Tuesday, October 31, 2006
HAPPY HALLOWEEN!
Friday, October 27, 2006
A FOOTNOTE TO THE WHOLE "LIMBAUGH/M.J. FOX" THING
Thursday, October 26, 2006
MICHAEL J. FOX RESPONDS TO RUSH LIMBAUGH'S COMMENTS
An interesting part of the interview is when Couric reads a quote she received from Limbaugh. In explaining his actions, he borrows an excuse from (of all people) Ann Coulter:
"I believe Democrats have a long history of using victims of various things as political spokespeople because they believe they are untouchable, infallible. They are immune from criticism". He went on to say "Michael J Fox is stumping for Democrats in the political arena and is, therefore, open to analysis and criticism as we all are."What Rush (and Ann) argue here is simply pathetic. As with Ann's smear of the "Jersey Girls", they BOTH go 100% personal in their attacks instead of political. If Rush doesn't agree with Fox's stance on embryonic stem cell research... then criticize his stance on embryonic stem cell research. Likewise, if Coulter doesn't like the "Jersey Girls" trying to affect the policy decisions of the Bush Administration... then criticize their words behind such arguments.
Instead, they both go sleazy in falsely accusing Fox of "faking" his Parkinson's symptoms, and the 9/11 widows of "enjoying their husband's deaths". These arguments have NOTHING to do with political "analysis and criticism", and EVERYTHING to do with taking a cheap shot at an undeserving target in an effort to get ratings, and sell books.
It's disgusting.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
TIGER WOODS' SWING IN SUPER-DUPER SLOW-MOTION!
WHAT YOUR KIDS DO WHILE YOU'RE AWAY
"Hey son, why are there footprints on the roof?"
Monday, October 23, 2006
WHY IS "STUDIO 60" DOING POORLY? I HAVE A THEORY!
As many people already know, Aaron Sorkin's Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip isn't doing as well as many "experts" predicted. In fact, the show has seen its ratings decline in each of its first three weeks on the air, and is set to be replaced (for one week at least) by NBC's high school football drama Friday Night Lights. Many television journalists have given their proverbial "two cents" as to why this has happened. Some have said the show is "too smart", while others say it's "too inside", and even others have pointed to the show's lack of funny material in covering such a supposedly famous sketch comedy show.Well, in making my case for the demise of Studio 60... I'd like to address three issues I have with the program.
#1: DON'T DISCUSS BLOATED "HOLLYWOOD SALARIES" WITH MIDDLE AMERICA!
Okay, to begin with, there's yet to be an episode of Studio 60 where I haven't cringed (sometimes more than once) at the subject of money. Some choice examples include:
- A booth director who, while contemplating a tough moral decision, is reminded that his two kids are in "private school" and need his employment to continue their pampered education. Now let's keep in mind that just 10% of American kids go to private school. So just how are parents of "lowly" public school children supposed to react here? I know how the public-educated kid inside of me reacted: "Fuck 'em!" The worst part is that it didn't even need to be said. A simple, "Hey you have two kids to take care of," would have been enough for most people to sympathize with the character's decision to back down.
- A mention of Studio 60 head writers Ricky & Ron who are described as talentless "hacks", and who Matt and Danny wish to fire upon taking on the show. The reply from the Network President? "You can't fire them, they make $30,000 an episode." Again, how is the average teacher, policeman, or grocery store employee supposed to react to this? These two guys are "bad at their job", yet still make more in a week than many Americans do in a year? Again, it didn't need to be said. A simple, "They have a contract," or, "It's too expensive" would suffice. Hey Sorkin, the audience isn't filled with millionaire cokeheads wallowing in seven-figure TV deals... get it?
- A mention of Harriet's $18,000/episode salary and how it equals the yearly take-home of factory workers in some midwestern city who are about to be the butt of a Studio 60 joke. Again, why does money have to be mentioned here? And yes, 20 episodes times $18,000 is $360,000/year... minus 10 percent agent fees.
- The mention of so-called "alpha-comsumers" and how they're richer, smarter, and worth FIVE TIMES AS MUCH to Madison Avenue as the lowly regular television viewer. Hmmm... how do you think this plays with the 9 to 5 crowd?
(UPDATE: In tonight's show, one of the lower-level (and 27 year-old) writers brags about being able to buy his father's Columbus, Ohio home, "four times over and turn it into my ping-pong room." And all because his father has the nerve to occasionally ask him, "Do you need any money?" Can you fucking believe the "old man's" nerve? By the way, with a median home price of $190,000... how does a roughly $3,000/week staff writer amass almost $800,000?)
#2: DON'T SHOW ANY SKETCHES IF YOU WANT TO IMPLY THE "COMEDIC GENIUS" OF MATT ALBIE!
With this one, we'll politely ignore the whole former-sketch-writer-turned-Writers-Guild-award-winner-then-coming-
back-to-sketch-comedy thing. Has any writer ever done this by the way? At any rate, the character of Matt Albie has been put up on a pedestal within the show as quite possibly "The Greatest Sketch Comedy Writer Ever" by the characters that surround him. So with that in mind, I have one bit of advice: Never show more than a snippet of a sketch to your audience at home.
"Why," you ask? Well in short, Saturday Night Live has ALL WEEK to create nothing but comedy, and much of the time... they fail. So why would a one-hour drama have the balls to think they can write an hour a week of "regular dialog" and then still be able to knock-out sketches of the level they've set for Matt Albie? It beats me. It's impossible... so don't try.
But alas, week after week we're shown the better part of sketches that, in a word, suck. So why do this? Why not simply have actors walking backstage and hearing people say, "Wow! That was unbelievable!" Greek Theater used to rely on the audience's imagination to "create" elements which could not physically be displayed. It's why "Jaws" worked... it's why "Maris" worked on Frasier, it's why (insert third example) worked. Why would Sorkin even attempt such a display of "comedic genius" on such a regular basis? It makes no sense.
#3: WHY IS THERE NO FIGHTING/TENSION BETWEEN CAST MEMBERS/WRITERS?
Anyone who's read Al Franken's biography of SNL knows that there was much tension and scandal behind the scenes at Saturday Night Live. Having worked at another (albeit lesser-known) sketch show "Mad TV", I can attest that there is indeed such friction between both writers & actors on a constant basis. After all, it's a dogfight on a weekly basis to get that coveted "air time". However, Studio 60 seems to be a virtual utopian work environment.
Instead Sorkin tries to create drama out of the literal "ticking clock" on the Executive Producers wall. You know, the one that counts down the hours, minutes, and seconds until their weekly live show. You expect to hear a character shriek, "Oh my God, what if 'Senor Rubberbones' isn't ready by 11:30? The world will explode!" Not quite the life and death stakes Sorkin was used to writing for when the White House was his backdrop.
IN CONCLUSION...
Studio 60 violates the "golden rule" of television in my mind. Don't show the audience characters they don't like, and can't relate to. It's as if Aaron Sorkin hasn't met any people outside his gated community for several years, and forgot that it's these people who actually watch television.
I hear the super-rich just love this show. It's been reported that Studio 60 is the highest rated show in households that make $100,000 or more per year. Does that mean he can multiply his low ratings by five?
LIMBAUGH GOES LOWER THAN ANYONE EVER THOUGHT HE COULD...
Okay, at this point we all know that Rush Limbaugh is a moronic, hypocritical douchebag. However he does have a listening audience of nearly 13.5 million, which is the largest (yes, the largest) radio audience in the United States, so therefore the words he spews must be taken somewhat seriously.Which brings us to this political commercial that features Michael J. Fox supporting a Democratic candidate who's in favor of stem-cell research:
Pretty powerful stuff huh? To those of us who haven't seen Mr. Fox on television for a few years, it's a shock to see the progression that the Parkinson's Disease has taken. However, to Limbaugh, this is nothing more than a partisan attack by a Hollywood "liberal". In fact, Rush goes as far as to claim that Fox's "ticks and tremors" are somehow less than genuine.
This is an actual quote from Limbaugh:
"I stated when I saw the ad, I was commenting to you about it, that he was either off the medication or he was acting. He is an actor, after all."CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO THE AUDIO
So according to "Dr. Limbaugh", when a Parkinson's patient if "off his medication" he is ravaged with these physical ticks and tremors? Interesting theory. However, one persistent blogger actually contacted a REAL doctor, who had this to say about the diagnosis:
What you are seeing on the video is side effects of the medication. He has to take that medication to sit there and talk to you like that. ... He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance of Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff, and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk. And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all of this movement, like what you see in the ad.
So it's actually the medication's side-effect that GIVES Parkinson's patients these extreme physical movements? And if Fox was "off his medication" like Rush claims, he'd actually be incapable of such speech or movement? Is this 180-degree turn from reality a prerequisite for admission into the Republican Party?
So, once again, Limbaugh proves that his head is squarely up his ass when it comes to discussing... just about anything that requires facts or reality. I don't know what is more sad, the fact that this guy gets paid to sit behind a microphone, or that 13.5 million people regularly tune in to listen.
THANKS AGAIN TO CROOKS AND LIARS
BUSH: "WE'VE NEVER BEEN 'STAY THE COURSE' GEORGE"... REALLY?
CLICK PICTURE TO PLAY VIDEOSunday, October 22, 2006
ULTRAMAN!
As you can see, Ultraman is a supercool dude who can shoot kick-ass rays out of the heel of his hand. Man, what were those Japanese writers smoking when they came up with this?
PART TWO
PART THREE
BILL MAHER ON RIGHT-WING THINK TANKS
Saturday, October 21, 2006
MEET "SKIDBOOT" THE DOG
And yes, I cried.
Friday, October 20, 2006
COLBERT: BETTER KNOW A DISTRICT
DEBATING AN EMPTY CHAIR
No word yet on whether the chair held it's own.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
WANNA SEE QUENTIN TARANTINO SPIT ON CHRIS CONNOLLY?
CLICK PICTURE TO VIEWIt might be the most awkward "loogie launch" ever. Hey Quentin, let your lungs (not legs) do the spitting!
Monday, October 16, 2006
"I GOT IT ON CAMERA!"
STONEHENGE AND A GUY NAMED "WALLY"
Friday, October 13, 2006
ABU GHRAIB: NOT "TORTURE"?
Here's the video from the debate:
His words: "I have seen what happened in Abu Ghraib, and Abu Ghraib was not torture..."
See, everything is okay people... America doesn't torture. Whew. For a second there I thought our "moral high ground" was in trouble.
Now let's take a look at this famous photo from that very same scandal:
As you can see the subject is wearing some sort of hood/shawl combo, standing on a box, and seems to be hooked up to some electrical wires. Which begs the question, "Just what kind of sex is Shays having to define this as a 'sex ring'?"Is this sex?
I am constantly amazed at how these idiots can make such stupid statements even after the evidence has been made public. I would really like Shays to go though every picture from this scandal and have the balls to say that each instance did not amount to torture. I would guarantee you that if these detainees (pictured above) were American soldiers... the Congressman's definition of "torture" would instantly change.Congrats to Shays on such a "snappy answer" though.
THEY EDIT, MANIPULATE, MANUFACTURE. YOU DECIDE.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
NEW SEASON OF SOUTH PARK!
Monday, October 09, 2006
ANDY KINDLER MAKES ME LAUGH
Here's Andy on Late Night with David Letterman (circa 2005):
And here's a couple videos of him from a recent show in Vancouver B.C., where he takes on Dane Cook, the cultural divide (or not) with Canada, internet message boards, and much, much more.
PART TWO:
AND JUST TO BE CONFUSING... PART ONE. (CHECK OUT THAT INTRO):
THE STEVEN BANKS HOME ENTERTAINMENT CENTER!
I (or my brother) used to have a VHS copy of this, but it got lost during one of my numerous "moves" in life. At any rate, I highly recommend it.
P.S. the "uploader" at YouTube has sliced the entire piece into sections. I'll post the beginning video... and the rest as links.
PART TWO
PART THREE
PART FOUR
PART FIVE
PART SIX
PART SEVEN
Sunday, October 08, 2006
THE WHOLE BOB WOODWARD SEGMENT FROM "MEET THE PRESS"
LOOKS LIKE SOMEONE FORGOT THE "GOLDEN RULE" OF ANIMATION
BOB WOODWARD SUMS UP DICK CHENEY AND HIS ADMINISTRATION
THANKS TO CROOKS & LIARS
FUNNY... BUT IN A SAD WAY
Saturday, October 07, 2006
CRACKED.COM PRESENTS: THE "BORAT" TOP 10!
Go HERE to sift your way through the "best of" and witness Borat confusing citizens in America and England.
And just for good measure here's number two on the list, Borat going door-to-door with a Republican Congressional candidate. This incident even led to an Unofficial Website dedicated to the fiasco.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Thursday, October 05, 2006
THE ONLY THING WORSE THAN DATING PARIS HILTON...
TOM WILSON (AKA "BIFF") SINGS!
I found this quite funny... AND it's NOT POLITICAL IN THE SLIGHTEST! Yay! Something that doens't piss me off!
JOHN ASHCROFT: AN INTERESTING TIMETABLE
In a then little-known article published on July 26th, 2001, CBS News reported that Ashcroft had started flying chartered government jets instead of his usual commercial flights. The reason given for the sudden change was described simply as "threat assessment" by the FBI, and that Ashcroft planned to fly by private jet for the remainder of his term.When I came upon this story a few years ago, I thought the timing was mildly interesting, but nothing more. After all, Ashcroft's decision came almost two weeks BEFORE the infamous Presidential Daily Briefing that stated "Bin Laden Determined to Strike inside US".
However, when I read this article today entitled "Rumsfeld, Ashcroft received warning of al Qaida attack before 9/11" it caught my attention. This story came to light in the wake of Bob Woodward's book "State of Denial" which has exposed a July 10, 2001 meeting involving then-National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, former CIA Director George Tenet, and counterterrorism chief Cofer Black.
Before I continue, it should be noted that somehow this meeting was NEVER mentioned in the official 9/11 Commission Report.
The article describes the meeting like this:
One official who helped to prepare the briefing, which included a PowerPoint presentation, described it as a "10 on a scale of 1 to 10" that "connected the dots" in earlier intelligence reports to present a stark warning that al-Qaida, which had already killed Americans in Yemen, Saudi Arabia and East Africa, was poised to strike again.
Rice originally claimed that she never had such a meeting. However on Monday evening, Rice's spokesperson issued a statement in which she admitted she'd had the meeting "on or around the 10th" and had asked that it be presented to both Donald Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft.
That briefing reportedly took place on July 17th, 2001.
So CBS reports that John Ashcroft has suddenly stopped flying commercial airliners just NINE DAYS after he receives a briefing about an imminent (the articles words, not mine) attack from al Qaeda?
Since 9/11 Ashcroft has refused to discuss the specifics behind his reasoning for flying private jets. In this story, he mentions "personal threats on his life" and not hijacking as a rationale behind his decision. And although the story also mentions two different FBI briefings concerning this threat in May and June of 2001, it's interesting to note that they admit the "switch" to private jets didn't happen until July of 2001. Which begs the question, "Why would anyone wait over two months to address a 'threat' on one's life?"
Even though there's no evidence that the secret presentation from Tenet and Black included specifics about hijackings or suicide missions with jetliners... the timing surrounding this seems fishy. Coupled with the fact that these meetings were never included in the official 9/11 report, and you have the type of situation that invites conspiracy theories.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
HOW TO AVOID REPUBLICAN EMBARRASSMENT?
How about simply identifying the shamed Congressman as a Democrat?
That's right, according to Crooks and Liars:The O'Reilly Factor ran it in not one, but two segments and posted it three times. I can understand if FOX and The Factor made an error the first time, but to post it repeatedly should be a firing offense, The most watched show on FOX News has now labeled the former Republican Congressman Mark Foley, who is in the middle of a sexual predator scandal that has Hastert's career on the ropes —a Democrat.Add that to the Republican talking points... and you've got some full-on "spinning" going on in the "No Spin Zone".
UPDATE: HERE'S THE VIDEO FROM YOUTUBE. FOLEY IS SHOWN AS A DEMOCRAT TWO TIMES, AT THE :56 AND 2:38 MARKS.
AN "UPDATE" TO THE UPDATE: DENNIS HASTERT IS A DEMOCRAT TOO!
Thanks to Crooks and Liars.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
DO YOU THINK SCOTT STAPP IS A DRUNKEN DOUCHEBAG?
TAKING SOME HEAT? STAND BEHIND SOME KIDS!
As you may have guessed, this made asking specfic questions about the adult situation difficult. To which one reporter asked, "Could the children could leave the room?" Reynolds reply is predictable... and sad.
SAM HAS 7 FRIENDS: AN ONLINE WEB DRAMA
The project, simply named "Sam Has 7 Friends", bills itself like this:
Samantha Breslow has seven friends. On December 15, 2006, one of them will kill her.
If you watch one episode, you'll clearly recognize the level of work/detail that's going into this first-rate online production.
My only wish is that I'd blogged this in August when they started. However, it took one marathon viewing for me to get hooked. The good news is that with each episode clocking in at ninety seconds... you can catch up in a matter of minutes.
I'm posting the most recent episode here:
However, if anyone would like to go back to the beginning... GO HERE. Oh yeah, and did I mention that much of this is "adult themed" and therefore is most likey NSFW.
"I LIVE IN A VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER!"
Man, could Farley make David Spade laugh or what?
SHEPPARD SMITH: FOX NEWS "FIRING WATCH"
Kristol agrees, but makes the statement that President Bush can't possibly make such a decision before the upcoming elections. It's at this point that Smith exposes the sleaziness of "playing politics" while our troops are in danger.
I love hearing honesty like this. However, I'm not sure Rupert Murdoch will. Does anyone know if Sheppard's contract is nearing it's end? I can't help but think that unscripted banter like this could get you kicked out of Fox News.
Monday, October 02, 2006
DAVID CROSS VS. JIM BELUSHI
According to the YouTube video, Arrested Development and Mr. Show star David Cross decided to "crash" the performance. In the first video, you can clearly see Cross (in the white hat) giving Jim the "one-finger salute" while he isn't looking:
And in this video, Cross makes it on stage... only to be quickly escorted out the door:
Arrested may be gone... but the crazy shenanigans live on!
Sunday, October 01, 2006
PANCAKES & SAUSAGE ON A STICK WITH CHOCOLATE CHIPS!
Product motto suggestions are welcome.
From Cabel's Blog.
TREAT YOUR KIDS RIGHT...
If you were wondering, it's been revealed that this was indeed a REAL person... and not some clever Photoshop work.
DRUNK OR STONED?
Most people say this guy is "stoned"... but I'm leaning towards "drunk". What do you think?
By the way, there's much more about this professor over at BOING BOING.





