Saturday, June 09, 2007

Why Be An Angry Atheist?

Seriously...I don't understand. Why does an acknowledgment that religion is kind of dumb necessarily carry with it a need to be so condescending and haughty? In the course of a single day, how many people will I interact with who agree with me about everything? Even everything important, as in moral codes or models for appropriate public behavior or views about humanity's place in the universe? Very few, if any. Everyone's different.

So why is it that my fellow atheists insist upon being so aggressive about challenging religion? I'm not saying that we shouldn't defend ourselves, or that we shouldn't feel free to express an opinion openly about other faiths or lack thereof. I enjoy this freedom all the time. But it's perfectly simple to let people know where you stand on the issue of religion without calling them stupid or belittling their beliefs. See, I don't like it when Christianists and wannabe theocrats try to exert their religious beliefs on me, but likewise I find it counter-productive to repeatedly insist on the rightness of my perspective.

To me, this impulse plays into the pervasive stereotypes about atheists: that we are angry or mean or bitter people, that we are simply contrarians by nature, that we don't admire humanity and reason so much as we loathe morality, God and family. None of these things are true, and yet their are reinforced by half-assed caustic anti-faith screeds...a-like a-this a-one:

Why Won't God Heal Amputees for some reason feels that humiliating and mocking the religious is the best way to get them to see things from another perspective. It clearly feels that its titular query - about God healing the wounded - definitively disproves the existence of God for all time, always.

Which is just dumb. I mean, I've never really believed seriously in God, and even I can argue my way out of that one.

For this experiment, we need to find a deserving person who has had both of his legs amputated. For example, find a sincere, devout veteran of the Iraqi war, or a person who was involved in a tragic automobile accident.

Now create a prayer circle like the one created for Jeanna Giese. The job of this prayer circle is simple: pray to God to restore the amputated legs of this deserving person. I do not mean to pray for a team of renowned surgeons to somehow graft the legs of a cadaver onto the soldier, nor for a team of renowned scientists to craft mechanical legs for him. Pray that God spontaneously and miraculously restores the soldier's legs overnight, in the same way that God spontaneously and miraculously cured Jeanna Giese and Marilyn Hickey's mother.

If possible, get millions of people all over the planet to join the prayer circle and pray their most fervent prayers. Get millions of people praying in unison for a single miracle for this one deserving amputee. Then stand back and watch.

What is going to happen? Jesus clearly says that if you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. He does not say it once -- he says it many times in many ways in the Bible.

And yet, even with millions of people praying, nothing will happen.

Every religious person I have ever met would concede that God doesn't answer every human prayer. This argument is a complete strawman. Different religions would have different ways of answering this particular problem, but it's not like the schmendrick who runs this website was the first person to ever come up with this line of reasoning. Maybe God caused that person's legs to be amputated for some larger purpose, alright? So eventually, he'll get around to answering the person's prayers in a roundabout way without physically returning his or her legs. There. Done. I mean, we're talking about an all-knowing, all-powerful deity. If such a thing really did exist, we wouldn't necessarily expect It to obey all of our laws of fairness, consistency and timeliness.

Take a look at this 10 minute video, in which a nasally, ANGRY narrator informs you of 3 things:

(1) You're an idiot

(2) He's going to miraculously free you from your delusions

(3) But, seriously, you're a fucking idiot

How is this in any way helpful? The guy opens the video by making some extremely bold statements:

If you are a Christian, you are about to begin a fascinating journey.

I would never in one million years say this at the beginning of a presentation. Talk about setting yourself up for failure. This is what producer Joel Silver does before every film of his opens, and it usually doesn't work out that well. ("Swordfish is going to change the way you think about action movies, the Internet...and yourselves...")

Still, he gets away with it every once in a while, when the film turns out to be The Matrix or something and audiences flip for it. Regrettably, the folks at WWGHA do not have a blockbuster kind of argument.

It all boils down to this: because you don't believe in ALL the world's religions, and the faith of their adherents is just as strong as yours, you must concede that almost all of world's religious people are totally wrong, and therefore you are most likely wrong. After all, what reason do we have for believing that our holy books or writs are MORE CORRECT that those of other faiths and cultures, whose practicioners have passed them down and fervently practiced them for just as long as our people or longer?

This is certainly something that occurred to me as a child. I think being Jewish calls your attention in particular to this issue. The most popular religion in America is an explicit rejection of Judaism. Despite the unifying political rhetoric between Jew and Fundamentalist Christian, most Americans feel that the Jews believe in an outdated religion that has long-since been revitalized. So any believing Jew must make peace with the fact that they're going against the grain.

But this is not revolutionary thinking that's likely to alter the perception of someone religious, particularly because it's delivered in this hectoring tone that's just unpleasant. I mean...I agree with the narrator for the most part, and yet I still disliked him and found him unconvincing.

In the next ten minutes it will become clear to you that your belief in God is delusional.

The problem is that your delusion, combined with the delusion of billions of other religious people like you, is hurting us as a species. It does not matter if you are a fundamentalist Christian, a moderate Christian or a casual Christian. Your delusion is hurting us.

Again, this leap in logic has never fully been made clear to me. Yes, most people are religious. Yes, most people are also violent. Sometimes (not all the time!), people excuse their violent behavior with religion. This does not, DOES NOT, necessarily indicate that religion incites people to violence!

I mean, that's just silly. Look at the issue of, say, spousal abuse. I'm sure many men who are arrested for spousal abuse (not that all spousal abusers are men...just the overwhelming majority...) have lame excuses for why they needed to hit their wives. But we don't accept these excuses at face value! Of course we don't! There's no one saying, "If we could only keep women pregnant and in the kitchen and stop their constant backtalking, we could end spousal abuse in this country!"

Because the real reasons guys hit their wives are alcoholism or drug abuse or that they're just a dumb violent asshole, and we all know it. And the reason there's so much violence in the world is that people are angry, violent, greedy fucks. And we all know it. And it has nothing to do with God, Ganesha, Mohammad, Jesus, the Prophet Elijah or anyone else. Being an atheist is just recognizing that those are either fictional or historical characters; it doesn't say anything about believing that they are responsible for the downfall of humanity or the horrors of the the 20th or 21st Centuries.

Yet this guy just brashly states it outwardly in a video that's meant to appeal to Christians. Guys...That's not gonna work. At all. In order to be convinced by your rhetoric, a subject must find you sufficiently trustworthy and charismatic. A good first step would be to convince them that you think very much like them but for one or two crucial, correctable differences. Not to call them delusional and say that they're hurting our species, and then move into your arguments.

Okay, moving away from the WWGHA crowd, let's take a look at this blog post, about the divide between "mean atheists" and "good atheists."

What it really comes down to is this: There are two types of atheists, which (for simplicity) I'll call the "nice atheists" and the "mean atheists." As P. Z. Myers points out, it's absurd to call atheists "militant" since it's not as if they're burning down churches -- they're just criticizing religion. However, it's not unreasonable to suggest that some atheists are not very nice.

The difference between the mean atheists and the nice atheists is that the mean atheists think that religion is ninety-nine parts pure stupidity mixed with one part lying, opportunistic con artists. And they want to tell that to religious people whenever they're asked to "respect" someone's faith.

This is just stupid. The divide has nothing to do with being "nice" or "mean." It's about goals. The atheists blogger C.L. Hanson refers to as "mean" want to eradicate religion from the public sphere entirely, or even eliminate its very existence. The atheists that are called "nice" aren't any friendly as people; they just don't give a shit what people say or believe, as long as they personally don't have to believe it.

I'm not religious because I think it's silly and I don't want to waste my time with it. I think we'd all be better off accepting such a philosophy, of course - if I thought such a belief made people worse off, I wouldn't believe it myself - but when it comes right down to it, I'd rather not get involved in what everyone else does. Their business, you know? Just like I don't care what home computers other people use, or their favorite late-night snack, or their masturbatory practices. I have my own preferences, and they have theirs, and that's how it ought to be.

I think all atheists believe religion is just about equally stupid. The notion that there's 1% of me that thinks religion should be handled with respect is very strange; where did Hanson even come up with this stuff? If you don't believe in Islam or Christianity or Mormonism or Scientology, it seems ridiculous from the outside. That has absolutely nothing to do with ones approach to dealing with religion. Can't we interface at all with ideas we dislike?

I mean, I'm not a libertarian, but am I not capable of discussing their ideas with them? Should my goal instead be the eradication of that entire system of thought? I think these sort of notions fuel a lot of our political and social discourse any more. Politics is no longer about ensuring your perspective is represented in some kind of larger Grand Compromise. It's about the utter and complete defeat of any and all opposition to your unitary, uncompromised will.

Like I said, I just don't get it. To me, so-called "mean" atheism reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the world works. I mean, it's great you guys figured out God's not at the center of the universe, but that doesn't mean you're there either.

Gawker is Several Years Late to the Party

Here's the latest breaking news from the hot gossip site:

Zach Braff Is Without Worth

Well, you don't say...

The piece then goes on to praise Garden State while insisting that Braff should be shunned because he's not hot enough.

Zach snuck his way into famousosity through Garden State, a tour de force which singlehandledly called a cultural truce between the I Heart Huckabees/Wolf Parade/Unbearable Lightness of Being crowd and those who list The DaVinci Code among their favorite books on Friendster. For a brief moment, hipsters laid down their iPods and douchbankers put aside their engraved moneyclips, and the world united to agree that this was a good movie.

What the hell are you talking about? That movie's terrible and most reasonably intelligent people could tell! And this whole notion of an I Heart Huckabees/Wolf Parade crowd is just silly reference-dropping. I know many many people who like one of those things and not the other; it hardly represents a unified front of taste. (I could maybe accept an I Heart Huckabees/Decemberists crowd...maybe). I personally happen to like both I Heart Huckabees and Wolf Parade a great deal, but then, I hated Garden State.

Maybe in another few years, Gawker will manage to slam Zach Braff in a way that makes sense, but this is a solid start.

I Know Why The Caged Turd Sings

Okay, we have to talk about this Paris Hilton thing. Or rather, we don't have to talk about Paris Hilton, but I am going to.

I put Vladimir Putin on the front page of Mahalo just now because he's involved in an ongoing news story that is far more important than a reckless moron with a few million dollars to throw around. But I know what the people really want to hear about...Paris has held strong as the #2 most popular page for this entire week.

And who could resist the giddy thrill of seeing an image like this?

Still, I have my reservations...

It's not like I feel bad for Paris Hilton. She's a spoiled idiot whose very obnoxiousness stems from her core belief that the rules don't apply to her. So what better way to teach her a lesson than to harshly apply the rules to her? I say, drive home the message...Excessively apply the rules to her. Apply rules to her that don't even exist yet. A fake mustache must be worn at all mealtimes. No going to the bathroom in anyone in any of the adjoining cells is chewing gum. You can watch TV, but only a single tape containing 5 "Maude" reruns, the last of which cuts off halfway through.

I won't deny a bit of satisfaction at seeing a rich white person actually go to jail for doing something illegal instead of just weaseling out of it as they always seem to. Ken Lay actually had to die to escape justice.

But Paris herself is not really the problem. I mean, she is a problem, and she clearly, as this sheriff says, "has severe problems," but she doesn't deserve this fate any more than the millions of other spoiled, clueless American assholes who think and behave in exactly the same manner, but do so less publicly. Say what you will about Paris Hilton, but she's well aware of her own plastic superficiality. It's her brand - she loudly advertises her lifelong devotion to trend-chasing, mindless consumerism, drug addiction and apathy. Everyone else pretends to give a shit, and then does these same things anyway out of habit.

What I'm trying to say is that Paris Hilton sucks, but we suck even more for creating her in the first place. (Of course we invented Paris Hilton! No one person could will this kind of attention upon themselves. We have to agree to pay attention, and of course, we do! Whole websites have popped up for no other reason than providing up-to-the-second gossip about a handful of young, exceptionally boring individuals.)

Okay, having said all that, I think Paris having to go back to jail and finish out her sentence is a very good thing. Now, if it were up to me, I probably would have chosen to make her pay a fine or do some community service or some other kind of punishment that carries with it less spectacle. There's no need for the justice system of law enforcement to feed the monster that is the 24 Hour a Day Paris Hilton News Machine. Punish her, fine, but why turn it into a soap opera? And of course they must have known that's what would happen if they put America's Sweettart in fucking PRISON.

It may have been intended as one, but I don't think this is going to be a teaching moment for young Americans who might look up to Paris Hilton. (I know, I know, but it happens). The potential is there: someone who has flaunted our standards for public decency and decorum on several occasions, who frequently acts in blatant disregard of the law, will now have to own up to the consequences of her actions and face justice. "See, young Americans," the situation seems to say, "don't be like Paris Hilton. Everyone gets their comeuppance in the end."

And if she had been allowed to go free after less than two full days because she got all weepy and wanted her Mommy...well, then the whole notion of our justice system kind of loses all meaning. Once you permit people - under whatever circumstances - to opt out of jail, you open up the largest can of worms in the history of that dumb cliche. Plus, it really does send a horrible message. If you are white, and wealthy, and a decent enough actress to co-star in a House of Wax remake, you are potentially above the law. The government in this scenario takes the same laissez-faire policy towards fraud as Ferris Bueller's Parents. "Our little princess couldn't possibly be acting hysterical so we'll let her go!"

This whole thing doesn't really make any sense to me at all. I understand that we throw a lot of people in prison for stupid crimes as a way of keeping them off the streets and making everyone feel uncomfortable, so there isn't a lot of room. But surely a prison sentence actually still means something. When I went to Outdoor Ed. in elementary school and got really homesick and told them I wanted to go home, they made me wait a full day before calling my parents, and it could not have been less important for me to stay. All we actually did that week was go on night walks, eat ghastly "food" and learn idiotic sing-along lyrics.

Paris went to jail for committing a felony and managed to get out with a few tears and some well-timed hysterics.

Baca also said that he reassigned Hilton based on "her severe medical problems," and confirmed TMZ's original story that her condition was mental. Baca said that her "increasingly deteriorating problems" were evaluated and added, "This lady has some severe problems."

Baca added that she was medicated when she originally entered the jail system ... and "I can't trust her tenuous status," referring to her mental state. "She had a severe problem," said Baca, "I need more cooperation from the courts and from the city attorney's office."

For now, Baca says he will comply with the court order and keep her behind bars -- "If there's any further deterioration, hopefully we'll be able to address it."

Why no specifics? What did she actually do that was so horrible? I mean...aren't prisons equipped to deal with prisoners who don't want to be there? It's kind of their whole reason for existing. If prisoners weren't going to raise any fuss, we could keep them in Motel 6's. It'd be cheaper.

Seriously. Why not a psych ward? An infirmary? Solitary? It's a goddamn jail, man! Come up with something! First sign of a problem and you fucking let the prisoner go? Does Beecher know about this? It could have saved him a significant amount of pain and hardship.

UPDATE: Radar Magazine helps shed some light on this strange behavior of letting a convicted felon go home early for no good reason:

Did family money buy Paris Hilton a temporary get-out-of-jail card?

Sheriff Lee Baca, the Los Angeles law-enforcement official who ordered Hilton released from jail after serving only three days in her 45-day sentence, accepted a $1,000 campaign donation last year from William Barron Hilton—Paris's grandfather. That contribution constituted the maximum amount allowable under California campaign rules.

Now it all makes sense...

Friday, June 08, 2007

The Thrilling Joke

I may be looking forward to Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins follow-up more than any other film. There's lots I want to see coming up, for sure, like Sicko, There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men, American Gangster and that Spike Jonze-directed, Dave Eggers-scripted Where the Wild Things Are adaptation that I can't believe actually exist.

Most of those will open before The Dark Knight. Dang. I seriously can't wait. The first film was, in my opinion, the best comic book movie ever made by a considerable margin. And the second one features The Joker. And Not Katie Holmes!

Anyway, here's a photo from the set with Heath Ledger in his Joker make-up. Because film studios are ridiculous bastards, he happens to be standing BEHIND a pane of glass, obscuring the image. But it's

My thanks to Jason for e-mailing me this picture.

Mahalo on Wikipedia


Click for bigness.

Thursday, June 07, 2007

Do You...Mahalo?

So, after hearing me gush about the Mahalo experience for a week now, wouldn't you all like to come work here yourselves?

Right now on the Mahalo Blog (or Bloghalo, as I like to call it), Mark has issued a call for new developers. Opportunities to work as Guides will come eventually, and I'll keep you all posted, but for the moment, we could really use some HTML, CSS and PHP developers to join the team. The lunches are largely free, and we just got a ping pong table!

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Jonah Hill is Funny

This deleted scene from Knocked Up is more funny than 90% of actual scenes that appear in mainstream Hollywood comedies. I've watched it three times already:

You know what else is funny? Well, sort of? LOLcats!

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Twitter, Happier, More Productive

So I signed up for Twitter the other day, the site that's essentially a mini-blog. You post brief updates of what you're doing at any given moment, and this creates kind of an RSS feed of your life that friends can check in on. I've put the handy little Twitter bubble right there on my sidebar, so you can check out my most recent post.

I know a lot of people enjoy this service, but they all must be significantly more popular and better equipped than myself, because it's doing pretty much nothing for me. Because I don't have a fancy phone with screens and keyboards that flip out from unexpected places, I can't pull up Twitter on the go and actually type in what I'm doing when I'm doing stuff. And because I only have 3 or 4 friends who even own computers, it's not like I have a ton of people with whom I need to keep in touch.

So why did I bother signing up for Twitter? I'm not sure, and I think I might just fold up the account, because it's a ton of pressure. I feel like I should be posting something to Twitter all the time, even when I'm not doing anything. Everyone who looks at my Twitter account will realize I have nothing to do. Why would I enroll in a service that will advertise my lameness?

Knocked Up

If I were President, every girl in America would be legally mandated to watch and write an essay about Judd Apatow's Knocked Up. It suggests that the greatest happiness in the world can be found in dating a funny, overweight, slovenly Jewish guy with goofy roommates and twin tastes for geek culture and marijuana. If even 2% of the attractive American female community took Judd's advice, I'd be set for LIFE!

The Semitic stoner in question is Ben (Seth Rogan, of Apatow's 40 Year Old Virgin and "Freaks and Geeks"), a hapless loser with no job or life who lucks into a one-night stand with the gorgeous and seemingly-unattainable Alison (Katherine Heigl). She's celebrating her new on-air job with E! Entertainment Television, he's at the same bar on the wasting time with his familiar gaggle of burnouts and things just kind of escalate from there.

Apatow leads with his best material in these opening sequences. He's a master of writing funny dialogue that doesn't sound written. There are a lot of great little moments and snippets of classic dialogue throughout Knocked Up, and none of it has the setup-punchline feeling of all sitcom writing and most film comedy writing. Apatow's characters speak in voices that are entirely their own. They don't constantly fall back on quips or self-referential humor or catchphrases to garner laughs. They don't rush through their conversations to lead to the next plot point, as you'd see in a film like Wedding Crashers. We get to know Ben, Alison, Alison's sister Debbie (Leslie Mann in a scene-stealing performance), Debbie's husband Pete (Paul Rudd, amusing as always) and Ben's misfit friends in environments that feel natural to them, in scenes that take time to develop and build.

This means that Apatow's films tend to run longer than most comedies (this one clocks in at just over 2 hours). Like The 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up does start to wind down about 20 minutes before it actually ends. Though Apatow's a master at writing breezily funny chat/banter, particularly between tightly-knit circles of male friends, he seems unable to conceive of where to take his characters, Big Picture-wise. His films are shot through with personality and are extremely likable, but have little to no rewatch value. This one is more rewarding and less silly than the last, and Ben is a protagonist after my own heart, but it still kind of sputters out in predictable fashion, unsure of where to take its characters save the most obvious route.

Ben's surprised and delighted to hear from Alison a full two months after their lone tryst. He's crestfallen to hear that she's pregnant with his child, both because he finds the responsibility of fatherhood terrifying and because it means she wasn't calling because she found him irresistible.

The film here makes a pretty huge narrative leap that's never really mentioned, and that I found really odd.

Ben gets Alison pregnant, and she wants to have the baby. Okay, fine. But why does that mean she necessarily has to consider falling in love with him? It's basically taken as a given that, because they're going to have a kid together, they should try being a couple. Ben is immediately granted "boyfriend" status, post-baby bombshell, even though they slept together exactly once, she was revolted by him the next day and they proceeded to have no contact for 8 weeks.

Now, I realize this is a romantic comedy and it's about an unlikely couple brought together by an accidental pregnancy. I'm just saying that Ben should have to earn this relationship and never does. He kind of lucks into it, so we never really get a sense for his stake in the whole thing - his emotional connection to Alison and his baby and this new life he'll be starting - until the end of the movie. After 100 minutes of watching him desperately wish he could keep goofing off with his goony pals forever, his conversion to Responsible Family Man feels forced.

Apatow takes it even one step further and incorporates some of my all-time least favorite ongoing movie cliches. Whenever a character needs to radically change their life, to grow from an experience, they do one of a few things:

(1) Clean up his/her appearance, maybe even buying some new clothes or replacing glasses with contact lenses

(2) Stop inattentively watching TV/movies and start reading books with rapt interest

(3) Get a new job in a clean, efficient office

(4) Exercise

(5) Stop smoking pot

Believe it or not, Apatow manages to work in 2, 3, 4 AND 5. Lame lame lame. If there was a scene of Rogan trying on suits, please know that I was fully prepared to roll my eyes into the back of my head.

I hate that moment in a movie when I can feel one of these cliches coming on, and I just know we're going to get some ridiculous scene at the end, like in Wonder Boys, where the main character throws away his stash, thus instantly becoming a better person. Not because I think movies should extol the virtues of drug abuse, but because it's never that easy in life, and it's lazy writing. Moments like this are paint-by-numbers shorthand for something more difficult to express: the idea of real lasting change, which is what this movie is supposed to be all about.

Okay, so that's what I don't like. Just when it should be building towards some kind of actual emotional climax, Knocked Up falls back on mainstream, silly Hollywood devices and screenwriting tricks from the RKO era.

If it wasn't so fall-down funny for most of the time, I might have been more concerned. Rogan and Heigl are both terrific here, with Heigl getting bonus points because her character's arc is so difficult to pull off. Not only do we have to believe that this confident, together adult woman would want to babysit this man-child, we have to believe she'd fall in love with him and want to be a parent with him.

At one point, Alison's angry with Ben for not reading some of the parenting books they purchased together. We're talking about a guy whose hobby is taking bong rips while wearing a gas mask, whose career plan consists of watching Wild Things and writing down the minute-count when Denise Richards takes her bikini top off, and she's concerned that he didn't properly highlight "What to Expect When You're Expecting"?

But Heigl pulls it off, somehow. She and Rogan actually have some chemistry together. They make a more believable couple on screen than a lot of glamorous movie star pairings, even real-life glamorous couple Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie in Mr. and Mrs. Smith, and this was one aspect of Apatow's film I really enjoyed. Rather than getting laughs by exaggerating the characters, he's really tried to imagine two compatible people who it's possible to imagine together, despite several noteworthy differences. The romantic core of the story - about two people who really like one another but whom circumstances have driven apart - survives intact beneath all the sarcasm and frat humor.

The same holds true for the film's other main couple, Alison's sister Debbie and her exasperated husband Pete (Paul Rudd), though they get much less screen time together. Rudd's been funny in several films at this point (who could forget his turn as horndog sportscaster Brian Fantana in Anchorman?), but I think this may be his best performance, particularly in the way the film keeps you guessing about his true nature. And as I said, Mann is really really good here. She has a scene at a club with a bouncer (played by the guy who plays Daryl from "The Office") that's easily one of the film's highlights. Interestingly, Apatow cast Catherine Keener in his last film totally against type, as a sweet woman who slowly nudges an aging virgin into sexual maturity. Here, he has written a part that's exactly playing to Keener's strengths - hostile and razor-sharp, but nonplussed about it - and given it to a different actress.

Beyond the leads, Knocked Up is teeming to the point of overflow with small, funny performances. Apatow has a kind of sixth sense for the cameo or small role - in the movie just long enough to make an impression, no more. Steve Carrell has one great scene, current Saturday Night Live regular Kristen Wiig has a very funny, very strange role as an E! executive and Harold Ramis gets one of the film's sweetest scenes as Ben's serene father.

Plus, all of Ben's friends are wonderful little characters, kind of serving as the movie's hazy Chorus. They're around for all of the main action, but just off to the side, representing all that Ben was and could be again without the proper motivation. They're all veterans of previous Apatow projects - Jason Segal and Martin Starr from "Freaks and Geeks," Jay Baruchel from "Undeclared" and Jonah Hill, who had one of those awesome tiny roles in 40 Year Old Virgin as the guy who wanted to buy the shoes in the "We Sell It For You On eBay" Store - which may explain why their dynamic feels so lived-in and realistic.

Sunday, June 03, 2007

Our Little Boy's All Growns Up

Mahalo's on TV! FF to about 2 minutes in to see!

Okay, so it's not a long segment, but hey...this product I've been slaving away to help build is actually out there, in the world, doing its thing. It's a tremendously rewarding feeling. Thanks to Ken for sending out the link.

Is It Me Or Is Zach Braff Completely Underrated

A YouTuber drops it like it's scalding hot.

Hat tip to my friend Nathan for the improbable link.