and why should a non-christian be forced to learn the christian teaching of creation in federally, state, and locally funded public schools.
Even Saint Thomas Aquinas would be horrified to see something like this, and he is one of the most important church scholars in history. If one can achieve sainthood while still pursuing rational and scientific pursuits, why is some of this nation scared of everything going to hell if we teach science?
Goddamnit, Texas
-- Knuttel
seriously, separation of church and state. only a matter of time before this is a court case, and its gonna be messy.
3.14.2010
Guy Fieri: NBC REALLY Could Care Less About What They Put On TV
So the whole Leno/Conan thing has played out, partially at least, and has proven that while Leno may be an asshole and incompetent, really it is the Producers at NBC who are incompetent assholes.
Case in point: tonight's (Sunday) new program
I really don't care enough to know the actual title of the show, but I'll say all that needs to be said -- Guy Fieri; game show host.
I should also mention at this time that this show contains no cooking whatsoever (at least on purpose, I do suppose incidental cooking may happen). At least when NBC game Emeril his own show in 2001 (full disclosure, i actually like Emeril and his cooking/cooking programs) it was a sitcom that was about his life as a chef (I think, I only really watched an episode or two, hey, "Emeril Live" was on).
This proves my theory that guy fieri knows little to nothing about cooking. He does seem to be able to turn knobs to operate ranges and ovens, but it's hard to tell if he knows what he's doing with it.
"Today I'm gonna throw at you some 8-pepper infused chili burgers, with a side of potato salad on some classic chawhola rolls"
"This appears to be a burnt meat patty on a chewy roll with a tub of mayonaise sitting next to it"
"And to go with it, I know y'all like whiskey sours, so how 'bout we add some grenadine and pineapple juice to it"
"Fuck"
-- Just a typical scene from his "cooking" show (I put it in quotes because half the show seems to be devoted to taking a fruity, girly drink, somehow making it girlier, and claiming it goes with the "meal" he's creating).
Moving on.
He doesn't really know what he's doing inside a kitchen, but it's clear the man eats, so they decide to send him on a trip to lots of backwater local "diners, drive-ins, and dives" and watch him pig out. Seriously, the man will eat anything.
"The secret, guy, is instead of using 4 slices of bacon on our burgers, we use 6. We also mix some lard in the ground beef to make it juicier"
"Oh man, I can tell, it really makes a difference. I'll take 5"
"Umm, what about the rest of our menu?"
"Oh we got time, we'll get there, no worries"
--Again, typical.
Notice the backwards sunglasses, to scare off the ghosts of animals who swore to haunt him once they found out what would be done with their meat. Some corn too, I hear that stuff walks nowadays. Regardless, you know they're no longer gonna be transparent once they go over his eyes due to all the hair gel and bleach residue. It's really a deadly combination.
Maybe it's just his personality and his dress. He comes off as that loud fat kid who tried being likable by wearing gaudy clothes and having eating contests with himself.
"Check it, son, I'm on my A-game. I just ate 2 whole pizzas in 10 minutes. Man, I am gonna slow dance with so many girls tonight. Yo, dudes, "Halo" at my place later? Cool, cool."
--How I imagine his thought process goes.
Maybe I'm just curious, how has he become a face of America, and how serious is the threat he may become the face of America.
-- Knuttel
P.S. how did he manage to make goatees more douchey? I'm actually kind of impressed by that.
Case in point: tonight's (Sunday) new program
I really don't care enough to know the actual title of the show, but I'll say all that needs to be said -- Guy Fieri; game show host.
I should also mention at this time that this show contains no cooking whatsoever (at least on purpose, I do suppose incidental cooking may happen). At least when NBC game Emeril his own show in 2001 (full disclosure, i actually like Emeril and his cooking/cooking programs) it was a sitcom that was about his life as a chef (I think, I only really watched an episode or two, hey, "Emeril Live" was on).
This proves my theory that guy fieri knows little to nothing about cooking. He does seem to be able to turn knobs to operate ranges and ovens, but it's hard to tell if he knows what he's doing with it.
"Today I'm gonna throw at you some 8-pepper infused chili burgers, with a side of potato salad on some classic chawhola rolls" "This appears to be a burnt meat patty on a chewy roll with a tub of mayonaise sitting next to it"
"And to go with it, I know y'all like whiskey sours, so how 'bout we add some grenadine and pineapple juice to it"
"Fuck"
-- Just a typical scene from his "cooking" show (I put it in quotes because half the show seems to be devoted to taking a fruity, girly drink, somehow making it girlier, and claiming it goes with the "meal" he's creating).
Moving on.
He doesn't really know what he's doing inside a kitchen, but it's clear the man eats, so they decide to send him on a trip to lots of backwater local "diners, drive-ins, and dives" and watch him pig out. Seriously, the man will eat anything.
"The secret, guy, is instead of using 4 slices of bacon on our burgers, we use 6. We also mix some lard in the ground beef to make it juicier"
"Oh man, I can tell, it really makes a difference. I'll take 5"
"Umm, what about the rest of our menu?"
"Oh we got time, we'll get there, no worries"
--Again, typical.
Notice the backwards sunglasses, to scare off the ghosts of animals who swore to haunt him once they found out what would be done with their meat. Some corn too, I hear that stuff walks nowadays. Regardless, you know they're no longer gonna be transparent once they go over his eyes due to all the hair gel and bleach residue. It's really a deadly combination.
Maybe it's just his personality and his dress. He comes off as that loud fat kid who tried being likable by wearing gaudy clothes and having eating contests with himself.
"Check it, son, I'm on my A-game. I just ate 2 whole pizzas in 10 minutes. Man, I am gonna slow dance with so many girls tonight. Yo, dudes, "Halo" at my place later? Cool, cool."
--How I imagine his thought process goes.
Maybe I'm just curious, how has he become a face of America, and how serious is the threat he may become the face of America.
-- Knuttel
P.S. how did he manage to make goatees more douchey? I'm actually kind of impressed by that.
3.08.2010
Film: The Final Frontier
So I recently took it upon myself to watch the first six "Star Trek" movies, you know the ones that starred the cast from TOS (the original series). Seven featured Kirk, and maybe a few others, but that was a handoff, largely dominated by the cast of TNG (the next generation).
god that sounds nerdy.
Moving on.
I skipped 1 cos it sucks. Oh noes, an alien probe?! Oh wait, the V'ger is really the Voyager space probe? Let me mind meld with it! Expendable captain, please sacrifice yourself for it.
Moving on.
Star Trek 2 is awesome. The Wrath Of Khan is basically a pirate movie in space, and is such an awesome movie, it should have legitimately been considered for many "real" awards, but alas it was both a sequel and sci fi. Plus, who could say no to Ricardo Montalban? One of the greatest lines in all of moviedom (well actually one, followed by the other.) Must see.
Classic.
Star Trek 3. There's not much to love, but there's also not much to hate. Oh wait, where did Kirstey Alley go? Irrelevant. Cheeseburger habits are demanding on the paycheck. Anyways, who knew Christopher Lloyd would get his break as a Klingon? FUN FACT: Christopher Lloyd's character in The Search For Spock has the same name as his character from Santa Buddies (so no, it's not a nod to A Christmas Carol (Kruge and Cruge), it's a nod to Star Trek).
Star Trek 4. Widely regarded as the Star Trek non-Star Trek fans like, it's ok. It also serves as one of the cornerstones of my knowledge of aquatic life, along with Free Willie, Jaws, and Moby Dick. The plot mainly revolves around stealing whales from the mom from "Seventh Heaven". Oh, I should mention they travelled back in time for this to happen, to San Francisco of the 1980s. Highlights include Scotty talking into a computer mouse and Chekov asking for "nuclear wessels". The funniest part is The Journey Home is really a reworking of Star Trek 1, in the larger general plot (unknown space probe travels through the galaxy and destroys a bunch of stuff, except this time it sounds like its trying to communicate with whales). To top it off, the overt political message about whale hunting comes off as tacked on. Whatevs, gotta nuke something.
Star Trek 5. For what it's worth, it's not awful. It basically is everything you'd expect Star Trek to be. Crazy Prophet takes over the Enterprise, turns out to be Spock's half brother, and wants to go to the center of the galaxy to find god.
I wish I was making that up. All things said, The Final Frontier was about as good as it could be, especially with Shatner directing it.
Star Trek 6. A whodunit in space, with waaaaaaay too much Shakespeare, for space. You mean you've never read Hamlet in its original Klignon? Also, it turns out it was the slutty one from "sex and the city" who ruined everything for everyone. Highlights include seeing Christopher Plummer and the dad from "that 70s show" as Klignons. Also the Undiscovered Country doesn't actually exist. It's just a mediocre metaphor for the future. The only highlight is a scene where Shatner fights a shapeshifter who shifted into Shatner. Shatner fighting Shatner. It's almost as good as Shatner fighting the Gorn in "The Arena".
So yeah. Not a waste of time. Just watch 2, 3, and 4 (which happen directly consecutively, and thus kinda make up a trilogy, though 5 happens not long after that.....). I recommend avoiding 1 and 6 at all costs though.
-- Knuttel
maybe later I'll do 7-10. 8 is the only one I can really say if it's good or not (and it's awesome, perhaps better than 2). Why did they never make a movie with the DS9 cast? Whatevs.
god that sounds nerdy.
Moving on.
I skipped 1 cos it sucks. Oh noes, an alien probe?! Oh wait, the V'ger is really the Voyager space probe? Let me mind meld with it! Expendable captain, please sacrifice yourself for it.
Moving on.
Star Trek 2 is awesome. The Wrath Of Khan is basically a pirate movie in space, and is such an awesome movie, it should have legitimately been considered for many "real" awards, but alas it was both a sequel and sci fi. Plus, who could say no to Ricardo Montalban? One of the greatest lines in all of moviedom (well actually one, followed by the other.) Must see.
Classic.
Star Trek 3. There's not much to love, but there's also not much to hate. Oh wait, where did Kirstey Alley go? Irrelevant. Cheeseburger habits are demanding on the paycheck. Anyways, who knew Christopher Lloyd would get his break as a Klingon? FUN FACT: Christopher Lloyd's character in The Search For Spock has the same name as his character from Santa Buddies (so no, it's not a nod to A Christmas Carol (Kruge and Cruge), it's a nod to Star Trek).
Star Trek 4. Widely regarded as the Star Trek non-Star Trek fans like, it's ok. It also serves as one of the cornerstones of my knowledge of aquatic life, along with Free Willie, Jaws, and Moby Dick. The plot mainly revolves around stealing whales from the mom from "Seventh Heaven". Oh, I should mention they travelled back in time for this to happen, to San Francisco of the 1980s. Highlights include Scotty talking into a computer mouse and Chekov asking for "nuclear wessels". The funniest part is The Journey Home is really a reworking of Star Trek 1, in the larger general plot (unknown space probe travels through the galaxy and destroys a bunch of stuff, except this time it sounds like its trying to communicate with whales). To top it off, the overt political message about whale hunting comes off as tacked on. Whatevs, gotta nuke something.
Star Trek 5. For what it's worth, it's not awful. It basically is everything you'd expect Star Trek to be. Crazy Prophet takes over the Enterprise, turns out to be Spock's half brother, and wants to go to the center of the galaxy to find god.
I wish I was making that up. All things said, The Final Frontier was about as good as it could be, especially with Shatner directing it.
Star Trek 6. A whodunit in space, with waaaaaaay too much Shakespeare, for space. You mean you've never read Hamlet in its original Klignon? Also, it turns out it was the slutty one from "sex and the city" who ruined everything for everyone. Highlights include seeing Christopher Plummer and the dad from "that 70s show" as Klignons. Also the Undiscovered Country doesn't actually exist. It's just a mediocre metaphor for the future. The only highlight is a scene where Shatner fights a shapeshifter who shifted into Shatner. Shatner fighting Shatner. It's almost as good as Shatner fighting the Gorn in "The Arena".
So yeah. Not a waste of time. Just watch 2, 3, and 4 (which happen directly consecutively, and thus kinda make up a trilogy, though 5 happens not long after that.....). I recommend avoiding 1 and 6 at all costs though.
-- Knuttel
maybe later I'll do 7-10. 8 is the only one I can really say if it's good or not (and it's awesome, perhaps better than 2). Why did they never make a movie with the DS9 cast? Whatevs.
Feel Good-umentaries
What has happened to documentaries?
I realize that nothing can ever be truly objective, even the simple presentation of facts is always filtered by the mind which organizes them. But does every single modern documentary have to simply go for an emotional response?
OK, so not all the oscar winners and nominees were feel good stories, but the fact remains that they were all emotional. Even the documentary Food Inc., while producing a lot of fact filled moments and tried earnestly to expose wrongful practices of the large food industry, spent many many moments on emotional pieces, which usually didn't add anything major to the story.
In addition to this, The documentary awards (short and long) are often seen as a reflection of issues that hollywood, or the academy, care(s) about.
And so the winner for long documentary was a fluff piece (The Cove) about the Japanese practice of eating dolphins (and whales), and some of their methods of hunting. Sure, I don't personally agree with the eating of these animals, but I also come from a society where this is certainly not the norm, and really isn't accepted either. In Japan, there is a long history and tradition of eating these creatures, much like there is a tradition for them to eat other creatures of the sea. Japan is a series of islands, with alot of coastline, and not alot of land. It makes perfect sense they'd turn to the sea for sustinence. Alas, I digress. Possibly the thing that irks me the most about it is they don't have any regard at all for what Japan thinks of it. A good chunk of the movie was about how the locals were opposed to this film and how difficult it was for this film crew to get this message across to the world. (Good for you, thanks). OK, maybe the methods of hunting they use aren't that "humane", but frankly what is humane hunting anyway. These are probably the same idiots that want the deer population to starve themselves to death rather than get hunted down, cos it's natural -- nevermind that their natural predators haven't been in most of these areas for over 100 years. Goddamnit, I digress again.
Really the makers of this film come off as more ignorant than the people they're trying to portray. Even the title (The Cove) implies this is a secret and dirty act they are doing, and this is the only place this happens, and we, as responsible members of this western world, must be the ones to stop it.
It's like if a film crew went to Mexico to make a documentary about how the people are savages, making tacos instead of hamburgers.
What about Eskimo hunting? Is that OK? They hunt all sorts of sea mammals (which I'm assuming is the criteria for making this evil, being mammal). I can just imagine one of the producers trying to talk to an Inuit -- "Don't you know you can get all your protein sources from Soy and Soy byproducts? Where's your nearest Wholefoods?" "Geeeee, Thaaaaaaanks."
Like I said in my previous post, it's this total lack of self-awareness that makes the academy awards watchable.
Moral arguments are always the worst, simply because they lack universality. The world is not black and white, and fuck if it's always shaded in gray.
"Good sir, can you show me to that place where sea lions ride the waves to the shore?"
--Ok, one more picture. That's it, I swear.
Terrifying.
Anyways, onto the short documentary.
It got Kanye'd. Haha. It happens at the MTV awards, chalk it up to the zany nature. It happens at the academy awards? You betta bet there was some monocle droppage.
I'll try and put this together as fairly as possible. The documentary that won was about a woman in Africa who suffers from natural disfigurement, making her "tainted by witchcraft" amongst locals, that sings in a band, and to a lesser extent her band, who also suffer from deformities. There were originally two people involved in the direction/shooting of this short documentary or whatever, and naturally they had different ideas on what the direction was to be (oh, so that's what a director does). Anyways, one director wanted it to be about the woman, the other wanted it to be about the band. The one who wanted it to be about the woman won, and finished the movie listed as the director, and thus the recipient of the award. The other person, having contributed, managed to keep a role as producer in the credits, though largely maintained a position of disowning the film. The movie wins, and the director walks up and gives a speech. The other person crashes through (apparently to the protest of the director's 90 some year old mother, hah) and runs up, interrupts the speech only a few short words into it, and doesn't let the other dude finish.
So let me rephrase that. The director, who's documentary was his vision, gets cut out of his own acceptance speech by the partner who only the day prior had pretty much disowned any attachment to the project.
At least Beyonce was nominated for an award when the proceedings were interrupted on her behalf; and its probably less emotionally jarring for this to happen to a middle aged man than to an 18 year old girl.
BTW, last time a "major" motion picture, and not an "independent" film won best picture was only a few years ago with The Departed (2006). And possibly one of the "largest" films ever made, Return of the King (2003) has won recently, and blockbusters simply dominated in the late 90s. So, even with an expanded field, the academy can't pick one of its own major studio films to win the best picture award. Wow. I really question a lot here, but I'll leave this as it is.
You guys got enough pictures, no video.
-- Knuttel
I realize that nothing can ever be truly objective, even the simple presentation of facts is always filtered by the mind which organizes them. But does every single modern documentary have to simply go for an emotional response?
OK, so not all the oscar winners and nominees were feel good stories, but the fact remains that they were all emotional. Even the documentary Food Inc., while producing a lot of fact filled moments and tried earnestly to expose wrongful practices of the large food industry, spent many many moments on emotional pieces, which usually didn't add anything major to the story.
In addition to this, The documentary awards (short and long) are often seen as a reflection of issues that hollywood, or the academy, care(s) about.
And so the winner for long documentary was a fluff piece (The Cove) about the Japanese practice of eating dolphins (and whales), and some of their methods of hunting. Sure, I don't personally agree with the eating of these animals, but I also come from a society where this is certainly not the norm, and really isn't accepted either. In Japan, there is a long history and tradition of eating these creatures, much like there is a tradition for them to eat other creatures of the sea. Japan is a series of islands, with alot of coastline, and not alot of land. It makes perfect sense they'd turn to the sea for sustinence. Alas, I digress. Possibly the thing that irks me the most about it is they don't have any regard at all for what Japan thinks of it. A good chunk of the movie was about how the locals were opposed to this film and how difficult it was for this film crew to get this message across to the world. (Good for you, thanks). OK, maybe the methods of hunting they use aren't that "humane", but frankly what is humane hunting anyway. These are probably the same idiots that want the deer population to starve themselves to death rather than get hunted down, cos it's natural -- nevermind that their natural predators haven't been in most of these areas for over 100 years. Goddamnit, I digress again.
Really the makers of this film come off as more ignorant than the people they're trying to portray. Even the title (The Cove) implies this is a secret and dirty act they are doing, and this is the only place this happens, and we, as responsible members of this western world, must be the ones to stop it.
It's like if a film crew went to Mexico to make a documentary about how the people are savages, making tacos instead of hamburgers.
What about Eskimo hunting? Is that OK? They hunt all sorts of sea mammals (which I'm assuming is the criteria for making this evil, being mammal). I can just imagine one of the producers trying to talk to an Inuit -- "Don't you know you can get all your protein sources from Soy and Soy byproducts? Where's your nearest Wholefoods?" "Geeeee, Thaaaaaaanks."
Like I said in my previous post, it's this total lack of self-awareness that makes the academy awards watchable.
Moral arguments are always the worst, simply because they lack universality. The world is not black and white, and fuck if it's always shaded in gray.
"Good sir, can you show me to that place where sea lions ride the waves to the shore?"
--Ok, one more picture. That's it, I swear.
Terrifying.
Anyways, onto the short documentary.
It got Kanye'd. Haha. It happens at the MTV awards, chalk it up to the zany nature. It happens at the academy awards? You betta bet there was some monocle droppage.
I'll try and put this together as fairly as possible. The documentary that won was about a woman in Africa who suffers from natural disfigurement, making her "tainted by witchcraft" amongst locals, that sings in a band, and to a lesser extent her band, who also suffer from deformities. There were originally two people involved in the direction/shooting of this short documentary or whatever, and naturally they had different ideas on what the direction was to be (oh, so that's what a director does). Anyways, one director wanted it to be about the woman, the other wanted it to be about the band. The one who wanted it to be about the woman won, and finished the movie listed as the director, and thus the recipient of the award. The other person, having contributed, managed to keep a role as producer in the credits, though largely maintained a position of disowning the film. The movie wins, and the director walks up and gives a speech. The other person crashes through (apparently to the protest of the director's 90 some year old mother, hah) and runs up, interrupts the speech only a few short words into it, and doesn't let the other dude finish.
So let me rephrase that. The director, who's documentary was his vision, gets cut out of his own acceptance speech by the partner who only the day prior had pretty much disowned any attachment to the project.
At least Beyonce was nominated for an award when the proceedings were interrupted on her behalf; and its probably less emotionally jarring for this to happen to a middle aged man than to an 18 year old girl.
BTW, last time a "major" motion picture, and not an "independent" film won best picture was only a few years ago with The Departed (2006). And possibly one of the "largest" films ever made, Return of the King (2003) has won recently, and blockbusters simply dominated in the late 90s. So, even with an expanded field, the academy can't pick one of its own major studio films to win the best picture award. Wow. I really question a lot here, but I'll leave this as it is.
You guys got enough pictures, no video.
-- Knuttel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)