A Conversation With Jesus
So yesterday, just for this blog and for you loyal readers at home (or work, where you SHOULD be reading this) I snagged an EXCLUSIVE interview with the one, the only, Jesus. I sat down with him for a bit to talk about politics, religion and life in general. Needless to say, I learned a lot in this conversation with the Big Man.
Rezips v. The World: Hey Jesus, pleasure to meet you
Was Jesus Black? I know.
Jesus H. Christ: Hey Mike, how’s it going?
RvTW: It’s going well Jesus, it’s going well
Jesus: That’s “god” to hear!
RvTW: *laughs*
Jesus: *laughs*
RvTW: That’s the thing about you, Jesus, nobody realizes what a great sense of humor you have!
Jesus: You know, with the whole “Crusi-fiction” thing, people kinda don’t like to joke about religion in general, or at least about me. It’s always been “you can’t joke about Jesus” or “Jesus would not approve.” Well fuck that shit! Lighten up guys. I mean, I’m the son of God. It’s not like a little joke is gonna make me cry or anything! I turned fucking water into wine! I mean for Dad’s sake, relax!
The Truth Shall Set You Free
RvTW: I couldn’t help but notice you made air quotes when referring to your crucifixion. Care to elaborate?
Jesus: No.
RvTW: *laughs*
Jesus: *laughs* But seriously, the whole thing has been blow way out of proportion. It really wasn’t a big deal. Here’s what really happened. Judas and I were playing a drinking game called “Quis Jesus operor madidus,” or “What Would Jesus Do – While Drunk?” and Judas’s idea was to “sell” me out to the Romans. They start telling me how much torture they’re gonna do to me, but I don’t care. I turn water into wine and they begin to beg me for forgiveness because of how powerful I was. Meanwhile, I was fucking plastered – just GONE. So the whole time these Romans are begging me, and I tell them, “guys, guys, you need to strap on a pair of nuts or get the fuck out.” Well they tell me they’ve been building a new restaurant called “The Colosseum,” and it’s their new big thing. They tell me they’ve spent years making it, and it was almost done, but their top engineers just couldn’t figure out a way to get the “t” bar to the top. Well I’m sittin’ there thinkin’, “I’ve been working out a lot lately–”
RvTW: Yeah you’re fuckin’ ripped!
Jesus: –thanks! so I say to them, “why don’t you let me take the ‘t’ bar up for you?” So I take it up to the top of the hill to drop it down below onto the Colosseum. But when I get to the top, I’m just a fucking mess. It’s a LONG walk, man! So I set up the “t” bar up at the top of the hill, throw my arms over it and just rest for a few minutes. When I finished, I dropped it below and finished the Colosseum. Let me tell you – best Caesar Salad I’ve ever eaten!
RvTW: My God, Jesus! What you’ve told me is a completely different story than what’s written in the Bible! Why is it so different?
Jesus: Have you ever told a story to a friend who tells it to a friend who tells it to a friend? By the time the story goes around to the tenth person the story barely resembles the original. Like, if you saw a cool movie this past weekend and told a friend, by the time it got around the story will be that you had sex in a movie theater with seven transvestite hookers, all of whom looked like George Washington!
Life, The Universe, And Keepin’ It Real
RvTW: Speaking of movies, Jesus, tell me: what’s your favorite movie?
Jesus: Well, definitely NOT “The Passion of the Christ.” Mel Gibson scares the SHIT out of me!
More or less
RvTW: Me too, Jesus. Me too.
Jesus: But yeah, I’d have to say my favorite movie of all time has to be “From Justin to Kelly”
RvTW: Seriously?
Jesus: Fuck no! Die Hard.
RvTW: All right! *high five*
Jesus: *high five*
RvTW: What about music? Who do you like? Who do you hate?
Jesus: Well, I definitely love me some classical music. You know, Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Lady Gaga. As for music I hate, I’d have to say Godsmack.
RvTW: Because their name is offensive to you, right?
Jesus: Fuck no! It’s because their music fuckin’ sucks balls. I can’t STAND them.
The Path To Salvation
Jesus. The Freshmaker.
RvTW: So back to religion, Jesus. Let me ask you this: What’s your favorite religion?
And as a follow-up question, what do you think of all the denominations of Christianity?
Jesus: Well, first of all, let me say, as someone who’s been to “Heaven,” I can tell you that there is no one way to get there. You don’t have to believe in me or Buddha or Muhammad or anyone to get to see Heaven. In fact, I’ll let you in on a little secret: All you have to do to get into Heaven is pay a $30 Security Deposit when you arrive. That’s it.
RvTW: So there are no homeless people in Heaven?
Jesus: Well, there are, but they’re not allowed into the best clubs. They just kinda tend to the pools. As for the favorite religion? I don’t know, man. Scientology is pretty fuckin’ funny. Let’s go with that. And for the denominations? Like I said before, they all wanna know how to get to heaven, and I just spilled the beans. There ya go, no more fighting. Now can we please just all get along?
RvTW: How do you feel about people evoking your name in places like the Republican Party for issues like Health Care or Abortion or even just any issue?
Jesus: It disgusts me. You’ve read my biography, you know that I’m a peaceful guy. I preach equality and love and empathy, and of course free pot. Like I said, life is short, why dick around in other peoples’ shit? If Babara Walters wants an Abortion, let her. People who believe in me should know that all Aborted Babies get into Heaven for free. And if John Kerry wants to smoke some pot, who cares. Life is short, man, just roll with it.
RvTW: Well Jesus, I’m afraid that’s all the time we have for today, I want to thank you for sitting down with me today, it’s been fun.
Jesus: Definitely man, let’s do it again some time.
RvTW: Absolutely!
Jesus: And I love your blog, man, it’s really funny. You’re a smart guy and I really liked your No Homo post especially. As someone who knows all secrets, I’ll tell you right now that more than 10% of all men are gay. A lot more.
RvTW: Like 20%?
Jesus: Let’s just say that in the future, heterosexual sex will be a taboo.
RbTW: How will people reproduce, then?
Jesus: I won’t say, but I WILL say that you should invest a LOT of money into Jell-o stocks.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Congress
Go to Uncyclopedia.com and search "Republican Jesus" and "Supply-Side Jesus"
As you all know, I’m not very big on talking about political issues. I figured, though, I should make an exception. Just this once. The issues specifically that I would like to talk about is a few interesting stories I heard on ABC News this evening. The stories were independent of each other, and dealt with congressional spending. One of the topics dealt with a proposed $23 Billion bailout of education in the United States.
The other story had to do with Nancy Pelosi restricting the type of airfare House members can use when traveling. In essence, unless the trip is over 14 hours, they MUST fly coach, or economy class. Previously, members of the House (and Senate, who have not had any such restrictions placed upon themselves), as well as their entire staff, would fly in-country or out of country in first or business class. These individual round-trips would run in excess of $9,000, and in some cases a single Senator would spend over $500,000 of the taxpayer’s money in under a year.
Correlation Does Not Equal Causation
The correlation between the two that I found interesting was the fact that many in the Senate *cough* Mitch McConnell *cough* were aghast at the proposed pittance of a bailout for the American education system. If this bailout were to fall through (which is might), teachers in many states would be laid off. In Cleveland, for example, ABC News reported that 10% of ALL teachers would be laid off, and the average class size would increase from 25 students to 45(!) students. I don’t know about you, but in CLEVELAND, those kids need all the individual attention they can get. They ain’t gettin’ no smarter on their own.
The Importance of Being Earnest
Now look. I get the whole “We don’t want to spend any more taxpayer dollars.” I do, I really do. That argument is bullshit, but I get it. What I DON’T get, however, is how a congressman can oppose a bailout of EDUCATION (how the FUCK can anyone be against education? …. Okay, bad question.) and at the same time spend $500,000 of these same taxpayer dollars on flying with a bigger chair and buying a bunch of toy pyramids from Egypt.
Hell, the same thing could have been said about the Healthcare debate. Do you know that EVERY (yes, every) Congressman gets free government Healthcare for the rest of their lives? Free. 100%. The debate was just if these rights could extend to you, the taxpayer. The one who is PAYING for these congressmen’s healthcare in the first place.
My theory is that, in the minds of some of these congressmen, there are two pools of taxpayer dollars: there are the taxpayers dollars that they don’t want to spend on…get this…THE TAXPAYERS (Education, Health Care) and there is another pool that the taxpayer dollars SHOULD be spent on (upgraded airfare, Congressional Healthcare).
Politics: “The Blame Game”
But in the end, the name of the game is Politics, and it’s not so much about you, but your opponent. If you can make your opponent look stupid (“THAT SOCIALIST FUCK IS SPENDING YOUR MONEY!!”) then nobody will care how stupid you look (“I’M SPENDING YOUR MONEY!!”).
Hypocrisy, thy name is Congress.
I know I just posted something, so let’s view this as a follow up. I decided to change the name of the blog. It was previously “Bloggity Blog,” and that was fine, but I realized that was a bit too generic and I felt that the blog needed some sort of direction (ha!). So I decided to change the name to reflect the direction the blog took, mainly of random rantings, musings and off-putting randomness that is me. So, rather than the genericly stupid “Bloggity Blog,” I present you with the new and improved title of “ReZips v. The World.”
Yay!
I changed the header and the official title. Other than that, nothing else changes. Just enjoy the sorta-new title.
Yay!
The Technological Devolution
Convergent Technology is a phrase we’ve all heard at one point or another. If you’re one of the few who haven’t heard of this phenomenon, what it basically means is that various technologies have been converging to make life easier. Think the iPad. It’s a book, newspaper, music player, computer, movie player and app-thingy all in one. It therefore makes life easier – or so the Convergent Technology Theory would have us believe.
But I know different.
You see, Convergent Technologies have with them a fatal flaw: a lack of utter humanity. What do I mean by this? Simple. When technologies converge, the human aspect of many applications and technologies are removed, leaving only a clusterfuck of technology that is honestly just obsolete in every non-technical sense of the word. (And really, who cares about the technological definition anyway?)
Did You Mean “We Are Laughing At You?”
We all were so stupid to think that we lived 500,000 years without an iPod/Lamp dock
The easiest example of this would be the convergence and “simplicity” of automated calling. Not just the “press 1 if you are a tool. Press 2 if you are a huge tool.” No no. I mean the “Please say your name.” - ”John Smith” – “‘Pawn Shit?’ Is that correct?” – “No.” – “‘No.’ Is that correct?” – “Fuck you!” – “‘Fuck you.’ Is that correct?” – “Hey look, it got it right.” – “You have confirmed your name is ‘Fuck you.’” – “Shit!”
Now that conversation may have been a humorous over-exaggeration (This is, after all, MY blog… what did you expect?) but the point remains that this so-called “innovation” has been nothing but shoddy and unresponsive.
But let’s say it worked perfectly. Let’s say that after a 30 minute wait, Mr. John Smith’s information was correctly read back to him and stored correctly in the system. Do you know what happens next? When Mr. Smith is finally transferred to a human operator – and he inevitably will be – the human operator will – get this – ask for the same fucking information all over again.
Yeah.
So Why is that?
Well, it’s basically because of two reasons.
- The human operators/creators don’t trust the machines enough to let them do the dirty work on their own
- Consumers hate the fucking machines
So again, why is this used? Well, there are a few theories* as to why this is.
- To create a buffer-zone for the human operators, allowing them more time to talk with customers**
- To create a backup of all information stated by the consumer**
- To annoy the shit out of everyone for the company’s own stupid giddy amusement*** (this would explain why you have to consent to the “this conversation is being recorded” shpiel)
- To test out new convergent technologies
Away from the Rambling, back to the Point
I support all forms of phone abuse, including choking
While the telephone example may be a convoluted one, it does demonstrate the utter hypocrisy within the practical application sector of the convergent technology realm. That hypocrisy is basically that the idea of Convergent Technology is to simplify life and seamlessly help people in their everyday lives. However, by attempted to force this decidedly unnecessary technology upon us, the system has created a bottleneck effect of unnecessarily lengthy and convoluted checks and balanced that end up becoming ridiculous redundancies in the process.
And nobody likes when things become alliterations of “R” words.
Nobody.
References
* This is bullshit. I just made this up to validate my point that the phone system sucks
** Bullshit. Just bullshit.
*** Probably true.
P.S.
Yeah I know I haven’t posted in a while. Sorry, lot of stuff going on. And by stuff of course I mean every time I wanted to post something I got distracted. Like by a butterfly. The good news is, I have a few drafts written up of stuff way better than this garbage I just posted, so stay tuned for that.
P.P.S.
If you liked this post, I love you and I’m sorry I called it garbage. I didn’t mean that before. That was just to make those people who aren’t like you and me happy. But we know the truth.
We know the truth.
Hansel Und Gretel – My Way
Editor’s Note: So my friend Matt “hired” me to write a version of the famous fairy tale Hansel and Gretel for one of his classes. The assignment was to compare three versions of one story written by three people. The following is my version.
—
Hansel Und Gretel
By: Michael Speiser
The year is 1348 in the middle of Bumblefuck Germany. A poor family sits at the dinner table wondering where their next meal will come from.
“Where will our next meal come from?” asked Father.
Mother stepped outside and began to cry. It was a bleak Sunday night in Bumblefuck. Father held back tears as he stood up to go outside and hunt in what he knew was a futile effort to search for food. He told his children.
“I’m going to go hunt in what I know is a futile effort to search for food.”
He closed the rickety door behind him as he grabbed his ax and began to hunt. His children stayed back, staring at each other with a confused, bedazzled and a semi-horny incestuous kind of German-children-in-the-15th century look. The young boy with the generic German name “Hansel,” turned to his equally generically named sister, “Gretel,” and exclaimed, “Wir müssen etwas Speise jetzt finden, weil ich wirklich hungrig werde.”
His sister agreed, and the two began to search for food – ALONE – outside in the Middle Ages forest of a fucking wasteland, where fucking Typhoid Fever, Leprosy, the Black Death and the motherfucking PLAGUE were out there. Also radioactive cyber rats.
Millions of these things roamed the streets of Germany during the Middle Ages. MILLIONS.
Hansel grabbed his traditional German Nazi Youth uniform and the two were off on their unsupervised ways. This lasted for about fifteen seconds, until Hansel realized he was too fat and gave up on the front porch. Gretel got about thirty feet, before her fat ass collapsed too.
Mother, after wiping away her tears, saw her two fat children lying on the front porch.
And then it hit her.
“If I abandon my children, Father and I wouldn’t have to worry about food anymore!”
When Father came back, his two fat asses children were gone, and his wife, Mother, was surprising upbeat.
“Where are the children?” Father asked.
“I abandoned them in the forest so we wouldn’t have to worry about food,” said Mother. Father spanked her.
Fucking Nazi Youth
Meanwhile, Hansel and Gretel – freshly abandoned in the woods - began to search for food. It wasn’t long before they came upon a house made out of candy.
Now naturally, anyone with half a fucking brain would be thinking, “child molester.” But all Tweedledum and Tweedledumber thought was “we should eat this structurally unsound house!” So they did.
After destroying six years of hard built peasant-approved foundation building, the old woman inside the house realized what these two Nazi children had done and promptly threw them in a cage. However, because this is the fucking Middle Ages, rather than kill the kids (or at least spank them) she decided to fatten them up to eat them. Seriously. She had a house built from candy - CANDY – and yet she had an unquenchable thirst for young German blood… not that I could blame her. But I’m the narrator. What do, I KNOW?
So where did we leave off? Right. Adolf, er, I mean, Hansel, and his sister, Eva, were trapped in a cage at an old cannibal pedophile’s house. Now, Ol’ Pedophile was a blindy, so she couldn’t see how chubby Hansel had gotten. But this little fucker was juuuust smart enough to not get eaten, so he tricked the old hag into thinking he was thin by sticking out a dried up chicken bone and telling her it was his finger. Naturally, she could’ve just poked the little fucker with a stick, but NO. She touched his “finger.” And it worked. Ugh.
After a while of living off of Laffy Taffy and Snickers, the old woman got fed up and decided – in an ironic twist of fate - to throw the little Nazi boy into an oven. But this is a fairy tale, so of course the little Nazi doesn’t die. At the last second, Gretel saved her fat fuck of a brother by kicking the old woman into the oven. How she got out of the cage I do not know. Let’s say a little fairy let her out. We’ll call him “Deus Ex Machina.”
It is at this point that I’d like to illustrate the theme of Hansel Und Gretel, which is, women are fucking bitches who will abandon, eat and kick you into a fucking oven when they get the chance.
So Hitler and Eva escaped the old pedophile’s house, ran back home where their crazed psycho mother had mysteriously died, and they all lived happily ever after. Until Father killed them both and ate their scrumptious little Ärsche.
The End.
Quick Oscar Reactions
I'm such a nerd. Does anyone get it? Anyone? ANYONE?
This will just be a quick post acting as a conclusion to my previous post a month(!) ago on my predictions for the winners of the Academy Awards. Of the nine categories I predicted in, I was right in seven, being wrong only in the two screenplay categories, noting in my analysis the difficulty of picking those awards and the toss-up nature of original screenplay in particular. (If you’d like to see the full list of winners for the 82nd Annual Academy Awards, please click here)
Overall, I am very pleased with my predictions, and I am happy with the winners, as most of the films I wanted to win got their fair share of the prize, even if Up didn’t win Best Picture. The Hurt Locker was an amazing movie, to be sure, and I am perfectly content with its win. If any of you have not seen either of those two movies, do yourselves a favor and go rent them now; you won’t be disappointed.
Thinking Inside The Box
So today I was having a conversation with a friend of mine about the future of study in the field of Psychology and Sociology. Now before you click another browser (too late for some of you, oh well, more time for the rest of us!) I want you to understand the implications of the thesis of this entry. That thesis is that the Professional Education System is hypocritical when it comes to teaching students to think outside the box. The arguments I use to make this come in the form of what is being taught from an academic perspective and what is being taught from a “here’s how to make a name for yourself” perspective. Each uses its own intrinsic way to grab the attention of children (and adults who are going for a higher-level degree), but the fundamental messages behind each are at odds of one another, and the institution goes against itself in this regard when teaching.
Now of course one could list the obvious example of the current and ongoing debate on sexual education to minors. This discussion is one that is of course a valid one, arguing how schools teach abstinence while at the same time passing out condoms, or vice versa, teaching about the human body but then preaching abstinence. I, however, am talking more broadly, specifically in terms of research and what it means to stand out in the scientific community (or whatever field of desire you may have).
Quiet Riot
The 70's Were Rough On A Lot Of People
The field of Psychology is one that I want to focus the bulk of my argument on, because it is the one specifically that caused me to write up this entry. I’d like to begin with two people, namely Philip Zimbardo and Stanley Milgram. These two men conducted social science experiments that fundamentally altered the fields of Psychology, Sociology, Political Science, Law, and of course, Ethics. If you are unfamiliar with these two men and their experiments, take a moment to read up on each of their experiments on the wonderful world of Wikipedia. (Stanford Prison Study and Milgram Experiment) I’ll sit here while you catch up on Psychology 101.
* twiddles thumbs*
Done reading? Good.
These two experiments studied the same underlying principles of human behavior in undesirable circumstances and the psychology of power. Obviously, each studied different facets of human behavior (prison power against personal power and the power of compliance and diffused responsibility), but they both offered a dynamic look into the minds of human beings. Each study has been referenced and analyzed countless times across academia and far beyond. The Stanford Prison Study, for example, was referenced in the defense of those guards at Abu Ghraib. The Milgram experiments were used to explain the strip search prank call scam. In other words, these two experiments are comparable in their immense influence on the field of psychology. They also have another trait in common: they were highly fucking unethical.
Papa Don’t Preach
Now, these two experiments were unethical mainly in that they put everyday people in situations which were unfavorable to their desirable actions and caused potential life-altering effects on their psyches and state of emotions. Some from the Prison Experiment, for example, had forms of PTSD, while those in the Milgram Experiment probably didn’t feel too happy thinking they had just fucking Zeus’d an old-man’s heart. In fact, the repercussions of these experiments involved new ethical guideline codes being written, and each man being reprimanded by various psychology ethics organizations for their “intolerable” actions.
But here’s the thing. We know about these experiments. Why? Not because they were so unethical – that’s almost a black sheep fact nowadays – no, we are taught these experiments because of the results they’ve brought in. From these two experiments alone, we’ve learned more about humans and power than any other controlled “ethical” experiment ever done prior…combined. These experiments are in basic Psychology 101 textbooks because of their enormous singular impacts on the field.
Now this would be fine and dandy, except for the fact that, at the same time, we are being taught by professors to stay within the boundaries of ethics. To not break the rules. We are taught the extraordinary impact that two unethical experiments had on the field of Psychology, and at the same time are taught to not break any rules because of how bad that would be. Well, clearly, it’s not so bad, because you’re teaching the “bad” results of these experiments. Something seems fishy.
That Thing That Seems Fishy
You see, professors are very cookie cutter when it comes to material. They form basic outlines of “acceptable” ways to garner results, (you’ve all been taught the scientific method) and then teach it to you as if that is the only way to accomplish desired results. However, the very things that they teach you were realized through non-traditional means. Pavlov drilled holes in the side of a dog’s face to measure the saliva it produced. That doesn’t seem too god damned ethical to me. And yet Pavlov unlocked the key to learning (association, in case you slept during that part of Psych 101).
Pavlov's Dog Had PTSD
Another example that’s not in Psychology (or any science for that matter) is creative writing… if you can call it that. We are told in English classes to be creative in our writing. We read the works of famous authors and poets. And then we write. And get graded. The problem with this is that, if our writings are not done in a specific way, we can’t be creative. I’m sorry, but real writers don’t write in five paragraph essays. They don’t throw out a thesis in the beginning and tell you what it is (Before you go ape shit on me and say “BUT YOU DID THAT” realize the sarcasm in my writing of the opening paragraph related to that). And they begin sentences with conjunctions, ending with a preposition inside (get it!?!? LOL).
In an advertising class I was in, we were told to write creative titles for our ads, but making sure we used a Serif font in the title, and a Sans Serif font in the body text, left aligned, with 16 point font, and your logo in the bottom right. If that’s the definition of creativity, then we live in a very, VERY boring and predictable world.
In Conclusion… (English Joke)
My point in all of this is that we are taught to not break the rules, and yet the rule breakers are the ones who made a name for themselves. They’re the ones who took chances, who dared to try. They are the ones who we speak of now, not the guy who did everything by the books. We know probably less than 10% of all there is to know about human behavior and what drives us.
The truth is in here
What little we know about the other 90% has come from unethical experiments. We find out about deviant behavior, for example, by interviewing serial killers. Rather, if we were to conduct proper experiments that were decidedly “unethical,” we’d find out more about what drives humans. By putting people in controlled, comforable situations, we learn how people act in comfortable, controlled situations!
But not everything works out that way. Humans don’t live their lives in comfortable, controlled situations. Life is not that simple. BAD SHIT HAPPENS! I do want to point out that I’m not necessarily advocating that everyone go out and put a bunch of people in a room, give them guns and record the results in the name of science (even though we’d learn a lot), but I AM advocating that we think outside the box. Try to find new and creative ways around common situations. By doing the same damn thing the same damn way as everyone else before you, you won’t find out anything new. If we were to think outside the box, maybe we’d do a better job at figuring these things out.
My Apologies to Those Who Still Read This
Hey guys. I’m sorry that I haven’t updated Bloggity Blog in the last two weeks. I have some ideas floating around up in the ‘ol noodle and I’ve jotted some stuff down, but for the last week-ish I’ve been crushed by the mammothness of awesome that is a movie I’ve been working on with some friends. I won’t give out any details on the movie, as you’ll be able to see for yourself in the handy link I’ve put below (that link was if you want the actual YouTube magic or are too damn lazy to scroll down). What I will do is describe the contest it is entered into, and a bit of history.
The contest is called the Campus Movie Fest. Basically, it’s a film festival for students across the nation. Every school has its own mini comeptition, and then the winners from that competition go on to a regional finale, and then those winners go to an international finale. My school (Unversity of Central Florida) has about 100 entrants this year. My friends and I decided to make a movie based on the past experience of another friend who helped direct the movie.
At the preimeire (which is Tuesday, March 2) 16 of these 100 or so films will be shown, being the top 16. From those, a best Drama, best Comedy, and best Picture are picked. Last year, my friends Scott, Dani and myself entered, but did not win =( . Our entry was called “Ordinary,” and it was pretty good if I say so myself (the movie this year is called “I Don’t Want To Talk About”).
As a treat, I’ve embedded the movie front this year, last year, and even a movie I made a few years ago that inspired “Ordinary.” Let me know what you think, and I’ll let you all know if we’re shown and/or if we win anything. And I’ll make sure to be better with the updates soon. Pweese fugive me?
I Don’t Want To Talk About It
Ordinary
Also Sprach Zarathustra
Enjoy!
So I was watching HSN today (as I do from time to time…that shit is like a drug) and I came upon an amazing “deal” they were selling for the Nintendo Wii. For only $300 dollars (minus shipping and handling) you get the Nintendo Wii, 5 accessories, and 3 games. Not a bad deal, if I say so myself. At least, it would be, if I were ignorant and didn’t know better. And if I were an old person (HSN’s prime target), I wouldn’t know better. But with the help of me, your CONSUMER ADVOCATE, you’ll never have to be beaten by the shitty system again!
Consumer Profile
Before I get into the “wonderful” (I’m going to be using a lot of ironic quotes here, so bear with me) deal, I’m going to give you a bit of background into HSN, or the “Home Shopping Network” (not ironic quotes) and their philosophy.
More or less HSN's philosophy
HSN is a “revolutionary” channel where you can get “amazing” deals by just calling from home! You don’t even have to get out of your chair! Now obviously, anyone with half a brain reading this knows that this is just a poor-man’s version of the internet. Or rather, the internet for people who don’t know how to fucking use a computer. Also known as Old People. HSN is more or less a channel devoted to ripping off old people with a smile and an air of legitimacy. To borrow a quote from my personal hero George Carlin, “but it’s all bullshit folks, and it’s bad for ya.”
HSN more or less shows Old People some “amazing” “new” “technology” (okay, technology didn’t need to be quoted, but I was on a roll) and prays that they don’t do research. The “Wii Bundle” I’m about to destroy is a perfect example of this.
Wii Don’t Want You To Research This
So on to the Wii Bundle. First of all, here’s a link for you to check out, so you can research this on your own. Wii + 5 Accessories + 3 Games for 300 dollars. Not bad, not bad. Oh wait. Nevermind.
First of all, the claims are wrong off the bat. They claim you get 5 Accessories and 3 Games along with the Wii, which is very misleading. You do technically get this, but what they fail to mention is that ONE ACCESSORY and ONE GAME are INCLUDED with the Wii! That’s right folks, the nunchuck (actually, on that website they list the rubber sleeve as the accessory, but on TV they spoke of the nunchuck) and Wii Sports come with the Wii in the box. When you go to the store and buy just the wii, you get those two right in the box. Free. In other words, the “deal” really consists of the Wii plus 4 accessories + 2 games. Not as appealing when put that way.
Now if you were a normal consumer, you’d know that Wii Sports and the nunchuck came with it. But you’re Grandma Nineteentwenties, and you don’t know what the Internet is, let alone a Motherfucking Wii! When you were flippin’ through your moving pictures box and stopped upon HSN and saw that man swing that piece of plastic and make the little man on the TV move, you near about shit yourself, right into your old person diaper. So rather than be an informed citizen, you take HSN’s word that they are selling you these 5 accessories and 3 games along with the Wii itself.
That Thing You Didn’t Know You Needed Until I Told You You Needed It
Moving on, we come to the rest of the “deal.” The rest of it includes things you indeed would not get with the Wii itself.
4 Pieces of Shit, 1 Great Price!
These include 4 attachments to the Wii remote (a wheel, a golf club, baseball bat, and tennis racket) and two games (“Game Party 2″ and “Deal or No Deal”). So all of that for about $100 bucks more isn’t so bad, right? (the Wii retails now for $200 alone.) Well, it is bad. Real Bad. Before I destroy them with something called “Math,” I’d like to talk to you about each of these fine pieces of hardware and software.
Let’s talk about the four accessories first. The wheel, bat, club, and racket. Each of these would seem to be tailored towards a specific game in Wii Sports, right? (Well, except the wheel, which is fucking useless unless you get a driving game.) Well….no. The thing about the Wii Remote is, you don’t need any of those attachments to play. While it’s cute that there’s a piece of plastic on top of your controller that looks like a Tennis Racket while you’re playing Tennis, it serves ZERO purpose while playing. (It’s also dangerous as fuck too. Check this out.) Ditto for the other accessories. In other words, all of those accessories are fucking USELESS. Utterly and completely useless. No purpose whatsoever. They exists only to be sold to people who don’t know better. Like Grandma.
The thing is, Grandma is watching and sees the nice man on TV playing Baseball on the Wii with the baseball bat accessory. Then she sees him play Tennis on TV with the tennis racket accessory. Well, she assumes (because she doesn’t fucking know better) that you have to have that on the remote while playing. So she thinks, “Oh great, I don’t need to worry about that when I get the Wii for Timmy!” Meanwhile, Timmy (who is 4 by the way) fucking knows better. Thanks Grandma.
Moving on to the games included in this so far “wonderful” deal. Or no deal. We’re getting to that. (Get it? I made a pun because “Deal or No Deal” is a game included. HAHAHAHA I’m so funny.)
This doesn't deserve a caption
The two games included are “Game Party 2″ and “Deal or No Deal.” These games are the pinnacle of Wii quality, and a great way to start off your Wii collection. Right? …..right? No? Okay. According to IGN, portions of “Deal or No Deal” are “a joke and completely unnecessary.” Ouch. They gave the game a 5.5 out of 10, which according to their scale is “Mediocre.” For reference, “Super Mario Galaxy,” a game that all Wii owners should have in their basic collection, scored a 9.7 and won that site’s Game of the Year Award…for ANY system. But you don’t get that. You get “Deal or No Deal” and “Game Party 2.” Speaking of “Game Party 2,” that same website gave it a whopping 3.0! A winning quote from the review calls the game “boring and completely uninspired.” Oh, and is that a Beer Pong simulator I see? Seems like they forgot to mention that on HSN. Timmy’s in a for a fun surprise.
“Come on, Come on, Listen to the Money Talk!”
Okay, so regardless of the shit games and the completely unnecessary accessories, you have to figure that, as a bundle, you’ll be getting a good monetary deal for all of this, right? Well, if you haven’t figured it out by now, “no” is the answer to that question. Now normally, Wii games retail for about 50 bucks each. According to Amazon.com, Super Mario Galaxy is on sale for 46 dollars. That game is 3 years old. “Deal or No Deal” and “Game Party 2″ are both newer than that by over a year. So this HSN thing is looking like a good deal. Except it’s not. According to Amazon, “Deal or No Deal” is on sale for $18. “Game Party 2″ is on sale for $17. The Accessory Kit is $16, and the Wii Wheel is $10. Add that to the $200 for the Wii and you wind up with a grand total of $261. Before Shipping and Handling. That’s a mark up of almost $40. For the Wii plus two shitty games and four unnecessary accessories.
Wrap Up
In other words, the people at HSN are huge assholes who want nothing more than to steal money from a bunch of Old People who don’t know better and ruin the lives of thousands of young children all over the world. This is all legal, of course. God Bless America.
Oscar? I hardly know her!
As a huge movie buff/fan and someone who has followed the Academy Awards (and a lot of other major awards) for years, I feel that I understand the mindset of the Academy and its voters reasonably well. My predictions for major awards generally have been on, though occasionally I allow my preferences get in the way of what I know to be true. However, this year I will let you know what film/person I believe will win and what should win. In some cases, these will overlap. In others, they will not. However, I am reasonably sure that my predictions will be more right than wrong. Please let me know what you think. I’d love to see what everyone else thinks will/should win.
I’ll run through each category and give a brief synopsis of my reasoning. Before I do, however, I’d like to show everyone the list. Here it is, in all of it’s Excel-glory:
Best Animated Feature
What will win: Up
What should win: Up
“Up” has been owning this category in pretty much every major award ceremony, and with Pixar’s run in this category, this is one of the safer categories to bet on. There is also a bit of historical precedent for this, too. Whenever a film is double-nominated in a “lesser” category and in the best picture category, it most often wins its “lesser” category. The best example of this would be in the Best Foreign Film Category. The films “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” and “Life is Beautiful” were both nominated for Best Foreign Film and Best Picture. They both won Best Foreign Film.
Beyond this, “Up” is just an amazing film, one of the best I’ve seen in a few years. It is funny, moving, beautifully acted, directed, written, and “shot” (I know, it’s an animated film). It (and Pixar) deserve this win, and much more.
Best Adapted Screenplay
What will win: Up in the Air
What should win: District 9
“Up in the Air” is a classic Jason Reitman film. Snappy dialog, sassy characters, and a story about average people put in mildly-unaverage situations. His last film, “Juno,” was nominated in almost identical categories (switch Actor with Actress). It walked away with just one: Best Original Screenplay. This year, the same award has been thrown at “Up in the Air” at the major awards ceremonies. The true test of how right I am will come when the WGA awards are announced, as these are the same people who will vote for this category at the Academy Awards. I predict Mr. Reitman will walk away with this award at the Academy Awards.
Now that I have said this, go watch “District 9″ and tell me if you could have made a movie about Aliens landing in South Africa more believable. It wasn’t just the special effects that had everyone caught up in this world, but the script, which blended historical commentary seamlessly with popcorn science-fiction action, along with a clever blend of documentary-style insight with 3rd person narrative. The characters are beyond one dimensional, which is hard enough to do in any movie, let alone one with an Alien co-star.
Best Original Screenplay
What will win: Inglourious Basterds
What should win: Up
I have just met you, and I love you
This will be THE most interesting category to watch, even MORE SO than Best Picture. I say this because this is a three-legged race with NO clear favorite. It will come down to “The Hurt Locker,” “Inglourious Basterds” and “Up.” Each one of these films could easily walk away with this film, and all three are very deserving. The reason I picked “Basterds” only because of past precedent, and thy name is Tarantino. This is because only one other time has Tarantino been nominated for Picture, some actor, directing, and writing, and that was “Pulp Fiction.” Most people (myself included) consider “Basterds” his best work since “Pulp Fiction,” and that year Tarantino walked away with just a statue for Best Original Screenplay. Since Up and Hurt Locker will walk away with other awards, I feel that the Academy may throw Tarantino a bone, just to prove they’re “hip.” But don’t be shocked if “The Hurt Locker” wins this one, too, and “Up” could also steal it. It’s pretty much a (3-sided) coin-flip.
With all of this in mind, I once again find myself torn over which film I think should win. I give it to Up, because it’s not enough to map out a scene or some dialog, but to create an entire world and characters to fit in. The Hurt Locker is based on actual dialog, and therefore it’s a bit of a cheat that this film is in the Original Screenplay category. “Basterds” by any other writer might steal my heart, but this work is to be expected of Tarantino, and therefore it is by comparison a bit (I emphasis BIT…it’s still amazing) let deserving. However, “Up” is a triumph of the human spirit, using scenes and dialog to slowly progress a man, boy, and dog through their adventure. There are scenes with no dialog that speak more than words ever could, and the script can attest to this.
Best Supporting Actress
Who will win: Mo’Nique
Who should win: Mo’Nique
All four of the acting categories this year are pretty easy to call, barring a MAJOR upset. This category is no exception, as Mo’Nique has walked away with all of the awards that matter, including the SAG award, whose voters also vote in this category. Her performance as an insane mother of an obese inner city child is terrifying, and one that has captured voters by storm. The supporting categories are ones that usually go to first-time actors or converts (comedy to drama), such as Heath Ledger or Jennifer Hudson. Expect Mo’Nique to give one of her big-ass speeches that make everyone hoot, holler, and cry.
Best Supporting Actor
Who will win: Christoph Waltz
Who should win: Christoph Waltz
The Nicest Nazi Ever. Sorta.
If you’re not a gambling person, put money on this. It’s over. Nada. Not even close. Easiest category of the night, and the second easiest prediction ever, behind only Heath Ledger last year. And guess what? He deserves it. Without him, “Basterds” doesn’t get any of the big nods. None. It’s not the same movie. The reason he is even in the “supporting” category is because the whole movie rests on his shoulders, with him supporting the rest of the cast. And it’s easy to see, why. Waltz masters every scene he is in, and seems to bring out the best in every actor around him. You look at him throughout the movie knowing he knows more than every other character up until the bitter end, and he plays the character as such. It’s one of those roles much like Ledger’s last year or Daniel Day Lewis in “There Will Be Blood” that will be talked about for years to come.
Best Actress
Who will win: Sandra Bullock
Who should win: Gabourey Sidibe
Sandra Bullock has been on an awards-bender as of late. At the beginning of the season, it seemed that Meryl Streep would win, but since then Bullock has been winning major awards left and right, including the SAG award, which, as stated previously, contains the same voting block as the Academy Awards. Her performance is actually an a-typical performance, as the Academy usually goes towards broken women, such as Halle Barry in “Monster’s Ball” or Charlize Theron in “Monster.” But Bullock fits into the mold usually reserved for Supporting Actress. However, a newer mold for Best Actress has taken shape, specifically the mold of a comedian turned serious actor playing a real person. This includes Reese Witherspoon (who fits Bullock’s resume pretty similarly) in “Walk the Line” and Julia Roberts in “Erin Brockovich.” Expect Sandra to extend this new precedent come Oscar Night.
That said, I believe newcomer Gabourey Sidibe should win. Her performance in Precious has been overshadowed by Mo’Nique’s, but that doesn’t change the fact that her performance should bring you to tears. It is sad and moving and triumphant, and if Sidibe has been more famous, this award would be hers. Not to take anything away from Bullock, who is deserving and underrated, but Sidibe gave the best performance of the year.
As for the other actresses in this category, Mirren and Streep already have statuettes in this very category, and Mulligan may be a bit too young for the Academy’s tastes. She’ll most likely be nominated again.
Best Actor
Who will win: Jeff Bridges
Who should win: Jeff Bridges
Jeff Bridges is pretty much a lock-up in this category, and his main competition will be Jeremy Renner for “The Hurt Locker.” Bridges has been nominated 4 times previously, but has never won, which is a shame, because he is an actor who always gives a stellar performance no matter what the role is. He will finally get his trophy come Oscar Night, as he, too, has won most of the major awards, including the SAG award. Renner, who carries “The Hurt Locker,” would be deserving of a win, too, and I would be happy if he did win, but Bridges (once again) gives it his all, which is tough to beat by any other actor in Hollywood today. And to round out the other nominees, Clooney and Freeman both have awards, and Firth will be nominated in the future, so don’t cry for him.
Best Director
Who will win: Kathryn Bigelow
Who should win: Kathryn Bigelow
Former Lovers. Who Will Win?
This award is one of the tougher to predict, but not impossible. Rather, this award’s winner may have negative consequences on the actual winner of the Best Picture award, as it will no doubt come down to “Avatar” and “The Hurt Locker.” I’ll explain that when I get to Best Picture. For now, though, Bigelow seems to have this award leaning in her favor. She won the Director’s Guild award (the first woman to do so) and has just recently won the Producer’s Guild Award. Through a bit of research, I have found that, in the past 36 years, only 4(!) times has the person who has won the Director’s Guild Award for Best Director NOT won the award at the Academy Award for Best Director. Now, James Cameron may very well win this award, but as I said, the odds seem to favor Bigelow, and I’d have to give the edge to her.
Now, it’s not enough that she most likely will win, but Bigelow deserves this win. “The Hurt Locker” is one of the most suspenseful films I have seen in years, and the action and pacing are second to none. For a borderline one-note concept (man with no fear in the bomb squad), Bigelow fleshes out the world of a day-in-the-life of an Iraqi soldier with realistic characters who act as they should, and she keeps tension high when it needs to be, and finds a proper balance between tension-filled humor and heart-stopping action. This is very realistic to what the soldiers in Iraq feel, and thus Bigelow has captures the essence of war more realistically than any other film in history (more so than Saving Private Ryan, which, as I’ve written research papers about, steals many cliches concepts from past war films.)
Best Picture
What will win: The Hurt Locker
What should win: Up
This is it. The big one. The one everyone will be wondering about and discussing after it’s over. Best Picture. It’s most likely going to come down to “Avatar” and “The Hurt Locker,” and I’m giving “The Hurt Locker” the edge for a few reasons. Keep in mind, upsets happen, and don’t be surprised is Bigelow wins Director and “Avatar” wins best picture. Let me explain. This year is similar to two other years in film, mainly 1998 and 2005. In 1998, two films were up against each other that were similar to these, at least in scope: “Shakespeare in Love” and “Saving Private Ryan.” Steven Speilberg won for SPR but SiL won for Best Picture. “Shakespeare” was a smaller budget movie with a more arthouse feel, whereas “Ryan” was a big budget film with a famous action director who had won big before. 2005 was similar. “Crash” vs. “Brokeback Mountain.” An up-and-down Hollywood film against a hot-button issue film. Ang Lee won for Director, Crash for picture.
While this may seem to lean in “Avatar’s” favor for winning Best Picture, these examples are exceptions. More often than not, the winner of Best Director wins Best Picture. But it’s not as cut and dry. Best Picture has everyone vote on it. Screenwriters, Actors, Directors, Producers, and any member of the Academy. This could help or hurt “Hurt Locker.” “The Hurt Locker” has won the main award from the Director’s Guild and Producer’s Guild, but lost the Actor’s Guild (the Screenwriter’s Guild Awards haven’t happened yet). “Avatar” won the Golden Globe, but wasn’t even nominated for the SAG award. The last film to win Best Picture without being nominated for the SAG award for best ensemble? Motherfuckin’ “Titanic.”
You can see why this is a tough one.
The Producer’s Guild Award doesn’t help, either. In the last nine years, their top award has aligned with the Academy 5 times. That’s barely better than half the time. Coin flip.
Could this idiot be the smartest man in the world?
However, I lean towards “The Hurt Locker” because of momentum. Momentum is key in these awards, and the last major award “Avatar” won (The Golden Globe) was won weeks ago, which is too long ago in this industry. You have to win, and keep winning. “Crash” gained momentum at the SAG awards. “Avatar” just hasn’t gained traction, and all it really has going for it is being the top grossing picture of all time, which in the past helped, but now it’s questionable. I’d give this one…barely…to “The Hurt Locker.”
That said, I believe “Up” should win this year. It’s one of the best films to come out in years, and it quite frankly is perfect. Everything about it screams amazing, and it’s one of the few films to come out in years that actually transforms you to a new world, and makes you care about the characters. You want them to succeed, you cry for them, and you fall in love with them. The details in the visuals are striking, and they’re not there just to be there (sorry “Avatar”) but they serve a purpose. The colors describe the mood for a scene, vibrant for happy, dark for sad. Every shot has a purpose. The script is fantastic, and so is the acting. It’s just one of the best films I have ever seen.
Wrap Up
So this was a LONG ass post (over 2500 words), and I apologize. But if you actually read my explanations (rather than just what will/should win) then I think you’ll agree with my picks. It’ll be an interesting year for the Academy Awards, and I for one will be watching with anticipation, for nothing else then to see how wrong right I will be. And of course, I’ll be writing about it all over this blog when I’m done.
