Friday March 05, 2010 at 9:33

Lol Aboard The Good Ship AlbionI’m not sure if you guys are aware, but people from the UK tend to produce some pretty shitty television shows. The grand exception is in the genre of comedy. Ever since Flying Circus, the Brits have been on the cutting edge of laugh-out-loud-hilarious comedy. As a citizen of the Empire herself, I asked internet friend, comedian, and dispensary of awesome Avery Edison to suggest the names of some of her favsies shows. I’m going to share that list here, and I COMMAND YOU TO READ IT:This Morning With Richard Not JudyFist of FunBlack BooksSpacedStewart Lee’s Comedy VehiclePeople Like UsBig TrainBrassEyeThe Day TodayAnything Alan PartridgeThe Armando Ianucci ShowThe Thick of ItPeep Show/The Mitchell and Webb LookLook Around YouGarth Marenghi’s DarkplaceThe Adam and Joe ShowThe League of GentlemenThe Fast ShowNot the Nine O’clock NewsI’ll personally add the following:The Peter Serafinowicz ShowNathan BarleyFMNo HeroicsThe Kevin Bishop ShowSnuff BoxThe Mighty BooshThe IT CrowdMassiveHow Not To Live Your LifeHonestly I wouldn’t expect (m)any of you to have the sense to find and devour these shows, but if you do wander into a moment of lucidity, do yourself a favour. Especially the ones with Matt Berry, because he has a voice that’s like a barrel of Bailey’s on a cool Summer’s eve. It’s ten times the voice of Morgan Freeman. There, I said it.

Lol Aboard The Good Ship Albion

I’m not sure if you guys are aware, but people from the UK tend to produce some pretty shitty television shows. The grand exception is in the genre of comedy. Ever since Flying Circus, the Brits have been on the cutting edge of laugh-out-loud-hilarious comedy. As a citizen of the Empire herself, I asked internet friend, comedian, and dispensary of awesome Avery Edison to suggest the names of some of her favsies shows. I’m going to share that list here, and I COMMAND YOU TO READ IT:

This Morning With Richard Not Judy
Fist of Fun
Black Books
Spaced
Stewart Lee’s Comedy Vehicle
People Like Us
Big Train
BrassEye
The Day Today
Anything Alan Partridge
The Armando Ianucci Show
The Thick of It
Peep Show/The Mitchell and Webb Look
Look Around You
Garth Marenghi’s Darkplace
The Adam and Joe Show
The League of Gentlemen
The Fast Show
Not the Nine O’clock News

I’ll personally add the following:

The Peter Serafinowicz Show
Nathan Barley
FM
No Heroics
The Kevin Bishop Show
Snuff Box
The Mighty Boosh
The IT Crowd
Massive
How Not To Live Your Life

Honestly I wouldn’t expect (m)any of you to have the sense to find and devour these shows, but if you do wander into a moment of lucidity, do yourself a favour. Especially the ones with Matt Berry, because he has a voice that’s like a barrel of Bailey’s on a cool Summer’s eve. It’s ten times the voice of Morgan Freeman. There, I said it.

Monday February 22, 2010 at 9:02

I. Am. Eating. It.Chuck Klosterman once echoed the sentiment that it’s much more difficult to write about why you like something than writing about why you hate it. As I’m clearly very familiar with writing about things I hate, I’ve found it very difficult to write a compelling essay about how much I like Aaron Sorkin’s meta-drama Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. Studio 60 launched at the same time as 30 Rock, without the backing of NBC nor Lorne Michaels. On the back foot from the start, Aaron Sorkin did his best to present interesting characters against the backdrop of a late-night sketch comedy show. Though Studio 60 and its rival bore a similar premise, the similarities were quite superficial. One was a screwball comedy, and the other tried and succeeded to strike a chord by exploring the tension and relationships of sketch comedians. As the underdog, it was not without its detractors, and earlier today, Avery clarified for me her stance on the show with some specific critique. I’ll now reduce her articulate comments to make her argument seem less coherent, and more like the ramblings of a complete psychopath because she doesn’t like the same cancelled television shows as me!

The sketches in the show-within-a-show are not funny. At all.

I don’t disagree, but I think there’s a purpose. The boorish, blunt humour in the sketches is very evocative of modern-day Saturday Night Live, which has evaded hilarity quite skillfully for some time. The best you can hope for in SNL is an idea that’s clever rather than funny, and even then you have to wade through copious amounts of attempted comedy. I’m trying not to insult your intelligence by being trite and arguing that every fault the show has could be passed off as a commentary on the current state of comedy, but this fault, at least, is. I know because I get the same feeling from watching Studio 60’s sketches as I do watching SNL sketches: I know this is intended to be funny, I should be laughing, I just feel empty inside.

Danny Tripp is a crazy stalker. He should be fired. Aaron Sorkin hates women.

The basis for Danny’s character comes from the fact that he’s really, deeply flawed, something all of the people around him are aware of. What makes him interesting is (other than the snappy dialogue) the fact that he’s a complete loser, yet he has to deal with being in love with his boss, becoming a father, and running one of the most famous television shows in the world, a struggle perhaps exemplified best by this exchange:Danny Tripp: You need to trust me on this. Matt Albie: You are? Danny Tripp: Twice divorced Matt Albie: And you have? Danny Tripp: No one special in my life Matt Albie: And you haven’t for? Danny Tripp: Quite some time

The racist shit between Simon Stiles and Darius the New Guy. We’re meant to be on Simon’s side, despite the fact that’s he’s being incredibly offensive in making Darius’ entire identity about that fact that he’s a black guy

I always felt like we were supposed to oppose Simon, actually. It seemed like the show was deliberately making him seem like an entitled prick at every turn, that because he’d made his way out of the hood he felt like he deserved to be assigned importance, despite his level of talent (or lack thereof, he can’t even do the voices). It’s pretty clear that Simon has a serious problem with race, as we see in “The Wrap Party” where he talks to Matt about hiring a black writer. It’s not that he doesn’t think Matt can write for black guys, it’s just about having a black writer on the staff. The overwhelming attitude of the staff has nothing to do with race, though, and Darius certainly transcends stereotypes (though between Darius and 30 Rock’s Toofer, maybe it’s a stereotype unto itself). While I fucking love 30 Rock (I have some problems with it that I might elaborate on at some point), Studio 60 will always be the more important show to me. “Everyone shut up, shut up Lutz” and “Cranston, why are you crying” are hilarious, but are swept aside by countless bites of witty banter between Danny and Matt, dialogue I still quote, to confused looks, years after its cancellation. I like the way the characters discuss real world issues, it’s believable to me because that’s how intelligent people converse, about important things, especially when those people work on a show that’s job is to parody and highlight those issues. I like that the characters feel like real people. I like that Matthew Perry was on TV again. And I like that the show is like its characters: Faulted, flawed, but nevertheless, brilliant. You need to trust me on this.

I. Am. Eating. It.

Chuck Klosterman once echoed the sentiment that it’s much more difficult to write about why you like something than writing about why you hate it. As I’m clearly very familiar with writing about things I hate, I’ve found it very difficult to write a compelling essay about how much I like Aaron Sorkin’s meta-drama Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. Studio 60 launched at the same time as 30 Rock, without the backing of NBC nor Lorne Michaels. On the back foot from the start, Aaron Sorkin did his best to present interesting characters against the backdrop of a late-night sketch comedy show. Though Studio 60 and its rival bore a similar premise, the similarities were quite superficial. One was a screwball comedy, and the other tried and succeeded to strike a chord by exploring the tension and relationships of sketch comedians. As the underdog, it was not without its detractors, and earlier today, Avery clarified for me her stance on the show with some specific critique. I’ll now reduce her articulate comments to make her argument seem less coherent, and more like the ramblings of a complete psychopath because she doesn’t like the same cancelled television shows as me!

  • The sketches in the show-within-a-show are not funny. At all.


I don’t disagree, but I think there’s a purpose. The boorish, blunt humour in the sketches is very evocative of modern-day Saturday Night Live, which has evaded hilarity quite skillfully for some time. The best you can hope for in SNL is an idea that’s clever rather than funny, and even then you have to wade through copious amounts of attempted comedy. I’m trying not to insult your intelligence by being trite and arguing that every fault the show has could be passed off as a commentary on the current state of comedy, but this fault, at least, is. I know because I get the same feeling from watching Studio 60’s sketches as I do watching SNL sketches: I know this is intended to be funny, I should be laughing, I just feel empty inside.

  • Danny Tripp is a crazy stalker. He should be fired. Aaron Sorkin hates women.


The basis for Danny’s character comes from the fact that he’s really, deeply flawed, something all of the people around him are aware of. What makes him interesting is (other than the snappy dialogue) the fact that he’s a complete loser, yet he has to deal with being in love with his boss, becoming a father, and running one of the most famous television shows in the world, a struggle perhaps exemplified best by this exchange:

Danny Tripp: You need to trust me on this.
Matt Albie: You are?
Danny Tripp: Twice divorced
Matt Albie: And you have?
Danny Tripp: No one special in my life
Matt Albie: And you haven’t for?
Danny Tripp: Quite some time

  • The racist shit between Simon Stiles and Darius the New Guy. We’re meant to be on Simon’s side, despite the fact that’s he’s being incredibly offensive in making Darius’ entire identity about that fact that he’s a black guy


I always felt like we were supposed to oppose Simon, actually. It seemed like the show was deliberately making him seem like an entitled prick at every turn, that because he’d made his way out of the hood he felt like he deserved to be assigned importance, despite his level of talent (or lack thereof, he can’t even do the voices). It’s pretty clear that Simon has a serious problem with race, as we see in “The Wrap Party” where he talks to Matt about hiring a black writer. It’s not that he doesn’t think Matt can write for black guys, it’s just about having a black writer on the staff. The overwhelming attitude of the staff has nothing to do with race, though, and Darius certainly transcends stereotypes (though between Darius and 30 Rock’s Toofer, maybe it’s a stereotype unto itself).

While I fucking love 30 Rock (I have some problems with it that I might elaborate on at some point), Studio 60 will always be the more important show to me. “Everyone shut up, shut up Lutz” and “Cranston, why are you crying” are hilarious, but are swept aside by countless bites of witty banter between Danny and Matt, dialogue I still quote, to confused looks, years after its cancellation. I like the way the characters discuss real world issues, it’s believable to me because that’s how intelligent people converse, about important things, especially when those people work on a show that’s job is to parody and highlight those issues. I like that the characters feel like real people. I like that Matthew Perry was on TV again. And I like that the show is like its characters: Faulted, flawed, but nevertheless, brilliant. You need to trust me on this.

Wednesday January 27, 2010 at 14:55

Indie Bros and Drunken Hoes: A big day at the Big Day Out

The Prelude
“Check out that dude’s shirt” “Which one?” “The black one” “Nice. Have you heard that album?” “No, no I haven’t” “It’s more raw than their later stuff, so, y’know”.

Calum and I rested below the sloped roof of a large white tent, rapidly consuming alcohol for maximum efficiency. The bag checking at the entrance was disappointingly lax and looking at our meager supplies, we wished we’d brought more.
The tent provided a vantage point for low-cut shirts, breasts attempting to escape the warmth of cloth, as well as well as several unique images, such as this one:



It gave us ample time to prepare the energy needed for the coming events.



Jake And The Giant Orange
British rockers Kasabian initially piqued my interest through the guitarist’s friendship with Noel Fielding. For half of the set, I rested upon the broad, sturdy shoulders of Calum, well above the peasants with their views mired by heads, hands, and other like-minded individuals taking advantage of their friend’s hospitality. Sergio Pizzorno, the aforementioned guitarist, looked fabulous, though he paled to the concert guitarist, who looked like the lost Gallagher brother. The energy in the crowd was awesome, everybody jumped up and down, shouting lyrics, and more than made up for frontman Tom Meighan’s boring stage performance. Why isn’t there a school for frontmen, or some sort of course?



An Early Perdendo
Calum was not pleased with Girl Talk, and neither was I, which is why I didn’t feel as bad as I should that he mocked it for the rest of the day after I’d hyped it constantly. Beyond the first few rows was an impenetrable wall of people standing statuesque, barely moving to Gillis’ remixes, which barred me access to the fun zone. Eventually I realised I couldn’t blame them. Between playing some of the weaker mixes from Feed The Animals and some average tracks I hadn’t heard before, it wasn’t a very good set. The artist I’d come to see had been a huge let down, reinforcing once again the need to abandon expectations. Did he have a sideshow? I should’ve gone, I get the feeling his sets work much better in smaller, enclosed spaces. The disappointment continued with a boring set from The Horrors, another band I had high hopes for. Faris Badwan wore a hawaiian shirt under a leather jacket, and somehow it looked great.



Rising Again
I decided to rejoin the party at the Green Stage, where my friends were watching Rise Against. I’d discovered Rise Against about a year before they’d started listening to them, so I was well past the stage of infatuation and thus didn’t feel any great need to see them live, though my hairdresser insisted they had an incredible live show. She was not wrong. The energy in the crowd was almost tangible. Tim McIlrrath seemed personally invested in making sure each crowd member was having an incredible (safe!) time. This was followed by Devendra Banhart, who did much the same, butchering his own songs for comedic effect. It was a bold move that I don’t think many musicians could pull off, but it put a huge grin on the faces of everybody there. I don’t know why nobody laughed when he said “We’re from Los Angeles and this is a song about San Francisco”, I thought it was funny. Probably why we’re such good soulmates.



Interlude
After Devendra Banhart, I met with Arran and some of the others and we sat on the hill near Jet talking about the day so far, taking a respite from the constant mobility. While there, I saw this:



The guy thanked me for boosting his ego. Half an hour later, we were heading over to the Blue Stage for the most highly anticipated performance of the festival.



Muse
Bright lights lit up the sky as they launched into their opener, “Uprising”. It took about a minute and a half for me to tire of them: Matt Bellamy formed a triangle with his fingers and put it over his left eye, making reference to the infamous Illuminati Eye. As the crowd pumped their fists in unison chanting blatantly anti-establishment lyrics, I wondered if any of them were as passionate about the revolution as Muse intended. I turned on the spot and found the real show: Behind the crowd, a cloaked figure had climbed onto the roof of a large tent and was running about, dodging the bottles of those below. Somebody was kind enough to donate a chair to his effort, allowing him to sit on the roof and enjoy Muse. It wasn’t long before the festival’s goon squad, like orange-vested KGB, mounted the tent in pursuit. What followed was comical for all but the members of security, who slipped and slid on the canvas roof while their target deftly evaded them, eventually sliding off the roof to take refuge amongst his sympathisers below.



Homeward Bound On The Frankston Line
Having had enough of Muse, Calum and I made our way to the train for an early ride home. We were under the impression the day’s excitement was over. How wrong we were.
It wasn’t at Flinders, but maybe Richmond, when three drunken strangers entered our carriage and sat opposite us, one far more intoxicated than the others. James, the loutish Liverpoolian, his wife, and their friend Casey or Kaley or something. James insisted we call him Jim, which seemed appropriate because his wife looked like something out of The Dark Crystal. She swore she recognised us after revealing she was a year older and had gone to the same high school, but I’m sure I’d recognise such an offensive looking person. Or maybe not.
After having Kaley, whose head rested in Wifey’s lap, narrowly miss me with the contents of her stomach (through no kind intention on her part, frankly I was surprised she wasn’t comatose by the way she looked), I spent most of our time with them attempting to assure the care-taking couple that I wasn’t bothered, and placating the rowdy Jim. As he alternated between proclaiming the cowardice of Australian men in romantic endeavours, asking people whether they followed the football (and making several apparently hilarious jabs at Manchester United), and telling his wife that he loved her, I wondered if it were possible to manipulate my reality through sheer force of will. Alas, it seemed I lacked the necessary knowledge, as no matter how tight my eyes were scrunched, whenever I opened my lids the trespassers on my sensibility were still there.
Wifey spent most of the train ride attempting to convince Jim to help her bring Kaley back to their home to spend the night, an idea I secretly supported as it seemed unwise to turn the clearly dependent young girl out on her own. Despicably, however, this is exactly what they did. They carried her out of the train, left her at her station, jumped back in the train and watched her stumble along the platform into the darkness. I doubt she made it home. It was an excellent reminder of how fortunate I am to have such beautiful friends. Luckier than the poor Kaley, we made it home safely, dropped off by Calum’s effervescent girlfriend Ella. I couldn’t wait to rest these weary limbs.

2010: It was the best Australia Day ever.

Monday January 25, 2010 at 13:40

PatriotismI believe respect should be earned, and Australian culture has done nothing to earn my respect. I consider myself very lucky that I inhabit a country with such excellent living conditions, but I’ve never felt a particular affiliation to Australia. The ads on TV that use terminology like “Un-Australian” disgust me, and some of the views considered “Australian” are those of intolerance. I’m not a vegetarian, but I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard vegetarians, for example, mocked as unpatriotic over the past couple weeks in the lead up to Australia Day. That disappoints me. When I see what it means to be Australian, all I feel is shame that I might be associated with these people by the international community. Footage on the news showing people gearing up for Australia Day, who scream and shout at the camera, poking their tongues out as far as possible, acting like animals, makes me afraid that what it means to be Australian is to be a complete moron. I’ve become so jaded to the news stories about cars full of kids being killed by drunk driving, because binge drinking is such an ingrained part of our national identity that it happens so often. We’re one of the most multicultural countries on the planet, and yet atrocities like the Cronulla riots still occur, crimes committed by people who considered themselves true blue Aussies represented by their donning of Australian flag capes, like racist vigilantes. The most patriotic Australians that I’ve met slur their words, make homophobic jokes, and are unnecessarily aggressive, like beasts. If that is what it is to be Australian, I’m not interested.There are no enviable traits of Australianism. It’s basically analogous to the redneck culture of Midwestern America, one of the most disliked groups in the Western world, and yet we celebrate it. Celebrate? Australianism deserves to be mocked and parodied mercilessly for promoting unity through stupidity.Some final food for thought: Asking friends what they thought it meant to be Australian, two predominant answers emerged.

In an ideal world, our multiculturalism would lead to a greater level of acceptance of other cultures, but the reverse seems to have occurred.


Our country is young, and therefore our culture lacks the depth of much older nations.

Perhaps that second point is worth considering. Maybe in another century, our culture will have refined itself to a unique identity on par with the excellence already found here, albeit in rare quantities. Unfortunately, as it stands, we are all just a bunch of rampaging alcoholic barbarians. See you at the barbecue.
(See Niki’s post for further first-hand disillusionment)

Patriotism

I believe respect should be earned, and Australian culture has done nothing to earn my respect. I consider myself very lucky that I inhabit a country with such excellent living conditions, but I’ve never felt a particular affiliation to Australia. The ads on TV that use terminology like “Un-Australian” disgust me, and some of the views considered “Australian” are those of intolerance. I’m not a vegetarian, but I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard vegetarians, for example, mocked as unpatriotic over the past couple weeks in the lead up to Australia Day. That disappoints me.

When I see what it means to be Australian, all I feel is shame that I might be associated with these people by the international community. Footage on the news showing people gearing up for Australia Day, who scream and shout at the camera, poking their tongues out as far as possible, acting like animals, makes me afraid that what it means to be Australian is to be a complete moron. I’ve become so jaded to the news stories about cars full of kids being killed by drunk driving, because binge drinking is such an ingrained part of our national identity that it happens so often. We’re one of the most multicultural countries on the planet, and yet atrocities like the Cronulla riots still occur, crimes committed by people who considered themselves true blue Aussies represented by their donning of Australian flag capes, like racist vigilantes. The most patriotic Australians that I’ve met slur their words, make homophobic jokes, and are unnecessarily aggressive, like beasts. If that is what it is to be Australian, I’m not interested.

There are no enviable traits of Australianism. It’s basically analogous to the redneck culture of Midwestern America, one of the most disliked groups in the Western world, and yet we celebrate it. Celebrate? Australianism deserves to be mocked and parodied mercilessly for promoting unity through stupidity.

Some final food for thought: Asking friends what they thought it meant to be Australian, two predominant answers emerged.

  • In an ideal world, our multiculturalism would lead to a greater level of acceptance of other cultures, but the reverse seems to have occurred.
  • Our country is young, and therefore our culture lacks the depth of much older nations.

Perhaps that second point is worth considering. Maybe in another century, our culture will have refined itself to a unique identity on par with the excellence already found here, albeit in rare quantities. Unfortunately, as it stands, we are all just a bunch of rampaging alcoholic barbarians. See you at the barbecue.

(See Niki’s post for further first-hand disillusionment)

Friday January 22, 2010 at 8:00

Sexy AddictionAfter reading Russell Brand’s autobiography, I’ve been thinking a lot about sex addiction. Ever since I heard the term years ago, I’ve never questioned its legitimacy, but recently I’ve found that a lot of people, including sexologists, are skeptical about its existence. This evening I was occupying my time with the anti-intellectual crusaders that are the hosts of The 7PM Project when they broached this very subject. The show’s “resident medico”, slang for pretend doctor apparently, stated that sex addiction was not real. Why?In defending the existence of his own sexy disorder, Brand defines an addiction thusly: 
“[It] is a compulsive behaviour that you cannot control or relinquish, in spite of its destructive consequences”

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (or DSM-IV, the psychologists bible), that is not an incorrect definition, though it is narrow. However, many believe that the behaviour Brand refers to is actually a form of obsessive-compulsive disorder and refer to it as “sexual compulsivity”. In rebuttal, Patrick Carnes, a doctor from Mississippi, adapted the DSM-IV criteria for substance dependence to demonstrate the plausibility of sex addiction. Looking at the criteria, the main difference between the arguments for addiction and those for obsessive-compulsive disorder is the need to increase the intensity of the behaviour to achieve the desired effect. Therefore it seems logical that there are sufferers of either. I think our understanding, or at least our beliefs, of addiction are incredibly narrow if they can only be applied to drugs and alcohol. Why stop there? Why can’t people be addicted to sex? In what way is it different to drug addiction? These are not rhetorical questions, my friends, and I’d very much like to hear other opinions.
Because if somebody doesn’t validate sex addiction soon, I’m gonna have real problems to deal with.
UPDATE: This anonymous post on Deadspin from a sex addict is pretty interesting.

Sexy Addiction

After reading Russell Brand’s autobiography, I’ve been thinking a lot about sex addiction. Ever since I heard the term years ago, I’ve never questioned its legitimacy, but recently I’ve found that a lot of people, including sexologists, are skeptical about its existence. This evening I was occupying my time with the anti-intellectual crusaders that are the hosts of The 7PM Project when they broached this very subject. The show’s “resident medico”, slang for pretend doctor apparently, stated that sex addiction was not real. Why?

In defending the existence of his own sexy disorder, Brand defines an addiction thusly:

“[It] is a compulsive behaviour that you cannot control or relinquish, in spite of its destructive consequences”


According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (or DSM-IV, the psychologists bible), that is not an incorrect definition, though it is narrow. However, many believe that the behaviour Brand refers to is actually a form of obsessive-compulsive disorder and refer to it as “sexual compulsivity”. In rebuttal, Patrick Carnes, a doctor from Mississippi, adapted the DSM-IV criteria for substance dependence to demonstrate the plausibility of sex addiction.

Looking at the criteria, the main difference between the arguments for addiction and those for obsessive-compulsive disorder is the need to increase the intensity of the behaviour to achieve the desired effect. Therefore it seems logical that there are sufferers of either.

I think our understanding, or at least our beliefs, of addiction are incredibly narrow if they can only be applied to drugs and alcohol. Why stop there? Why can’t people be addicted to sex? In what way is it different to drug addiction? These are not rhetorical questions, my friends, and I’d very much like to hear other opinions.

Because if somebody doesn’t validate sex addiction soon, I’m gonna have real problems to deal with.

UPDATE: This anonymous post on Deadspin from a sex addict is pretty interesting.

Saturday December 12, 2009 at 9:34

Fuck Yeah Fuck Yeah BlogsEarlier today, I was reading Public School Intelligentsia (which I just discovered, pretty good right?), specifically this post from June about Fuck Yeah blogs. While it concludes with a begrudging acceptance of the potential, the overall tone is “Fuck Yeah blogs suck”. This is not a particularly controversial stance and seems to be the prevailing opinion in the Tumblr community. Dear everyone: Quit your bitching, Fuck Yeah blogs are fucking great. This post is not strictly a response to that post, because it made some good points that I don’t disagree with, but I think the consensus that Fuck Yeah = Fuck No is knee-jerk contrarian bullshit. Off the top of my head, I can count seven that I follow. I like the knowledge that whatever I’m obsessing over has a hub that I can read without having to go out of my way to find pictures of Noel Fielding in his polka-dot leggings strutting around Camden (for example). I like that instead of having to sift through Google Alerts, with which my experience has been soured by a tide of shit, to read/watch interviews with Yeezy, there’s a Tumblr looking after my interests. It’s like watching a television channel, like ESPN: Passive indulgence about a particular subject. This is not a new concept. Fan sites have been going since the birth of the web (Whedonesque, in particular, is still going strong). Only, now that they all have “Fuck Yeah” in the title, they’re somehow objectionable. Man, it really sucks that all I have to do is type in “Fuck Yeah [Whatever]” to find a blog about something I like! Shame on you, internet!My only quibble is that the Fuck Yeah blogs I know of aren’t doing enough, and perhaps a more accurate title for some of them would just be “Fuck Yeah Pictures Of So-And-So” (though, as mentioned before, Fuck Yeah Kanye West is an exception). If you’re going to take up the URL (aside: still fuming that “bronerparty” is taken), do as much as you can with it or pass it to someone else. Go take a look at how Whedonesque is done, then add your photos. That’s what I want from a Fuck Yeah blog. Until that halcyon day, I’ll be over here in my corner, obsessing over Noel Fielding’s little red boots.(Photo via tumblrmemeclub)

Fuck Yeah Fuck Yeah Blogs

Earlier today, I was reading Public School Intelligentsia (which I just discovered, pretty good right?), specifically this post from June about Fuck Yeah blogs. While it concludes with a begrudging acceptance of the potential, the overall tone is “Fuck Yeah blogs suck”. This is not a particularly controversial stance and seems to be the prevailing opinion in the Tumblr community. Dear everyone: Quit your bitching, Fuck Yeah blogs are fucking great.

This post is not strictly a response to that post, because it made some good points that I don’t disagree with, but I think the consensus that Fuck Yeah = Fuck No is knee-jerk contrarian bullshit. Off the top of my head, I can count seven that I follow. I like the knowledge that whatever I’m obsessing over has a hub that I can read without having to go out of my way to find pictures of Noel Fielding in his polka-dot leggings strutting around Camden (for example). I like that instead of having to sift through Google Alerts, with which my experience has been soured by a tide of shit, to read/watch interviews with Yeezy, there’s a Tumblr looking after my interests. It’s like watching a television channel, like ESPN: Passive indulgence about a particular subject.

This is not a new concept. Fan sites have been going since the birth of the web (Whedonesque, in particular, is still going strong). Only, now that they all have “Fuck Yeah” in the title, they’re somehow objectionable. Man, it really sucks that all I have to do is type in “Fuck Yeah [Whatever]” to find a blog about something I like! Shame on you, internet!

My only quibble is that the Fuck Yeah blogs I know of aren’t doing enough, and perhaps a more accurate title for some of them would just be “Fuck Yeah Pictures Of So-And-So” (though, as mentioned before, Fuck Yeah Kanye West is an exception). If you’re going to take up the URL (aside: still fuming that “bronerparty” is taken), do as much as you can with it or pass it to someone else. Go take a look at how Whedonesque is done, then add your photos. That’s what I want from a Fuck Yeah blog. Until that halcyon day, I’ll be over here in my corner, obsessing over Noel Fielding’s little red boots.

(Photo via tumblrmemeclub)

Tuesday November 17, 2009 at 5:01

Born For Shangri-LAI would make the best celebrity. There’s no question that there are plenty of people undeserving of their success and recognition, and I’d like to explain why, regardless of merit, I’d be an admirable celebrity.a) I’ve already structured my first Letterman appearance. It begins with me giving him a hug much like a grandson to a grandfather, progresses to me being very charming and charismatic, yet very respectful of him and his stature.b) Got part of my SNL monologue sorted. The opening line is “People always come on here and say ‘It’s been my dream to host Saturday Night Live’. Well, I never dreamed about appearing on Saturday Night Live. I always dreamed about driving monster trucks and having sword-fights with Leonard Nimoy.”c) The title of my autobiography is done and dusted (like a book’s dust jacket, right? Such wit will be contained within the book itself, so make a note to buy it).d) Costumes. So many celebrities put on glasses and a hat and think they’ll be incognito in public. WRONG! I will obscure my visage with elaborate costumes. Not unique costumes, mind you. What am I, Lady Gaga? No, I have much more class than that. My list of costumes ranges from “Santa Claus” to “Brett Favre” to “Photographer”. The last one is particularly brilliant, I think. What paparazzi is going to assume someone walking around with a camera is a celebrity?e) One foible of mine is that I physically cannot bring myself to go outside without a solid fifteen minutes of preparation. Celebrities are vocal about their distaste for getting photographed while just ducking down the shops for some groceries. I’ll never feel that way, because I can’t even leave the house without looking my best. There was one day a few weeks ago, though, where I stepped out of the house with my high school graduation jumper on. Pretty lame, right? WRONG! What does the name on the back, in big block letters, say? “And Amir”. That’s right, my outfit was a pop culture reference. Isn’t that just the fucking post-modern-est?Clearly I have the roots of Heche-like insanity, and you’d be even crazier to miss out on this golden opportunity. Talent agencies, you can email me here.

Born For Shangri-LA

I would make the best celebrity. There’s no question that there are plenty of people undeserving of their success and recognition, and I’d like to explain why, regardless of merit, I’d be an admirable celebrity.

a) I’ve already structured my first Letterman appearance. It begins with me giving him a hug much like a grandson to a grandfather, progresses to me being very charming and charismatic, yet very respectful of him and his stature.

b) Got part of my SNL monologue sorted. The opening line is “People always come on here and say ‘It’s been my dream to host Saturday Night Live’. Well, I never dreamed about appearing on Saturday Night Live. I always dreamed about driving monster trucks and having sword-fights with Leonard Nimoy.”

c) The title of my autobiography is done and dusted (like a book’s dust jacket, right? Such wit will be contained within the book itself, so make a note to buy it).

d) Costumes. So many celebrities put on glasses and a hat and think they’ll be incognito in public. WRONG! I will obscure my visage with elaborate costumes. Not unique costumes, mind you. What am I, Lady Gaga? No, I have much more class than that. My list of costumes ranges from “Santa Claus” to “Brett Favre” to “Photographer”. The last one is particularly brilliant, I think. What paparazzi is going to assume someone walking around with a camera is a celebrity?

e) One foible of mine is that I physically cannot bring myself to go outside without a solid fifteen minutes of preparation. Celebrities are vocal about their distaste for getting photographed while just ducking down the shops for some groceries. I’ll never feel that way, because I can’t even leave the house without looking my best. There was one day a few weeks ago, though, where I stepped out of the house with my high school graduation jumper on. Pretty lame, right? WRONG! What does the name on the back, in big block letters, say? “And Amir”. That’s right, my outfit was a pop culture reference. Isn’t that just the fucking post-modern-est?

Clearly I have the roots of Heche-like insanity, and you’d be even crazier to miss out on this golden opportunity. Talent agencies, you can email me here.

Monday November 09, 2009 at 13:42

He used a lot of words, like nouns, and verbs.
I’ve been thinking about a post Tyler made a few days ago - On “Homophobia” - about the word “homophobia” not meaning what it actually says. It was a nice little post, and I don’t think it was particularly intended to provoke thought, however that didn’t stop me. English is a very fluid language: We have plenty of phrases that don’t mean what they actually say. “Bathroom” for instance. Bathrooms rarely contain baths anymore (even more rarely with the prominence of showers). Actually, when people ask “Where’s the bathroom?”, more often than not they’re referring to the toilet. Obviously this is a matter of irrational shame, something I could write paragraphs about another time. With this in mind, doesn’t that make it hypocritical of me to be so adamantly against this shift towards “fag” as a synonym for “idiot”? To deny the linguistic fluidity that I just tried to champion? I don’t think so. The other day I linked “faggot” and “nigger”, a tie I believe is highly appropriate. The two phrases are steeped in similar history, and while gays may never have been enslaved (just stoned or gassed to death), they face the second-class citizenry that black people do as well (though we have yet to see an openly gay President). The people who use “fag” or “gay” interchangeably with “idiot” or “shit” but gasp when others call black people “niggers” are filthy hypocrites, and disgust me. Sure, “gay” used to mean happy. This is not an adequate defence. In fact, I find it amusing that a term that originally meant “happy” is not used as a pejorative. That’s where linguistic fluidity has gotten us.The sooner we come to agreement that Gay Is Not A Synonym For Shit and “nigger” isn’t a synonym for someone who got “hella tanned” on the weekend, the better off we’ll be as a society. Hey, maybe we can even move on to solving far more important issues, like allowing gays the basic right to choose to marry.
(Photo stolen via Flickr)

He used a lot of words, like nouns, and verbs.

I’ve been thinking about a post Tyler made a few days ago - On “Homophobia” - about the word “homophobia” not meaning what it actually says. It was a nice little post, and I don’t think it was particularly intended to provoke thought, however that didn’t stop me. English is a very fluid language: We have plenty of phrases that don’t mean what they actually say. “Bathroom” for instance. Bathrooms rarely contain baths anymore (even more rarely with the prominence of showers). Actually, when people ask “Where’s the bathroom?”, more often than not they’re referring to the toilet. Obviously this is a matter of irrational shame, something I could write paragraphs about another time.

With this in mind, doesn’t that make it hypocritical of me to be so adamantly against this shift towards “fag” as a synonym for “idiot”? To deny the linguistic fluidity that I just tried to champion? I don’t think so. The other day I linked “faggot” and “nigger”, a tie I believe is highly appropriate. The two phrases are steeped in similar history, and while gays may never have been enslaved (just stoned or gassed to death), they face the second-class citizenry that black people do as well (though we have yet to see an openly gay President). The people who use “fag” or “gay” interchangeably with “idiot” or “shit” but gasp when others call black people “niggers” are filthy hypocrites, and disgust me. Sure, “gay” used to mean happy. This is not an adequate defence. In fact, I find it amusing that a term that originally meant “happy” is not used as a pejorative. That’s where linguistic fluidity has gotten us.

The sooner we come to agreement that Gay Is Not A Synonym For Shit and “nigger” isn’t a synonym for someone who got “hella tanned” on the weekend, the better off we’ll be as a society. Hey, maybe we can even move on to solving far more important issues, like allowing gays the basic right to choose to marry.

(Photo stolen via Flickr)

Friday November 06, 2009 at 5:01

As legwear gets tighter from decade to decade, from 501’s to drainpipes, “meggings” seem to be the next logical step. Of course, like there were (and still are) detractors when guys started wearing skinny jeans, there will be riots in the streets before men can acceptably wear leggings. Either they’ll get taken up as the next step in fashion, or there’ll be a backlash to the androgyny that sees us return to fitted jeans, hairy chests and big beards. Frankly, I’m in a pretty good position to go either way. At least with the lumberjack look, I won’t have to throw out all my plaid.
 I have yet to see valid criticism of men in leggings. Much of it is laden with veiled homophobia, actually. In general, I’ve found homophobics to be quite unfashionable, so I have to question how much importance we can place on such critique. There is the matter of subjective taste, the “guys just don’t look good in leggings”. Listen, I have better-defined legs than most of the girls I know. Sometimes when I sit in the spa, I like to kick my feet up and pretend they belong to those of a particularly sexy woman. Admittedly the body hair interferes with the fantasy, but hopefully you comprehend my point regardless: I have fucking hot legs, and thus, a really good reason to wear leggings.
 There’s no doubt that fashion is cyclical. Guys were wearing leggings back in, what, the 1400s? Just wait, in a few hundred years from now, people will be freaking out about aviator sunglasses and Fidel caps. Personally, I can’t wait until swashbuckler-chic is back in. Finally, I’ll have a reason to don this puffy shirt in public.

As legwear gets tighter from decade to decade, from 501’s to drainpipes, “meggings” seem to be the next logical step. Of course, like there were (and still are) detractors when guys started wearing skinny jeans, there will be riots in the streets before men can acceptably wear leggings. Either they’ll get taken up as the next step in fashion, or there’ll be a backlash to the androgyny that sees us return to fitted jeans, hairy chests and big beards. Frankly, I’m in a pretty good position to go either way. At least with the lumberjack look, I won’t have to throw out all my plaid.


I have yet to see valid criticism of men in leggings. Much of it is laden with veiled homophobia, actually. In general, I’ve found homophobics to be quite unfashionable, so I have to question how much importance we can place on such critique. There is the matter of subjective taste, the “guys just don’t look good in leggings”. Listen, I have better-defined legs than most of the girls I know. Sometimes when I sit in the spa, I like to kick my feet up and pretend they belong to those of a particularly sexy woman. Admittedly the body hair interferes with the fantasy, but hopefully you comprehend my point regardless: I have fucking hot legs, and thus, a really good reason to wear leggings.


There’s no doubt that fashion is cyclical. Guys were wearing leggings back in, what, the 1400s? Just wait, in a few hundred years from now, people will be freaking out about aviator sunglasses and Fidel caps. Personally, I can’t wait until swashbuckler-chic is back in. Finally, I’ll have a reason to don this puffy shirt in public.

Tuesday October 27, 2009 at 6:02

The Mighty Boosh
I remember the first time I watched The Mighty Boosh. I’d just watched the latest episode of Gossip Girl at Arran’s house. I’d heard my friends reference elements from the Boosh sporadically, “peppermint nightmare” this and “alabaster retard” that. Per request, Arran put the first series onto a USB drive for me. I watched every episode that night, instantly enamored by every facet of the show. Dialogue like “First post, the post that hurts the most” and Howard’s cream poetry were so fresh, it blew me away. This is one of two possible reactions to the Boosh. You either love it or hate it. Several weeks later, I showed it to the girl du jour (I don’t remember her name. They come and go, you know what I’m saying). She reacted with revulsion and shock. I imagine showing her 2girls1cup would’ve produced a less outraged reaction. She just couldn’t take it. Among my core group of friends, I seem to be the only one who hasn’t grown out of my Boosh fervor. They still love it, and remember it fondly, and will enthusiastically participate in a lengthy quoting session, but they’ve outgrown an obsession for it. I have a theory that this is because they’re all very well-adjusted people, far more than I, though perhaps that’s over-analysing it. Around the third quarter of 2008, a potent combination of cosmic coincidences forever changed me, and a critical ingredient of this personality potion was The Mighty Boosh. The Shoreditch bitch Vince Noir and his fluttering fashionability spoke to me on a deeply personal level, igniting the inspirational inferno that still greatly influences my style and persona.That may be my favorite paragraph ever, though for all the words it didn’t say much. Coincidental, considering the insubstantiality of its subject. Uhhh… as I was saying…To label it “surreal” is to misunderstand the show. It’s a superficial label; At first it may seem surreal, but a more accurate adjective is “absurdist”. It doesn’t follow the typical rules, and thus the show can go anywhere. The “World of the Mighty Boosh” has its own logic and rules, as any fantasy universe must, but it also contains so many possibilities. Noel sometimes compares it to The Office:
“It’s a great show, but it’s set in an office. Which gives them clear restrictions and limits; it’s just writing about stuff that happens in an office. You can’t have them upside down, or in a horse’s eye.” 

David Hewlett once said that when film-makers have no money, it often makes their work better because they need to be more creative to work around their lack of resources. In the case of the Boosh, their DIY ethic has led to a unique aesthetic. The show has a distinct style that’s immediately recognisable. Another part of its brilliance is that it’s pure escapist entertainment, something increasingly rare. Every writer has something to say these days, and every episode serves as an allegory for the current topics. Whether they’re overtly confronted (like in the molasses-thick opining Boston Legal) or more subtly alluded to, everybody wants their opinions heard. Not the Boosh. When asked what message they’re trying to send, they spend the rest of the interview pondering what their message would be. In the end, Noel settles for making absurd comments and concluding with
“I’m really just trying to make Julian laugh. He’s laughing upside down on the sofa.”.
While that wasn’t his answer to the question, it might as well have been. Their motivation is just to make each other laugh. This insularity can be alienating, and that’s part of what’s awarded them cult-status appeal for so long.
I learned a new word today: anglophile. I might describe myself as such, though I find labeling yourself with such broad terms is generally a bad idea. I grew up on a cultural diet massively influenced by the omnipresent United States. I won’t say that the American entertainment culture is shit; that’s so reductive for something so expansive, and there’s no doubt I like a lot of the things Americans make. I just find British culture so much more interesting. This anglophilia is perhaps an intellectual rebellion, having become tired of America after decades of exposure. When I think about my favorite shows and films, American content features prominently. However, the material I find most inspiring, most influential, are shows like Spaced, Skins, and of course, The Mighty Boosh.This is not a review. I can’t tell you whether you’ll like it or not, it’s too complex to make that judgement. You’ll either get it or you won’t. If you do get it, we’ll probably get along very nicely, and if you don’t… well, we’ll probably still get along, but you’ll find yourself shooting me quizzical looks quite often. You’ll wonder why I check every can of hairspray for “Robert Smith’s Tears” and why I’m awake at 3am thinking about making a collage of Winklepickers. We’ll also probably never sleep together. Look, I can’t help that I sound like the Killeroo when I come. That’s just the profound impact The Mighty Boosh had on me.

The Mighty Boosh

I remember the first time I watched The Mighty Boosh. I’d just watched the latest episode of Gossip Girl at Arran’s house. I’d heard my friends reference elements from the Boosh sporadically, “peppermint nightmare” this and “alabaster retard” that. Per request, Arran put the first series onto a USB drive for me. I watched every episode that night, instantly enamored by every facet of the show. Dialogue like “First post, the post that hurts the most” and Howard’s cream poetry were so fresh, it blew me away. This is one of two possible reactions to the Boosh. You either love it or hate it. Several weeks later, I showed it to the girl du jour (I don’t remember her name. They come and go, you know what I’m saying). She reacted with revulsion and shock. I imagine showing her 2girls1cup would’ve produced a less outraged reaction. She just couldn’t take it.

Among my core group of friends, I seem to be the only one who hasn’t grown out of my Boosh fervor. They still love it, and remember it fondly, and will enthusiastically participate in a lengthy quoting session, but they’ve outgrown an obsession for it. I have a theory that this is because they’re all very well-adjusted people, far more than I, though perhaps that’s over-analysing it. Around the third quarter of 2008, a potent combination of cosmic coincidences forever changed me, and a critical ingredient of this personality potion was The Mighty Boosh. The Shoreditch bitch Vince Noir and his fluttering fashionability spoke to me on a deeply personal level, igniting the inspirational inferno that still greatly influences my style and persona.

That may be my favorite paragraph ever, though for all the words it didn’t say much. Coincidental, considering the insubstantiality of its subject. Uhhh… as I was saying…

To label it “surreal” is to misunderstand the show. It’s a superficial label; At first it may seem surreal, but a more accurate adjective is “absurdist”. It doesn’t follow the typical rules, and thus the show can go anywhere. The “World of the Mighty Boosh” has its own logic and rules, as any fantasy universe must, but it also contains so many possibilities. Noel sometimes compares it to The Office:

“It’s a great show, but it’s set in an office. Which gives them clear restrictions and limits; it’s just writing about stuff that happens in an office. You can’t have them upside down, or in a horse’s eye.”

David Hewlett once said that when film-makers have no money, it often makes their work better because they need to be more creative to work around their lack of resources. In the case of the Boosh, their DIY ethic has led to a unique aesthetic. The show has a distinct style that’s immediately recognisable.

Another part of its brilliance is that it’s pure escapist entertainment, something increasingly rare. Every writer has something to say these days, and every episode serves as an allegory for the current topics. Whether they’re overtly confronted (like in the molasses-thick opining Boston Legal) or more subtly alluded to, everybody wants their opinions heard. Not the Boosh. When asked what message they’re trying to send, they spend the rest of the interview pondering what their message would be. In the end, Noel settles for making absurd comments and concluding with

“I’m really just trying to make Julian laugh. He’s laughing upside down on the sofa.”.

While that wasn’t his answer to the question, it might as well have been. Their motivation is just to make each other laugh. This insularity can be alienating, and that’s part of what’s awarded them cult-status appeal for so long.

I learned a new word today: anglophile. I might describe myself as such, though I find labeling yourself with such broad terms is generally a bad idea. I grew up on a cultural diet massively influenced by the omnipresent United States. I won’t say that the American entertainment culture is shit; that’s so reductive for something so expansive, and there’s no doubt I like a lot of the things Americans make. I just find British culture so much more interesting. This anglophilia is perhaps an intellectual rebellion, having become tired of America after decades of exposure. When I think about my favorite shows and films, American content features prominently. However, the material I find most inspiring, most influential, are shows like Spaced, Skins, and of course, The Mighty Boosh.

This is not a review. I can’t tell you whether you’ll like it or not, it’s too complex to make that judgement. You’ll either get it or you won’t. If you do get it, we’ll probably get along very nicely, and if you don’t… well, we’ll probably still get along, but you’ll find yourself shooting me quizzical looks quite often. You’ll wonder why I check every can of hairspray for “Robert Smith’s Tears” and why I’m awake at 3am thinking about making a collage of Winklepickers. We’ll also probably never sleep together. Look, I can’t help that I sound like the Killeroo when I come. That’s just the profound impact The Mighty Boosh had on me.

Monday October 19, 2009 at 13:01

I’m all caught up, you guys!
The producers of The Hills did an incredibly good job. The way they manipulated the reality of the show through editing. Cutting between a distant look and a character walking away is a great way to make a depressing scene, when really they’re probably just looking at a drinks menu. I’m sure there are a lot of non-chronological shots intended to suit the intention of the plotline the producers have devised. I think this is part of what LC was talking about when discussing her reasons for leaving the show.
Speaking of Lauren, I liked her less and less as the series went on. While it was cute to see her go from clueless-but-motivated intern to a pretty professional, I found myself getting bored with her. She’s like a favorite song I’d listened to 300 times in a row and was ready to forget about for a year. I spent much of the time from series two to series four Ohhing and Awwing over Audrina, until that night with Brody in Hawaii. On that note, just because she’s the single one doesn’t absolve Brody of responsibility. The fact that most of the characters thought it did was fucking insane to me.
Spencer is the most real one, because he’s the most upfront about his fakeness. I nodded profusely when Brody said “You just pretend to be different” after Spencer asked him to the wedding. He’s unapologetic about who he is, and I love that. He made up with Heidi’s Mum, I believe, just to suit his own ends rather than out of any sincerity. That’s what makes him the best character.
Why would Spencer and Heidi get married? I can see why Spencer would: Heidi is easy to manipulate and a source of great enjoyment for him. Fairly typical Svengali behavior. Heidi on the other hand is constantly berated and insulted by Spencer. Girls these days.
Stephanie was at least fairly interesting, and despite being hailed as untrustworthy by everyone, turned out to be the least insidious. In my memory, she lied exactly once: When she told Lauren that Heidi invited herself, when if it wasn’t for Stephanie’s prodding, she probably wouldn’t have gone. Other than that, she always seemed straight-up. She was less bitchy than Lo, less narcissistic than Heidi and less willing to sleep with a dude in a relationshit than Audrina (when she left the club after she found out that White Tie Affair guy had a girlfriend, I cheered a little on the inside). Her real downside is that she has less independence than LC. If it wasn’t for her shocking sensitivity, she’d be MOTL.
What more is there to say? So little happened in this series. I feel bad that my story with these characters has come to an end, but I crave no more. I came out of this show with nothing. No lessons, no new perspective. In fact, I feel like the drama on this show was kind of a rehash of the drama I faced from October ‘08 to April ‘09. Maybe if I’d caught this series a year earlier, I’d be much changed. Fortunately, I can leave this show behind now. It was fun while it lasted.

I’m all caught up, you guys!

The producers of The Hills did an incredibly good job. The way they manipulated the reality of the show through editing. Cutting between a distant look and a character walking away is a great way to make a depressing scene, when really they’re probably just looking at a drinks menu. I’m sure there are a lot of non-chronological shots intended to suit the intention of the plotline the producers have devised. I think this is part of what LC was talking about when discussing her reasons for leaving the show.

Speaking of Lauren, I liked her less and less as the series went on. While it was cute to see her go from clueless-but-motivated intern to a pretty professional, I found myself getting bored with her. She’s like a favorite song I’d listened to 300 times in a row and was ready to forget about for a year. I spent much of the time from series two to series four Ohhing and Awwing over Audrina, until that night with Brody in Hawaii. On that note, just because she’s the single one doesn’t absolve Brody of responsibility. The fact that most of the characters thought it did was fucking insane to me.

Spencer is the most real one, because he’s the most upfront about his fakeness. I nodded profusely when Brody said “You just pretend to be different” after Spencer asked him to the wedding. He’s unapologetic about who he is, and I love that. He made up with Heidi’s Mum, I believe, just to suit his own ends rather than out of any sincerity. That’s what makes him the best character.

Why would Spencer and Heidi get married? I can see why Spencer would: Heidi is easy to manipulate and a source of great enjoyment for him. Fairly typical Svengali behavior. Heidi on the other hand is constantly berated and insulted by Spencer. Girls these days.

Stephanie was at least fairly interesting, and despite being hailed as untrustworthy by everyone, turned out to be the least insidious. In my memory, she lied exactly once: When she told Lauren that Heidi invited herself, when if it wasn’t for Stephanie’s prodding, she probably wouldn’t have gone. Other than that, she always seemed straight-up. She was less bitchy than Lo, less narcissistic than Heidi and less willing to sleep with a dude in a relationshit than Audrina (when she left the club after she found out that White Tie Affair guy had a girlfriend, I cheered a little on the inside). Her real downside is that she has less independence than LC. If it wasn’t for her shocking sensitivity, she’d be MOTL.

What more is there to say? So little happened in this series. I feel bad that my story with these characters has come to an end, but I crave no more. I came out of this show with nothing. No lessons, no new perspective. In fact, I feel like the drama on this show was kind of a rehash of the drama I faced from October ‘08 to April ‘09. Maybe if I’d caught this series a year earlier, I’d be much changed. Fortunately, I can leave this show behind now. It was fun while it lasted.

Wednesday October 07, 2009 at 7:02

The World’s Oldest Profession Has A Modern MistressJustine Ezarik, alias “iJustine”, is the internet. Or so she claims. Al Gore would be rolling in his grave, were he dead. What’s he doing these days?iJustine is a figure I’ve struggled with over the years. She inexplicably inspires such conflict in me. Let me first get something out of the way: She is not dumb. iJustine is brilliant, and to believe she isn’t more calculating than Speidi is to vastly underestimate her. That said, there are plenty of brilliant strangers who we reserve great dislike for. Justine is hot. That’s her primary selling point. She isn’t particularly insightful or witty, but she knows that she’s attractive. This is what the slobbering troglodytes tune in for (to say nothing of the non-slobbering kind). I mean, doesn’t she just look exactly like that valley girl we all had a crush on while simultaneously wanting to punch in her heavily made-up face? I think they call this “hate-fucking”. Famous, opinionated blondes seem to be no stranger to this phenomenon, so maybe it’s becoming a stereotype, though perhaps that’s best left to the social scientists to figure out. I digress. This attractiveness combined with her accessibility is not a new formula: I think you’ll find the girls of The Hills attempting to parlay this exact thing into lasting careers. The Hills is a very fitting analogy, because in nature, Justine is the LC of the blogosphere. Instead of a camera crew following her around, she does it herself. With a Flip camera glued to her hand (other cameras are available), her life is a reality show, every minute streamed online. “Look at her, using the Twitter and the Flickr! She’s just like us!” goes the rallying cry of her bedroom-dwelling acolytes. Her obsession with Apple is another selling point. Even in her nom de plume, this obsession is proclaimed: iJustine. That lowercase letter her favorite company is so fond of using. It’s no coincidence that she found fame shortly after Apple did. They rode to chic after the debut of the iPod, becoming the Kleenex or Xerox of MP3 players, and the bodacious blonde became the figurehead of this new movement, latching onto Apple’s success. She appeared in Mac related media like MacBreak Weekly, always had an iPod glued to her ears, was one of the first in line for both iPhones and publicized getting that 300 page phone bill. As ‘Obama girl’ is to Obama, so is she ‘Apple girl’ to Apple. As Obama is to Change, iJustine is to the hipness of the Mac cult. Though, between valley girls and coffee-shop-lurking hipsters, how much longer will this hipness last? Will she fade with it as quickly as she rose? No, she’ll endure. She’s attached herself to plenty of other companies. Without going so far as to say “shill”, her image is also associated with (to name a couple) Twitter, where she has nearly 800,000 followers, and Facebook, where she had to ask Facebook to increase her friend limit after reaching the 5000 friend limit numerous times over. She’s made sure to entwine herself with every brand that could remotely be viewed as “cool”This Wired article from April 2008 did a brief profile of Justine. A phenomenally interesting person, she can “bark like a dog” and “the first website she ever visited was Nintendo.com” Put your criticisms to bed, philistines! Internet celebrities are just as fascinating as real ones! Part of my rage is probably xenophobia. I don’t like that people label her as a “geek” or “nerd”. It used to mean something, man! Once when Bill Gates was asked if he considered himself a nerd, he replied “I don’t think I can be officially considered a nerd. I’ve never worn a pocket protector”. Not only that, but she is clearly not a geek or nerd. She might be good at selling herself, but I’ve never seen her do anything that displays exceptional technical proficiency.To clarify, my gripe isn’t that you can’t be a nerd if you’re attractive. As proof, I offer Amanda Congdon. Amanda has appeared in countless “Hottest Bloggers” lists. She also graduated magna cum laude from Northwestern University before achieving popularity as an anchor on Rocketboom, where her offbeat quirkiness and charisma attracted hundreds of thousands of viewers. She’s currently working on Sometimesdaily, which you really need to watch. iJustine has… what? Oh. Dancing to Mmmbop in an Apple Store. Getting a giant phone bill. Moving her eyes to the beat of Shutup And Let Me Go.Also, she was Team Taylor.I have no doubt that Justine’s a genuinely nice person. I’m happy for her success, honestly. At the very least, she’s shown that there’s room for someone to be an icon on the web like in more traditional media. Ultimately, like many things, it’s a matter of difference in taste. I don’t find her at all interesting, and I make it a point to avoid vapid girls despite how cute they may be. Just don’t send me her links. I have no use for iJustine.

The World’s Oldest Profession Has A Modern Mistress

Justine Ezarik, alias “iJustine”, is the internet. Or so she claims. Al Gore would be rolling in his grave, were he dead. What’s he doing these days?

iJustine is a figure I’ve struggled with over the years. She inexplicably inspires such conflict in me. Let me first get something out of the way: She is not dumb. iJustine is brilliant, and to believe she isn’t more calculating than Speidi is to vastly underestimate her. That said, there are plenty of brilliant strangers who we reserve great dislike for.

Justine is hot. That’s her primary selling point. She isn’t particularly insightful or witty, but she knows that she’s attractive. This is what the slobbering troglodytes tune in for (to say nothing of the non-slobbering kind). I mean, doesn’t she just look exactly like that valley girl we all had a crush on while simultaneously wanting to punch in her heavily made-up face? I think they call this “hate-fucking”. Famous, opinionated blondes seem to be no stranger to this phenomenon, so maybe it’s becoming a stereotype, though perhaps that’s best left to the social scientists to figure out. I digress. This attractiveness combined with her accessibility is not a new formula: I think you’ll find the girls of The Hills attempting to parlay this exact thing into lasting careers. The Hills is a very fitting analogy, because in nature, Justine is the LC of the blogosphere. Instead of a camera crew following her around, she does it herself. With a Flip camera glued to her hand (other cameras are available), her life is a reality show, every minute streamed online. “Look at her, using the Twitter and the Flickr! She’s just like us!” goes the rallying cry of her bedroom-dwelling acolytes.

Her obsession with Apple is another selling point. Even in her nom de plume, this obsession is proclaimed: iJustine. That lowercase letter her favorite company is so fond of using. It’s no coincidence that she found fame shortly after Apple did. They rode to chic after the debut of the iPod, becoming the Kleenex or Xerox of MP3 players, and the bodacious blonde became the figurehead of this new movement, latching onto Apple’s success. She appeared in Mac related media like MacBreak Weekly, always had an iPod glued to her ears, was one of the first in line for both iPhones and publicized getting that 300 page phone bill. As ‘Obama girl’ is to Obama, so is she ‘Apple girl’ to Apple. As Obama is to Change, iJustine is to the hipness of the Mac cult. Though, between valley girls and coffee-shop-lurking hipsters, how much longer will this hipness last? Will she fade with it as quickly as she rose? No, she’ll endure. She’s attached herself to plenty of other companies. Without going so far as to say “shill”, her image is also associated with (to name a couple) Twitter, where she has nearly 800,000 followers, and Facebook, where she had to ask Facebook to increase her friend limit after reaching the 5000 friend limit numerous times over. She’s made sure to entwine herself with every brand that could remotely be viewed as “cool”

This Wired article from April 2008 did a brief profile of Justine. A phenomenally interesting person, she can “bark like a dog” and “the first website she ever visited was Nintendo.com” Put your criticisms to bed, philistines! Internet celebrities are just as fascinating as real ones! Part of my rage is probably xenophobia. I don’t like that people label her as a “geek” or “nerd”. It used to mean something, man! Once when Bill Gates was asked if he considered himself a nerd, he replied “I don’t think I can be officially considered a nerd. I’ve never worn a pocket protector”. Not only that, but she is clearly not a geek or nerd. She might be good at selling herself, but I’ve never seen her do anything that displays exceptional technical proficiency.

To clarify, my gripe isn’t that you can’t be a nerd if you’re attractive. As proof, I offer Amanda Congdon. Amanda has appeared in countless “Hottest Bloggers” lists. She also graduated magna cum laude from Northwestern University before achieving popularity as an anchor on Rocketboom, where her offbeat quirkiness and charisma attracted hundreds of thousands of viewers. She’s currently working on Sometimesdaily, which you really need to watch.

iJustine has… what? Oh. Dancing to Mmmbop in an Apple Store. Getting a giant phone bill. Moving her eyes to the beat of Shutup And Let Me Go.

Also, she was Team Taylor.

I have no doubt that Justine’s a genuinely nice person. I’m happy for her success, honestly. At the very least, she’s shown that there’s room for someone to be an icon on the web like in more traditional media. Ultimately, like many things, it’s a matter of difference in taste. I don’t find her at all interesting, and I make it a point to avoid vapid girls despite how cute they may be. Just don’t send me her links. I have no use for iJustine.

Saturday September 12, 2009 at 6:05

False Idols, Bone Idles
If you’ve been paying any amount of attention to the continuity of this blog, or the narrative of my life lately, you might’ve noticed that I have what I call “People Nights”, where I spend the whole night enthralled by a single person, googling and Wiki’ing and reading and watching. Yesterday it was Richard Ayoade (and then we got into Jonze and Gondry towards the end), a couple days ago it was Chuck Lorre, and so on. Tonight it’s one of You.I’m a pretty big fan of one of you (actually a couple of you, but right now I’m referring to someone specifically). Everything you write is enchanting, and you’re very inspiring. If you say that to someone, though, you immediately become less than them. It’s a tacit admission of inferiority. You can’t really be friends after that. I’m certainly not the first to ponder this; Jonah Hill recently used this to hilarious effect in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, opposite Russell Brand, and Evan Almighty, opposite Steve Carrell. While you may be able to restrict your gushing better than he can, it still doesn’t change the dynamic, which is why I’m hesitant to name exactly who I’m talking about (they’ll be reading this right now). You can’t ever be friends with the object of your idolization, it’s like you’re in different rooms separated by a glass wall. Y’know, metaphorically. I’m certainly not going to kidnap you and lock you in the basement telling people you’re a life-sized action figure so we can spend eternity together. Probably.Molls is a pretty good example of this. I don’t know if I could ever be friends with Molls because I’m so “gung-ho about her whole operaysh”. Going out to clubs with her, terrorizing Rite-Aid, it’d be too surreal. Nobody likes hanging around sycophants. I tend to drop any friends that become obsequious. I feel like once I know how much they admire me, they just become less fun to hang around. Finally, here we are: the summarising paragraph, where I tell you about which revelations this realisation and analysis has brought on, but I have nothing to say. I guess I’ll try to remain inspired and admiring without idolizing in the future? Wow, we came a long way to get to a fairly personal discovery that doesn’t even apply to you. Well, they can’t all be winners. Anyway, to You, keep making rad things and I’ll keep reading them, and one day I’ll quote them back to you while we kick back, drink Drank and chillax.Do people still say “chillax”?

False Idols, Bone Idles

If you’ve been paying any amount of attention to the continuity of this blog, or the narrative of my life lately, you might’ve noticed that I have what I call “People Nights”, where I spend the whole night enthralled by a single person, googling and Wiki’ing and reading and watching. Yesterday it was Richard Ayoade (and then we got into Jonze and Gondry towards the end), a couple days ago it was Chuck Lorre, and so on. Tonight it’s one of You.

I’m a pretty big fan of one of you (actually a couple of you, but right now I’m referring to someone specifically). Everything you write is enchanting, and you’re very inspiring. If you say that to someone, though, you immediately become less than them. It’s a tacit admission of inferiority. You can’t really be friends after that. I’m certainly not the first to ponder this; Jonah Hill recently used this to hilarious effect in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, opposite Russell Brand, and Evan Almighty, opposite Steve Carrell. While you may be able to restrict your gushing better than he can, it still doesn’t change the dynamic, which is why I’m hesitant to name exactly who I’m talking about (they’ll be reading this right now). You can’t ever be friends with the object of your idolization, it’s like you’re in different rooms separated by a glass wall. Y’know, metaphorically. I’m certainly not going to kidnap you and lock you in the basement telling people you’re a life-sized action figure so we can spend eternity together. Probably.

Molls is a pretty good example of this. I don’t know if I could ever be friends with Molls because I’m so “gung-ho about her whole operaysh”. Going out to clubs with her, terrorizing Rite-Aid, it’d be too surreal. Nobody likes hanging around sycophants. I tend to drop any friends that become obsequious. I feel like once I know how much they admire me, they just become less fun to hang around.

Finally, here we are: the summarising paragraph, where I tell you about which revelations this realisation and analysis has brought on, but I have nothing to say. I guess I’ll try to remain inspired and admiring without idolizing in the future? Wow, we came a long way to get to a fairly personal discovery that doesn’t even apply to you. Well, they can’t all be winners. Anyway, to You, keep making rad things and I’ll keep reading them, and one day I’ll quote them back to you while we kick back, drink Drank and chillax.

Do people still say “chillax”?

Sunday September 06, 2009 at 19:47

Queen of the Damned was on TV late last night. I remember when it came out at the cinemas being terrified of just the trailer. I was quite afraid of vampires as a child, receiving frequent nightmares. I still remember some of my most vivid vampire nightmare from when I was about 10. Shortly after forcing myself awake, I woke up my Dad who helped calm me down by staying up and watching Letterman with me. That was the first time I’d ever seen Late Show.
Quick aside: I’m told a phobia of vampires is called “Sanguivoriphobia”. Is fear of vampires irrational (and thus classifying it as a phobia) though? They’re pretty nasty. Oh, and fictional. So I guess yeah.
The whole Vampire Chronicles series has held my interest for some time. I haven’t read the books but I’ve read about them. Lestat is such a brilliantly complex character, and while I sense a lot of his depth was stripped down in the film adaptation, he still comes across as enigmatic and alluring. I was merely watching him on TV and ready to turn for him (so to speak), so I could empathise with poor Katie aka Jesse. It didn’t help that he was played by the same actor that portrayed Dorian Gray, a character that inhabits a special place in my heart.
Faithful fans of the series may find the film tacky and lacking some of the brilliance of the book, I’m sure, but at least it’s better than the Harry Potter films. Why? The actors in this are competent. I didn’t have to bite my knuckles in frustration at poorly acted dialogue a single time. However, I think Anne Rice was correct when she said her work would be better adapted in a television format. The inclusion of characters like David Talbot, who knew and was known by the characters without any introduction, gave the feeling that there was more before and after what was happening on screen. It’d be a great improvement over The Vampire Diaries, at least.

Queen of the Damned was on TV late last night. I remember when it came out at the cinemas being terrified of just the trailer. I was quite afraid of vampires as a child, receiving frequent nightmares. I still remember some of my most vivid vampire nightmare from when I was about 10. Shortly after forcing myself awake, I woke up my Dad who helped calm me down by staying up and watching Letterman with me. That was the first time I’d ever seen Late Show.

Quick aside: I’m told a phobia of vampires is called “Sanguivoriphobia”. Is fear of vampires irrational (and thus classifying it as a phobia) though? They’re pretty nasty. Oh, and fictional. So I guess yeah.

The whole Vampire Chronicles series has held my interest for some time. I haven’t read the books but I’ve read about them. Lestat is such a brilliantly complex character, and while I sense a lot of his depth was stripped down in the film adaptation, he still comes across as enigmatic and alluring. I was merely watching him on TV and ready to turn for him (so to speak), so I could empathise with poor Katie aka Jesse. It didn’t help that he was played by the same actor that portrayed Dorian Gray, a character that inhabits a special place in my heart.

Faithful fans of the series may find the film tacky and lacking some of the brilliance of the book, I’m sure, but at least it’s better than the Harry Potter films. Why? The actors in this are competent. I didn’t have to bite my knuckles in frustration at poorly acted dialogue a single time. However, I think Anne Rice was correct when she said her work would be better adapted in a television format. The inclusion of characters like David Talbot, who knew and was known by the characters without any introduction, gave the feeling that there was more before and after what was happening on screen. It’d be a great improvement over The Vampire Diaries, at least.

Saturday September 05, 2009 at 15:59

“Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit”.
This is apparently a caricature of my Great Uncle, Don Chipp. I think the familial tie is “Great Uncle”, I could be wrong. He’s my mother’s uncle. I spoke to him twice in my life and each time I found him very engaging, if not particularly animated (he was in his waning years on both occasions). He died in August 2006. His funeral was held at St. Paul’s Cathedral and was attended by several Australian icons.
At the funeral, I learned he subscribed to the belief that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. It was an expression I hadn’t heard until then. At the time, I was a highly sarcastic, vituperative and insolent child, and so it shocked me that my persona could be perceived as witless. Since that day, I’ve changed quite a lot (though you might not think so considering the words I just used to describe myself at that age), and only recently have I begun to understand what he meant. There isn’t anything particularly clever about sarcasm. Like all linguistic tools, it has a use, and can be used very effectively, but its typically used in a very cheap and dull way.
“Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit”. Maybe I should put more stock in what my elders say.

“Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit”.

This is apparently a caricature of my Great Uncle, Don Chipp. I think the familial tie is “Great Uncle”, I could be wrong. He’s my mother’s uncle. I spoke to him twice in my life and each time I found him very engaging, if not particularly animated (he was in his waning years on both occasions). He died in August 2006. His funeral was held at St. Paul’s Cathedral and was attended by several Australian icons.

At the funeral, I learned he subscribed to the belief that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. It was an expression I hadn’t heard until then. At the time, I was a highly sarcastic, vituperative and insolent child, and so it shocked me that my persona could be perceived as witless. Since that day, I’ve changed quite a lot (though you might not think so considering the words I just used to describe myself at that age), and only recently have I begun to understand what he meant. There isn’t anything particularly clever about sarcasm. Like all linguistic tools, it has a use, and can be used very effectively, but its typically used in a very cheap and dull way.

“Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit”. Maybe I should put more stock in what my elders say.