Pull your pants up!

I know I am no fashion guru or anything, but I just don't get the pants hanging so low that a) the underpants are exposed and b) how the fuck do the pants stay up at all? I don't know about you, but when I see this I have to laugh. Perhaps its just me, but I can't decide if I would rather help gravity continue with the process and pull the pants all the way down and give the dope a wedgie and kick him in the balls, or to do the guy a favor and pull his fucking pants up. It cannot be comfortable. He must be walking around constantly aware of his pants thinking, "they're falling, still going down... (pause to pull them up to mid-ass level, continue walking) still halfway down, still halfway down." For crying out loud, what is the thought process? Do they think they're attracting women? Is there a woman out there who sees half an ass and underwear and think, "I sure would like to get with him. Look how low his pants are!" Is it a gang thing? If so, I sure would like a gang representative to hold a press conference to explain what the fuck this is all about. "Well you see, the lower your pants are, the higher your standing in the organization." Okay, that's still pretty stupid, but the gangs might have their own thinking. But how do you explain the guys on college campuses who are not in a gang and their pants are mid-ass, ears tucked into their baseball caps? I am baffled. I just walk around going "what the fuck. Pull up your Goddamn pants."

And how do they stay up at all. If my pants are mid ass and I try walking around the house they fall down. (I've tried it, call it research). Is there a product out there, perhaps that can only be purchased at that weird fucking store in every mall where they sell the ugly baseball caps, street-cred sweatshirts and graffiti looking clothes that only mid-ass wearing pants guys would shop when they're not skateboarding off of bannisters and crushing their testicles. Is there a pin, or suspender mechanism that the suburban wannabees are using to use to keep their pants from falling, or from getting too high? Can it be linked wirelessly to their fucking iPhones? Perhaps a little slider switch that raises and lowers their pants remotely so they don't have to be seen pulling their pants up every 2 seconds?

What the fuck? Just walk around without any pants. That makes more sense to me.
If anything, it makes me feel superior. Thanks for that, at least. I think we deny health care for people who wear their pants mid-ass, just because it bothers me. And then they should tattoo their body with something really fucking stupid, like a cartoon character they liked as a kid so that when they are old and perhaps now realize how dopey the world perceived them as 20 somethings, they'll look at their saggy transformer tattoo and think, "God, I was fucking idiot when I was young. What was I thinking?

Pull up your fucking pants. And why wear a belt if you are going to let your pants be saggy?

its just a short wait to protect the leader of the free world

Yesterday, Jan. 31, 2008, George Bush was in Denver to raise money for some Republican Senator who is in danger of losing his seat. They closed the highway and made it difficult for me (and everyone) to get home. I was not pleased. The cop who stopped me from crossing over the overpass, in case I should want to drop something on the passing motorcade, told me its just a short wait to protect the leader of the free world. I had to laugh at him. He did not laugh back. Fascist.

I could not keep my mouth shut, so I said "here's another reason to vote democrat!" He responded by saying, "you'd also be waiting if it was Hillary Clinton."

Yes, but I would not be bitter about it.

Incessant Barking

I don't know about you, but I beat myself up if I don't feel like I've been creative on any given day. Which is why I like both photography and journaling. Both of these activities really do not provide a means to further my creative work life, but they do feel good in my personal creative life. I am not a professional photographer, but if I take a picture that I like, post it on Flickr, and some total stranger says, "great picture!" for some reason, this provides me with a momentary feeling of creative fulfillment. This stranger could be some lunatic teenager or an old lady who collects salt and pepper shakers as an avocation. But if she says, "well done!" I feel I am an artist. So it's a temporary creative high. Push comes to shove, I realize it's worthless, but there it is. Then there is this blog, or my paper journal that I spout out thoughts that run around my head and try to present them in humorous or entertaining ways. It too provides that same sort of creative outlet, that is really not doing anything, in the bigger picture that is my life. You see, I am a filmmaker and making a film is a very long process. It takes a year to complete a film and the creative impulses are not easily found day to day. A lot of the work feels as if is like making the doughnuts. Make a schedule. Shoot an interview. Get some photos. Digitize the video. And then organize the video. THEN you can start to edit, which does in fact feel creative, only know one but you knows about it until it's done and you can present it. So, all these little bursts of creative activities provides an outlet until the film is done. But also, I am not one of these driven people who always has to be working. I feel guilty if I've watched a movie and simply wanted to be entertained. Especially if the movie sucked. What a waste of 2 hours of my life. Ahhh.... it's my hang up.

I came across this cartoon, and since then I've been less interested in blogging. Thanks a bunch.

Years Do Progress

How old do you become before you start a) ignoring the New Year, and b) stop making new year's resolutions? I mean, at some point we stopped adding 1/2 and 3/4 to our age. What age did that happen for you? Or are you still out there saying you're 35 and 3/4. Now, I understand that for some, New Year's is an excuse for a party to happen. And I suppose that's normal. But if you are like me, and consuming alcohol is not a goal nor a pleasure, the party aspect is greatly minimized. Therefore Dec 31st to Jan 1st is nothing more than another day where you get a day off from work and the garbage man does not collect your trash, which can be very inconvenient. I am sorry, but I just don't care. In fact, now I have to remember to write 2008 on my checks, which for some reason is difficult. Dick Clark? Don't care for him or his television programs, and how many times can we hear about how Dick Clark does not age. Well, he looks older to me, and expect he will die at some point, just like the rest of us. That is, unless he is like the dude from Highlander, which I highly doubt. Nice try, Dick.

And then there are the resolutions. Enough already. If you eat like a slob all your life, what is it about the calendar that will make you cease to eat like a slob? Yeah, yeah, I know, change comes from within, and if you want to change why not use the New Year as yet another excuse to fool yourself, THIS time you are going to change. And I hope you do, but how long can we keep it up? It's back to work now. All the candy and chocolates have been discarded. But then you travel, or you have a crappy day and you need some sort of pick me up. You reach for the doritos and think to yourself, "Self? What about your New Year's Resolutions?" "Oh fuck off, I am feeling like shit, and what does the New Year have to do with my asshole boss?" And the Doritos are consumed and from there its all back to square one till the next New Year's Eve.

Now I am not faulting you, or commenting on you, dear reader, it is just the situation. So, personally, I have not officially written down any resolutions, nor do I expect 2008 to be something greater than any other year. They are all pretty good, are they not? Even when things really suck, the alternative seems worse. So Happy F**king New Year and may it be a good one. Suck it up and face the reality of life. Now I need to go to the gym and eat my low-carb meal. Bitches.

Desensitized at Christmas

As Denis Leary is quoted as saying, "there are so many good ways to die." The quote seems appropriate because I got to thinking of all the creative ways Hollywood has come up with killing its characters. I mean, its gotten to the point that we see a film-death, and we start to link it to another movie when a different character died in a similar fashion. Perhaps this is not as worrisome to you as it is to me, but I think it needs a degree of exploration. For example, the bad guys in movies are clearly awful people. We hate them, the protagonist hates them, and all are in agreement that he is SO bad, that he should die in a bad way. And not simply in his or her sleep, but in a really satisfying way that will teach him/her a lesson as they suffer in pain and/or horror. The most overused way of killing a bad guy in a film is having them fall to their death, often in slow motion, with the camera from above as we see their face change from determination to fear and understanding that they are about to die. But that is not good enough, no. They will often be impaled on some object thus making their death truly horrific. How many times have we seen this? It happens so many times that I myself have become desensitized to it. In fact, I can usually predict the outcome. Some films do it better than others, and some characters suffer more than other characters, and sometimes the item that the guy is impaled on is indicative of how evil the character is. The more evil, the bigger the thing that he is impaled on. (Cable Guy, or Saruman in The Lord of the Rings, to mention just two)

Then there's the death scene where the bad guy is cornered holding a gun to some hostage's head. "Don't come any closer, or the broad gets it!" Of course, the hero is a really good shot and is not at all in fear of the hostage dying. They take the shot anyway and shoot the villain with a bullet in the forehead. Usually it takes too long to have the shot fired, as the filmmaker tries to build suspense by dragging it out, even though we know its coming. It's a quick death, but the villain's face is always one of shock and disbelief. It's a pay-off we are expecting and we feel somewhat satisfied by it, if not bored by it. Personally, I am bored with it, because I've seen it too many times. And I am desensitized.

The point I am trying to make here is that Hollywood is just too formulaic for me, or maybe I've just seen too many films. It's gotten to the point where its more about shocking the audience in showing them something they haven't seen before. I remember in the 70's when I first saw the David Cronenberg film, Scanners. I loved it at the time, but if you watch it today, it is pretty dated and frankly, NOT a good film. But I was a teenager and that was cinema then. Anyway, that was the film where the audience is shocked because a character's head explodes due to some other character's telepathic abilities. Audiences were not expecting it, and had not seen anything like that before, so it was shocking, surprising, absurd, and horrific. I like to say that this was the first film where someone's head explodes in cinema. Nowadays, its not too uncommon, or surprising to see a head explode. Yawn.

In fact, I think this is why films like Halloween, A Nightmare on Elm Street, and Friday the 13th (and all the sequels) are so popular. For some reason people are entertained by inventive ways of killing people. I don't really get this. Personally, I am not entertained by sadism. I can't stand any of the above mentioned movies. To me, they are pretty flat and I would rather see the deaths used as part of the drama and not simply for effect. Killing someone with a chainsaw? Why is this entertaining? Because it's a horrible way to die? My personal belief is that it is often teenagers and 20-something's that get off on this because it is their nature to love themselves more than anyone else, so other people's lives don't seem to carry much value. As people get older, and have children, or loved ones pass away, they realize that a death is not a trivial event and the impact on people's lives can be devastating. It is something that should not simply be used as method of entertainment. Those guys we see on TV who are in prison for life for killing someone? They all regret it now, don't they. They wish they had made different choices now. Yeah, well... so do the families of the victims, asshole.

This is not to say I am prudish in anyway. Sometimes a movie death is used in a manner that IS shocking but is not purely gratuitous. For example, Saving Private Ryan. This film has loads of death, dismemberment, and horror, but it makes the viewer understand how horrible warfare is and it does not appear to be fun, at all. We see people mowed down, and we get the feeling it could be us. In other films, we don't feel a connect with the characters, so we don't care if they die. But these young men, could be us. So when they are killed we are both captivated, and in fear with them. This film also shows us a scene of hand-to-hand combat and one of our squad is killed in real-time. We watch his face change from anger and determination to horror and pleading, as a knife is pushed into his chest. It's one of the most awful and seemingly real deaths in cinema, and it has stayed with me since the first time I saw the film. We can almost imagine the knife penetrating our own body. It does not seem like a good thing. At all. And I understand the phrase, war is Hell. At least, at some level, even though I've never really experienced it, and hope to never have to.

In Psycho, Hitchcock introduces us to a character whom we get to know, and admire, in the first twenty minutes of the film. Then she is brutally murdered in the shower, yet the film is far from over. This was new to horror films. It really upset people because it was senseless violence and the audience did not see it coming. This too has been done over and over since then, so we are not shocked by this either. Scream ripped off this technique, then it goes on to emulate Friday the 13th. I know people who love Scream, but to me it's nothing new, nor is it particularly clever. Brian DePalma ripped off Hitchcock over and over in his films as well.

I also love the film Se7en. There really is very little on-screen violence in this film, yet the film is thought of as one of the most horrific movies of all time. But if you watch the film closely, you'll see that most of the death happens off-screen. It's what you imagine that you find horrible. There is nothing more terrifying than what you can imagine. And other effective and good death scenes can be found in films like Road to Perdition and American Beauty, to name a couple.

Today there is an alarming trend to make films that glorify torture and killing. Movies like Hostel and The Devil's Rejects. This sub-genre really has me worried for society and my own safety. I don't see anything fun or entertaining here. Hostel is about this facility where the rich can experience killing people for a price. Some poor unsuspecting person is abducted and they find themselves bound and being cut apart by some businessman looking for a demented thrill. I understand that part of the story is the revenge factor and trying to escape this Hell, but why would you want to see someone's extremities cut off? Why do people laugh when this happens on film? I understand not being able to look away at a car accident, it's curiosity. But why are people curious about inflicting pain? Devil's Rejects rejoices too in senseless killing of innocent people and I don't get it. Can anyone really say that media has not desensitized us? I know its an age-old argument, but with school shootings and people shooting strangers in the shopping malls, what will it take to see the connection? Some people ARE absorbing what they are watching. Strangers mean nothing to these people, and you and I are strangers to them.

In my opinion creative-killing is not art. Remember the Joker in the Tim Burton film Batman? "I make art until somebody dies." This was in the 1989, and that was a joke then, sort of. Filmmakers are sort of doing just that. They sit in development meetings and writing things like "Int. Kitchen.
Bad guy sticks hero in the eye with a knife and eats the eyeball off the knife. Hero retaliates by cutting his head off with a hedge trimmer." I imagine the writers and director sitting around, "yeah, yeah, that's it. We haven't seen that before." Well, maybe not those specific events, but we've seen the situation before. Hundreds of times, and I'm bored of seeing it. THAT is why it worries me. I am desensitized to it. Don't get me wrong, I am not interested in hurting anyone, but these films no longer shock me because I've seen too many movies. What worries me is the kid out there who is both desensitized and prone to violence. Should he see this film? Might it not be encouragement to act on these violent impulses?

It's Christmas eve today, which is not a statement, I promise. I am not going on about this because it's a holiday season or anything, but we watch a lot of TV this time of the year, and last night, I saw yet another typical movie death, and I had to roll my eyes. "Jesus, this again?" (pun intended)

So I know I am sending mixed messages here. I like some movies that are violent and others I don't. The bottom line is how the violence is presented and reacted to by the characters. Pleasure in violence should be used with great discretion because I do believe that it causes negative impacts to our culture. But also, death is something that should not be ignored because it is a part of our existence. I understand we cannot please everyone, and censorship is a bad thing, but why is it in America we don't allow the word "fuck" on television, or a shot of a boob, but we can slaughter people during primetime? Perhaps you see my point?

Make love not war - John Lennon.

Sorry to be so serious today.

Certainly not China

It's almost Christmas, and have you purchased a toy or toys for some child in your life? And if so, how certain are you that it's not tainted with lead? You are not certain, I am certain, which could mean a certain toxic chemicals might poison a certain child. Is it negligence on the part of the Chinese people, or is it an attempt to kill us all? Remember the dog food that was killing our dogs too? Do you not see it? Kill our children and our little dogs too! How evil. Or is it simply that all the paint they have in China has lead in it? Cause if they're going to have to import paint from the United States, it might be counter-productive to buy the Chinese products in the first place. And do you have to eat the toys to get sick or is it simply a matter of touching the tainted toys? Or is it all a big propaganda viral campaign to get us to start to distrust the Chinese so President Bush will be justified in bombing some new country?? Their goal to bomb Iran was thankfully thwarted by the little fact that their cover-up was recently exposed. It turns out they knew all along that Iran was not looking to build nuclear weapons. Perhaps. I am not suggesting bombing anyone is the answer to anything, but does Iran really need nuclear power? They've got more oil than they know what to do with, so why would they want nuclear power? Anyway, the bombing option has been made more difficult, which is good. But they've got all those bombs sitting there needing to be dropped somewhere. I am guessing that its all a clever ploy to get the American public to find a new enemy. I personally have not been testing my child's toys for lead, but I have been looking around the websites to determine if some of his favorite toys are on the list. So far, no luck, or good luck that I have not found any, but the list is pretty big. www.cpsc.gov

I personally do not harbor any resentment to the Chinese people but I hear people talking about the Chinese as if they are doing this intentionally. These people are working for slave labor rates. Often children leave their families because they need these measly incomes to help support their families.

Before all the lead hype, I was ambivalent as to whether I should buy the cheap toys/sneakers/clothes/etc. If I bought the items I am supporting a slave labor system and I don't feel good about that. If I don't buy the items that poor family will be even poorer. Jesus Christ! What should I do? Frankly, I have enough stuff, and would rather not buy anything, but I am speaking rhetorically here. Don't put me in the position of deciding to support the slave trade or to starve the slaves. I mean, I don't even know if I should choose plastic or paper? I alway want to ask, which is better? Is it better to kill the trees or pollute the world? Fuck all. I am staying home with my canvas tote bags from PBS.

So now we are supposed to think that buying Chinese projects will kill us and our economy, yet everything is made in China. Just avoid having your children eat their toys and all will be fine. Don't buy it blindly. Or do, I don't care. No one's reading this, or listening to me anyway.

Vote to nap

Is there anything better than a nap? Huge parcels of un-marked bills may be better, but naps are pretty awesome and often overlooked. In our society, it is only the privilege of the young to take naps, and frankly, what do they need to nap for? The sandbox? Please. I firmly believe that I would be far more productive if I could get some shut-eye for 30 minutes each day around 1 to 3 PM. Sometimes I simply just need to retreat, re-group and then I can move forward and conquer. But alas, we the people of the nap, will be thought of as lazy people. The work-world would much prefer if we would forge ahead and suck it up. I say this is evil. Siesta, for all! That is what I am looking for in a Presidential candidate. I want just one of them to come out and say, "and if I am elected President, there will be a mandatory nap at all work places for all people, legal or illegal." But so far, none of the main contenders have even mentioned napping. It's all about the war and the economy and health care. But they cannot see the big picture. If we could nap, we'd be more productive, which would help productivity and hence, the economy. If we could nap, we'd be stronger and healthier and less likely to hurt ourselves on the job for falling asleep while operating heavy machinery, or sending out emails without reading them first. And if we could nap, we'd have more clarity and everyone would realize that the war was a major blunder, and the troops would come home,

"uhh, sorry I blew up your country. They told me to do it. But we're going home now. Sorry. Really. I just work here, and they don't let me take naps."

So this is my call to action, contact your congressmen and/or favorite candidate and have them write a bill to amend our constitution to include a 1 hour nap every day. Pillows and blankies would be nice too, but I don't want to ask for too much.

"Vote for Obama! Because you need the rest."

"Vote for Clinton, you could be napping right now."

"Vote for Edwards, a new union of nappers."


and on the other side

"Vote for Huckabee, Jesus liked napping"

"Vote for Romney, Napping with your wives promotes family values."

"Vote for McCain, because napping is better than being water-boarded."


I think I've missed my calling. I should have been a lobbyist.