It seems hypocritical to present such a message. It is almost as if the Bud people are required by law to say "please drink responsibly," and might not really give a doorknob either way. Hmmm. Like they just hate people. Having consumers emulate the man in the ad does not sell beer; he was getting it for free! And he's rich! Cedrick "my skill ought to be self-evident rather than in my name" The Entertainer would just buy beer if he was acting with any degree of responsibility. He must hate people, too. Especially the women he marries. Not willing to deal with the struggles detailed earlier, but still intending to get beer for free, Cedrick just murders his wives, buries them in the desert, and goes back to get more beer. I don't hate Cedrick (quite, yet,), I'm just very disappointed.

The Las Vegas minister performing the marriages also hates people, but you couldn't get a job in Las Vegas if you didn't. Or if you did, you wouldn't like them for long. Las Vegas, or any place with casinos, is where you get a job when you wish everyone below a certain social class was dead, but lack the long term planning skills and responsibility to become a serial-murderer, yet you still want to have an active part in spreading despair. “Fine,” you say to yourself. “I will settle for getting them hopelessly drunk and taking all their money. I don't even want it for myself, it's enough for the peasants I hate just not to have it anymore. I am content to merely hope they get eaten by coyotes.” Admittedly, I have my own share of biases against people who go to casinos, but only because they go to casinos.

I don't doubt that See Ess Aye is realistic. I'm sure it's very realish. Every story I've heard about a factual person's encounter with a law enforcement cultist goes about the exact same way, because why would you want a job like that if you didn't think you were better than everyone else? The decent ones who want to help others and improve communities are either in hiding or entirely imaginary (if you know some, then, tell them to stop hiding!). Every level of anything with regards to sending people to jail or keeping them out of jail is only in it for the domination aspect.
Not incredibly long ago, I went somewhere, and had a container of water with me, as I usually do, as a result of a particular mental error of mine. The entrance to some place was quite a distance from the vehicle I traveled in. After I had passed, walkwise, through two gates, a needlessly large man informed me "you can't bring that in here." Surely, I could have; I possessed the ability to do so; what the man meant was that he'd grab me and beat me if I tried to. The reason I, as I heard it, would have risked violence were I to bring the object, was due to its being built from glass. It was built from glass because I think plastic is a gross thing to drink water out of.
Why was information that could have helped me not more readily available? Why would not a list of forbidden artifacts have been posted near the car parking region? Because then no one would try to bring those things, and that would mean less people to dominate. It wouldn't have been the same if the entrance was nearer. If, rather than discarding it right there, I could conceivably have returned the item to the car without wasting time of other visitors, and within visibility of the person who received my entrance fee, then I would not have been dominated as much. Why, I might not have even been bitter for the rest of the day. Flaming bananas, I might still have the bottle right now. We can't be having that. (I know bottles are cheap; I wouldn't have thrown it away at all otherwise, but it still made me mad)

Why do banks charge insufficient fund fees? It's not like banks don't have money. They have some money at the bank. It's not like they need extra money to cover the cost: That's the place people rob when they don't have money! Banks just like being mean. They love it! Why did those milkduds in the house next to mine build a giant medieval fence around the lawn they only come here to mow? People are scum. Here, take this bootful of awards, CSI. Oh, and here's a gold anchor from the bank for always having enough money.

But that's a lot of television, isn't it. People love shows about wretched twunks with no regrets about anything. The Soprano bunch can murder whoever they want and get away with it! Including each other! Good for them! Mob rule rules! I wish there were total anarchy and everyone acted that way! Let's kill all the lawyers! Yay shooting! Let's watch Scarface but selectively forget half of it!
I've never viewed the Indisparate Housewives [either], but their show is popular, so I'm guessing the namesake characters rape puppies. Splendid idea! Let's rape all animals!

CSI's theme songlet is bad, too. A bunch of invisible nerds asking Whooooo... [am I]? Hu hu, hu hu! They sound like monkeys. Monkeys sound bad. Occasionally a really angry guy interrupts them proclaiming how much he really wants to know. And that's all. How about this: You actually entertain me for all of 15 seconds, and I'll think about telling you who I am. Otherwise, you can just know me as about to turn off this haggisy show. Oh, oh! Legendary song by THE WHO! That's why they keep saying WHO! You are not allowed to dis that song! Guess what, it's terrible. Its tune is five seconds long, and repetitive in the five seconds. Maybe the original version is good, which I doubt, but this one isn't. I can say without fear of you that the CSI version lacks merit. It's only there to remind people of the longer version that [possibly] isnt as bad. That's retarded.

They think We're so kewl, our show referenced Them Who. Yay for us! If that part of the song only seems good to people who know what else is supposed to be before or after it, then that one part isn't good! It is an incomplete object which fails without its other parts, if it might conceivable succeed with them. And I shouldn't have to like some stupid song from the 1970s to enjoy a show that isn't from the 1970s, that isn't about things from the 1970s. The music should represent the show, be good, or not be there. Harumph!

Don't go back and reread the other part. None of it rhymes. And this advice isn't kind, because it implies you would be dumb enough to read that again.

You have must, which is a kind of vanilla-y smelling dust. Or at least, that's what my mind always thought of it as. I do not think that is a proper dictionary terminology. Still, must sounds like dust. Actually, the defintion "Stale or moldy in odor or taste" is probably even worse than dust. Need more data. And then stang, which not only is the last name of the actor who portrayed the nerd from Hercules in New York, but it also contains four of the five letters in stank. While that means it smelled bad in the past, that does not mean it will not smell bad in the future, will never smell bad again. That does not even mean it does not smell bad right now.

If we take "fix" to mean pre-define an artificial outcome through sinister means rather than repair that which is broken (in which sense only a masochist would try and fix the Special Olympics), this much is true. But were you aware also that only a jackass would try and promote a movie ("The Ringer") entirely by mentioning another movie the jackass was in which has no connection to the one being promoted beyond that jackass being in it? How about using the exact same font for the word and playing the same music behind it? It's not even good music; it sounds like the Al Franken Show theme music.
By the way, I hope Al Franken does "go into politics" like he has occasionally threatened to do, so he can stop pretending to be a comedian.
There was a time when I liked Al Franken, around 1998ish. I remember thinking "he looks like Pat, he sounds like Pat, he was on the same show as Pat during the right years, he was listed on some webpage's credits for It's Pat the Movie, he must be Pat." But he wasn't even Pat, I found out eventually, and then my opinion of him seemed to decline somewhat in the succeeding years. So he can run for mayor of a town I don't live in or get a job as a Pat impersonator.

But ehhh, I rememer, back when the Jackass television program ceased production, some urine stream of lines being passed about saying "well, we don't want kids to copy us, so we're not going to do these nasty things anymore. We'd still like to, but we believe in what's right and ack ack ack..." All trash, naturally, because then a Jackass feature film shows up not long after that which is exponentially nastier than anything airable on basic cable (but according to the rating, about equal with whatever happened in Basic Instinct 2). Essentially, what the MTV era Knoxvillian was saying was "Here's a chance to make people like me by doing what looks like a noble sacrifice in the name of morals, and later make a lot more money off of a more ambitious project of the exact same sort after people forget what I said but not that they liked better me for it." And now it's come to this: Johnny Jackass invoking the memory of the thing he once distanced himself from to sell something he's even less publicly proud of.

I have no doubt this was a move of desperation. It is not as if, a few months before, anyone dared proclaim "only a jackass would agree to appear in, let alone audition for a formulaic remake Dukes of Hazzard movie 20 years after the source material ceased to matter to anyone," even though that is as true as any other recent statement phrased or fonted in such a way.

Even if my memory is misbehaving and it was merely MTV press release statements pretending to be concerned for dumb kids with video cameras and inadequate parents, that channel, to these days, regularly airs other criminal deviancy shows with different titles, so someone at some level was being a jackass in regards to the end of the jackass tv show, and I say it might as well have been all of them, in which case it wouldn't really matter who was responsible for making the recent ads, because any of them would have done it.

Sometimes I write things and don't quite finish them, meaning to do so later. "Later" can vary by quite a bit, depending on how long I forget about them for. If it is a short enough period, sometimes I can salvage the topicality. Other times it's so beyond relevance that I might as well put it off for another year. Right, so, I guess I'll be seeing you in 365ish days, then.

I'm less fascinated by David Blaine in a wet spheroid than the spheroid itself. I appreciate Blaine's presence for visual frame of reference, a mid point between the normal people in front and the maximumly distorted people behind it. Usually when you see such a large amount of water, there's either a solid surface or apparently unending water behind it. Also, the sphere shape itself is neat. I saw some brief film of Blanie being put into the bowl, and the water falling out of it over the glass with non-falling water behind it looked neat. Was the bowl even glass? I hope it was reinforced glass. That would have been quite a disaster for them if someone threw a rock at it and shattered the whole thing on the sixth day.

I don't regard Blaine as a "failure" for not lasting nine minutes; I can scarcely reach two. I think a lot of what he does is incredibly phony and things like this show impressive, if incredibly boring (so not visually impressive), amounts of self-control that the Amazing Jonathan could never manage. Blaine did not fail at holding his breath; he at least got a b or an a-. For entertainment he failed, but even if he had held his breath for a day you'd still have to watch him float there for a day. This is not something which can be entertaining. Certainly not something worth any more than nine minutes of program time, if even that. Und so naturally it was an hour. I saw a bit of it, partially out of a curiousity of "how can they fill an hour with something they admitted in advance will last, at most, nine minutes?" It should not have surprised me, and fortunately didn't, to find that this was with film of the phony, tricky Blaine we all know and don't give three beans about, numerous personal assistants pretending to be concerned while they figure out ways to mention how muscular he is, and most importantly advertising. There were also pointless vignettes of Blaine consulting various persons known for facing dangerous situations. I can understand why he'd want to talk with the Cut Off Arm Trapped Under Big Rock guy, but why standing outside in a blizzard? And why shirtless and squeezing his own pectoral region? That was too much for me.

This is also relevant enough...

Even if you've justified it to yourself that all celebrities deserve fame and are better than me, their babies at least should need to prove they aren't scum. "So tell me about the new baby" is a sentence fragment which should never be spoken on television by an interviewer. First of all, you, interviewer, probably doesn't want to know, and I, me, definitely doesn't want to know. Recently released babies have no skills. Babies have no personalities. Any that the parent cites are entirely imaginary. All they do, and all they shall do for quite some time are emit irritating noises and putrid subtances. This may shock you, depending on how dumb you are, but female babies have every bit as much interest in football and racecars as male babies do: none at all. Similarly, if made to pick between only blue or pink to have surround them at all times, both are equally likely to pick up a spider and eat it. If given the choice between watching Air Bud 6 or playing with their own fecal matter, they may choose to fall over and suffocate (fortunately, you'd be foolish to present them with that last choice).

Also: "baby bump" is one of the worst phrases ever invented by whore media. It's even worse than "metrosexual." At least "canoodle" sounds funny. I fully support the idea of inventing words in the absence of one that says what you want and any logical reason that you shouldn't be allowed to, really. Some folks adore pointing out "that isn't a word. Nyah!" But things only "become" words because someone made them up! If people weren't allowed to make up words we wouldn't have any! Nautiloids, imagine if, 80 years ago, people like that saw the first automobiles and said "that isn't a vehicle. Nyah!" The world would be a much cleaner place, yes, but we'd send mail by carrier pigeon, do calculations by abacus, and all sorts of annoying things. Stop being so closeminded and easily led. I'm trying to tell you what to think about celebrity gossip!

I love the King's Quest barter system. Oh, thank you so much for saving my diamond chalice from the demon toadstool! Here, take this boot. No, just one. Sure, you could have bought a thousand boots if you'd sold the diamond chalice which by right of conquest and frontier justice is yours, but you would have had to get past the angry dog first to do that, and the only way to get past the angry dog is to throw a boot. You couldn't pick up a rock because the hand icon doesn't appear over any of them. You COULD use the magic cheese, but then you won't be able to activate the G.O.R.G. machine at the end of the game, and you won't know why you can't activate it either. Why don't you ask the friendly talking wolf to scare the dog away? Because when you talk to the wolf, the wolf just says "thank you for saving my family. Did the piece of string help you?" Just smile and take the boot, idiot.