Sun 28 Jun 2009
Posted by chris under Animation, Reasons to be Cheerful, The Internets — [1 Comment]
The Buzz Log has compiled a funny list of commonly misspelled search strings. The top standouts:
My personal favorite, of course, is “Brack Obama” … it gave me a delirious nanosecond of picturing President BRAK.
Sat 27 Jun 2009
Posted by chris under Reasons to be Cheerful, TV, scifi — No Comments
Tonight BBC America will be airing “The Next Doctor” episode for the first time on US television. I am going to tune in and pretend that I didn’t see it months ago via BitTorrent 
It’s a great episode, starring David Morrissey and David Tennant (not the first time they’ve appeared together — they were on “Blackpool” together, doing a very hot rendition of “These Boots are Made for Walking”). The Cybermen are also on hand, this time in full Victorian, steampunk regalia.
The best thing about this episode is the whole “next doctor / regeneration” trope. I make it a point to avoid Whoniverse spoilers, so that I can approach each episode with virgin eyes… that’s how I first watched this episode, and let me tell you, it doesn’t disappoint!
Wed 24 Jun 2009
Posted by chris under Movies, Reasons to be Cheerful — No Comments
In January 1991, when Dimwit Bush the Elder announced that Desert Shield was now “Desert Storm”, I and many other right-minded people had few allies. I was living in San Francisco at the time, and even in that spider-hole of sensibility the jingoism was in full force. Once-cool celebrities were urging us to “kick the Vietnam syndrome”, buying into the narrative scripted by Bush (Sr.), Cheney, Rumsfeld & Powell. The brand-new “Baghdad Cafe” on Market Street came under fire for its suspicious name….
I remember that day clearly. I was driving with my friend Andrew Jacobs, who was visiting SF, at the very moment of Bush’s announcement that “Desert Shield” was now “Desert Storm.” Bush cut into whatever radio station we were listening to, and Andrew pulled the car to the side of the road in grim deference to the sad moment of history being forced upon us.
Allies were few in those days; in fact I put a “Support Our Troops” bumper sticker on my 1973 Plymouth Duster solely to avoid the angry sneers of road ragers as I drove around the country.
But one small sliver of light shone through the cultural darkness of that depressing winter: Tim Burton’s masterpiece “Edward Scissorhands” had just been released. Between January and March I saw it four times, and at each viewing I shed tears at the film’s uncompromisingly unique beauty and humor. I had been singing the praises of Tim Burton since “Pee Wee’s Big Adventure” (which we played at the 8th Street Playhouse for months), and this film affirmed my enthusiasm — the guy is a genius.
The film also moved Johnny Depp into the Brando-Dennis Hopper column of truly great and original actors.
I was struck by all this when I came across the production stills from Burton’s upcoming “Alice in Wonderland”, starring Depp as the Mad Hatter, Helena Bonham-Carter as the Red Queen and Matt Lucas and Tweedledum and Tweedledee, I was awash with warm reassurance. These past couple of years have been marked by a madness and despair that are akin to those felt during the early days of Gulf War I. Perhaps Tim Burton will once again put madness in its proper context with his “Alice.”
Sun 21 Jun 2009
Posted by chris under Movies, Reasons to be Cheerful, Science — No Comments
Is someone at Hulu’s programming department following the libel case against Simon Singh?
I think maybe they are: from an infinite supply of aging but watchable movies, they chose Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey as a highlighted feature this week.
The judge in the Singh case should watch the film. It accurately conveys a non-libelous connotation of the word “bogus” — i.e. something that is weak, lame, and totally non-non-non-excellent. As I mentioned in a previous post, I and my fellow veterans of American Dude culture circa 1991 did not use the word to mean “fraudulent; having a misleading appearance”. We very much meant it in the Bill and Ted sense. I doubt Simon Singh meant it in the dude sense, but isn’t the plasticity of the word’s meaning enough to dismiss the case?
I urge Simon Singh to use the “Bill and Ted” defense. “Dude — I mean your honor. I wasn’t saying the BCA is all like fraudulent and shit, I totally meant ‘non-tubular’.”
By the way, I think everyone should see the movie, especially for its parody of Bergman’s “Seventh Seal.”
Fri 19 Jun 2009
Posted by chris under Friends, Movies, Reasons to be Cheerful — No Comments
My friend, New York Times reporter, filmmaker and mensch of the century Andrew Jacobs has created what looks to be an amazing film, The Four Seasons Lodge.
From the film’s website:
They come together to cook, gamble, flirt, fight and dance. Having endured the worst of humanity, they gather at a Catskills bungalow colony each summer to celebrate life, and relive their harrowing pasts. They are part of a remarkable tribe whose members are fast disappearing – Holocaust survivors with a captivating joie de vivre and a bracing sense of humor.
View the Four Seasons Lodge trailer at their web site. I can’t wait to see the film; I hope it gets down to Florida soon.
Thu 18 Jun 2009
Posted by chris under Assholes, Science — No Comments
The Jack of Kent blog maintains his vigil over the infuriating libel case the British Chiropractic Association has brought against science writer Simon Singh. Today he posted news of the BCA’s latest legal salvo, grandly titled “THIRD UPDATE ON BCA v SIMON SINGH” [scare caps in original].
In it, the BCA — after a pissy schoolyard intro — lists scholarly reference s to buttress their “we’re not bogus” stance. I’m sure they’ll be pored over thoroughly by the skeptical community, as Jack of Kent predicts… I look forward to that process. It promises to be an excellent scientific dogfight!
Wed 17 Jun 2009
Posted by chris under Daily Tedium — No Comments
Just a quick note to let my many fans know that I am actually working. Still here in Jacksonville, Florida … (though it should really be called “Jacksonville, Southern Georgia“….)
Sun 14 Jun 2009
Posted by chris under Assholes, Book Reviews, Dead People — No Comments
I felt a little dirty when I checked O.J. Simpson’s “[If] I Did It” from the library, but I just had to see how this weird, “non-confession confession” played out.
This was the manuscript that Harper Collins was going to publish, but withdrew after public outrage. The text was repeatedly checked over and approved by the killer himself, so it truly reflects his warped view on the whole affair.
He comes across as whiny, narcissistic and completely out of touch. He paints himself as an earnest guy trying to be mature with his increasingly crazy estranged wife — he never laid a finger on her, etc. etc. She was getting out of control, he was worried about the kids…
He yammers on like this forever, until we get to the “night in question”, where he does indeed confess, but only after declaring that the description was “hypothetical”. He makes the jump from concerned goodguy to psychotic knife-murderer with jarring celerity; it’s obvious he left out many of the details that led to the brutal slashing. He leaves out the actual physical details of the massacre, claiming that he blacked out. He awakened from this lost time to discover he was covered in blood and holding the weapon… the corpses laid out horrifically near him.
Simpson claims that he was accompanied by someone (called “Charles”), that he couldn’t have done it alone. But “Charles”’s weird, last-minute appearance in the narrative feels completely grafted; I suspect he is an invention of O.J.’s designed to deflect blame. (The ghostwriter felt the same way.)
Throughout the whole creepy story, O.J. is more worried about his image than his kids, and pathetically tries to elicit sympathy from the reader. He fumes over tiny inaccuracies in press reports and rails throughout about how wrong they all got it — they were calling him a serial abuser! Can you imagine that?!? Hey, I may have beheaded my wife, but the police were only called to the house TWICE, not six times…! It was this last inaccuracy that gave him the courage to put down the gun and not shoot himself during his Bronco escape. He wanted to fight to salvage his reputation, presumably so his kids will have the *precise* stats for his wife beating career.
He ends the book breezily, in essence saying (I paraphrase, of course) “hey, crimes of passion, eh? Funny old world, funny relationships, me and Nicole were one of the funniest…” He wants you to know he really loved that woman he killed.
As for the man he killed, he seemed pretty indifferent. Wrong place, wrong time — shit happens!
I felt less dirty after reading the foreword by the Goldman family, which describes their 15 year fight to get O.J. to pay up the $38 million he owes from the wrongful death suit. The Goldmans were able to prevent Simpson from profiting from the book; the proceeds go to their foundation rather than to a shady legal entity set up by O.J..
So read the book without guilt, or check it out from the library if you feel uncomfortable “monetizing” sensational crimes (I felt that way about “Disco Bloodbath” — something of a cottage industry sprung up around that ugliness).
Thu 11 Jun 2009
Posted by chris under Atheism/Skepticism, Book Reviews — No Comments
I’ve always enjoyed Christopher Hitchens. Even in my deepest disagreement with him (re: W’s war), the man never fails to construct nearly impregnable arguments, and he does so with the tartest tongue in the living English language.
I’ve read Hitchens on the subject of religion many times before, so I went into this book with low expectations — I sort of figured it would be like eating some nice microwaved leftovers. Pleasant, but nothing new.
I was wrong, though. His previous writings on theism and religion were skillfully placed banderillas; with this book, Hitchens slays the bull. I thought, as a long-time infidel, that I had figured out all of the anti-god / anti-religion arguments. But this book lays out a few that hadn’t occurred to me, and it breathed some ferocious new life into some of the standard ones (e.g. the easy demolition of the “argument from design”).
Read the book, if only for the forceful and elegant use of the English language.
Fri 5 Jun 2009
Posted by chris under Assholes, Politics, Science — No Comments
On June 4, Simon Singh announced that he will be appealing the pre-trial judgment in the libel case brought against him by those Sultans of Snakeoil, the British Chiropractic Association.
The Sense About Science web site has stepped up to serve as a main organizer of information about the case. It provides breaking news on the legal case and lets you know what you can do to support our man Simon (who is fighting the costly battle at his own expense). One of the things you can do right away is add your name to the list of supporters, which is now in the thousands. “Keep the Libel Laws Out of Science!” goes the slogan; you can do so by signing here!.
2006
2005
2004
2003
