11.20.2009
One Take on Le Main de Dieu
I don't want to belabor the France v Ireland game, but I thought Roy Keane (former Irish player) gave a fantastically funny press conference (par for him) wherein he slated the Irish for being whiners and boring him. As a special treat, he also yells at a reporter for letting his cell phone ring. Man, I love Roy Keane.
Favre Shenanigans
This from a friend: This is how you know that you have the most important/pervasive (leisure/popular) culture on the planet: terrorists are mocking their guards (who are from Wisc.) about the Vikings and Favre's success. Does that mean that if the Vikings win the Super Bowl, the terrorists win?
Other things to love about this story: "One of the big words they know now is shenanigan. They'll constantly talk about 'Favre shenanigans" Only from a Sconnie Guard could prisoners learn the eff-ing word "shenanigan."
Other things to love about this story: "One of the big words they know now is shenanigan. They'll constantly talk about 'Favre shenanigans" Only from a Sconnie Guard could prisoners learn the eff-ing word "shenanigan."
Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans
I think we've posted this trailer before, but in honor of the movie being released today (and Nic Cage's continued awesomeness) I figured I would post it again. Below are some excerpts from A.O. Scott's New York Times review.
“Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans” — what an ungainly title for a movie. What does it mean? What kind of sense does it make? You might ask the same questions of the film itself, directed byWerner Herzog and related, by some equally puzzling movie-business genealogy, to another “Bad Lieutenant,” Abel Ferrara’s 1992 tour of New York law-enforcement hell. Neither remake nor sequel, this “Bad Lieutenant” is its own special fever-swamp of a movie, an anarchist film noir that seems, at times, almost as unhinged as its protagonist.
Fueled by Nicolas Cage’s performance — which requires adjectives as yet uncoined, typed with both the caps-lock key and the italics button engaged — Mr. Herzog’s film is a pulpy, glorious mess. Its maniacal unpredictability is such a blast that it reminds you just how tidy and dull most crime thrillers are these days.
Sometimes his loose-limbed shuffle and sibilant drawl suggest Jimmy Stewart as a crackhead. (Is there any other movie actor who can summon such a phrase to mind?) At other moments he breaks out in hip-hop non sequiturs, crowing: “To the break of dawn! To the break of dawn!”
“Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans” — what an ungainly title for a movie. What does it mean? What kind of sense does it make? You might ask the same questions of the film itself, directed byWerner Herzog and related, by some equally puzzling movie-business genealogy, to another “Bad Lieutenant,” Abel Ferrara’s 1992 tour of New York law-enforcement hell. Neither remake nor sequel, this “Bad Lieutenant” is its own special fever-swamp of a movie, an anarchist film noir that seems, at times, almost as unhinged as its protagonist.
Fueled by Nicolas Cage’s performance — which requires adjectives as yet uncoined, typed with both the caps-lock key and the italics button engaged — Mr. Herzog’s film is a pulpy, glorious mess. Its maniacal unpredictability is such a blast that it reminds you just how tidy and dull most crime thrillers are these days.
Terence McDonagh, Mr. Cage’s New Orleans cop, clings to an insane sense of professionalism even as his demons drive him around every bend in the Mississippi River. (Am I talking about the actor or the character? It may be a tribute to Mr. Cage’s genius that I’m not quite certain.)
Sometimes his loose-limbed shuffle and sibilant drawl suggest Jimmy Stewart as a crackhead. (Is there any other movie actor who can summon such a phrase to mind?) At other moments he breaks out in hip-hop non sequiturs, crowing: “To the break of dawn! To the break of dawn!”
11.19.2009
Le Main de Dieu
The footballing world has gone mad. For those who missed anything that mattered in the world of sport yesterday, France and Ireland had a play-off to see which team would get into the World Cup, France had a dodgy handball, then scored the winning goal, now Ireland want a replay (which won't happen). First, it's a terrible way to get into the World Cup. That said, there is quite a lot being said about the game and I'd like to clear up a few things with the help of the highlights below (which you should keep in mind account for less than 5% of the entire game).
Henry is a cheat. To say Henry is a cheat is a joke. Robbie Keane hand balled twice in the box and happened to get called for it, but if he didn't you can sure as hell bet that he would've kept going--I've watched him do it in the past. You play to the whistle--sometimes the referee misses something and no footballer owns up to game changing fouls.
Owning Up. Speaking of this, I want to point to the two missed penalty calls against France. The first is when Shay Given grabs at Anelka's foot and gets no penalty call. The second is a millisecond before Henry handballs--the ball is sent in and Squillaci (the French defender) goes up to head the ball, but is pulled down in the box, the ball then bounces clear to Henry. Both these are reasonable penalties. I didn't want France to go through on either call, but the fact is that those were game changing calls. When Given fouled Anelka in the box, did he own up to it? No, he broke the rules and allowed the referees bad call to stand. And yet, is this cheating? Somehow no.
Deliberate cheating. I've heard Henry accused of deliberately handling the ball and have to defend him here. The ball is sent in, about to hit Squillaci's head, then falls right in front of him (bouncing a foot away) and he is running while muscling McShane off the ball, it comes up and hits his arm. Henry, like every footballer, is trying to turn the ball with his body (because he is not square to the ball), sometimes the ball comes up in unexpected ways and hits the arm (again, see Robbie Keane as the example).
A Terrible Game. It was an absolutely terrible game no matter what. The French looked without a game plan. The Irish should've put the game away and didn't and were punished for it. I hate that it's the way the French are going through. However, the vitriolic whinging about cheating and the sanctimonious pretension that the Irish wouldn't (and haven't) done the exact same thing is a joke. There, I've said my piece.
I'll also point to the Guardian podcast's discussion of the game, wherein in even the whiny Irishman Barry Glendenning admits that it all just sucks and that the Irish can't feel robbed.
Henry is a cheat. To say Henry is a cheat is a joke. Robbie Keane hand balled twice in the box and happened to get called for it, but if he didn't you can sure as hell bet that he would've kept going--I've watched him do it in the past. You play to the whistle--sometimes the referee misses something and no footballer owns up to game changing fouls.
Owning Up. Speaking of this, I want to point to the two missed penalty calls against France. The first is when Shay Given grabs at Anelka's foot and gets no penalty call. The second is a millisecond before Henry handballs--the ball is sent in and Squillaci (the French defender) goes up to head the ball, but is pulled down in the box, the ball then bounces clear to Henry. Both these are reasonable penalties. I didn't want France to go through on either call, but the fact is that those were game changing calls. When Given fouled Anelka in the box, did he own up to it? No, he broke the rules and allowed the referees bad call to stand. And yet, is this cheating? Somehow no.
Deliberate cheating. I've heard Henry accused of deliberately handling the ball and have to defend him here. The ball is sent in, about to hit Squillaci's head, then falls right in front of him (bouncing a foot away) and he is running while muscling McShane off the ball, it comes up and hits his arm. Henry, like every footballer, is trying to turn the ball with his body (because he is not square to the ball), sometimes the ball comes up in unexpected ways and hits the arm (again, see Robbie Keane as the example).
A Terrible Game. It was an absolutely terrible game no matter what. The French looked without a game plan. The Irish should've put the game away and didn't and were punished for it. I hate that it's the way the French are going through. However, the vitriolic whinging about cheating and the sanctimonious pretension that the Irish wouldn't (and haven't) done the exact same thing is a joke. There, I've said my piece.
I'll also point to the Guardian podcast's discussion of the game, wherein in even the whiny Irishman Barry Glendenning admits that it all just sucks and that the Irish can't feel robbed.
11.18.2009
11.17.2009
False Horizons
Women Won! That's right, women, you won, didn't you realize it? This, essentially, is the argument of HuffPo blogger (which is a titled bestowed upon every douche who asks), Marcus Buckingham. In standard blog aggregate fashion (PTWSTSTS, by the way has a lot of value added to its news links... mainly in the form of quoting, linking, and deeming douchey) Messieur Buckingham has apparently only read Time Magazine's latest effort in banal-ing you to death: What Women Want Now. Both are so unbelievably bourgeois in their self-congratulation (I am, for the record, extremely bourgeois in my cynicism) that I felt like I was choking on the celebratory Martha Stewart Pie Contest Winner (which looks delightly might I add). This all leads me to a few points that might help us de-ass-ify (douche is too mild a descriptor) Buckingham and Times' gender wars celebration.
Changing Attitudes
I should start by letting Buckingham present his summarizing take: "In a war, no matter the outcome of a certain skirmish or battle, the winner is the party whose attitudes, behaviors and preoccupations come to dominate the postwar landscape. By this measure, the outcome of the gender wars, if wars they were, is clear: women won."
From here, we move to the essential argument of Time, which is that Men's attitudes about homelife have changed: we're doing more dishes! We're taking care of the kids more! Etc. Etc. Etc. This, Sir Buckingham, apparently means that female attitudes have taken over. At no point, does this sophistry take a moment to think, does this amount to a feminization or the slow admittance on the part of men that they should stop being total assholes? (As the data shows, we haven't quite stooped to equality). Other signs of the fem-ocaplyse is that more companies are allowing paternity leave. More companies as in like not really many at all? The fact that Buckingham and Time are pre-emptively applauding men shows many of these attitudes for just they are: patronizing, the stooping of masculinity to now say, "oh sure, honey, I'll take the kids today. By the way, aren't I a great dad?"
Interlude
Now, I should stop myself before I get too far--Time is right, in a sense. Many of my friends, male and female, do actually make significant efforts toward finding equality with their spouses/partners. When it doesn't happen, almost all of the men I spend time with are at least keenly aware of it. For them, as with many people I think in our time, this is not stooping. What I'm really referring to (and in fact annoyed to sh*t about) is the societal gloss that happens in the media. Obama is President, "Is Racism Over?" Denzel Washington gets an Oscar, "Is Racism Over?" Clinton is almost elected President, "Is Sexism Over?" Blah Blah Blah.
Heroes
"To know a culture, look to its heroes," says Buckingham (attributing it to "goes the saying" although I've never really heard that one). He then tells us that our generations idols aren't Bush and Stallone, but Obama and the "oh-so-delicate Robert Pattinson." this is a standard rhetorical gesture of douchery, pick and choose the celebrities who meet your criteria and say they represent our cultural shift. Because, you know liking Robert Pattison (I do, I do) makes us totally more about equality than those maschismo assholes in the 80s who loved Boy George.
The important part about this concept is that it completely glosses over the world wherein this issue of sexism matters the most--economics. First, we should note that there is still a marked gender pay gap, something I think we should work on before we declare women the victors (if they win, shouldn't they at least get a pay raise?). Second, to know a culture is not to take its celebrities--these are the exceptions. Would we say racism died in the 80s because Bill Cosby had a show? No, to know a culture is to know how it treats "the least of these." To know a culture is to see that in large sections of America--most keenly in the middle class and below--gender discrimination is still widely prevalent. You can say that more women are working in the household, but in many of the homes across America, I'd suggest it would be tough to find a sense of equal partnership.
This is where I think Buckingham's ideas are terribly pernicious. The belief that somehow feminine attitudes toward society have taken over is to myopically imagine that a large portion of men don't see women in power as the exception to the rule. It is to pretend that public discourse isn't played on a masculine playing field. It is also to pretend that just because masculinity is now allowed to venture into typically feminine modes (we can feel emotions now!) that this somehow means an entire social structure has shifted. Time's argument is at least a bit more ambivalent, but still pretends that we have reached some level of cooperation. Someone should be sure to let Wal-Mart's female staff know when they've been accepted into the co-op.
Changing Attitudes
I should start by letting Buckingham present his summarizing take: "In a war, no matter the outcome of a certain skirmish or battle, the winner is the party whose attitudes, behaviors and preoccupations come to dominate the postwar landscape. By this measure, the outcome of the gender wars, if wars they were, is clear: women won."
From here, we move to the essential argument of Time, which is that Men's attitudes about homelife have changed: we're doing more dishes! We're taking care of the kids more! Etc. Etc. Etc. This, Sir Buckingham, apparently means that female attitudes have taken over. At no point, does this sophistry take a moment to think, does this amount to a feminization or the slow admittance on the part of men that they should stop being total assholes? (As the data shows, we haven't quite stooped to equality). Other signs of the fem-ocaplyse is that more companies are allowing paternity leave. More companies as in like not really many at all? The fact that Buckingham and Time are pre-emptively applauding men shows many of these attitudes for just they are: patronizing, the stooping of masculinity to now say, "oh sure, honey, I'll take the kids today. By the way, aren't I a great dad?"
Interlude
Now, I should stop myself before I get too far--Time is right, in a sense. Many of my friends, male and female, do actually make significant efforts toward finding equality with their spouses/partners. When it doesn't happen, almost all of the men I spend time with are at least keenly aware of it. For them, as with many people I think in our time, this is not stooping. What I'm really referring to (and in fact annoyed to sh*t about) is the societal gloss that happens in the media. Obama is President, "Is Racism Over?" Denzel Washington gets an Oscar, "Is Racism Over?" Clinton is almost elected President, "Is Sexism Over?" Blah Blah Blah.
Heroes
"To know a culture, look to its heroes," says Buckingham (attributing it to "goes the saying" although I've never really heard that one). He then tells us that our generations idols aren't Bush and Stallone, but Obama and the "oh-so-delicate Robert Pattinson." this is a standard rhetorical gesture of douchery, pick and choose the celebrities who meet your criteria and say they represent our cultural shift. Because, you know liking Robert Pattison (I do, I do) makes us totally more about equality than those maschismo assholes in the 80s who loved Boy George.
The important part about this concept is that it completely glosses over the world wherein this issue of sexism matters the most--economics. First, we should note that there is still a marked gender pay gap, something I think we should work on before we declare women the victors (if they win, shouldn't they at least get a pay raise?). Second, to know a culture is not to take its celebrities--these are the exceptions. Would we say racism died in the 80s because Bill Cosby had a show? No, to know a culture is to know how it treats "the least of these." To know a culture is to see that in large sections of America--most keenly in the middle class and below--gender discrimination is still widely prevalent. You can say that more women are working in the household, but in many of the homes across America, I'd suggest it would be tough to find a sense of equal partnership.
This is where I think Buckingham's ideas are terribly pernicious. The belief that somehow feminine attitudes toward society have taken over is to myopically imagine that a large portion of men don't see women in power as the exception to the rule. It is to pretend that public discourse isn't played on a masculine playing field. It is also to pretend that just because masculinity is now allowed to venture into typically feminine modes (we can feel emotions now!) that this somehow means an entire social structure has shifted. Time's argument is at least a bit more ambivalent, but still pretends that we have reached some level of cooperation. Someone should be sure to let Wal-Mart's female staff know when they've been accepted into the co-op.
Making the World Banal, One Article at a Time
The NY Times, in their amazing way, are trying to erode the wonderful spectacularity that is the word "douche." Anyone who has spent 13 seconds with me, read anything I've written (including academic essays and children's stories) knows that I love the words "douche bag." Hell, a friend once had a "douche meter" that counted all the uses of douche on this blog. This is all beside the point. The point is that the NY Times published an article on the increasing usage of the word on network tv. Don't bother reading more than three words of the article, because it's incredibly banal. Thanks, NY Times. You're like the time my dad wanted to be awesome by buying a hypercolor MC Hammer shirt. I had to throw out all 8 of my own.*
*This never happened. To his credit, my Dad stopped trying somewhere around 1978.
*This never happened. To his credit, my Dad stopped trying somewhere around 1978.
11.16.2009
Owls are Smug
Hey, owl, I was wondering... what? .... what? .... Seriously, what are you laughing at? Don't just turn your head away from me and laugh. At least let me in on the joke. Listen, I was wondering.... Seriously? What the f*ck? Just give me a hint. Stop being such an ass about this. What is so g*d damned funny? You think you're better than me? You think that just because my government protects me from killing you means that you can just laugh in my face and I'll take it? I swear to all things holy that I will personally start buying products that are created at the expense of your natural habitat if you don't cut it out. STOP LAUGHING!!! That's it, I'm outta here. F*cking owl.
11.15.2009
Things I Didn't Know About: Steampunk
I imagine this to be a long-running feature that marks my complete
seclusion from large portions of society and things deemed "cool." The inaugural issue is a thing called Steampunk. It's a magazine, a style, but the most interesting thing to me is a hilarious and cheeky take on technology. Let's start with the Neverwas Haul: "a self-propelled 3-story Victorian House, made from 75% recycled equipment and materials, returns with new interiors, operating system, and collections from its travels around the world (i.e., oddities of the Jules Verne era including a Camera Obscura, described below). The Haul measures 24 feet long by 24 feet high and 12 feet wide and is built on the base of a 5 th wheel travel trailer." Basically, someone made Howl's Moving Castle. Here's Apartment Therapy's take (with more pictures). This leads me to say, what the hell is this Steampunk thing? And that's where I come to the whole modification thingy.
Here is a steampunk keyboard. Now, this could take the turn of the partially funny, but mostly-obnoxious hipsterish retro cell phone headset. But, I can take that chance and at least admire the ingenuity that leads to turning typewriter keys into a bad ass keyboard. All this leads to the Steampunk workshop, which seems less geared to hipsters and more to people with time on their hands. Regardless, now I will be looking around my apartment trying to pretend I have time on my hands. Write this Dracula paper or make a chandelier?
seclusion from large portions of society and things deemed "cool." The inaugural issue is a thing called Steampunk. It's a magazine, a style, but the most interesting thing to me is a hilarious and cheeky take on technology. Let's start with the Neverwas Haul: "a self-propelled 3-story Victorian House, made from 75% recycled equipment and materials, returns with new interiors, operating system, and collections from its travels around the world (i.e., oddities of the Jules Verne era including a Camera Obscura, described below). The Haul measures 24 feet long by 24 feet high and 12 feet wide and is built on the base of a 5 th wheel travel trailer." Basically, someone made Howl's Moving Castle. Here's Apartment Therapy's take (with more pictures). This leads me to say, what the hell is this Steampunk thing? And that's where I come to the whole modification thingy.
Here is a steampunk keyboard. Now, this could take the turn of the partially funny, but mostly-obnoxious hipsterish retro cell phone headset. But, I can take that chance and at least admire the ingenuity that leads to turning typewriter keys into a bad ass keyboard. All this leads to the Steampunk workshop, which seems less geared to hipsters and more to people with time on their hands. Regardless, now I will be looking around my apartment trying to pretend I have time on my hands. Write this Dracula paper or make a chandelier?
Going Muslim
I was reading the response of a Muslim alumnus of NYU to what he deemed as "hate speech" from a professor at NYU. The argument at the center of the controversy was the professor's belief that Islam, since it is so based on violence, makes all Muslims (however benign) capable of going crazy... going "postal."
This comes back to the standard complaints of the right that we should be screening just the populations at risk of being terrorists, not grandmas. You know what? They're right. I suggest that we start screening targeted populations. For example, why the hell are we selling guns to middle class white men with kids when we know that they're on the brink of Going "middle class white male." Pretty soon they're gonna either be shot by their teenage sons or they themselves are going to be involved in a murder-suicide. Also, why do we let poor white men get married when we know that they're statistically more likely to beat their wives? So, white men should only be allowed to get married if they make over a certain amount of money. And all stockbrokers should be regularly screened for cocaine. Man, this whole thing would make things so much easier.
This comes back to the standard complaints of the right that we should be screening just the populations at risk of being terrorists, not grandmas. You know what? They're right. I suggest that we start screening targeted populations. For example, why the hell are we selling guns to middle class white men with kids when we know that they're on the brink of Going "middle class white male." Pretty soon they're gonna either be shot by their teenage sons or they themselves are going to be involved in a murder-suicide. Also, why do we let poor white men get married when we know that they're statistically more likely to beat their wives? So, white men should only be allowed to get married if they make over a certain amount of money. And all stockbrokers should be regularly screened for cocaine. Man, this whole thing would make things so much easier.
11.14.2009
"I Took a Picture of My D*ck and Sent it as a Gift"
This has to be the greatest song of all time: completely asymmetrical, dark (comically so), terribly rhymed and lyricized (yep, I just wrote that word)... Jamie Foxx is tired of being out-dumb-assed by R. Kelly. Below, I will put a few more of the choice lyrics.
"Parlez vous francais?
Thats not the language I speak
But your body
Got me sayin some things
That people in France dont speak."
True.
"Parlez vous francais?
Thats not the language I speak
But your body
Got me sayin some things
That people in France dont speak."
True.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
