There's a new film opening that poses this question: what would happen if all the Latinos in Southern California just disappeared one day? The movie poster I saw was one of the most f'ed up things I've seen, but I think this film could actually be worth seeing, having read the website.

-Matt  13:23 EST | |

Not that any of you like Quentin Tarantino, but he's "presenting" a film by one of my favorite directors and it opens pretty soon (June in the cool cities; later elsewhere). The movie is called Hero and it stars Jet Li. It's directed by Zhang Yimou, the director of one of the best films ever made -- Raise the Red Lantern.

-Matt  09:24 EST | |

I won't name names, but this might not be so good...

-Lucky  21:44 EST | |

That dude I posted about who was betting his life savings on roulette won. Story here.

-Matt  13:51 EST | |

This, from the Las Vegas Advisor:

Brit to Bet it All at Hard Rock

Ashley Revell, a 32-year-old Londoner who's sold all his belongings including his clothes, will don a rented tux and bet his life's savings -- about $138,000 -- on a single spin of the roulette wheel at the Hard Rock this Sunday. A film crew from Britain's Sky One television will tape the live event, which begins at 1 pm PST and is open to the public. Win or lose, the crew will follow Revell for a month afterward for a short reality series called "Double or Nothing." Assuming two zeros and everything else being on the square, the guy's a 20-18 underdog.

For a review of the new film Shade and my personal thoughts on gambling, visit my blog.

-Matt  09:36 EST | |

OK, in reverse order:

You'll have to cut and paste the links into your browser. Why? Because Blogger thinks it's too cool to add the freaking link function for Safari, Opera, and other oh-so-sweet MAC browsers. See? SEE?!? Bastards who don't make things compatible hurt us all [I gave it a quick and dirty fix-ed].

So, to practice, check this out: http://www.RightWingEye.com. Entertaining, but the little elements of fact are a bit scary. You NY boys who were thinking of applying for the show being parodied, you should enjoy this.

And finally, see: http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2065122,00.html. This comes your way from your (currently) token real-estate friend, although I'm not sure managing the operation of a mechanical bull is really real estate. Anyhow, 155 acres near Crested Butte going for a mere $875. i don't think anyone needs any help seeing that something is clearly very wrong. You'll realize, however, that it isn't that abnormal when you factor in that BUSH was part of the deal.

Happy cutting and pasting!

-Lucky  12:49 EST | |

Maybe this would be a better post for my own blog, but I wanted to get some feedback on this because I have extraordinarily mixed feelings. In the latest Atlantic Monthly, Michael J. Sandal in the cover piece entitled "The Case Against Perfection" argues that developing the ability to pick and choose characteristics for offspring should be avoided because it takes something away from the experience of parenthood. He likens it to the hyperparenting of today and the striving of parents to make their kids into the perfect athlete, student, etc. with little regard for the child's well-being or interest in said pursuits. The crux of his argument is that parenting today offers a unique opportunity to have to deal with and love a person whose characteristics cannot be predetermined, and therefore cannot be prepared for or tailor-made for the individual parent. It forces a person to relate to someone who may not be like them and to learn from that experience (a lesson for the world at large, the author argues, and I agree). But I see the other side of this issue, put forth by the bioethicists, which seem to be portrayed as little Mengeles throughout the piece. I think that humanity could have an extraordinary opportunity to engineer a version of it's species which is superior to itself and can do much greater things than most humans today can do. Think of what the world would be like if everyone possessed the same intelligence (god, voting would almost be worthwhile in this world). The problem, as with all really powerful things is two-fold: 1. In America, if it CAN be done, it WILL be done (okay, this is true of humanity, we're just more obvious about it). It's not like we're going to start thinking about consequences now. So, in my opinion, regardless of the outcry, it will be possible in the future to determine the height, sex, intelligence, athletic ability, etc. of your offspring. 2. Though it could be used for amazing things, the power will not only be used for such things. Nuclear power is really an amazing energy source (with unbelievably horrible drawbacks) and it never needed to be used to kill people, but it was used that way. I guess my quandry is this. At the brink of an age when the world of humanity can be made more perfect, is it in the interest of humanity to make it so? I'm leaning towards NO, on the grounds of the following mythology: I really should get the source on this, but I know that there is (probably more than) one creation story that says that the first time god created the world it was perfect (this was made more famous by The Matrix: Revolutions, but I'm certain some dogma preceded this context -- if you know, tell me). The world didn't work. Humans couldn't function in a society that was perfect because it was too... boring... for our minds to comprehend. We needed evil to make things interesting. I think there is some truth in this, as I recognize that the things I love about the people around me are not the perfect aspects, but the little unique "flaws" and quirks. If everyone was a great athlete, great thinker, great artist, etc., I think that we would lose one of the things that makes humans incredible -- the motivation we have to strive for something better. Anyway, I'd love to hear thoughts on this.

-Matt  10:21 EST | |

Why did this start in NY? Seems like it should've started in LA, a place that actually makes crappy movies everyone can quote by heart. Also, I'm jealous, because I'd be damn good at this.

-Matt  10:18 EST | |

Could this be the next Britney Aguilera (Josh is rolling in his grave, I know, and he's not even dead)? I just witnessed this skanky little 13-year-old's newest video on MTV, complete with her "Boys Stink" baby-tee and her "classmates" dancing in the hallway behind her (no "schoolgirl" outfit, though -- don't want to be too close to Britney). She sings this poppy song about heartbreak and the guy who made her feel a way she "never imagined she could feel" and promptly broke her heart like the bastard eighth-grader he is (I'm sorry, but I don't believe a 13-year-old can yet be embittered by love or lack thereof). She is on Aaliyah's label, though, and the only reason I can surmise for this little girl being on an actual artist's label is that said artist is dead and can't make decisions anymore.

Just wanted to keep you people who are only informed through reading up-to-date with the plebian culture in case you run into a member of the unwashed masses and conversation is unavoidable.

-Matt  16:24 EST | |