"I whispered it to you during the movie."

My new favorite film critics.

Stripped Down Nude

somehow, i imagine this made thom yorke proud.


Big Ideas (don't get any) from James Houston on Vimeo.

One Two Three Shoot!

The other day, my improv group had a fantastic workshop rehearsal with a notable Chicago improvisor. The improv scene here is very much an incestuous subculture, so most people wouldn't recognize his name if mentioned. It's at times disheartening to think that the people who have achieved the dizzying heights of improv success that I hope to reach one day aren't millionaire celebrities. They're just really hilarious, artistic individuals living and working in Chicago. And I'm pretty much okay with that. Plus if I'm ever feeling as though I'm wasting my life, there are activities much farther on the fringe

Take the World RPS Society. It's an organization devoted to the cultural sustainment of Rock, Paper, Scissors. Apparently advanced RPS players have tournaments, coaches, strategies, girlfriends, judges, etc.* just like in any other sport!

(Quick note about coaches: the World RPS Society suggests that when choosing a trainer you should "beware of charlatans" who have "never been either a competitor or referee and have no qualifications to speak of." The legit coaches are totally worth the money though!)

As anyone who's spent a few minutes perusing the WRPSS website knows, the biggest advance to ever hit the RPS world is the Gambit. RPS matches are officially played in best 2 of out 3 scenarios and Gambits are predetermined combinations a player can throw. Below are a sample of my favorites.

"A subtle, yet aggressive Gambit. It was the first of the Triple Gambits developed in the early 1890s. The Avalanche is a relentless and devastating offensive maneuver, which requires bravado bordering on recklessness to execute."

"This move took the 1967 RPS World Championships by surprise and is arguably still one of the great surprise offensive moves. The rapid switch from offensive to defensive play can force an opponent into a vulnerable spot."

"Effective use of the Toolbox requires steady hands and steely nerves. Given the puerile popularity of Rock, this Gambit is not suggested for use against beginners."

And my own addition:

The Titular lays it all out on the table. By simply mimicking the order of the game's name, this Gambit is ingenious in it's obviousness. The quick interplay between offense and defense will confuse your opponent into submission. But only the most skilled players will have the balls to see this move through to its iconic conclusion.

*one of these items is a lie

Tell me what he did, Kevin.

This is awesome!



But it's appeasement! Appeasement! Appeasement! If I keep saying Appeasement! he'll think I know what it means! Appeasement! Appeasement! Appeasement, I say!

Roooooobot!

I have to say this looks promising.



Hmmm, a robot alone on an desolate world is disturbed by a foreign spaceship and in turn discovers his own personal aspirations. Why does that sound so familiar?

I'm not complaining. Pixar taking a page out of Nick Park's book gives me high expectations.

........

The Savviest Political Minds of Our Time

As usual, Colbert nails it.



He sums up the electability argument against Obama perfectly:
"But what if everyone voted for someone no one would vote for?"

On its face, it's a ridiculous claim. If she's able to show that Obama is such a weak candidate, then wouldn't that make her inability to beat him all the more embarrassing. If someone is unelectable, why would your solution be to nominate the person who lost to him?

........

Pithy Campaign Round-up

For those who took an extra big dose of HiberNol last fall and are just waking from their torpor, Slate provides a clever summary of the 2008 Democratic Primary so far. Never has John Edwards' bid for the Presidency been characterized so accurately.



........

Where Credit Is Due

I should add a permanent link to Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish, as I've been stealing a lot of my link's from him. He tends to have the most interesting tangential posts of all the blogs I follow. Here's one that goes to the heart of what I don't like about religion.

http://www.other6.net/

It's a website where people can add "bubbles" that signify God's presence (or meddling) in their lives. Here's a typical example:

"morning phone calls from mom- even when i'm feeling a little alone and tired...my mom never ceases to call and check in on me...helping me to feel a little better about myself :) god bless her."

I don't understand why God gets the credit for Mom's thoughtful phone calls. Why can't this person just thank his/her mom? Isn't that enough? A mother's love isn't meaningful unless a spiritual entity dialed the number?

Here's another example of misplaced sentiment:

"getting healthy- i've been working on trying to get healthier and i am starting to feel better. thank you god."

Don't thank God. Thank yourself! Or thank the people that gave you support along the way.

It's frustrating that there's all this praise and good will being directed toward an unseen, intangible idea of God. I can't help but think that concentrating that love on ourselves and the people around us would have a more practical impact. People are willing to suspend their disbelief in order to think that God is capable of anything. He can heal the wounded, inspire love and kindness, control the weather, make business meeting go well. But where is the similarly unfailing trust in the abilities of humans? Ok, we can't control the weather, yet... But thanking God for a sunny day is pretty ridiculous, since it implies that he's also responsible for the string of shitty days preceding it.

A final example:

"On Jones Mountain, where its ridgeline cut the sky- Explain God? Can't do it. Experience God? Just open your eyes."

This is a common way to chronicle the existence of God. Co-opt natural beauty as proof of God's presence. The phrase "just open your eyes" is misleading. It should read "just open your eyes where there is a perfect romanticized view of the natural world and no evidence of negative human behavior." Because keeping your eyes open the rest of time might start you wondering why God is putting all of his energy into creating pretty sunsets when there's a lot of suffering going on. It's interesting that none of the bubbles on this site mention anything negative. It's all flowers, sunshine, phone calls from loved ones and comforting sentiments. And that's fine. It's good to focus on the positive. But when everything noble and beautiful is credited to divine providence, then all that's left as a testiment to human responsibility is the shitty stuff. How can we start to forgive ourselves for all the wrong in the world, when all the right gets lumped into His good works?

........

And do all your shopping... at Wal-Mart!

Behold the The Most Unwanted Song.

It's the creation of two Russian conceptual artists, Vitaly Komar and Alex Melamid. They surveyed 500 people about their musical preferences. Here's what they discovered:

People don't like tubas, accordians, bagpipes, sopranos, children's choirs, commercial jingles, genocide, cowboys and Holiday songs (along with a litany of other things).

So naturally they put all of these elements together into a 22 minute song. It's FUCKING GREAT! The Ramadan verse is probably my favorite part.

Also of interest. Who knew The Most Wanted Song would sound like a 1993 collaboration between Toni Braxton and Bruce Springsteen?

........

Ugh... the worst one yet

The verdict is in, and it's unanimous. The best word to describe last night's Democratic Primary debate is "yecch." The questions were all either of the tabloid headline variety or began with the phrase "answer a definitive yes or no about this ridiculously specific policy detail that no sane politician would commit him/herself to at this stage..."

Clinton turned in a much better performance than Obama, but it's important to remember it's just that, a performance. She could easily go back on any of the pledges she made. Plus, it's hard to imagine that she at heart believes in any the Fox News type attacks that Obama has faced these past few weeks. Especially when she herself decries these tactics when directed at her campaign. Clinton's answers (yes! and here's why...) came across as strong and unequivocal. She can't afford to waffle on questions because she's in 2nd place and needs to overcompensate to gain ground. It worked too! Obama gave more thoughtful, grey-area answers and came across unsure of himself. He said at one point he's trying to have an honest conversation with people. Unfortunately, that doesn't work in a debate forum that insists the candidates act like 30 second Tide commercials. "Small Town Fresh! Remove 8 year old stains! More vibrant whites and colors!"

That said, there was also appeared to be an effort on ABC's part to overcompensate for the media's supposed Obama bias about which Clinton has complained. After SNL (for lack of jokes) decided to carry the theme, it became the conventional wisdom. If there was any truth to the claim, this debate surely overturned the scales. It was the exclamation point to three weeks of inane punditry-driven Obama scandals.

Also, did anyone else noticed that while Clinton was talking they kept cutting to reaction shots of her supporters in the audience (Chelsea, Gen. Clark, Gov. Rendell). When Obama spoke, they would cut to a section of the audience washed with green or blue light. The contrast was stark between Clinton's flesh toned, relatable daughter and the weird alien automatons in business suits. There were probably times when they cut to the Aqua Monsters during Clinton's answers too, but Obama had no recognizable supporters to balance it out.

Run Chelsea! Ed Rendell can't save you now!

Much has been written about the debate's anti-Obama slant, but I have yet to see any comments about a glaring omission. Colombian Trade Deal? They had time to trot out the tired and ridiculous Flag Pin debate but couldn't wedge in one mention of Clinton's husband and campaign advisor cheerleading for a trade agreement that she publicly rails against? If ABC wanted to wallow in scandal questions, they could have at least brought up the one recent incident that's tied to an actual policy issue.

........