Today Mayfair mall here in Milwaukee had a test run of their new security measures, as discussed in a prior blog. They are going to start this policy full time come this summer. They are basically not allowing any teenagers in the mall without supervision. Here is an actual account of what occurs currently at the mall: They are checking the i.d. of everyone who enters and not allowing in anyone under 21 in without an adult. (legally isn't anyone over 18 an adult??) They also have a medal detecting wand to search anyone they feel that may pose a threat. They also have security walking around re-checking i.d.s of anyone they think looks under 30. I forgot, am I trying to go shopping or board an international airplane flight?? This is beyond ridiculous. People from other planets and in other countries are laughing at us right now. Individuals in Africa are struggling to survive from genocide and starvation and we have our youth being banned from a mall. Hilarious!!
Pretty soon it is going to be that if you are under 18 you are not allowed in any public place. You either have to roam the streets or stay in your home. What's the sadder story here: that these teenagers don't know how to handle themselves in a mall and other public places or society as a whole doesn't know how to handle them and instead of dealing with them they just ban them from public places. Its a lovely society that we live in that if a problem becomes to severe for us to handle we can just put it out of our mind and ignore it. Lets not go out and teach these kids the skills they need to act properly in public, lets put them out of our mind and ignore them. They can grow up on the streets. They'll probably learn how to act properly by living on the streets, right??? No?? If you're a numbers person, guess what percentage of these kids who can't act properly in a mall are going to end up in jail for at least a little time?? My calculations look something like 100%. In terms of this and many other issues in America (education, health care, global warming, poverty, etc) lets start facing the problem instead of creating quick "solutions" that just sweep the problem under the rug to be cleaned by whoever has the room next.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
And the winner is....
Not anyone who actually likes a good movie. Now that the Oscars have awarded I felt a response was necessary. Some of the choices were good, but some of them flat out sucked.
The GOOD:
1)Forrest Whitaker winning best male lead. HE does an unbelievable job portraying this incredibly charming well spoken dictator that is responsible for the death of thousands, yet you have a hard time hating him like you should.
2) Helen Mirren for the Queen. I haven't seen this movie because I really don't care for movies about the royal family, they bore me. My friends will tell you I hate the British and thats why I doidn't see this movie and why I brush my teeth 12 times a day. However, she does a fabulous job playing the Queen during this time period. People who have seen it that I trust their opinion say it is a good film. All the previews I ahve seen it looks like she is doing a great job. Also Helen Mirren got fully into character while filming. She watched the real queen on television on file footage and acted just like her the entire time while filming.
3) Eddie Murphy did not win Best Supporting Actor. Eddie Murphy is a joke of an actor, and not in a good way. Here is a quick list of some of the "Gems" he has been in: Norbit, Daddy Day Care, Nutty Professor I and II, Dr. Doolittle I and II, Adventures of Pluto NAsh, the PJs, Bowfinger, Holy Man, Metro, (if you saw any of those kill yourself) and from 2004 until 2006 he was unable to make any movies.
THE BAD:
1) Best original screen play for Little Miss Sunshine. First off the guy who wrote the movie has his claim to fame as being Matthew Broderick's personal assistant. He said he took a big risk for quiting his job as his assistant to write this movie. Om my GOd!! What if the movie didn't make it, how would he ever get such a good job as making coffee for matthew broderick. Thats like a normal person quitting his job of digging graves at a cemetery to become the guy who engraves the tombs. Secondly, it is a nice movie but the greatest piece of written work this year. Babel's story is much more compelling and well written as a whole, so was Blood Diamond.
2) Jennifer Hudson for best supporting actor. I will never see this movie because A) Eddie Murphy is a joke of an actor (see above) B) I find movie like this poorly written and elaborated to make various individuals who watch it feel better about themselves being watching more "diverse" movies. Watching a movie with majority of minority actors does not make you diverse.
The UGLY:
1) Alan Arkin as best supporting actor. First he should not have won because he was in just over half of the movie. He was not the best character or actor in the movie. Steve Carrell's character is what makes the movie work. He is the one with the funniest lines, the most thought-provoking quotes and actually moves the plot of the story along. Arkin's character is neither the protagonist or the antagonist of the story. How can a character be important if he is neither the character that is the hero and makes a change in himself nor is the character that brings about the change. His character is basically a laughing joke of "oh I'm old and I like porn and drugs. Laugh at me." Ha Ha! Secondly Djimon Honsou should have won in a landslide. His acting in Blood Diamond is unbelievable. IN one scene he watches his town destroyed, his children captured, in one scene he finds his wife but is stopped by a fence between them while he cries. Throughout the movie he gets a gun thrown in his face so he will tell various people where this diamond is, and he continually tells them no, until he is reunited with his son. He brings about a change in over 5 characters in the movie. He commands an unbelievable presence throughout the movie.
2) The Departed is not the best movie of the year. It is a good movie, worth watching multiple times. It is not a movie that should win movie of the year. Movie of the year should be a movie that we as a country can say "look world this is the best movie we made this year." The movie really has nothing to say exact "Lying will get you killed and violence is bad." A movie of the year should have something real to say that will make you think and make you better off for knowing. Babel, Blood Diamond, Half Nelson, Last King of Scotland all say this. The problem is that these movies hit you in a way that is uncomfortable and you may not like the feeling. Its easy to like The Departed: all the bad guys die, only a few of the good guys die, there are lots of explosions, and Alec Baldwin is as good as he always is. The Academy should have done something bold and had a movie that would change how we think and view the world win for a change.
I believe the best movies of last year were in this order:
1) Babel
2) Blood Diamond
3) Half Nelson
4) Last King of Scotland
5) The Queen
6) The Departed
7) Letters from Imo Jima
8) Little Miss Sunshine
The GOOD:
1)Forrest Whitaker winning best male lead. HE does an unbelievable job portraying this incredibly charming well spoken dictator that is responsible for the death of thousands, yet you have a hard time hating him like you should.
2) Helen Mirren for the Queen. I haven't seen this movie because I really don't care for movies about the royal family, they bore me. My friends will tell you I hate the British and thats why I doidn't see this movie and why I brush my teeth 12 times a day. However, she does a fabulous job playing the Queen during this time period. People who have seen it that I trust their opinion say it is a good film. All the previews I ahve seen it looks like she is doing a great job. Also Helen Mirren got fully into character while filming. She watched the real queen on television on file footage and acted just like her the entire time while filming.
3) Eddie Murphy did not win Best Supporting Actor. Eddie Murphy is a joke of an actor, and not in a good way. Here is a quick list of some of the "Gems" he has been in: Norbit, Daddy Day Care, Nutty Professor I and II, Dr. Doolittle I and II, Adventures of Pluto NAsh, the PJs, Bowfinger, Holy Man, Metro, (if you saw any of those kill yourself) and from 2004 until 2006 he was unable to make any movies.
THE BAD:
1) Best original screen play for Little Miss Sunshine. First off the guy who wrote the movie has his claim to fame as being Matthew Broderick's personal assistant. He said he took a big risk for quiting his job as his assistant to write this movie. Om my GOd!! What if the movie didn't make it, how would he ever get such a good job as making coffee for matthew broderick. Thats like a normal person quitting his job of digging graves at a cemetery to become the guy who engraves the tombs. Secondly, it is a nice movie but the greatest piece of written work this year. Babel's story is much more compelling and well written as a whole, so was Blood Diamond.
2) Jennifer Hudson for best supporting actor. I will never see this movie because A) Eddie Murphy is a joke of an actor (see above) B) I find movie like this poorly written and elaborated to make various individuals who watch it feel better about themselves being watching more "diverse" movies. Watching a movie with majority of minority actors does not make you diverse.
The UGLY:
1) Alan Arkin as best supporting actor. First he should not have won because he was in just over half of the movie. He was not the best character or actor in the movie. Steve Carrell's character is what makes the movie work. He is the one with the funniest lines, the most thought-provoking quotes and actually moves the plot of the story along. Arkin's character is neither the protagonist or the antagonist of the story. How can a character be important if he is neither the character that is the hero and makes a change in himself nor is the character that brings about the change. His character is basically a laughing joke of "oh I'm old and I like porn and drugs. Laugh at me." Ha Ha! Secondly Djimon Honsou should have won in a landslide. His acting in Blood Diamond is unbelievable. IN one scene he watches his town destroyed, his children captured, in one scene he finds his wife but is stopped by a fence between them while he cries. Throughout the movie he gets a gun thrown in his face so he will tell various people where this diamond is, and he continually tells them no, until he is reunited with his son. He brings about a change in over 5 characters in the movie. He commands an unbelievable presence throughout the movie.
2) The Departed is not the best movie of the year. It is a good movie, worth watching multiple times. It is not a movie that should win movie of the year. Movie of the year should be a movie that we as a country can say "look world this is the best movie we made this year." The movie really has nothing to say exact "Lying will get you killed and violence is bad." A movie of the year should have something real to say that will make you think and make you better off for knowing. Babel, Blood Diamond, Half Nelson, Last King of Scotland all say this. The problem is that these movies hit you in a way that is uncomfortable and you may not like the feeling. Its easy to like The Departed: all the bad guys die, only a few of the good guys die, there are lots of explosions, and Alec Baldwin is as good as he always is. The Academy should have done something bold and had a movie that would change how we think and view the world win for a change.
I believe the best movies of last year were in this order:
1) Babel
2) Blood Diamond
3) Half Nelson
4) Last King of Scotland
5) The Queen
6) The Departed
7) Letters from Imo Jima
8) Little Miss Sunshine
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Death for Ratings??
I am working on an ever-growing theory about the decline and fall of popular culture revolving around the fall of quality television programming. The first step is how writing has drastically changed in television series, especially dramas. Almost every drama on television uses killing off main characters, or at least threatening to, as a major plot twist. The are trying to hook viewers into watching next weeks episode by promising things like "you;ll never guess who will die." Why is it necessary to kill off main characters to make a show interesting, can we not think of anything else to write about. Here are a few examples.
In the first season of Lost they killed off one main character (Boone), and he was a secondary character. I liked Boone and thought he played a strong character, but was basically a younger version of Jack, the real main character. I know many people who watched the show felt nothing for him and didn't care when he died. So it wasn't that dramatic. So Lost had its best season and one an Emmy for best drama, all while only killing of one secondary character. In the next season plus 8 episodes they have killed off two really main characters (Anna Lucia and Eko) three secondary characters (Shannon, Libby, Michael, who wasnt killed off but was written off) and two third tier characters (Colleen and Picket) and have "promised" to kill of one more main character this year. Why is it necessary. Lost producers themselves have said that Lost is ultimately a show about the characters. They want viewers to learn about these characters; their faults and triumphs and root for them. The show really isnt about being stranded on a mysterious island and trying to figure out all the mysteries there. The producers are really contradicting themselves by saying that it is a show about the characters and then killing them all off, by the end we will have no one to root for. Lost fans know that before the show started their plan was to kill off Jack, the main character, in episode three to prove that this was a show that would do anything. The ran this past test markets and everyone agreed that the would not watch the show again after that and said they would "not be able to trust the writers of a show that wouldd do that." Now two plus years later they have forgotten that and are killing off characters adn losuing the trust of the viewers.
The second show would be 24. I believe that this has been a great show since the first second of season 1, even though it first one an Emmy for season 5 (I think not their best season). Here is a death count of main characters season by season. Season 1 (one main character) Season 2 (one secondary, one third tier) Season 3 (one main, one secodnary) Season 4 (one secondary) Season 5 (three main, two secondary, one third tier). So they were awarded for killing off the most main characters proving that no one is safe,a nd thats what makes for good televison. THis is the opposite reason that Lost won. Now, the one problem I have this year, especially after killing off another main character and a secondary character,is that there really aren't any characters that you care if they die. Jack is the last character left that as a viewer you have any interest in. All the guys Jack works with out in the field are un-named henchmen and you don't really care what happens to them. I think they killed of too many characters last year and the beginning of this year, there isn't any one you care about. There was a guy in a Muslim concentration camp in the US after a terrorist attack. They made it look as if he were in danger and as a viewer you were supposed to care. But you knew nothing about him and had no history with him so I really didn't care what happened to him.
Last example: Look at the highest rated dramas on television now: CSI, CSI Miami, Grey's Anatomy, House, Without a Case, Lost, and Desperate Housewives. Except Lost the other shows don't have a need to kill of main characters. CSI has been on for 7 years and has not once killed off a main characters. A couple times they were in critical condition, but never died. In fact its lowest rated season was when for half the season they broke up the team and had them all working separate and not together. Viewers stopped watching because the characters they love were no longer together. None of those others show either have a desire to kill of characters to keep viewers, they realize viewers are watching because of the characters. I will have a future blog looking at the fact that shows like CSI, ER, Grey's Anatomy, House, and Law & Order do so well for so long because everything gets solved in an hour and there is no long story line that gets people frustrated for answers.
In the first season of Lost they killed off one main character (Boone), and he was a secondary character. I liked Boone and thought he played a strong character, but was basically a younger version of Jack, the real main character. I know many people who watched the show felt nothing for him and didn't care when he died. So it wasn't that dramatic. So Lost had its best season and one an Emmy for best drama, all while only killing of one secondary character. In the next season plus 8 episodes they have killed off two really main characters (Anna Lucia and Eko) three secondary characters (Shannon, Libby, Michael, who wasnt killed off but was written off) and two third tier characters (Colleen and Picket) and have "promised" to kill of one more main character this year. Why is it necessary. Lost producers themselves have said that Lost is ultimately a show about the characters. They want viewers to learn about these characters; their faults and triumphs and root for them. The show really isnt about being stranded on a mysterious island and trying to figure out all the mysteries there. The producers are really contradicting themselves by saying that it is a show about the characters and then killing them all off, by the end we will have no one to root for. Lost fans know that before the show started their plan was to kill off Jack, the main character, in episode three to prove that this was a show that would do anything. The ran this past test markets and everyone agreed that the would not watch the show again after that and said they would "not be able to trust the writers of a show that wouldd do that." Now two plus years later they have forgotten that and are killing off characters adn losuing the trust of the viewers.
The second show would be 24. I believe that this has been a great show since the first second of season 1, even though it first one an Emmy for season 5 (I think not their best season). Here is a death count of main characters season by season. Season 1 (one main character) Season 2 (one secondary, one third tier) Season 3 (one main, one secodnary) Season 4 (one secondary) Season 5 (three main, two secondary, one third tier). So they were awarded for killing off the most main characters proving that no one is safe,a nd thats what makes for good televison. THis is the opposite reason that Lost won. Now, the one problem I have this year, especially after killing off another main character and a secondary character,is that there really aren't any characters that you care if they die. Jack is the last character left that as a viewer you have any interest in. All the guys Jack works with out in the field are un-named henchmen and you don't really care what happens to them. I think they killed of too many characters last year and the beginning of this year, there isn't any one you care about. There was a guy in a Muslim concentration camp in the US after a terrorist attack. They made it look as if he were in danger and as a viewer you were supposed to care. But you knew nothing about him and had no history with him so I really didn't care what happened to him.
Last example: Look at the highest rated dramas on television now: CSI, CSI Miami, Grey's Anatomy, House, Without a Case, Lost, and Desperate Housewives. Except Lost the other shows don't have a need to kill of main characters. CSI has been on for 7 years and has not once killed off a main characters. A couple times they were in critical condition, but never died. In fact its lowest rated season was when for half the season they broke up the team and had them all working separate and not together. Viewers stopped watching because the characters they love were no longer together. None of those others show either have a desire to kill of characters to keep viewers, they realize viewers are watching because of the characters. I will have a future blog looking at the fact that shows like CSI, ER, Grey's Anatomy, House, and Law & Order do so well for so long because everything gets solved in an hour and there is no long story line that gets people frustrated for answers.
Where will our children go
Recently Mayfair Mall in Wauwatosa has been starting the idea of limiting teenagers access to the mall at certain times and in certain numbers. Let me tell you that this is a terrible idea and starts us down a very slippery slope that will be hard to recover from. Sometime the decisions that people who live on ivory towers behind their white picket fence that don't know anything about what is really happening in the world make em sick. This new plan of their is a covert attempt to get people from the city stay out of Wauwatosa and their malls so they can shop in piece and not have to see "how the other half lives." They don't want to see news stories about the problems and crime and poverty in the inner city and they sure don't want these people shopping in the same place they are.
First high schoolers that live in the city of Milwaukee and attend public school are no longer allowed to attend high school games because of the actions of a handful of idiots. Now they can no longer go to Mayfair when they want, and soon I guarantee other malls will do this, and then bowling alleys, etc. Again you can't punish large groups of people because of the actions of a few idiots. I can still go into a bank and withdraw money even thought some idiots rob banks.
Where are theses teenagers going to go on a Friday night to hang out with their friends and have a good time in a safe environment now? They are left to wander the streets and bounce from one friends house to the others.
They other aspect of this that is going to cause a great deal of problems is the fact of how is this going to be enforced. After a certain time is security going to go around and check the id of those they think are under 18? If this is the case it will get messy quickly. Is security going to check the group of 4 suburban white girls in GAP or the group of 4 urban black males at Sam Goody? This is going to create even more hostility between black people from the city and their white suburban neighbors.
Just check those causing trouble? This should be the on-going policy. You act stupid and like an idiot, you gotta go. I don't care the age. People are stupid and don't knoe how to handle themselves at every age. These are the real people we want to catch and get them out of our high school basketball games and malls. Not the many innocent and nice teenagers that are just trying to live their lives and find a safe environment to hang out with their friends and have a good time.
First high schoolers that live in the city of Milwaukee and attend public school are no longer allowed to attend high school games because of the actions of a handful of idiots. Now they can no longer go to Mayfair when they want, and soon I guarantee other malls will do this, and then bowling alleys, etc. Again you can't punish large groups of people because of the actions of a few idiots. I can still go into a bank and withdraw money even thought some idiots rob banks.
Where are theses teenagers going to go on a Friday night to hang out with their friends and have a good time in a safe environment now? They are left to wander the streets and bounce from one friends house to the others.
They other aspect of this that is going to cause a great deal of problems is the fact of how is this going to be enforced. After a certain time is security going to go around and check the id of those they think are under 18? If this is the case it will get messy quickly. Is security going to check the group of 4 suburban white girls in GAP or the group of 4 urban black males at Sam Goody? This is going to create even more hostility between black people from the city and their white suburban neighbors.
Just check those causing trouble? This should be the on-going policy. You act stupid and like an idiot, you gotta go. I don't care the age. People are stupid and don't knoe how to handle themselves at every age. These are the real people we want to catch and get them out of our high school basketball games and malls. Not the many innocent and nice teenagers that are just trying to live their lives and find a safe environment to hang out with their friends and have a good time.
Terrible, Terrible, Terrible
The movie industry just let out another terrible, terrible, terrible movie. Some how I was convinced that going to see Ghost Rider on a Saturday afternoon was going to be a good idea even though there were many reasons not to.
1) The movie was not released to critics to be reviewed before being released for the public.
2) Nickolas Cage, outside of maybe 3 movies, is a terrible actor and makes terrible movies.
3) The promo commercials said nothing good about the movie, not even from small newspapers that no one has heard of.
4) Its about Ghost Rider, a comic book I don't think anyone has ever read.
Despite this I went and saw it, and believe me when I say that it is probably the worst movie I have ever seen. It feels like it was written by Cage himself because no Hollywood writer would have written it. Here is a list of why it was terrible.
1) The first 20 minutes when he is a kid make no sense and has nothing to do with the rest of the movie
2) There is a scene where the bad guy is looking for a cemetery but is told a few years ago they moved the cemetery, and all the graves somewhere else. WHAT??
3) They introduce these 4 bad guys without any explanation, they just show up and start killing people in a biker bar, in a scene that has doing to do with anything else.
4) The never explain what the bad guys are trying to accomplish or get.
5) There are only 4 scenes with Cage as Ghost Rider. They each last about 3 minutes and the first one doesn't take place until an hour into it.
The acting my every character (even Cage) is god-awful. They speak like they are being told the lines in a hidden ear piece.
6) The dialogue, especially between him and his "girl" is terrible and makes no sense.
Do not see this movie, I was frustrated and un-comfortable the entire time in the theater. The worst part was that the theater was pretty full and a large number of people were enjoying it. People were chearing in parts and laughing at parts that were not remotely funny. I am quite a bit dumbher just for being in the same room as these people.
1) The movie was not released to critics to be reviewed before being released for the public.
2) Nickolas Cage, outside of maybe 3 movies, is a terrible actor and makes terrible movies.
3) The promo commercials said nothing good about the movie, not even from small newspapers that no one has heard of.
4) Its about Ghost Rider, a comic book I don't think anyone has ever read.
Despite this I went and saw it, and believe me when I say that it is probably the worst movie I have ever seen. It feels like it was written by Cage himself because no Hollywood writer would have written it. Here is a list of why it was terrible.
1) The first 20 minutes when he is a kid make no sense and has nothing to do with the rest of the movie
2) There is a scene where the bad guy is looking for a cemetery but is told a few years ago they moved the cemetery, and all the graves somewhere else. WHAT??
3) They introduce these 4 bad guys without any explanation, they just show up and start killing people in a biker bar, in a scene that has doing to do with anything else.
4) The never explain what the bad guys are trying to accomplish or get.
5) There are only 4 scenes with Cage as Ghost Rider. They each last about 3 minutes and the first one doesn't take place until an hour into it.
The acting my every character (even Cage) is god-awful. They speak like they are being told the lines in a hidden ear piece.
6) The dialogue, especially between him and his "girl" is terrible and makes no sense.
Do not see this movie, I was frustrated and un-comfortable the entire time in the theater. The worst part was that the theater was pretty full and a large number of people were enjoying it. People were chearing in parts and laughing at parts that were not remotely funny. I am quite a bit dumbher just for being in the same room as these people.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Shove your grammy up your @#$@!
Someone remind me to take my two Grammy's I won and either melt them down in to metal and sell it or sell them on e-bay. For those of you who don't know I won two Grammy's in 1996. One for best gangster rap album with Wacked-Out Jon and the Cadaver Dogs with "Bite Your Pillow Bitch." and Best Spoken Word Kid's Album with "Hey kids lets talk about the birds and the bees." After the last few years of Grammy nominations they are utterly useless. First we'll focus my anger on this year and then we will expand. First Dixie Chicks win the top three awards. Honestly who still listens to the Dixie Chicks, or did any one ever listen to them. People who honestly listen to country can't stand them and people who don't listen to country can't stand country. John Mayer nominated for best artist or something like that; who listens to that shit bag. Also, whats the deal with album and the year and record of the year. What is the difference. That is like the Academy Awards having a category for best film and one for best movie. The best new artist has been a joke for years but.... James Blunt has had that album out for three years, Imogen Heap (who??) has been making albums for 7 year, hardly new. Seriously some of the "artists," and I use that word lighlty nominated for various categories this year were Mary J Blige, John Mayer, Justin Timberlake, Carrie Underwood, Chris Brown, Pink, Black Eyed PEas and Fergie (both songs I think we randomly written by having a retarded deaf monkey draw random words out of a hat and then arrange them into a song), and Christina Aquilera (she's still making albums??) IF an alien came from another planet to do research on human's interest and development of music I think they would have thrown up from laughing so hard while watching the grammy's and then would have invaded earth the next day.
The GRammys are the only one of the three major awards (Emmy and Academy Awards) that consistently pick crap-tastic picks. Every year I could pick 30-40 artists better in every major genre than the ones that are selected. For example U2 has the most nominations all time. That should be the only point that needs to be made. The fact that 3 former American Idols have won bets new artist, Timberlake has been nominated every year, and Christina Aquilera has 5 nominations is only adding fuel to the fire. Every year, overall the Emmys and Academy Awards get it right, maybe a few exceptions. If someone wants to do know movies are good look at the academy award nominations and winners. If you want to know what t.v is good watch the emmys. The Emmy board even had the nerve of nominating Scrubs twice and giving best comedy to Arrested Development, even though no one watched the funniest show on television. (I'll have a rant about the Emmys when they are annoucned in a few months.) But if you want to know good music DO NOT look to the Grammy Awards. The pick artists that are "radio friendly" are played on 6 different stations in every city, are easy to listen to, are different from the mainstream, and are backed by huge money from large producers. (The producers and distributors get most of the money from selling cds and airplay) I personally think the companies pay of the Grammys to have their artists nominated so their sales go up. Some of the best music I have heard in the last 10 years is by artists: Coldplay, Arcade Fire, the Shins, Muse, Jay-Z; and none of these were ever nominated. (I think Coldplay was once for something like best directing in a video, and Jay-Z for best crack dealer turned musician.)
Someone with real musical taste needs to start their own awards show so poeple and visiting aliens can see and hear what is really good being made each year. We all know MTV tried their own awards show, and that is far far far worse.
The GRammys are the only one of the three major awards (Emmy and Academy Awards) that consistently pick crap-tastic picks. Every year I could pick 30-40 artists better in every major genre than the ones that are selected. For example U2 has the most nominations all time. That should be the only point that needs to be made. The fact that 3 former American Idols have won bets new artist, Timberlake has been nominated every year, and Christina Aquilera has 5 nominations is only adding fuel to the fire. Every year, overall the Emmys and Academy Awards get it right, maybe a few exceptions. If someone wants to do know movies are good look at the academy award nominations and winners. If you want to know what t.v is good watch the emmys. The Emmy board even had the nerve of nominating Scrubs twice and giving best comedy to Arrested Development, even though no one watched the funniest show on television. (I'll have a rant about the Emmys when they are annoucned in a few months.) But if you want to know good music DO NOT look to the Grammy Awards. The pick artists that are "radio friendly" are played on 6 different stations in every city, are easy to listen to, are different from the mainstream, and are backed by huge money from large producers. (The producers and distributors get most of the money from selling cds and airplay) I personally think the companies pay of the Grammys to have their artists nominated so their sales go up. Some of the best music I have heard in the last 10 years is by artists: Coldplay, Arcade Fire, the Shins, Muse, Jay-Z; and none of these were ever nominated. (I think Coldplay was once for something like best directing in a video, and Jay-Z for best crack dealer turned musician.)
Someone with real musical taste needs to start their own awards show so poeple and visiting aliens can see and hear what is really good being made each year. We all know MTV tried their own awards show, and that is far far far worse.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Is this real?
Sometimes I feel like I am living in a fantasy world or that all the world around me is being scripted to see how bizarre things can get before I start questioning them. This story about that NASA astronaut, Lisa Nowak, and her bizarre love triangle murder attempt is pushing the brink of sanity.
She is married with three children but still found the urge to drive 900 miles to attempt to murder another women who she thought was her romantic rival for a male astronaut. Her obsession with him led her to drive 900 miles from Houston to Orlando, bringing with her a trenchcoat and wig, armed with a BB gun, pepper spray, a new steel mallet, knife, rubber tubing and wearing a diaper to avoid bathroom breaks on the arduous drive. Wait, wait!! She had a wig, a BB gun, pepper spray, a new steel mallet, knife, rubber tubing, and was wearing a diaper. And a new steel mallet, meaning she went out and bought these items, didn't just grab some stuff lying around her house. Okay, this must be made up. Not only is this woman so crazy to think someone was a romantic rival for a man that was not her husband and drove 900 miles over this, she was wearing a diaper. You wonder why NASA is going bankrupt, they have people like this running their spaceships. This makes what happened a few years back when they forgot to change their calculations into metric and then their satellite miss its target look perfectly fine.
NASA released this statement: “We try not to concern ourselves with our employees’ personal lives.” What?? If my employees are psychotic and traveling across the country wearing a diaper trying to kill someone, I will concern myself with them. This whole story just seems like at any moment someone is going to come out and say "fooled you," and the whole thing has been made up, because there is no way this real. I guess Darwin was wrong. After all these years of humankind this kind of stupidity should have been worked out of the gene pool years ago.
She is married with three children but still found the urge to drive 900 miles to attempt to murder another women who she thought was her romantic rival for a male astronaut. Her obsession with him led her to drive 900 miles from Houston to Orlando, bringing with her a trenchcoat and wig, armed with a BB gun, pepper spray, a new steel mallet, knife, rubber tubing and wearing a diaper to avoid bathroom breaks on the arduous drive. Wait, wait!! She had a wig, a BB gun, pepper spray, a new steel mallet, knife, rubber tubing, and was wearing a diaper. And a new steel mallet, meaning she went out and bought these items, didn't just grab some stuff lying around her house. Okay, this must be made up. Not only is this woman so crazy to think someone was a romantic rival for a man that was not her husband and drove 900 miles over this, she was wearing a diaper. You wonder why NASA is going bankrupt, they have people like this running their spaceships. This makes what happened a few years back when they forgot to change their calculations into metric and then their satellite miss its target look perfectly fine.
NASA released this statement: “We try not to concern ourselves with our employees’ personal lives.” What?? If my employees are psychotic and traveling across the country wearing a diaper trying to kill someone, I will concern myself with them. This whole story just seems like at any moment someone is going to come out and say "fooled you," and the whole thing has been made up, because there is no way this real. I guess Darwin was wrong. After all these years of humankind this kind of stupidity should have been worked out of the gene pool years ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)