Katy Perry needs to be Unplugged!

ok, don't take the title the wrong way. i really enjoy Katy perry's music. i like message of "firework" and the mental imagery of "teenage dream". and how catchy/addictive was "California Gurls"? i mean really! what i mean is, katy perry needs an acoustic album. now granted i've never seen her in concert or anything, but i did watch when she was the musical guest on SNL a few weeks (maybe months, my timeline is......relative these days) ago. and while it sounded a little weird, i understood why. because the songs that she sings are all modded, or electrified, or w.e. in a studio, with backup singers and echos and all kinds of tweaks and electronic sounds. now, theres nothing wrong with that, any good artist can appreciate all other forms of art for what they are and what reaction they're trying to get from their audience. so i see/hear the appeal of techno elements in bubble-gum pop music like that. but the reason it sounded so weird is because she was trying to recreate that sound in a live setting, which is foolish at best, and embarrassing at the worst (right ashley simpson? jk. (but not really)). so at the beginning of her songs, when its just her and the microphone, she sounds amazing (and i'd be willing to bet she actually has a really great voice, and then she would have to be exiled bc no one is that pretty, with that great a voice, and not a cylon. jk, again). so i think she needs to work it out with mtv, get unplugged back on the air, (part of a movement to bring MUSIC back to MUSICtelevision), or get in on that crossroads vibe over on CMT, with somebody like, sugarland, or little big town, or even a classic like reba or somebody, how awesome would that be? so, Katy perry, not that you'll ever see this or read this, but on the astronomically small chance you do? get unplugged, do an acoustic album, and show the world that your not all bubble gum pop. that you have a killer voice too.

What's in a Name?

OK, no seriously, WHAT IS THE EVENT!?!?!? this is a tv show that calls itself, "the Event" and yet, wont even tell you what it is. I mean, at least "Lost" had the decency to tell you how'd you feel when it started and when it ended (and pretty much all the time in between!) but "the Event" is a useless title. Unless i guess if you view it as a meta sort of thing, in so much as "the Event" is the event of everyone watching the show, or perhaps its a lesson in appreciation on the events of everyday life, saying that every moment is a big deal. i dont know, it's just annoying.

Not everything on here is gonna be me pontificating or me bitching at the universe. its my "online journal," ya know?

The Greatest Experiment EVER.

So i recently read an article in an issue of Scientific American, that was about how science and democracy are basically the same thing. now most people think that this doesnt really make sense, as the general public's consensus is that science is a step by step process that always results that were sort of predicted, or led to some great discovery. well anyone who's been a scientist for longer than 30 seconds or even cracked a textbook knows how much b.s. that is. science is messy, murky, and the road to discovery is littered with potholes, dead animals, and forks. America is much the same way, or atleast, started that way. the founding fathers often referred the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as "an experiment." and to a certain extent it is, and still is. both science and democracy have feedback loops that alter not only it's current state, but also its future. science has hypothesis manipulation, and democracy has elections. elections are the ultimate in social experimentation. every so often, we tweak the variables a bit, intentionally, or unintentionally, and see who gets elected. it begs the question, if the given "constants" in our experiment change (i.e. constituencies, the economy, the war, etc.), do our variables matter that much more, or that much less? in the first decades of our country, we didn't go looking for fights. it was the british who invaded us in '76. it was the british again in 1812 (also shares a 9/11 reference, if you're so inclined, google it). and the french soon after that. it wasn't until people started attacking our citizens in the world at large (the sinking of the Lusitania by a german U-boat is what brought us into WW1), that we proved ourself top of the heap. and when it happened again in 41, we proved it again. but it was after ww2 that the "experiment" started to turn sour. now don't get me wrong, i love america, i don't think i could ever actually live anywhere else, though i'd love to visit alot of places. but you can't compare to america's freedom. some see it as a burden, others (like myself) a joy. its all a matter of interpretation. but back to the point. after ww2, the military industrial complex had become so bloated and over arching, due to roosevelt's "keen" oversight, that to dismantle it and force it to go back to making cars was impossible. companies had tasted the blood of war. seen the profit margins increase to far beyond anything they could get domestically just making cars and airplanes. so what happened? they paid lobbyists to put the bug in congress' ear, that communism was on the rise. (remember, its congress that declares war, not the president, no matter what a tea party supporter picketing from a lawn chair tells you). they find somebody like McCarthy to hunt down commies in every corner of american society, political, entertainment, even plain old citizens (The Rosenburgs, though it turns out they actually were selling secrets to the commies), and put him center stage, and the cold war is born. America started going around the world and picking fights. Korea, Vietnam, Afganistan (in the 80's, not the '00s). The military industrial complex thrived on this stuff. they left the politics to the politicians. they didnt have to sell "military operations" to america, the politicians did. and every politician that sold america on "stopping the spread of communism" got a cash back kick back, from the corporations that got military contracts. the exact same thing happens today, just not on the battle field, it happens in the cornfield. and the oilfield. why did we invade Kuwait in the 80's? they were sitting on the biggest oil field on the planet, and Saddam started going in and lighting things on fire like a 16 year old with a pack of cigarettes. so our politicians are running our country anymore, corporations our. i mean, lets just be honest about it. japan is. they actually have seats in their senate that belong to corporations. CORPORATIONS! that means, that a company has a vote in how a country is run. this isn't a scifi novel, this is real stuff. there's a reason this country was founded the way it was: FOR the PEOPLE, OF the PEOPLE, and BY the PEOPLE. not for the profit of a corporation, not of a buisness deal, not by a CEO. this is why america votes. TO STAY FREE. if you don't vote, you have no right to bitch. you can be a political as you want, but if you don't respect your responsibility to vote, and it is a responsibility, not a gift or a right, then why are you here? I'm serious. it's right there in the Declaration of independence: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." if you have the ability, you have the Responsibility, to vote. research your candidates. whos old, who's new, who's affiliated, who's independant. but get informed. if you think that the country is great the way it is, don't vote. cause by not voting, you increase an incumbents chances to get re-elected. i dont like where the country has gone. but that's what so great about the experiment. it's not designed to end. it was not designed with a specific goal in mind, but a structure for it's continuity and longevity. so, join the great experiment. go out and vote on NOV. 2nd. and keep the experiment going.

The Genius.

Scott Pilgrim Vs. ADD. Pt. 1

So i recently saw the movie: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. i really enjoyed it, but it pointed out something going on in this country. The "trend" or "rise" in cases of ADD and ADHD. it would seem that hollywood is just now starting to follow along in the (false) chorus. now don't get me wrong, there are many cases of true ADD and ADHD. brain chemistry and hormone levels can drastically effect behavior at an early, and even in to late adolescence. but a miss diagnosis of ADD for behavior problems is a huge epidemic in this country. it starts with the parents, and stems into the school systems. the American family is under fire. and i dont mean the 50's Mom, Dad, 2.5 kids, good neighborhoods crap that politican's spout when they wanna appeal to the "over 60" crowd. (although, statically that is the crowd that has the highest voting ratio, i would argue, and anyone who wishes to challenge me can, that Obama was elected by the youngest "margin" in history). the american family that i'm talking about is the current one in america. whatever that means to the reader, be it 2 moms, 2 dads, 2 grandparents (who are currently the largest child-rearing group in the nation), or an uncle or aunt, etc etc. the current american adult works more, and makes less than they did even 5 years ago. thus, they have less time to spend with their children, and have looked to the mexican community to work cheaply as housekeepers and child rearers. and the mexican's see it as a booming industry. american children are the new cash crop for them. now don't get me wrong, its not a bad thing to have a housekeeper and/or child raiser. but when you don't build the bonds of mother/child and father/child that everyone needs/deserves, then of course your kids are gonna have behavior problems. the other stem is the school system. i eagerly await the dvd release of "Waiting for Superman", a new documentary about how crappy the current school system is in this country. we've been under the same system of speaker and Colosseum-esque classrooms since the beginning of this country. the problem with that is that only 12% of children flourish in that environment. those who don't, are either punished (as in the days of old), or diagnosed with ritilin and other drugs to dull them out. it's ridiculous. switch to the Montessori method, and see how fast ritilin goes out of style. just try it.

Alas, rant now over, back to my observation. Scott Pilgrim appeals greatly to the ADD generation b/c its pace and visual style are very kinetic and bright. the movie jumps time periods instantaneously, and yet keeps you focused on the story. anyone not paying attention would surely be lost about 12 minutes in. it takes those of us with minds that can quickly assimilate and understand information to keep up with the story. those of us with a bit of ADD and who grew up with a computer at our fingertips are more adept at this, b/c we deal with it every day. the tv (esp. channels like MTV, VH1 and most of the Disney and Cartoon channels) that we watch quickly go from past info to current info to future info, to commercial, and cycles back again, over and over. its the Soap opera format on speed. and online, we switch from facebook to youtube to blogging (lol.), to Postsecret, to netflix, all in the span of 30 seconds. so when the movie flips from day to night to a week later, to next weekend, all in teh span of 2 scenes, those of us exposed to this type of psychological stimulus are the only ones who can keep up with the story.

now the visual element(s) are really what made the movie for me. with out those, the story becomes about a boy literally fighting for his life, and the love of it. but the special effects take it out of reality just enough that it makes it a good story. the graphic novel or comic book (in the sense of it being loud visually and bright) really pushed it over the edge. it was more kinetic and imaginative than say, the watchmen, (which i'll review at a later date, b/c i loved the graphic novel, one of the best BOOKS i've ever read. and there we few things the movie got right, and most they got wrong.), and the more realistic reboots of Batman, Superman, Spiderman (which started the trend), as well as Ironman, the upcoming Green Lantern (nerdgasm!) and next summer's Captain America and the Avengers (mega nerdgasm!!!), although, that may be because that Mythology is deeper and more elaborate than a single Graphic novel like scott pilgrim or The Watchmen, or Arkham Asylum (though thats a single story element that stems from a much deeper storyline). so that fact makes the storyline is more open to artistic licesense than the longer running comics. it could have just as easily been a drug induced story, with most of the same visuals, and almost no change to the story line. and the movement and kineticism has only one cousin of recent memory, and thats Speed Racer. remember that acid trip on screen? but thats the only movie that matches Scott Pilgrims speed, and visual ridiculousness.

So, are we seeing a trend in Hollywood? more movies that move faster, scream louder, and assault our visual cortexs more fully? i believe so. i mean, the only person to see the full potential of James Camerons Avatar building technology is.....James Cameron........with Avatar! so i think once other directors, especially those who were already visually on the edge: Christopher Nolan (although i see him as an all around ground breaker like cameron, with a smaller (though growing) budget), as well as Richard Linklater (imagine mixing a scanner darkly with the avatar visuals!). or a foriegner (in the good way), like Luc Besson. (the 6th element? super light? The Diva's song on planet Pandora? can you imagine!). so, what the future holds remains to be seen. but in the words of Regina Spektor (total famous crush!!!): the future, its here, it's bright, it's now.

p.s. its part 1 b/c i'm gonna read the graphic novel, and will compare the two, and will do so for the watchmen as well......later. lol.

The Man In the Iron Mosque.

this might put me on a no-fly list, but i dont travel that often, so here's my take on the whole Mosque at Ground Zero situation. I think it needs to happen. for the greater purpose and propagation of America and all she stands for, it does. in the immediate, it'll cause political strive, division, protesting, litigation, and arguments. but in the long run, it'll reestablish this country as the harbor of freedom, acceptance and tolerance that it was founded on. this issue goes all the way to the top. aka, Obama. now of course it's not his decision, but he'll take the heat or the glory, depending on the perspective. just as Hoover and Bush took the crap for the downfall of the economy of their respective eras (though one was more 'guilty as charged' than the other), just as Nixon (though it related directly to him, he didn't have as much say as history likes to say he does) in watergate. Obama will catch the political fire, and if it happens in time, it may loose him the presidential candidacy in 2012. i doubt it'll go up that fast, and the wooden torch will be passed to the next, but it will still be on fire, waiting to burn someones hand. to ensure his place among Lincoln, Washington, Kennedy, and the other great presidents, (which i believe he deserves, as he is a symbol, not only of the acceptance and positive possibility of change in this country, but of the odds he's had to overcome), this needs to be his magnum opus. i'm writing this 5 hours after watching him on tv telling the american people that the war in Iraq is over, which is great, but history pays attention to the first strike, not the last. (the exception to that rule is the atom bombs on Japan, but that's because of the impact it had on so many different areas of politics, science, pop culture, etc.) healthcare, the economy and gay rights are going to fall away in comparison to this. there needs to be a large ceremony, and he has to be there, and make a speech. he needs to assert the division that the american people should make between good muslims and bad al-queda members. the same distinction was made during ww2. especially in the media. watching movies from the time period, there are always good germans, and bad nazi's. he needs to point to the heroes of old. Washington establishing a nation of acceptance, Lincoln not only freeing the slaves but also reuniting a country (as he has had to do). kennedy for breaking down race barriers, (even possibly siting his current job title to that end). assert that he never wanted this war. diplomacy was always his 1st choice, and that it still is. site the fact that muslims were treated badly after 9/11, and this is a major step in rebuilding that bond, and bringing it back into the melting pot that not only is new york, but america as well. site its community building and positive infulence. reference the freedom of religion that we all enjoy, thanks to the men and women in uniform. site how great this country is, site how far its come in its development of not only a free people, but an equal people. talk about how our childrens children will look back on this time and see a a great leap forward in citizenship and equality, and freedom of religion. finish with God Bless all of you, and God Bless the United States of America. get in the limo and drive away. don't take questions. leave them to think of what you've said. to realize that this is the greatest country on earth, and that we are all damn lucky to live here, and do what we do. Middle America will quote to their grandkids watching this speech on tv. Middle america is what this country is really about. Middle america is not fox news, its not cnn. it's not The tea party picketers. it's not the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka Kansas. It's families. it's friends. its beers in the driveway on friday nights. its ballparks and barrooms. its dinners at the table, and sunday morning church. middle america isn't concerned with differences in religion. they're just trying to raise their kids, and provide for them, what they couldnt have for themselves. america is a friendly place. a place where people are accepted, not because we're forced to, but because we want to. we realize that we have more freedom than most places in the world, and we also realize we're not perfect. but we love our country, and we love one another.

Pi-i-can't-belive-i'm-watching-this-crapolaha. 3D.

Piranaha's 3D was one of the most ridiculous/theorectially possible worst case scenario movies i have scene in a while. WARNING: SOME PLOT SPOILERS FOLLOW. basically, everyone who you expect to live lives, and everyone you know is gonna die, dies. the ingenue, the young hero, his mother, his brother and sister, the old scientist, and the middle aged scientist live. with the exception of the last character in the last closing seconds, which was one of the more ridiculous plot twists. the biggest problem with this movie that was that it was in 3D. let me explain. the capabilities of the technology are so much more than what these movies are giving us. the same "scary" stuff coming out of the screen thats as old as the technology itself. the one movie thats really made use of the power and majesty thats capable in 3D is Pandora. which sucked plot wise, but had amazing sweeping landscape scenes that wouldn't have been capable in 2d. the other is the short before Toy Story 3, i believe it was called night and day. it was the first really intelligent use of the mixing of 2d and 3d animation, and everyone should/will see it when it comes out on DVD. but scary fish or a boat coming out at you is the same thing as the giant shark coming out at you in JAWS 3D. Final destination used the same technique, and i know Saw 3D will too. its cool in concept, but very very stale in practice. now the storyline is slightly plausible at parts. college kids come to a lake and a huge school of piranahas show up and all hell breaks loose: pretty plausible. a beer bottle falling to the bottom of a lake and opening up a crevice that reconnects a 15 million year old lake, completely ridiculous. techtonic and erosive activity would have done that long before a beer bottle would. but the biggest turn off in this movie was the horrible way people died, and the amount of insane wounds that people endured. pulling torsos out of the water, while the people moan, a girl getting split in half by a sound cable, and a girls face getting ripped off b/c her hair got caught in a boat propeller borders on snuff film. now i know its all fake, i've got a theatre degree. fake blood and guts is nothing new to me. but to pack that much carnage into one film made me almost sick to my stomach. i can stomach/enjoy the saw movies. it was almost as bad as the happening. i say almost b/c at least this movie has a plot, crazy as it seems. (If Devil turns out to suck, I'm swearing off M. Night Shamalyan movies for life). all in all it was a tit sprinkled gore fest, with lame 3d tactics and pretty much 1d acting. i mean i love the lead from Party Down, who doesn't like Elizabeth Shue, and cameos by both Christopher Lloyd and Richard Dreyfus are great, but with a terrible monster movie script, you cant really expect much. Hope Monsters turns out as good as Cloverfield without the handycam hangover!

The Expend-abilia-buddies.

So i recently saw "The Expendables". WARNING: SOME PLOT SPOILERS FOLLOW. i'm not really reviewing the movie, i just thought about a few things as i was watching this movie. most paramount was how dark it was. i dont mean its themes and acting, i mean its pitch black. 95% of the movie happeneds at night. now i get that when taking down warlords and dictators, one needs the cover of darkness to heighten the element of suprise, but seriously, dark passages and moonlit battles are for batman movies, and the blair witch project (or, for the younger readers, Paranormal Activity, (same basic concept)), not the "biggest" action movie of the summer. i say biggest b/c it was touted as the most ridiculous grouping of action stars....ever. which i get. the problem with packing all those action stars into one movie, is that it becomes 95% action, and 5% hot chick. the story line was pretty lame, predictable, and completely un-cerebral. not that i expected a mind melting chris nolan experience, but cmon, rocky was exciting, and a great storyline. (til rocky 3). neways, there were 2 gems in this movie that i think really give hope to Sylvester Stallone. not the actor (seriously, i can't understand a word you're saying!), but Stallone the movie maker. the 1st is stallone makes a reference, in a scene with bruce "Die Hard: willis and Arnold "Terminator" Schwarzenegger. Basically, willis is a shady CIA agent, posing as a potential employer, and Stallone and Schwarzenegger both show up for a possible job, both as leaders of assassination teams. Terminator hears the proposition, laughs and says he has better things to do. the interesting thing is that, as he turns to leave, pushes the doors open and is basked in the sunlight, willis asks "what's his problem?", stallone replies: "He wants to be president." now of course he is commenting on the current political situation that the Govenator is in. but in the bigger picture, stallone is taking a political position with a movie. he takes another, but i'll get into that in a minute. is he backing the Austian? its hard to tell. his sarcastic tone reading of the line says no, but the comment in and of itself says yes. he's positing a future where he is president, planting the seed in the American consciousness. an interesting theory, but only time will tell whether or not he takes a more definitive stance. the other interesting thing that happens in the movie is they water board the female lead to get information on why rocky and the transporter were in the little piss ant country at all. now, to my knowledge, this is the first time in a big league wide release movie that this has been shown in graphic detail. the scene isn't very long, probably 90 seconds at most. but its interesting that its in there at all. they could have beaten her, used a hot poker, or held up her prized havanese with a huge bowie knife. but stallone puts the torture method in the movie to vilify it. only bad guys do this sort of thi.....wait a minute.....Uncle sam does this too from time to time. he's saying its bad, he's saying he's against it. he's also saying everyone else in the movie is against it. which from my earlier comment means that the Govenator and possible future candidate to lead the free world is against it to. so is he saying he's a democrat (hollywood has a long blue history) but its unclear if he's actually taking a position. he's definitely saying its bad, and that he's very against it, so he's saying he's against the former methods of the military, but he's not saying he's pro anything. so it holds promise that in the future he moves away from action movies a little and towards more politically infused projects. but i guarantee they'll have a fight scene. i mean this guy burst on to the scene by writing and staring in a boxing movie. promising start sir. promising.