Bob Dylan will release a new studio album in late April, Rolling Stone reports. The magazine quotes an anonymous insider who says the 10-song set's arrival "came as a surprise" to those around the folk-rock legend. The currently untitled album reportedly centers on "raw-country love songs, sly wordplay and the wounded state of the nation."
New Dylan album full of "raw-country love songs" and "sly wordplay"? I'm in.
Not really my sport. I'm more a badminton guy. But I'm very proud of the work the Sports Team has done with our NHL Trading coverage. Check it out.
DesignByHumans has a bunch of cool shirts, and they will send you one at random in exchange for $10. (Well, you can tell them your gender and size. You know what I mean.) Chances of getting a cool, or at least wearable, design are strongly in your favor.
Unfortunately, what he does is convince children to blow into his conveniently-placed air hole.
Seriously, just not appropriate...Gives the term "Fast Ball Special" a whole new and unpleasant meaning.
Convicted on 22 counts for molesting two young girls. What a sicko.
It's pretty accurate...I'm constantly being added and then unfollowed because I no longer auto-follow back. And I've spoken out about the constant lunch-themed "nom nom nom" tweets. Weak...
Krispy Kreme ARE very delicious...but maybe not that delicious. A little decorum, please...
Spinal Tap announced at a press conference yesterday that they will be going on tour later this spring –- but not as Spinal Tap. Confused? Let me explain. The core Tap trio of actor-comedians, Christopher Guest (aka "Nigel Tufnell"), Michael McKean ("David St. Hubbins"), and Harry Shearer ("Derek Smalls"), are hitting the road for a 30-date "Unwigged & Unplugged" tour, which starts on April 17 in Vancouver, B.C., and ends in Milwaukee on May 31. And they will be playing songs from both 1984's This Is Spinal Tap and 2003’s A Mighty Wind, in which the three played aging folkies The Folksmen. BUT they will be leaving their Tap outfits –- and, in Shearer’s case, the foil-wrapped vegetables -– behind and perform as themselves. The Tap are also set to release a new CD on May 25. I can’t confirm at the moment as to whether they will try to “milk it for a few more years in Europe.”
Not sure I totally get this...They're going on tour playing Spinal Tap songs, but as Michael McKean, Harry Shearer and Christopher Guest? I'm not saying it won't be pretty awesome, but why do it this way? It obviously won't be as much fun as seeing them as Spinal Tap. I don't know...sort of smacks of self-importance.
As for the show...kind of a meh year. And not just because it was a pretty lousy year for movies. The whole event just felt sort of lazy this year, like they're not even trying to make it entertaining. I'm fine with not having a comic host it, and dispensing with the hackneyed Bruce Vilanch-style "one liners" between all the awards...but I'm not sure the solution is to replace it with cheeseball musical numbers either.
In particular, the Jackman/Beyonce/Mamma Mia thing was just weird and sloppy. They didn't sing more than three words from any one particular song...they were skipping around so much, I had a hard time even figuring out what was even going on. Also, why have Queen Latifah singing over the dead person montage? Just seems disrespectful...If you're going to take time out from the show to remember the deceased, at least do it with some class. Silence or light music, I should think (and ask the audience to please save their applause for the end!)
Also, whose idea was it to have previous winners in the acting categories come out on stage and address this year's nominees directly. It was SO PAINFULLY AWKWARD. The poor nominees didn't seem to know that was going to happen, and weren't quite sure how to react. As if it wasn't self-indulgent enough already for actors to hand golden awards to one another once a year...Hey, I know, let's have other actors who've won the same award get up on stage and talk about how GREAT it is, musing ceaselessly about the COURAGE and WISDOM of themselves and their colleagues. They should just have James Lipton host and give out all the awards next year and be done with it.
A few memorable moments...I thought Ben Stiller's bit as Joaquin Phoenix was pretty amusing, Kate Winslet and Sean Penn gave pretty good acceptance speeches and it was all over quick.
As for the winners themselves...you obviously had to give Supporting Actor to Ledger, and Slumdog seemed destined to win the evening, so there was a whiff of inevitability to some of the choices. Man on Wire was a deserving win in the Documentary category, though Encounters at the End of the World puts up a strong fight. (It's available streaming on Netflix, I believe, and is otherwise on DVD...check it out...)
I'd have liked to see more The Wrestler love. Though I enjoyed Milk, it really felt like Rourke's year to me. Penn was great, but Rourke's performance is that whole movie, and I'm pretty sure that's my favorite movie of 2008. And I'd have picked Anne Hathaway and Rachel Getting Married over Winslet and The Reader, but if that film was going to come away with ANYTHING, that would be the award.
I'd have replaced 3 of the 5 Best Picture nominees, actually. Swap in Dark Knight, WALL-E and The Wrestler for Frost/Nixon, The Reader and Benjamin Button. Or, for that matter, Vicky Christina Barcelona, Rachel Getting Married and Doubt. Or Encounters at the End of the World, Man on Wire and The Edge of Heaven. The point is, those three feel like fillers. The Reader was not good at all, Frost/Nixon was professional and slickly produced but ultimately not very interesting (and downright poor as history) and Benjamin Button was technically brilliant but dramatically adrift.
Slumdog Millionaire, on the other hand, isn't really a typical Best Picture winner, which I suppose is why it feels right in this year when ideas about change and diversity were dominating the conversation. Out of all the nominated films, it's the rousing crowd-pleaser...those kinds of movies are ALWAYS most popular during dark times. Plus, it's massively entertaining; the entire film has an energy that few filmmakers can manage to capture for more than a sequence at a time.
Consider all the other options. A Holocaust picture. An ambiguous, emotionally distant gothic fantasy. A biopic about intolerance and harsh social divisions, culminating in a political assassination. And a period drama about a corrupt presidential administration.
Those are things people have been trying to forget, not celebrate. What you're left with is a gritty but ultimately uplifting and redemptive romance that soothes us with the comforting thought that things are FATED to work out okay in the end. It's not hard to see why that was an attractive choice for Best Picture. Plus, the only nominated film that was actually BETTER was Milk.
It seems like whenever there's one movie nominated for an Oscar that I truly disliked, that STANDS OUT to me as one of the year's biggest disappointments of most memorable turkeys, that's the movie that wins.
I thought for sure "Brokeback" had the Oscar all sewn up that year, and then what comes along and topples it? "Crash," the most embarrassing Best Picture winner in decades. Seriously, does anyone continue to watch or discuss that nonsense? It's reign of influence and importance was over before the afterparties disbanded.
So bearing that in mind, I'd bet the farm on "The Reader," because I was at least tolerant of all the other nominees.
I'll be liveblogging the event over at Mahalo.com. Here are some of the pages we've been prepping:
"Street Fighter 4" comes out tomorrow, and we here at Mahalo are EXCITED in a way that's somewhat inappropriate for people who aren't in middle school. Here are JUST A SAMPLE of the different places on our website where you can catch up on all the hot, steamy Yoga Flame-oriented action:
It's official. Ann Coulter will say anything for attention. She will defend white supremacist groups if it means people will "get outraged" at her and "put her on TV" so she can "hawk her pointless, angry diatribes" to "morons."
Yes, I am aware of the irony of writing about her in order to condemn paying attention to her. But it needs to be said. People need to stop getting upset with her for saying these things, because she most likely does not mean them. They are not designed to engage debate, and therefore should not be engaged in a debate.
Ideally, Coulter would become the pundit's answer to what Carrot Top or Carlos Mencia are to comedy. A figure that exists only to be held up for ridicule, as an example of the most odious form of the profession. "Now you sound like Ann Coulter!" is already 99% of the way to being a clear and aggressive insult. I'm just saying we need to push it that extra 1% of the way.
We're covering two major sporting events this weekend at Mahalo. It will be a rare chance for me, a pudgy coastal elite, to mingle with all you good regular salt-of-the-Earth Midwestern people, which can only be good for me.
3 years ago, when I was working in a video store and living juuuuuuuuuust above the poverty line, the Sallie Mae Corporation and I engaged in a series of frank exchanges of ideas, often in the wee small hours of the morning. In a nutshell, they felt that I should begin paying off the loans I incurred while earning a Master's Degree at USC, whereas I felt that this money would be better spent on pizza and DVDs. Needless to say, the discussions could get quite lively.
That was June of 2005. I have since improved my financial situation (SOMEWHAT!) and have started to actually pay back the loans. When I get around to it. But it's no longer a crisis.
Yet the blog post I wrote about the situation at that time CONTINUES to get a steady stream of traffic and comments. More comments, in fact, than any other post in the history of Crushed by Inertia, save the one where I wrote about all the dirty movie quotes and the one where I bashed the hell out of Zach Braff.
The post's relative popularity is not so surprising, I guess. Lots of people run into student loan trouble, so the topic is more relatable to more people than, say, discussions of classic Mexican horror films of the '50s. Many people share their own debt nightmares - constant anxiety, threatening phone calls, the walking death of wading through endless red tape and bureaucracy. Some of these people have stories that are seriously chilling and sad. I can't help but feel for them. They were, after all, getting into trouble in the pursuit of an education, not an Xbox or a Humvee or a McMansion.
So that's not a shock. What is surprising to me is how many of the responses to the post are vicious and pointless. Not intended to aid or inform or sympathize or even comment, really.
Some people show up just to lord over others, I suppose. They seek the elation of feeling superior to an anonymous stranger, for a fleeting second, because that anonymous stranger has one problem that they DON'T have.
The VERY FIRST RESPONSE I received, in fact, was cruelty from a stranger:
I suggest you pay them somehow, some way or your future is shot.
Now, at no point in the post did I say that I would never pay off my debts. The whole point of the post was that the company had spent a considerable amount of time and effort threatening me, even though I had no more money to give them.
But beyond that, my future was not SHOT. That is a ludicrous overstatement. Literally millions of Americans have found themselves in debt and managed to survive and press on, to restore their credit and begin building their financial dreams anew. So this person is showing up on my blog and responding to a post meant as humor with an idle threat. "Do as I say or you are ruined!"
2 comments later, another Anonymous person responded to that previous comment thusly:
Why would anyone sign your comment with an anonymous? It's amazing how close that email is to the things that come from Sallie Mae's halitosis breath.
I basically overlooked the observation that my threatening commenter may have been Sallie Mae-affiliated because of the hacky, schoolyard insults strewn throughout the paragraph.
(A brief note to people who rant on the Internet...Many of you seem inclined to emphasize your criticisms of an individual or body by resorting to gross-out humor or obscene insults. This is not an effective rhetorical strategy, however, as it makes you sound like either a junior high bully or, in the case of the person who left the above observation, a mental patient. Cutting, satirical statements should always be based on acute observation, not just taunting language.)
As it turns out, though they lacked eloquence, that Anonymous visitor to my blog may have been correct. I am now of the opinion that a number of the negative comments left on my amusing, mildly chiding Sallie Mae blog post could have been left by either employees of the company or other individuals who have been enlisted or hired to defend her honor on the Internet.
Don't believe me? The next negative comment on that thread came from another Anonymous person:
you people are fucking tards and ruining your credit. trust me i work there.
Interesting...
Maybe you should quit wasting your money on beer and trying to be twenty and actually pay your bills like an adult. maybe you could get another job while you are typing all these blogs. just a suggestion
Am I crazy or is this a hostile response to a blog post by a stranger written in a comically ironic fashion? Bear in mind, the post is clearly dated June of 2005. This comment was left at least 2 years later. Yet this person sounds ANGRY with me for suggesting that I couldn't afford my student loan payments. They degrade my lifestyle, call my immature...everything but actually threatening to beat me up and give me a swirlie.
(Also, pet peeve, people who USE blogs and yet do not know how to USE the word "blog." You type ON a blog, or you BLOG, but you don't type A BLOG. You type A BLOG POST that is then added TO YOUR BLOG. And you can just say "write," Mr. McCain. We're not using typewriters any more.)
So, one explanation is that these people are angry because they work at Sallie Mae, and are told to respond angrily and in a threatening fashion to these kinds of blog posts, so as to scare the author into paying up. Another explanation of such aggressive commenters is that they're pissy Sallie Mae employees who see this kind of crap from people all day...They have become jaded and bitter, and just wish people would stop giving excuses and pay bills like they're supposed to.
I hope it's one of these explanations. I really do. I can understand these scenarios...They make sense to me. I can relate to these people if they fit these profiles.
I just hope that the alternative isn't true. That these are just ANGRY strangers with no dog in this fight one way or the other. They just want to get on their computers at night and YELL and BARK at people who maybe aren't as secure or well-off as they are, who have some obvious flaw like irresponsibility and poverty that could be held up for scorn.
I hope this isn't true...but I suspect that it is. Because of the bullying tone of the responses, the way they remind me of the things assholes in real life just say all the time, because they are assholes.
I hate to break it to you, but you took their money and promised to pay it back. Quit drinking your money away and do what you promised. It's really not rocket science (presumably not what your masters is in). If you loaned money to someone who never paid you back, I guarantee you'd be calling them to ask about it as well.
That's just being an asshole. This person obviously read my post carefully and then proceeded to write the most bilious, mean-spirited response he could devise. For no reason at all. In the hopes of ruining my day. (Too bad he was about 2.5 years late.)
First off, whenever people say "I hate to break it to you..." you know they are full of shit. People who say that always LOVE to break it to you. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE THE ONES BREAKING IT TO YOU! It gets them off, somehow, to tell other people bad news.
Also, this guy can take his guarantee and cram it. Plenty of people over the course of my life have borrowed money from me and never paid me back, and I'm not on the phone threatening and harassing them all the time. And we're talking about money that, proportionally, is much more important to me and my livelihood than my individual loans are to the health of the Sallie Mae Corporation.
(I should note here that I did say in the post that Sallie Mae woke me up when I was hung over. But I also say that I went to a party and got drunk, not that I drank all my money away again because I'm an abusive alcoholic. Who never ever goes to a party and has a few drinks? Because I went to USC a few years ago, I'm not allowed any further vices, ever? In fact, someone who gets drunk at a party is THRIFTY and OPPORTUNISTIC, not fool-hardy and loose with money. That's the person who gets drunk at home.)
These two comments came in today:
count yourself lucky that you got a call on saturday at 10:30 am. They start as early as 8AM on saturdays. So quit your bitching and pay your loan back. YOU borrowed the money!
Again, 3 years too late, so by now I HAVE quit my bitching and started paying my loan back.
But why on Earth does this person care so much about my finances? They don't. They're just an asshole. (Though...note that this person KNOWS what time Sallie Mae starts calling people on Saturdays. Possibly because this is their job? I hope so, for their sake...)
Wow! I find it funny that you people can't pay on your student loans, but you have the time to sit here and type out these comments and you have the money to pay for internet connection? Hmm odd...Why don't you take the money you use for internet connection, put it on your student loans, & go get a job, since you do have all this free time to sit here and bitch because salliemae helped you go to school. OMG what an awful company! They loaned you the money you asked for so you could go to school to better yourself! OMG I would be sooo mad too! You all are so stupid.
At least this one's honest. He or she admits to finding other people's pain "funny." They're not even pretending at trying to help or making an honest suggestion.
(This one doesn't so much sound like a Sallie Mae employee as a Republican. Who goes around when the economy is shedding jobs like a German Shepard on a crushed velour couch and yells at strangers to GO GET A JOB! I even mention in the 2005 post that I HAD A JOB! PLUS IT'S 3 YEARS LATER!)
You know what's really amazing about this Grammy performance line-up? It includes Carrie Underwood AND Kid Rock, and I'm still looking at it thinking..."Hey, this is much better than usual!" I'll be covering the show LIVE for Mahalo on Sunday. Here's where you can keep up with all the hot, sensual, exciting Kenny Chesney action.
On the radio earlier this morning, Adam Carolla was talking about how the person who photographed Michael Phelps smoking from a bong and then sold the photo was an asshole. I've seen several comments on Twitter to this effect a well. I agree, it's not the nicest thing to do, and it's greedy, and that's a person you wouldn't invite to your next raucous collegiate get-together.
But come on...That person just took advantage of an insane society that actually cares if a guy in his early 20s takes a few b-rips at a party. It shouldn't be a big deal to snap a photo of one of your goofball friends smoking pot because it's not a big deal to smoke pot. The real culprits here are the bizarre hypocrites who are even pretending to be outraged by this photo. Getting angry at a young celebrity for smoking pot is like getting angry at Christian Bale for loudly telling off some guy. That's what they do!
Punishing and condemning a guy for doing a thing that harms actually no one, and is a good deal of fun, and has been done at least a few times by the vast, vast majority of teenage and adult Americans makes absolutely no sense. Suspending him from the USA swim team for 3 months is ludicrous. How many other people on that swim team have smoked pot ONCE and just happened to not be photographed at the time? Have we checked all their Facebook pages?
Basically, my point is, Afroman should publicly apologize for getting high. I'm pretty sure I've seen that guy photographed smoking pot on his own album covers.
For real. I don't get it. What the hell IS this? Is this supposed to be for children? Is it meant to be funny? Is this ironic? Why is this happening?
I mean, okay...Steve Martin's not actually funny any more. Fine. Fair enough. It happens. But that doesn't begin to explain this video.
Discuss.
I will once again be covering all the Super Bowl Sunday action for Mahalo.com tomorrow. Here's JUST A SAMPLE of the awesome pages we've already built to take you inside the athletics-junk-food-and-mindless-consumerism action!
Lots of people are picking up on the fact that Obama purposefully name-checked "non-believers" while listing the Religions of America during his inauguration speech:
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus–and non-believers."
It's nice to be included, and I'm glad Obama's not a Bush-style troglodyte who rejects the notion out of hand that atheists are part of the American fabric. (You'll recall that it was George HW Bush who, allegedly, does not think atheists should be considered citizens or patriots. I use 'allegedly' here because Bush has always denied making this comment, though it appeared in a newspaper which has never retracted the article, so he probably did.)
But I can't really get all that excited about having my non-adherence to a religion acknowledged by the president this way. OF COURSE I'm allowed to believe or not believe whatever the hell I want. OF COURSE I can be an American citizen and not be religious. It's completely asinine to believe anything else. Obama doesn't need to say it to me. I'd rather he not have to talk about religion at all.
I feel like only someone deeply insecure needs the President to tell them they're okay all the time. It's Obama's job to run the government, not to listen to a list of things I think and then pat me on the head and tell me I'm smart. So many Americans demand this kind of hand-holding...It's just desperation for approval.
If he had just said:
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus..."
and left it at that, he'd still technically be correct. There are many people from all of those faiths in this country. That statement is not exclusive. He's merely describing some different religious groups in America, not listing all of them, or the degrees to which you can or can not adhere to them. Sikhs are not hurt that they didn't come up. (I'm not sure, actually? Are they? If so, they should get the fuck over themselves.)
Here's the point...I think people are too sensitive about religion, and that includes people who do not follow any religion at all. I'm not religious because I don't care about it. I think it's kind of interesting, actually, and have probably read more about it than a lot of very religious Americans. But I don't care about it. That means I don't have to hear the president discuss whether or not my take on it fits in with the larger patchwork of his plans and ideas. I don't care about it.
Anyway, I appreciate the gesture. I'm sure, in part, what Obama and his speechwriters were doing was signaling, through language, their overall intention to be a more inclusive, tolerant administration. Which is great. I just think atheists make too much of these sorts of stupid gestures. Fight the real fights, where the separation of church and state matters - science classrooms, stem cell research divisions, and so forth. Nitpicking things like "In God We Trust" on the money and mentions in high-profile speeches just makes the non-believers seem shrill and arrogant.
Plus, I think there were more interesting aspects of the Inauguration on which to focus attention. Like that thing Aretha Franklin had on her head. What was that thing? It's stretching things to refer to it as a "hat."
