There are primarily three types of people who append Roman numerals to their names: monarchs, popes and Americans. If there exists an explanation for this incongruity other than vanity, then I have to admit I am ignorant of it. What I am certain of, though, is that the phenomenon has more to do with aping monarchic naming traditions than it does honoring the likes of Benedict XVI. This is not only because the majority of IIIs and IVs in our country are at least patronymically Anglo-Saxon, and therefore view Catholics with the sort of skepticism that yokel Midwesterners might save for theistic satanists and Harry Potter readers, but also because it dovetails nicely with what I view as a general and unhealthy fascination with the trappings of British and European aristocracy. (Continued)
On the advice of a friend, I readThe Hunger Games, book one of the eponymous trilogy (the movie will be released this Spring), by Suzanne Collins this past May. The story centers around the questionably-named Katniss Everdeen, who lives in a future dystopia (this is basically redundant. Is there ever a book about the future where everyone is just like holy shit the future kicks so much ass?) in which a couple dozen kids are sent every year into an elaborate colosseum to kill each other to the death.
Now such a premise (ignore the stupid name of the protagonist) holds a ton of promise. What’s not to love about a world where children are forced to fight to the death for entertainment purposes? The built-in critiques of our society are so interesting and powerful that one basically doesn’t even need to do anything to improve upon them. Which is why it’s so disappointing that the book sucks so much.
Yeah, you heard me counter-cultural pre-teen America: your favorite book (series) SUCKS. In this post, I will explain a few of the things that I find particularly offensive about The Hunger Games. A lot of these are probably unique to me and represent my own idiosyncrasies as a reader. Others are more general. Either way, as the media blitz surrounding the movie release grows in intensity, I felt it necessary to codify my thoughts and distribute them to you, my loyal reader(s). Read on! (Continued)
The end of the year means reflection. In that spirit, here is some of my favorite music of the year, presented in no particular order. I would provide Youtube links but I’m lazy. Most of this stuff should also be available on spotify (if you’re not using spotify, you’re crazy). (Continued)
The best part about being home for the holidays is staying up late, taxing my parents liquor cabinet and watching Netflix streaming all night. Recently, about 90% of my Netflixing has involved watching episode after episode of critically acclaimed TV like Breaking Bad, Friday Night Lights or Parks & Recreation (not getting the fuss, so far). I realized that I hadn’t really seen any new movies in 2011, so after a few glasses of Macallan I decided to load up Take Me Home Tonight (2011), starring Topher Grace and Anna Faris. The basic premise is this: it is the 80s, Topher Grace just moved home after graduating college and doesn’t know what he’s doing with his life. Also, it is the 80s, which is something that you really need to know if you’re going to understand the film. (Continued)
Tuesday, 3pm: Find out that Skrillex is doing a show at Terminal 5 w/ Skream and Benga on February 4th, 2012. This makes me excite.
Tuesday, 3:05pm: Discover that Ticketmaster Amex Presale takes place tomorrow (i.e. Wednesday) at noon.
Wednesday, 12:00pm: Logged on to ticketmaster.com, frantically refreshing the page only to discover that the presale tickets have sold out within minutes. Whatever, I’ll get tickets during general sale tomorrow (i.e. Thursday) at noon.
Wednesday, 9:00pm: walk into Whiskeytown.
Thursday, ~12:00 am: leave Sing Sing (updated. THX BOBBY)
Thursday, 12:00 pm: Logged on to ticketmaster.com, frantically refreshing the page only to discover that all tickets have sold out within minutes.
Thursday, 12:30 pm: Discover over 500 tickets already available on Stubhub, starting at $100 and going up to $500.
“All I Want For Christmas Is You” is, without question, the greatest articulation of the (secular) spirit of Christmas ever recorded. The lyrics center on the singer’s love for another, a love so strong that the presence of her beloved is more important to her celebration of Christmas than presents, Santa or any of the other miscellany associated with December 25th. The video, shot in the style of a grainy home movie (before home movies were shot in HD on iPhones, edited in iMovie, uploaded to YouTube and shared on Facebook), is filled with images of home and hearth, amplifying the message that Christmas is about the one(s) you love (which may include Jesus of Nazareth, although this is no longer considered essential to the Holiday). It’s also filled with images of Mariah Carey, although this is typical of Mariah Carey videos of the time, although her midriff and cleavage are notably absent here. The net effect of this is humanizing: we are confronted with Carey the person, who misses her beloved, rather than Carey the prepackaged sex symbol.
And the composition and production value of the track are off the chart, placing this song firmly in the pantheon of Great Pop Songs (see also: Beach Boys, Michael Jackson). (Continued)
Pitchfork Media, arguably the most significant of mainstream indie tastemakers, are out again with their annual top 100 tracks of the year. I must not subscribe to the same podcasts as Pitchfork (read: I don’t subscribe to any podcasts), because I have heard maybe 30% of these tracks. That said, I usually like a lot of what they put in their top ten. Let’s have a listen to what they deem to be the best of 2011 and see if we (read: I) agree with their choices.
It’s somewhat arresting that in an economic climate of high unemployment and low consumer confidence and a political climate marked by fear and malaise on both sides of the aisle that a track like this could be so popular. Top 40 Hip Hop has for the past decade or so been dominated by in-the-club dreck that focuses primarily on what’s in the rapper’s glass or how many zeroes are located to the left of the decimal in his bank account and those concerns are well represented here. Perhaps Drake, who is known for his self-analysis if not necessarily for his self-awareness, recognizes how socially tin-eared this all must sound because he offers something of an apology in the line “my excuse is that I’m young.” The problem is that people far younger than him have demonstrated (especially this year) their ability to be concerned with things beyond drinking and smoking. But perhaps the real key to all this is his admonition to “get it while you here, boy / cause all that hype don’t feel the same next year, boy.” Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em, indeed. (Continued)
Today on Grantland, Chuck Klosterman weighs in on Tebowmania. I like Klosterman (at least I like Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs and IV), but I’m not really sure what he’s doing here. Or, rather, I know what he’s doing but I don’t understand why he’s doing it. What he’s doing, essentially, is arguing that Tim Tebow’s (and NOT the Denver Broncos’) recent success is making some people uncomfortable because it calls into question the validity of their belief systems. In other words, because somebody who doesn’t appear to have the physical skillset necessary to be a successful quarterback (but who looooves Jesus Christ) manages to nonetheless “win games,” it makes the skeptics (whether skeptical of his religious beliefs or skeptical of his long-term viability as a QB or skeptical of traditional scouting systems, probability, critical thinking, etc.) wonder if maybe everything they think they know is wrong.
To this I offer the most immature response I can muster: “balls.” I thought about tweeting as much at @CKlosterman, but refrained. I did ultimately tweet some reactions in his general direction and then I realized two things:
Reaching out to him in this fashion is the nerd/hipster equivalent of dumb people tweeting dumb things to athletes and I should therefore be embarassed to have done so.
I have a personal blog that is literally purpose built for those sorts of reactions, except without the reader’s benefit of a 140 character limit.
Let’s follow Mr. Klosterman through his reasoning. Fair warning: this will be by leaps and bounds the longest piece on this blog (due mostly to the length of Klosterman’s piece). TL;DR version = I think that people are sick of Tebow because 1) they’re sick of the constant evangelizing and 2) he’s given an inordinate amount of credit for the Broncos success. For the 6,000+ word version, hit the jump. All quoted passages are from the Grantland article. (Continued)
A typical scene in Skyrim might play out like this. You have just entered a town after spending an embarrassing amount of time frolicking next to running rivers, chasing wild goats or rabbits and attempting to beat them to death with your bare hands when a NPC (that’s “non-player character” for the uninitiated) runs up to you, stands still, and begins spouting off about how he wants me to do something for him. He does not gesticulate or emote (beyond the fluctuations in the voice acting) but instead delivers his message perfunctorily, with all the drama of a Bill Belichick press conference. (Continued)
Soviets and JFK enjoying some laughs during the Cuban Missile Crisis
In nuclear war strategy, the concept of mutually assured destruction, that if you nuke me, I’ll nuke you and we’ll all be dead, establishes an equilibrium wherein both parties recognize that to launch a first strike against the other would be suicide – as a result, nobody should launch nuclear missiles. The recognition of this reality, as well as the interest both the USA and the USSR had in their own survival, was perhaps the most significant factor in avoiding nuclear catastrophe during the Cold War (morality issues around nuclear mass murder probably coming in a distant second place). Because both the USA and the USSR had developed second-strike capability (i.e. the ability of the intial target to launch a nuclear volley of their own in response to the first strike), they effectively had equal leverage at the negotiating table vis-a-vis nuclear capabilities. Neither side could effectively intimidate or bluff the other because they both knew that any nuclear strike would be mutually destructive. (Continued)
