Monday, October 13, 2003
Not All It's 'Hacked' Up To Be
So I saw a commercial for the new Texas Chainsaw Massacre Movie and at the very end it says "based on a true story." I found that tidbit pretty interesting. I mean, did some guy actually wear people's dead skin as a mask and use a chainsaw to kill people? and then hollywood decided to launch a tremendously popular series of horror films in the 70s? and then hollywood decided to revisit this stoy just for good measure (and a quick buck) this year? Classy.
Well the official website provides no information about the story behind the movie - true or not. But this site gives some info about an actual story from the 50's that seems at best, to be mildly related.
Wait a second, so hollywood is saying that something is real when it's really just an overblown dramatization of something that may have sorta once kinda happened? NO WAY!! Since when would hollywood make stuff up and pass it off as real?
So I saw a commercial for the new Texas Chainsaw Massacre Movie and at the very end it says "based on a true story." I found that tidbit pretty interesting. I mean, did some guy actually wear people's dead skin as a mask and use a chainsaw to kill people? and then hollywood decided to launch a tremendously popular series of horror films in the 70s? and then hollywood decided to revisit this stoy just for good measure (and a quick buck) this year? Classy.
Well the official website provides no information about the story behind the movie - true or not. But this site gives some info about an actual story from the 50's that seems at best, to be mildly related.
Wait a second, so hollywood is saying that something is real when it's really just an overblown dramatization of something that may have sorta once kinda happened? NO WAY!! Since when would hollywood make stuff up and pass it off as real?
Sunday, October 12, 2003
Zim v. Pedro: Round Two
Yeah, that was the craziest sh*t I have seen on a baseball field in a while. I can't believe Zimmer went after Pedro! He was basically waiting for an excuse to run out onto the field, track Pedro down and sorta slap him with his left hand. Zim was asking to be put in a headlock too but Pedro, such a gentleman, was happy to merely remind the Zim-dog where the ground was.
I hope the weather holds up for tonight's game.
Yeah, that was the craziest sh*t I have seen on a baseball field in a while. I can't believe Zimmer went after Pedro! He was basically waiting for an excuse to run out onto the field, track Pedro down and sorta slap him with his left hand. Zim was asking to be put in a headlock too but Pedro, such a gentleman, was happy to merely remind the Zim-dog where the ground was.
I hope the weather holds up for tonight's game.
Friday, March 28, 2003
That's a Shocker!
A bad John Travolta movie? No way, where?
Alright, but this bad:
It seemed John Travolta couldn't have fallen any farther than "Battlefield Earth." And it seemed director John McTiernan couldn't have fallen any farther than "Rollerball." But both have. And it's called "Basic."
Burn!!
A bad John Travolta movie? No way, where?
Alright, but this bad:
It seemed John Travolta couldn't have fallen any farther than "Battlefield Earth." And it seemed director John McTiernan couldn't have fallen any farther than "Rollerball." But both have. And it's called "Basic."
Burn!!
I am the Smartest Man Alive!
Ever think about how much business Bacardi liquor gets from all of its mentions in rap songs? Furthermore, do rappers even drink Bacardi that much over, say, Stoli or Mount Gay, or is it the fact that Bacardi rhymes rather nicely with the word 'Party' and that's something rappers like to rap about. I would wager that Bacardi is mentioned almost exlcusively in verses that rhyme it with the word 'party' which gives me an idea: I will release various lines of party 'accessories' that rhyme with the word 'party', thusly creating a free yet effective marketing strategy-- word of rapper-mouth.
Early product names are: Lamarti Condoms and Gabardi Tortilla chips.
Now all I need is like $50,000 to get this thing rolling and the addresses of famous rap stars.
Ever think about how much business Bacardi liquor gets from all of its mentions in rap songs? Furthermore, do rappers even drink Bacardi that much over, say, Stoli or Mount Gay, or is it the fact that Bacardi rhymes rather nicely with the word 'Party' and that's something rappers like to rap about. I would wager that Bacardi is mentioned almost exlcusively in verses that rhyme it with the word 'party' which gives me an idea: I will release various lines of party 'accessories' that rhyme with the word 'party', thusly creating a free yet effective marketing strategy-- word of rapper-mouth.
Early product names are: Lamarti Condoms and Gabardi Tortilla chips.
Now all I need is like $50,000 to get this thing rolling and the addresses of famous rap stars.
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
What Would be Worse?
(New Feature)
To sweat mustard
or
Always wear outfits with bare midriff?
(New Feature)
To sweat mustard
or
Always wear outfits with bare midriff?
Friday, March 14, 2003
I Got a Reeaal Bad Temper, Pee-Wee
Well I used to, but I'm a pretty even-keel sort of guy these days. Regardless, I feel I need to rant about certain things that are my general pet peeves:
Item A) Left Lane is for Passing!!
Why is this so hard for some people to grasp?? Seriously, when the founding fathers (of driving rules) mapped all this out they said [in your best proper english accent "let's give highways a second lane, methinks! It will serve as a passing lane for when you are stuck behind a slow buggy!" (I wouldn't be surprised if it was Ben Franklin behind this one). But today we have abandoned this. People simply don't get it. Ben is not happy...
Here's a little lesson on how it works:
If you're driving on a highway, at any speed, and you're in the left lane and there's no cars around you (either in front of you or up ahead in the right lane going slow, or next to you) in any direction except right behind you, that may be a good time to get the fuck over!!
If you fail here, and the car behind you, driver having determined you're and oblivious ass, moves out into the right lane to try to pass you, never ever ever speed up so as to box this person in behind a right-lane traveler who is going slower than you were to begin with. Should you committ this foul you have invited a road rivalry, and revenge will likely be prosecuted.
To be clear, the mere act of tail-gating is in no way 'firing a first shot.' Thusly, you are not entitled to intentionally impede thos who tailgate you as some sort of revenge.
This is not rocket science, hell this is not even Mac and Cheese preparation. Get with the program or...uh, continue to be a loser or something. Loser!!
Disclaimer: Sorry, I know there's more important things going on but I just wanted to rant. Item B) Coming soon!
Well I used to, but I'm a pretty even-keel sort of guy these days. Regardless, I feel I need to rant about certain things that are my general pet peeves:
Item A) Left Lane is for Passing!!
Why is this so hard for some people to grasp?? Seriously, when the founding fathers (of driving rules) mapped all this out they said [in your best proper english accent "let's give highways a second lane, methinks! It will serve as a passing lane for when you are stuck behind a slow buggy!" (I wouldn't be surprised if it was Ben Franklin behind this one). But today we have abandoned this. People simply don't get it. Ben is not happy...
Here's a little lesson on how it works:
If you're driving on a highway, at any speed, and you're in the left lane and there's no cars around you (either in front of you or up ahead in the right lane going slow, or next to you) in any direction except right behind you, that may be a good time to get the fuck over!!
If you fail here, and the car behind you, driver having determined you're and oblivious ass, moves out into the right lane to try to pass you, never ever ever speed up so as to box this person in behind a right-lane traveler who is going slower than you were to begin with. Should you committ this foul you have invited a road rivalry, and revenge will likely be prosecuted.
To be clear, the mere act of tail-gating is in no way 'firing a first shot.' Thusly, you are not entitled to intentionally impede thos who tailgate you as some sort of revenge.
This is not rocket science, hell this is not even Mac and Cheese preparation. Get with the program or...uh, continue to be a loser or something. Loser!!
Disclaimer: Sorry, I know there's more important things going on but I just wanted to rant. Item B) Coming soon!
Tuesday, March 11, 2003
Living it up on the Upper West-Side!!
Angry Drunkards
More Pics (just click):
Jim Dancing
Jim's Lap Dance
Manny: I'm cool
Ladies' Manny
Doug Giving Fingers
Doug Dazed
Angry Drunkards
More Pics (just click):
Jim Dancing
Jim's Lap Dance
Manny: I'm cool
Ladies' Manny
Doug Giving Fingers
Doug Dazed
You Can't Triple-Stamp a Double-Stamp!
Anyone else think this is a little short-sighted?
It's a sad facet of human nature: the inclination to not fix things that ain't broke. Obviously a tragedy like 9-11 caused us to reevaluate our security infrastructure from intelligence efforts to airport security to the largest government reorganization ever. And even lesser tragedies like the Rhode Island night club fire will undoubtedly create sweeping changes in fire codes.
Indeed, changes, no matter how sensible or obvious, don't come around until the need is demonstrated by the playing out of a worst case scenario.
We need a breakdown to understand the problems in our system.
I suppose Bush would have us believe that we are looking at that right now. Not that this is a tragedy of any kind, but that his nomination of Miguel Estrada to DC court of appeals has been fillibustered reflects a problem in the system. That Mr. Estrada is being served an enormous injustice at the hands of Democrats who are playing politics.
Granted, the charge of "playing politics" may be warranted; judicial appointments have been politically charged for a very long time, as the opposition party will usually look extra hard for reasons to disqualify the President's nominee. Is this about politics? Probably, but that doesn't mean the rules need to change or that anything is wrong with the system. There is no breakdown.
Simply put, President Bush or any government official should not even attempt to change the rules so that an impending issue can be resolved to a certain end.
Sure, Bush says that the rule should apply to all future judicial decisions made by the senate, regardless of who's in the White House or the majority in the Senate, but that's easy to say when you lead the party that controls them both. Besides, if the rules are changed in the middle of this issue, what's to stop them from being changed back next time?
Bush is a tremendously savvy politician and if he should be able to counter the moves the Democrats are making here. If he can't, eventually the Donkeys will get a taste of this medicine. That is the nature of the system and the fillibuster. It is the destroyer, the nuclear bomb of the Senate-- acting as its own deterrent. You can't simply use it and walk away. You will be retaliated against with an equally brutal reply. Elephants never forget.
This is an age old tactic, and it should not be abolished from certain Senatorial decisions simply because Bush and the Republicans have run out of options. You can't change the rules in the middle of the game.
Anyone else think this is a little short-sighted?
It's a sad facet of human nature: the inclination to not fix things that ain't broke. Obviously a tragedy like 9-11 caused us to reevaluate our security infrastructure from intelligence efforts to airport security to the largest government reorganization ever. And even lesser tragedies like the Rhode Island night club fire will undoubtedly create sweeping changes in fire codes.
Indeed, changes, no matter how sensible or obvious, don't come around until the need is demonstrated by the playing out of a worst case scenario.
We need a breakdown to understand the problems in our system.
I suppose Bush would have us believe that we are looking at that right now. Not that this is a tragedy of any kind, but that his nomination of Miguel Estrada to DC court of appeals has been fillibustered reflects a problem in the system. That Mr. Estrada is being served an enormous injustice at the hands of Democrats who are playing politics.
Granted, the charge of "playing politics" may be warranted; judicial appointments have been politically charged for a very long time, as the opposition party will usually look extra hard for reasons to disqualify the President's nominee. Is this about politics? Probably, but that doesn't mean the rules need to change or that anything is wrong with the system. There is no breakdown.
Simply put, President Bush or any government official should not even attempt to change the rules so that an impending issue can be resolved to a certain end.
Sure, Bush says that the rule should apply to all future judicial decisions made by the senate, regardless of who's in the White House or the majority in the Senate, but that's easy to say when you lead the party that controls them both. Besides, if the rules are changed in the middle of this issue, what's to stop them from being changed back next time?
Bush is a tremendously savvy politician and if he should be able to counter the moves the Democrats are making here. If he can't, eventually the Donkeys will get a taste of this medicine. That is the nature of the system and the fillibuster. It is the destroyer, the nuclear bomb of the Senate-- acting as its own deterrent. You can't simply use it and walk away. You will be retaliated against with an equally brutal reply. Elephants never forget.
This is an age old tactic, and it should not be abolished from certain Senatorial decisions simply because Bush and the Republicans have run out of options. You can't change the rules in the middle of the game.
Friday, March 07, 2003
"Who's this again? The Tanguaray Tulips?"
-Vito, while listening to Hey Jealousy by the Gin Blossoms
-Vito, while listening to Hey Jealousy by the Gin Blossoms
