I just watched the premiere episode of Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, because, well, what the fuck else am I supposed to while not getting drunk, and I have a few thoughts. I'll bet you can go to Hulu by the time you read this and catch yourself up if you didn't watch, yet still feel like it's VERY important to know what I thought about the show (you don't).
The monologue was very Leno-esque. I don't mean that in a "not funny" way, as some of it was somewhat amusing. I mean that, though all the hosts short of Ferguson can't merely allow laughter to follow their punchlines but instead have to add a few words of "banter," Fallon copies Leno in that the comment following the (somewhat stilted) joke tended to dumb down the joke by explaining it in a laughing manner. If Fallon (or Leno) asks why firemen wear suspenders, and finishes with, "To keep their pants up," you can be guaranteed that during the applause, Fallon (assuming we've removed the previous parenthetical) will look over at his band leader (?uestlove, of course), and say, "Well, something's gotta hold them up!" And people will stop laughing.
The slow-jamming the news could become good. The awkwardness of that was more on the Roots than Fallon.
The game played with the audience, "Lick It For Ten," could almost be a Letterman game. The game had three audience members come on stage and lick a lawn mower, a printer/copier, and a goldfish bowl, respectively. However, what Fallon and Co. don't seem to realize is that Letterman's games either 1) don't involve the audience and thus can be relied upon to be good because they're ridiculing Rupert Gee or playing the utterly absurd "Will It Float," or 2) are actually comedy routines or rejected monologue jokes that don't actually need audience participation. Unless you're The Price is Right!, don't rely on your audience to provide humor. They can only be fodder.
Dangerous choice having Robert De Niro as the first guest ever. I was worried at first that Fallon was going to slide into what I would do if I had a talk show and got to meet De Niro, and fall right into fanboy mode and just say, "Oh my God...you're Robert De Niro," over and over again. But Fallon calmed down pretty quickly.
As Fallon stated outright, De Niro is notorious for not giving particularly great interviews (side note: "notorious" actually has no negative connotation, according to the OED), and he didn't disappoint here. Fallon handled the anti-interview pretty well, almost Conan in style, in that he announced he would be asking De Niro questions that could be answered with only one word, and was calm enough later in the interview to bring the joke back when De Niro answered a very leading question with only one word.
When Justin Timberlake came out, Late Night turned very quickly into the Late Late Show when Craig Ferguson has a friend on as a guest, where they share inside jokes and leave the audience out. Fallon had Timberlake do a few impressions that I'm sure were hilarious in the green room of SNL, and were pretty funny here, but it seemed a lot like they were at a party, and Fallon was saying to Timberlake, "Oh, oh, do the one where you're John Mayer! Guys, guys, you'll love it!" And everyone else at the party just doesn't care. As well, they did their ne'er-requested Gibb brothers talk show song from SNL.
So, to recap: in his first show, Fallon had moments of Leno, Letterman, O'Brien, and Ferguson. Also, he shares the same first name and structure of last name as Jimmy Kimmel (consonant-vowel-double consonant-vowel-consonant, in case you didn't want to do the math yourself). That being said, I liked Jimmy Fallon better tonight than I ever did on SNL, and think he could ultimately be on to something. And at least he didn't also copy Chelsea Lately. That being said, I don't have DVR, and if I'm ever up this late again, I'm reading a book.
You know what the best part about this whole post is? If you're reading this, you literally couldn't care less what I think about the Jimmy Fallon show. But, hey. We're just trying to keep limber here with the writing. They can't all be gems.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Newspapers for dummies
This morning, I'm reading my favorite anti-American neo-communist fishwrap, the New York Times, and I come across a story that gives me pause. And I'm not talking about the story that merely had the headline "Michelle Obama Goes Sleeveless, Again," which might be okay in the Style section, but certainly not The Caucus, where it appeared. However asinine I think that is, there are other articles that demand our attention today.
I'm talking about an article entitled, "Germany Rejects Bailout Plan for Eastern Europe." Now, I haven't even read the whole article yet. In fact, I haven't gotten past the first sentence. That's because the first sentence is this little beauty that blew my mind:
But almost more importantly, while technically accurate in that a multibillion euro bailout will, in this economy, always equal a multibillion dollar bailout, implying that the euro can be described as "a dollar" is incredibly lazy and poorly researched. Actually, researched isn't even the right word. Because if you're on the international beat for the AP, you already know that a euro is not a dollar. So, it's just poorly done. Very poorly done.
In the spirit of terrible journalism, I have decided to cull some back issues (back issues can't be the correct phrase) of the Times in order to see if I can't update them to be more in the new style of the Times. Pun kind of intended. So, here we go!
1. President Obama (James K. Polk) on Saturday described his expansive budget proposal as “a threat to the status quo in Washington (Cambodia)” and cast himself as a populist crusader willing to do battle with special interests to expand health care, curb pollution (dogs) and improve education.
2. CHICAGO — Paul Harvey, the news commentator and talk-radio pioneer whose staccato style made him one of the nation’s most familiar voices, died Saturday (Tuesday) in Arizona, according to ABC Radio Networks. He was 90 (107). (Notice also the Chicago dateline for an event that happened in Arizona.)
3. Despite huge enforcement actions on both (three) sides of the Southwest border, the Mexican (Chinese) marijuana (black tar heroin) trade is more robust — and brazen — than ever, law enforcement officials say.
If I had readers I'd say, hey, make your own in the comments! But, really, I wrote this whole things so I could replace the word "Mexican" with the word "Chinese," and really that even failed because I couldn't find "Mexican" as a noun, because then I could have done what I really wanted, and and replaced it with "Chinamen." But, life goes on.
I'm talking about an article entitled, "Germany Rejects Bailout Plan for Eastern Europe." Now, I haven't even read the whole article yet. In fact, I haven't gotten past the first sentence. That's because the first sentence is this little beauty that blew my mind:
BRUSSELS (AP) -- Germany rejected appeals Sunday for a single multibillion euro (dollar) bailout of eastern Europe, even after Hungary begged EU leaders not to let a new ''Iron Curtain'' divide the continent into rich and poor.What the fuck, New York Times and Associated Press? Let's start small. First off, do we really need a parenthetical legend to explain what a euro is? I understand that newspapers, even ones as esteemed as our Gray Lady, write to target like a fourth grade reading level, but that's just ridiculous. If a reader has to stop in the first sentence of reading a piece on the economic structure of Europe because he or she doesn't know what a euro is, it's probably a good wake-up call that he or she ought to do some background research.
But almost more importantly, while technically accurate in that a multibillion euro bailout will, in this economy, always equal a multibillion dollar bailout, implying that the euro can be described as "a dollar" is incredibly lazy and poorly researched. Actually, researched isn't even the right word. Because if you're on the international beat for the AP, you already know that a euro is not a dollar. So, it's just poorly done. Very poorly done.
In the spirit of terrible journalism, I have decided to cull some back issues (back issues can't be the correct phrase) of the Times in order to see if I can't update them to be more in the new style of the Times. Pun kind of intended. So, here we go!
1. President Obama (James K. Polk) on Saturday described his expansive budget proposal as “a threat to the status quo in Washington (Cambodia)” and cast himself as a populist crusader willing to do battle with special interests to expand health care, curb pollution (dogs) and improve education.
2. CHICAGO — Paul Harvey, the news commentator and talk-radio pioneer whose staccato style made him one of the nation’s most familiar voices, died Saturday (Tuesday) in Arizona, according to ABC Radio Networks. He was 90 (107). (Notice also the Chicago dateline for an event that happened in Arizona.)
3. Despite huge enforcement actions on both (three) sides of the Southwest border, the Mexican (Chinese) marijuana (black tar heroin) trade is more robust — and brazen — than ever, law enforcement officials say.
If I had readers I'd say, hey, make your own in the comments! But, really, I wrote this whole things so I could replace the word "Mexican" with the word "Chinese," and really that even failed because I couldn't find "Mexican" as a noun, because then I could have done what I really wanted, and and replaced it with "Chinamen." But, life goes on.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Why would anyone give up anything alcohol related for Lent?
First off, a couple weeks ago, I wrote a scathing rant against something Joe Biden said about Russian foreign policy, but as I clicked "publish post," Blogger, and thus Google, decided it would be better if I didn't publish such things. And blew up my internets. I decided not to rewrite it, and Google Help is actually anything but, so the short of it is, we're all out an interesting post, and I'm probably on a Federal no-fly list now. But, we move on to new topics.
I'm not Catholic, but having gone to a Catholic college and being surrounded by a lot of Them, I usually do the whole Lenten sacrifice thing, basically just to see how long I could go on whatever it was I gave up. Usually, about a week, max. Well, except last year, where giving up Taco Bell actually lasted me about two or three months. Before I fell back down to Earth. Hard.
This year, though, I decided I really go for the gusto, especially considering I'm back in grad school, where it's very easy to fall into debauchery, so we might as well swing the other way as far as possible. And, seeing as it's another Catholic school, it seems only fair that I test myself.
I've given up drunkenness within the state I reside. Now, let's get one thing straight before I go any further. Not once did it cross my mind that I'd actually give up alcohol, as a whole. Why set yourself up for something at which you're destined to fail? Seems less than rational. And besides, this is self-sacrifice, not suicide. After 40 days of Lent, it's Jesus that's dead, not me.
As well, the conditional "within the state I reside" is crucial, as I have a trip to Spring Training planned for less than a week from now, and I'll be damned if I leave the snow, go to Arizona, watch baseball with a good friend in the sun for three days, and don't get plastered at least once. I mean, come on!
So, let's do the math. Obviously, this all started on Ash Wednesday, which means we're about...60 hours into Lent. And though, obviously, my Lenten sacrifice allows me to drink some alcohol, I have not done so since Tuesday night. And in those sixty hours, I have been more productive than usual. I've finally, after it being on my shelf for at least a year and a half, gotten 75 pages a night done of One Hundred Years of Solitude. I've been much more on the ball when it comes to writing for the blog site that actually pays me. As far as school work is concerned, I started a paper today that's due the first week of May. Basically, I've been better at life.
And it sucks. I know this is the part where I'm supposed to say, and I'm sooo much happier, and more alert, and get things done, and all that bullshit, but that's not really the case. It's Friday night, the night my Spring Break starts, and instead of wanting to go out and meet friends and watch them get drunk, or even just have a drink and watch TV by myself, I'm just angry with my healthy life choices. There's even an interesting show tonight - one of the dudes from LCD Soundsystem and Hercules and Love Affair are both doing DJ sets three blocks from my apartment, but I'm pretty sure DJ sets blow unless you're drunk. I'm pretty sure that's science.
Did I bring this upon myself? Yes. Are you supposed to feel sorry for me because I haven't been drinking for three whole days? No. Should I even be complaining because I'm getting shit done that I usually put off? No. Will I continue doing so until Lent is over, or give in to getting hammered some night for no good reason? Yes. Will it annoy you more than a string of rhetorical questions? Absolutely. And, unfortunately for you, will it mean I spend more time writing on this site? Definitely.
So enjoy. You're in this with me now.
I'm not Catholic, but having gone to a Catholic college and being surrounded by a lot of Them, I usually do the whole Lenten sacrifice thing, basically just to see how long I could go on whatever it was I gave up. Usually, about a week, max. Well, except last year, where giving up Taco Bell actually lasted me about two or three months. Before I fell back down to Earth. Hard.
This year, though, I decided I really go for the gusto, especially considering I'm back in grad school, where it's very easy to fall into debauchery, so we might as well swing the other way as far as possible. And, seeing as it's another Catholic school, it seems only fair that I test myself.
I've given up drunkenness within the state I reside. Now, let's get one thing straight before I go any further. Not once did it cross my mind that I'd actually give up alcohol, as a whole. Why set yourself up for something at which you're destined to fail? Seems less than rational. And besides, this is self-sacrifice, not suicide. After 40 days of Lent, it's Jesus that's dead, not me.
As well, the conditional "within the state I reside" is crucial, as I have a trip to Spring Training planned for less than a week from now, and I'll be damned if I leave the snow, go to Arizona, watch baseball with a good friend in the sun for three days, and don't get plastered at least once. I mean, come on!
So, let's do the math. Obviously, this all started on Ash Wednesday, which means we're about...60 hours into Lent. And though, obviously, my Lenten sacrifice allows me to drink some alcohol, I have not done so since Tuesday night. And in those sixty hours, I have been more productive than usual. I've finally, after it being on my shelf for at least a year and a half, gotten 75 pages a night done of One Hundred Years of Solitude. I've been much more on the ball when it comes to writing for the blog site that actually pays me. As far as school work is concerned, I started a paper today that's due the first week of May. Basically, I've been better at life.
And it sucks. I know this is the part where I'm supposed to say, and I'm sooo much happier, and more alert, and get things done, and all that bullshit, but that's not really the case. It's Friday night, the night my Spring Break starts, and instead of wanting to go out and meet friends and watch them get drunk, or even just have a drink and watch TV by myself, I'm just angry with my healthy life choices. There's even an interesting show tonight - one of the dudes from LCD Soundsystem and Hercules and Love Affair are both doing DJ sets three blocks from my apartment, but I'm pretty sure DJ sets blow unless you're drunk. I'm pretty sure that's science.
Did I bring this upon myself? Yes. Are you supposed to feel sorry for me because I haven't been drinking for three whole days? No. Should I even be complaining because I'm getting shit done that I usually put off? No. Will I continue doing so until Lent is over, or give in to getting hammered some night for no good reason? Yes. Will it annoy you more than a string of rhetorical questions? Absolutely. And, unfortunately for you, will it mean I spend more time writing on this site? Definitely.
So enjoy. You're in this with me now.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Change and hope should be prepositional
I have bad news for all of us. Barack Obama is going to be sworn in as president one week from today (that's not the bad news), and guess what - there's a good chance he won't change the world. Even with a Democratic congress and a victory in November current presidents would most likely call a "mandate," there's a good chance we're so far fucked that to extricate our country from all the issues facing us might not take only four, or eight, years.
Here's my main concern: for all the excitement Obama garnered, for all the amazing speeches, for all the policy he and his team have been leaking over the past few weeks (I don't know that any president-elect has gone this far in revealing plans prior to inaguration, but not the point), Obama still ran on the rather vague dual platform of "hope" and "change."
Why does this bother me? Because "hope" and "change" are not complete thoughts. This minor disobedience in grammar functions doesn't necessarily bother me from a syntax standpoint, but more so in the lack of actual content. We have to have hope in or for something, and we need change to be from one thing to another. Hope in. Hope for. Change to. As much as we all love and are happy with Obama, I need the blanks filled in a little better than we got during the campaign.
So, over the next week, as nearly-president Obama keeps on trucking, keeps on appointing Clintons to Positions of Influence, keeps on tempering previously made statements, I'll keep on waiting to know exactly how Obama actually is going to unfuck us. Of course, he does have four years. Which is a long time. My exact words when Bush was sworn in in 2001: "It's only four years. How bad could it be?"
I have higher hopes for Barack Obama.
See what I did there?
Here's my main concern: for all the excitement Obama garnered, for all the amazing speeches, for all the policy he and his team have been leaking over the past few weeks (I don't know that any president-elect has gone this far in revealing plans prior to inaguration, but not the point), Obama still ran on the rather vague dual platform of "hope" and "change."
Why does this bother me? Because "hope" and "change" are not complete thoughts. This minor disobedience in grammar functions doesn't necessarily bother me from a syntax standpoint, but more so in the lack of actual content. We have to have hope in or for something, and we need change to be from one thing to another. Hope in. Hope for. Change to. As much as we all love and are happy with Obama, I need the blanks filled in a little better than we got during the campaign.
So, over the next week, as nearly-president Obama keeps on trucking, keeps on appointing Clintons to Positions of Influence, keeps on tempering previously made statements, I'll keep on waiting to know exactly how Obama actually is going to unfuck us. Of course, he does have four years. Which is a long time. My exact words when Bush was sworn in in 2001: "It's only four years. How bad could it be?"
I have higher hopes for Barack Obama.
See what I did there?
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Oh, Illinois politics, you are awesome
Oh, look, I didn't write at all in December. It was a long month. No time for much of anything. So, let's jump back into it, shall we?
Being in Illinois while Rod Blagojevich is still governor of the state is kind of the most fun thing ever. Every single thing he does seems 112% calculated to be a huge "fuck off" to everyone, ever. Oh, I'm under investigation by the FBI and I know my phones are tapped? Watch me try and auction off a Senate seat. Oh, everyone wants me to cede all power and resign? Watch me actually appoint someone to the Senate seat I was just trying to sell. Oh, I just got impeached by a 114-1 vote? Watch me hold a press conference and deny any wrongdoing, and state that I'm going to fight this. Yeah, that's right. Me and my awesome hair will make it through this just fine.
You'd have to think that at some point Blagojevich would have looked at the track record of the governers in this state, and then realized you can't get away with being a corrupt politician out here anymore unless your last name is Daley. Those guys, by the way, can still get away with murder. But, no, Blagojevich decided that he'd tempt all sorts of fate and go ahead and outcorrupt even the previous governer, George Ryan, who's sitting in prison right now for...let's see...sale of government licenses. That shit's JV compared to selling a Senate seat. I'm pretty impressed.
I can't wait to see what Blagojevich does next. Eats a baby at a presser just to see if he can get away with it? Appoint himself president? I actually half-expect him to appoint me to something, because why not at this point? I'm about as qualified as Burris, except I don't yet have a mausoleum built for myself. I'm donating my body to science anyway. At least let some med students have some fun.
Being in Illinois while Rod Blagojevich is still governor of the state is kind of the most fun thing ever. Every single thing he does seems 112% calculated to be a huge "fuck off" to everyone, ever. Oh, I'm under investigation by the FBI and I know my phones are tapped? Watch me try and auction off a Senate seat. Oh, everyone wants me to cede all power and resign? Watch me actually appoint someone to the Senate seat I was just trying to sell. Oh, I just got impeached by a 114-1 vote? Watch me hold a press conference and deny any wrongdoing, and state that I'm going to fight this. Yeah, that's right. Me and my awesome hair will make it through this just fine.
You'd have to think that at some point Blagojevich would have looked at the track record of the governers in this state, and then realized you can't get away with being a corrupt politician out here anymore unless your last name is Daley. Those guys, by the way, can still get away with murder. But, no, Blagojevich decided that he'd tempt all sorts of fate and go ahead and outcorrupt even the previous governer, George Ryan, who's sitting in prison right now for...let's see...sale of government licenses. That shit's JV compared to selling a Senate seat. I'm pretty impressed.
I can't wait to see what Blagojevich does next. Eats a baby at a presser just to see if he can get away with it? Appoint himself president? I actually half-expect him to appoint me to something, because why not at this point? I'm about as qualified as Burris, except I don't yet have a mausoleum built for myself. I'm donating my body to science anyway. At least let some med students have some fun.
Monday, November 24, 2008
A post involving Monday Night Football and Common, but not about sports or music
I was just watching a commercial during Monday Night Football (no, I will not discuss Tony Kornheiser in this post: you're welcome), and a Zune commercial comes on in which the rapper Common is talking. He is wearing a shirt that says, simply, "COMMON."
Now, I like Common. I think he is a great rapper. But that long-sleeved shirt that so boldly announces his name...not too sure. It's a pretty tremendous combination of pretentious and douchey, which, though slightly impressive, might not be okay. It reminds me a lot of anyone who wears this shirt:
Let's get a closer look at that detail, shall we, guys?
Yep. The saddle point of pretension and douche, as exemplified by Ralph Lauren, with this shirt, as well as Common wearing a shirt that boldly proclaims his name. Let's try and put a stop to these things, shall we?
Now, I like Common. I think he is a great rapper. But that long-sleeved shirt that so boldly announces his name...not too sure. It's a pretty tremendous combination of pretentious and douchey, which, though slightly impressive, might not be okay. It reminds me a lot of anyone who wears this shirt:
Let's get a closer look at that detail, shall we, guys?
Yep. The saddle point of pretension and douche, as exemplified by Ralph Lauren, with this shirt, as well as Common wearing a shirt that boldly proclaims his name. Let's try and put a stop to these things, shall we?
Monday, November 10, 2008
Detox
So this weekend I destroyed my liver, again. The real issue, though, is that because I'm in school again, and nearing the end of the semester, this weekend would have been much better served studying, and not, you know, breaking my brain.
I have a Macallan tasting this Friday. Other than that, we're going to try a fun experiment. It's called "Not Drinking Until Thanksgiving Break." That's over two weeks away. Ready...GO!
I have a Macallan tasting this Friday. Other than that, we're going to try a fun experiment. It's called "Not Drinking Until Thanksgiving Break." That's over two weeks away. Ready...GO!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)