The only time we want to hear from, of, or about you is when the topic is your music (although if your next album is really going to be Hip-hop/R&B, nevermind). On EVERY OTHER TOPIC: shut up, shut up, shut the fuck up. We don’t care what you have to say about the internet. We don’t care what you think about religion. And we sure as hell don’t give a flaming rat’s ass about your supermegaflamboyant gayosity. The problem with music today is not the internet. The internet does not produce crappy albums, pay radio stations to play them, and try to get people to pay $15 for an album that only has two decent songs on it. Record companies do that. In case you hadn’t noticed, they do it A LOT.

The reason you can only find “ten albums a year of [fantastic*] quality” is that record companies are more interested in creating BRAND bands (which grab a niche fan base who reliably buy new albums) than in promoting truly great MUSIC. It’s not about the art, Sharon, it’s about the MONEY. The problem’s not the people making the music; the problem is the people selling it. To argue otherwise is to reveal yourself a naive fool.

Stop pretending to be relevant and enjoy your multi-millions.

*And I’m calling bullshit on the claim that “In the early Seventies there were at least ten albums released every week that were fantastic.” Not only would that mean there would’ve been roughly 2,600 “fantastic” albums released in the first half of the Seventies — and how many BANDS, let alone albums, are now remembered as creating fantastic music? Surely not 2,600 albums worth. In fact, I’m willing to bet that, musically, many (if not most) of the albums released in the Seventies were crap and that only the albums from fantastic bands (Led Zeppelin, Aerosmith, Judas Priest, KISS, Pink Floyd, etc) were actually fantastic. The key difference between the music industry then and now was that the record companies had generally higher standards — the market for music was also comparably much smaller. In today’s music industry, for every one (i.e.) Sinatra there are twenty less-talented Sinatra-imitations signed to competing labels trying to get a piece of the Sinatra-market action. But the only one people will remember thirty years hence is the actual Sinatra.

When a branch of your government – two branches actually, as the
Bush administration was instrumental in crafting it – ignores the wishes of 75%+ of the population and moves ahead with its own backroom-crafted legislation, that is not representative government.

That is not democracy.

That, my friends, is tyranny.

Revolutions have been fought for far less.

Lest we ever forget:

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

IS MORE COWBELL.

In spite of their similar settings and their use of ‘magic’, these two oft-compared (and oft-contested on internet fora by their respective fans) films are anything but similar.

The Illusionist is a classic love story, plain and simple — so classic, in fact, that the formula is recognizable to the point of cliché. Anyone whose childhood was marked (as yours truly’s was) by Disney movies like Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, and Beauty and the Beast, to name a few, would be instantly familiar with The Illusionist‘s plot structure: lower-class character (i.e., quick-witted street rat) and upper-class character (i.e., raven-haired daughter of the Sultan) share a societally-taboo love interest, with the ultimate obstacle between their love being an other upper-class character who is in some way both villainous and powerful. The plot consists of the protagonist(s) struggling with and, ultimately, overcoming the antagonist so as to live happily ever after in some idyllic land.

It is as predictable and familiar as the sunrise — and much like a sunrise, it is no less beautiful for its predictability. And this description is an apt one for The Illusionist as a whole. It is beautifully filmed and well-acted — Ed Norton is as usual superb, though it is Paul Giamatti who truly shines — but nothing truly that captivates the mind. The magic that Norton’s Eisenheim performs has more in common with Hollywood and Gandalf than Harry Houdini and Dai Vernon (that is, ‘real’ magic). The Illusionist would be better classified as a romatic fantasy, as one of its plot devices is keeping the audience in a state of uncertainty about the nature of Eisenheim’s illusions — are they ordinary nuts-and-bolts tricks masterfully performed? or something far more mystical? The film feeds this ambiguity with unambiguously-computer-generated special effects and a faux-mysticism, replete with seance candles and references to the ‘soul’ and ‘death’.

The Prestige, on the other hand, is a very different animal. Its message is not of the triumph of romance over mysogynistic wickedness; its moral is not the triumph of true love over murderous egoistic ambition. The Prestige is indeed “a morality tale” (to quote another Hugh Jackman character) but one that is far less fantastic and far more realistic.

Real life is very rarely, hardly ever in fact, delineated in the kind of extremetized way that it is in The Illusionist (and countless other romantic fairy tales and Aesopean fables). Real life, real people, are ambiguous. Each man and woman is hero and villain, good and evil, moral and immoral. In The Prestige, we discover two ‘real’ characters: complex, flawed, and ambiguous. It is precisely because these characters are so multilayered, so ambiguous, that the story’s messages (which is really the main reason we tell stories: to pass on some moral or lesson) about the danger of obsession, the corrosiveness of pride, the futility of feuds, the necessity of hope, and how all of the above exist as potential in each person. These messages are more affective because they are played out in characters that are familiar and realistic — not inscrutable avatars whose complicated plans succeed perfectly, who are so full of symbolism that they have little or no room for humanity.

Both Borden and Angier are flawed men who give themselves completely over to their respective obsessions. For Borden, this obsession is of the art of magic, of perfecting it, and of the magician’s code of honor and ethics. Angier’s obsession, however, was revenge on Borden the best way he knew how: to steal Borden’s ultimate trick and do it better. By Angier’s own admission: “The man stole my life. I steal his trick.” Borden’s obsession, while terrible in its own right, is the healthier of the two, for it is born out of his love of magic whereas Angier’s is born out of his hate for Borden. It is this distinction, this fine line, which separates the ultimate fates of the two characters. Borden’s obsession costs him dearly, but Angier’s obsession so bends the man that he is ultimately capable of much that was unthinkable to him in the story’s early scenes.

Now, I could go on and on about the difference in each movie’s approach to and use of magic, or about the different way that each director treats the audience (The Prestige follows the trend set by Christopher Priest in his novel of the same name by incorporating the presentation of the story into the story itself). But what truly distinguishes these movies for me is their stories, and particularly the way in which The Prestige (much like Priest’s novel) presents a world and characters that are more real than fable, characters that have all the depth and complexity and ambiguoity that is found in every human person. The characters in fables and fairy tales are simple because they are written for children. Those who complain that The Prestige‘s plot and characters were ‘too complex’ should stick to the children’s fairy tales. As a story, The Prestige thinks highly enough of you to treat you like an adult.

Both films are well-made, well-acted, well-directed, and well-worth a couple hours of your time to watch. But they are not the same caliber story, nor are they similar experiences. The Illusionist tells you a story. The Prestige draws you into its story.

The Jerusalem Post’s headline understates it nicely: ” Jesus tomb film scholars backtrack.“

Well, color me surprised. Suck on that, Cameron!

Time blogger Tim McGirk covers it:

In a new documentary, Producer Cameron and his director, Simcha Jacobovici, make the starting claim that Jesus wasn’t resurrected –the cornerstone of Christian faith– and that his burial cave was discovered near Jerusalem. And, get this, Jesus sired a son with Mary Magdelene.

No, it’s not a re-make of “The Da Vinci Codes’. It’s supposed to be true.

First of all, James Cameron needs to stick to doing what he does best (making movies about time-travelling Austrian robots from the future)
and STOP making movies at the expense of dead people.
My analysis (which I’ll get to below) aside for the moment, James Cameron is an
abominable hypocrite. Oh sure, he won’t go into the mostly-empty
wreck of the Titanic because he doesn’t want to “desecrate” it, but
he has no qualms about exhuming TEN properly-interred bodies from their final resting places. God willing, in 200 years some enterprising
young erotic film maker will make a big name for himself by digging up James Cameron’s corpse (or ashes or whatever) and exploiting it for fun and profit. That would be a nice bookend for his career. The man the special breed of repugnant reserved for necrophiliacs, child molesters, and the IRS.

As for the premise of his stupid little documentary, Cameron (or rather, Jacobovici, who’s directing the thing) is only the latest in a long, long, long, LOOOONNNG line of chumps to throw his hat into the Jesus-married-Mary-Magdalene ring. Heck, as far as Hollywood director-types go, Scorsese is the godfather of this thing and even Ron Howard (!!) beat Cameron to it. I guess little Jimmy felt a little left out. I mean, all the other cool kids were doing it…

The documentary will be far from anything remotely close to conclusive, simply because it is impossible to be conclusive about this kind of thing. Ignoring the huge mountain range of evidence against the Jesus-married/banged-Mary heresy, the two claims that McGirk attributes to the documentary — that the names in the tomb and the DNA evidence prove that the Jesus who is written of in the New Testament was interred there — will be ripped to shreds by REAL scholars even faster than Dan Brown’s literary-abortion-turned-Tom-Hanks-movie was. The fact that a layman like I can do so does not bode well for Cameron’s little project:

1) Jesus (Yeshua; Joshua), Mary (Miriam), Joseph, and Judah were all common names in 1st century CE Palestinian Jewish society. During that period, there was a resurgence (possibly as a popular response to the Roman occupation) of traditional Hebrew names. “Joshua” was the successor to Moses who led the Jews in their conquest of the Promised Land. “Miriam” was the sister of Moses, who saved his infant life and who is counted as a prophet with Moses and Aaron. “Joseph” was the son of Judah (“Judas”)who was sold into Egypt as a slave and there rose to be second only to the pharoah. These are the names of the Jewish cultural heroes, evoking the memory of God liberating the Jews from their oppression. That 1st century Jews would evoke these memories to cope with life under Roman ocuupation is logical — and the fact that a 1st century tomb was found with occupants who were named “Joshua, son of Joseph” and Miriam is meaningless.

2) Furthermore, EVERY SINGLE RECORD we have of the life of Jesus affirms unequivocally that he was betrayed by a trusted associate named Judas. Even assuming that Jesus was not crucified as a result of this betrayal — an presumption that flies in the face of all the information we have about this Jesus — and survived to sire children, WHY WOULD HE THEN NAME ONE OF HIS SONS AFTER HIS BETRAYER?

3) DNA analysis can not identify an unknown person. Period. End of
movie. It is that simple. As anyone who has watched more than 5 minutes of CSI knows, DNA can only be used for identification if (and only if) there is a known DNA sample to compare it against. That’s why DNA evidence is always spoken of as being “a match”, because there’s something to bloody well match it to! The only possible thing that DNA analysis of the 10 coffins in the above-mentioned tomb could prove is that the inhabitants were (a) male or female, (b) related to each other, and/or (c) part of a particular ethinic group. And they could potentially find some of their now-living descendants — assuming that their DNA was on record some where, of course. No one anywhere on the planet has a sample of DNA that is definitely from Jesus of Nazareth. Thus, the value of DNA for proving that it’s Jesus buried in that tomb is, precisely, dick.

See how easy that was? And I’m an idiot compared to the scholarly critics who are going to sound off on this documentary. They’re still geared up from and picking at the mutilated mess that used to be the Da Vinci Code, so Cameron and Jacoboviney are screwed. I do hope their ruination is messy.

I fail to see a down side to this. They keep killing each other, and in
doing so they waste a bunch of time, ammo, and suicide bombers in the process. Meanwhile, Israel doesn’t have to worry about Hamas
or Fatah attacking them, which allows them to fortify their defenses and deal with real threats — like Iran. And the piss-poor Palestinians who voted butchers into political power get to enjoy all the benefits
of a democratically elected government!

F.E.T.E.

(h/t Cox & Forkum)

The beauty of the latest Paris Hilton fiasco is that it appears to be totally legal. And of course that it happened to Paris. Cause who doesn’t like to see clueless, herpes-infected, skanky heiresses
get taken down a peg by their own shortsightedness?

For those who haven’t already heard, while moving from one big-ass mansion to a new big-ass mansion, Paris Hilton rented out a generic self-service storage locker and put more than 6,000 sq. feet of her
stuff into it. And then she failed to pay the $208 maintenance fee.

(Just as an aside, I grew up in a pretty big house. Two floors, finished
basement. Total combined square footage: a little under 2,000. This skank
has more than three stuffed-solid townhouses worth of crap. There has to
be a Just God who’s gonna put right all of the world’s injustices. Because
otherwise, the universe is the stupidest. idea. ever.)

Since they didn’t get paid, the storage company did what they always do when someone doesn’t pay them: they auctioned off the contents of the locker.

Here’s where the delicious irony comes in: the spoiled little idiot had stored all of her personal videos, pictures, letters, contact info,
recordings, diaries, etc. in there. And somebody bought them all.
And put them online.

Thus, ParisExposed.com was born.

What’s great is that, as per the conditions of the rental contract she
signed with the storage company, she lost all legal claim to the
auctioned items. The pictures, videos, etc., that were auctioned off
are the legal property of the site owner(s).

I can not abide useless people, and I love watching stupid people pay
the consequences of their own idiocy. So this whole thing is glorious,
high comedy to me.

UPDATE:  Not surprisingly, given the Scrooge-McDuck-esque pile of
cash that the Hiltons have at their disposal, the website didn’t last
very long.

For example: the message Americans get on their nightly news
programs is that – thanks to the US military invading, overthrowing
a genocidal tyrant, and pouring out their own lives and blood to help
establish a society where the natives can get a taste of what it means
to actually have liberty – Iraq is now an even worse pit of death, destruction, futility, genocide, and corruption than it was under the Butcher of Baghdad. Also, according to the American/Western media, all the Muslims in the Middle East hate what we Westerners are doing there and wish that we had never set our cloven infidel pig-feet on their sacred sands.

The antidote to such manipulative news-skewing: MEMRI. MEMRI’s whole reason for being is to translate Arabic broadcasts into
languages (like English) that Westerners can understand.

Have you believed the bullshit spun by the media — that Muslims don’t want democracy, that Western values (like humanism) won’t fly over there, etc? Have you ever wondered why the fuck you never hear from all the “moderate Muslims” (who are supposed to exist) are when Muslim terrorists blow up a bus full of kids?

Oh they’re around, but we here in the west never hear from them.

Until now.

Yes, it’s long, but do yourself a favor and watch the whole thing. It’s
eye-opening.

Did any planes crash there?   No.

Were any buildings there rammed by loaded passenger jets at a high
rate of speed before crashing down?   No.

Were any major governmental or military structures there attacked on
or around the 11th of September, 2006?   No.

Did Arizona have A SINGLE DAMN THING TO DO with 9/11?   NO!

So then, why did Arizona feel a pressing need to so-quickly erect a
notably-controversial memorial to 9/11? Anyone? Hello? Bueller? Hell,
New York City doesn’t even have a full-fledged memorial there yet — and it was the main site of the attacks!

They should bulldoze the fucking thing in Arizona. On principle alone if
for no other reason. Because, until SOMETHING stands at Ground Zero
(and here is my recommendation), NOBODY else should get to build
memorials. Shanksville, PA has its memorial in the works, and the
Pentagon will be repaired, but Ground Zero remains Hole Zero – and
until that changes, the sunbaked sand people in Arizona don’t get to
build their crappy crescent-moon homage to 9/11 conspiracy theories.

You got that, AZ?