2008 Moments

How I Met Your Mother is a bit of That 70s Show rehash for me. Basically, a somewhat mainstream sitcom comedy who's horrendous laugh track is overcome by a hilarious, talented cast with great chemistry. (Surprisingly, the fact that 75% of That 70s Show cast turned out to be fame-whoring douchebags still doesn't make me laugh less over old reruns). Anyway, nothing pleases me more to discover EW paying montage to their favorite 2008 moments by utilizing the HIMYM cast.

I'm gonna go home and put my head in the oven

Humorous Assholes and Clever Bitches
Jerk and insult humor can go a long way when it's done well. It's the perfect hybrid of the highest and lowest character denominators - reveling in the muck of nastiness but witnessing it delivered in a high-minded, intellectual manner. Pure entertainment gold. (And if said gold happens to be delivered in Logan Echolls-looking packaging, even the more better. Okay, last prepubescent VM shout out for the rest of the year, I swear.)

So the problem: too many people believe they can do it. The issue arises when people start acting like bitches for the sake of being bitchy because being nice just seems too dull. It no longer becomes about the issue at hand but more just letting everyone within your communication radius know exactly what trivial event of the hour absolutely deserves a verbal beat down because it irritates YOU and it must be known.

And more often than not - the delivery isn't even entertaining, clever, or humorous. Not just on a personal subjective taste level, but more in the smallness of what exactly is so bothersome and the sweeping, VERY non-intellectual assumptions made.

Sure, the line of humorous/offensive is very blurry, but I guess the whole point I'm aiming towards is that not every person is Gregory House and it's become increasingly more common to witness people believing they are, to very unpleasant results. What we get are hyper-critics who deliver mean-spirited, generic insults on unsuspecting individuals, all the while believing they're particularly unique, funny, and interesting for doing so. Basically, reveling in the lowest common-denominator but deluding themselves into thinking that they're in the highest.

Disclaimer time: I've SO done this. Several, several times. Hell, the case can be made that I'm doing it now. I still cringe remembering when I use to think I was so hilar-lar in taking such a strong stance against overweight people because no one else had the guts to be outrageous enough to say the mean comments out loud. My biggest regrets in life aren't about what choices I made or didn't make, but what behavior I allowed myself to not only exhibit, but think more highly of myself for doing so. I can only to look back in hindsight and realize what a huge insecure douchebag I was and hope I have enough foresight that I don't have another ego-trip relapse.

Summary: It's very easy to be mean. It's easy to garner attention and feel validated by being outrageously cruel. It's not easy delivering legitimately clever insults on a regular basis (especially without a team of writers mulling weeks over the perfect opening and rejoinder). And it's especially difficult to be okay enough with yourself to just be nice and expect nothing in return.

Rich 50 is the middle class 38

Fingers crossed for Iron Man II and Batman III

Add Quantum of Solace to my ever-growing list of films that breach the incoherency threshold. It appears that the ongoing trend with follow-ups to critically acclaimed blockbusters is to bloat them with as many astounding action sequences as possible, which typically comes hand-in-hand with a convoluted plot that weakly links all the scenes together, complete with thinly explained superfluous character introductions/removals. I'm all for a revamp of the 007 series, but I find myself longing for the good ol' days of the basic Bond story line: evil man with evil world domination plan --> watch Bond defeat him spectacularly. On an appended note: my strong distaste for rapid edits and shaky camera work still stands.

Thoughts of me? Hey, I get it. Sometimes I'm up all night, just thinkin' about myself.

The main reason why I have zero desire to read or watch Twilight:
(excerpt review on the main character, Bella Swan, from the Washington Post)
"Edward's habit of constantly pulling her onto his lap or having her ride on his back further emphasize her childlike qualities....the overall effect is a weird infantilization that has repellent overtones to an adult reader and hardly seems like an admirable model to foist upon our daughters (or sons)."

In general, I've never been a big fan of the whole Disney Princess prototype - super repressed damsels in distress pining and obsessing over their prince. I'm even less of a fan that the prince is inadvertently the ultimate symbol of freedom from an environment of pseudo-slavery (i.e. under the sea, life with an evil stepmother, etc.). There's this general pandering fantasy message for females that in order to find happiness, only a man will be the true key to it.

Granted, most Disney movies are based on stories written and taking place during times when women were thought to be the lesser sex, so the general subdued/placated nature of the female leads is technically an accurate representation of the social norms of the culture. Plus, it's not like they're completely lame personality wise - it's just that the romantic plot device is.

Which leads me back to the Twilight series. As a disclaimer, my protestations are extremely unjustified because I've never read the book. Instead, I've read the synopsis, the reviews, and the movie spoiler. That's it. So yes, there's the strong legitimate potential that if I were to actually read the book, I'll quickly become one of the squeeing fans (my older sister included) lined up for hours before the each premiere. Look at what breaking my "no more teen shows" clause did with Veronica Mars.

But I can't wrap my head around a modern heroine who's only goal in life seemingly is to just be with her man. Sure, there are the general subplots of vampire families and werewolves bugging her, but her drive for EVERYTHING is revolving around a man. My internal feminist screams in protest.

But since I didn't read it, that might not actually be the case. Maybe Bella does kick butt in Hermione-like fashion and helps solve problems as opposed to create them in her obsession with Edward. But then again, I come across plot points where Bella goes cliff-diving to hear Edward's voice, nearly drowns, then is rescued by another "beautiful" supernatural male...

I'm just more predisposed to story lines where a guy actually has to WORK for the female's affection and not the other way around. Or even better, when both of them have to overcome their own personality defects to be with each other. I like an even playing field - not one-sided smoopyness. Or even worse: continual maudlin declarations of love to each other as a means to overcome life's obstacles. I don't find that horribly romantic.

In summary: There's been a lot of evidence contrary to my personal taste as incentive to not read the book. If someone wants to present an argument as to why the book is so awesome aside from it's easy readbility and intense popularity, I'll be happy to take a look.

I'm currently in the process of testing a theory that bad days are contagious. Basically, starting from when I got back from work yesterday (after hearing about my co-worker's not-so-great day), things have been sucking - not at any emo-inducing levels, but still not super great. It's just been a bit of a domino effect where little things just don't go as planned, emotionally exacerbated by Thorne's devastatingly adorable flat-eared guilty look when I'm yelling at him for eating the pool table. But then, I also have the theory that a bad day is typically followed by an exceedingly great one because of lowered expectations and emotional countenance. So, there's the potential that I'm going to have an AWESOME weekend.

Happy thoughts (to counter any potential fatalistic ones)
1. I enjoy my smart friends who are secure enough to admit they love stupid things and don't even bother trying to act like they're above it.
2. I'm pleased that I have yet to set foot in the mall for any holiday shopping.
3. I don't have finals.

Take My Money - Waste of Paaaaper

After yesterday's attempt at verbosity, my brain decided it had enough wannabe mental stimulation, so we're back to the lists.

Inventory of Thorne Destruction Thus Far:
1. Four pairs of shoes.
2. The Pool Table cover.
3. Three lawn lights.
4. One remote.
5. Box of band-aids.
6. Two coasters.
7. A pot of soil (inside the house).

I say, all in all, it hasn't been that bad. Plus, how can you resist this face?(for the record, he's hugging the "That's What She Said" cushion)


Interests that people list that aren't very interesting
1. Soccer.
2. Food.
3. Shopping.
4. Their significant other.
5. Drinking.
6. Preference for another race outside their own.
7. Money.
(Feel free to blare the "Hypocrite Alert!" horn any time you want.)

Shows I need to check out
1. Hustle
2. Burn Notice

Serous Membranes Are Used for Lubrication

(headline is a shout out to easily the most ridiculous word thus far in Wordscraper play)

Happy Holidays to me. AT&T decided it'd be a great time to dump an extra $137.14 payment on top of my regular one for this month's bill. Time to go hunt a hapless customer service representative down.

Some post-election commentary. First, the light stuff:

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

Now the serious(ly boring - beware):
Hypothetical situations seemed to be the argument of choice when it comes to matters of fuzzy accusations on subjective topics. For example, just recently, CNN's Campbell Brown made the argument that Governor Ed Rendell would not had made his off-mic "no life" comment if Governor Janet Napolitano had been a male. What is frustrating about this is that there no way to either justify or disprove this statement. Napolitano will never be a man (barring a sex-change, but that's an entirely different ball park - whoo, Oregon!), hence Rendell will never get to either prove or disprove Campbell Brown's conjecture. Instead, what we get is nation-wide outrage and public denials/apologies that continue until another event provides fodder for non-evidence based pondering.

Granted, making hypotheses is inherent in the world of politics. Focusing on particular issues and laws in preparation for the unknown future is a necessity. [Cue cheesy West Wing quote about non-written commandment of making a better place for our children]. So of course, every responsible politician and political analyst has to think outside the box, come up with an array of issues that could potentially come up, and adjust accordingly. But (I'm hoping) more often than not, these responsible discussions are based on previous knowledge, events, and laws that have set precedence. What my beef with hypothetical arguments is that, regularly, they are used as a means to justify irrational self-righteousness, unfounded attacks on character, and a means to feed fear and paranoia - all under the guise of coherent "intellectual/factual discussion." They're also ridiculously easy to use because research is not necessary and what better way to present an argument than to use evidence that can't be disproved because it doesn't exist?

In summary: Facts. Previous knowledge of events. Data. Pretty important stuff. Back up your argument. "What ifs?" - not so much.


And after my long-ass rant against "what-ifs" comes something completely contradictory: "What if your child turned out to be gay?" [Warning: more rambling ahead]

One (of MANY) things that have been brought to my attention through the whole Prop. 8 debacle is the inherent fear in parents that their kids will be gay. Something that Prop. 8 supporters gleefully utilized in their campaigns. One comment I heard from a supporter (paraphrasing, of course): "The gay community can live however they want, but when they're teaching their lifestyle to my kids, that's going too far."

I'm going to ignore the obvious discussion of the non-connection between gay marriage and schools since I'm pretty sure a Google search would return a much more eloquent analysis than any one I would have to present. My question is: "Why is it a big deal that your children are aware of LBGT relations or might turn out to be gay?" Obviously, if you have a problem with gays, period, your children are definitely off limits. But what about the people like the supporter above? Who are open-minded enough to acknowledge the LBGT community's existence without wishing damnation upon them but having their kids do the same? Huge NO. If you're "okay" with gay people, why not be okay with your child being gay? I really don't have an answer to this or, basically, it's just an exercise to not so subtly (and pretentiously) point out that despite the best attempts to present an image of tolerance, it seems to be human nature to react with a "HELL NO" when "different" hits too close to home.

In summary: After all the not-so-deep analysis above, I follow with my own non-PC, completely partisan take:

"Get. Over. It."



And to end the entry on an inane note, something cool from coolhunter:


Annnd. Happy Holidays to me, again. Courtesy of Jess, again:

The Office is No Longer Must See TV

This season (and a good portion of the last), the writers of The Office have made it clear that their task is to present newer alternatives to plot devices/character eccentricities that made Season 1 and 2 so great. Unfortunately, these upgraded versions aren't really that funny (or cute in some particular endeavors). Cases in point:

1. Dwight and Jim:
What had once been a comedic cornerstone of the show - Jim antagonizing Dwight - has now taken a backseat to the completely dull coupledom of Jim and Pam and the sporadically humorous love-triangle of Dwight-Andy-Angela. Nothing is more painful than watching the two male leads waste important minutes of screen time pining after their mutual mates. Where's the funny? Aside from the brilliant factually incorrect BSG monologue, Dwight and Jim's chemistry has been at an all time low. Bummer.

2. Pam 2.0:
Last week's episode clinched it. Pam is no longer likable. Gone is the plain-but-beautiful, shy, sensitive with a mean streak, humorous girl. In place is a borderline bitchy, clearly manipulative, overconfident, unfunny woman. Got to give the writer's some credit - they managed to illustrate rather accurately the real life occurrence among some women where upon snagging a man, the feeling of empowerment on finding a guy who likes them translates into an overall increase in confidence, which leads to outspoken behavior that isn't necessarily pleasant to witness. Some examples: a) the microwave incident; b) threatening Jim. Anyway, as realistic as it is, again, NOT FUNNY.

3. Michael's man-crush on Ryan: Bring it back!

4. Jim and Pam:
To quote Jess: "wah wahhh...zzzzzz." The romantic tension has officially left the building. While it's not necessary to break them up to keep things interesting, it would be nice if so much screen time wasn't focused on them playing-cute-that-isn't-very-cute-at-all. Yes, after two and a half season of "will they or won't they", it's happy times now that the two are together. But PLEASE stop cramming it down the viewers' throats. We get it - Jim is a nice guy and Pam is a lucky girl. What's next? (Maybe some Karen? Please?).

5. Kelly Kapoor: Not a huge complaint. But resorting to pregnancy and rape lies for humor - really?

Not that everything is all bad: a) Andy's character has come miles in terms of the obnoxious anger-management needing a-hole from season 3; b) The increase of Darryl from the warehouse is highly welcomed; and c) Holly and Michael geeky moments were awkwardly sweet. So while The Office hasn't necessarily jumped the shark to the extent that Heroes has (an entire rant post within itself), the moments of hilarity dispersed through this season have not been often or consistent enough to warrant a Thursday 9pm appointment with the couch.

Depressing Geeky Admission of the Day

This has actually happened:

Mainly, every day during the long trek to the bathroom, I find myself prone to fanciful thinking about how cool an epic choreographed battle would be involving all the cubicles getting demolished, falling down like dominoes. CG related hyper-kinetic moves and powers all play a part...and I'm probably going to delete this post in the future. In my defense, I've never been delusional enough to cast myself in so-called epic battles (as opposed to comic-guy above).

And my official default response to pompous elitists:


If it wasn't obvious, I've recently re-discovered the joy of nerd humor.

Goal of next entry: not reference myself once. Read an article about how it's a legitimate exercise for mental stimulation. Let's see how that goes.