Traditional Definitions in a Modern World

I thought I'd try something a bit different today. Late Night with Jimmy Fallon's Video Game Week is over, and they're no doubt looking for new comedy bits for the transition to The Tonight Show in February, so I thought I'd start up a post for Late Night's #AudienceSuggestionBox. So many things these days are referred to differently than in the past, and I find myself wondering what some of today's common phrases might have meant years ago. So, here we go, turning back the clock with some Rewound Definitions.

Modern Phrase   -   Old-fashionedDefinition

"Target Demo" - Tearing down an old housing complex to build a new Target.

"Resume download" - What Higgins does after a phone call interrupts him on the toilet.

"Brooklyn Nets" - What the city of New York stretches across Brooklyn to catch any falling high wire daredevils. (Still applies today.)

"Jersey Shore" - A haven for working-class Americans, as well as degenerates who look to get ahead through any means necessary. (Still applies today.)

"Bruce Jenner" - A world-class athlete with a completely normal human face.

"Tiger Woods" - The jungle. Woods for a tiger.

"Facebook" - That thing where you fall asleep cramming for a midterm and your head rests on the book so long that the text comes off on your face like newspaper on Silly Putty.

"Bieber Fever" - What you catch if you accidentally drink the water while visiting the Isle of Bieber.

"Ryan Gosling" - A delicious sandwich of baby goose on rye.

"Game of Thrones" - What Jimmy calls it when he causes someone to have to "resume" their "download."

"Tony Weiner" - What a 1920's gangster calls a well-dressed hot dog. As in, "Yeah, see? That's a real tony weiner ya got there, pal!"

That's it for now, but you can be sure I'll think of more for another installment!

North Korea - They Found Our Unicorns!

Okay, you guys laughed at the lottery ticket thing, but now North Korea is saying they found a Unicorn Lair. Honestly. Now, hold on, how do they know, you ask? Well, there was a big stone sign. Sign said “Unicorn Lair” in big, engraved letters. So of course, it had to be true, even if the location was unimaginatively named. I mean, their former president was a self-proclaimed Demi-God who single-handedly wrote about 40,000 books in his lifetime, it makes sense, THIS is where the unicorns would be found, and they’d live in a place called “Unicorn Lair.” For those of you still looking for Jimmy Hoffa, all you need to do is find a sign that says, “Jimmy Hoffa Grave.” Foolproof.

This makes future discoveries much easier for science, anthropology, archaeology, et. al. – just look for an engraved stone tablet propped up in unusual locations. Since the Unicorn discovery, science has benefitted with the discovery of places called “Bigfoot Cave,” “Loch Ness Monster Bay,” and “World’s Greatest Doughnut Hole.” Though, this last discovery was called into question by being located in the same building as signs for the “World’s Greatest Coffee,” the “World’s Biggest T-Bone,” the “Best Stuff on Earth,” (which clearly has already been claimed by Snapple, though refuted almost immediately after tasting) and directly across the street from a “Speediest Parcel Service” and a “Jiffy Lube.”

Of course, there are drawbacks to such pioneering breakthroughs. Medical researchers on the lookout for so-called “DNA Signposts” – which indicate things such as genetic predisposition toward illnesses, hereditary immunity to certain allergens, or even things like hair and eye color – have discovered a number of indications that microbiotic pranksters have wasted no time in picking up on North Korea’s discovery. Cedars-Sinai has already discovered suspicious DNA markers which say, “Cytosine was here,” and “Telomeres do it on repeat,” while Johns-Hopkins researcher Elliot Bethpage was alarmed for another reason. On the end of every DNA strand currently undergoing chemical separation, he found a sort of genetic-level bathroom graffiti bragging “Helicase will unzip anything.”

“It’s funny because it’s true,” commented Bethpage.

No one is quite certain whether our DNA is announcing its own self-awareness, or if somehow the UT college students behind the “Zombie Attack” construction signs may be at it again, but one thing is clear – we’ll all remember where we were the day that unicorns were unequivocally proven to exist. By North Korea… who, I’m being told, has just claimed responsibility for every double-rainbow ever seen….

2012 Summer Movies, A.K.A. "What the Hell happened?"

It's summer again. Despite what the calendar would have you believe, it didn't start on June 20 this year - according to the B-52s outside my sliding door, it began in late April. And no, I don't have an eccentric group of 70's rockers hanging around my yard singing about Love Shacks and Rock Lobsters; I'm referring to the mosquitoes.

Like most people, I always look forward to the things summer brings - beach weather, crisp air conditioning, and summer movie season. Except, something happened this year. In the midst of slathering on suntan lotion and swatting vampiric insects, I noticed that there just aren't that many summer movies to see. I mean, sure, there are big films out there like The Avengers, Battleship, and Prometheus, but not on pace with what we've seen in recent years. Just last year, in one summer, we saw Thor, Captain America, Pirates 4, Scream 4, Mission Impossible 4, Transformers 3, Green Lantern, and while not all of those were on my must-see list, they were huge draws, and that's just to name the big popcorn flicks. Count in movies like Hangover 2, Bridesmaids, Cars 2, and Kung Fu Panda, and I'm sure there were some people that actually camped at the theaters all summer. This summer, we have only a few. Let's take a look at some of the hits and misses. Trust me, there are enough misses here to barely make a good batting average.

Dark Shadows: In an unprecedented move, Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter work with Tim Burton for a change, where they are both able to explore fully the weirdness that makes them who they are. That hasn't happened since, y'know, the last time.

The Dictator: Sacha Baron Cohen plays a foreign guy who seems to be as clueless as he is unlikable. I'm beginning to see this as the summer of typecasting and nostalgia.

Men in Black III: Okay, now, this goes in the other column. We're revisiting one of the biggest summer blockbusters in history, and if any franchise needs a shot in the arm after the lackluster MIB2, this is it. Wait a minute, who's that guy playing Tommy Lee Jones? I want the real Agent K back, he was only in it for about 2 minutes?? And... this is set in the past? So, I'm watching a futuristic movie about the past? So, I'm watching a movie about... now? Where's the manager, there's a fly in my movie....

Snow White and the Huntsman: I'm not sure what to think here. On one hand, you have Chris Hemsworth doing his action thing. On the other hand, you have Kristen Stewart... attempting to do the same thing Hemsworth is doing. Doesn't she know her talents are best put to use when she's looking half-stoned at the camera and, y'know, not saying any lines? By the way, on a third, completely unexpected hand, you have Charlize Theron looking insane and pronouncing simple words such as "blood" as though they have four syllables in them. So, there's that. Hopefully you were as confused as I was by this.

Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted: Now, while I'm not indifferent to the idea of having animated flicks as big summer blockbusters, and despite the fact that I love Ben Stiller, Chris Rock, and the rest of the cast, the only thing this movie appears to have going for it is Rock singing the "Polka-dot, Afro, Circus" song. If it's just that and lasts for 90 minutes, it's box office gold despite the Advil you'll be looking for when it's over. If, on the other hand, they insist on shoehorning in some type of plot, well, I'm forced to ask a question that has been plaguing me: is this the first title that pops into your mind when you think about animated movies that need sequels?

Rock of Ages: This looks good, despite being largely a musical. Herein lies the problem, however, which is the essence of this post: when was the last time you needed to count a musical as a summer blockbuster? Anyway, huge ensemble cast, Constantine Maroulis not very visible, great music. Those are three things that should make it easier for you to see this movie.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter: All I can say here is the same thing I said when this first came out in book form: What in the name of all that's holy??

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World: While this movie looks cute and funny, and while I love Steve Carell and Keira Knightley, I can't quite bring myself to put this in "summer blockbuster" territory. Even though it does revisit a summer movie staple, the end of all life as we know it. And if that doesn't scream comedy, well, you need to recalibrate your funny bone.

People Like Us: Again, while I am looking forward to seeing this, I don't see it as summer blockbuster fare. Mainly because I'm curious if Chris Pine has the big screen chops to respond to any direction other than "Be Captain Kirk."

Magic Mike: Okay, we're clearly back to typecasting now. I won't be seeing this movie for a vast variety of reasons, but let's just say if I wanted to see Channing Tatum grinding or Matthew McConaughey with no shirt on, I would go LITERALLY ANYWHERE ELSE. Seriously. It's the role they were both born to play. I can't even imagine the pitch meeting getting off the ground, but what happened when they were discussing casting? "Hmm, let's see, we need a guy to play a stripper, and a shirtless guy who wears a vest. Anybody?" "Call me crazy, but, what if we got a stripper and a shirtless guy who wears a vest to play those parts?" "You know, kid, it's so crazy it just might work!" Lastly, I've chosen not to insert the expected line of "Alright, alright, alright" here when talking about McConaughey, because I'd be bound to follow it up with, "enough already, we get it, your moobs are huge."

Ted: See my thoughts above on Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. The only difference is, this wasn't a book first.

Tyler Perry's Madea's Witness Protection: First of all, the title. I don't think the English language allows 40% of any chunk of text to be possessive words. Don't get me wrong, I like Tyler Perry and have a great deal of respect for what he's done for Atlanta as well as his flair for self-promotion, I just am surprised this franchise has developed the following it has. First of all, doesn't Martin Lawrence get some sort of residual from the idea? Second, after Madea Goes To Jail I started to think he was just using the old "Ernest" movies as a template. And finally... Perry is going to be playing James Patterson's Alex Cross in an upcoming film. I don't know if I can wrap my mind around seeing him play a figure which was made so iconic by Morgan Freeman in films like Along Came a Spider and Kiss the Girls after I've seen him as Madea. Every time he walks onto a crime scene, I'm immediately going to picture him threatening to spoon Eugene Levy, and I just can't seem to overcome that....

Although July does have some big movies coming out (The Dark Knight Rises and a new Ice Age) along with August (Bourne Legacy, Expendables 2) which are sure to be big box office draws, I'm going to finish up with another that has me torn: The Amazing Spider-Man. Emma Stone: good. Andrew Garfield: who? The first time I heard this name, he was announced as being an upcoming guest on a late night show. Here is how my thought process unfolded: "Ah, is he the guy who started the restaurant chain? No? Oh, so, he must be the radio personality and tech expert? No, that's Michael. Well, he's definitely not the 20th President of the U.S. Is it the full name of an acerbic, fluffy, orange cartoon cat?" NOT ONCE did the thought "actor playing Spider-Man" pop into my head. That's a pretty outside choice for the lead character. I hope it does well, but here's another thought: why did Spider Man need a reboot, anyway? The last film just came out 5 years ago. I mean, I know they'll have needed a flashy reboot some time before they do a "New Avengers" movie, but don't they have to do about 12 films with the current Avengers before that happens? Why do we have to remake movies that aren't even that old? 80's movies are a stretch for me (I'm looking at you, Total Recall) let alone a franchise that just ended 5 years ago.

While I have plenty of films I'm looking forward to, when I compare it to last summer I'm just thankful I have my Netflix queue to send me things like Downton Abbey and indie flicks. Oh, and Mirror Mirror - I can't believe I missed that on the big screen....

Artistic Integrity in Video Games

I don't usually weigh in on debates like these, but as with most debates there are valid points on both sides, so I thought I'd join in.

"With a game, the final 'collaborator' is the player.  Thus, the player has a say in the artistic vision.  The game isn’t done until it is played."

This is a comment made by a recent acquaintance of mine, and fellow writer, Alan Dreher regarding this whole dust-up over Mass Effect 3. ("Why Claims Regarding “Artistic Integrity” Do Not Apply To Mass Effect 3 or Other Games.") Before I move on, you should definitely check out Alan's blog, he makes some good points and I look forward to reading more from him. Now, allow me a moment to reflect.

An artistic message doesn't cease to exist simply because someone doesn't experience it, nor does it change based on the way it is experienced. While I take the meaning, this is a very fine line to walk, a very narrow distinction. The problem is that even though players can influence the outcome of ME3 based on the decisions they make while playing, there are still a finite number of outcomes which have already been programmed into the game. The player doesn't program anything or add any elements into the game, they merely use their decisions to open up the pathways that already exist as a result of the game creator's vision.

To say the player contributes to the art form by playing it and has a right to dictate or at least call for new endings would be like saying a TV or movie viewer contributes to the vision by pressing Play on their DVR, or that the Star Wars films are fair game because the end-product isn't realized until a viewer chooses whether to view it in traditional or 3D format (as in Spectator Theory, mentioned by Alan in his piece - the problem with Spec Theory is that it discounts the idea that the original artist has any intent or vision. Yes, spectators can view things with a different vision, but it doesn't change the intent or vision of the original artist.) Likewise, Dallas fans wouldn't have the right to say, "Hey, I thought JR would die after he got shot, I demand they film an alternate timeline!"

Yes, it's everyone's right to speak their mind, to form opinions, and to like or dislike anything on which they've laid down the cash. But just because you don't like it doesn't mean you have the right to demand that someone else change it to suit your wishes, especially when the company has gone to the effort of programming multiple different endings to experience into the game - as is the case with any of the previous installments of this series, and most RPGs today. (Another example, many DVDs and Blu-Rays come with alternate endings - that's a bonus for viewers and a great thing for producers and directors to include, but it would be ridiculous to suggest that it's within reason for viewers to say, "I didn't like ANY of the endings, film me a new one!" I would expect these sorts of demands to be followed up by statements like, "I demand satisfaction!" followed by the slap of a white glove, or perhaps a call for "More ale, wench!") After all, what's next? "I was wearing green-tinted sunglasses when I visited the Louvre recently and when I checked out the Mona Lisa, she looked great in a kelly green dress. Imagine my disappointment to see the 'real' painting online today and see that the dress is in fact equal parts gold and red trimmed with greyish blue. Somebody should really green that bitch up, yo." See what I'm saying?

Now, ultimately, it IS the choice of the artist whether or not they want to change their vision in order to appeal to the masses. George Lucas made Jar Jar the dupe who led to the ultimate downfall of the Republic in The Clone Wars largely because most everyone hated him in The Phantom Menace. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle did resurrect Sherlock Holmes largely due to fan outcry. Charles Dickens halted publication of further chapters of Oliver Twist because Jewish readers (namely, Ms. Eliza Davis) found his references to Fagin offensive. (He also changed the ending of Great Expectations before publication, because a colleague urged him the original vision was too grim.) From these examples, you can see that even in these circumstances there are far ranging reasons (and far different interpretations of "reasonableness" with which to regard a demand for changes.) The "outrage" over killing off a beloved character isn't nearly as serious as concerns over antisemitism, but it's up to the artist how (or even if) they react to the backlash. Many times a change is to be applauded, as with Dickens' adjustment in Twist. Other times, though, the call for a change seems less substantive.


I'm not saying anything people haven't already argued, but if a customer doesn't like a product they've bought, they make that known, and then they don't buy more products by that company (be it a restaurant, clothing manufacturer, film producer, or game designer.) And if the issue is with the fact that they've already spent $60 and don't like the ending, well, at the time of this writing, they're still well within most stores' return window as long as they kept the receipt.

The thing is, we live in a society of entitlement now. Consumers feel entitled to insist on changes to everything from tire tread depth to the amount of red dye number 40 in their Life Savers. In some instances the complaints are valid, especially where safety or discrimination concerns come into play. Consumers have every right to expect that the products on which they spend money won't injure, kill, or otherwise cause illness to them. On the other hand, when the end product is not a safety concern, but rather the creative vision resulting from the collaboration of individuals, be it a group of 4, 40, 400, or 4,000, the consumers of that entertainment have no right to demand changes just because it didn't match what they expected.

On the contrary, that challenge to one's expectations is the very illustration of artistic intent, and sticking to that vision is the very definition of artistic integrity. Many artists - be they novelists, film makers, or game developers - thrive on the ability to surprise their consumers with plot twists or stunning endings. Even in the instances where those endings may be considered underwhelming, it is usually a calculated decision on the part of the artist - fans may expect a cut and dried ending, but the artist doesn't always want to answer all questions or wrap up all subplots because seldom is anything in real life that cut-and-dried. True artists ply their craft in an effort to make art imitate life in some way. If life is ambiguous, messy, and seldom completely resolved with all loose ends tied off, many artists want their works to reflect that. (As an example, comments by Ubisoft in a recent Game Informer interview which state exactly that - endings aren't meant to be perfect or 100% resolved because that's not how life works, and you never know if further installments might answer certain of those questions while introducing twice as many more.)

But you know what I think is the main thing they want to do with so called "imperfect" endings? Stimulate discussion. And that's exactly what EA and BioWare have done. After all, what have we all been talking about for almost a month now?

Series Finale

It's always sad to see a chapter of your life close. When I started working at Clear Creek ISD I had just turned 27 and was excited about the new position in which I found myself. I got to work with technology, which had always been a talent of mine. Above that, I got to work with teachers, training them on using and integrating that technology. Best of all, I still got to work with the students, helping them with issues and teaching when the opportunity arose. This made the transition from classroom to technology-specific employee a much easier process. I wasn't losing one part of the job I love, I was gaining an additional part to make it even more interesting and enjoyable. Not only was I well-suited for the job, but the job was well-suited for me, and I loved every minute of it.

It's amazing how much can happen in just over 5 years. For one thing, you find yourself just over 5 years older. I'm told that's how math works. Aside from that, I grew to know and love the people with whom I've worked since March of 2006, gaining friends and colleagues more numerous than I could have imagined. I said goodbye to one set of friends at Weber Elementary for the opportunity to help build a new campus from the ground up at Parr Elementary. The chance to design the "perfect" campus for the integration of technology in our students' daily lives is an opportunity that would probably not again come my way for a very long time, if ever. So when one of my current principals asked me to come with her to the new school, it was a chance I had no intention of passing up. It was a time-consuming and stressful task at times, but in the long run it was also more richly-rewarding than I could possibly describe.

So, in my short time with CCISD, I've gotten to know not one campus, but three. As economic strains come down the pipe, changes are inevitable, and the thinning out of my current position was inevitable (and predictable.) I am blessed to be able to take a 2nd grade position and stay with the campus that I helped open. The change is bittersweet, though, because I am leaving behind another campus, Armand Bayou, to which I've grown quite attached.

As I stood watching our 5th graders graduate today, I was struck with the realization that we started at the same time. When I started with Armand, these now 5th grade students were just Kindergarteners. It's fitting that, just as I've watched them grow up these nearly 6 years, I've grown up a lot myself (don't worry, I haven't grown up TOO much.) And, just as they're leaving Armand, it's a fitting time that I'm entering a new phase in my life as well.

Everyone has had the experience of watching one of their favorite television shows coming to a close. It's always sad saying goodbye to the characters you've personally come to know. But it's always just a bit comforting to know that, as the doors close behind you, life goes on tomorrow, and next year. Just as many television shows may end, but the storyline lets you know that in the fictional universe created for that TV show, life goes on even though we won't be voyeuristically peeking through the window of a TV screen to see those lives play out.

So, having said that, my final season with Armand comes to a close today. Just like an ending TV program, the last "season" may not be the "best," but it can't overshadow the great experience of the past 5+ years as a whole. And just as the IDEA of our favorite TV characters continue on past the final episode, I know life goes on as the doors of ABE close behind me. 'Til we meet again, ABE. It's been great knowing you.

News Ticker Updated - Everyone Confused

Okay. I like technological advancements. I admit it. I know I probably just blew the minds of several people here. Now, facetiousness aside, the one thing that drives me crazy about a technological advancement is when a company decides to upgrade their tech and clearly have NO idea how to use it properly.

Let me explain. The local NBC affiliate here in Houston has updated their news ticker (been that way for about a month, so I gave it plenty of time) and they obviously don’t have a clue how to write headlines on this thing. Used to be that the news ticker was a blue bar at the bottom of their screen, and the news would scroll right-to-left. The headlines could be literally as long as you wanted, and they would just scroll on. No problem. The only annoying thing about this ticker was the “Weather” update would scroll up in front of the news, so if they had just the right amount of stories, every time a certain story scrolled around, the Weather would pop up and prevent you from seeing it. Why not just have the weather scroll at the end of the news and sports ticker??

With the current news ticker, the annoyance is much worse. I’ll spare you the technical details, but let’s just say the space is much smaller than the width of the screen, and on this narrow black bar, a full line of text scrolls UP onto the bar and stays there for about 5 seconds, then a new headline scrolls up. The problem is, some genius at the station has insisted whichever intern is in charge of typing this must get the entire news blurb summed up in ONE line of text. Now, it can be difficult to sum up even the most banal of complete thoughts in 140 characters, do we really want the most important news stories of our world today summed up in half a tweet?

This is NOT the way the software has to run – I know this because, in the first few days of using this new ticker, they had a handful of headlines that didn’t fit on one screen, so when it scrolled to the next line, it was the second half of the news blurb. This was great, because it was COHERENT. However that wasn’t good enough for an exec at the station, who, like most executives in TV, decided they would ruin it with their brilliant ideas of the “correct” way to do it. So now what we are left with is uninformative “pop” news blurbs that are barely more intelligible than a caveman grunt.

It’s a lot like having an awesome new unlimited data plan on your smartphone, but the plan only allows you to download the first page of websites. Or having a great assault rifle with a 1000 round magazine, but by default the rifle ejects the cartridge after three rounds.

This probably doesn’t sound like that big of a deal, but I’m not exaggerating when I say that some of the stories are almost IMPOSSIBLE to decipher, and when it’s early enough in the morning that planning a route for your coffee cup to travel to your mouth is a complex calculation, the last thing you want to do is try to figure out what someone means in 4-5 words of text. Take these real examples:

“STOCKS IN JAPAN NUCLEAR PLUMMET.”

Okay, this was the first one that made me pause, concerned that someone had lost their mind. It’s not that hard to decipher, but it’s also not that hard to write it more coherently. Why not “Japan stocks plummet following disaster?” Or better yet, Line 1: “Japan stock market in freefall…” Line 2: “…following nuclear disaster.” This is SO much easier to read, and actually doesn’t make you sound like you’re just listing random things. Seriously, “Stocks in Japan” makes sense, but then, “Nuclear plummet?” Really? What is a nuclear plummet? Is that even a thing? Does nuclear DESCRIBE the plummet? So, are the stocks falling from the sky and hitting the ground hard enough that they literally split atoms?

Here’s another:

“OBAMA DISAPPOINTED, TALKS BREAK DOWN”

So, the talks broke down because he was disappointed? Because that’s the order in which you wrote it. Or, did it happen the other way around? Is Obama disappointed BECAUSE of the breakdown? And regardless, which talks do you mean? Budget talks? Libyan dispute? NFL Players Union negotiations? Did we invade someone else overnight? Or did something happen while we were sleeping to cause us to have to salute a new flag? Help us out.

“FINAL CARRELL OFFICE ‘SUPERSIZED’ EW”

Okay. First, Steve Carrell’s final episode being a two-parter isn’t exactly news. A lot of people knew that already. Which begs the question, is that what you mean by this headline? Does “EW” mean Entertainment Weekly? If so, why haven’t you put sources on every OTHER headline you run? This makes us wonder, is “EW” your source, or an editorial comment intended to signify that it’s somehow nasty that the episode has been ‘supersized?’ Or are you saying the entire episode is a “SUPERSIZED EW?” Or, could you be telling us that some guy named Final Carrell is expanding his office? And again, you’re disgusted by that? Please just tell us what the Hell you’re talking about.

One last one:

“DEL TORO, STEWART DAUGHTER EXPECTING.”

First of all, which Del Toro are we talking about? Benicio? Guillermo?

On top of that, misplaced commas are a, thing that annoy the crap out of me and worse is not using enough commas so that a reader is left to interpret a meaning from your rambling dumbass. (Like there, for example.) Does this headline mean that Del Toro and the daughter of someone named Stewart are expecting a baby? If so, which Stewart? There are lots. Jimmy Stewart? Martha Stewart? French Stewart? Is it really necessary to specify “Stewart daughter?” Can’t you just say, “Del Toro, wife, expecting daughter?” Because I’m pretty sure that anyone who actually CARES about this news story at this hour of the morning knows who his wife is, and anyone who doesn’t care, cares little enough not to need to know that she’s related to some randomly famous Stewart.

Or (as I have since found out) does this mean that the vaguely-named Del Toro and an equally-vaguely-named Stewart (Martha? Kim? Kristen? Again, French?) are expecting a daughter? If so, who the Hell writes “Daughter expecting” to signify that someone is expecting a daughter?! Is YODA writing the news for you people now?? Oh, more breaking news, “BEGUN, THE CLONE WAR HAS.”

I guess I’ll drop it for now, but please, PLEASE reconsider the way you’re writing these stories. Otherwise, we’ll see the following blurb one morning soon on our news tickers:

“KPRC NEWS DIRECTOR SUCKS, IMMINENT REPLACEMENT.”

Just don’t forget that comma. I hope by now they understand it would completely change the meaning of their story.

Charlie Sheen Manifesto Preview

Jimmy Fallon had a bit last week with Charlie Sheen selling records, one named “Things I’ve Said,” with insane stuff he’s said in the past week, and another named “Things I’m About to Say,” filled with bizarre, ridiculous-sounding things that he hasn’t really said but, wow, he definitely could have.

So, in that theme, I have just returned from a trip on a recently-procured time machine, and I now give to you, Things Charlie Sheen Hasn’t Said (Yet) But is About to in the Next Few Days. (He's releasing his "manifesto" on his webcast this evening, so take this as a likely preview.)

Sheenisms:

“I’ve got, like, a self-esteem problem in reverse, y’see?”

“I’m like a monkey with no spleen on the fifth spaceship to Cleveland.”

“My TV screen usually smells like Gunnar Nelson. Or wait, no, I’ve got that wrong. It smells like a gun or Nelson Mandela. No, I’m wrong again….”

“People like to act all concerned for me, but the truth is, they use phony concern to avoid looking like concerned phonies! See what I’m saying? They just want to distract everyone from their not-me-ness.”

“Is what they said on Laugh-In true? If Cybill Shepherd married Ish Kabibble, would she really call herself Cybill Kabibble? Or, would she, like, keep her maiden name? Lotta celebs do it, just sayin’. I’m a progressive guy, but I wouldn’t take somebody’s Kabibble-y old last name.”

“I just found out my ‘Goddesses’ are more like Greek ruins…. You know, fake as stone in some places, worn down from overuse in others? S. T. D’winning!”

“The air tastes like a burning tire in here. And not because I’m making humus!”

“I’m like that Indonesian Civet cat, I crap $10,000 coffee beans and my bathroom smells like a Starbucks. Winning!”

"I just signed a deal to play an African American Ninja. They'll fix my race in post. The show is called Afro Sheen. Why is that so damned funny to people?"

“I secured the rights to do a remake of Gypsies, Tramps, and Thieves from Cher. I call it Warlocks, Trolls, and Fools. Here it is, a world premiere!”

“I was born from a dragon in Himalayan snow.

I used to have a hit CBS show.

Papa doesn’t say what he means

But I practice what I preach

Bottle what I’ve got and call it Doctor Sheen's!

Oh, Warlocks, Trolls, and Fools

I yell it at the people all around!

I call them Warlocks, Trolls, and Fools,

They judge and call me insane.

They’re jealous of my 10,000 year old brain!”

Okay, that's the end of my sneak preview of insanity's future. Oddly, being that close to his thought process, I now feel the overpowering need to take a shower. And enter any form of rehab available to me.

Next time.

The Worst Possible Innovation in Bathroom Technology

I ask my female readers to excuse me for a moment while I rant about something. I hope you enjoy it, but you may not have the same frame of reference as the guy readers.

Now, can someone please explain to me the logic in urinals which have a floor drain? We’re essentially talking about a big porcelain wall with a hole in the floor that you pee into. Who could have possibly thought this was a good idea? I mean, I understand that a lot of guys end up doing it on the floor anyway and completely missing, even if the “bowl” is 3 feet off the ground and right in front of you, but putting the drain on the floor actually gives people an excuse for missing.

When faced with one of these insults to humanity, you’re basically left with two choices: 1. Aim at the wall, in which case your pants end up looking like you were just splashed by an inconsiderate taxi, or 2. Aim at the floor, in which case your shoes end up looking like you just ran gleefully through a puddle of lemonade. For whatever reason. Maybe you’re an alien from a planet where it rains lemonade. Maybe someone made a pool of cornstarch and lemonade and you wanted to see if you could run across without sinking.

I’m off topic. But while I'm off topic, let me ask this: why on Earth do they call the little deodorant things "urinal cakes?" Did you have to take one of my favorite things and combine it with the bottom of a urinal? You couldn't call it "Urinal Deodorizer" or even "Urinal Crystals?" No, now, every time I enjoy delicious cake I involuntarily picture it sitting awkwardly on top of a dome-shaped drain cover.

Anyway, my point is, the only ways to avoid the problems listed above are just as objectionable as the problems themselves. First, you could just aim at the floor anyway. This seems to be the solution most people take, but it shows no consideration to the person who comes in after you – you’re not thinking about the fact that now their job is doubly difficult because not only are they faced with having to worry about which article of clothing is becoming urine soaked, but they also have to exhibit enormous leg strain to keep their feet from sliding sideways out from underneath them. That’s no fun.

The other option is to try to avoid the backsplash by standing across the room and aiming from a distance. If that’s not an indecent exposure charge waiting to happen, I don’t know what is. I know you’re in a public restroom, but no one wants to see that. We’re not in a western, we’re not having one of… those contests. Just… not okay.

So, you might wonder, what other marvels of technology have the floor-urinal people come up with? Well, their track record is outstanding:

1.    Air-blown hand dryers: what’s worse than being completely useless? Actually pretending to be useful. Once they realized that people actually weren't getting dry by having a one-lunged kitten sneeze on their hands for 10 seconds, they got the bright idea to include face-drying instructions. Because nothing makes a visit to a gas station restroom more appealing than getting shot in the face by a lukewarm wind tunnel.

2.    Faucets that point up and out. Their logic: your hands are sure to get clean if you’re trying to block your face from being sprayed by a firehose.

3.    Those LED screens at a fast food restaurant drive-through: it’s a miracle that someone came up with the idea to make drive-through visits easier by including an order screen with two-thirds of the lights burned out. “Why yes, I did order a Q…t.. ..u.d.. .i.. c..e.., a chi..e. .u…t, and a large d..t ..k. And my total is, apparently, 13 cents? Thanks, inventors!”

4.    Airbags for rear-facing car seats. Because nothing makes a baby more safe in an accident than being propelled backwards into the front seat by tiny explosives.

It should be noted that two of the previous innovations never made it out of the patent phase. The others, I think we should start an online petition to do away with them. And to do that, I recommend not using the system developed by the floor urinal people – an online punch card system which actually encourages you to poke holes in your computer's monitor to cast your vote.

Geographic Misnomers, Nazi-mocking Pets, and Temporal Dynamics

I would like to take the next few lines to contemplate some of the great mysteries of the universe.

Mystery 1: Why is the Texas Panhandle called that? Texas looks nothing like a pan. That would be like calling the big bend in the Mississippi River between Iowa and Illinois the “Iowa Hershey Bar.” I guess they figure “panhandle” sounds better than “Square Nub” or “Tiny Top Hat.” In fact, none of the states with a panhandle actually look like pans. Oklahoma is the closest, looking a bit like an overturned Jiffy Pop tin, but even that state looks more like a flipped-over baseball cap, waiting for Missouri to pick a number out of it. The panhandle state I find most baffling, though, is Florida. Do we really need all of these clever names for geographic locations? Can’t we just say “North Texas” instead of panhandle, or “Southwest Arkansas” instead of “ArkLaTex” or “Western Florida” instead of panhandle? Do we really want to draw any more attention to Florida’s shape? Is it in our best interest as a country to have people thinking, “Hmm… Florida doesn’t look like a pan. I guess it looks more like a… OH MY GOD! THAT’S DISGUSTING!”

Mystery 2: How, exactly, did the Nazi’s have nothing better to do with their time than try to hunt down a dog and its owner because of an obscure trick they heard that it might have done once or twice in the past? And this was only a few months before they invaded the Soviet Union, so, I’m thinking there were probably more constructive uses of their time. Seriously, I’m not making this story up. Look here: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iygblpWORCla_T-iETmWHayJkfFQ?docId=1101acd28dae47b594fce0e29fde0ed2

Seriously, this is one of the best things I’ve read in a long time. In a classic case of “eff the man,” the owner of the dog (Tor Borg) got out of it simply by denying it while facing a Nazi Tribunal. I mean, can we talk for a second about the colossal cajones required for such an action? The owner literally said, “My wife called him Hitler once, but it wasn’t a big thing, and the dog doesn’t do the salute anymore.” And in a classic case of “Nazis are crazy bastards“ they embarked on a “fact-finding” campaign… against the dog…. They even had a pharmaceutical company offering to destroy Borg’s wholesale business by cutting off their supply ties with him, but prosecution ultimately had to be abandoned because they couldn’t get any of the witnesses to testify to it. Did I mention they were in the midst of planning their invasion of the Soviet Union? And this is what they were concerned with?

In a related story, the Axis lost the Battle of Berlin because too many SS officers were scanning the German precursor of DARPAnet trying to find more pictures of this cat:

Mystery 3: Assuming the following is true: 1. All matter is made up of atomic particles; 2. All particles are made up of subatomic particles, which are in turn made up of quantum particles; and 3. According to Feynman’s “Sum Over Histories,” all quantum particles occupy ALL possible places AND all possible time periods between two points, meaning that quanta exist in all places in both the past and future simultaneously; is it not possible, given the model of 11-dimensional space, that our physical bodies (made up of quantum particles) are merely projections into the 3 dimensions we currently see, and the 4^th that we perceive (time) and that in fact, we exist in both the past and future, in a state which is both alive and dead simultaneously, and at times able to momentarily perceive the 7 remaining dimensions in which time is less linear, and more cyclical (like 3-dimensional space) thus making reincarnation, precognition, genetic memory, and afterlife scientifically viable theories?

I’m glad we had this talk. I know I feel better.

More commercials and products which... bother me.

Dear DSW (Department Shoe Warehouse): Congratulations, you have achieved the seemingly-impossible in your commercials. You have actually made me want to punch shoes in the face. Namely, shoes that show up and sing Christmas songs to you, insulting your choice of gifts. Now, as of this writing, I have yet to have any shoes do this to me, so it’s unclear as to whether this reflex will apply to ANY talking shoe, or only the boorish and rude ones. I will let you know, but until then, all shoes would do well to watch what they say around me.

Dear “Erectile Dysfunction” medication companies: please stop using side-effects disclaimers as thinly-veiled attempts at bragging. Be honest. You know the whole “if it lasts for more than 4 hours” thing wouldn’t have been mentioned unless it actually happened at some point, probably to one of you who came up with the list of side effects. Be honest, drug company, you know if this happens to you, the first call you make will NOT be to your doctor. It’s going to be to one of your old college buddies, to say, “Dude, guess what I’m looking at right now.” You know, the same guys who team up in the Flomaxx commercials. Even worse, if you’re Brett Favre, you’ll just snap a picture and send it to all of the power dancers on your contact list. Please, drug companies… just stop. We don’t want to hear about your four hour escapades, we don't want to hear about your hearing or vision problems, and we still don’t want to see your creepy side-by-side bathtubs on the beach… or in a forest… or skiing down the side of K2. Okay, well, maybe I wouldn’t mind seeing THAT.

Dear Texas Bay Area Credit Union: I do not employ your services, however, I implore you… please make that lady in your commercial stop dancing. Or whatever it is that she’s doing. I mean, I get that she’s supposed to be acting “excited” that she just won $10,000. I have never won that much money, but it would likely make me leap up, scream, and run from the room. Or, as Cousin Eddie from National Lampoon's would say, piss my pants and forget who I am for a half-hour or so. But not that. Whenever I win something, it has never made me want to stand in one place, turn slowly from side to side, and pump my fists up and down like I’m doing some bizarre cross between the Mashed Potato and the Twist. Or, for my readers younger than 30, like a cross between the Soulja Boy and the Running Man. Or, for readers younger than 15, a cross between Tinky Winky and Barney.

Finally, Dear “waterless hand sanitizer” industry: please come up with a better nozzle. As it stands right now, a small amount of your product remains in the nozzle, and over time will dry into a semi-solid GermX booger. The existence of such a thing is not the only problem – and don’t get me wrong, that’s DEFINITELY a problem by itself. However, the bigger issue comes in when I press the nozzle down, and because of the partially blocked opening, the liquid actually shoots OVER my hand, like a gout of water from a fire hydrant, dousing things on my desk instead of landing on my hand where it belongs. Let me give you a brief mini-focus group on your target audience. We want to clean our hands. We do not want to clean our desktops, our hair, or our left eyeball. Would it be too much to ask you to give us a nozzle that points straight down, instead of straight out like a garden hose just waiting to spray the overly-exuberant dogs on the front lawn? I mean really? Because I’m getting just slightly tired of simply wanting to disinfect my hands after using a child’s keyboard, and ending up looking like I just had a hook-and-ladder truck clean a spilled chalupa off the front of my shirt.

Until next time!

Something Columbus can do with the horse he rode in on....

This week is a bit of a departure for me. There will be some humor, sure, but I wanted to address something serious, in my own way. I would just like to say that I'm glad I work for an employer who does not observe Columbus Day. I think it's pretty offensive that there are still places that "celebrate" this as a holiday, honoring a person who basically discovered a slab of rock which was already discovered hundreds of years earlier, and ignoring the rest of the story.

Why don't we celebrate Bjarni Herjolfsson Day? Arguably, that would be more accurate, and certainly borne of less questionable morality. One reason for this biased history I've read is that the previous discoveries were not widely known at that time, so Columbus's was the first that was widely publicized. Ah, okay, I think I understand now. We're saying that widespread ignorance is a good excuse for perpetuating ignorance, right? So, if you don't know something, it's okay to educate others on false histories. That makes sense, right? So, if there were large groups of people who didn't know that Gutenberg invented movable type, it would be okay to call it a discovery ascribed to, say, the New York Times. (Interestingly enough, that's the type of story you might read in the New York Times. Ooh! Journalism burn!)

Now, before I continue, don't get me wrong: I can already anticipate people rising up and crying out, "How dare you call me ignorant, I just didn't know that information!" Well, that's not what I'm saying - there are still people out there who don't actually know the extent of the negative deeds committed by Columbus. Those aren't the ones I'm calling "ignorant," because they just haven't heard the true story yet. The ones who are truly ignorant are those who know the real story and simply stick their heads in the sand and ignore it. To see evidence and pretend it doesn't exist, or to hear facts and simply ignore them is the definition of ignorance. (That would be what we English-speaking peoples call a "root word.") Specifically, that ignorance is perpetrated by government leaders and historians who would see textbooks and history books written (and government holidays celebrated) in support of a history written largely with blinders worn.

To those people who haven't heard the story, I hope you'll hear it now and share it with others when you hear of the supposedly "great" exploits of the Columbus about whose deeds we are taught a saccharine and falsely heroic account. Accounts of the early days of his voyage are largely accurate - sailing from Spain after the end of the Ottoman-Neapolitan War and Granada conquest. His initial visit to the island of Hispaniola was a peaceful encounter with the Arawak tribe.

This is where things go downhill, and accounts begin to diverge from one another. In Columbus's subsequent returns, gifts were exchanged, which is another primary reason Columbus is celebrated in place of our old Viking friend Bjarni - he established two-way commerce. (Fun fact, Bjarni was also the name of the first-known form of children's entertainment. He was a purple "Viking Dinosaur," with a long blond beard, an iron-horned skullcap, and a trademark song of "I kill you, you kill me, but not if I kill you first, you see." Not to be confused with loveable gumshoe Bjarni Mjiller.)

I digress. I would again argue that this is not necessarily the best reason to celebrate someone - because they opened up the opportunity for wealthy European merchants and trading companies to become even more wealthy, and in exchange giving precious little. I think the more important exchange involved commodities which aren't typically traded on the free market. Native Americans received things like Smallpox and the concept of slavery, while Europeans received things like land that didn't belong to them (by murdering most of the inhabitants), a claim on many Natives' eternal souls (after, y'know, murdering them) and treaties which the Euros and resulting Americans had no intention of honoring (because they got in the way of all that murdering.)

The amazing part is, even in some accounts which acknowledge the atrocities committed by the first waves of explorers, somehow Columbus escapes scrutiny! Are we so brainwashed as a society that we're willing to practically deify a person and fool ourselves even further into believing he had nothing to do with the actions of a vast majority of his crew? Really? That would be like saying Hernán Cortéz was really a saint, it was his followers who wiped out the Aztecs beyond his control - Cortéz just stood on the beach saying, "Really, we should try talking about this first!" What a nice guy. Let's have Hernán Cortéz Day.

I think it would be better to have Dan Cortese Day.

No, Columbus was just as much a part of the raping, dismembering, murdering, and enslaving of the Native American people as the rest of his fellow explorers. Capture and enslave the strongest of the men, working them in silver mines (after he finally accepted there wasn’t much gold to be found.) Rape the female tribe members, then string them up with the rest who are too young, old, or sick to work in the mines. Hanged and burned, or enslaved. That was the legacy of Columbus, not just that of his followers and fellow explorers.

One last thing before I step off my soapbox. As a man with some Cherokee ancestors, am I the only one who sees a sort of ultimate and final ignominy in the fact that the grand “Admiral of the Sea” had NO clue where he had landed, and because of that, an entire race of people have been mis-named? He thought he landed in the Indies, so he figured, let’s call them all Indians, overlooking the fact that they, y’know, already had names. Never mind the fact he wasn’t in the Indies, and even after they figured that part out, they continued to call them Indians! That would be like someone sailing from Mongolia in the 1400’s, landing in Alaska and, assuming they had landed on an island of Russia, calling all of the Inuit people “East Russians.” And then somehow convincing people to call them that FOREVER, even after realizing their mistake. Or more appropriately, like Leif Erikson landing in Newfoundland (which he did) and calling the Mi’kmaq people “West Icelanders” (which he certainly did not, because he wasn’t ignorant and stubborn like Columbus.)

Now, were ALL Native Americans peaceful? Not necessarily. Many, like the Mohawk and Chiricahua didn’t necessarily need a reason for war. But just because some tribes were at war with each other doesn’t mean all tribes should be painted with the same brush, or that any of them should be considered savages. The tribes were capable of taking care of their own disputes, and any who warred without cause always ran the risk of encountering a tribe who’s fight or flight response slanted more toward defending their families and fighting back rather than running and saving themselves. The Native tribes certainly didn't need the sort of "help" the frontiersmen ended up offering.

It’s little surprise the settlers to follow thought it was okay to squat on the Native’s lands, to poach their food supplies for nothing but skins, to murder and label as savages those that had the nerve to defend themselves, their families, their land, and their livelihoods, and to strong-arm the proudest into accepting treaties the settlers had no intention of honoring. No wonder they had so little respect for the Native peoples of North America. The man who started it all didn’t even have enough respect to get their names right.

Here endeth the lesson.

Fever Dreams for the Fashion Conscious

So, everyone's heard the whole, "No white after labor day" rule. That's one of those things that nobody really pays attention to anymore, and it seems like it's "out" as a rule. But that doesn't stop people from needlessly telling others they're in violation of a now-defunct social order. Either they're deliberately being difficult or maybe they just didn't get the memo. Neverthelessi, it seems like half the population has heard that this is no longer a "rule" and are willing to argue the fact that they can wear whatever the Hell color they choose whenever they want, and the other half believe that THOSE people are just making excuses to cover their fashion faux-pas.

 

Whichever side you fall on, I thought now would be a good time to share some other obscure, little-known rules about clothing selection that you may or may not know. You'll thank me later!

 

Don't wear white to a wedding unless you're the bride. Everyone should know this one, you don't want to show-up the bride.

 

Don't wear green on Arbor Day. Trees are people too, insomuch as they aren't. You wouldn't want to hurt their feelings by overshadowing their greeness with your emerald-hued Lacoste polo.

 

Don't wear corduroy on the second Wednesday before Flag Day. Fun fact - did you know Betsy Ross didn't actually finish designing the flag until the Wednesday before George Washington needed it for a major textiles convention? Also, Betsy Ross was a dressmaker who would only craft things from gingham and worsted wool, because she had a visceral hatred for all things corduroy? Many speculate this is because she originally tried several times (and failed miserably) to sew a flag with a denim starfield over green and brown wide-wale cordury. In honor of that personality quirk, we have this rule. Keep the swish-swish in your closet on this day.

 

Don't wear clothing with patterns on March 14. Mathematicians love to celebrate "Pi Day," (3-14) but it is considered highly insulting to the number itself to wear anything which "repeats." (On an unrelated list, you are also advised not to eat chili on this day, for essentially the same reason.)

 

It's a well-established fact that 87% of all humans love unprovable statistics. Because of that, many UN Nations which celebrate "Statistics Day" encourage their citizens not to wear a red loincloth while throwing their mother-in-law's meatloaf at a family of rabbits. (**Statistics Day is not celebrated in North America. Crazy foreigners.)

 

When visiting Spain, do not wear tennis shoes to La Tomatina. This is less a fashion rule and more just a common sense thing. Unless you like permanently orange shoes.

 

While vertical stripes are slimming, you are encouraged NOT to wear them to sporting events. Though you won't be on the field, it will stimulate a response which would make Pavlov weep with pride. Inexplicably, people will feel compelled to yell obscenities at you every time they hear a whistle blow.

 

It is recommended by many that you do not wear your sunglasses at night, especially while operating heavy machinery. Because it's night. You could kill someone, fool.

 

Early Spring is known as the official beginning of sea turtle mating season. As such, for your own safety, and the self-respect of the turtles, it is strongly recommended for this 2-3 month period that you don't wear turtlenecks in coastal towns. I'd prefer not to say more than that.

 

Finally, during the summer months, it is vital that you not wear any type of shirt which exposes your midriff. This is especially important if you have good abs. Most people don't realize this, but new legislation has been passed in our country which requires anyone who sees this outfit/ab combo to yell, "We've got a situation over here!" at which point anyone within earshot must huddle around you and begin pumping their fist skyward and shouting "Beat that beat!"

 

Trust me, it's a cult-like behavior to witness, and I can only imagine what it would be like to experience it. It could fundamentally change your life for the worse and permanently skew your view of reality. Obviously, no one has to follow any of these "rules" laid out here, but don't say i didn't warn you.... Do yourselves a favor and don't open yourselves up to that kind of mental torment.

Toyota - now the passengers AND the car are screaming

Okay, so, the Toyota corporation this week announced that it is working on a way to make the Prius noisier, as a safety feature. This is announced at the same time as a sweeping Corolla and Matrix recall because of spontaneous engine stalling.

Wow, Toyota, I just want to congratulate you for having your priorities straight. I mean, if I run a multi-billion dollar corporation, I'm going to want to spend equal if not MORE time fixing an aesthetic issue as I have spent fixing actual problems with the cars.

Seriously?? You have cars which REFUSE to stop, and cars which stop spontaneously. And you actually spent time arguing with your loyal customers as to the validity of their claims! Yes, because it was a logical assumption on your part that drivers made a coordinated effort during the month of May to drive their vehicles VOLUNTARILY into the sides of donut shops and hair salons. Only reluctantly did you issue the recall, but finally did.

Now, you've really taken the hint on this Corolla/Matrix recall, because there was little hesitation in issuing the recall almost immediately after the problem was reported. I just hope you come up with a better "fix" than you did the first time through on the acceleration problem - although I'm sure if there's a way to fix it by "wedging a tiny thing between two larger things" you'll jump at the chance.

But it seems like this "car noise" thing is something that really could have waited. You've got cars driving into buildings, and other cars that just die on the road. But what's this? Our hybrids are quiet? Whoa, let's not waste any time here! Frankly, I can't imagine any drivers actually wanting their cars to sound like a cross between Fran Drescher, an air raid siren, and a ghost, but that's what you've delivered, by God!

I mean, fixing that in the midst of all the other problems facing Toyotas right now? It would've been like Lincoln signing an anti-green leafy vegetable law while that whole slavery thing was still needing to be fixed. Better yet, it would be like a Silverware company trying to make their butter knives shinier, while ignoring the fact that they have a pesky "exploding fork" problem.

Now, I get that the reason for doing this is to make pedestrians feel safer. People were apparently getting run over by silent hybrid cars that sneaked up behind them at 5 MPH or less. Now, first of all, to the pedestrians, I'd have to say, "Suck it up, people!" I mean, it's 5 miles per hour! If I swing a fly swatter at a fly at less than 5 MPH, it doesn't kill the fly! It thinks it's been hit by a tiny trampoline and calls its friends over for a birthday party.

But better yet, I mean, let's say that 5 MPH is deadly fast. Sure, someone could fall if they're startled, break something, hit their head, I get that. So, should we really be putting the responsibility on the pedestrians for being hit? Do we really hear this problem and say, "Well, if the car had just been noisier, they could have gotten out of the way!" I hear it and think, "Why the hell did the driver just keep going and hit the person??" Is this engine noise designed so people can just pay no attention whatsoever to the road and blame the pedestrians for not getting out of the way faster? If you were actually looking at the road, you would have seen the walker... so did you run over them on purpose?

Here's my final thought - if my engine is so quiet that the person in front of me can't hear me behind them, I can think of something that DOES make noise on the car - it's the horn. Honk that. Don't run over the person. And for the love of God don't make the car sound like an electronic Bjork, especially when you already have trouble making the cars stop, and also making them go. People have been trying to make Bjork just stop and go away for years, and we see how well that's worked....

After Shave and Vehicular Radar

Two things are on my mind today (aside from idiot drivers.)

 

First, I see that Infiniti has a new thing in their cars called the "Blind Spot Intervention System," where the car will sound an alarm if you try to change lanes into a location where a car may have been hidden in your blind spot.

 

You're not going to believe this, but I actually have had this system in each car I've owned, the current one being a 1987 Corvette, but it has a slightly different name. In this system, a device called "my face" is mounted on something called "my head," and swivels on this thing called "the neck." Okay, now stay with me - I know this sounds very technical and complicated, but, somehow, the head knows that I'm about to change lanes, so it swivels on the neck, and allows the face to SEE if there are cars in the lane next to you. It's a remarkable system, but it's been available on vehicles all the way back to the old 1895 Benz Motorwagen. The system even has the same name as it has had all these years: it's called, "Looking."

 

The other thing that's bugging me is a bit weirder. I usually use after shave lotion after I shave, the electric shaver can be a bit irritating. So, as I pick it up today, I notice a warning on the back of the bottle which says, "Caution: Do not use on broken, irritated, or sore skin." Now, no broken skin I understand, that's bad, and I think people with leprosy have bigger things to worry about than tightening their pores. But irritated and sore? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the purpose of after shave lotion? That's a lot like saying, "Don't take this headache medicine if you are experiencing headaches." Or, "This wall paint should not be used to cover up other colors." Or even, "Don't watch this Vin Diesel movie if you have problems with low self-esteem.

 

Or does the lotion company have another solution, maybe? They want me to buy another product to soothe the irritated skin, BEFORE putting on the after shave lotion? In which case, the after shave lotion serves WHAT purpose, again? Trust me, I want the stuff to soothe the irritation, I don't just have this overwhelming need to feel that my face is slightly damp. Know your place, after shave people.

 

WAIT, I figured it out - the after shave is designed to enhance the effectiveness of "the face" so it's easier to spot cars in your blind spot. The companies are working together, maybe!

 

No? Hm. Thought I was on to something there. What was my point again?

 

Oh, I remember - bad drivers suck.

Another Idiot Driver

Real men of genius. Here's to you, trailer towing F-250 guy. In a world where idiotic driving is commonplace, you are a clear standout. (Rocker voice: "Dumbest of the Dumb!") Knowing your exit is coming up in a quarter mile, do you stay in your lane and patiently wait to turn off? Why would you do a damn fool thing like that? (Rocker: "Sense is for sissies!") You cross not one, not two, but all three lanes of traffic in a single swoop, to pass the cars in each. But wait, what's that you see over there? Why, it's the lane where you started. And God knows you have to get back to it immediately. (Rocker: "EXIT!")

 

To paraphrase the great John Fitzgerald Kennedy, some people see things that are and ask why. You see my car in the lane next to you and ask, why not... nearly smash off the front of it with my rusty-ass steel trailer. (Rocker: "Defy the laws of physics!") In one smooth motion, you fly back across the lanes with a careless ignorance that reminds me of... carelessly ignorant people. (Rocker: "DICK!") In a time when there obviously isn't enough death and destruction in the world, in a place where traffic backups are as common as a morning cup of coffee, we salute you, Mr. Trailer Towing F-250 Guy. (Mr. Trailer Towing F-250 Guy....)

The A-Team... and movie reviews in general....

Okay, something a bit different this time. I want to preface this by saying I am not trying to influence anyone's opinion of this movie or any movie, I prefer people watch films for themselves and make their own decisions, and then see if they agree with the reviews. That's part of the problem with the movie-going experience today. People tend to allow bloggers and reviewers to spoon-feed them opinions, rather than putting forth the effort to go see it themselves and form their own opinions. As a society, we really have to learn to take with a grain of salt what these bloggers and reviewers say. I wish I had a nickel for every time I read a review which completely bashed a film, only to go see the film for myself and end up enjoying it. Don't cheat yourself of a good entertainment opportunity based on someone else's opinion. Frankly, I'd be interested to know when was the last time these disagreeable, bitter, curmudgeonly balls of vitriol actually had an enjoyable experience, from a film or anything else for that matter. From what I've seen in the world, most people who seem to have a forcefully negative opinion about EVERYTHING either have an ulterior motive, or simply don't know what they're talking about. And really, if negative movie reviews aren't designed to hijack people's opinions of films, then why do reviewers make these reviews available before the film actually releases? Over the past week I've read several reviews of, for example, The Other Guys, which still doesn't release for another four days.

And believe me, for those people who HAVE seen for themselves the movie I'm going to discuss (or any movie,) and decide they hate it, then great, God bless, you've done your duty (Lord knows I have a couple of friends who loved the show but hated the movie - but they actually went and saw it with an open mind.) Like I said, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. But for those people who decide NOT to see a movie simply because of what someone else thinks, or go into a movie with their minds made up they're going to hate it, or decide that a movie is going to be bad because it's based on a TV show (and is therefore unimaginative) or had 11 different writers (and therefore probably could be described by a word which rhymes with "dusterchuck") and write a review based on those preconceived notions, then, shame on them.
 

That said, I watched the A-Team yesterday and thoroughly enjoyed it. I was skeptical, because there had been quite a bit of negative reviews for it, but I went into this the same way I go into every film - open minded. For this particular film, I like the source material, I like the actors, and I like the premise, so I gave it a shot. I wasn't disappointed. Then again, I'm a 31-year-old man and grew up watching the show, so I sort of fall into the target demographic anyway.

 
***Spoilers ahead - beware!

See, the trick is, you have to know what to expect when you go into it. I believe a person's enjoyment of a film is directly proportional to their expectations. If you go into this film expecting Oscar-winning art direction, deep character development, or Liam Neeson shouting "Release the Kraken!" every five minutes, then you'll be disappointed. If you go in expecting a fun summer action movie, then you'll enjoy it. That's all.

I've read some HORRIBLE reviews from a lot of people (read: Deadline Hollywood, Box Office Mojo, Hollywood Reporter) complaining that the plot is too shallow (or non-existent) to which I have to say, "Did you SEE the original show??" The plot can be easily summed up for any episode of the TV show, as well as the movie:

1. Someone is a bad guy. They are often wearing all black.

2. There will be a plan (which, at some point, will come together.)

3. The plan will be executed by the same 4 wrongly-convicted, escaped Army Rangers.

4. At some point, everything will seem to be going to shit, but wait! It's really part of the plan.

I'm going to stop using the word plan for the time being. But that's really it. Nothing earth shaking or high concept. It's intrigue, twists, switcheroos, explosions, and light-hearted action.

In the film, the origin story was rehashed a bit, to make it more current, but it boiled down to a group of Army Rangers meeting during a generic mission, then staying together for 8 years, 80 missions in Iraq. During a mission to recover money-printing plates from an Iraqi insurgent, they are framed for a crime they didn't commit, by a group of independent contractors looking to print their own money. Blackforest is led by Pike, dressed in the aforementioned all-black body armor and bodysuit.

During the mission-gone-bad, the man who sent Smith and his Team on the mission to recover the plates (General Morrison) is supposedly killed, but it turns out later he was in league with Pike to get the plates and split the profits.

There was a wild card in all of this, though - a man from the CIA calling himself "Lynch" was responsible for Hannibal and company being sent on this mission. As it turns out, Lynch is the linchpin (look, a pun!) in the crime for which the A-Team was framed. Lynch is your typical "evil mastermind" type of baddie who runs things from the shadows, appears to be "one of the good guys," but turns out later to be anything but. Can't blame people for not knowing - after all, he wasn't wearing all-black. This does fit with the "bad guy rule of three" where there should always be an obvious baddie, a shadowy mastermind, and a turncoat that goes bad and works with the criminals.

As expected, the team breaks out of jail and goes on a mission to clear their names, get revenge, and finish the original mission by recovering the stolen plates.

In a bit of a twist, instead of Hannibal being the one to come up with the plan every time, Face ends up coming up with the big plan in the end of the film, sort of redeeming himself for always being the impulsive guy with poor judgment. The plan is carried off successfully, but not without a hitch or two, a few massive explosions, and the occasional "wild swing from hanging cables to land on precarious footing which seemed to come from nowhere."

In the end, the crew is redeemed, but locked back up for escaping from prison, despite the wrongful accusations which landed them there in the first place (and as Hannibal says, it's still a crime to escape from prison, even if you were wrongly convicted.)

I have neglected to mention that Charissa Sosa is an agent tasked with finding and reclaiming the plates. She is integral in the final plan working out, and ultimately she reconciles with her ex, Face, and helps them clear their names. However, in the course of clearing their names and receiving the thanks of the CIA, she inadvertently aids in their recapture due to their escape. On an odd side note, I had no idea her name was Sosa until about halfway through the film, even though she's introduced (through a visceral exchange with Face) in the first 20 minutes of the film. Does that seem odd to anyone else?

So, in the spirit of the plot breakdown above, here is how character development (and archetypes) will work for A-Team films and episodes:

1. Hannibal will be cool.

2. Face will be a sarcastic slickster.

3. Murdoch will be crazy.

4. BA will beat people up and be afraid of planes. He may also drink milk (Mr. T version only.)

5. The obvious bad guy will be obvious and bad.

6. The "ringleader" will be evil but less obvious (though, he should be pretty obvious, too.)

7. The turncoat will disappoint people with his lack of honor.

8. Jon Hamm will play Don Draper with the code name Lynch (taking over for the previous bad Lynch.)**

9. Jessica Biel will play Jessica Biel. 'Nuff said.**

**Applies to film only.

On a couple of side notes, first, BA's "pick up Pike and drop him on his head" thing is probably one of the coolest kills I've seen in an action movie.

Also, in closing, who knew that those little electronic voice boxes from talking dolls are so high-tech they can be used to recreate the voice of any human? That's impressive technology for a Betsy Wetsy.

Game Week, Day 5 - Donkey Kong Country Returns

I love video games, I really do. Which is why I'm sad that Jimmy Fallon's game week ended with something of a fizzle, at least compared to the other great games this week. Because now I have to be mean. That's doubly painful given that I've been a Nintendo fan all my life, and it's really the company whose systems I cut my gaming "teeth" on as a child, the one with the fondest childhood memories.

Tonight's installment of game week is Donkey Kong Country Returns. Really? Nintendo, I remember DKC as being, basically, a re-skinned version of a Mario-style game. This comparison was most painfully obvious when DKC 64 came out, looking a lot like Mario 64 with simians.

You couldn't have brought a different game into the next generation of systems? Something like Pilotwings, maybe? Or Earthbound? How cool would that be? Even something quirky like A Boy and His Blob would be a blast in Wii-style, maybe in first person or third person over the shoulder, flipping him a jelly bean by waggling the Wiimote, and working through the game's trademark puzzles. You couldn't even give us a clever re-spelling of "country" with a "K" maybe?

No? Sticking with Donkey Kong Country? Okay, then. This week's project was about games that are on the way, not games that would be cool if they happened. So here goes.

DKC seems to be a visually stunning rehash of the series instalments, with a few twists and additions. There is definitely a focus on cooperative multiplayer in this one, teaming up to traverse parts of the various levels, or having Diddy ride piggy-back on Donkey to be carried around like a squawky, peanut-throwing Jansport backpack.

There are also a few new moves, perfected for Wii-motions. But all in all, this doesn't seem like a wildly innovative step for the franchise, like you'd expect from the next-gen systems. Super Mario Galaxy is an amazing example of how a company can take a series from its previous console and revolutionize it for the current generation. DKC Returns doesn't feel like it has that same wow factor, and the "new" stuff feels like what I would basically expect from one version of a game to the next on the SAME system - nothingly wildly different, just a few new twists....

There. I said it. I didn't want to, but I'm just being honest. I still love you, though, Nintendo. We straight?

Thanks folks for giving my late-night "project" a read! I hope you enjoyed it, and I'll bring more reviews like this to you in the future!

Game Week, Day 4 - Killzone 3

Okay, I have mixed feelings about tonight's entry, Killzone 3. Good and bad, so let's get started.

First off, in the interest of full disclosure, I've never played a Killzone game. So I approached tonight's demo on Jimmy Fallon's show with an open mind and a clean slate. The developer describes it as "World War II, 500 years in the future, with access to spaceships." Okay, I'm more than a little intrigued so far. Frankly, it sounds like Sony's answer to Microsoft's Halo franchise, which is definitely not a bad thing in my book.

While Killzone's storyline sounds (vaguely) like Halo, the realism is light years past Halo. (Read: not more advanced, just grittier and more realistic.) The levels shown were hyper-realistic, with good graphics (what you'd expect from a PS3 game, or any next-gen system) and lots of blood, severed limbs, and explosions. So, think of it more like Call of Duty set WAAAAYY in the future. (Perhaps a sneak peek of what may be in store with the recently-reserved web address hinting at a Call of Duty: Future Warfare? Time will tell.)

What I was not crazy about was the choice of level for demo in the first part. The level was one of those overly typical "non-player character flys you around a structure while you shoot stuff." The reason this was a bad choice is that it is inherently limited as first-person shooter levels go. You are forced to go at the NPC's pace, and the only game feature shown off is the ability to point and shoot. Hardly innovative.

Now, if innovation is what we're looking for (and it definitely is, at least in part) then I wasn't disappointed with the next segment. Apparently this game is the first to make use of 3D technology, and if Jimmy's reactions were any indication (mostly shouts of OH MY GOD! and one comment of, "It's like a Viewmaster, only we're killing things!") then the effect is very good indeed.

What was slightly disappointing was that there was no way to convey this to the home audience, or even the studio audience. The only one who could enjoy it was Jimmy, and the rest of us were stuck with that double-image you always get when watching 3D with no glasses.

Also somewhat ominous were the developer's choice of words. He said, "You have to have one of these new Sony Bravia 3D HDTV's." Now, I won't even get started on why I don't like 3D TV ($150 per pair of glasses??) What concerns me here is, was this Bravia comment just a convenient plug by a Sony developer for another Sony product, meaning you can really use ANY 3D TV, or could this be a hint at an entirely new level of exclusivity? Was the developer saying that not only is this game Sony exclusive, but the 3D functionality will only work on a Sony TV? Let's hope not....

The game isn't slated to release until February of 2011 (sorry Holiday buyers) so there's plenty of time for these and other questions to be answered.... Namely, who in their right mind spends $150 on a pair of 3D glasses, which you'll still need to keep batteries in? If remote controls had cost $150 when they first came out, we'd have a lot more people still walking across the room to change the channel today....

Tune in tomorrow for the final day of Game Week!

Game Week, Day 3 - Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit

Today's installment of game week brings us something that may not feel all that unfamiliar, Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit for Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. I know what you're thinking, I liked it the first time, when it was on PC and was called... Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit.

But wait, don't be hasty my young hobbits! This episode (I think we're up to 114 now) in the NFS series takes things back to the game's roots, and refreshes this particular series with a console edition. In addition to the traditional souped-up vehicles, this installment features a couple of new twists. One such twist is the ability to choose whether to be the pursuer or the pursuee (and I know the Smokey and the Bandit fans will love that line) enabling you to choose to control one of the super-powered police vehicles, and do the chasing from that side of the law.

Also, a new "social networking" aspect will be included, no doubt allowing you to spam your friends' news feeds with thousands of announcements like "I need help building a garage for my car farm," or, "I just found a lost Delorean on my property!"

Sure, there will be the ability to develop careers, both specific to a single car, as well as driver careers across multiple cars. But the bottom line is, this game involves plenty of what you would expect - lots of fast driving, chasing, and more often than not, crashing. Why, I've never seen anything like it.... The closest comparison I can think of is... a game called Need for Speed... maybe you've heard of it?

Game Week, Day 2 - Call of Duty: Black Ops

Day two of Late Night's Game Week treated us to some hands-on footage of Call of Duty: Black Ops, which looks to be the best Treyarch-branded entry in the dual-company game series. Heretofore, Treyarch has handled the odd-numbered installments, while partners-in-war Infinity Ward have handled the evens. The problem with that for Treyarch is that IW emerged as the more skilled developer with the release of CoD 2 and so every game which Treyarch released was inevitably compared to IW's previous release, and usually fell well short of the mark.

Now, personally, I've always enjoyed the Treyarch games, but have always found the multiplayer to be lacking compared to the IW installments. Storyline of single player has never been a problem. I think the smartest thing for Treyarch to do was to pick a completely new location and time period, and that's exactly what they've done with Black Ops.

I've been beating a drum for a couple of years, saying it would be smart to see Call of Duty visit Vietnam. In Black Ops we are set in Southeast Asia in the late 60's, likely playing a part in Cambodia, Vietnam, and as demonstrated on Jimmy's show tonight, Laos.

Historically, this will be a great time and location in which to set CoD. Add to that the fact that it's entirely new territory for the franchise, eliminating the damaging comparison's to IW's entries, and this could be the best thing to happen to Treyarch since they first became involved with the series.

We didn't have much time to see a lot of different things in tonight's demo, but what we did see was VERY appealing. Vehicular combat makes a return, but whether that will include tanks is unclear. What we DID see were Hind helicopters being flown and controlled by the player. That alone is worth the price of admission.

Visually, the graphics look stunning, and it would be cool to hear a couple of more guest voice-actors, like Keifer Sutherland and Gary Oldman in Treyarch's last installment, the WWII-themed World at War. The developer was very closed-mouthed about any details other than Laos, 1968, so it's unclear what else this entry has in store for us Gamers, but I look forward to finding out!

The only other thing I can say is, I hope they have spent as much time on storyline in this one as they spent on figuring out how to make people realistically blow apart in World at War....