Jesus Christ
So after Seinfeld is the UPN 11 o'clock news. Introducing the show are two hosts, an older gentlemen and some hot-ass thirty year old babe with enormous boobs. I'm talking super huge, and really hot.
I'm like - what does this have to do with the news? Anyhow the stories looked awesome - 1) A lady tries to drown her own baby, but someone rescues it 2) Police chase down some dude and beat his ass 3) driving small cars gets you killed and 4) is Tom Cruise getting voted the worst actor in the world.
I think there was another awesome story, but I've forgotten it already. Talk about roping you in...
UPDATE: I think it's the chick on the right at the top of this page.
UPDATE II: YES! Chuck identifies the best story of them all, that I forgot, the bull jumping into the stands during a bullfight and going crazy. Holy shit!
The woman's name is Lauren Sanchez and here is a picture gallery on imdb. Like I said, huge breasts.
Monday, January 30, 2006
I Love You
Watching Seinfeld...George contemplates whether to say "I love you" to a girl he really likes. (he really likes her because she shows an interest in his inane theory that toilet paper hasn't changed in his lifetime).
Jerry and Elaine express concern about the move, since George thinks he's only got about a 50-50 chance of a return, "I love you," return. George is frustrated because he's never gotten to say "I love you."
"You've never said it?"
"Once. To a dog."
Why do I laugh out loud when watching that?
Watching Seinfeld...George contemplates whether to say "I love you" to a girl he really likes. (he really likes her because she shows an interest in his inane theory that toilet paper hasn't changed in his lifetime).
Jerry and Elaine express concern about the move, since George thinks he's only got about a 50-50 chance of a return, "I love you," return. George is frustrated because he's never gotten to say "I love you."
"You've never said it?"
"Once. To a dog."
Why do I laugh out loud when watching that?
Greg-istan
When I finally start my own country, it'll be the death penalty for people doing really, really, fuck up shit. And that'll be in the constitution, like article 5, or something. You do some super fucked up shit, you're gonna get lethal injection, mutha fucka.
What is the definition of "some super fucked up shit," well, that'll be up to the courts, but it'll be sort of like the definition of pornography - you'll know it when you see it. For instance: meeting someone on the internet who voluntarily offers to allow you to eat them - and then comes over and allows you to cut off his penis and you try to eat it together. Well, that qualifies as super fucked up shit.
Hang 'em high.
When I finally start my own country, it'll be the death penalty for people doing really, really, fuck up shit. And that'll be in the constitution, like article 5, or something. You do some super fucked up shit, you're gonna get lethal injection, mutha fucka.
What is the definition of "some super fucked up shit," well, that'll be up to the courts, but it'll be sort of like the definition of pornography - you'll know it when you see it. For instance: meeting someone on the internet who voluntarily offers to allow you to eat them - and then comes over and allows you to cut off his penis and you try to eat it together. Well, that qualifies as super fucked up shit.
Hang 'em high.
USC and the NY Times
A big article in the NY Times about film school. I thought this article was going to make me angry, but I actually agree with a lot of it. The school, as a whole, is a trade school. The deceiving part is that it markets itself as a school for auteurs, but then quickly changes face when you get here.
Waxman, of course, gets a whole lot of facts wrong - about the specifics of our class assignments, the cost per year of tuition, and the most egregious, calling Walter Murch a cinematographer. How stupid is that?
I just wish Mrs. Waxman had come to our Night at the Movies screening to see some really good work. I think it is an intellectual travesty that she neglects the changes digital video can bring to our education. We all whine about the high cost of shooting film, yet we have the answer right in front of us - digital video. It's cheap, it looks good. We haven't even explored the limits of DV because we still use the the PD-150. The Panasonic 24P is good, but limited with lens choice. The school doesn't even own a Canon XL2 and who knows what can be done with it's 24P combined with the ability to change lenses - which is the big secret to the film "look," I think.
And on and on we go...
A big article in the NY Times about film school. I thought this article was going to make me angry, but I actually agree with a lot of it. The school, as a whole, is a trade school. The deceiving part is that it markets itself as a school for auteurs, but then quickly changes face when you get here.
Waxman, of course, gets a whole lot of facts wrong - about the specifics of our class assignments, the cost per year of tuition, and the most egregious, calling Walter Murch a cinematographer. How stupid is that?
I just wish Mrs. Waxman had come to our Night at the Movies screening to see some really good work. I think it is an intellectual travesty that she neglects the changes digital video can bring to our education. We all whine about the high cost of shooting film, yet we have the answer right in front of us - digital video. It's cheap, it looks good. We haven't even explored the limits of DV because we still use the the PD-150. The Panasonic 24P is good, but limited with lens choice. The school doesn't even own a Canon XL2 and who knows what can be done with it's 24P combined with the ability to change lenses - which is the big secret to the film "look," I think.
And on and on we go...
Outrageous
Why would we let an obviously high ranking member of Al Queda go free? We better be using him as a double-agent or something.
Why are people not more upset about this?
Why would we let an obviously high ranking member of Al Queda go free? We better be using him as a double-agent or something.
Why are people not more upset about this?
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Scary
Walid Phares talks about Hamas and what will happen in Palestine. The devil is in the details...will they crack down on secular Palestinians? Will they recognize Israel? It should be interesting...
UPDATE: As scary as Hamas is, there might be some good to come out of all of this, maybe they'll be a reckoning or some type of cartharsis by which the Palestinian people need to face up and look at who they are and what they truly hope for in the future. And maybe, someday down the road, they'll see and understand that Israel is here to stay and they best serve themselves by concentrating on their own lives and living peaceably with their neighbors.
Walid Phares talks about Hamas and what will happen in Palestine. The devil is in the details...will they crack down on secular Palestinians? Will they recognize Israel? It should be interesting...
UPDATE: As scary as Hamas is, there might be some good to come out of all of this, maybe they'll be a reckoning or some type of cartharsis by which the Palestinian people need to face up and look at who they are and what they truly hope for in the future. And maybe, someday down the road, they'll see and understand that Israel is here to stay and they best serve themselves by concentrating on their own lives and living peaceably with their neighbors.
Soccer
I became aware of a soccer game yesterday evening over a poker game and invited myself along. In a drunken bravado I guaranteed a goal. It was stupid. I go to the game, it's lovely to be back on the field. I'm put in at forward at the twenty minute mark.
We go down 1-0. We tie it 1-1. They go up 2-1 before the end of the half.
I get a good shot on goal before half and kick it right at the keeper. In the second half I'm switched to center mid.
They go up 3-1, most of their goals are because of sloppy defense, mistakes on our end. I miss another golden opportunity, again kicking it right to the goalie.
Then, a cross, I nail a sweet header into the upper-v. 3-2. I scored my goal, but we're down, with about 12 minutes left.
We are playing much better than them. I get another opportunity and smack it again at the keeper. I should have easily scored three goals in this game.
We give up an incredibly stupid penalty kick 4-2. The refs call the game early, because of other games. People are pissed. I hate losing, but it was great to get out and play.
Then I run into another team filled with guys I went to college with, all a year or two younger. They've just started to play. They want me to play in the game. My head says go, but my legs say no.
It appears soccer has come back into my life.
I became aware of a soccer game yesterday evening over a poker game and invited myself along. In a drunken bravado I guaranteed a goal. It was stupid. I go to the game, it's lovely to be back on the field. I'm put in at forward at the twenty minute mark.
We go down 1-0. We tie it 1-1. They go up 2-1 before the end of the half.
I get a good shot on goal before half and kick it right at the keeper. In the second half I'm switched to center mid.
They go up 3-1, most of their goals are because of sloppy defense, mistakes on our end. I miss another golden opportunity, again kicking it right to the goalie.
Then, a cross, I nail a sweet header into the upper-v. 3-2. I scored my goal, but we're down, with about 12 minutes left.
We are playing much better than them. I get another opportunity and smack it again at the keeper. I should have easily scored three goals in this game.
We give up an incredibly stupid penalty kick 4-2. The refs call the game early, because of other games. People are pissed. I hate losing, but it was great to get out and play.
Then I run into another team filled with guys I went to college with, all a year or two younger. They've just started to play. They want me to play in the game. My head says go, but my legs say no.
It appears soccer has come back into my life.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
American Confidence
I've been thinking about screwball comedy, particularly that of Preston Sturges and Howard Hawks, from the 1940s and thinking how shitty our entire society has become. The relationships between men and woman from that period were so...smart. Today, the romantic comedies are incredibly weak. I guess I shouldn't be too harsh, because there is Sex in the City and Seinfeld, etc, which are essentially serving what the screwball comedies were doing back in the day - smart talk between men and women.
But I think there is something else going on, particularly in the depiction of women in film, that priviledges body over mind. In these old comedies, there wasn't a need for a sex scene because the two characters were "getting off," practically orgasming in their interactions, the quick back and forth rhythms are sexier than the lustful half naked scenes of two "hot" stars.
I think all of this (and much more) is rooted in an extraordinary loss of confidence. During and post WWII, America rightfully saw itself as the most legitimate, powerful, and righteous nation on the planet. We were proud. Granted, there were still awful internal injustices - Jim Crow, Japanese internment, etc., but there was a verve with which our society could attack this problems, a swagger, and can-do attitude, and a little bit of ironic edge about the whole thing - a sense of fun. Today, our critiques of internal injustices of the past amount to a gigantic pity session, bemoaning injustice and using grievance as a tool to find sympathy and in some cases, claims of resitituion. Past generations of Americans would told us to quit whining and go live in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or Maoist China if we were so damn unhappy. And then they'd make some clever comment, grab a drink and go dancing. Today, someone would be offended and go home pouting.
This lack of confidence manifests itself in several ways. The first is intense overreaction and overcompensation, and it is typically masculine. There would be an interesting thesis or dissertation written about how the Iraq war is an attempt by the American male to restore a sense of confidence and masculinity. And we see this manifest in almost a glee with which we spurned the UN and the French and German pussies...the attitude which says, well, fuck those guys. I, myself, fall within this camp, so I know a little bit about it.
But another way this lack of confidence manifests itself is the flip side, politically speaking, when people cannot even muster up the moral courage to say why Iran shouldn't have a nuclear bomb. Can you see the bumbling, shaking, idiot saying, "well, if I were an Iranian or an Arab, I would think differently....no, I can't say for sure whether Iran should be able to have a nuke. I mean, who are we to say what others can and can't do?" Are you fucking kidding me? If you don't trust yourself enough to know the difference between say, the US having nukes, Israel having nukes, France and England having nukes, versus, Iran's mullah theocracy haing nukes...well, I don't even know what to say.
We're so goddamn wary. We're warned of self-righteousness and this vague idea espoused in Europe and the Middle East about American "arrogance," and we're so scared of overstepping our bounds and telling people what to do, we're wary of having power.
And we should use power responsibly and telling people what to do isn't our job or our place and arrogance is ugly and self-righteousness is a turn-off. But we SHOULD NOT be afraid of telling people what we think and acting upon what we think is right. Because there are things that are right and that doesn't make us self-righteous. We shouldn't be arrogant, but we shouldn't be afraid of doing what's right and saying what we think is right because we fear others will interpet it as arrogance. We're entitled to opinions and entitled to exercise power how we see fit. That is why we shouldn't financially support Hamas - because we don't agree with their ideology. Because they are wrong and we are right. If that's arrogance, then so be it. But since when did having an position, rooted in our sense of justice and fairness, and acting upon that position amount to arrogance. Isn't that righteousness and isn't that what we ought to be doing?
And how does this all tie back into romantic comedy? This may be a stretch, but I'll try it anyway...watching two hot people brings along certain pleasures...that first shot in Mr. and Mrs. Smith is like - goddamn, these two people are HOT. But that shit doesn't last, we all know that, and the movie is nothing special. And we go to these movies with the idea that we can no longer see ourselves as romantic comedy leads. Let me explain that more. Rosalind Russell and Cary Grant are both good looking, but not AMAZING. They are smart, and in watching them, it makes you want to be smart and makes you think, I can have that type of banter, I can have interactions like that, that could be me. I could play that game! It's just a bunch of fun, I think. But in watching Brad and Angelina, there isn't a sense that I could be like that. How many people - even good looking ones - feel like they could sleep with every single person they meet? Hardly any. But that is true for Brad and Angelina. And so it becomes an issue of how different our lives are from those characters lives we are watching, and the pleasure is actually derived from how physically different we are, as maschistic as it sounds.
The ironic thing is that even Brad and Angelina don't appear to me to be as confident or as in love as Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell or any of the couples in Sturges' movies. I don't know, maybe they even loved each other better back then.
Well, this entry didn't make a whole lot of sense, but hey, that's what blogging is for, right?
I've been thinking about screwball comedy, particularly that of Preston Sturges and Howard Hawks, from the 1940s and thinking how shitty our entire society has become. The relationships between men and woman from that period were so...smart. Today, the romantic comedies are incredibly weak. I guess I shouldn't be too harsh, because there is Sex in the City and Seinfeld, etc, which are essentially serving what the screwball comedies were doing back in the day - smart talk between men and women.
But I think there is something else going on, particularly in the depiction of women in film, that priviledges body over mind. In these old comedies, there wasn't a need for a sex scene because the two characters were "getting off," practically orgasming in their interactions, the quick back and forth rhythms are sexier than the lustful half naked scenes of two "hot" stars.
I think all of this (and much more) is rooted in an extraordinary loss of confidence. During and post WWII, America rightfully saw itself as the most legitimate, powerful, and righteous nation on the planet. We were proud. Granted, there were still awful internal injustices - Jim Crow, Japanese internment, etc., but there was a verve with which our society could attack this problems, a swagger, and can-do attitude, and a little bit of ironic edge about the whole thing - a sense of fun. Today, our critiques of internal injustices of the past amount to a gigantic pity session, bemoaning injustice and using grievance as a tool to find sympathy and in some cases, claims of resitituion. Past generations of Americans would told us to quit whining and go live in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or Maoist China if we were so damn unhappy. And then they'd make some clever comment, grab a drink and go dancing. Today, someone would be offended and go home pouting.
This lack of confidence manifests itself in several ways. The first is intense overreaction and overcompensation, and it is typically masculine. There would be an interesting thesis or dissertation written about how the Iraq war is an attempt by the American male to restore a sense of confidence and masculinity. And we see this manifest in almost a glee with which we spurned the UN and the French and German pussies...the attitude which says, well, fuck those guys. I, myself, fall within this camp, so I know a little bit about it.
But another way this lack of confidence manifests itself is the flip side, politically speaking, when people cannot even muster up the moral courage to say why Iran shouldn't have a nuclear bomb. Can you see the bumbling, shaking, idiot saying, "well, if I were an Iranian or an Arab, I would think differently....no, I can't say for sure whether Iran should be able to have a nuke. I mean, who are we to say what others can and can't do?" Are you fucking kidding me? If you don't trust yourself enough to know the difference between say, the US having nukes, Israel having nukes, France and England having nukes, versus, Iran's mullah theocracy haing nukes...well, I don't even know what to say.
We're so goddamn wary. We're warned of self-righteousness and this vague idea espoused in Europe and the Middle East about American "arrogance," and we're so scared of overstepping our bounds and telling people what to do, we're wary of having power.
And we should use power responsibly and telling people what to do isn't our job or our place and arrogance is ugly and self-righteousness is a turn-off. But we SHOULD NOT be afraid of telling people what we think and acting upon what we think is right. Because there are things that are right and that doesn't make us self-righteous. We shouldn't be arrogant, but we shouldn't be afraid of doing what's right and saying what we think is right because we fear others will interpet it as arrogance. We're entitled to opinions and entitled to exercise power how we see fit. That is why we shouldn't financially support Hamas - because we don't agree with their ideology. Because they are wrong and we are right. If that's arrogance, then so be it. But since when did having an position, rooted in our sense of justice and fairness, and acting upon that position amount to arrogance. Isn't that righteousness and isn't that what we ought to be doing?
And how does this all tie back into romantic comedy? This may be a stretch, but I'll try it anyway...watching two hot people brings along certain pleasures...that first shot in Mr. and Mrs. Smith is like - goddamn, these two people are HOT. But that shit doesn't last, we all know that, and the movie is nothing special. And we go to these movies with the idea that we can no longer see ourselves as romantic comedy leads. Let me explain that more. Rosalind Russell and Cary Grant are both good looking, but not AMAZING. They are smart, and in watching them, it makes you want to be smart and makes you think, I can have that type of banter, I can have interactions like that, that could be me. I could play that game! It's just a bunch of fun, I think. But in watching Brad and Angelina, there isn't a sense that I could be like that. How many people - even good looking ones - feel like they could sleep with every single person they meet? Hardly any. But that is true for Brad and Angelina. And so it becomes an issue of how different our lives are from those characters lives we are watching, and the pleasure is actually derived from how physically different we are, as maschistic as it sounds.
The ironic thing is that even Brad and Angelina don't appear to me to be as confident or as in love as Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell or any of the couples in Sturges' movies. I don't know, maybe they even loved each other better back then.
Well, this entry didn't make a whole lot of sense, but hey, that's what blogging is for, right?
Woman's Lacrosse
I hate to be one of those ignorant (pronounced ig-nant) people who watch a sport they don't know and make snarky comments about it. I am particularly sensitive to this given that I've played soccer all my life and have listened to dumbasses try to make fun of the sport. (although I'll admit the Simpsons episode with two cartoons kicking the ball back and forth overlayed by a hysterical spanish announcer was hilarious).
Today, while running around the USC track, there was a woman's lacrosse game. From what I could tell, you were allowed to have the ball in your stick/net contraption and either run down the field and try to score or pass the ball to a teammate. The defense didn't seem to have any way of stopping anyone.
So a girl would get the ball on one end of the field, some girls would stick their sticks in front of her, so she couldn't pass, and she would run around them if she was athletic enough, and maybe pass it if she got tired. Anytime a girl had open space, she could run down the entire field, dodge people, and either get a shot on goal or pass it.
It just seemed liked a weird game, where it was awfully hard to defend against anyone just running towards the goal and scoring. There seemed to be little incentive to pass, and therefore, wasn't much teamwork. It was sort of like watching a bunch of Kobe Bryant's playing bball. Dribble up the court, shoot. Boring.
I'd love an explanation of this sport as I hear lacrosse chicks are hot and I've been dying to the term: lacrostitute.
I hate to be one of those ignorant (pronounced ig-nant) people who watch a sport they don't know and make snarky comments about it. I am particularly sensitive to this given that I've played soccer all my life and have listened to dumbasses try to make fun of the sport. (although I'll admit the Simpsons episode with two cartoons kicking the ball back and forth overlayed by a hysterical spanish announcer was hilarious).
Today, while running around the USC track, there was a woman's lacrosse game. From what I could tell, you were allowed to have the ball in your stick/net contraption and either run down the field and try to score or pass the ball to a teammate. The defense didn't seem to have any way of stopping anyone.
So a girl would get the ball on one end of the field, some girls would stick their sticks in front of her, so she couldn't pass, and she would run around them if she was athletic enough, and maybe pass it if she got tired. Anytime a girl had open space, she could run down the entire field, dodge people, and either get a shot on goal or pass it.
It just seemed liked a weird game, where it was awfully hard to defend against anyone just running towards the goal and scoring. There seemed to be little incentive to pass, and therefore, wasn't much teamwork. It was sort of like watching a bunch of Kobe Bryant's playing bball. Dribble up the court, shoot. Boring.
I'd love an explanation of this sport as I hear lacrosse chicks are hot and I've been dying to the term: lacrostitute.
Friday, January 27, 2006
How I'm Like Costanza
Well, it has begun. My slow decent into George-ness. It started with getting angry at small things and now it has turned into eating out of the garbage. That's right, out of the garbage!
In SPO, someone was munching on a bag of popcorn. I took a bit. I'm hungry. I like popcorn. He leaves, I notice the bag, with popcorn still sitting in it, laying on top of my empty Doritos bag in the trash. Clearly, it isn't nasty yet. I take the bag out and eat the popcorn.
The only thing more George-like would have been getting caught doing it.
Usually I like working in SPO, seeing people, helping out newbies. For some reason today was incredibly annoying. Some retard couldn't figure out how to use nowcasting so I needed to hold his hand. Fair enough if it's hard, but you figure it out on your own, stop asking me a 1000 questions.
Some 507 girl needs a buddist statue for her movie. No, I don't know any buddist temples, you moron, or whether they'll let you shoot for free.
Some guy is dismayed we don't have the theater school auditions ready. Sorry Zemeckis hasn't learned how to burn a cd without data dropouts yet.
No, I don't know where to purchase an empty saxophone case - maybe look up on the yellow pages online, jackass.
Well, it has begun. My slow decent into George-ness. It started with getting angry at small things and now it has turned into eating out of the garbage. That's right, out of the garbage!
In SPO, someone was munching on a bag of popcorn. I took a bit. I'm hungry. I like popcorn. He leaves, I notice the bag, with popcorn still sitting in it, laying on top of my empty Doritos bag in the trash. Clearly, it isn't nasty yet. I take the bag out and eat the popcorn.
The only thing more George-like would have been getting caught doing it.
Usually I like working in SPO, seeing people, helping out newbies. For some reason today was incredibly annoying. Some retard couldn't figure out how to use nowcasting so I needed to hold his hand. Fair enough if it's hard, but you figure it out on your own, stop asking me a 1000 questions.
Some 507 girl needs a buddist statue for her movie. No, I don't know any buddist temples, you moron, or whether they'll let you shoot for free.
Some guy is dismayed we don't have the theater school auditions ready. Sorry Zemeckis hasn't learned how to burn a cd without data dropouts yet.
No, I don't know where to purchase an empty saxophone case - maybe look up on the yellow pages online, jackass.
The Worst Option, Except for all the others...
A good article on what we can expect from democracy EVEN when we don't like the outcome, like in Hamasistine.
A good article on what we can expect from democracy EVEN when we don't like the outcome, like in Hamasistine.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Werner Herzog
Last night, at the New Beverly, I was lucky enough to sit a few seats away from the legend himself, Herzog.
He is exploring some interesting things with his life and career:
1. The difference between Fact and Truth. This has become particularly relevant in the age of photoshop and digital effects...we can no longer trust our own eyes.
2. The deep sickness in our civilization. Why do so many obese women claim to be abducted by aliens and gang-raped? This does not happen in Nepal or Somalia.
3. Nature is not harmonious - but chaotic, murderous, and short.
4. He is interested in characters who try to leave the confines of civilization and become something else - a man a part - a man with only his own soul.
5. Ecstatic truth - not aesthetic - he is trying to discover what it is it in those ecstatic moments that we feel, what is it we touch, when we feel those moments of intense joy, some form of human truth that transcends everyday reality.
6. What is it about our collective dreams that allows many of us to believe in the supernatural?
7. A person deserves dignity and privacy with their own death. It is why he would not incorporate the tape of Treadwell's death in Grizzly Man and why home video of people dropping from buildings on 9/11 will never and should never be shown. He recommends destroying the tapes.
Last night, at the New Beverly, I was lucky enough to sit a few seats away from the legend himself, Herzog.
He is exploring some interesting things with his life and career:
1. The difference between Fact and Truth. This has become particularly relevant in the age of photoshop and digital effects...we can no longer trust our own eyes.
2. The deep sickness in our civilization. Why do so many obese women claim to be abducted by aliens and gang-raped? This does not happen in Nepal or Somalia.
3. Nature is not harmonious - but chaotic, murderous, and short.
4. He is interested in characters who try to leave the confines of civilization and become something else - a man a part - a man with only his own soul.
5. Ecstatic truth - not aesthetic - he is trying to discover what it is it in those ecstatic moments that we feel, what is it we touch, when we feel those moments of intense joy, some form of human truth that transcends everyday reality.
6. What is it about our collective dreams that allows many of us to believe in the supernatural?
7. A person deserves dignity and privacy with their own death. It is why he would not incorporate the tape of Treadwell's death in Grizzly Man and why home video of people dropping from buildings on 9/11 will never and should never be shown. He recommends destroying the tapes.
Risk Takers
Rather interesting article on risk-taking. It turns out the better at math you are, the more likely you are to take risks. I love these type of math questions.
It turns out men are more likely to take risks than women and a dumb man is about as likely as a smart woman to take risks.
Rather interesting article on risk-taking. It turns out the better at math you are, the more likely you are to take risks. I love these type of math questions.
It turns out men are more likely to take risks than women and a dumb man is about as likely as a smart woman to take risks.
Nuclear Option
No, I'm not referring to the Senate overriding a filibuster, but rather, French President Jacques Chirac suggesting that any act of terrorism committed against France could be met with a nuclear response if another country sponsored the attack. He means Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, or Palestine, in case anyone was wondering.
I wonder why the left in this country hasn't gone nutso over this comment, given that if G W Bush made such a statement, they would freak. Could it be because the left doesn't give a shit about anything other than making Bush look bad? Yes. That is exactly why and also why I find it hard to take the left seriously.
Some think that since we took on Iraq and neglected Iran we have ourselves to thank for the current situation. That's one interpretation. The other, of course, is that we took on Iraq and "trusted" the Europeans to negotiate and deal with Iran. The outcome is a hectic Iraq, but we don't need to deal with Saddam anymore versus an Iran who is actively pursuing nukes and by virtue of their weakness, has incentives to use them. Good job, Europe, way to go! Negotiating works!
No, I'm not referring to the Senate overriding a filibuster, but rather, French President Jacques Chirac suggesting that any act of terrorism committed against France could be met with a nuclear response if another country sponsored the attack. He means Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, or Palestine, in case anyone was wondering.
I wonder why the left in this country hasn't gone nutso over this comment, given that if G W Bush made such a statement, they would freak. Could it be because the left doesn't give a shit about anything other than making Bush look bad? Yes. That is exactly why and also why I find it hard to take the left seriously.
Some think that since we took on Iraq and neglected Iran we have ourselves to thank for the current situation. That's one interpretation. The other, of course, is that we took on Iraq and "trusted" the Europeans to negotiate and deal with Iran. The outcome is a hectic Iraq, but we don't need to deal with Saddam anymore versus an Iran who is actively pursuing nukes and by virtue of their weakness, has incentives to use them. Good job, Europe, way to go! Negotiating works!
It's On
Hamas wins a huge victory in Palestine. Palestine is now run by a terrorist organization has risen to power. Not that Fatah, which was an off-shoot of the PLO, wasn't already a similar version of the self-same thing...
Hamas is known for a lack of corruption and uncompromising attitude towards Israel, in that it advocates Israel's complete destruction - that it be literally driven back into the sea, by their own charter.
How do we interpret this? Is this a clear statement by the Palestinian people that they do not believe in Israel's right to exist?
If one group of people seeks to eliminate another country, what can we expect to look forward to?
Some people are happy, though.
Challenge: Let's see the creative ways the left blames GW Bush and/or America on the Hamas victory.
Hamas wins a huge victory in Palestine. Palestine is now run by a terrorist organization has risen to power. Not that Fatah, which was an off-shoot of the PLO, wasn't already a similar version of the self-same thing...
Hamas is known for a lack of corruption and uncompromising attitude towards Israel, in that it advocates Israel's complete destruction - that it be literally driven back into the sea, by their own charter.
How do we interpret this? Is this a clear statement by the Palestinian people that they do not believe in Israel's right to exist?
If one group of people seeks to eliminate another country, what can we expect to look forward to?
Some people are happy, though.
Challenge: Let's see the creative ways the left blames GW Bush and/or America on the Hamas victory.
That's Right Bitches...
I'm a Porsche 911!
You have a classic style, but you're up-to-date with the latest technology. You're ambitious, competitive, and you love to win. Performance, precision, and prestige - you're one of the elite,and you know it.
Take the Which Sports Car Are You? quiz.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Paranoia, Back-Stabbing, and all the Other Fun Things We Have to Look Forward To
Ahhhh, Hollywood, Los Angeles, I'm glad to be here and enter this world of bullshit. We've been sort of avoiding it for the past three years, in the safe comforts of film school, but I guess it's inevitable in this town to jump into the darkness of trying to pull each other down if we sense we might be left behind. Why are things like this? I know why - because we make it that way and allow ourselves to think that way and behave that way.
I remember Iqbal saying something really true in 508, he said, "I really, REALLY, don't want to be a hater." But it's almost logical to root for your own film to be "better" than the other ones. How can you not? It's ingrained in human beings, a competitive hostile spirit...
As Werner Herzog said tonight at the New Beverly, the universe is not harmonious at all, it is chaotic, hostile, and murderous.
And so it is. Welcome to the Jungle.
Ahhhh, Hollywood, Los Angeles, I'm glad to be here and enter this world of bullshit. We've been sort of avoiding it for the past three years, in the safe comforts of film school, but I guess it's inevitable in this town to jump into the darkness of trying to pull each other down if we sense we might be left behind. Why are things like this? I know why - because we make it that way and allow ourselves to think that way and behave that way.
I remember Iqbal saying something really true in 508, he said, "I really, REALLY, don't want to be a hater." But it's almost logical to root for your own film to be "better" than the other ones. How can you not? It's ingrained in human beings, a competitive hostile spirit...
As Werner Herzog said tonight at the New Beverly, the universe is not harmonious at all, it is chaotic, hostile, and murderous.
And so it is. Welcome to the Jungle.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Designer Game Idea
Title: Spies
Object: Complete your mission before the other players.
Basic Rules: At the start of each game, a player selects two cards: a Country and a Mission. For each country and mission combination, a player need to acquire a specific set of resources to complete the mission. Players are each given a $100,000 budget, in chips, to complete their mission.
Basic Mechanic: Each player has a turn and turns over a resource card that has a resource and a cost. The "turner" has the first option to purchase or pass. Then the option goes to the next player and next player and so forth.
*I'd like to introduce a trading element, where players can make trades of money, resource cards, or a combination of each. I'm not sure how or when this trade option would come into the game.
**I'd also like to add an element where a player can actually lose by winning. That is, another player can get a mission that is completed by allowing the first player to win. (I haven't figured out how the original player can turn this around...)
Dynamic Element: Each player is trying to complete their mission, but at the same time trying to sabotage each others missions. Therefore, one tries to keep their own mission a secret, so other players won't sabatage and might inadvertantly help. If a player is too obvious about completing their own mission, other players will figure out their mission and exploit it.
To complete a mission, players will need to collect a specific mix of 9 resource cards. For instance:
Mission Card: Steal Rival Missile System
Country Card: China
In order to complete this mission you will need to collect: 3 translators who speak Chinese, 3 scientists with aviation expertise, and 3 transports of metals.
*Note: each resource card will be "dual use," that is, each translator speaks two languages. Each scientist has two areas of exertise, and each container ship can hold either metal shipments or oil.
Sample resource cards:
Translator: Chinese and Farsi. Cost: $6,000
Translator: Chinese and English. Cost: $3,000
Translator: Chinese and German. Cost: $4,000
Scientist: Aviation and Biological expertise. Cost: $5,000
Scientist: Biological and Chemical expertise. Cost: $2,000
Scientist: Physics and Chemical expertise: Cost: $4,000
Transport: Metals and Oil. Cost: $10,000
Transport: People and Bombs. Cost: $1,000
Transport: Drugs and Cash. Cost: $5,000
Title: Spies
Object: Complete your mission before the other players.
Basic Rules: At the start of each game, a player selects two cards: a Country and a Mission. For each country and mission combination, a player need to acquire a specific set of resources to complete the mission. Players are each given a $100,000 budget, in chips, to complete their mission.
Basic Mechanic: Each player has a turn and turns over a resource card that has a resource and a cost. The "turner" has the first option to purchase or pass. Then the option goes to the next player and next player and so forth.
*I'd like to introduce a trading element, where players can make trades of money, resource cards, or a combination of each. I'm not sure how or when this trade option would come into the game.
**I'd also like to add an element where a player can actually lose by winning. That is, another player can get a mission that is completed by allowing the first player to win. (I haven't figured out how the original player can turn this around...)
Dynamic Element: Each player is trying to complete their mission, but at the same time trying to sabotage each others missions. Therefore, one tries to keep their own mission a secret, so other players won't sabatage and might inadvertantly help. If a player is too obvious about completing their own mission, other players will figure out their mission and exploit it.
To complete a mission, players will need to collect a specific mix of 9 resource cards. For instance:
Mission Card: Steal Rival Missile System
Country Card: China
In order to complete this mission you will need to collect: 3 translators who speak Chinese, 3 scientists with aviation expertise, and 3 transports of metals.
*Note: each resource card will be "dual use," that is, each translator speaks two languages. Each scientist has two areas of exertise, and each container ship can hold either metal shipments or oil.
Sample resource cards:
Translator: Chinese and Farsi. Cost: $6,000
Translator: Chinese and English. Cost: $3,000
Translator: Chinese and German. Cost: $4,000
Scientist: Aviation and Biological expertise. Cost: $5,000
Scientist: Biological and Chemical expertise. Cost: $2,000
Scientist: Physics and Chemical expertise: Cost: $4,000
Transport: Metals and Oil. Cost: $10,000
Transport: People and Bombs. Cost: $1,000
Transport: Drugs and Cash. Cost: $5,000
Truce With Bin Laden
I've written about it before - how it's so obviously bullshit, BL's offer of a truce...
Here is CS Monitor article about whether we should take it or not - and the author naively thinks so...but in order to allow BL to break it and prove to the Muslim world he's full of shit. (Just a guess - but when he breaks it, the people who don't already know he's full of shit will still believe in him).
If I were in power, I would seriously consider accepting the truce and then breaking it ourselves, if I thought it would lead to capturing and killing more Al Queda members.
I've never said I wouldn't hit below the belt. In war, winning comes first, fairness second. That's sort of the fundamental difference between war and peace.
I've written about it before - how it's so obviously bullshit, BL's offer of a truce...
Here is CS Monitor article about whether we should take it or not - and the author naively thinks so...but in order to allow BL to break it and prove to the Muslim world he's full of shit. (Just a guess - but when he breaks it, the people who don't already know he's full of shit will still believe in him).
If I were in power, I would seriously consider accepting the truce and then breaking it ourselves, if I thought it would lead to capturing and killing more Al Queda members.
I've never said I wouldn't hit below the belt. In war, winning comes first, fairness second. That's sort of the fundamental difference between war and peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)