The B-Log |
Thursday, March 27, 2003
I don't care what experts say, CESA people are the true vectors for SARS! They're just like those vampires in Blade I and II. Infecting innocents and spreading this terrible virus. What we really need is a hero like Blade, a "Daywalker" as it were, to eradicate CESA. He would be of mixed blood, like Blade - possibly a Ryan Lim would be perfect. Or perhaps a CBC (Canadian-born Chinese) is sufficient. In any case, this "Daywalker" must rid us of the scourges known as CESA. I mean, hey I've known a few people in CESA and they're nice and everything, but like Blade says, "I must hunt them and I will stop at nothing to end this threat." Or something like that. I'm just kidding. Well, half kidding.
And we thought foot fetishes are weiiiiiiiird??? Or that guys getting off watching chicks peeing is perverted? Aria showed me an article in one of her girly mags (Cosmo? Elle? Whatever I don't remember) where a chick wrote in about her guy's nasty fetish. This dude would drop his pants, sit on the can ...... and make his chick go down on him ...... WHILE HE WAS DOING A NUMBER 2 !!!!!! How sick is that??? One, I'm surprised she agreed to it, and two, how did she bear the smell??? Sick. Tuesday, March 25, 2003
Seen at a daycare: "Only children 12 and under will be accepted and admitted into this daycare." This is a lowpass filter. Seen at a theatre, playing the movie Irreversible: "Rated R: This film is restricted to persons 18 years of age or older." This is a highpass filter. Seen in a newspaper personals ad: "A black woman looking for love, prefers white man between 30 to 40 years old." This is a bandpass filter. Get it? Got it? Good. Monday, March 24, 2003
It was a decent Oscars 2003 show that took place last night. Some upsets, some nice acceptance speeches that made you think, and some rousing controversy as well. In my opinion, Adrien Brody's win was a startling upset over heavyweight favourite Daniel Day-Lewis (and to a lesser extent Jack Nicholson). Day-Lewis did a great job in The Gangs of New York, but having seen The Pianist, I have to say Brody did a good job as well and was deserving of the win. I think I was secretly rooting for Brody though; that underdog status always wins you over somehow. Kudos to Chris Cooper and Nicole Kidman as well (whose acceptance speech I thought was very sweet and genuine). Did anyone catch Denzel's attempt at a joke ("...And the winner, by a nose is...")? Maybe it was scripted. Actually probably. I was glad Spirited Away won the Animated Feature Award. And good for Eminem! Getting some more well-deserved respect. I thought the snobbish Academy would feel nominating him was acknowledgement enough. Of course, everyone wanted U2 to win I think. I'm going to get flak for this but, you know, I never really did like U2. While we're on the subject of the Irish...what's with Colin Farrell and his whole strut/swagger thing going on there? I think he's a cool and talented actor actually and I know the attitude is all a part of him, but he looked really uncomfortable and out of place up there. Some probably felt he was even a bit too "rough" for the occassion. Man, pure Bullseye. It took guts to do what Michael Moore did and I respect that. I can't believe people cheered when Polanski won (Dude he's a fucking rapist!!!) and booed Moore so vehemently. I mean, he's entitled to his opinion ain't he? Of course I'm partially biased, since I watched his Bowling for Columbine and felt it did an excellent job of portraying America's love affair with guns, the use of force, and warfare. Then again, the boos weren't really uncalled for, he kind of ruined the nice atmosphere building up to that point. As for Chicago, I think I would have been more receptive to its win if Richard Gere and Catherine Zeta-Jones weren't in it (and if she didn't win that award!). I think the whole "musical-style" movie is pretty cool. Rob Marshall seems quite talented. And I love Renee Zellweger. But Gere and Zeta-Jones...I don't even know how to describe it...just "Ew". Anyways that about wraps up my Oscar thoughts. I've abstained from my usual LotR comments, only to say this...look out for next year, when I expect (actually it's more like hope) LotR to finally get its due!
I really hate the multitudes of LotR fans on Battlenet who create screen names with the name (word?) "Legolas" in them. There are so many variations of this it is utterly unoriginal and extremely annoying. Don't these posers realize everyone out there and their mother like Legolas? And that they'll all screen names with him in it? These include lame variations of [ClanName]Legolas or Legolasnnn...(where nnn represents some bounded series of positive integers) or Adjective_Legolas. Everyone thinks he's cool, everyone wants to be him, he's everyone's favourite character...yada yada yada. Why not make an original name instead of being like everyone else? What ever happened to being unique and creative? Sure it's just a screen name, not high culture art, but that's not the point. At least choose one of the other fellowship members and try to be different! Friday, March 21, 2003
I have never claimed to be any good with girls. Nor have I ever professed to know much about relationships. My life is rife with failures and unpleasant predicaments in this regard. A good friend once said to me, "You know, you'd make a great husband to some girl some day. But you're a terrible sort of boyfriend." His meaning was, of course, that I was too serious in relationships. Too involved with the girls. He was telling me just to have fun with it all, instead of pouring my emotions out, making it a life-or-death situation, and professing my "love". You know what, he was right. Both about how I was/am and how I should handle it. For there lies the conundrum. Yes maybe I'd make a great husband. But to become a husband, you need to be a boyfriend first. But since I'm a bad boyfriend or I can't get a girl...well there is the proverbial Catch-22, the paradox, the irony, the Mobius strip. My point is, I'm no Don Juan! But that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion. And it doesn't mean I can't offer my own insights. In general, I have seen a lot of bitterness and negativity towards girls in the last few years, coming from guys I know (and I have been just as guilty). A lot of it is highly justified (and I mean these girls are major bitches) and their complaints are not unfounded. Unfortunately, I have noticed that these feelings are starting to become generalizations for the entire female race. This is where I disagree and start to have some qualms about prolonged "hurting" and harboured feelings of this sort because of chicks. ***Aside: I know a sweet chick and I'm in love and yeah she's good. Sorry I was commanded to insert that just now.*** Yes, girls play games. Yes, girls fuck with our minds. Yes, girls can be cold and callous, and self-serving whenever they feel like it. Yes, they can be the most perplexing thing in the whole world next to Turing machines and the theory of computation itself! But aren't we, as guys, the same way at times? Aren't we as guilty of acting and doing some of the same things to girls? Aren't we as incomprehensible to them as they are to us? Look I'm not some pro-feminist guy, nor am I trying to suck up to anyone, nor am I pussy-whipped. All I'm saying is let's be fair. Not all girls are culpable of this behaviour. And not all guys are innocent either. All in all, each sex has potential for treating the other with a great deal of good, or a great deal of bad. In fact, in my humble opinion, I would still say that overrall girls get the worse end of it from guys than vice-versa. There are just so many guys out there who don't know how to treat their girl...or even any girl...right. In any case guys, don't despair. Look on the bright side. Some girls are simply terrible and incapable of being dealt with. Some are just players or maybe they're ice maidens. And probably several have found some way to break your hearts or annoy the piss out of you. But it's not the end of the world. There are plenty of fish out there (ugh I hate using cliché lines). So lighten up and get off the bitter pill. It's not good for any of us! Anyways, I have lots more to offer on this issue and related matters, but this blog is simply getting too long. Check in later for more updates! Wednesday, March 19, 2003
Everyone's attention is obviously focused on the war in Iraq at the moment. I am going to refrain from divulging my judgements or opinions on this issue, but I will say that it is quite clear the U.N. has some internal problems regarding its focus, purpose, and vision. The fact that the U.S. is the sole superpower on this globe only compounds the matter. All I'm saying is maybe it's time for a new approach? Maybe an approach from a nerd point of view. Maybe they could make two international bodies like Linux. The U.S. could be like Red Hat Linux, consisting of and overseen entirely by itself. And the U.N. could be like the UnitedLinux front, comprised of all the 2nd-tier Linux vendors. Man, pure nerd! Tuesday, March 18, 2003
And everyone thinks T-Mac is a heel??? Or Darcy Tucker? Ricky Ricky certainly showed us that one can go even lower! Quite honestly though, I enjoyed watching him pull that stunt. You have to admit, it was pretty funny! Disrespectful, but funny. As Mr. Burns would say, "High-larious!" Monday, March 17, 2003
We have all heard of the great rivalries in sports. We have all relished watching the participants duke it out and give up sweat and blood simply to best the other. No sports fan in their right mind could deny enjoying the thrill, the display of grit, that conveyance of strut and skill in a bloodthirsty rivalry. There's also a great sense of machoism and testosterone infused into the pleasure of it all. I'm talking about the Leafs-Habs, the Ali-Fraziers, the McEnroe-Borgs, among many. But what about non-sports related rivalries? Aren't those just as exciting, just as fierce? After all, they are even more base in nature in some respects, founded on greed, money, power, and market share. Here we pay homage to some miscellaneous rivalries of note:
Saturday, March 15, 2003
There's been a recent dry spell in good fantasy books on store bookshelves. As a result I haven't been reading much of this genre lately. The next book I actually would like to read doesn't come out until November. That book is of course George R. R. Martin's much-anticipated A Feast for Crows. I actually read the text to be printed on the inside flap or back cover on the Amazon website; early indications are that this book, like its predecessors, will deliver. In any case, most other products on shelf are so much claptrap (Robert Jordan are you listening? With a copy of The Crossroads of Twilight on hand?). I turned to Neil Gaiman's American Gods for some literary fodder. It's been highly touted and I liked the premise of the book - primarily that, in every society, American or other, pagan or orthodox, people have been losing respect (and even the very memory) of the Gods of old. In their place people are now worshipping the "new" gods of the techno-age; money, television, the Internet and various other forms of media. I gave the book a try, and while I found Gaiman to be very witty and highly intellectual, the plot just takes him too long to make his darned point. He seems to enjoy bouncing around from situation to situation (though very funny and entertaining ones) without really making a solid point. The ideas are there - thought-provoking and deeply rooted in myth and history - but I just didn't see them culminating in anything. So I gave up on it. I'll probably return to it later on since I hate leaving any good book unfinished without giving it a chance. But I have no idea how Blondie was able to read it all in a week. Since this didn't work out for me, my only recourse was to try other new novels. Before I delve into the one I am currently reading (and completely fixated on), I would just like to recommend a couple of other books for people's reading lists, if anyone is interested. The first is Barbara Gowdy's The Romantic, which I plan to read later on. I first saw this book featured on CBC Newsworld's Play (a wonderful national arts and entertainment talk show hosted by the charismatic Jian Ghomeshi). It is currently the nation's top-selling fiction novel. The story is about one woman's love for a man she's known since they were children. The woman, now in her late 20's I believe, has loved him from afar all their lives despite having been through many relationships. The story centers around her continually futile attempts to make this man love her back and how, in the end, she may have to learn to let it go once and for all. While I admit this book appeals to the sap/romantic within me, I would not classify it as a "romance" or "genre" novel. Critics maintain it is good fiction through and through. I hope some of you will consider it. The second book I have to recommend is Chris Hedges' War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning. I first noticed this one on CBC Newsworld's Hot Type where Evan Solomon conducted a heartfelt interview with the author. The central theme of Hedges' book concerns how war, thought terrifying and never right, is still undeniably a force that drives humanity and gives us a sense of purpose and ambition. This examination of humanity's "love affair" with war draws very much on Hedges' on experiences as a war correspondent. Another supposed good read that I recommend. And now the "piece de résistance". You maybe surprised! My girl suggested I try one of her favourite novels of all time, Thomas Hardy's Tess of the D'Urbervilles. I've often taken her suggestions on many books prior to this and she's always proven to have great taste. Now, halfway through the book, I can truly say that I thoroughly enjoy this book. Hardy was a mid-to-late 1800s English writer. His flowery and beautiful style of writing, though at times pedantic, is reminiscent of other Victorian authors (Jane Austen, the Bronte sisters, and other contemporaries) and their novels. Some of his novels are considered classics. Now before anyone out there cringes at the thought of reading a classic or a Victorian novel, let me just say that there is great value in books such as these and we should not discount them on the assumption that they will be "boring" and "too long". I, for one, miss the days of high school English class where we were required to read such material in order to analyze it and write essays on it. That's probably just the literary geek in me, but if there's one thing I've learned from reading too much of one genre, it's that it never hurts to diversify. Born in a small village in the region of Wessex in southern England, Hardy's novels are often set in Wessex and draw from the rich and beautiful landscape of the countryside he knew so well. Such is the case with Tess. Of course there is more to this book than mere scenery. Hardy's novels were often controversial as he sought to speak out against the illogical, annoying, and many times unjust social conventions of his day. Tess is a prime example of this. Tess Durbeyfield is a beautiful and pure-hearted young countrywoman, though somewhat ignorant in the ways of the world. Due to poverty and other mitigating circumstances, she is forced to claim kinship with the wealthy D'Urberville family, with whom she supposedly has ancestral ties. There she meets her "cousin" Alec. Enigmatic and egotistical, Alec proves to be her downfall (I won't give away any spoilers as to what this might be, but it is pivotal to the story). A very different man, Angel Clare, seems to offer her love, salvation and redemption. Tess is torn between revealing her past to Angel or maintaining her silence to have the happiness she so yearns. What shall she do? When Tess first came out of publication, the story drew both praise and scorn from Victorian society. Many lauded Hardy for his depiction of the wronged Tess and the general injustices against women of the time. Others felt the book too scandalous and over-sensualized to have any merit. Yet despite how one may feel about the story, there is no denying that its themes and central conflicts leave one pondering the social conventions of that era and quietly rooting for the heroine Tess. The version I am currently reading is the actual standard edition first published in 1891. Hardy edited the text and produced several versions afterwards. There were even several early versions, such as the serialized text (I could get into a whole other boring thread on serialized texts here but I'll spare you). It's hard to say which version is the "best" - ever version has its own worth and contributes to the writer's thinking process. All I suggest is for some of you to pick up a copy of this book if you're interested - you will be pleasantly surprised! |
