i m N s h o

I'm a sucker for new words and phrases. The wittier the better. (Hence, I suppose, my contempt for the non-witty, like "baby daddy" and "warfighter".) So when I was reading the April '07 Premiere the other day and saw the phrase "Torture porn", I had to read on. Then when I got into the article (Notes from the Dream Factory, by Tom Roston), and realized what the topic was truly about, I had to stick around for the whole thing. (I'd quote the article, but it's one of the magazine's regular columns and is not included on their site. Sadly, since this is Premiere's last issue, it seems unlikely we'll see any more of these columns from them.) I've never been fond of slasher films. I've always maintained that, while I like a good horror film, I prefer my horror of the supernatural/SF variety… things that are frightening, but not something I'm terribly likely to stumble over on the way to work, or while reading the morni

I refer, of course, to our inestimable President and his moronic comments, quoted here: Va. Governor Calls For Day Of Mourning Allow me: "One of the lessons of these tragedies is to make sure that when people see somebody or know somebody who is exhibiting abnormal behavior, you do something about it, to suggest that somebody take a look… I would make the case that, if you don't know what you're talking about, maybe you should keep your mouth shut, but a President that doesn't say a word for his entire Presidency would hardly be practical (though think of all the problems we'd have avoided). Somebody, somewhere along the line, probably should have told the President that people DID try to do something about it, but that nothing could be done… he hadn't broken the law and, as he's an adult. Unless someone could make a viable case for committing him, you can't lock him away. I know GW doesn't give a rat's ass about privacy, but this isn't one

In one of Robert Heinlein's later novels (The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, I believe), he posits a suggestion as to how to deal with the violently anti-social… the mass murderers and spree killers amongst us, for instance. His conceit is that these creatures are driven by a need for recognition and feel that any notoriety is better than going through life unnoticed. They are acting out in order to get the attention of the world. And they are inspired by the fame and notoriety that those that have preceded them have achieved. (The Virginia Tech shooter's reference to the Columbine shooters as "martyrs" would seem to support this notion.) His solution to the problem is the you "erase" these individuals from the collective consciousness. Instead of 24-hour coverage of the event, debating the nature of the killer, his background, what could have driven him to this extreme, etc., you focus on the victims and their families. You put a human face on the tragedy that d

If you pay any attention to gaming, you had to know that it was only a matter of time after the Virginia Tech shootings before somebody was going to blame it all on videogames. But even I was surprised by how fast Dr. Phil jumped to this conclusion. (I am NOT however, surprised to find that Jack Thompson came to the same conclusion first. I'm sure he sits around waiting for news like this, a boilerplate press release at hand, ready to plug in the names.) As I write this, the suspect has been ID'd, but the police are not ready to confirm that he's the shooter. But this hasn't stopped Dr. Phil from pushing his agenda that videogames are to blame for all the ills in our world today. We know next to nothing about the kid involved (we know his age, his name, his nationality) nor what set him off. Could he be an avid videogame player, desensitized to violence thanks to years of first person shooters? Sure, it's possible. He could also be a lovelorn loner, dumped by his gi

The world, if you trust the gossip blogs, is all a-whirl with the question of who's the "baby daddy" of Anna Nicole's daughter. ( Turns out , as was, I think, expected, it's Larry Birkhead. Wow, glad that's over.) But I've gotta ask… what the hell is up with this "baby daddy" bullshit? (Freely acknowledging that I fell guilty of using this very phrase recently.) But isn't "baby daddy" just a bit redundant? Isn't whoever fathered the child, by definition, the baby's daddy? So why the need to specify that he's the baby daddy, and not simply the dad/father/sperm donor in question? Does it somehow make it cuter if he's the baby daddy? Reminds me of the equally annoying and superfluous "warfighter" that's been making the rounds in recent years. I assume some moron in the Pentagon, either suffering from a lack of usable vocabulary tools, or from some prejudice against the obvious term "warrior" cam

So I'm probably breaking SOME kind of composition rule here, but let me digress (yes, I'm starting this post with a digression, and a self-berating one at that. Surely, this must be "wrong". But, back to my digression…) It's been weeks since I posted, and not for lack of topics. I started a post about the Richard Donner cut of Superman II that was recently released on DVD; a post that I have every confidence I will eventually return to and finish. But at this point, my recollections of what I was going to say are so vague I may have to watch the DVD again. Then there's 300 , which I saw a couple of weeks ago and utterly enjoyed, and I've yet to say anything about that film. (My fear here is that I was suckered in by the incredible art direction and that, on revisiting, I'll find it empty and lifeless, as one of the reviews I read complained. I'm hoping this is not the case.) And don't even get me started on politics! Between the Attorney Gener