I was just watching on the internets here this classic clip of Bing Crosby singing "Little Drummer Boy" with David Bowie. It's Christmas time and all, and though I don't go in for Holiday Gatherings and Celebrating, I do go in for David Bowieing. Watch that clip I linked to, and try and think of anyone else from his (or any more recent) generation that might look as at ease as Bowie does, being forced to give canned lines and pretend to break out in song with an old crooner way past his prime.
This, of course, is the same Bowie that made Zoolander twenty times better than it already was. This is the same Bowie that we'll go to the mat for when someone says "China Girl" isn't actually that good, even though we know it's true. This is the David Bowie that is one of two people, along with Eddie Izzard, that can cross-dress yet not make that the thing - the talent actually eclipses the weird.
I used to have a list of the three most awesome people in the world. It went David Bowie, Snoop Dogg, and #3 was TBD. But last week, apropos of another conversation, I promoted David Bowie to his own class. David Bowie is awesome. Not "is awesome" in the way that soup "is hot" or a frog "is green"; Bowie actually instantiates awesomeness. Go ahead. Name me someone cooler. I didn't think so.
As this is the Christmas season, I do have one wish. I wish Bowie had died for my sins instead. I'd much rather pray to him.
(Insert your own blood/body of Bowie joke here.)
Monday, December 24, 2007
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Dear American Express
To Whom it May Concern,
I was looking over my billing statement, and in the fine print, you tell me that if I am unhappy with a purchase made, and have tried "in good faith" to rectify the problem, you can take it off my bill. Well, it just so happens that I made a purchase in the last billing cycle that I am very dissatisfied with, and I would like it to be taken off my statement.
I am kindly requesting that you remove the $50 contribution I made to Dennis Kucinich's campaign.
I have seen nothing result from my purchase. The war in Iraq has not ended. Congress has not dislodged its head from its ass long enough to pass a FISA bill. New housing starts are down 3.7% last month. Mike Huckabee still exists. Hell, my house is still dirty and my wang isn't any longer. And my $50 seems not to have changed any of this.
Now, you may quibble with whether or not I have, "in good faith," tried to rectify the problem. To my mind, the contribution itself was supposed to rectify the problem. It has not. Kucinich is no closer to the White House than he was prior to my purchase of $50 worth of campaign units. So, I suppose you, good people at Amex, have a choice. Either ensure me a Kucinich victory, or please refund my $50. Or, at least, stop Dick Cheney from being.
All the best,
[redacted]
I was looking over my billing statement, and in the fine print, you tell me that if I am unhappy with a purchase made, and have tried "in good faith" to rectify the problem, you can take it off my bill. Well, it just so happens that I made a purchase in the last billing cycle that I am very dissatisfied with, and I would like it to be taken off my statement.
I am kindly requesting that you remove the $50 contribution I made to Dennis Kucinich's campaign.
I have seen nothing result from my purchase. The war in Iraq has not ended. Congress has not dislodged its head from its ass long enough to pass a FISA bill. New housing starts are down 3.7% last month. Mike Huckabee still exists. Hell, my house is still dirty and my wang isn't any longer. And my $50 seems not to have changed any of this.
Now, you may quibble with whether or not I have, "in good faith," tried to rectify the problem. To my mind, the contribution itself was supposed to rectify the problem. It has not. Kucinich is no closer to the White House than he was prior to my purchase of $50 worth of campaign units. So, I suppose you, good people at Amex, have a choice. Either ensure me a Kucinich victory, or please refund my $50. Or, at least, stop Dick Cheney from being.
All the best,
[redacted]
Thursday, December 13, 2007
The Mitchell Report, aka Hal Morris? Really?
So the Mitchell Report, in which we have been given the names of many different baseball players who took performance enhancing substances (to use the euphemism for "steroids"), came out today. I won't say too much, because ESPN is doing, like, ninety consecutive hours on the issue, but a couple thoughts.
1. During the press conference, Senator Mitchell pretty much said, "This is the list. Please ignore it and go about your business." Now, I understand why it's hard to penalize these people, and let those that were just better at cheating off the hook, but really? Just, here's the report, please don't go and do anything about it? Good work.
2. Larry Bagbie actually wrote, in the memo field of a check used to pay for steroids, "Supplements". Not really a great way to cover your tracks there, Bags. Maybe a little more discreet next time, eh? Even if you're way into it, your check memo should never read, "Hookers and blow".
3. F.P. Santangelo was on the list? Adam Piatt? Jesus, think of how bad they would have been without steroids. It boggles the mind.
1. During the press conference, Senator Mitchell pretty much said, "This is the list. Please ignore it and go about your business." Now, I understand why it's hard to penalize these people, and let those that were just better at cheating off the hook, but really? Just, here's the report, please don't go and do anything about it? Good work.
2. Larry Bagbie actually wrote, in the memo field of a check used to pay for steroids, "Supplements". Not really a great way to cover your tracks there, Bags. Maybe a little more discreet next time, eh? Even if you're way into it, your check memo should never read, "Hookers and blow".
3. F.P. Santangelo was on the list? Adam Piatt? Jesus, think of how bad they would have been without steroids. It boggles the mind.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
We get it, Russia. You're fucking nuts.
I've mentioned a few times how this (American) administration loves to give its populace "Are you fucking kidding me?" moments every so often (okay, every very often), in which the only reasonable response to what they've done is say, you guessed it, "Are you fucking kidding me?" It's down to a science, almost, and I have to admit I was afraid that, geopolitically speaking, we were the best (worst?) at this "Gotcha again!" mentality.
But then I remembered Russia exists. Now, to be fair, Russia's had it's share of problems throughout the last century. And my fair share of problems. And your fair share of problems. And Canada's fair share of problems. And all of Oceania. Basically, the history of 20th Century Russia went a little like this (I'm paraphrasing from my 20th Century Russian History class I took in college): Famine, Civil War, famine, World War, famine, World War, Stalin/famine/gulags/Great Purges, economic collapse, famine, Perestroika, economic collapse. They're not really building on a tremendous track record.
So they elect Putin a few years back, and it appears that the Russians have managed to get past Yeltsin, and elect someone who might actually have his shit together enough to run a country. Except they didn't count on the crazy. Putin's, you know, totalitarianist tendency to not want to abdicate once his second (and final) term as President expires next year. But the Russians, and the global community, are having none of this "Fuck the constitution" mentality Putin seems to champion. Ironic the United States is against that. But I digress.
So what does Putin do? If you've been reading the news, you see he held elections last week (I think) that his party swept. Surprisingly, there have been claims of Russia's favorite "F" word, fraud. Not the point. Two days ago, Putin said, "Okay, well, if I can't be president again next year, and I can't keel moose and squirrel, I want this guy you've never heard of to be president." This guy we've never heard of, Dmitri Medvedev, aside from being one M or V away from being a palindrome, has almost no record of high-level service. It kinda seems like, I dunno, Putin is telling Russia to elect someone that he could have total control over. But would he really be so brazen as to do something that obvious?
The New York Times, a publication that most certainly believes that abortion should not only be legal, but mandatory, printed the story today that, OMG, Medvedev thinks that maybe when he's president, would it be all right if Putin comes over and is Prime Minister? One day after someone Russians haven't even heard of is recommended as the next president by the current one, said potential successor mentions casually, "Oh, and the guy that wants me in might, you know, stay in power." There's even the possibility Medvedev could step down, and Putin could regain the presidency.
You know, for a country that's criticized for lack of transparency in governmental operations, this one's pretty obvious. Well played, Russia. Well played.
But then I remembered Russia exists. Now, to be fair, Russia's had it's share of problems throughout the last century. And my fair share of problems. And your fair share of problems. And Canada's fair share of problems. And all of Oceania. Basically, the history of 20th Century Russia went a little like this (I'm paraphrasing from my 20th Century Russian History class I took in college): Famine, Civil War, famine, World War, famine, World War, Stalin/famine/gulags/Great Purges, economic collapse, famine, Perestroika, economic collapse. They're not really building on a tremendous track record.
So they elect Putin a few years back, and it appears that the Russians have managed to get past Yeltsin, and elect someone who might actually have his shit together enough to run a country. Except they didn't count on the crazy. Putin's, you know, totalitarianist tendency to not want to abdicate once his second (and final) term as President expires next year. But the Russians, and the global community, are having none of this "Fuck the constitution" mentality Putin seems to champion. Ironic the United States is against that. But I digress.
So what does Putin do? If you've been reading the news, you see he held elections last week (I think) that his party swept. Surprisingly, there have been claims of Russia's favorite "F" word, fraud. Not the point. Two days ago, Putin said, "Okay, well, if I can't be president again next year, and I can't keel moose and squirrel, I want this guy you've never heard of to be president." This guy we've never heard of, Dmitri Medvedev, aside from being one M or V away from being a palindrome, has almost no record of high-level service. It kinda seems like, I dunno, Putin is telling Russia to elect someone that he could have total control over. But would he really be so brazen as to do something that obvious?
The New York Times, a publication that most certainly believes that abortion should not only be legal, but mandatory, printed the story today that, OMG, Medvedev thinks that maybe when he's president, would it be all right if Putin comes over and is Prime Minister? One day after someone Russians haven't even heard of is recommended as the next president by the current one, said potential successor mentions casually, "Oh, and the guy that wants me in might, you know, stay in power." There's even the possibility Medvedev could step down, and Putin could regain the presidency.
You know, for a country that's criticized for lack of transparency in governmental operations, this one's pretty obvious. Well played, Russia. Well played.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Do The Grammys not have iTunes?
The 50th Grammy Awards nominations were announced today. And, my God, the people that decide what's the best in the world for the entire year must really splurge on the Down's Syndrome. It seems that they've officially taken the stance that "I heard that song on the radio a few months back and it wasn't any good but I guess it was all right" is good enough to get a nod.
Before we go any further: Full disclosure of what I own that was nominated. Six things. Five albums and one DVD. The albums are Arcade Fire, LCD Soundsystem, Tom Waits, Kanye West, and Lupe Fiasco. The DVD is R. Kelly's second installment of Trapped in the Closet. I own the first half, too. I am not ashamed of this. They are the best unintentional comedies since, well, ever. But if you think that list I presented is crap, then you might not like what I have to say about the grammy nominations.
Kanye West led the pack with something like eight nominations. People seemed to ignore that most the album is pretty okay, but not like the first two. So there, like with mutherfucking Bon Jovi's nomination, we're going with, "Well, you did some cool shit once." Minus any cool shit for Bon Jovi. Amy Winehouse has a shitload of nominations. I don't care about her personal life, but simply writing about drug abuse is no cause for a Grammy. Why doesn't John Darnielle, then, have twelve shelves full of the awards for The Mountain Goats? Talking about doing lines over Norah Jones music doesn't qualify as awesome.
The list goes on with the usual suspects. Paul McCartney? Yeah, the Beatles were pretty good. Foo Fighters? Remember when that album with "Monkey Wrench" came out? Let's KEEP nominating them!
But why am I bitching so much? Why am I surprised. This is the group of people that told us Steely Goddamn Dan's Two Against Nature was better than Kid A. I guess I should be more worried if I start to agree with the nominations.
Except for the best songwriting nod to "Hey There Delilah." It's like he's singing only for me! Sigh.
Before we go any further: Full disclosure of what I own that was nominated. Six things. Five albums and one DVD. The albums are Arcade Fire, LCD Soundsystem, Tom Waits, Kanye West, and Lupe Fiasco. The DVD is R. Kelly's second installment of Trapped in the Closet. I own the first half, too. I am not ashamed of this. They are the best unintentional comedies since, well, ever. But if you think that list I presented is crap, then you might not like what I have to say about the grammy nominations.
Kanye West led the pack with something like eight nominations. People seemed to ignore that most the album is pretty okay, but not like the first two. So there, like with mutherfucking Bon Jovi's nomination, we're going with, "Well, you did some cool shit once." Minus any cool shit for Bon Jovi. Amy Winehouse has a shitload of nominations. I don't care about her personal life, but simply writing about drug abuse is no cause for a Grammy. Why doesn't John Darnielle, then, have twelve shelves full of the awards for The Mountain Goats? Talking about doing lines over Norah Jones music doesn't qualify as awesome.
The list goes on with the usual suspects. Paul McCartney? Yeah, the Beatles were pretty good. Foo Fighters? Remember when that album with "Monkey Wrench" came out? Let's KEEP nominating them!
But why am I bitching so much? Why am I surprised. This is the group of people that told us Steely Goddamn Dan's Two Against Nature was better than Kid A. I guess I should be more worried if I start to agree with the nominations.
Except for the best songwriting nod to "Hey There Delilah." It's like he's singing only for me! Sigh.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
We don't believe you, Iran
So now, today, the president is telling Iran they MUST come clean concerning their nuclear programs and ambitions.
Ummm...didn't our own NIE do that? Like, just yesterday? Welp, see ya later!
Ummm...didn't our own NIE do that? Like, just yesterday? Welp, see ya later!
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Can I has my Iran boom plz?
Good news! I mentioned yesterday that the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) said that maybe Iran isn't quite so deadly and maybe they're not plotting to rape you in your sleep tonight. Bush? He stills worries for your cherry. The New York Times, well-known for it's desire to see Jesus re-crucified, has Bush saying this:
This administration, I truly believe, isn't going to quit until it has every American saying every day, at least once, "Are you fucking kidding me?" Or until our collective heads explode simultaneously when we are unable to comprehend what the administration just did. Hopefully, we'll all be vacationing in Tehran when that happens. Take that, Islam!
"[T]he N.I.E. doesn’t do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world — quite the contrary.”And from the tea-sniffers at the BBC (notice the addition of the word "me" to the word "program". Fucking selfish wrong-side-driving-lift-riding fops.):
"I view this report as a warning signal that they had the programme, they halted the programme," Mr Bush told a news conference. "The reason why it's a warning signal is they could restart it."So. Let's see. The report that Iran isn't very dangerous makes Bush think Iran is more dangerous. The fact that Iran stopped its attempt to make nuclear weapons is a warning that they are trying to make nuclear weapons.
This administration, I truly believe, isn't going to quit until it has every American saying every day, at least once, "Are you fucking kidding me?" Or until our collective heads explode simultaneously when we are unable to comprehend what the administration just did. Hopefully, we'll all be vacationing in Tehran when that happens. Take that, Islam!
Monday, December 3, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)