M.(R).V.

(Re)Views at a Glance

2008-06-17T07:43:00.000-07:00

A quick look at the status of recent consumer trends:

SUNSHINE : (+3)

PRO : Sunshine is enjoying steady consumer satisfaction and popularity. The phenomenon of relatively cloudless skies allowing access to the light emanating from the celestial orb around which the planet Earth revolves is especially popular among Frisbee players, beach-goers, plants that -through a complex biological process known as photosynthesis - rely on said light for survival and prosperity, and people who won't stop complaining about the rain.

CON: If the relative obscurity and box office failure of the Danny Boyle film named for sunshine, "Sunshine", is any indication, then sunshine's popularity may be dwindling. Sunshine is also unpopular among certain demographics, like my friend Dennis.

ABOVE: My friend Dennis

THE HEAT : (+0/-0)

PROS: It's not the heat.

CONS: It's the humidity.

(It's actually both)

COMPLAINING: (+17)

PRO: Complaining - which is considered by many to be one of the most reliable or "bankable" trends on the market - is enjoying a healthy growth period thanks to the inconsistent weather patterns that are customary for this time of year in the Northeastern region of the United States. Complaints enjoy surges both in popularity and enthusiasm this time of year as those who have a yearly habit of forgetting that the weather pretty much always goes straight from winter to summer spend an overwhelming amount of time express their displeasure about the heat/lack of heat/rain/lack of rain. The most common venue for these complaints has traditionally been the workplace, specifically in the "good morning exchange" common to many typical office environments.

As such, Person A might say "Good morning, Person B! How are you this morning?/How was your weekend?/'Sup?". During low-complaint periods, Person B might be expected to respond, "I'm fine/It was fine/Not much. How are you?" However, during high-complaint periods, Person B is 87% more likely to respond, "Uggh...it's so fucking HOT!!! What happened to the spring?!! Blaughgchh...", usually while rolling his or her eyes. It is not recommended that Person A remind Person B that there never really is a "spring" in their particular region of the globe.

But complaining has grown even more popular and pervasive thanks to advances in communication technology, such as Facebook. Now, rather than just complaining when ostensibly invited to do so, an individual may complain to all his or her friends and acquaintances at once via a status update. It is estimated that at least 72% of all status updates during high-complaint periods reference the individual's unfavoring relationship to the weather. Typical status updates at this time include "(Person A) wonders why we had to skip the spring", "(Person A) thinks its (sic) way to goddamn hot out", and "(Person A) is ready for summer to be over already".

Seasonal complaining is boosted and sustained by the persistence of "evergreen" complaints carried over from low and medium-complaint periods, such as those targeting politicians, gas prices, Christians/Atheists/Agnostics, babies, anything to do with cellphones, George Lucas, and people.

CON: A small but steady population of counter-complainers, fond of saying things like, "Hmm...well, why don't you just shut the fuck up and stop complaining?" or "Yeah, that's too bad for you. Hey, did you hear about all those people dying in Africa?" or "Yeah, that's too bad. You know what else is too bad? There's this war going on in Iraq where people are dying violent, horrific deaths for no reason on a daily basis. And also, y'know...cancer and stuff" or "Deal with it" stands as an ever-present threat to complaints. This movement has, however, not witnessed signficant growth or traction since being established to counter the persistence of complaining as a cultural phenomenon, which began in the 1970s.

AICN Reports: "Recent M(R)V Post Soon to be Outdated"

2008-06-12T09:43:00.000-07:00

Really?

'The big news? Big stuff happens. I deem this the biggest episode of “Battlestar Galactica” yet produced.' -Herc, at AICN

REALLY?????

Frak.

New John Cusack in Development??

2008-06-12T06:40:00.000-07:00

Friend-of-the-blog Justyn Zolli alerted us to this fascinating potential new John Cusack!

"The latest John Cusack to appear may well be the politically progressive, tell-it-like-it-is, I've-had-enough-of this-bullshit John Cusack, a Cusack we can all relate to; in short, THIS John Cusack." -J.Z.

Curious...
Thanks, Justyn. And you can be sure that M(R)V will keep a close watch on this potential story as it develops!

On "Women" - Kristen Schaal

2008-06-09T10:47:00.000-07:00

Kristen Schaal, the senior Women's Issues correspondent for "The Daily Show" (also that chick from "Flight of the Conchords"), recently presented this groundbreaking achievement in journalism, undoubtedly bound to be immortalized by her sure-fire Pulitzer and Peabody wins.

Brave and thought-provoking. It's clear that Women continue to hold the interest of the market.

The Most Recent Episode of "Battlestar Galactica"

2008-06-09T07:48:00.001-07:00

Overview: OMGs!!!

Dude...

Oh my Gods that was unbe-frakkin'-lievable.

Okay, so FIRST of all...like...the Bill Adama-Laura Roslin thing????? Okay, TOTALLY cried. She was all "I love you". And then it was sort of weird that Bill wasn't like "Dude, I TOTALLY love you, too, but, like...obviously", and instead he just sort of looked at her all I-love-you-ly, and then kissed her head. But I think maybe Bill is unable to say "I love you" to anybody, 'cause he's all Admiral-y and stuff? Plus he's had kind of a tough life.

But he did say "It's about time..." which was pretty badass.

Above: Oh...I LOVE them!!!!!!!!!

I sorta wanted them to make out, though, but I guess it's okay they didn't because they are kinda old, and that would be sorta gross I guess.

And, seriously, like...Lee and Kara were BARELY in the episode and Leoben wasn't AT ALL and it was still just so totally great.

Above: Stop fighting, Lee and Kara!!!! I hate it when you fight!!! :(
P.S. Where were you guys on Friday???...

And how awesome was that to see Helo finally having some frakkin' balls??? Dude...
And all that stuff with him and the 8s? Where he was all like "whoa, holy shit, look at that roomful of my wife?" Weird, dude. Helo must have some shit on his mind right now.

Above: Oh, yeah! Remember this part? Where this Six is all like "RAH!" and then the Eight/Fake Sharon was all "RAH RAH" and Helo's like "I'm conflicted..."

You know who we haven't seen in a while, though? Galen. Where's Galen? That's kinda frakked.

Seriously, though. Jane Espenson??? Jane Espenson is totally amazing. She should get like a million Emmys. For serious. Man...

Above: Here's Jane Espenson being all like "Hi, I'm Jane Espenson. You may remember me from all those awesome episodes of "Buffy", "Angel", "Firefly", and "Battlestar Galactica" that I wrote, and also from the fact that I totally kick so much ass.

And OH MY GODS!!!!!!!!!!!! D'ANNA!!!!!!!!!!! D'Anna totally kicks so much ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!! Holy frak, how AWESOME was that when she resurrected and totally KILLED THE HELL out of Cavil???? Awesome . Cavil totally sucks. D'Anna rules.

Above: Oh, gee Cavil....looking a little scared there. Worried that D'Anna might come back and OWN you??? Yeah? Maybe 'cause she TOTALLY did. KILLED, bitch!!! Killed!!! Eat it, motherfrakker.

And is it just me or, seriously, is James Callis' portrayal of Gaius just getting more and more awesome? Seriously, give that dude some awards. And like, when he was dying and he was all like "Oh, hey, by the way, Laura, I'm indirectly responsible for the annihilation of the human race but it's all good 'cause God loves me," and then Laura's all "OMGs" and is about to let him die and then she has that personal revelation and she's all like "Oh, I can't let Gaius die 'cause then I'm no better than him" and she saves him? Man...

Above: James Callis being all like "Hi, I'm Gaius Baltar, and I've officially boarded the 11:15 Express to Crazytown"

Good stuff.

But seriously, D'Anna is totally awesome.

Above: Here's D'Anna being all like "I am D'Anna. I am Xena-Cylon. I'm totally going to OWN you, bitches."

OH MAN, and when she TOTES "Punk'd" Laura???? When she's all like "you never knew you were the last Cylon?" and Laura's all like "OMGs, for serious? It all makes so much sense now and..." and then D'Anna's all like "PSYCHE!! Dude, you believed me??? HAH. Word. I totes punk'd you".

That was great.

I wonder how Gaeta's doing, by the way? Remember 'cause his leg was amputated a couple episodes back? That was sad. I hope he's okay. Also, I'm pretty sure he's a CYLON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Did you see that one coming?!!!!! Word...)

But dude...Best. Episode. Ever.

Seriously.

Rating: *********************** (out of 4)

Bottom Line: D'ANNA RULES!!

Ohhhhhh...and I love this picture, too....

Old people in love are so cute/kinda gross/cute again...

John Cusack

2008-06-07T10:23:00.000-07:00

Overview: The first John Cusack was publically released to an underwhelmed and largely uninterested market in the forgettable 1983 Rob Lowe film "Class". A second attempt to unveil John Cusack would follow one year later in the 1984 teen cult-classic "Sixteen Candles". In this reboot, a less jarring and more subtle approach was taken. John Cusack was introduced into a background of a largely Molly Ringwald-based landscape. The "wait, who was that guy?" approach paid off, and, in the ensuing decades, many variations of John Cusack emerged, tapping into the consumer needs of multiple demographics. Is there a John Cusack for you?

Above: Does this picture instantly make you start singing, "Love...I get so...LOST...suh-huuumtimes...These...EYES...and this emp-tee-ness fills myyy heart..." ? The answer is, "yes".

Early attempts to establish a successful John Cusack -from which other version would later emerge- were inconsistent and flawed at best. The under-stated "Sixteen Candles" John Cusack allowed for something of a blank slate. It was obvious to all who had caught sight of that John Cusack that there was "something there" that held a great deal of potential.

But the early John Cusacks kept going in the wrong the direction. Following "Sixteen Candles", the public was presented with such minor and mostly unsuccessful John Cusacks as 1985's "The Journey of Natty Gann" John Cusack, which attempted to emphasize the raw, nearly universal appeal of those doe eyes and disarming demeanor, but did so in such a way that it played down the guy-your-mom/best-friends-would-love aspect. "Natty Gann" John Cusack also attempted to infuse John Cusack with a kind of rugged masculinity, a failed effort that would be dropped until 1997's "Grosse Pointe Blank" John Cusack.

Above: Think of this as kind of the "Super Mario 2" of John Cusacks. I mean, it's GOOD, but...

1985 also saw such John Cusacks as the "Better Off Dead" John Cusack and the "The Sure Thing" John Cusack, and later, in 1986 the "One Crazy Summer" John Cusack was unveiled. In all, these John Cusacks played unevenly with the ideas of self-depricating hopelessness and quirky sex-appeal that would later be implemented in more successful John Cusacks.

For several years, attempts were made to give up on establishing a broad-appeal type of John Cusack, and John Cusack was largely relegated to use in off-beat, quirky, or otherwise non-John Cusack-type movies ("Tapeheads", "Eight Men Out", "Broadcast News").

The dream of perfecting John Cusack was all but abandoned until, in 1989, a brilliant young writer-director named Cameron Crowe employed John Cusack in his off-beat romance, "Say Anything". The response to this John Cusack was overwhelming, and analysts agreed that, simply by using such successful John Cusack elements as doe eyes, a disarming demeanor, and a sense of self-deprication and mixing in such subtle elements as a classical romantic vulnerability, a trenchcoat, Peter Gabriel songs, and memorable, idiosyncratic snippets of dialogue such as "I gave her my heart, she gave me a pen", Crowe had all but perfected the John Cusack ideal.

"Say Anything" John Cusack would by no means be the last, but it certainly created a template on which all successful future John Cusacks would be based.

The elements that make for the best John Cusacks usually include:

An almost preternaturally great taste in pop music
A sense of self-deprication
An aura of subtle, sometimes veiled nerdiness
A hard-to-pinpoint -though not threating- edginess
Those eyes...
Joan Cusack
A general preoccupation with heartbreak/hearthache
Romantic vulnerability thinly masked by a trenchcoat/being a hitman/lots and lots of records

To date, the most popular John Cusacks are "Say Anything" John Cusack, the darker "Grosse Pointe Blank" John Cusack, and the "High Fidelity" John Cusack, all of which incorporate the above features. In fact, the nearly-revolutionaty nature of the "Grosse Pointe Blank" John Cusack was considered a bold and daring move, what with all the killing people, but worked by contuining to be faithful to established John Cusack norms.

Above: Don't be fooled by the gun! I mean, I know it looks bad, but he's still TOTALLY heartbroken. And, see? He's reading "Discover". Aww...see? He's a nerd!

But oddly, the popularity of these John Cusacks is in no way consistent with gender or age demographics.

For instance, "Say Anything" John Cusack could be just as popular among 16-year-old indie-rock girls as among 35-year-old male Wall Street douchebags. Likewise, this John Cusack may secretly be the favorite among 20-year-old straight male college students who are not as yet quite secure in their sexuality who thus pretend to prefer the more aggresive, edgy, and masculine "Grosse Pointe Blank" John Cusack. Additionally, the "Gross Pointe Blank" John Cusack may be the ideal among 25-year-old single women who like the simultaneous fact that John Cusack is the kind of guy her mom would love, while "Grosse Pointe Blank" John Cusack is the kind of guy her mom would hate (but actually secretly love, for real). Yet other 25-year-old women seem to favor the classic "Say Anything" John Cusack, largely those women who are already married, as this John Cusack presents them with a relatively realistic ideal of what actual men actually look like, thus helping to offset the dwindling attraction they feel to their once-attractive and now sort of average-at-best husbands, while simultaneously reminding them of the bold, sweeping romantic gestures they will never, ever be able to enjoy again.

It is best, then, to assume a case-by-case perspective when analyzing what sort of John Cusack is best suited for each individual.

Do not assume that age, gender, or even geographical origin will be reliable indications of a person's John Cusack preferences. As, for example, the woman who totally broke my heart totally hated the almost-univerally beloved "High Fidelity" John Cusack, (with whom I totally identify, largely due to his obsession with heartbreak, TOTAL obsession with pop music, self-deprication, seeming inability to commit to anyone or anything, and lack of awareness that he's actually sort of been an asshole to a lot of women in the past -except, of course, the ones who actually deserved it- and that's why his relationships keeping ending miserably) simply because his ex-girlfriend took him back even when he acted like a douche-bag, which, when I think about it now, really should have told me something at the time. And she's from Chicago, too! Where not only "High Fidelity" is freakin' SET, but where John Cusack is from. And where John Cusack is basically like the deified emperor for life among anyone worth knowing. But whatever.

Above: Basically, I do this a lot...

Anyway, the point is that the solid foundation of classic variations of John Cusack have allowed for a lot of creativity in expanding the John Cusack appeal. In the time since Cameron Crowe's breakthrough John Cusack, we have seen the sexually-awkward and off-putting "Being John Malkovich" John Cusack (which still miraculously maintained elements of the classic's seething romantic idealism, if in unorthodox ways), the unlikely action-star "Con Air" John Cusack, the non-John-Cusack-y though-still-romantic "Pushing Tin" John Cusack, the John-Cusack-brilliant-as-Nelson-Rockefeller in deeply underappreciated Tim Robbins-directed movies "Cradle Will Rock" John Cusack, and the similar in-an-actually-GOOD-latter-day-Woody Allen-movie "Bullets Over Broadway" John Cusack.

There are even watered down and more populist versions, like the not-especially-good but still thoroughly-winning and perfectly enjoyable and at-least-Jeremy-Piven-is-in-it "Serendipity" John Cusack. In many cases, these departures from John Cusack norms are often wisely anchored to traditional John Cusacks through the incorporation of Joan Cusack, thus narrowly averting any potential threat to the winning and successful John Cusack formula.

Above: Seriously. Great movie. Nelson Rockefeller. He's great. You should see it.

It is best to think of these lesser and more specific John Cusacks as gateway John Cusacks, designed to lure a wider and more diverse audience to the more sophisticated John Cusack orthdoxy.

What's important to remember, however, is that no matter how versatile and genuinely useful something like John Cusack is, the market will enivitably turn up such dissappointing and unworthy John Cusacks, such as the "America's Sweethearts" John Cusack and the "Martian Child" John Cusack, which should be avoided at all costs.

Above: Dude...I don't even know what to say. You're just awesome.

Rating: **** (out of four)

Bottom Line: Not even a million "Must Love Dogs" John Cusacks could ever tarnish the memory of Lloyd Dobler/Martin Blank/Rob Gordon/Lloyd Dobler again.

Get To Know M.(R).V. Contributors

2008-06-02T15:18:00.000-07:00

We stumbled upon this great and informative biography of one-time guest blogger and friend-of-the-blog Ann Coulter.

-Click here to read Coulter's M.(R). V. post!
-Click here to read Coulter's Bio, and those of some other fine contributors to society!

The Week in (Re)View

2008-05-29T13:03:00.000-07:00

Awesome TV Shows: In the shocking, two-hour season finale, which aired last night, Jack and the CounterJack finally reunited, and a shocking revelation was made about the fate of the CounterJack and the shocking effect this has on Jack. Shockingly, several beloved minor characters met their fate. We won't reveal who, but we won't say one of them wasn't Jin, either.

Above: Oh, Jin...sad pandas. You will be missed. :( Um, I mean...I didn't say anything.

According to early reports, everybody watched the finale, boding well for the Awesome TV Show's future. Here's to what I'm sure are 7 or 8 more 22-episode planned seasons!

Heroes: The finale also included a trailer for upcoming Hero movie "Batman Begins Returns", which, if you haven't seen the trailer yet...well, you have, so it's sort of ridiculous to even bring this up. But if you want to see it again, I've stealthy hidden a link to it somewhere in this paragraph! How cunning are you? As The Joker would say, "Riddle me this, Batman!"

The Bible: 80s teen-sensation turned 90s evolution nay-sayer Kirk Cameron has been making the media rounds lately! Cameron is a devoted fan of the popular fantasy novel "The Bible", and has lately been singing the praises of his weekly fan convention, "Church", all the while discrediting another high-profile organization of Sci-Fi fans, "Scientologists". Some of his remarks can be found in this article, which probably will not anger, annoy, or frustrate you in any way!

Cameron, who starred in and produced the successful adventure-SciFi franchise"Left Behind" movie adaptations, seems to think Scientology, which posits that mankind is actually a descendent of lost race from an ancient intergalactic federation and all their problems are the result of having been poisoned by ghost aliens, is a "false" religion, unlike his own, which posits that mankind was made out of clay by an all-powerful wizard and that all their problems are the result of taking the advice of a mean talking snake in a tree and eating an apple.

He has explained that much of his turn to "Christianity" had to do with many of the "immoral" plot lines of his former sitcom "Growing Pains". We assume he is referring to the episode where he almost but doesn't make out with his baby sister's babysitter, who he later goes on to date, or where Mike's friend Boner almost but doesn't use cocaine at a party, or perhaps the latter-day episodes where Mike becomes a teacher for inner-city students, one of whom is Leonardo DiCaprio.

Pretty racy stuff, Kirk.

Anyway, for more on why bananas prove evolution isn't real, follow the link.

Women: This is the moment they've (or, you've) all been waiting for! At long last, we're guessing based on the all the media coverage and that we've been hearing about it more lately than usual, that the "Sex in the City" movie is coming out this weekend, or maybe today, or perhaps a couple of days ago or some time next week-ish(?)!

At long last, we'll find out if Ron Livingston is that guy they keep calling "Mr. Big", or if it's that vaguely-ugly dude who seems kind of old...Chris something? North? Toth? Boothe? Or could it have been John Corbett. He was on that show, right? I miss "Northern Exposure"...

Wait no longer: After what feels like maybe a year since the show ended, we will finally find out what happened to Amanda, Sandra, Carolyn, and of course, Kerry!

Above: This is it, right? That's them? Because it seems like one is missing or something. Did her character die? Or, wait, does she die in the movie?

Heroes

2008-05-28T12:00:00.000-07:00

OVERVIEW: Heroes! They live in shadows, perched on the rooftops, guarding the night like the gods of old! They seek not reward, nor fame, nor glory...they seek only to protect, to bring justice, and occasionally to find treasure, overcome personal inadequacies, or bury psychological demons associated with childhood trauma. With the new, out-of-nowhere Hollywood blockbusters "Iron Man" and "Indiana Jones and The Alien Skull-Thing of Doom", Heroes* really seem to have captured the minds (and wallets!) of the American public. What's that up in the sky? It's a bird! It's a plane! No, it's a market trend!

*but not the NBC show "Heroes", which has by now been largely forgotten

Go to your local Megaplex these days and you're not likely to find too many Rom-Coms*, Period Dramas, or Indie-Docudramas.

*industry speak for "Julia Roberts/Kate Hudon movies"

No, Hollywood has taken a bold step forward. Capitalizing on the general popularity of Heroes in the wake of 9/11*, the major movie studios have gone Hero-crazy. No fewer than all movies slated for release this summer feature some sort of Hero, whether they be the Super variety ("Iron Man", "Batman Begins Returns", "The Incredible Hulk", "Hancock"), the Anti variety("The Incredible Hulk", "Hancock", "Wanted"), Hometown ("The Happening", "The Promotion"), Unlikely ("Kung Fu Panda", "Don't Mess with the Zohan", "Get Smart", "WALL*E"), Post-Feminist ("Sex and the City", "Kitt Kittredge: An American Girl", "He's Just Not That Into You"), Tortured ("The X-Files"), Archeologists, or Brendan Fraser ("Journey to the Center of the Earth", "The Mummy 3").

*NOTE: the sorts of Heroes associated with 9/11 don't actually have movies made about them. Or, well, sometimes they do, but they're directed by Oliver Stone and sort of suck.

Other types of Hero not featured in movies include Guitar and War. The former tends to exist mostly within the confines of the imaginary relationship between socially awkward twenty-somethings and their Playstation 3, while the latter tends to run for President.

Above: Not coming to a theater near you.

Above: The budget of "Iron Man" skyrocketed when its highly-disciplined star Robert Downey Jr. unneccesarily insisted that effects artists render a CGI version of him inside the CGI "Iron Man" suit as it would help his "process"...

Of course, "Iron Man" was an enormous gamble on behalf of its investors, who had to ask themselves a serious question: Can a well-scripted, perfectly-cast special effects driven vehicle with an enormous budget based upon a beloved comic book franchise make a dent in the summer box office?

True, it seemed like a bold move, but a quick look at the graph below would have set the minds of these investors at ease. As you can see, while public awareness of how awesome "Iron Man" is has grown, especially since the release of the "Iron Man" trailer, the actual level of awesomeness of "Iron Man" has remained relatively consistent since his debut in March of 1969, in Marvel Comics' Tales of Suspense #39.

With the remarkable and unexpected success of "Iron Man", Hollywood quickly rolled out an extensive line up of other Hero-based movies.

Above: About 8.6 gagillion dollars in box office receipts.

Heroes are pretty much always great. Whether they have capes, whips, cool hats, or are played by Robert Downey Jr., there is so much to recommend that we'd like to state, right now, that we are almost wholly endorsing the Hero trend. Having said that, as always there are precautions the consumer must take before pursuing Heroes.

The wide variety of Heroes may make them difficult for the consumer to identify. Here we have included some tips to help you be sure you've found a hero:

-He's* gotta be strong
-He's* gotta be fast
-He's* gotta be fresh from the fight
-He's* gotta be sure
-And it's gotta be soon
-And he's* gotta be larger than life
-Larger than life

*in some cases, this could also be "She's"

In rare cases, the consumer may so identify with his or her favorite Heroes that he or she may come to believe that he or she is, in fact, a Hero him or herself.

If you feel that there is any possiblity you fall into this category, experts advise you to remember that there's a hero, if you look inside your heart, you don't have to be afraid of what you are. There's an answer if you reach into your soul, and the sorrow that you know will melt away. And then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on. And you cast your fears aside. And you know you can survive. So when you feel like hope is gone, look inside you and be strong. And you'll finally see the truth; that a hero lies in you. It's a long road when you face the world alone. No one reaches out a hand for you to hold. You can find love if you search within yourself. And the emptiness you felt will disappear. Lord knows dreams are hard to follow. But don't let anyone tear them away. Just hold on. There will be tomorrow, and in time you'll find the way.

Above: Spider-Man.
...
...
I mean, no real reason or anything. I just think Spider-Man is awesome.

Consumers should also be aware of two possible hazards. One, the Fallen Hero, and two, the not-the-same-kind-of-Hero-we're talking about.

Fallen Heroes can be especially hard to spot (see fig. 985.B), especially since they often seem, at a young age, to (1) possess super-human abilities and intuition. As they get older, they still seem kind of heroic, but it's important to look for signs that they may fall from grace. These signs include (2) arrogance, whininess, disobedience, awkward speech patterns, and a general sense of douche-bagginess. If your hero starts displaying more severe signs, such as (3) getting dangerously close to a Dark Lord of the Sith, murdering one or more of his peers/elders, or having eyes that turn red, suggestive of the all-consuming anger, fear, and hatred that burns within, it may be time to give up on your hero before he or she becomes (4) a barely-human, power-hungry, walking machination shadow-of-the-good-man-he-once-was-who-is-no-more totalitarian agent of evil, bent on controlling the galaxy and haphazardly, passively killing off his own allies simply because they make a mistake and he is displeased.

It should be noted, however, that the Force works in mysterious ways and your hero may rise again to save his child and, as his last act of humanity, destroy the embodiment of evil, tragically killing himself in the process, but freeing his Jedi-spirit to dwell eternally with Force.

Fig. 985.B

By now, we trust you are well-versed enough in Herodom that you would be able to identify which one, among the items below, is the kind of hero we're talking about.

Above: It's "C". You got that, right? (Notice the cape)

RATING: ***1/2 (out of 4)

BOTTOM LINE: I, I can remember standing by the wall. And the guns shot above our heads, and we kissed as though nothing would fall. And the shame was on the other side. Oh, we can beat them forever and ever. Then we can be Heroes, just for one day.

Cook Wins! M(R)V Vindicated! Special Finale (Re)View by Lilit Marcus!! Exclamation Points!!!

2008-05-22T09:20:00.000-07:00

As we recently predicted, David Archuleta, who is totally awful in every way, lost American Idol Season 7 last night to the incredible David Cook, who is just totally freakin' retardedly great.

Above: At left, the loser and his freak hand. At right, DAVID COOK!

Further evidence that M(R)V is the most significant and influential publication in the world? Perhaps.

But you could only make that argument if you consider the fact that over 9 billion viewers* tuned in last night and David Cook won by the widest margin in history, just days after our report. So let's not jump to conclusions.

*ish

The esteemed Lilit Marcus of Save the Assistants turned in this review of the spectacular finale!:

I had this feeling cook was going to win as soon as simon said he rewatched the tapes and realized he didn't give cook enough credit. You also have to see Cook performing with ZZ Top. I hate ZZ Top too, but David Cook can make pretty much anything good.

And Brooke did a duet with Graham Nash which was AWESOME!

And Castro did a full length "Hallelujah"!

But that goddamn Coldplay commercial was on like 50 times yesterday.

And Paula's tits kept almost falling out

Anyway, like half of last night was worth watching.

Archuleta's duet was beyond annoying.

There were some great moments, some annoying sponsor-related moments (an interminable ad for "The Love Guru," both Davids reenacting the same "Guitar Hero" commercial), and some major WTF? moments (George Michael's performance, whatever the heck Carrie Underwood was wearing).

Oh, also, [2007 winner] Jordin [Sparks] wore this HORRIBLE gold dress that looked like it was made of foil! She's not offensively bad like taylor.

Oh, they are both very not awesome. (More like "Under-WOULDN'T!!!" Snap! -Ed.)

David Cook's well-deserved victory... (Wait! Hold on! Let's see more of that! -Ed.)

Above: Nice.

...was a bittersweet one. Instead of wearing the orange band around his wrist, it was tied around his hand, causing many to speculate that Adam's (Adam is David Cook's dying brother. -Ed.) condition had turned more serious. [Had] David Archuleta [the ablitity to express emotion, he would have] seemed genuinely thrilled for his friend and competitor, and gathered the other finalists on stage with him to cheer David Cook [who is AWESOME] on. In my opinion, this year's finale--in spite of George Michael--is the best one since Kelly Clarkson's original victory. Sometimes people argue over whether the winner should be the best singer or the best person.

This year, we got both. -L.M.

Archuleta

2008-05-20T07:20:00.000-07:00

Overview: David Archuleta is totally lame. So why is he a finalist on American Idol, and what are his chances of winning? M(R)V previews tonight's exciting David v. David showdown, and explores the Archuleta phenomenon.

David Archuleta is the talented 17-year-old co-finalist from the current season of American Idol. Born in Florida - in freakin' 1990, right around the time that "U Can't Touch This" came out and thus obviously not old enough to be doing anything -and bred (I won't say "raised" because he's 17 and thus still pretty much an infant who should never have gone on Idol in the first place) in Utah (See if you can guess why! Go ahead. Utah? Guess! Anything?), David Archuleta is a souless cretin and former Star Search winner.

Above: Uh...yeah. Nice scarf. And why do I feel so cold and empty when I see your eyes? That's creepy.

Archuleta's fanbase is mostly among tweens, who usually look something like this:

Above: LOL TWEENS

Tweens have also endorsed and made famous the following things:

-The Olson Twins

-"Bratz" Dolls

-Aaron Carter

-Nick Carter

-"The Suite Life of Zack and Cody"

-Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus

-"Small Wonder"*

-And much, much, much, much more

*Probably

It is worth noting that many of the items listed above are not suitable for, or directed at, a consumer base of fully-functioning, self-aware adults who care about anything and wish to be happy and not creeped out, and who often have taste in things.

Above: Ugh...is it possible he was actually creepier and more annoying when he was little(er...than he his now)?

However, America is structured in such a way that we all must listen to what the tweens say and want (like Evangelical Christians) even when the majority of Americans think what they want is annoying. Tweens are known to throw tantrums when they don't get their way. Such tantrums may occur when...

Above: Sorry to interupt, but look at this! The hand thing. What is that? Always with the hand...AND OPEN YOUR EYES, Archuleta!!! Jesus.

...the tween is not allowed to go to Michelle Robinson's party, the tween cannot have Miley Cyrus tickets for her birthday, the tween will not be going to school dressed like *that*, and when David Archuleta doesn't win American Idol.

Which will happen.

Him not winning, I mean.

Above: Look! LOOK! I'm not making this up! Even at the freakin' AUDITION (bottom right). Even when he's not even "singing" (bottom center)...ALWAYS THE HAND. PUT YOUR HAND DOWN, Archuleta...It's creepy! There's a lot more of these...

Ugh...

Above: Ugh...

What else? Umm...oh, right.
Archuleta became a favorite among the judges when he sang that John Lennon song about fascism, Imagine, which I've always hated anyway. But he was just sooOOOoooOOooOOOoo good, and totally blew the judges away (dawg). And apparently he's going to do the same song tonight (remember? Because it was sooOOOoooOOooOOOoo good?) Maybe this time Simon Cowell won't be high and maybe then he'll realize Archuleta blows and is creepy.

Above: I. Am. Obviously. Dead. In. Side.

God I hate you, Archuleta.

RATING: negative********************************* times a million bajillion zillion (out of 4)

BOTTOM LINE: Two pieces of good news.

One: Archuleta will come in second, and so did Clay Aiken and we never heard from him again!*

TWO: I got twelve words for you, Archuleta! David. Cook. Is. Singing. "I. Still. Haven't. Found. What. I'm. Looking. For." Oh, are you scared? Are you SCARED, Archuleta?? "Imagine" suddenly not sounding like such an awesome choice next to the double-awesomeness of Bono plus David Cook equals YOU LOSE???? EAT IT!

*F#%K!

Above: Goddamn right.

(Your)Views - Letters to the Editor

2008-05-15T08:38:00.001-07:00

At M(R)V, we do what we do for the benefit of our readers. So it's always rewarding, gratifying, and -most importantly- helpful for us to hear what you have to say about the important work we're doing.

Every month, the M(R)V mail room is flooded with letters from readers, and our e-mail inbox is metaphorically flooded with e-letters.

We can't address all of them in print, but rest assured they are all read and deeply considered. Here is a sampling of some of the feedback we've recieved in the last 30 days:

NOTE: Portions of the above letter have been redacted for reasons of national security.

Dear Jeff,

Thank you for that feedback! We only have one thing to say: If "cases of professional journalism" and "instances of accuracy" constitute "errors" in this day and age, we mourn the state of journalism!! But we get what you're trying to say, and we appreciate the nod.

-Ed.

This next letter was presumably intended as response to our review of Cats

Dear Ashley,

We would first like to state, in our defense, that at no point in our review did we specifically single out your cat, Perkins, and as such clearly made no judgements one way or the other as to whether Perkins was or was not friendly.

At M(R)V we try to take a balanced, non-biased approach to our work, and we are aware that the conclusion we utlimately reach may not be iron-clad and without exception. Rather, they are meant as a kind of "litmus test" for the overall use, effectiveness, and appeal of a product, as in the case of Cats which are, by and large, useless, obnoxious, stupid, loud, lazy hell-spawn. That you find "Perkins" to be "friendly" just proves that there is a vast array of taste among the wider consumer pool, and that much of that taste may be misguided or rooted in delusion and/or insanity, as we assume may or may not be the case with you.

We appreciate your input.

-Ed.

This next letter is in response to our piece about Baseball. It came via e-mail from reader hksteinbrenner@yankees.com

Dear My(Re)Views-

Don't make any mistake about it: Our team in the late 90s beat everybody, and we beat everybody because we were that much better than everybody. And they had just as many players doing stuff - all the teams. I guarantee you go through every team in baseball, and they all have the same basic percentage of players doing stuff. They just weren't as good as us. You think the Red Sox didn't have players doing stuff back then? Give me a break. They just weren't as good as us, and neither was anybody else.

You've got to win. Otherwise, there's no reason being in it.

We want to win; it's that simple. We're both kind of struggling. We just need to win. They just need to win. We just need to keep putting wins in the win column. We've got to start racking up some runs.

But as far as missing the playoffs - if we miss the playoffs by the end of this year, I don't know how patient I'll be. But it won't be against the players. It won't be a matter of that. It will be a matter of maybe certain people in the organization could have done something else.

I don't want anybody on my team that doesn't want to be a Yankee.

Dear hksteinbrenner,

Sure. Whatever.

-Ed.

Couter Points: Colbert - "You were right, M(R)V!"

2008-05-12T07:28:00.000-07:00

"OMG, SPACE!" - The Colbert Report

You may recall a recent posting regarding noted political pundit Stephen Colbert's scathingly pro-Earth anti-Space rant, which, in light of our mostly pro-Space review published just days earlier, effectively drew a line in the sand between The Colbert Report and M(R)V. It was a war we never wanted to fight. We have great respect for the high journalistic standards set forth by Colbert.

Which is why we're not going to gloat too much over the revelation that Colbert is the classic flip-flopper. In less than a month, Colbert has gone from posterboy apologist for the out-of-touch pro-Earth elite to rabid Space fan as this clip from last Thursday's show proves. Not ones to be proud and boastful, we hate taking credit for such shifts in popular opinion*, but not even we can deny that this is clear evidence that M(R)V continues to prove itself to be the most important highly-specific special interest online-only consumer journal in the world.

You're welcome.

*but we're used to it

(Re)Views News: The Onion on TV/DVD Marriage

2008-05-12T06:57:00.000-07:00

~~Following~~ ~~Around the same time of~~ ~~Immediately preceding but I totally thought of this before reading it so it doesn't count~~ Simultaneous to our coverage of TV shows that play well on DVD, America's finest news source, The Onion, had the journalistic wisdom to run this story, covering one expert's analysis of the hot consumer trend.

Watching TV Shows On DVD The Way To Do It, Area Man Reports

It is gratifying to know that, while we stand out as the gold standard of consumer news and journalism, we are not alone in our tireless coverage, and prestigious outlets like The Onion join us in our crusade to put the "journal" back in "journalism".*

*Editor's not: Should I have said "report" back in "reporting"? Or "responsible" back in "responsible news coverage"?

Awesome TV Shows

2008-05-08T08:21:00.000-07:00

Overview: Television stands on a long and proud tradition of producing Great TV Shows ("The X-Files", "The Sopranos", "The Wonder Years", "The Wire", and "M.A.S.H.", just to name a few). It has also yielded Totally Amazing TV Shows ("Buffy The Vampire Slayer", "Freaks and Geeks", "Firefly", "Doctor Who") and, yes, occasionally the Worst Ever All-Time TV Shows, shows so bad they drain all the light out of sunshine and leave the viewer in an icy, cold, empty purgatory with no lingering sense of hope, happiness, or will to go on ("Small Wonder"). Recent years, however, have witnessed the rise of Awesome TV Shows. What is an Awesome TV Show, and should you be on board?

Above: (From Left) Great; Totally Amazing; Kill Me

The Awesome TV Show is a relatively recent phenomenon. This is largely due to the increased popularity and availability of TV shows on DVD. Awesome TV Shows fit well into the DVD model for two reasons:

1) The Awesome TV Show is a pretty complicated and often presented in a sequential, serialized narrative. Missing even a single episode of the Awesome TV Show can leave viewers confused or angry. The DVD format assures the viewer will never miss an episode and that the series can be viewed at the viewer's leisure.

2) Awesome TV shows also tend to be pretty awesome, with lots of action sequences but also plenty of tension and character development, and so they stand up to repeat viewings. The DVD format allows viewers to re-watch the Awesome TV Show over and over

Above: A couple shopping at Best Buy, one of the most popular vendors of Awesome TV Show DVDs, purchase a DVD player, several box set collections of Awesome TV Shows, and a...Dance Pro...Wireless...which I'm sure is totally not at all as gay as it sounds...

The DVD format and Awesome TV Shows thus form a symbiotic relationship, wherein the popularity of the Awesome TV Show boosts sales of DVDs, and the ability to enjoy the Awesome TV Show without commercials over and over help ensure a future of new and perhaps Awesomer TV Shows, while increasing the likelihood of current Awesome TV Shows being renewed for more episodes and seasons.

But in order to fully appreciate and understand the popularity of Awesome TV Shows, it helps to know some of the actual substance of the premise and themes of these shows.

The central character of Awesome TV Shows is named Jack.

Above: Promotional art for a popular Awesome TV Show. At left-center (standing, in gray shirt and jeans) -Jack

And just who, exactly, is this "Jack"? Therein lies much of the appeal of the Awesome TV Show.

We know this much about Jack: he is capable, athletic, and often forced into impossible situations. As a natural leader (Jack's occupation is esteemed neurosurgeon/experienced federal agent/former elite member of a mysterious, powerful, highly-regarded, and now defunct organization called the "Time Agency"), Jack must take charge of a rag-tag group, thrown together sometimes out of pure happenstance and often at odds with one another due to personality conflicts. Nonetheless, the fact remains: they are all in this together.

Brooding and handsome, Jack's charm and appealing physical presence often works to his advantage.

Above: Jack uses his deep, old-soul eyes, oddly soothing grizzly baritone voice, and steady world-worn hands to a calming, tension-alleviating end.

In addition to his leadership skills and compelling, affable demeanor, Jack is smart. Very smart. But he wasn't born with all this knowledge. It has come from a lifetime (or what sometimes feels like 8 lifetimes...) of experience in the field. He's seen things you can't imagine and knows things you'd rather not.

Above: Jack analyzes the design layout of the homicidal and maniacal Cybermen, reflecting on their reign of terror and swearing, so help him God, that he will never let humanity suffer through that nightmare again. This is his crusade. His life's work. This is what he must do...

It is important to note how readily and eagerly Jack will spring into action. While he may not strike you as quite the definition of an action hero, if there is a hostile to be threatened, a bomb to be deactivated, or a door to be kicked, don't think Jack will give it so much as a second thought! Oh, and you should know that, when it comes to protecting the people he loves, Jack has a gun, and he is not. afraid. to use it.

Above: Jack swears to God he wishes he never had to use this...

It is important, however, that I not leave you with the impression that Jack is so hardened, stony, and aggressive that he lacks a deep, sensitive, tortured soul. On the contrary: deep, sensitive, tortured soul is Jack's middle name!*

Above: Oh, Jack...

*"Deep, sensitive, tortured soul" isn't Jack's actual middle name

In fact, one of the things that makes Jack most compelling is his troubled and often enigmatic past, of which we begin to learn more and more as episodes of Awesome TV Shows begin to unfold. Is Jack an alchoholic? Has Jack struggled with a heroin addiction? Is Jack tormented by the heartbreaking circumstances leading to the demise of his marriage?

Above: It'll be okay, Jack.

Did Jack do something he deeply regrets during his childhood, that one afternoon on the Boeshane Penninsula back on his homeworld...something that eats at his soul to this very day?

Yes.

Above: Please do not cry, Jack. For if you cry, how am I to stay strong?

In other words, sure Jack is good at leading, shooting things, running, and being all dashing and sexy, but if you don't understand that there are many layers to Jack - layers that make him the man he is, the man you want on your side - then you've missed the point of Awesome TV Shows altogether.

To help illustrate this point, Jack is provided with a sort of CounterJack, if you will. A yin to Jack's yang. This character is a relatively minor player in the Awesome TV Show, but his relationship to Jack is crucial. The character often sees things differently than Jack does. His methods are not Jack's methods, and vice versa. But Jack shares both a friendship and a level of respect for the CounterJack that is unique and deeply significant. Even when these two characters are at odds, they remain deeply bonded. And even when they share very little screentime together, the dynamic between these two characters helps the audience more fully understand who they both are and brings out a side of Jack that feels essential and vulnerable. This character is called Tony Almeida/John Locke/The Doctor.

There are other elements too, of course. Awesome TV Shows feature wide casts of supporting characters and storylines that deal with the trials and tribulations of all of these lesser characters. It can't just all be about Jack, explosions, running around, and maddening cliffhangers that make you wait a freakin' year til you find out what happens, although these are all important elements.

But every Awesome TV Show needs its Edgar/Charlie/Owen, because viewers have shown over and over again that they like to see the kind of loserish character that they all secretly love deep-down be killed off in an agonizing and tragic fashion.

Above: Not Penny's Boat!!! Awww, Charliiieeeeee...You were so brave. :( Godspeed, beloved hobbit.

And no Awesome TV Show would be complete without a prolonged, depressing, would-be romance with Audrey/Kate/Gwen, that seems like it was never really meant to work out.

It is with great relief, then, that I can report that all Awesome TV Shows have these very elements working for them without exception.

Are there downsides? A few, and they do need to be addressed. Awesome TV Shows often ask the viewer to trust that the people making the Awesome TV Show know what they're doing. Occasionally, this trust can be broken, as in Season 6/The first few episodes of Seasons 3 and 4 and or the whole "Nikki and Paolo" thing/The "Fight Club" Episode.*

*I mean, I know Noel Clarke wrote it, and that's awesome, but...sorry...it just didn't work for me...

Also, Jack can really just sometimes get to be kind of overbearing.

Yeah, I said it.

But these shortcomings are easy to overcome. The truth of the matter is that Awesome TV Shows are awesome. And until the day awesome starts meaning "not awesome"*, it's safe to say they are here to stay.

*like "sick"

RATING: **** (out of 4)

BOTTOM LINE: Jaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacccccccccccccckkkk!!!! (Kaboom!)

(Re)View (Pre)Views : America Ruins Great TV Shows

2008-05-07T07:46:00.001-07:00

M(R)V is excited to announce its upcoming in-depth review: "Awesome TV Shows". In this review, we will be analyzing the recent and pervasive trend of television programs that are awesome. (SPOILER: In almost all cases, the main character of awesome TV shows is named Jack)

ABOVE: Jack, Jack, and Jack. Sweet.

But we couldn't help ourselves from breaking this actual new story.

One of the awesomest TV shows that you've never seen is called Life on Mars and takes the radical liberty of featuring a main character named "Sam".

Life on Mars is so ridiculously, knock-your-ass out-and-kick-you-in-the-shins-with-lasers- blazing-everywhere-and-a-freakin'-all-consuming-tsunami-of-magical-rain-drops-that-taste- like-happiness AWESOME it's not even funny. Here's a trailer for the show:

And, hey, wanna know something awesome*?!!!!

*by "awesome", i mean "soul-crushingly not awesome"

Have you ever seen that ABC series October Road? If your synapses are still firing and you have yet to gouge our your eyeballs, I'm going to assume you haven't (I will also base this assumption on the show's ratings).

Well, turns out the geniuses behind that show (or, sorry: the geniuses behind that show, Fastlane, and Kangaroo Jack) are going to run the ship on the wholly unnecessary American remake of Life on Mars.

American remakes aren't always bad and non-awesome. Case in point: The Office. The American version of the office, while different, is every bit as awesome as the British series. It's just that most American remakes are non-awesome. A couple of examples would include:

-Cracker

-Coupling

-Men Behaving Badly

-Viva Laughlin! (originally titled Blackpool)

-Queer as Folk

etc.

But Life on Mars is so perfect from beginning to end, we here can't bring ourselves to be exicted about turning the elegant, two-season arc of LoM into the inevitably dragged-out 8 seasons that the American version will run. We don't care that Colm Meaney is playing Gene Hunt, even though nobody else but Colm Meaney could even maybe possibly just barely be right for that role. And we don't care who Jason O'Mara is. All me know is that he's not John Simm and he sure as butterflies ain't Sam Tyler.

If we dare say so, this would be like an American remake of Doctor Who, but without David Tennant, and instead with The Doctor played by Ryan Reynolds. And The Doctor would have a drinking problem. And a failing marriage.

Meanwhile, speaking of David Tennant and awesomeness, we will leave you with this for now:

David Tennant

Adventures in Advertising: Holy Can't-Be-Coincidences, Batman!

2008-05-02T07:57:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: Our crackerjack, highly-paid team of professional researchers has determined that the attached side-by-side trailer comparison is by no means fake and in no way the product of somebody with absolutely nothing better to do with his or her time. As with all content on this site, we stand by its authenticity and factitude.

The golden rule of product advertising is this: If it worked the first time, it will probably work the same way the second time, even if the second time is 19 years after the first time (NOTE: the original phrasing of the golden rule of product adverstising is probably far more eloquent).*

This ~~may~~ does explain why the trailer for this summer's Batman Begins 2: The Dark Knight, is nearly scene-for-scene, note-for-note, and cut-for-cut identical to the trailer to the 1989 film Batman: The One With The Horribly Miscast Jack Nicholson And The Weird Bruce Wayne-As-Self-Loathing-Jew Angle (Later changed, for marketing purposes, to Batman):

Stranger still, notice how both trailers are essentially identical to this one for the 1966 feature, Batman: The Movie!

*Also note that this is different from the regular golden rule, which was invented by Jesus

Breaking Consumer News! - Italian Eateries Suddenly Losing All Business in Israel

2008-04-25T08:51:00.001-07:00

Is Italian food a dying trend? Disturbing recent news from Israel seems to imply this may be the case. Keep up with M(R)V and we'll follow this story closely as it unfolds. -ed.

(Reposted with permission from the Jerusalem Post)

Tel Aviv, Israel-

Luigi Toriella is baffled.

The Italian immigrant moved to Israel one year ago to open locations of his popular chain of family friendly eateries, Luigi's. Until very recently, Luigi's was wildly successful in its two Israeli locations, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. All that changed last weekend.

"It was completely out the blue," Toriella explains. "I don't want to sound hyperbolic here, but the change was literally overnight. As recently as Saturday night, we were packed. And then, Sunday...nothing. And that's pretty much been the case ever since."

Employees at of Luigi's in Tel Aviv wait impatiently for any signs of prospective customers.

In fact, Toriella claims that the Saturday before the sudden downturn was the busiest night in his restaurant's one year history. Shockingly, receipts from the Jerusalem location have shown exactly the same trend.

"Last Saturday, people were coming in in droves, ordering up plate after plate of pasta dishes. We could barely keep up. We were totally understaffed and under prepared. I thought I would have to hire new servers if this was going to become a regular thing."

In fact, the opposite seems to be the case now. Toriella says that after this week he can barely afford to keep the restaurant open, much less pay his staff.

"The Luigi's phenomenon is baffling to us all," says Rick Lasseter, a former economist and now a business analyst for the UK-based Independent. "We do see sudden drop-offs in popularity throughout the market, and sometimes those drop-offs can be quite dramatic. But those sorts of sudden, steep declines only tend to occur with bona fide fads, like snap bracelets and pogs. I can't explain this at all. Not to sound superstitious or to appear to be jumping to conclusions, but It's almost as though it's an act of God."

Above: A graph showing Luigi's steady growth and sudden, immediate decline in business

Toriella's family moved to Paris in 1974 and founded the first Luigi's there, hoping to tap into a growing European trend of shared cultural cuisine. The success of the restaurant was immediate, and Toriella (who shares a first name with his father and his family business), now 54, inherited the business in his mid-20s. Naturally business savvy, Toriella began opening new locations of Luigi's; first throughout France, and then in many other European countries.

The two Israeli locations were notable because, for the first time, the Toriella family business had spread outside of Europe. Toriella knew he was taking a big risk in moving to the Middle East and attempting to expand his business there, but the positive response was immediate. The first Luigi's opened just over one year ago (April 11, 2007) and Toriella describes the reaction as such:

"It was, honestly, as though these people hadn't ever had real Italian food before. They like they were literally desperate to eat our authentic, steaming, heaping bowlfuls of pasta, cooked al dente, to perfection, and smothered in perfectly blended pesto sauce, creamy and zesty alfredo sauce, or my family's secret recipe: Toriella's tomato sauce with a delicate blend of oregano and garlic. And all of it topped with tangy, freshly grated Parmesan cheese and ground pepper with sides of fresh-baked Italian bread and sweet extra-virgin olive oil! It was unbelievable. It was a dream come true. And I knew then I had made the right decision.

"At least," he went on to say, "I sure thought I'd made the right decision."

The sudden and unexpected disappearance of customers from Luigi's is perhaps more baffling given that, in its year of operation, the restaurant had not one health code violation, not one customer complaint, and a comment box full of enthusiastic scribblings of "Mazel Tov!" and "Great, my brother!"

Regardless, the fact remains: Luigi's hasn't had a single customer in a week, and Toriella is at an absolute loss. He fears he may have to close down his Israel-based locations, and just when he was planning on expanding into other Middle Eastern countries.

When asked how long Toriella was willing (or financially able) to hold out for a resurgence of business, sounding quite pessimistic, he responded, "I don't know...two days? Three, at the absolute maximum".

"Even then," he added, "we'd have to have a crazy few days to make up for this slump. And that just doesn't seem likely to me at all..."

Counter Points: Colbert Says "Earth is Awesome"

2008-04-23T04:56:00.000-07:00

Peabody Award-winning conservative political pundit and patriot Stephen Colbert has made a heroic career of shining a divine mag light on the truth through the murky, Alaskan oil-spilled waters of spin. So it's not a surprise that his views about Space, specifically in regards to our solar system, do not necessarily fall in with "popular opinion". Colbert calls 'em like he sees 'em, and we here at M(R)V respect and value dissenting opinions. Have a look at what Colbert has to say and decide for yourself.:

STEPHEN COLBERT : "EARTH IS AWESOME"

The Future

2008-04-21T12:10:00.000-07:00

Overview: Great Scott! The future! Despite continually failing to live up to its promises of time travel, flying cars, and jet packs, trends clearly show the future's steady and strong growth. Studies indicate that 100% of Americans (and roughly as high a percentage of the global population) remain steadfastly dedicated to embracing and moving toward the future. Why the unwavering devotion to the future, and what does the future's future hold?

The future was first discovered by author and potentially crazy fantasist Jules Verne towards the end of the 19th Century, shortly after the discovery of science.

Prior to Verne's time, most individuals were exclusively concerned with what was known as "the here and now". Largely, this was due to the overwhelming pre-science stresses of "getting into 'heaven'" and not dying of the plague. The age of science did two things: it let people live past the age of 30 for the first time, and it also allowed them to spend more time complaining that they couldn't do certain things, like fly and communicate with God telepathically. Slowly, more and more members of the human race began noticing that every passing day was a day later than the previous day. Many philosophers and mathematicians noted that each coming year was represented as numerically greater by one than the previous year (for instance, 1783 eventually yielded 1784, which led to 1785, etc.)

Above: Rock group ESP demonstrates a completely fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of both the future and music.

There could be no doubt: mankind was slowly but quite surely heading toward the future!

Above: A scientific timeline showing the continued trend toward the future. Important events are listed at bottom "chronologically". Notice that, even before the future was discovered, time would move forward at a steady and consistent rate as historical events played out (CLICK TO ENLARGE!).

When Verne came on to the scene, however, the future really began taking shape, both as a concept and a product. Verne could have been accused of "overselling" the future as, indeed, many of his contemporaries never came to know the marvels he promised, such as submarines, space shuttles, and being able to travel around the world in 80 or fewer days. Of course, today, as we appear to get closer to the future, many of Verne's lofty promises have come to pass! (It is, for instance, no longer impressive to boast that one has circled the globe in 80 days).

If there is one criticism that could justly be applied to Verne, it is certainly that the "future" he so boldly promised has actually turned out to be the present, though one can forgive Verne for not having the foresight to have predicted that the future would still be quite a ways off, even as late as the early 21st Century.

Above: Test your consumer expectations - If you saw a school building with this sign, what assumptions would you make about the nature of the school housed within? Most of those polled assumed the school would be taught by hologram people (89%) and that students would download all knowledge through a wisdom chip implanted into the brain (78%). In fact, this school is actually incredibly similar to "schools of the past", including a high concentration of regular human teachers and apathetic and likely stoned students.

So when the promised future does take place, what can we expect?

Well, believe or not, the market has found there is a fortune to be made out of forecasting what the future will look like when it finally does arrive. Movies like Blade Runner and Minority Report suggest that it will be a lot like Times Square, only bigger and even more unbearable. Both of these futures, it should be noted, were hypothesized by author Philip K. Dick, who was insane.

Movies like Back to Future II seem to suggest a less bleak outlook, envisioning a future filled with hoverboards and highly-advance high-top sneakers.

Above: Ooooooooooooooooooo...future-y!

Still, the market has long agreed that the future will be notable for a number of key features, all of which were established by the popular television series, The Jetsons.

Above: God, when? WHEN?? Hurry up, the future...

This means that we have a handy litmus test for when we have finally reached the future. The key attributes will be as follows:

-All cars will be able to fly, which is largely considered the most significant identifying characteristic of the future.

-All buildings will be built in the sky on poles, kinda like Bespin in Star Wars.

-All citizens will have safe, affordable jet packs.

-All telecommunication will implement monitors. (fig. 53R)

Fig. 53R

-All household items will include antennae.

-Dogs will be able to speak English, though in the barely coherent, mumbly sort of way that you'd imagine a dog would sound like if dogs could talk.

-All household chores will be done by comically outdated notions of artificial intelligence modeled after comically outdated stereotypes of servants.

-All surnames will have evolved to reflect future technology and occupations. Just as the formerly common occupation of blacksmithing during the Middle Ages yielded the common last name "Smith", so too will cog production, jet design, and Space travel, all important occupations of the future, yield last names like Cogswell, Jetson, and Spacely.*

*The actor Kevin Spacey may be a harbinger of the coming futuretimes.

As with all popular trends and products, even the near-universal endorsement of the future has been met with some resistance. A small but growing minority has been vocal about its aversion to the future, and appear quite vigorously intent on promoting living in the past. To some, this can mean promoting a shift in market focus to the living conditions, technological advances, and levels of scientific understanding of the Middle Ages, like Pat Robertson, John Ashcroft, and Tom DeLay.

Above: "Democracy? Basic human rights? Habeas corpus?? Religious FREEDOM??? Yeah, okay Mr. 'Sci-Fi Future Crazy-Town'" -Pat Robertson

For others, it means ignoring the 21st Century altogether, such as in the case of Yankees Fans.

And then there are those who are warning that the entire trend may be a hoax; that, in fact, there may never be a future at all!

Above: Academy Award winner, Nobel laureate, and former President-Elect Al Gore, who's all like "totally not gonna happen" about the future. But I want there to be a future, Al Gore...

Still, it's hard to blame such people for their negative feelings about the future, especially when, in the past, they looked like this:

Above: Sorry, young man, are you lost? Don't you think you're a little too pretty to be a Senator?...

Even some Hollywood filmmakers have bought into the "no future" hypothesis.

Above: "Ahm looking fah Say-ah Cah-nah...."

But while former President Gore may be right about a lot of things (the internet turned out to be a great idea), it's hard to take his data seriously, especially when all market analysis has shown consistent and constant trending towards the future with no signs of a downturn.

Still, one legitimate concern about the future does remain: that of its seemingly long-delayed arrival. For a solid century, conventional wisdom held that the future would arrive sometime on or around the year 2000, as demonstrated in Space: 1999 and 2001: A Space Odyssey. Turns out this prediction was way, way off the mark.

Above: You LIED to me, Martin Landau...

In fact, perhaps the only significant technological breakthrough of this short period was The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time (for the non-holographic, non-immersive virtual reality videogame system, Nintendo 64), which, while admirably a Players Choice Million Seller and the 1999 Videogame of the Year as awarded by the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences, was still a far cry from the standard of flying cars, hologram people, robots, and houses on poles.

Above: But, dude, it was still completely awesome.

So the fact remains: we are still anxiously awaiting the future, and there are no (or few) apparent signs of its immediate arrival.

It's safe to say, though, that barring an overwhelming reawakening of nostalgia such as that which briefly took hold of the nation during the run of VH1's "I Love the (INSERT DECADE HERE)" series, its popularity will not subside. Nor will its considerable (and apparently impossible to reverse) influence of the passage of time.

Above: "Coming up NEXT on VH1, Andrew McCarthy hosts 'Remember How Awesome Rubik's Cubes Were?': A retrospective of the life of the Rubik's cube, set to the music of A-Ha and featuring a guest commentary by Q-Bert!!!"

RATING: ***1/2 (out of 4)

BOTTOM LINE: Ask me again sometime.

Deeper Insights: Women - Should they Work?

2008-04-17T12:05:00.000-07:00

Our thorough and insightful review of Women sparked a great deal of reader feedback, especially among Women. We always strive to keep our readers up-to-date when it comes to product analyses, which is why we present you with this important user's manual, outling the proper approach to Women in the extremely unlikely event you should encounter one in the workplace.

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE:

Our thanks to reader and Woman Monika Sarac for alerting us to this important consumer report.

Deeper Insights: Space - Just How Big IS It?

2008-04-17T11:55:00.001-07:00

The editorial team here at M(R)V has been working overtime to respond to reader complaints that yesterday's analysis of Space was too complicated and inaccesible to the lay reader (we heard "wordy" and "sciencey" cited as chief complaints).

We therefore present you with this computer-rendered map of Space in hopes of clearing up some of the more complicated details.

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE:

We always value reader input, and we thank you for your helpful suggestions.

Space

2008-04-16T10:52:00.000-07:00

Overview: Space is a lot of things: the final frontier, a place where no one can hear you scream, big. We've come a long way in our cultural appreciation of Space, from the time of the ancient Greeks, who believed Space was a big dome over the world with little pinholes in it whereby the light of eternal paradise would shine through in perfect celestial splendor*, to the early 20th Century, when it presented the imagination with infinite possibilities of human colonies on Mars, laser fights, and flying saucers, to today, when scientific discoveries have revealed that Space is sort of cold and boring and all the fun has been removed. Still, people are looking to stars in growing numbers. Why?

*I think this might actually be true...Not the part about the

dome with the pinholes, but the part where the ancient

Greeks believed it.

Because in a the foreseeable future, Earth will be uninhabitable*, and we need to find a way to move to a new planet, quickly.

*Stephen Hawking said so...and he's a scientist.

But why else?

Above: Space (as viewed from Space)

For a variety of reasons, Space has become so popular of late that, for several years now, our modern era has been known as the Space Age. Why would something that is billions of years old suddenly become so important to the modern age? One must suppose that it is rooted in people's innate desire to go places, and when the first complete map of the World was unveiled (in 1961), it was not long before the realization set in among Earth's inhabitants that we'd all pretty much been everywhere. It was time for a new planet!

Unfortunately, new planets are really far away, so we had to settle for The Moon, which is not at all dissimilar to sleeping in a tent in the summertime in your parents' back yard and calling it "camping".

Above: The "Historic Williamsburg" to Space's "Magic Kingdom"

Quickly, Space became the talk of the town. The question remained, though: how do you get there, how do you breathe when you do, and does going to the Moon even count? The answer to these questions was quite simple: Whatever, as long as we do it before the Russians.

And we (by which I mean two Americans and some other guy who went to the Moon but did't get out of the lunar landing module) did!

Those two American's names were (or "are", if they're still alive) Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong: The first people in Space!

Above: (from right) Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong, I'm Guessing John Glenn?, and James Garner

Thanks to these brave men, the Moon had become yet another thing conquered by mankind/America (joining the esteemed company of Iraq, self-esteem/weight issues, fear of heights, Indigenous Peoples, Canada, and Dinosaurs) and this conquest was commemorated when Alan Shepard stuck an American Flag into the Moon's surface during the Apollo 14 mission.

Above: Astronaut Alan Shepard stands on a Hollywood soundstage during the filmed recreation of his own moonwalk, which, like all other lunar landings, was in no way a hoax; in point of fact, Edgar Mitchell forgot to bring the camera, and NASA couldn't afford to send John Glenn after them to drop it off.

After the success and spectacle of the Apollo lunar missions, NASA made every attempt to downplay and debunk the claims of Glenn, Mitchell, Shepard, Aldrin, and Armstrong, whose public complaints about Space ranged from "boring", "empty", "cold", "quiet/how come there's no sound?" and "not as cool as it looks/appears to be on 'Star Trek' or 'Buck Rogers'" to less damning faint praise, like "I guess sort of worth day after day after day of being cramped in a tight space in zero gravity with two other dudes, because the view of the Earth from the Moon is pretty-ish...". Worst was the notorious comment of Apollo 13's Jim Lovell, who said that the entire experience "really kinda pretty much blew...".

Shortly thereafter, NASA teamed up with a host of marketing strategists and Hollywood executives in an effort to overhaul Space's fading public appeal. The result was Science Fiction.

Inspired largely by pre-existing properties, such as Star Trek, Buck Rogers, Planet of the Apes, and The Bible, the new realm called Science Fiction made sure to eliminate the tedious prosyletizing and obvious metaphors of which these previous ventures were commonly guilty and focus, instead, primarily on Space; specifically on fantastical and often misinformed (and thus more interesting, or "cooler") concepts of Space-travel and physics.

Above: In an exciting episode of Star Trek, Spock desperately explains to Kirk that a unilateral assault on the Farsian Nebula would represent a violation of the Prime Directive and possibly provoke a retaliation by the Romulans, who are engaged in a diplomatic-relations battle with members of Starfleet over the expansion of autonomy to thwioihn oepwjnfoienhhnougbgbijjjjjjjkkkkllgrkSBJo;ibwgejknbiklwkegewG...Oops, sorry, nodded off for a second there. Anyway, meanwhile, absolutely nothing cool happens.

Science Fiction used "dramatic license" to rekindle a dwindling interest in Space. All the boring realities of Space that had become apparent thanks to NASA's exploration left a bad taste in the mouths of consumers, and so a strategic re-marketing of Space was necessary. The key question was this: "How can we make Space interesting again, when there's no sound, gravity, air, it takes forever to get anywhere, and the physics are unfamiliar and restrictive?"

The answer? Simply set stories about Space in the future, when these issues are somehow resolved ("Alien", "Aliens", "Alien 3", "Alien: Resurrection")

Above: Yeeeeeaah! Space is AWESOME!!!

Or, as an alternative solution, set stories in Space but in a different Space where these rules don't exist ("Star Wars", "Dune")

Above: Whoooooooo! SPACE!!!!

Star Wars, it should be noted, also worked hard to makeover another disappointing revelation of the so-called "Space Age", the laser, which, while it seemed cool at first, doesn't actually make a very effective hand-held weapon, doesn't make any awesome noises, and actually isn't really that cool.

Above: Bzzzzzzsshoooooowaaaahh...Crrrsshcck...crsshhukk! YEAH! Lasers!! Darth Maul! Whooooo!

As Science Fiction evolved, so too did the ideas of its creators, some of whom, like Joss Whedon, actually made concessions to Space's outrageous and lofty demands, like admitting, in his Science Fiction opus Firefly, that it probably does not and likely never will support sound, but will always support Cowboys. Or Battlestar Galactica, which admits that Space is cold and kind of sucky. In both cases, lasers are absent. Neither, however, bother to explain how propulsion works nor how the crew can just walk around like they're in a building on Earth. Presumably, somebody in "history" (what we'd call "the future") built a gravity maker. The gravity maker is never referenced.

Above: The crew of Serenity from the short-lived Science Fiction series Firefly, which FOX cancelled because they don't know how to advertise a show that is smarter than any one of its executive creative and/or marketing directors. Third from right, Nathan Fillion, who is awesome and should be on every show. Far right, Summer Glau, who is hot.

Above: A pretty thinly-veiled excuse to insert a picture of Katee Sackhoff (who plays Kara "Starbuck" Thrace in Battlestar Galactica) into my blog.

Fortunately, the rise of Science Fiction and the woeful underfunding of the Space program meant that the dissapointing revelations of the 1960s and early 70s soon faded from the public's awareness, and a new generation of would-be Space explorers and enthusiasts could dream again.

Above: "This is Houston. We are GO for launch in T-minus 27 years..."

Also, the wholesale destruction of Earth's ecosystem actually has made exploration of Space and advancements in mankind's ability to explore it urgently necessary.

So we can think of our current relationship with Space as such: We have to be at the wedding in ten minutes. But we can't remember what we did with the tuxedo, and our shoelaces are broken. And the wedding is 800 miles away. And we are infants. Better think of something fast!

It is thus difficult to accurately gauge how we should think about Space in general and to predict where our cultural infatuation with Space will ultimately lead us.

My advice? Jump on the Space bandwagon! Why? First of all, it is unlikely interest in Space will fade any time soon. It is important to remember that, like Pascal's Wager, which suggests it is safer to believe in God than to not believe in God (as the cost-benefit analysis clearly suggests), it is better to look to Space and hope we can someday find a way of overcoming the considerable obstacles it presents us with than to not look to Space and assume that we are basically all screwed.

There is also growing hope that some "people" from Space will show up and show us how to do everything*. In fact, some scientists and FBI agents believe this has secretly already happened.

*Actually, that's pretty much the only hope...

Plus, it's kinda hard to argue with something that looks like this from Earth...

SPACE:

Pros- pretty, kinda cool, auroras, meteor showers, stars, symbolically captivating vastness convenient for metaphors/personal reflection

Cons- too big, no air, hard to get around, no sound, no nearby inhabitable planets

RATING: *** (out of 4)

BOTTOM LINE: Help us, Obi-Wan Kenobi (or anybody with technology advanced enough to get us off this planet before we run out of room/resources/air). You're our only hope...

Breaking Consumer News! New York Post follows M(R)V's lead!

2008-04-14T06:47:00.000-07:00

The dignified and reputable news journal of record, the New York Post, considered by ~~many~~ ~~some~~ ~~gerbils?~~ ~~few~~ all to be the gold standard of journalism, contains a feature today written by and featuring the work of Lilit Marcus, specifically regarding her website, Save the Assistants!

Read the New York Post article here: http://www.nypost.com/seven/04142008/jobs/riding_the_serf_106427.htm

Above: Lilit Marcus

The Post, which is one of the flagship enterprises of Newscorp founder ~~and dictator for life~~ Rupert Murdoch, has clearly been paying attention to a certain well-known and highly-regarded blog.

Above: Rupert Murdoch

Astute M(R)V readers will recall that Ms. Marcus was largely the focus of this post, dated April 1, 2008...a full 13 days before the Post managed to catch on to Ms. Marcus' trend-setting ways.

You knew it all along, of course, but this further proves that M(R)V is leading the way! We thank you all for helping to make this possible, and accept your implicit congratulations you are probably bestowing upon us as you read this.

Lastly, we would like to congratulate Ms. Marcus, Save the Assistants, and this blog for having been eligible for a Webby Award. It is a true honor to have been eliglible for consideration for this prestigious recognition, and we thank the internet for providing us with this opportunity.

John

2008-04-11T06:56:00.001-07:00

Overview: John hasn't posted a review in over a week. What's the deal with that guy?

[Written by special guest reviewer Ann Coulter]

Leave it to the liberal media to give Brooks a free pass. I'm sure they're all too busy highlighting their favorite passages from "The Communist Manifesto" and drooling over the latest anti-American propaganda piece by Paul Krugman - propped up by the geniuses at the ultra-left (un)American journal of record, the New York Times - detailing how, exactly, the election of socialist candidate Barack Hussein Osama to the highest office in the land will not inevitably lead to the collapse of the Republic.

Word from the hate-mongering liberal spin machine is that Brooks has been "busy": liberal shorthand for "devoting more time corrupting the American way of life", usually through coddling terrorists, celebrating French holidays, strongarming Congress to enact a National Baby-killing Day (for which all abortion Doctors would be given an honorary day off, one they would likely not take, as it might interfere with their precious ritual of murdering babies), or whining about how they can't get married to the "person" they "love", because we "bigotted" conservatives won't recognize the holy union of a man and his ferret.

But you don't hear about any of that on MSNBC. Imagine, if you will, the way the LM would get their panties in a bunch if President Bush ever took a "week off". Imagine the cries of outrage if Bill O'Reilly ever took a "week off". How would the LM spin that?

"Oh, O'Reilly isn't a real journalist! He's not commited to his craft! He doesn't care about getting true-red Americans the truth!"

What they don't tell you is, unlike Brooks, who right now is probably burning an effigy of Jesus in the fireplace of the executive lounge at the W Hotel and sprinkling embryonic stems cells on his organic avocado and butternut squash salad as he enjoys a relaxing lunch with Richard Dawkins and John Edwards as they consider more effective means of destroying freedom and demonizing Jefferson, when Bill O'Reilly takes a week off, he lets other responsible truth-tellers who love their country and their savior-and/or-Israel take over for him: people like Sean Hannity and myself.

And what does Brooks, whose anarchistic and atheistic liberal bias on issues like cookies and women's rights have plagued this site and helped further sodomize the American Way of Life, do? More than a week after his last post, he invites me to share my views on him.

Typical anti-American liberal tactic.

I suppose in between celebrating 9/11 and bribing liberal activist judges to rule in the bench, he realized his site actually needed some content, so he brings in a best-selling author like myself to raise his profile and prove that he's "open-minded" to dissent.

Funny how liberals love to talk about how important it is to maintain dissent in America, isn't it? It's quite convenient for them when they can rail against the courage of our President for overthrowing a dictator and tell our troops in Iraq they should cut and run and they're all weak failures and murderers.

But heaven forbid somebody disagree with them, with dissenting opinions such as "Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant", or "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity", or "Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy", or "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building", or "Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours", or "If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot", or "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee. That's just a joke, for you in the media."**

**(Editor's note: these are all actual Ann Coulter quotes)

And did anybody notice that when I suggested murdering a member of the United States Supreme Court that I specifically noted that I was joking?

Well, some people did. But not others. I'll give you a hint as to WHO: they spend a lot of time arguing for a married gay couple's right to abort their test-tube babies, and they run the media.

The same people, I might add, who didn't seem to mind an entire week of this site not being updated and would take Brooks at his gay-loving, abortion-party-throwing, Jesus-re-crucifying word that he swears he will have two or perhaps three posts next week, starting no later than this Saturday.

I seem to recall a certain President swearing to uphold the Constitution not that many years ago. I do not, however, recall anything in the Constitution that mandates oral sex with an overweight intern.

That should tell you how much a liberal's "word" is worth.

In closing, I forgot to say "fag".

-Ann

Ann Coulter (above) is the best-selling author of "Slander!: Liberal Lies About the American Right", "Treason!: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism", "Godless!: The Church of Liberalism", "Murder!: The Victims of Liberal Homicidal Mania, From Jesus to Freedom", and the upcoming "Ransom!: Give Me $20 or I'll Stab Your Puppy"

Interviews

2008-04-01T13:56:00.000-07:00

(Author's Note: Special thanks to Lilit Marcus, both for the suggested topic and for providing the referenced example.)

Overview: "Interviews" - a fancy word for when a regular person (or, on occasion, a famous person who is famous for interviewing other famous people and nothing else, like Oprah) asks questions to a famous person, writes down both the questions and responses, and then edits the famous person's responses so that they do not come across as intellectually inferior and unable to form coherent thoughts and phrases - are becoming more and more popular in the world of journalism, and readers especially enjoy them, especially the "Q and A" (journalism lingo for "question and answer") form, largely because they are shorter and have fewer long words and no boring expository (or "describey") information.

Q: Why should you care?

A:

The "interview" form actually dates back to Ancient Roman times, as indicated by the Latin roots of word itself : from the Latin "inter", which means "between two or more" (and just assume it's talking about two or more people), and "view", which means "view". So "interview" actually means "the view between two or more people", even though, technically, only one person's views are being represented. But Latin was pretty restrictive that way.

Above: "The surge is working"

In fact, the interview was pioneered/invented by Julius Caesar, who came before the Romans and said, "Friends, Romans, Countrymen...lend me your ears!" (but in Latin), and then presumably fielded questions from the crowd (now known as a "press corps") who would ask him how he felt about how great he was, and how that campaign in Carthage was going, and if he felt the media was ever too harsh on him, etc. These days, this kind of interview is also known as a "press conference" or a "junket", but we're going to stick to the sorts of interviews that people actually care about.

Interviews people actually care about are always ones with celebrities.

Above: Ahhhhh...YAY!!!!! Look at how famous we are (clapclapclap)!

In almost all of these cases, that famous person has something to do with American Idol.

American Idol is a unique source of famous people, largely because its three "hosts" are/were a) the not-famous back-up musician for creatively bankrupt bands like Journey, b) long-since expired flash-in-the-pan pop singers with slurred speech and brain cells that appear to actually die on camera/married to Emilio Estevez, c) some British guy who's sort of famous in Britain for making several British sort-of-musicians kind-of famous and who everybody boos at, and Ryan Seacrest.

Above: (from left) Ryan Seacrest, "A", "B", and "C".

The only other people to appear on the show are an overwhelming number of singers who don't win and won who, every season, eventually does win. But even in the case of those who do win, some of them turn out to be Taylor Hicks.

Above: Really?

Indeed, American Idol's celebrity-making abilities seem as unlikely on paper as they are absolute in reality. Still, tradition holds that even showing up on camera in the audience of American Idol or having a gruesomely bad audition makes someone interview-worthy.

Above: William Hung discusses the subprime mortgage crisis on CBS's "The Early Show"

And thus if you actually end up singing on stage in American Idol you are a bona-fide celebrity and deemed even more interview-worthy than other celebrities/famous people. The formula essentially works as such:

The longer you actually remain on American Idol, the longer you remain interview-worthy. So let's say you make it to the final 6 contestants of any given season of Idol. This means, if you do nothing for the next six years, you will still be worthy of being interviewed for the following six years. This lease can be renewed by doing anything anybody cares about, and none of the above applies at all to Taylor Hicks.

As a prime and quite current example of an interview, I have decided to include some of the text of one such piece by Lilit Marcus in an interview with American Idol season 6 non-winner Chris Sligh. This interview originally appeared on the website Beliefnet.com, with which I have no affiliation whatsoever and so it's not even worth Googling to find out I do, because I don't.

The full interview is available HERE. (**And, for another example of an interview conducted by Lilit with another grating person suffering from delusions of grandeur who also claims to have God on her side though apparently not the same God who can declare you the winner of American Idol, click HERE**)

Above: Lilit Marcus, with whom I have no professional affiliation, during her interview with American Idol failure, Chris Sligh.

As we go through each question and answer, I will comment on the effectiveness and content of the interview, which should help you understand what to look out for should you decide that either interviewing or interview reading would be right for you:

***************

Q: How do you define Christian music?

A: I don't know that I would define Christian music. I don't know that Christian is an adjective—it's more of a noun. So, I don't know that there is Christian music. I would say that I'm a believer. Christianity defines who I am, so, any music that comes out of me is going to be encapsulated into me singing about my beliefs and religious system.

Okay, bad start. Notice how, in this question, the famous person has come off not sounding intellectually competent, as he has demonstrated that he is unaware that nouns have definitions just as adjectives do. For instance, the noun "noun" has a definition, which is "a person, place, thing, or idea". Other nouns with definitions include cats, baseball, and women. Also, Sligh says he does not "know that there is Christian music", but pay careful attention to later segments of the interview, where Sligh speaks quite knowingly about Christian music (and is thus obviously aware of its existence). It would have been in Ms. Marcus' best interest to have edited Sligh's response down to the first sentence of Sligh's repsonse ("I don't know that I would define Christian music") and then moved on. Speaking of which...

****************

Q: On your blog, you've linked to the Barack Obama "Yes, We Can" video. Do you agree with him politically?

A: I'm not a politician. I don't really feel like it's my place to talk a lot about politics.

Okay, great! Perfect! Had Sligh stopped right here(or Ms. Marcus simply edited his comments down to these two statements), this would have been concise and true. Aside from the fact that this statement is contrary to everything American Democracy stands for, it is at least a short and fairly coherent response. It is made worse, however, by the fact this it is also contradicted by the extraordinary amount about politics Sligh goes on to talk about.

A (cont.): I like a lot of what Barack Obama stands for. I'm in the middle of reading his second book. I read his first book and really appreciate his view on a lot of things. It seems a lot more reasonable than so many politicians nowadays, both on the right and the left. It seems like even though he would define himself as a liberal Democrat...

To Chris Sligh's credit, in fact the only people who would not define Barack Obama as a liberal Democrat would be liberals, Democrats, and Barack Obama.

A (cont.): his views are actually more moderate than just about any Republican or Democrat that I know of.

(See Above)

A (cont.): He's a brilliant orator, which I think America needs at this point. I think that we need somebody that's going to be able to handle criticism and maybe wipe away some of the sins that our current president has inflicted on the world. When it comes to Bush, I think he is a great man. I think he's a man of God. [But] I think he, in his recent years, has not presented America in a light that I think America maybe should be presented in.

Sorry, you still awake? Okay. Then I assume you made it to this statement: "When it comes to Bush, I think he is a great man [emphasis added]. I think he's a man of God. [But] I think he, in his recent years, has not presented America in a light that I think America maybe should be presented in." And thus I hope you did no suffer an aneurysm.

**************

Q: Every year as there's a new season, there are dozens more "Idol" contestants trying to get record deals and trying to become famous. How do you make yourself different from them and stand out?

A: I think the difference between me and every other "Idol" that I know of—I've done a lot of research on this— is that I was the first to come in and have had a successful indie career before "Idol." I sold about 35,000 records completely independently.

I played 75 to 100 shows for the last four or five years straight. I traveled around for years as an artist and had actually built up a following, had developed my songwriting more than I think any other "Idol" has. I'd actually won national songwriting contests. I have always thought of myself more as a songwriter than I have as a singer.

Hey. It's John. I just thought I'd slide in here. Can you believe this guy is still talking? Pretty much, you can skip the rest of this, because he just goes on to talk about about how great he is and how much better he was than the person who actually won Idol, which, to be fair, was Jordin Sparks, but really he wasn't even as good as Blake or the kid who looked like Justin Timberlake with a pituitary disorder. It's just unbelievable how much this guy talks about how great he is. You can stop, if you want.

I think that that's one of the things that will set [my album] apart. It doesn't mean that I'm going to sell millions and millions of records. In fact, I don't know that my goal is to sell millions and millions of records, although that would be nice. My goal is just simply to be successful enough that I can make a second record and then to be successful enough to make a third record and to be able to tour most of the year.I received phone calls or e-mails from 11 labels the day that I got voted off. It's because I had cultivated relationships within the industry. The way that I viewed "American Idol" is this: It was not an end all, it was just a means to an end.

And that's the difference between me and almost every other "American Idol" competitor. I was using it for a PR tool so that I could get a record deal and put out great music and hopefully the music finds its way to the people. All "American Idol" does is put me in front of 35 million people. I never wanted to win it (sorry, I just had to highlight that. -John) I never was in it to win it. I wanted to do well enough that I could get a record deal and sell 200,000 records because with the deal that I'm in right now, 200,000 records is going to pay me more than if I'd sold two million with a major label deal.

Wow. And then, finally:

**************************

Q: Why did you ultimately decide to sign to this label [Brash Music]?

A: I actually didn't sign with a Christian label. I signed with a mainstream label that happens to do Christian music also.

OOPS! Remember how he didn't know that Christian music existed?

A (cont.): Our main distribution is through ADA, which is a Warner Brothers independent label distribution. I had three Christian-based labels that were fighting over me, but I just didn't feel like that that's where I wanted to be. I did want to be able to make music that would go to the church. I feel like the church is my home.

So Chris Sligh, who is famous enough to be interviewed and not even want to win American Idol, can't afford his own place and lives in a church.

A (cont.): I've been a worship leader my whole life. I grew up in the church, and I really felt like I wanted the church be my home base, but I wanted the option to do more things.

Mmmmm.

But I would not be a reputable journalist if I simply left this as the only example of an interview. It is my responsibility to provide an alternative, or "counterpoint". So, tapping into my vast network of contacts, with a little luck I was able to track down Ms. Marcus and conduct an interview with her. In this case, Ms. Marcus is the famous person and I am the interviewer (NOTE: pay careful attention to the nature of these responses as they are printed as you use the final "draft" of this interview to compare to the final "draft" of the Sligh interview):

Q: Lilit, what do you think of politics?
A:I get tired of listening to people argue

Q: Lilit, what do you think of religion?
A: I'm not allowed to say, or I might get fired.

Q: Lilit, what do you think of Chris Sligh?
A: He's a pretentious, preening douche who totally lied to me about internet message boards.

RATING: ** (out of 4)

BOTTOM LINE: Do you seriously care what this person...

....thinks?

Baseball

2008-03-30T13:37:00.000-07:00

Overview: Baseball has been popular since its inception as a recreational distraction for soldiers back in Civil War times.* Years later, a “league” was formed, called the American Federalatory Association of Official Major League Play of Base-balling Activities, or “AFAOMLPBA”. The organization later changed its name to Major League Baseball , or “MLB”. The organization witnessed the early births of such still-popular teams as the New York Highlanders (now known as the Yankees), the Boston Americans (now known as the Red Sox), and the Philadelphia Shenaniganning Whistle-Whipping Never-Winners (probably the original name of the Phillies). In recent years, baseball’s popularity has skyrocketed, even becoming known as “America’s Pastime” (a distinction previously bestowed on other activities like “Twister”, Sudoku, and voting). What’s the big deal?

As mentioned in the introduction, baseball was created in 1862 during the American Civil War by Union soldier Montgomery “Johnny Shoeshine” McCallister*. McCallister got the idea for baseball when he was shot in the shoulder by a Confederate officer and wished he’d been quick enough to deflect the bullet with his sword. Following an agonizing, anesthetic-free surgery to remove the bullet with a rusty, blunt knife, McCallister decided to focus his thunderous post-surgery adrenaline rush on realizing this very fantasy. He found a smooth, round, rock and a dead fellow soldier’s makeshift wooden crutch and “batted” the rock with the crutch*. Legend has it that McCallister batted the rock 986 feet, which technically would have made it the longest home run in history, but legend also has it that the rock went foul.*

As the rust from the knife gradually coursed through McCallister's bloodstream and eventually reached his brain, he went into a fever-induced coma where, apparently, he had visions of men standing on an oddly (some might say “randomly”) shaped field, throwing rocks at rods of wood and running about, catching and hitting them in turns. McCallister later recounted specific details of his bizarre, nonsensical dream to a Union doctor, such as the rock appearing white and almost perfectly round, adorned with textured red “stripes”, game “rules” based on the trajectory and angle at which a ball is hit and how it subsequently does or does not land within the boundaries of the park, a barely-understandable anomaly called a “balk”, and other features of a delightfully whimsical, nonsensical nature.

Above: The realization of McCallister’s hallucinatory “stripey rock”, now know as a “baseball”.

McCallister was shortly thereafter killed in the battle of Fort William Henry*, but not before his nightmare-induced “game” was recreated with actual “players”, at first as a joke and shortly thereafter as the only reasonable means of escapism from the drudgery, horror, and misery of war!

*This story may not actually be true, since I made it up, but it sounds true.

Above: An early game of Baseball (then called “the base-balling game”) is played by Civil War veterans in the late 19th century. Note how, just as in today’s game, the players pictured above are all unusually toned and athletic and display the aura of someone paid millions of dollars to play a game for 6 months out of the year!

And here we are, almost one hundred and fifty years later and “Baseball”, as it is known today, is still going strong!

Some may marvel at the lasting appeal of Baseball, but that appeal can most likely be attributed to the elegant, intuitive simplicity of the game’s rules, which can be quickly and eloquently summed up as such:

-Baseball is divided into nine segments called “innings”. In every “inning”, each team is given the opportunity to “bat”, meaning they are in the offensive position, or “pitch” and “field” meaning they are in the defensive position. Once a team records three “outs”, the teams switch sides. Once both teams have recorded three “outs” per side, a new inning begins.

-Outs can be recorded in several ways.

First, a batter can “fly out”, which is not as cool as it sounds. In this case, a batter hits a ball and, before it touches the ground, it is caught by a fielder. The batter does not at any point fly during a fly out.
Second, a batter can “ground out”. Once a ball is hit, the batter must run to a “base”, and as the rules dictate, this must first be “first base” (followed by “second base”, the elusive “third base”, etc.). If the ball is not caught but is easy for a fielder to “field” (which means the same thing in Baseball as it does in real life, i.e. “to do something with”), the fielder can throw the ball to the baseman who then must either tag the base with his foot or, in the even that this is not a force-out (see below), tag the runner (which is the new name given to the batter after he has batted) with his glove (or “mitt”) once the baseball is safely secured inside his glove.

-A force out occurs when a batter has no possible destination than the next base. Therefore, a batter running to first base will always be a force out situation. But if a runner is on second base during a base hit (see below) or a ground out, that runner is not in a force situation (as he is not required to move to third base as there is no one on first base who needs to advance to second base, where he is, theoretically, currently standing). Therefore, the baseman needs to tag this runner to record an out.

-A base hit occurs when none of the stuff mentioned above happens.
Lastly, a batter may strike out. In this case, the batter doesn’t have a chance to run to base at all (except when he does; see below**)! A batter must attempt to hit “pitches” thrown towards him by the “pitcher”, who stands the logical distance of 60 feet, 6 inches from the batter. If the pitch passes through the “strike zone” (see Fig. 13b) -which is roughly measured as the imaginary rectangle formed by the points denoted by the batter’s knee or belt or something depending on the day and what the umpire feels like saying, the batter’s elbow (maybe?) or shoulder or something like that, and the outermost points of home plate- and the batter does not swing at the pitch or swings and misses the pitch, it is a strike. If it does not, and the batter does not swing at the pitch, it is a ball. (If the batter amasses four "balls" before he is out or strikes out, the batter is automatically awarded first base)

Above: Fig. 13b - A computer rendering of a “strike zone”.

The batter can also hit a “foul ball”. A foul ball is one that is hit in such a way so as the ball does not travel within the boundaries of the first base line and the third base line, or it does but drops to the ground before passing third or first base and then rolls outside of the line before passing either of those bases (see Fig. 83c)

Above: Fig. 83c.-A computer rendering of potential “foul” and “fair” balls.

If a batter hits a foul ball, it counts as a strike, unless the batter already has two strikes, in which case it counts as a nothing, unless the batter either “bunts” the foul (a batting technique whereby the batter tries to hit or “stop” the ball with a stationary bat without “swinging” the bat, resulting in a slow ball that falls not far from the plate and is difficult to field and that a fast base runner will be able to safely make it to first base on) or “foul tips” the ball (whereby the batter makes minimal contact, barely affecting the momentum of the pitch) into the glove of the “catcher”. In both these cases, the batter has struck out and his team is charged with an out, **unless the catcher, ball in hand, fails to tag the batter after the third strike, in which case the batter can run to first base and the catcher must throw the ball to the first baseman who must then tag the batter-now-runner before he reaches first base safely.The team to not do all of this stuff the most, within the span of nine innings, wins! And it all moves along at a brisk pace that generally takes no more than 3 – 4 and a half hours at a time!

(Note: for an explanation of pitching, see this Wikipedia article, with its dozens of easy-to-navigate links to more detailed specifics)

There are, of course, other, more complicated rules, but once one grasps these graceful, logical basics, the rest can be learned over time.As someone who has enjoyed baseball for some time, I can say, first hand, that after just a few years of daily, semi-obsessive baseball watching, I was able to pick up and fully grasp about 83% of its rules!

Baseball enthusiasts are called “fans”, and much of Baseball is marketed towards these “fans”.

Above: Alyssa Milano –One of the many things marketed to Baseball “fans”.

Above: Bitter, despondent “fans” of the Philadelphia Phillies look on in horror, anger, and resentment after their team probably found a remarkably new and innovative way to lose something again, but still bought Phillies-branded hats and T-shirts, for some reason.

It is recommended that, if you wish to explore the possibility of becoming a "fan", you should designate a favorite team. Most major cities have a "home team", or one that "represents" that city and plays a majority of its games therein.

Above: The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, a Baseball team that represents Los Angeles, Anaheim, and unnecessarily cumbersome team names.

I decided to become a "fan" of the relatively obscure Boston Red Sox, a scrappy team of underdogs and relative unknowns with an annual payroll barely in excess of 140 million dollars.

My early experiences with the Red Sox proved a mixed bag. While the team would often come close to "winning it all" at various points during the first twenty or so years of my experimentation with "fan-being", they found impressive ways to "lose it all", often at the last minute and usually at the hands of another barely-on-the-radar team, the New York Yankees. In fact, it took a solid 25 years before I witnessed them "win it all" (this is when a team wins something called the "World Series", so named because it represents two of the world's most important countries: America and Toronto).

This can be frustrating for a fan, and so it is not recommended that any new comer to baseball ever become a "fan" of one of the following teams: The Chicago Cubs, The Tampa Bay Rays, The Pittsburgh Pirates, The Washington Nationals, The Kansas City Royals, The Cincinnati Reds, The Baltimore Orioles, The Texas Rangers, and most importantly The Philadelphia Phillies. If you live in one of these areas, you are advised to pay lip service to the White Sox (since they have actually won the World Series in the last 100 years), embrace the Atlanta Braves/leave Florida, stick to Football, be glad your team has only existed for three seasons, keeping talking about the George Brett years (and make plans to move to a real city), become a Cleveland Indians fan, keep talking about how great Camden Yards is and bask in the fact that everyone enthusiastically agrees with you, see what the Houston Astros are up to, and practice praying/cringing/swearing/developing your pitching staff/hoping the Eagles will have a better season, respectively.

Above: The author (in an official Boston Red Sox hat, one of the many fine products adorned with the team's logo) probably watching his team lose against some wretched, undeserving other team that has the audacity to challenge his own, while sitting in the "stands" at the Red Sox official park, "The Fen-way Park".

So how can I sum this up? What about Baseball makes it so great?

For one thing, it has rivalries. Some of these include The Red Sox/Yankees rivalry, the White Sox/Cubs rivalry, and the Phillies/Whichever team provides a convenient scapegoat to blame their perpetual, crushing futility on rivalry. Rivalries really enhance the enjoyment of Baseball, because instead of just watching a game and hoping your favorite team wins, you can pretend you have/have had any influence over the wins and losses of your team and their rival and also can make yourself feel better about yourself by proving to your rival team's fans that what they think is wrong.

Above: A likely Red Sox fan (though I'm only guessing, since everybody totally hates the Yankees) expresses a well-thought-out and reasonable argument about the Yankees and their skills as a team, as an organization, and as something that totally sucks.

As with all great rivalries, the Red Sox/Yankees rivalry is in no way just a tired, meaningless and irrational obsession among fans, but goes right to the core of the organizations themselves and includes bitter, hateful relations between the teams' actual players!

Above: Red Sox star David "Big Papi" Ortiz (at right) and Yankees star Alex "A-Rod" Rodriguez (at left) exchange bitter words. Papi probably was all like, "Hey, A-Rod! You suck, A-Rod" and then A-Rod was probably all like "What? No! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! I'm totally gonna hit you with this bat!"

Another great thing about Baseball is the way it invites the popular activity of cheering.

Above: WHOOOOO!!!! Let's go (whatever this team's name is)!!!!!

Cheering can be directed towards teams, or even individual players.

Above: Ma-nny! Ma-nny! (Note, the blurry individuals in the background are fans "cheering", as evidenced by the raising of the arms over the head, a popular and common physical accompaniment to the vocalized "Whooooooooooooooo!")

On occasion, the "cheering" is done in a negative manner. This is often called "heckling" or "booing"

Above: New York Yankees Third Baseman Alex Rodriguez, a 3-time American League Most Value Player Award Winner, who last season batted .314 with 54 home runs and is widely considered the best overall player alive, and possibly ever, is mercilessly booed by New York Yankees fans after striking out, because he never ever does anything right and it's all his fault.

"Cheering" often happens when games are watched live, at the actual ballpark itself, where the enthusiasm of the hometown fans can actually have some indirect impact over the outcome of the game.

Above: Chicago Cubs fans, probably watching their team pull off another dominating post-season win, passionately cheer on their hometown heroes at the Cub's park,"Wrigley Field"

Quite inexplicably, cheering can also take place at sports bars, where fans often gather to watch games together, but on televisions. In such places, even ones with very thin walls located very closely to the stadium or park in which the games is being played, it is highly unlikely that the players will be able to hear the cheering fans, making the very act symbolic at best.

One downside to Baseball is that, on extremely rare occasions, fans can become so passionate that they start taunting or even becoming physically violent toward other fans. To help curb this problem, most venues sell beer, a chemical depressant, to help fans remain docile and calm.

Unfortunately, while this is an effective method of preventing fights among fans, players are not allowed to drink alcohol on the field, which can be problematic, especially among A.J. Pierzynski.

Above: Former Cubs catcher Michael Barrett finally does what everybody has secretly always wanted to do.

The other downside is that Major League Baseball is only played for almost exactly half a year, every year, and with a mere 162 games per season, one may feel short-changed by missing perhaps three or four of these games due to other important personal matters, such as work, interpersonal relationships, and occasionally not drinking.

But, truth be told, none of these downsides should in any way deter you from a budding interest in this popular new sport. No matter your team, nor where you watch the game, Baseball is pretty great.

And look, if this picture doesn't make you feel good to your core about absolutely everything in life, I don't know what will:

Rating: **** (out of 4)

Bottom Line: I live for this.

Sad Songs

2008-03-22T13:52:00.000-07:00

Overview: :(

When The Beatles invented pop music in 1960, the only songs that the population at large wanted to hear were ones of a happy nature, like "A Hard Day's Night", "I Wanna Hold Your Hand", and "Shoobadoobawawawa (I'm So Happy)", the last of which may or may not be a song at all but, face it, it sounds like it's a Beatles song, which proves my point.

Above: :D

Sad Songs were invented in 1969 by the innovative British songwriter/folksinger/sad person Nick Drake.

Above: Nick Drake looking (not pictured at right) at something probably pretty sad. Possibly a dying puppy or a park bench that reminds him of where he used to sit on cool Autumn evenings with his lost love, as the orange leaves softly fell about them like faeries, dancing in a dream.

Oddly, several years earlier, in 1965, Beatle Paul McCartney wrote what would later go on to be a sad song. Called "Yesterday", the song was initially met with confusion and a complete lack of interest as the genre to which it belonged had yet to be invented.

So unready was the world for sad songs that, sadly, the genre's inventor, the aforementioned Drake, died just a few years after establishing the genre; young, alone, and virtually unheard of.

It would be another 25 years before Drake and his innovative approach to music achieved any level of acclaim or popularity. In that time, many artists attempted to pay homage to Drake -notably acts like U2, The Cowboy Junkies, and The Smiths- by writing their own sad songs, often by "sneaking" them on to popular albums or by releasing albums that almost nobody actually bought. Today, an overwhelming majority of bands (the good ones) include at least one sad song on every album!

Before we move on, it is important to clarify an often confusing distinction, and that is the one between sad songs and songs about sad things.

Sad songs cover topics ranging from heartbreak, heartache, and doomed relationships that seemed really great at first but actually turned out to be, yeah, pretty doomed.

Above: The author listens to sad song #34578AE6.892 - "I Know", by Fiona Apple. Note the look of quiet, meditative despair, the fact that the author is not looking at the camera, and that the picture is in black and white; all signs an individual is listening to a sad song.

Songs about sad things range in topics from sad things and sad events that have happened to sad people.

For instance, the rock band R.E.M. wrote one of the most popular sad songs ever, called "Everybody Hurts" . Note the very sad title of this song, as it helps to clarify this distinction. Conversely, R.E.M also wrote several songs about sad things, such as "Let Me In" . Note the ambiguous, maybe-sad title here. Is it about someone who has emotionally shut himself off from the world, or is it about a guy who lost his keys? One would not know from the title alone. It's actually about Kurt Cobain (which is pretty sad). But you will note that "Kurt Cobain" is not the same thing as "the heartbreak one feels after a really bad breakup", and therein lies the difference. Other songs about sad things include The Foo Fighters' "My Hero", which is about Kurt Cobain, Natalie Merchant's "River", which is about River Phoenix, and Sarah McLachlan's "Angel", which is about Kurt Cobain.

However, it is easily possible to cite three examples of sad songs by these artists, such as The Foo Fighters' "Walking After You", which is about heartache, Natalie Merchant's "The Letter", which is about heartache/doomed relationships that seemed really great at first but actually turned out to be, yeah, pretty doomed, and Sarah McLachlan's every single song except for "Angel", which is about heartbreak, heartache, and doomed relationships that seemed really great at first but actually turned out to be, yeah, pretty doomed.

It is also helpful to know that sad songs often reference such locales as the sea, the stars, "a faraway place" (possibly Ireland), a bar, a bedroom, or right here where I stand.

Above: At left, the possible subject of a sad song. At right, the possible subject of a song about sad things, possibly shown writing a sad song.

When actively seeking out sad songs, it is often difficult to know just which albums contain one or more of such songs. Luckily, there are visual clues one can use as hints to figure out how just how sad an album will turn out to be. The three things to look out on album covers are any instances and/or combinations of a) black and white photography b) the artist/artists not looking at the camera and apparently staring at nothing (because of the pain) c) drawn or otherwise abstracted images that stand in for photographs because the artist doesn't want to be photographed right now (because of the pain). Below are some examples. As a reference, I've included the cover to an album that likely does not contain sad songs so that the difference becomes even more apparent.

Today, one of the most popular forms of sad songs is called "Jeff Buckley". In his short life, Buckley focused his talent on crafting the saddest possible songs ever and training his voice to sound like the very embodiment of futile longing and desire itself. Following the sad path of sad song-inventor Nick Drake, Buckley sadly died after releasing one critically acclaimed, wretchedly heartbreaking album that tears at your emotional core like a rabid wolf in winter, forcing you to confront your own dormant emotional undercurrents like a torture-hungry inquisitor for the soul. Probably because he was really attractive in that shy kind of way, wrote and performed songs that exposed his sensitivity and romantic idealism, and died, making him tantalizingly unattainable but theoretically eternally "available", Jeff Buckley is especially popular among Women.

In the last year, sad songs reached such a fever pitch of popularity that a major motion picture about sad songs was released!

Above: A scene from the sad songs movie. NOTE: This is not an album cover. In the actual movie, the actual characters actually enact the sad song album cover tradition of not looking at the camera and apparently staring at nothing (because of the pain).

The sad songs movie had it all! It starred Glen Hansard, a notable sad song writer who once wrote a song called "Sad Songs"; it featured two characters who were both in the midst of suffering heartbreak and heartache, and who, together, embarked on a doomed relationship that seemed really great at first but actually turned out to be, yeah, pretty doomed; and, best of all, they spent most of the movie performing actual sad songs, with classic sad song names like "Falling Slowly", "If You Want Me", "Lies", "When Your Mind's Made Up", "All The Way Down", and "Leave".

All 400+ people who saw the sad songs movie described it as "heartbreaking".

At the advice of several experts on the subject, before immersing myself in sad songs, I first decided to go through a horrific, soul-shattering, heart-crushing break-up. It is taken for granted among sad song experts that this is the only way to truly appreciate and understand sad songs...because it's more like they understand you.

So perhaps now is the time to bring up a significant disadvantage with sad songs, because if my experience is in any indication, it takes a quarter century just to have this experience. Further, I'm not sure it was worth going through just for the sake of experiencing sad songs the way they were meant to be experienced.

Regardless, the sad songs I selected for my own investigation are of a type known as "Damien Rice". (Disclaimer: I could not use the "Jeff Buckley" type for this investigation mainly because the source of the heartbreak totally loved Jeff Buckley and that would have been just way too much.) The following passages were taken from my daily notes as I simultaneously suffered agonizing, barely-worth-living-through emotional torment and listened to Damien Rice.

January 18, 2006: "God..."

January 21, 2006: "It's like...every time I listen to 'The Blower's Daughter' my eyes well up and I can't even look at my computer screen at work, y'know? It, like...burns. So I just have to walk outside and take a walk around the block, but, like, what good does that do? Seriously, what's the point of any of this? And should I just maybe stop listening to this song? I guess I could, but why hide from how I feel? And this, this right here is how I feel. "I can't take my mind off of you...I can't take my mind off of you...". That's goddamn right...

January 24, 2006: "Christ, is this a true story? Damien...man...what did this girl DO to you? I just wish I could find out if you're feeling any better about it now, y'know? You're probably not, though. Probably not. I know I never will stop feeling as wretched and empty as I do now. You probably won't, either..."

January 25, 2006: "What is it about heartbreak that makes you want to end everything you write with ellipses?...Maybe I should just stop writing for a while..."

February 8, 2006: "Got drunk the other night...thought of you...listened to 'Cheers, Darlin''. You know what that song's about? Do you? It's about Damien going to the wedding of, like, the only girl he ever loved! Going to her wedding! Jesus, I hope that doesn't happen to me. Man...Damien...man...

March 5, 2006: "Still can't listen to 'The Blower's Daughter' anymore. Listening to 'Amie' a lot more. "I'm not a miracle/ And you're not a saint". "Tell it like you still believe/ That the end of a century/ Brings a change for you and me". You said it, Damien. You said it. If only you would listen. GOD...why won't you listen??? The weather is getting warmer, but I remain cold. Cold.

April 7, 2006: "I basically stopped writing. I don't care anymore. All I do is listen to "I Remember". God, that song cuts through my chest cavity and squeezes my heart so that all the sunlight that once shone through it when you smiled at me drains out and pours like a raging waterfall into an endless black abyss of nothingness. It is so, so good. Because, you know what? I remember it well. The first time I saw your head 'round the door, as mine stopped working! TOTALLY! That's, like, exactly what happened with us...when I first saw you...Man, this is just so beautiful...

April 23, 2006: "Jesus..."

There's more, obviously (this goes on like this for a year or so), but you get the idea. The fact is, sad songs are great when you're heartbroken, but maybe in that same way that deep fried food is great when you're totally wasted; which is to say, it feels good, but may make you worse off in the long run, and maybe just not getting wasted in the first place is the way to go.

But in our age of little to no individual responsibility and unimaginable technological convenience, the massive swell in popularity of the sad song makes a lot of sense. After all, what else do we really have to deal with aside from our own disappointment in the face of failed attempts at realizing unrealistic conceptions of romantic love? In Nick Drake's time, for instance, people had to deal with things like Vietnam, government corruption, social upheaval, and not having cell phones/internet. It's not a surprise that his meditative, self-conscious pondering of matters of the heart didn't "take" back then!

Today, the sad song can really have it's time in the dark!

And, the real plus side to sad songs is that, even if you manage to move past the point where every second of every day you are reminded of the loss of the one thing you ever really and truly loved and that ever made your heart feel safe, your self feel worthwhile, and your future seem bright, you can just throw on "Fix You", and all of that disappointment, grief, and vulnerability will come rushing back like a tidal wave!

Above: Lights will guide you home...
(But you will never come home...to me...) :(

Rating: ***** (out of 4...but, like, only when you're in the mood, y'know?)

Bottom Line: I just don't want to talk about it right now. I know you think you understand, but you don't. Trust me, okay?

You don't.

Men

2008-03-21T16:20:00.000-07:00

Overview: Another very popular gender is known as Men. Men have actually remained prominent and influential for many years despite several innovative attempts to end their dominance and ubiquity and what appears to be no discernibly obvious logic or reasoning behind their popularity. Are men on their way out?

Above: Men

Before making any conclusive judgments about men, it is important to take in some of the history that has led to what we now know as the “modern man”.

Specifically, it is important to understand that men descended from a species very similar to what we now know as “Apes”.

Above: As accurate a depiction of early Man as possible, as interpreted by Hollywood filmmakers.

Unlike apes, however, modern men are capable of rudimentary tasks, such as filling cups with beer, making hand gestures or “signs”, and partially clothing themselves.

Above: How far we’ve come.

This was made possible by a process scientists call evolution, whereby a species merely reproduces itself over the course of hundreds of thousands or millions of years, gradually learning new skills and developing a better and more thorough sense of intelligence, compassion, and awareness. Many men are now capable of learning these basic human traits within the course of a single lifetime, though most appear to catch on to them slowly and only fully grasp such concepts late in life.

Above: Awww…remember James Garner in “The Notebook”? Yeah…

While men rarely seem to rise above the level of mediocrity, it is only fair to point out that, tucked away in history, are a few examples of men who have made great contributions.

For instance, Christopher Columbus. If one overlooks the fact that Columbus committed atrocities against human nature such as murder, the sanctioning of rape, and the forcing of indigenous people into slavery, then one can look at Columbus as the man who took credit for discovering America, and also responsible for inventing what is now known as the modern three-day weekend.

Above: The noble inventor of the four-day work week.

Another good example is Thomas Jefferson. If one overlooks the fact that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves and impregnated one of those slaves while she was a teenager, one should admire Jefferson for inventing a form of government called Democracy, which, to this very day, many admirable Americans have valiantly attempted to make a reality in the face of constant, unceasing, and highly organized resistance!

Above: The man who made P. Diddy’s “Vote or Die!” campaign possible.

More recent innovative men include Country/Easy Listening singer Elvis Presley, who despite an apparently abusive temper, an enduring dependence on illegal drugs, and that he got fat and went batshit crazy before his premature death, still managed to take credit for the invention of Rock N’ Roll!

Above: Do you like Rock N’ Roll? Then you are legally required to pay lip service to this man!

It is important to remember that these exceptional men are not the norm, however.

Men have a number of downsides, and, as such, there have been attempts by others to “elbow in” on their prominent market share. The first person to do so may have been Queen Elizabeth I, who slyly edged her way into the men-only position of King by renaming the position Queen and doing basically the same job…a man’s job.

Above: Ooo! Look at the lady riding her fancy horse with her “army”. Whatever, I could totally do that.

Perversely, Elizabeth’s time as fake King lasted much longer than most anticipated, firstly because no one could find a good reason to behead her and secondly because she lived to be 69 years of age, which, at the time of her rule (the late 1500s, also know, for I’m sure completely unrelated and entirely coincidental reasons, as “The Elizabethan Period”), was the equivalent of being like 500 years old, since the average life expectancy at the time was 12.

Luckily for men, the grotesque and unqualified failure of the “Elizabeth Experiment” left competitors scrambling for a fresh idea, and this would take them nearly 300 years. This new threat’s name was Susan B. Anthony, who thought the best way to negatively impact the popularity of men was to attempt to participate in the sacred, men-only ritual of voting.

Above: Hater

Again, much to the favor of men, even this small, barely note-worthy milestone has not yet yielded any non-man Presidents and has done little to impact the overall prominence of men.

In fact, one of the most popular men today, Barack Obama, has spent millions of dollars to ensure that this remains the case!

Above: Yes. We. Can!

Still, nothing survives the competitive commodities market without adapting to new demands for diversity, and thus a few new varieties of men have been unveiled in recent years to help secure a multiple-demographic market share. One example of this is called David Beckham.

Above: Sure, he has an IQ somewhere around room temperature, but still…

David Beckham is the prototype of what is known as the metrosexual, or a man who exhibits traditional “man qualities”, like athleticism, average-to-low-intelligence, and being married to wooden trophy wives, all the while paying careful and obvious attention to traditional “woman qualities”, like personal hygiene and fashion. This makes David Beckham appealing to a vast and diverse audience, such as soccer hooligans, gay men, and Posh Spice.

Above: David Beckham’s rich fanbase.

Appealing to different, if similar, audiences, a slight variation on the cross-demographic metrosexual is known as Johnny Depp.

Above: C’mon, who doesn’t love Johnny Depp?

In fact, research has shown the mere existence of Johnny Depp can sustain the popularity of men in the minds of consumers despite continued insensitivity, arrogance, thoughtlessness, and lack of physical attractiveness among actual men!

Another example of a new variety of man is called George Clooney.

Above: Oh, George Clooney…

George Clooney, with his unending charm, his sly, endearing smile, his strong, proud jaw line, and his deep, dark eyes that transport you to a magical world of dreamscapes and lullabies, was introduced to sustain the fantasy that there really are good, smart, talented, charming men with progressive ideals and healthy attitudes towards women out there if you just look hard enough.

This is, of course, not true, and efforts of replicating George Clooney on a mass scale have proven fruitless. Still, the mass appeal of George Clooney to every living man, woman, and child on the planet has arguably kept men from “falling off the charts”, so to speak. So strong is the appeal of George Clooney that should he engage in activities that would generally be considered outrageous and atrocious, such as devouring live kittens, this would actually be perceived as “quirky” and “endearing”.

The secret to the prolonged and unceasing success of men, aside from a deep-rooted, entrenched and centuries-old tradition of a patriarchal cultural stranglehold, may be the commoditization of what is known as the almost-believable-but-still-completely-fictional “Good Man”. The most famous of these was invented (believe it or not!) by a canny, female marketing genius named Jane Austen, who managed to sustain unattainable ideals of men in the hearts and minds of consumers for generations with her creation, “The Mr. Darcy”. In the late twentieth century, in an effort to keep the product fresh and relevant, The Mr. Darcy model was updated with a sleek new appearance, called Colin Firth.

Above: Quiz yourself! If this man came to you and said, in a charming English accent, “In vain have I struggled. It will never do. My feelings will not be repressed.You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you”, wouldn’t the whole world just melt away from right beneath you? Yeah...
He won't, though.

But what of men in real life? First, as you will recall from our previous review of Women, traditional modes of identifying men, such as short hair and pants, can no longer be trusted. It is important to look for more subtle clues, such as the secret and unorthodox modes of communication in which they engage. Seldom will men refer to one another as “men”, so if you overhear two individuals referring to each other as “dude”, “bro”, “dudebro”, or “man” (this last one being a slang term for “anybody” that men use to identify each other or just people in general, occasionally as a superlative, such as in the case of the phrase “Dudebro, you’re the man!”), or, alternatively, if you see two individuals high-fiving each other as a result of modest achievements, such as getting the first question right on a pub quiz, or even the achievements of others, over which they have had no impact, such as their favorite football team scoring a touchdown, then you can safely assume that you have encountered one or more men.

Above: Touchdown!!

Interactions with men in real life can prove shockingly easy to initiate, though the rewards for doing so may vary greatly. If you are interested enough in men that you feel you may want to add one to your home, it is advised that you begin your research in an area with a typically high population of men. These include sports bars and regular bars.

But even in such places, it is not possible to conclude immediately if a particular man is interested in you. According to experts, one way to at least eliminate certain men on sight is via something called a “pink shirt”. For instance, if you are a woman at a regular bar and a man is very nice to you, seems courteous, is interested in the same things as you, and is wearing a pink shirt in the form of a t-shirt, this is probably not an indication of the sort of man who will make a lasting addition to your home, though he may be the sort of man who will make you feel better about your appearance and level of attractiveness.

If, conversely, you are in a sports bar and you find a man wearing a pink shirt, this is an indication that this man is what enthusiasts and specialists call a “douche bag”. “Douche bags” give relatively decent men a bad name and should be avoided at all costs.

Above: Tooooooooooooooooooooooootal douche.

Otherwise, the best way to endear yourself to a man is to think of absolutely anything to say to him. If you simply approach a non-pink-shirt-wearing man sitting at a bar and say anything at all, you may be greeted with a momentary period of confusion, wherein the man will say something like, “Sorry…me?” and point to himself for clarification.

Upon verifying that said man was the recipient of the anything that you said to him, the man will subsequently respond with a string of replies that, in terms of word count and topic changes, will likely far outdo your initial remark.

For instance, suppose you were to say something like, “God, it’s (description of weather) out there (time of day at when remark is being made), right?”

The response could be something like, “Oh, yeah, totally! Man (remember…slang! He doesn’t think you’re an actual man!), I hate this weather! God…and I totally didn’t remember to bring my umbrella/wear shorts/take a jacket. I’m freakin’ soaked/sweating my ass off/freezing. This sucks. But I just thought I’d come out here with buddies and drink it off, y’know? Do you like beer? Can I buy you a drink? What kind do you like? Hey, do you like Radiohead?”

This will be sufficient for you to have “bought” yourself some time with this man so as you can make an informed decision as to whether you would like to continue your relationship with him or move on to other, possibly less-uninteresting and self-absorbed men.

But it is always important to keep in mind that none of them will be Mr. Darcy.

Still, at the end of the day, men are worth it! Really! Because, after all, they mean well.

Well, most of them, anyway.

Okay, some of them.

RATING: N/A

BOTTOM LINE: Whatever, dude. I’m only into girls. High five!

Women

2008-03-19T08:16:00.000-07:00

Overview: Women have long been considered among the most popular genders. In the interest of full disclosure, I should make it known that my own mother, throughout my childhood and continuing on to this very day, is a woman, and I can say, first-hand, that there is a lot to be said about having one around. The world of women used to be a lot less complicated, but, recently, women have been marketed to a much broader and diverse audience. Are women worth the trouble, and, if so, which one/ones is/are right for you?

(Note: This topic was recommended for research and review by Kari Pepper, a woman.)

Above: Women

For many generations, women were presented in a pretty straight-forward, easy to handle, and unimaginative way. Women used to be easily identifiable. The features to look out for included long hair and the wearing of skirts or dresses as opposed to pants.

Above: The formerly typical woman, including all “tell-tale” features.

Thanks to growing demand and interest in women, this is no longer the case, and it’s not just because some women now wear pants and have short hair.

Above: k.d. lang is not only among the most famous short-haired pants-wearing women today, she is also a key example of the many targeted demographics of what is called the “new audience” to whom women are being marketed.

Outside of the immediately obvious visual cues that gave women away, women were also traditionally identified both by their lack of job-having and also lack of degree-from-an-accredited-college-having. They were usually found in kitchens and could often be surrounded by children.

An artist’s rendition of the traditional “woman”. Note the clearly suggested “kitchen” setting and the lack of this woman being in an office building.

That’s not always true today, however. More and more, and depending on which part of the world you live in, you are likely to encounter women who present few if any of these qualities.

Above: How do you even know this is a woman? Do you have a sharp eye? The relatively long hair is the only immediately obvious way to tell.

But despite the potential confusion and complications that can arise from the new women’s market, the burgeoning diversity and variety may actually play to your favor.

These days, it seems no matter what somebody’s interest, there may actually be an entire woman available to meet those interests.

Let’s say, for example, you enjoy listening to rock music. Well, fifty years ago, you weren’t likely to find a woman with whom you could listen to said rock music. You were even less likely to be in position wherein you could use your interest in rock music as a means of acquiring, or “picking up”, a woman of your own. These days, however, a similar, compatible taste in rock music can be all that is required in order to find oneself in good standing in the women’s market. Furthermore, this standing can be greatly enhanced if an individual knows how to play his own rock music. In these cases, women will often disregard a woeful lack of talent and lack of physical attractiveness in favor of the mere fact that said individual can play the guitar.

Above: Foreground- A physically unattractive and unskilled rock musician. Background – a diverse mix of “new women” rock music fans.

In fact, the types and varieties of women have expanded so much that, in recent years, some women have become such enthusiasts of rock music that they’ve actually learned how to perform it themselves.

“Joan Jett” – an example of the rare “rock musician” variety of woman.

It may be reassuring, then, that even in the face of uncontrolled and rapid expansion rate of woman varieties, and in spite of the fact that they are no longer reliably identifiable by outward physical traits, a majority of women have retained two consistent features: they can often be identified by the fact that they a) smell really good and b) are soft.

In fact, for many enthusiasts, these two appealing characteristics can override potentially unfavorable aspects of certain women, and without question the market has remained strong by deliberately sticking to these two “selling points”. Like nicotine in cigarettes or the deliciousness of high-sugar snacks, softness and good-smellingness often persuade enthusiasts to sustain their interest in something that may not be in their best interest or even good for their health.

These traits may even be present in seemingly unlikely forms of women. Take, for instance, the relatively new “woman athlete” variety. Some women athletes have long hair, and some of these, like field hockey players also wear skirts while engaging in their sport, which does serve to offset the potential confusion that may arise from seeing women in such an unorthodox setting. Additionally, and surprisingly, many of these types of women also still manage to be soft and to smell good, despite the common understanding that athletes are normally “rough around the edges” and “sweaty”.

Is Mia Hamm (above right) soft and good-smelling? Yeah, probably.

But the variety of types of women is not the only thing to have changed over the past few years: the variety of types of women enthusiasts have also changed. Market researchers have done careful and thoughtful studies and marketed certain women to certain key audiences. For years, it was thought that only heterosexual males could appreciate women, but that’s all changed now.

One example of a woman that both the male and female audience seem to agree on is called “Angelina Jolie”. Apparently, women seem to like Angelina Jolie for her “tough-girl” (sometimes spelled “grrl”) demeanor, her apparent bisexuality, and free-spirited independence. On the other hand, men find her equally appealing, largely because of her absurd degree of physical attractiveness.

Above: Hot

Then there are women who are marketed exclusively to other women and who most men will only find appealing if they have a) good taste in music b) an interest in reading mediocre books at roughly the same time as the rest of the nation, or c) an admiration for the unbearable sound of a screeching owl.

Above: Ani Difranco, Oprah, and Rachel Ray; Notable examples of A, B, and C, respectively.

In recent years, many innovative minds have even found ways to tap into a market previously viewed as “off-limits” or “unsellable” – what is called “the gay man” market. Believe it or not, gay men are now being presented with their very own versions of women! These women are of absolutely no interest to members of the opposite gender or sexual orientation, yet this fresh new market will sometimes pay hundreds of dollars just to be within the range of vision of these women, even though they will be surrounded by thousands of other men!

Above: They said it couldn’t be done…

Which is not to say that the more traditional markets have been excluded. Quite the opposite! In fact, in the late 1990s, a new sort of woman caught the public’s eye and, for a time, many believed this one to have been the perfect woman. It was called “Natalie Portman”

Above: Jesus…Seriously?

Excitement began to build among woman enthusiasts for some time, especially among traditional audiences, until flaws in Natalie Portman began to emerge, such as veganism, “Anywhere But Here”, the fact that your girlfriend can’t stand her, and, more recently, “The Other Boleyn Girl”.

The point being, it’s a complicated world of women out there! And, as such, the research necessary for this report proved to take much longer than usual. Over the past few years (yes…years!), I have immersed myself in the world of women, taking special care to note behavioral patterns, study their slight differences and obvious similarities, and find various ways to fit them into my life.

One of the most popular ways is called “having a girlfriend”, or its slight variant, “having a wife”. In this arrangement, one is expected to enter in to a long-term commitment with one woman and to have either none or extremely limited contact and/or interaction with any other women. For many, this can be extremely taxing, and so it is my first-hand recommendation that you heavily weigh the pros and cons of the specific woman before agreeing to such an arrangement. It should also be pointed out that you may not have the necessary standing to enter in to such an arrangement with certain women. This becomes increasingly more likely depending on the particular woman’s combined levels of intelligence and attractiveness as measured in favorable proportion to other women. For instance, the girl who played Winnie on “The Wonder Years”, who is now a scientist or something and also notably hot is a very good example of someone who probably wouldn’t date you.

Yeah, no.

But perhaps the most important thing to remember about women is that, unlike other popular things, such as Cheez-Its and mountain bikes, women are sentient, self-aware beings, meaning they are capable of both emotions and free-thought. This can make any and all interactions with women challenging, as, in many cases, I found that the specific emotional responses women displayed to their surroundings and/or experiences random and unpredictable at best.

Above: Have you been paying attention? Which of these three things is a woman? (Hint: Remember what has been said about a woman’s ability to “display emotion”.

Worse, the novice who has taken only a recent interest in women may take these emotional responses as an indication that a woman is “psycho” or “crazy”, when, in fact, if you’d only have told her in advance that you would rather watch the Superbowl with your friends (even though, as far as she can recall, you don’t even really care about football!) than watch The Notebook, because it is Sunday and Sunday is “date night” (and it’s not like sitting at home eating ordered-in Thai and watching a movie that came out three years ago is that much of an exciting “date” anyway! She means, it wouldn’t kill you to actually go out to dinner, or see an actual band play, or, god forbid, go to a museum for once…), but, yeah, if you’d only have said something in advance, then it totally wouldn’t have been a big deal at all.

Common scenarios of this type can often lead the novice to assume that he has come across some kind of defect and he may then consider abandoning this particular woman for a new one that, presumably, would not share the same characteristics. This is not the case. This sort of behavior is neither an indication of defectiveness nor ~~likely~~ possible to be any different simply by substituting one woman for another.

So, yes, my research had its ups and downs. I found it just as easy to fall out of favor with women as I did to come into favor with women (Note: though it would seem that amassing as many simultaneous relationships with women as possible would position you in greater stead with individual women, under the logical supposition that a clear and large cross-section of the woman population coming to a favorable consensus about you as you relate to women would make individual women more likely to trust and openly embrace you, this is not at all the case. At all. And will, in fact, result in a woman-response most experts call "jealousy" which most men find difficult or even impossible to resolve. Remember, when interacting with women, it is best to ignore logic.)

Still, the ups and downs always proved worth it, because, at the end of the day, women proved to smell good. And be soft. Plus, they sometimes make you feel better when you're sad.

RATING: ***1/2 (out of 4)

BOTTOM LINE: Women absolutely have what it takes to make it in this world. You can expect them to stick around for a long time!
No, I know they don’t have to stick around. Right, no, I know that it’s their right to decide where to go and when. I’m not saying that at all! I just meant I think there will always be a place for women in the world. What do you mean “what do I mean when I say ‘I think’”? I mean…I don’t know…I just. Wait, come back!

Cats

2008-03-14T08:19:00.000-07:00

Overview: Cats! These furry feline "friends" have become a must-have accessory for the culture-conscious! But are they "purrrrrrr-fect" in every way, or just awful?

Though cats have been roaming the Earth for a good long while now, it is only in recent years that human beings have found a new “use” for the creatures: a phenomenon known as “having a pet”.

Historically, the closest parallel we have to the current cat craze is ancient Egypt, where cats were considered sacred. But this should serve not as an endorsement of cats, but rather as a warning. Remember, the Egyptians employed massive armies of slaves to build enormous, towering buildings known as “pyramids”. A rousing achievement of architecture, you might say, but here’s the odd thing about pyramids: there’s virtually no room inside of them. That’s right: though pyramids are among the world’s largest buildings, they serve very little purpose outside of needlessly taking enormous amounts of otherwise usable space.

Indeed, an endorsement from this culture hardly speaks well of cats!

Above: Which is the bigger waste of space?

Researching the cat trend proved remarkably easy for me. As it turns out, there is a cat living as close to me as my very own apartment.

My roommate, a sucker for hip trends, purchased one several years ago, before the cat trend even really took off. Like most cat owners, she “named” the cat; a tradition humans often employ to enhance the illusion that the cat has a personality or “human-like” qualities. The cat industry tries to push their product as source of comfort; a provider of “unconditional companionship”, especially among the otherwise desperately lonely.

The cat in question, the subject of the bulk of my direct research, is named Lucille Margaret Amberlynn Pepper, or, for short, simply “Lucy”.

Lucy (review subject)

The first thing one will notice about cats is their superficial sensory appeal, especially to the visual senses. Cats are often noted for their “cuteness”, “furriness”, or “snuggleywumplygoogedyness”. And this does appear, at least initially, to be the case.

Unfortunately, cats are guilty of something called the “wolf in sheep’s clothing” phenomenon.

Upon encountering a cat, one is almost instinctively inclined to “pet” the cat, a custom that involves firmly rubbing ones hand over the cat’s back, head, and tummy, and occasionally (often violently) scratching and caressing its ears.

While the initial sensation of fuzzy warmth is admittedly pleasing, I found that, within seconds, my hand began to “tingle” and about 90% of all sensory feeling in my hand quickly shut down.

Shortly thereafter, I felt a similar tingly, tickly sensation around the area of my nose. Instinctively, I motioned to scratch said nose, but unfortunately the numbness in my hand prevented this from being effective in any way. Seconds later, my eyes began to itch and swell and develop harsh red “spots” in the white areas. The area beneath my eyes also became notably swollen.

As my post cat-petting experience wore on, I noticed that the glands in my throat also began to swell, making swallowing (and even speaking!) abnormally difficult, if not impossible outright. Lastly, in various, seemingly random portions of my body, I developed “rashes” or “zits” on my skin, which ranked among my least favorite occurrences of my adolescence.

Clearly, then, cats have a rather extreme downside. But are those the only downsides?

No.

In order to provide as unbiased and thorough a review as possible, I gave my roommate forty dollars and asked her spend the night drinking enough alcohol to find an otherwise unpleasant stranger appealing enough to spend the night with. This way, Lucy and I could “bond” the way owners apparently do with their cats.

What struck me about Lucy is how unwilling she was to remaining focused on performing even the most basic and mindless activities humans often engage in together.

For instance, while watching television, most humans will sit together on a couch or sofa in some kind of “living space”, usually in silence but occasionally noting that one great line from “Family Guy”, or what Sayid would do in this situation, or how someone could possibly reap immense financial reward simply by randomly stating numbers printed on the side of a briefcase. Cats, it seems, do none of this, and Lucy appeared unable or unwilling to focus on something as basic as “Moment of Truth”, a television program I selected specifically because of its low expectations of, and demands on, a viewer’s intellect. She seemed to have a fondness for walking over my lap as I sat on the couch, wandering (for, I should note, no obvious reason) into the kitchen area, looking up at the fridge, glancing back over towards my direction, and subsequently making “meow” sounds. Lucy continually performed similar actions throughout the course of our supposed “bonding” experience.

Another problem with cats is the language barrier. Lucy often seemed keen on informing me of something, but to date she has failed to learn even a single word of English. This inability to perform this most basic communication skill seems to be true of all cats, and thus it is up to the owner or care-taker to blindly guess the cat’s desired response. In most cases, this involves food, and in almost all cases, this food appears to be tuna.

Tuna

Furthermore, cats seemed to bear little if any regard for the basic human need for sleep. Normally, human companions have enough empathy and respect to know that when one of their fellow humans has gone into his or her bedroom, and when there is no light emanating from that bedroom through the cracks between the door, this is usually a sign that that person is asleep or, at the very least, in need of quiet privacy. Most humans respond to this by making as little noise as possible.

Cats, however, seem outright dismissive of this basic function of etiquette. On more than one occasion, and at seemingly random hours of the evening and morning, Lucy positioned herself outside my bedroom door and made incessant, surprisingly loud (and often quite unsettling) “meow” sounds, frequently accompanied by a violent scratching of the bedroom door.

Unfortunately, cats, unlike even modestly intelligent children, do not seem to respond to loud, vocalized requests that they cease such behavior.

In order to present a fair account of cats, however, I took it upon myself to seek out another cat, this one belonging to a friend and given the name “Miles”. Sadly, though slight variations in behavior were detectable, all negative physical responses that had resulted from my interaction with Lucy remained the same.

Above: The blog’s author (at right) and “Miles” (at left). Note the cheery, friendly demeanor with which the author approaches interaction with the cat as contrasted to the cat’s cold, expressionless, chillingly lifeless stare.

The worst crime of the “Big Cat” industry, however, is that cats are often marketed to the desperately lonely; those who never have had, and likely never will have, children of their own. The myth permeated by Big Cat is that cats are worthy substitutes for children.

Above: Pure, shameless propaganda

At first, this seems to be true. The early stages of cat ownership are remarkably similar to the early stages of parenthood. Like an infant, the cat will not speak, is ambiguously demanding about its needs, will play with small objects with no apparent or stated goal, and mostly serves to take up space and create a mess. However, unlike infants, cats do not grow out of this stage. While a parent can reasonably expect its child to grow into a caring, intelligent, and wildly successful editorial assistant, cats, even well into their teenage years, will show little if any signs of personal growth or bourgeoning intellect.

Also unlike human children, cats will never learn how to engage, even in a rudimentary way, in capitalism, thus leaving the owner fiscally responsible for the cat for the duration of its life.

So, reasonably, you may ask, “Is there anything good about cats?”

No.

There are, however, arguably (if modestly) good things about pictures of kittens (the common name for young or “baby” cats). Pictures of kittens do not yield any of the negative physical consequences that real cats do, and yet can often provide significant (if brief) levels of pleasure, delight, and warmth for people experiencing rainy, “grumpy”, or otherwise bad days or moments.

See?

It should be said, however, that the best thing about cats is this picture:

RATING(s):
Cats: 0 stars (out of 4)
Pictures of Kittens: ** (out of 4)
That one particular picture of a kitten being chased by little brown monsters that just never gets old: **** (out of 4)

BOTTOM LINE: With a dwindling economy, to which cats actively contribute nothing, don’t expect this “cat fad” to remain popular for much longer.

Cookies

2008-03-13T10:44:00.001-07:00

In Brief: Among the many epicurean trends sweeping the nation of late, none stand out more than the massively popular and “hip” cookie. Whether you find yourself in a two-parent, three-child home in suburban Missouri, an office in downtown Chicago, or a hip dive bar in Brooklyn, you’re bound to find someone eating one (or more!) of these hot commodities. What’s all the fuss about?

In light of the cookie’s relatively recent rise to popular main-stay, one might be shocked to learn that the origin of the cookie can be traced back to 7th Century Persia (in modern times known as the relatively cookie-less Iran). Well, it might have taken centuries for the cookie to find the spotlight, but it’s safe to say it’s making up for lost time!

I decided to investigate the trend myself and take the leap into the world of cookies! Thanks to the overwhelming and wide-spread success of the cookie, obtaining them is not as difficult as one might think. In fact, you can get pre-packaged, pre-made cookies at your local grocery store! These cookies come in different flavor and designs, and the brand names under which they are sold are often given “ethnic-sounding” names, lifted from cookie culture, lending them an air of supposed authenticity. Some of these include “Chips Ahoy!”, which include small pieces of chocolate (or “chips”) baked right into the cookies themselves; “Oreo”, which is actually two small cookies that create a “cookie sandwich” around a layer of hardened cream; and “E.L. Fudge”, conceptually similar to the Oreo, but with a basic sugar cookie with a slight vanilla flavor surrounding a firm chocolate filling. The E.L. Fudge is also notable for its artistic elegance, with immaculately carved designs of “elves”, who many superstitious cookie enthusiasts in the Middle Ages believed were responsible for the creation of their cookies.

The E. L. Fudge

In order to indoctrinate myself to cookie culture, I purchased a package of each of these three different types. Following the recommendations of my preparatory research, I also purchased a half gallon of “2% Milk”, which, when consumed in conjunction with the cookie, greatly enhances the experience of consumption. There are several ways to do this, but the two most popular include what cookie enthusiasts call “dunking”, where all or part of the cookie is dipped into a glass of milk for a period of several seconds, or, alternatively, one may eat part or all of the cookie “dry”, and subsequently drink the glass of milk to “wash it down”.

Of these three cookies, easily the most versatile (and thus potentially the most intimidating to the unaccustomed newbie) is the Oreo. Oreo enthusiasts often debate the “best” approach to consumption, and these debates usually revolve around whether or not to remove the chocolate cookie element from one side of the Oreo, exposing the hardened cream, and, subsequently, how to consume the two “halves”. The order of consumption as it relates to milk interaction is also often hotly disputed. As a relative novice, I tried many combinations of cookie-cream-milk, cookie-milk, cream-cookie-milk, and found little difference in overall enjoyment. Still, it is worth noting that this possible conflict may arise as one becomes more accustomed to regular cookie consumption.

The Oreo

So what’s the big deal? Well, the first thing that identifies the cookie and makes it stand out from other foods –some examples of other foods that come to mind are liver, boiled eggplant, and cabbage- is its notable and immediately apparent yumminess. Make no mistake about it: this is the cookie’s secret weapon. In almost all cases, when the cookie is properly prepared, yumminess will be central to its defining attributes.

Other than that, what exactly is a cookie??

Good question. A cookie is usually identifiable as having the following characteristics:

-It is round, and usually between 2 to 6 inches in diameter
-It is baked, and this is almost always true
-It is comprised primarily of butter, sugar, and flour (though some modern breakthroughs in cookie development have yielded the “vegan” or “gluten-free” cookie, which substitutes these for things like almond butter, and, I presume, magic)

As cookie making has progressed, however, the “round” formula has often been tweaked, most popularly in the case of the “rectangle” cookie. More daring, experimental cookie makers have even tried to “sculpt” their cookies into shapes like trees, butterflies, hearts, or even “men”, as shown below.

Some examples of unorthodox “Art” cookies

Cookies, especially the more authentic (and, WARNING: also more expensive!) “freshly baked” cookie, also often can be indentified by their pleasing aroma, especially when said aroma is detected during the baking process. The best way to experience this for yourself would be to visit a special proprietor of cookies, usually known as a “bakery”.

A Bakery

Bakeries should not be thought of as cookie-specific, however, as they also often peddle such goods as breads, cakes, and muffins. Think of the “bakery”, then, as something akin to your neighborhood Pan-Asian Vegan Organic eatery, where, just as you’d find quality Tofu Pad See Yue, organic tempeh skewers and low sodium soy sauce, you will find quality, usually very fresh cookies, but not necessarily the quality you might find from a bakery that either specializes in, or exclusively sells, cookies. There are several of these throughout the country, for instance Milk and Cookies Bakery in Greenwich Village (do not be confused by the name – they do not bake milk; for better context, see the third paragraph of this review), and Cow Chips, located in Seattle, Washington.

This all sounds great, you say, but are there downsides?

There are. And one should not embark on a cookie adventure without knowing them.

First, it should be clear that cookies, no matter how “healthy” they sometimes claim to be (many innovative cookie creators have based their recipes around oats and raisins, in an attempt to include nutritional content while minimizing the negative impact on the cookie’s deliciousness), cookies, even vegan cookies, are almost always extremely high in fat and carbohydrates. Like soy, the typical western physiology is not designed to process cookies properly, and thus the consumer may often find themselves the victims of rapid and unexpected weight gain. Also, crumbs.

The other downside is perhaps a product of the explosive and sudden popularity of cookies themselves; which is to say, this has lead to a lot of “experimentation” with cookie design and production, meaning that you may purchase what looks like the popular “chocolate chip” variety of cookie, but which turns out to be an “orange and coconut with beet chunks and jalapeno” cookie, resulting in a reaction from the consumer that can range from an involuntary sticking out of the tongue and tight closure of the eyes, accompanied by a “blech” sound, to an actual and forced spitting out of the cookie into the nearest available napkin. In some cases, this turn the consumer off from the very notion of cookie consumption for several seconds, perhaps even minutes.

To avoid such an unfortunate occurrence, new cookie consumers should not jump in head-first. Try eating cookies at home first, perhaps as an after-dinner treat, and stick to those offered in your grocery store. It is highly unlikely that these cookies will be in any way unorthodox.

Once comfortable with the general textures and flavors of traditional cookies, it is recommended you that you then explore “bakery” options. Often bakeries will sell cookies individually, and sometimes these cookies will not have signs describing the ingredients. For a visual point of reference, you are generally safe if you stick to tell-tale signs like pink or any pastel colored frosting and chocolate sprinkles. If unsure, ask the bakery attendant. What looks like chocolate chips may, in fact, be charred black olives. The risk of running into an unappealing cookie greatly increases if you are in a coastal area of the United States, but especially if you live in Brooklyn or The Bay Area.

Would you know just by looking at these cookies that they were made with scallions?

But don’t let this scare you off. Cookies are well worth the potential minor risk of a bad cookie experience. One bite of these exotic treats, and you’ll understand that, like that movie “Juno”, cookies really do live up to all the hype!

RATING: **** (out of 4)

YES, IT’S TRUE: Cookies are totally great.

The Bible

2008-03-12T13:45:00.000-07:00

Synopsis: Using ancient magic, an all-powerful deity, “God”, creates a complex world called “The World”, comprised of many diverse races, cultures, and landscapes. But before long, chaos ensues, and God must scramble, think on his feet, and often improvise his way through conflict resolution. Mid-story, God devises a clever plan: he personifies himself in the body of a human superhero, “Jesus”, hoping that being “on the ground” will make it easier to restore order to The World. But God’s plans for Jesus don’t exactly as he’s hoped…

The classic fantasy epic, The Bible, has been a favorite of the Sci-Fi/Adventure enthusiast for a long time now, even managing to transcend the traditional demographic of the genre and appeal to suburban “soccer moms”, sports enthusiasts or “Nascar dads”, and Roman Emperors alike. It is one of the most popular and talked-about novels of all time.

It’s not surprising, really. With its richly imaginative account of impossible events coming to pass and its enormous cast of major and minor characters (the stern old wizard, “Moses”; the scorned princess, “Eve”; the bumbling, good-natured old coot, “Noah”; and the dashing, slightly emo -and occasionally overly sanctimonious- superhero protagonist, “Jesus”), The Bible literally has something for everybody.

Which is not to say it’s not without its flaws. Quite the contrary. No good literary scholar would ever call The Bible “perfect” or “inerrant”, and I am quite sure none of them ever have. In terms of narrative structure, The Bible is, like its similarly fantastical cousin, the works of J.R.R. Tolkien, something of a mess. The introduction, again like the first of The Fellowship of the Ring is way too long, almost as though no editor even bothered to consider removing the superfluous expository stuff. Check out, for instance, the chapter “Deuteronomy”, which seems almost arbitrarily thrown in and offers almost nothing in terms of character or plot development. And coming after the promising, action-packed absurdity of “Exodus” (seriously: plagues, locuts, tons of deaths, entire bodies of water parting in the middle, and rousing mountain-top speeches, it’s the stuff summer movies of made of, and one wonders why Jerry Bruckheimer hasn’t already secured the rights; get Michael Bay on the phone!), it’s just a really talky, academic, boring let-down.

The first half of The Bible is often so slow and plodding, in fact, that many would-be fans of the book give up on it halfway. These people are often dumped into a “fan group” called “Jews”, who apparently spend a lot of time analyzing the first half of the book (to be fair, there’s a lot of material to dig through, which is part of the problem) and don’t seem to want to even bother with the gripping conclusion.

The only consistently present character in the first few chapters of the book is God, and the author uses poetic license to play with the character’s attributes. For instance, in the early going, he seems almost confused (at one point he doesn’t seem to know where the character “Adam” is, which is odd considering a) he’s supposed to know everything and b) there’s only one person around!) and unsure of his own powers. Later, he just seems really irritable and unstable. Sometimes he comes off as wise and loving. Regardless, the author gets away with this because the God character is supposedly so unlike us (and, of course, therein lies how much he tells us about us…) that it doesn’t matter how he’s painted; we just have to accept it at face value, and it works as foreshadowing for the, shall we say, unpredictable nature of the forthcoming Jesus character.

One of the narrative faults of The Bible is that the central protagonist doesn’t even appear (he’s actually not even born) until roughly the mid-way point. Now, I know what you’re saying: “But, John, Luke Skywalker doesn’t even appear until 20 minutes into Star Wars, and it takes forever for The Lord of the Rings to introduce Aragorn!”

Okay, true. So The Bible is just as guilty of this as just about anything else in the genre, and I shouldn’t single out this particular book for this particular feature (I will just point out, however, that Harry is pretty much there from the get-go in the “Harry Potter” series…I’m just saying).
But once our hero, Jesus, finally shows up (and in grand fashion, too; *hint*… think: “I believe he was created by the midichlorians…”) the story really picks up steam. Like the character God, often referred to as the hero’s “father” (don’t ask), the character of Jesus is hard to pin down: at times judgy, emo, whiney, wise, friendly, aloof, and cryptic, Jesus is one of the most complicated characters in the whole realm of fantasy epics.

To pull off telling the story of the character, The Bible employs an ingenious literary technique that Kurosawa fans would fawn over. Rather than take a direct approach to the narrative, the story is told, Rashomon-style, from four different perspectives! None of them actually line up exactly with the others, and so it is up to the reader to decide who (if anybody!) is telling the real story. They all seem to agree on certain things, foremost of which is that Jesus is definitely imbued with magical abilities (he brings people back from the dead and cures blindness, for starters). And they all seem to agree that Jesus is there to complete a quest that is his destiny and that only he can fulfill (sound familiar?!). Inevitably, Jesus finds himself in a worldful of hate courtesy of the villanous Romans (think Uruk-kai, with better etiquette and teeth). If I told you whether or not he manages to “destroy the ring”, so to speak, I would be giving too much away. Let’s just say that, when things look their worst, and when all seems lost…well…

The ending of the The Bible (*SPOILER ALERT* or at least what seems like the ending…) has often been criticized for employing the ancient dramatic tool of Deus Ex Machina, and the criticism is fair. But still, the stirring finale feels earned and satisfying on an emotional level, if not on an intellectual one.

Much like Lord of the Rings, The Bible concludes with volumes upon volumes of “appendix” material, largely “written” by a narrator named Paul, which puts a lot of the preceding events into context and sheds some light on their overall meaning. It is not necessary to read these “extra features” and many readers claim they prefer to interpret the story their own way, but for the obsessive fan, they stand as a nice inclusion. The whole thing ends with a sort of “preview” (this time the narrator calling himself John, later dubbed by fans “Saint John the Divine”) of a high-concept, action-packed “sequel” that would seemingly put a lot of the ho-hum elements of the original to shame. Probably due to the ambitious nature of the “sequel” (rumored to be dubbed “The Bible 2: Book of Revelations”), most fans and scholars have come to accept that either it will likely never come to pass, or that the authors never intended on realizing the concept as separate project.

If there’s one glaring problem with The Bible, it’s probably that the thing is written in a tone and language (again like Lord of the Rings) that often seems quaint, dated, and inaccessible (lots of “thee” and “thine” and “thou”, etc.) Younger readers often complain it just doesn’t register with them anymore. And the book has been around for so long (what seem like dozens, or maybe even hundreds of years) that of course it has been through countless re-edits and reissues and updates, often in multiple languages (sorry, LotR fans –no Elvish yet!). This does tend to make The Bible hard to read and leaves one wondering what might be missing from (or even added to!) the original.

Still, it’s hard to deny the pure, outlandish imagination that went into writing the novel, a book so ahead of its time that it’s often compared to the works of, among others, the great H.G. Wells. Despite its flaws, imperfections, short-comings, and logical inconsistencies, The Bible is worth the price of admission (especially since, if you’re astute enough, you might even be able to find a free copy…).

RATING: *** (out of 4)

YES, IT’S TRUE: While usually credited to “God” (presumably a pen name), The Bible, like most studio movies in our time, was actually written "by commity" by a “panel” of authors. Some say there are at least a couple dozen contributors, and a handful of scholars argue that the number might even by well over a hundred!