whither coachella pig!? (daily lulz?)

a grafitti-laden pig blimp pimping obama (snap! call a friend right now and say that to them frantically) hovering the environs during roger waters' set at coachella has been loosed and is currently who the fuck knows where.  a hefty $10,000 reward has been issued for the person or persons who return coachella pig to his/her rightful creators.  but you know what i say? let coachella pig fly free.

watch the video of coachella pig break the cycle and break free from hipster amusement and sail toward the heavens.  also, this video is fucking hilarious.

this will probably die within minutes

but here's a shoddy bootleg upload of the new dark knight trailer that won't officially be out till this weekend.



is it wrong that i truly want joker to win?

don't say i never done nothing for you.

daily lulz (omfg wtf edition)

i swear to you, this is honestly, the most heinously retarded thing i have e v e r seen.

ever.

and yes, i'm posting this b/c i hate women.

prince at coachella

"creep" cover.



"little red corvette"

B-B-B-BUT WHAT ABOUT THE POLAR BEAR!?

my brother is really into lost and he's always asking me if i've been watching it and my answer is always the same; "dude, that show is fucking retarded." am i wrong? i've seen the first season and i've watched part of the second, and while i thought the first season had its moments, at some point i couldn't fight my suspicion that the writers of the show are utterly pulling dingleberries out of their asses. and how right i was in my suspicions. you know it's true. it's not even a show i can watch for the sheer sake of hating-- it's just too pretentious. this is what kills me about people saying that art is pretentious; sorry, but there are fewer things more pretentious than the overwrought melodramatic morass that is lost. but lost is a good example of how pop culture phenomena can be just as overly serious and dreadfully self-important as any art studies thesis. i mean, the fucking seriousness of it all. do any of these people smile or laugh? i know, i know-- it's all life or death, constantly. every fucking minute. jack, w/ his serious stubble, sawyer w/ his serious stubble and badboy swagger, kate w/ her serious badgirl vacillating between the serious hero and the serious anti-hero. and, then, of course my favorite: locke. so much for subtlety, right dear writers? what as-yet-unveiled "other" villain waits in the wings? a 6'7 demigod named freddy n. who bloviates about being "beyond good and evil"?

what really cheeses me about lost, though, is that it's a textbook example of pseudo-profundity. see, this is why i would choose to watch a michael bay movie over lost, b/c michael bay makes no artistic or philosophical pretense about what he does. he makes movies about blowing shit up and makes those movies look good technically. if you think transformers "raped your childhood," 1., you're an idiot, 2., you're an idiot, and 3., you're a fucking moron. transformers is a fucking cartoon about transforming alien cars-- what did you expect the cinematic adaptation to be? is this, truly, what we've become? face it: you hated the movie and you hate michael bay b/c he reveals the truth about your childhood: that it was a cheap commodity filled w/ cheap, commidified memories that could be exploited by someone like michael bay. don't hate the mirror, hate the reflection. but i'm being tangential. back to lost. the thing w/ lost is that there is so much hype surrounding it and you expect it to sort of live up to that hype, but it doesn't, and to be fair, what could? can't we all just admit that the creators haven't the foggiest idea where they're going? which would be fine if there was a premise, but there isn't w/ lost. there is no predicate. lost is purely (and quite literally) smoke and mirrors. a good example of how this pseudo-profundity fools people is this comment made by a commenter at the lost sucks site:

LOST doesn’t suck. The reason a lot of people think LOST lost it’s [sic] edge is because it is a show you actually have to think about.

er, no. it isn't a show you have to think about. lost, much like donnie darko, is a spectacle that tricks and fools you into believing it's an "experience" you have to think about. it isn't. there is nothing to think about or mull over b/c there is nothing to "get." there are things that can confuse you b/c of metaphor, symbolism, or subtext, but lost has none of these; it merely appears to. there is such a crucial, vital difference. lost fails by its own logic. it isn't a character-driven show. it doesn't explore internal landscapes or emotions-- it is a plot-driven enterprise. as such, it fails one of the basic rules of the narrative formula: of advancing the storyline. this is the hubris of the show's creators. they want to eat their cake and have it, too* but they can't pull it off. they want to break rules and look "edgy" but they really just come off as that sheltered tool in high school who got really good grades and discovered punk rock in his thirties b/c wants to be seen as rebellious, you know, like those choads at gizmodo. fuck that. geeks are geeks. they're not cool. stop trying to be cool, "deep" or "edgy."

lost makes a lot of half-assed allusions and nods to philosophy, but the creators of lost have failed to recognize their true ideological and stylistic counterpart: slavoj zizek.

*i know that sounds weird, but think about it: you can't have a cake after you've eaten it. "eat your cake and have it too" was actually the original form of this proverb.

object

i've always maintained that annie liebovitz is an overrated shit photographer and now my opinion is 100% validated as scientific fact.  seems liebovitz, for whatever reason (retardation, perhaps?), thought that the rather ill-advised move of taking topless pictures of 15-year-old miley cyrus for vanity fair was an inspired, brilliant idea.  

er, not so much.

i first heard about this this morning when ontd posted the story about a preview entertainment tonight is airing on monday covering the scandal.  a lot of commenters doubted the veracity of the story, but it's true.  and not only that, but cyrus is regretting the shoot.  no shit?  how about that.  isn't that something?  i was 15 twelve years ago (FUCK, i'm old) and it seems that every other move i made was rather regrettable; it's a part of being a teen, is it not?  and so that prompts one to wonder: what the fuck were the adults in this sitch thinking?  ah, yes: $$$. brilliant.

anyone who knows me knows that i'm rather liberal and in no way a prude when it comes to sex, even when it comes to discussing teens and sex, but this sitch is more or less inexcusable.  yes, kids are obviously very interested in, and confused about, sex, just like the vast majority of people are, and we in the states tend to have a rather reactionary attitude about this, but no one but a fucking pedophile would want a kid to be sexualized like this.  i've never paid any attention to this whole miley cyrus/hannah montana phenomenon-- b/c, as a 27-year-old male, why/how the fuck would/could i possibly care about this?-- but obviously it's pretty hard not to be cognizant of her and her fanbase.  my interest in the juggernaut was always geared more toward her parents, though, and how they're shamelessly pimping out their daughter.  but it's 2008 and this is what we do in industrialized, democratic societies.  i mean, someone's gotta pay the bills!  and in our peculiarly american marketplace, we often have to sell ourselves.  it's not enough to let our talent or work do the hustle for us.  we need to craft brands, perfect an image (b/c, truly, image is everything), carve out a niche, sell it to a demographic, and this always means selling ourselves.  and this is where my point comes in.  as an adult, it is one thing to sell yourself (and the debate over that, decades on, continues to burn), but a child cannot make that decision.  and when that child is in an environment where adults are constantly showing her that it's okay to do just that, how can she make an informed decision?  she can't.  she has no model to show her otherwise.  it sucks and i can be flip and sarcastic as possible about this, but it just frustrates me.  i see a kid who is clearly not being looked out for by the people who supposedly should be doing just that.  her parents obviously see her as a fucking meal ticket and what's really pathetic about this is that it's rather commonplace and i don't mean joe simpson and britney's parents.  a cursory glance over "teh blogosphere" will immediately yield scores of pictures of kids their retarded-ass parents have no compunction of uploading for the drooling masses ("FIRST FTW omg that kid is fug lol") to gawk at.

i hate to be all absolutist again, but it's a black and white scenario.  you can't sexualize kids the way this girl has been and then freak out when people start looking at underage teens as sex objects.  get your messages straight: is it wrong to sexualize kids or is it okay?  i can already see a pedo using this as some sort of justification for having child porn and i'm not sure he'd be entirely off-base w/ his argument.  and i wonder what people would say if the photographer were male.  just imagine some sleazy frenchman taking pictures of miley cyrus topless, "but w/ a sheet covering her," right, b/c the sheet makes it okay.  if they really wanted her covered up, why not, oh, i dunno, put clothes on her?  i mean, at this point it's pretty obvious billy ray cyrus has some massively confused (to put it charitably) feelings for his daughter.  and i'm sure miley's mother is well aware of it, but shit, it isn't billy ray's awesomely longstanding and successful career that's lining her closets w/ jimmy choos, now is it?

goddamn it, i hate people.

nothing compares

i was already pretty annoyed that i couldn't make it coachella this year (no one in orange county really has good taste in music and my bff-- who, truth be told, is the only person in the world i'd want to go to a music fest in the dez with-- is in the fucking slammer till september, so i couldn't exactly go w/ her) but now i'm extra annoyed b/c prince apparently tore it up and allegedly even had fratboys reduced to tears w/ his rendition of sarah mclachlan's "angel," of all songs.

meh.  i can at least keep reminding myself that, in irvine, about 10 or so miles from the coast, it's 99 degrees; so that means that in coachella, which is the dez, it's straight up blazing.  

streetlight

sleep is useless.  and i've probably gotten around 10-15 hours of it this week, and most of those hours were aided by alcohol.  

daily lulz

does this ever get old?



quite simply, no, it doesn't.

hi. oh, did you know yalies suck?

i'm sure by that now you've heard of that yale student (does anything good come from this institution?), aliza s'farts, who allegedly impregnated herself multiple times only to induce miscarriages so as to use the blood in these miscarriages in a "daring, edgy" piece of performance art and, hopefully, open up a "dialogue about art and human body."  at first, it was, like, for real.  then, not really. then, no, it really is real*.  then, like, her youtubes vid was totes yanked.  then, like, my brain revolted and stabbed my cranium w/ a unified bolt of synapses.  quoth s'farts:

"I hope it inspires some sort of discourse . . . Sure, some people will be upset with the message and will not agree with it, but it's not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone."

of course, this last piece is total horseshit. she absolutely wanted to scandalize people, which, of course, she did. i have to be honest w/ you, when something like this comes down the pike and enters into the collective pop culture consciousness, my "scandalize" meter automatically flatlines: i just can't be bothered to be annoyed at something so obviously meant to garner someone desperately coveted attention. because that's what this is about, is it not? aliza s'farts and her desperate, gushing need for attention? well, here it is. no, what really annoyed me about s'farts is her statement on politics and art, so endemic amongst twentysomething art students. quoth:

"I believe strongly that art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity . . . I think that I'm creating a project that lives up to the standard of what art is supposed to be."

wrong, wrong, and bad wrong. art and politics do not mix. the end. sorry to be absolutist about this, b/c i know absolutism is always wrong** but art is about nuance, grey areas, complexity, ambiguity; politics is none of these things. politics is entertainment and cheap-shot sloganeering. there was nothing artful about what s'farts did. it was a dog and pony show, a five sentence wikipedia entry, only to grow and expand on account of vandals. what she did was political, yes, but not artistic.

and, please, this individual is not "mentally ill" and does not need "help." she is yet another entitled, narcissistic tool in an endless line of many, viciously clawing for her 15 minutes. so, again, here it is. and now if you'll excuse me, i'm going to get a headstart on the weekend drunkery; yay me for contributing to this mess and being a part of the problem.


*no one knows for certain if the stuff really happened, man, b/c there are no such things as certainties, man, except for, like, the assertion that there are no certainties. man.
**c'mon, that's funny

the american left found dead in apparent suicide

good one, you guys.  nicely done. 

meanwhile, the right-wing suddenly finds itself w/ a lot of time on its hands since liberals took it upon themselves to obliterate each other.  

more wiignacity

shit. wiig is out-of-control good. she has to be mentally ill-- skill like this doesn't come without a price.

bonus:

nick fehn

go die somewhere away from me

"omg, so is it, like, true that yr name means 'beef from god'?  that is so cool and soooooooo, like, apt!" 

the taller girl has perfected the, as a defamer commenter so eloquently put it, "the I-am-so-not-impressed-with-celebrities bitch face," also known as, orange county hospitality.

of fonts and discontent

when did trebuchet ms become all the rage?  i've always found it to be a rather ghastly and weak font, and so was unsurprised to find out that it was designed by someone at microsoft (hence the ms) and as we all know, microsoft wouldn't know decent design if redmond itself was infected w/ a design virus.  and anyway, what's wrong w/ arial?  or courier new or verdana or georgia?  why trebuchet ms of all fonts?  ugh.  

rachael ray

really, what's w/ people hating on her so much?  yeah, her voice is grating and her recipes probably suck (wouldn't know personally) but beyond that?  i don't get it.  a lot of people disparage her body but honestly i think she's pretty hot.  not beautiful or gorgeous or anything, but she has a certain sex appeal.  sure, i was troubled when i found out about her involvement w/ sxsw, but i suppose that proves one, or both, of two things: sxsw is "corporate" and/or she actually has decent taste, which is probably saying a lot more than the pale livejournal hordes who hate her.  criticizing her for not having talent is like saying teens are self-absorbed.  wow, and?  how many famous people these days are actually talented?  she, like oprah or dr. phil, is a businesswoman (well, mcgraw isn't a woman, but the prefix still stands).  period.  now, don't get me wrong, i despise phil mcgraw, but he's a fraud who poses as a "doctor" under the guise of "helping" people-- a bit more serious than ray's retarded catchphrases.  but pick your battles, i guess.

i've known some people who've met her and they all say she's actually pretty nice and "cool" in person; not to mention she seems to have a healthy attitude about the people who dislike her.  

googly-eyed plants

holy christ:



all praise be to allah! nbc finally put this up on its snl page. i was loling like a fiend at this on saturday and i only had two beers!

wiiging out!!1

dearest kristen wiig:

i want to have your babies. and, as you know, in this day and age it is possible for a nurturing, caring man such as myself to do just that. um, if you had sperm to give, of course. 



aside: i noticed that in nearly every skit walken rarely made eye contact w/ the cast members when reading his lines. in the first skit i noticed this in, he was playing an extremely creepy man obsessed w/ a co-worker and i thought the lack of eye contact was in character, but in the next skit he was off looking at the prompter. i remembered reading an interview wherein he mentioned that he has a hard time remembering lines, and so i thought that was it, but then i noticed some of the other cast members looking off to the side, too. i have to say that while the past few weeks have been exceptional in content, this aspect of the show is really distracting, but bizarrely fascinating as well. and strangely enough, it's not nearly as annoying as jimmy fallon or horatio sanz cracking up during every (totally not funny) skit.

oh, shit yes

there are some really awesome pictures of the joker leaked today.  you can find them here.

note: if you don't know anything about the plot to the dark knight, these pictures could be considered spoilerish.  

these are some of the coolest pictures i've seen of ledger's joker yet.  yes, i have every leaked picture of the joker; yes, i saved all of them within an hour or two of them "hitting the streets"; yes, i'm a total geek for the joker.  

batman sucks-- joker rules.